When you have the Federal Reserve, you have something that's like not auditable, right? It's a monetary system that is completely opaque to everybody. It doesn't really even have legislation, they just sort of do whatever they want. With Bitcoin, you have the ability to actually go out at the stuff of yourself, and this is what I'm teaching to my students. Jimmy Song is an author, podcaster, computer programmer, and contributor to what is known as Bitcoin Core, which is an open source project for researching, testing, and upgrading the software that people all over the world use to connect to this decentralized monetary network. Song also runs two-day seminars training coders to work in the Bitcoin industry. Can you guys look into the matrix yet? Do you recognize what's in the script, sir? Back in 2013, when I was learning it, I was very frustrated with the resources that were out there, and it took me days to learn something that really should have taken me like half an hour at the most. It's just that no one was there to help me. And on the other side, when I was hiring at different companies that I was at, it was hard to find people that actually knew this stuff. So I knew that there was a need at both ends, and part of why I started it was because I knew I could do a better job than what the market was already doing. This is the big asymmetry that we use for public key cryptography. Programming Blockchain is a 16-hour seminar consisting of lectures and hands-on exercises. Song has also taught the same material over the course of an entire semester at the University of Texas at Austin. When I was teaching that one semester, I had some pretty brilliant students. These were grad students in electrical engineering, computer science, and business. And the thing is, their motivations are not necessarily the same as the students that I get when I teach my two-day seminars. So they care very much about their grade and making sure that they are not necessarily learning, but getting the right credential. Whereas the people that are coming to my seminars are paying me money, but they are motivated to go learn the actual protocol. This is not really in Bitcoin like a university degree or a qualification. And I think the Bitcoin world in general is skeptical of those kind of things anyway. Song has been teaching students all over the world for more than four years, including Rajeal Walsh, a former New Zealander police officer who took the seminar in Australia in 2018. But I think Jimmy's course is about as close as you get to that where people know his reputation, he's about the best guy that's actively teaching and he's got a reproducible system for passing this information on out of anyone out there. I would love to slay the educational Leviathan, definitely. But yeah, the market's kind of going that way because it's proving itself. And there are lots of different platforms where you can self-learn. For a company's hiring, one of the best signals that you can get is people that are learning on their own. It's like it's a better signal than what college they came out of. Walsh discovered Bitcoin when he read about the Silk Road, a dark web e-commerce site that allowed users to buy drugs or pretty much anything else using the cryptocurrency. Anyone could log on and buy almost anything you can imagine and have it sent out through someone else. And you could all connect through these decentralized systems which were untraceable or were very, very private and anonymous. And to me, that just blew my mind that this had been operating for over two years, run the noses of American law enforcement agencies and there wasn't anything they could do about it. The Silk Road not only established that it was possible to take violence out of the drug trade by allowing buyers and sellers to transact online. It also demonstrated that Bitcoin lived up to its promise of being uncensurable money and that no credit card company, bank, or government could obstruct people from using it to pay for things. And I just don't think most people really kind of comprehended just how big of a deal that was. And of course, you know, you learn about Bitcoin through that process because that's the financial medium that facilitated all this to go on. In 2018, Walsh attended the Building on Bitcoin conference and observed that even people without extensive programming experience were making important contributions to Bitcoin. And these guys were just too regular coders, you know, competent coders but not some supercomputer geniuses who just saw a problem and they decided, well, I'm just going to fix this. And to me, it just blew my mind about the agency that you have in this space because it's open source and it's 21. So I came back and just decided, okay, coders where it is. Walsh was inspired to apply for Jimmy Song's course, though he didn't have the prerequisite programming experience. So he first enrolled in some online boot camps and took a free class from one of Song's former students. So three months ago, I knew nothing about coding and here's me applying for Jimmy's course. Today, Walsh works at Swan Bitcoin in exchange that also considers educating new users to be central to its mission. Just over three years after knowing nothing about programming, here I am working at more or less a dream job. Over 500 people have contributed to the Bitcoin Core software since the project started and anyone can participate in the process of submitting and reviewing new code no matter who they are, where they live, or what degrees they hold. Since Bitcoin is open source software, the rules governing how it functions are also fully transparent. Walsh and Song say that this spirit of radical transparency and emphasis on demonstrated skill over credentialism are central to what they love about Bitcoin. Anyone can create anything. All the code and all the information you need is there, but free online. Anyone anywhere in the world can read that and participate. You're not going to be able to audit the Fed, but you can audit the Bitcoin blockchain and many nodes do, right? If you're running your own software, you don't have to trust anyone because the software checks that the ledger balances and everything is good. And to really understand that you have to examine the code line by line and so on. And I try to help with that with my seminar and it's not necessarily easy, but it can be done. It's possible. And that makes all the difference in the world. To hear more about Jimmy Song's seminars and about his new book Thank God for Bitcoin, Reason caught up with him in October at the 2021 Oslo Freedom Forum, which brought together the human rights community with the Bitcoin community for a two day conference in Miami. We talked about the morality of money, his disdain for traditional education, and the ways in which he thinks Bitcoin complements Christian theology. I want to get into some detail about this seminar, but before we do that, I want to talk a little bit about like fiat education. What you've referred to as. And you taught at UT for a semester, basically what has become a two day seminar. You talk about the education system and what what your experience has told you about it. Yeah. So I mean, I think I've always been like frustrated with the education system even as a student.  But I was always kind of frustrated because in a sense the current education system is you just go at the pace of the slowest learner in the classroom. And it's just not a great environment. Right. And in addition, like a lot of the students aren't necessarily motivated and so on. So when I was teaching that that one semester, I had some pretty brilliant students. These were grad students and electrical engineering, computer science, and business. So business school, grad school. And the thing is like their motivations are not necessarily the same as the students that I get when I teach my two day seminars. So they care very much about their grade and making sure that they are not necessarily learning but getting the right credential. Whereas the people that are coming to my seminars are paying me money, but they are motivated to go learn the actual protocol. They'll ask different types of questions and they're more concerned about understanding something versus maybe getting a grade. And these are some of the best of the best. Like they're grad students at University of Texas and they understand things very well. So the contrast for me is if you have sort of like intrinsic motivation, it is so much easier to teach as a teacher. Because if you're trying to teach people that don't want to learn, it's like pulling teeth. It is very difficult. But if you're teaching people that want to learn, that have motivation to go get it because of financial reasons or whatever, and there's lots of reasons why people want to learn. But they are much more motivated to ask you questions, to figure things out, and to really study and to get it rather than, hey, I'm just in this classroom. Like the current model is very much based on like sort of like forced education almost. It's not voluntary, if that makes sense. Yeah, yeah. And so the students that you get at your two-day seminars now, I mean, they're probably highly motivated, highly interested, and it seems like you probably take the best of the best. I know there's like a base level of skill that you need to have before you can be accepted into this seminar. Just tell me a little bit more about the students you get, the students you accept, and what you're stuffing into their brains in two days. Yeah, so there are prerequisites, like the ability to code, for example. You need to learn how to code because it's like very interactive. And you need to be coding a lot of the time. And I've designed my class that way so that you don't just get lectured at, you actually have to code the things that I just lectured. So and, you know, like you don't, as a coder, you realize you don't really understand something when you're forced to code it. And it's like, okay, now I have to really understand this. So that's the way the class is designed. So, you know, that's a prerequisite. And I make sure that people know how to code before they come to the class. The motivations vary. So certainly there are people that you would expect, maybe programmers that want to get into this industry. They see that it's growing and they have sort of like personal interests. So, hey, let's align these. Let's get a job in this industry and so on. But there are also lots of other people that take it for like reasons I would never have expected. So, you know, I had an accountant take it, for example. And he's like, I haven't coded since college, but I really need to understand the protocol so I can give good tax advice. I'm like, really? That's not something I expected. I've had, you know, angel investors take it because they're like, well, I need to understand this so that I can understand my investments a little better and I can vet the people that I am talking to in a more intelligent way and so on. So, yeah, ultimately what ends up happening is that you get a group of people that are motivated by different things and because they're motivated and because they're together, there's something powerful that goes on in a classroom when you have a lot of people that really want to learn together and, you know, they have motivation. I think this is like in places like business school or something like that. You get a similar dynamic where people actually want to be there. So, and they're motivated to learn. It changes the dynamic significantly versus something like primary education, which is like, let's like babysit these kids for 12 hours or something like that. Right. I think one of the overarching themes in the whole Bitcoin space is very much being independent, being self-directed, and figuring things out on your own. You know, taking the initiative to say, this is something I want to know how to do or something that I want to know about and therefore the responsibility is, I'm going to put the responsibility on myself to go figure it out. But, you know, at the same time, one issue with Bitcoin right now that I've seen in many places from people who are sympathetic to Bitcoin and are sympathetic to its purpose. But, you know, there's some relatively intimidating barriers to entry even right now, though it's gotten a lot better. But, I mean, how temporary is that problem in your opinion?  Yeah. The question is very interesting because, you know, it is this balance between sort of like liberty and responsibility. So anytime you have freedom, there's sort of like a responsibility that you have to take for yourself and this is all a part of self-sovereignty. It makes no sense to just have liberty by itself because you have to sort of like take care of the consequences on your own as well. And Bitcoin definitely has a significant amount of that. We're not naturally used to sort of taking responsibility for our own wealth. And, you know, we're used to sort of like outsourcing it to banks or other people that sort of keep it secure for us. So for a lot of people, this induces a lot of stress because they're like, well, what if I lose this? I can, you know, lose a ton of money. And this is not something that they're used to. I think, you know, people like say during the gold standard and prior to that, you know, they had this sense of responsibility that they grew up with, but we pretty much removed it everywhere. So it's very difficult for them to kind of understand that and get used to it. But it is something that I think, you know, at least in the Bitcoin community, it needs to be emphasized because if it's not self-sovereign then you're trusting somebody else in which case it gets centralized and so on. But, you know, to your point, it is a technology and I do think it's going to get better. If you ask people in 1985, like, is everyone going to use a computer? They would be like, you're crazy. No, no one's going to use it. Like, that's too hard to use. You have to understand command line commands and random things like that. Of course, graphical user interfaces came, they made it much, much easier by making it more user-friendly. But it's still a complicated machine that can do lots of different things. I think Bitcoin will sort of go in the same direction as more entrepreneurs come in and, you know, bring different goods and services that will help the community or, you know, help more people on board. Right. So with that, you were talking about the gold standard a little bit.  That's like practically for basically ever. And, you know, and with that, one of the things that people say about Bitcoin is that it's a Model T of cryptocurrency. But, you know, is it gold that was a Model T of currency? Or like, you know, is that a fair way to put it? I mean, what are the problems with gold that maybe Fiat tried to solve in some sense, but now Bitcoin is coming along and maybe attempting to solve both of those problems while keeping the advantages of each as well. Yeah. So I would say the big problem with gold is its physicality. The fact that it has a physical location, that makes it very difficult to secure.  So you need like a vault, maybe like armed guards or something like that, which is what a bank does. Or you need to like, you know, trust somebody else with it. Right. Like you can have it yourself and secure it yourself, which is very difficult with a physical object because, you know, there's violence basically available. Or you can trust it to somebody else that will do a lot of the same things, but in a centralized way.  And then it went to basically these places that, you know, held the gold for you, which we call banks. And that centralization eventually led to, you know, fractional reserve banking, which in turn led to central banks, which in turn led to the abolishment of the gold standard. So the lack of security, ultimate, the lack of security, let's put it that way, ultimately led to fiat money. And this is something that we pointed out in our book, Thank God for Bitcoin, that, you know, there is this sort of like slow descent into, you know, less and less sound money that happens because of its physicality. With Bitcoin, because it doesn't have a physical location, it is, it can be unconfiscatable. So you can make it so that, you know, only you have access to that coin. And, you know, you don't need arm guards and motion detection systems and steel doors and all this other stuff that banks have for it to secure physical stuff. You have something digital, which means that, you know, you can kind of keep it in your mind. And if you don't have to give it up, if you don't want to, I think what VJ Boyer Party calls like a super property right, it's a property right that we've never been able to have that before with any physical commodity, because it can be seized. There's the lack of feasibility that that's something brand new that we've never had before. So your podcast is called Bitcoin Fixes This, and we're going to get to your book. But one of the chapters in your book is what Bitcoin can't fix. So let's talk about that. What can't Bitcoin fix? Well, I don't think it can fix the human heart, right? Like there are evil people in the world.  But that's something that I don't think can be fixed. It doesn't suddenly make people good. There are lots of evil people in the world, and it doesn't make your heart good. So I would say to answer it more succinctly, it doesn't fix character. It doesn't fix, you know, just what you are on the inside. It does sort of like change the incentives so that it doesn't punish goodness and reward evil, right? Like which the current fiat system does. Instead, it goes the other way, where rewards like doing stuff like saving money for the future and punishing things like, you know, like FOMO spending and things like that. That leads us into your book. One of the first sentences in your book is that money is deeply spiritual. And I think for many people, religious or not, that probably sounds kind of absurd. And maybe for the religious people, maybe even like bordering on some kind of blasphemy. You know, I think the general assumption about money is that it's worldly and materialistic. And while it's important to our lives, that may be just a unfortunate symptom of how, you know, the market strips us of our humanity and forces us to care about these material things rather than focusing on, you know, helping other people or developing a spiritual connection to God. Explain more. Why do you say that money is deeply spiritual? Yeah, so money is really, it is spiritual. First of all, money doesn't exist without people. Like you remove people from the equation, money does not exist. If you think of it sort of like in a mathematical way, which I do because I was a math major, you can think of, you know, the civilization as a network of relationships. Each person is a node and each connection or each edge is the relationship between people. And those relationships are significantly affected by money, right? Like it's actually kind of a way to figure out the balance between people, right? And this, by the way, is interesting because it's mapped very well by the lightning network, which we can get to. But that relationship between people is, it can be enhanced to a large degree with money because if you are with a stranger, you don't necessarily want to interact with them because you don't know like, you know, how you can relate to them and so on. But if there exists sort of like this common money, well, now you can trade with them. You can relate to people through that. And of course, it's a big part of like the stress of a lot of relationships. A lot of divorces happen because of money problems. And, you know, money is just the reality.  It's debt, payment, forgiveness, redemption. These are all monetary terms, right? And they're there because they give us sort of like an insight into our relationship with God. And our relationship with each other, it has, you know, this monetary component which we can use to understand and interact with the rest of civilization. So it has a very deep place in human relationships. And it is therefore very much spiritual. So it's a way, you're saying that money is not this materialistic worldly concern. It's actually a method by which we can relate to and develop relationships with people who we otherwise would have not been able to do so. Yeah, and relationships that we already have, you know, like a lot of sort of taxes occur in that way. Like because, you know, when you die, you have a state tax, but that's like a relationship between you and the people that you've already known. There's a lot of monetary sort of, well, let me put it this way. Every relationship has some form of monetary component in it, whether you recognize it or not. And, you know, like it might not be as important in certain relationships and so on, but it's undeniable that money represents sort of like your labor or the value that you provided others. And as a result, you know, we trust in the money to along each edge of every relationship to represent that. And if you are transferring value to another person, essentially you're participating in this network of nodes which we call civilization. And that's how the free market is supposed to work with money. It's this thing that gets transferred across every edge in this giant graph of human relationships. So of course, like it's deeply impactful and matters deeply for everything. And to just sort of call it worldly and say it doesn't matter, I think kind of misses the point because even in our relationship with God, there is this monetary metaphor, probably because there's something deeply significant about value transfer within relationships. You know, some people just claim that money is neutral. It's just a neutral tool that we use. It's neither good nor evil. But you all make a different claim in the book that it can actually be money itself can be good or evil. And it doesn't matter necessarily how you use it. It starts more with the money. Can you expand upon that? Why is it different from like a hammer or a gun or these other tools that probably they do seem much more neutral? Well, I would even question that. But to a degree, first of all, this is not an argument that is original to us. I think we have young Guido Hulsman who wrote the Ethics of Money Production and Gary North who wrote Honest Money. They made these arguments before. The monetary system can be good or evil depending on the incentives that it produces. So the incentives that the Fiat monetary system produces are very much towards essentially theft, especially by government. I call it inflation attacks that is impoverished. Has no transparency, no legislation, or even consent by any of the government. And it ends up becoming this pernicious force for theft. And we know theft is wrong. That's the very property rights are very basic. And I think most people can understand that. So if a monetary system incentivizes theft, which the central bank Fiat monetary system definitely does, then I think it's very much evil. Like if there was sort of like a system that incentivizes you to do something evil, I think you can call the system itself evil. So, you know, like, I don't know, like the Nazis, for example. I don't. And jump straight to the Nazis every time. Straight to the Nazis. Right, like they, you know, if they incentivize some particular evil thing and they certainly did by persecution of Jews or whatever, I think you can call that system evil. And the monetary system is as gargantuan as certainly as, you know, a whole worldview like Nazism or Stalinism or many other things. So it's not so much a tool as it is a system. And, you know, depending on the actual system, I think you have to evaluate it based on the incentives that it does. And at least for money, you know, there's definitely a tendency towards theft that you don't see in something like, you know, a hard gold standard where you actually have to carry around gold. I mean, you could steal, but it takes a lot more effort. It's very costly with central bank Fiat money. It's literally like a press of a button.  It's kind of insane. So you're saying that the, because Bitcoin as a system helps human beings avoid things they would otherwise be tempted to do, bad things that they'd be otherwise tempted to do, that makes Bitcoin good. Yeah, I would say so. And that like if it incentivizes the good things and this incentivizes bad things, I would say that the system itself is morally superior to something that does the opposite. Yeah. And what's interesting about that too is that Bitcoin actually doesn't matter like your opinion about what's good or evil or my opinion or anyone else's opinion. Bitcoin doesn't know that. All it does is incentivize human beings to behave in certain ways according to maybe their natural state. So, but, you know, that's kind of, you know, some people might say that's a little bit at odds with how Bitcoin has a reputation, false or not of being used by criminals. And, you know, albeit cash has, it's used by criminals as well, but that could just be a result of how the US dollar is much more popular. What do you say to that? Yeah, so certainly it can be used for evil purposes. I don't think like I mentioned earlier, it doesn't change the human heart, right? If you want to do something evil, Bitcoin's not suddenly going to stop you. And this is sort of like the mentality shift that you have to have. That's kind of what the fiat monetary system, or at least it tries to do or it claims to try to do, is prevent people from doing evil, right? Like if you are, you know, if you're trying to open a business as a marijuana dispensary in Colorado, that's something that the fiat banking system doesn't let you do because they won't let you open a bank account with, you know, because of federal mandates and so on. So that's a way to sort of like, quote unquote, prevent evil. I don't think, in my view, I think that tends to overstep the rights of everybody else.  If you quote unquote, try to prevent evil, it tends to, first of all, not prevent the evil and second, infringe on the rights of everybody else. So there's that way to do it, which it tends to be extremely centralized, or there's the other way to do it, which is allow for it and then prosecute them afterwards.  I think as a society, we recognize when people's rights are being violated in some way, shape, or form. But if they are being violated, then yeah, go prosecute them. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But to like sort of say, well, you're not allowed to do this because you might do X, that I think is very, I don't think that way works. And I don't think that way is just either. Another thing you guys talk about in the book is how bad money, like fiat money, incentivizes a love of money. And well, the first thing is like, a casual observer might look at Bitcoiners talking about loving money.  You love money. But what do you mean by bad money incentivizes love of money? And what's wrong with money? I mean, after all, money is deeply spiritual. Yeah, yeah. And I agree that, you know, there is, like money is a gift, right? Like in that sense, it's very useful. It can keep sort of like an account of how much value you've provided to others and have that paid back to you later and so on. But money, like at least in a central bank back, the monetary system, tends to get people obsessed with it. And the reason is obvious. It's, well, not necessarily obvious, but it's because of inflation. You have continuous monetary expansion, which means that in order to keep up, you are more or less forced to invest. So I joked that you have to make your money twice once when you earn it and second time to keep it. Because if you want to keep your money, well, now you have to go into real estate and stocks and all this other stuff because otherwise it will be debased away. So like M2 in 1959 was like $289 billion. It's now currently like 20 something trillion. It's expanded at like 7%, right? Like if you measure it that way, rather than the CPI, which always magically comes in at like 2% or 3%. So it's been expanding at a tremendous rate for a very long time. So you're forced to think about how to keep it. So that takes away a lot of the energy and time from a lot of some of the most productive people in the world. So they're always, if you know anybody rich, that's what they're concerned about. Okay, how do I keep this money? What investments do I put it in? And how do I make sure that this is going there or whatever? And that causes this obsession with investments and so on. So that's one aspect in which you get obsessed with money. The other aspect is like, if you're living paycheck to paycheck especially, you are obsessed with money because you can't really save. There is no sort of like a buffer. This is on the other end. You got the ultra rich side who are completely obsessed with investments. They're putting time, money and energy into things that really aren't benefiting anybody else. They're not creating goods or services which would benefit civilization. Instead, they are obsessed with making 7% every year just to keep up with inflation. On the other end, you've got people that are like living paycheck to paycheck that can't save because there's no savings vehicle. So that means that they don't have a buffer.  So either way, this whole system essentially makes it so that you end up absolutely obsessed with money. That is what you think about day and night.  If you do have the ability to save, well then you don't have to care so much about investments. You can actually work a little harder now and then relax a little more later instead of just getting into this debt cycle where you're essentially enslaved to the bank or credit cards or whatever or your job or whatever. So it ends up being a much better system because it frees people's minds and thoughts to actually provide goods and services for others. So this book, Thank God for Bitcoin, is an outgrowth from a Bible study group where you guys wanted to investigate money and it kind of grew from there. And I think that's your target audience. I think you've said that that's exactly who you want to target. Like this Thank God for Bitcoin, it should end up in your Bible study group. I think that's basically your position on the book. And one of the things you all talk about in the book is that money as a subject kind of strikes fear and awkwardness into the hearts of Christians. And why do you think that is? Yeah, a lot of it is because of the stuff that we talked about. Like if you already have money, then you're concerned with keeping it. And if you don't have it, then you're concerned with debt and like making sure you get out of it and so on. And again, this is part of the obsession that is sort of induced by the Fiat monetary system. And that anxiety and fear that people feel, it's not really kosher to talk about in almost any setting. And we're not really taught about it. It took me, I went to high school and college and everything. I was never taught about how the central bank-backed Fiat monetary system works, that nearly every loan in the economy is ex nihilo and all that stuff. Like no one really understands it. So we're not taught about it. We're not educated and we don't understand what it's for. We just like sort of are bombarded with the immediate sort of needs of the money that we have or the debt that we service. And that becomes sort of like the thing that we have to serve instead of other things. And that's, yeah, it gets to be sort of an obsession. And for a lot of people, it's definitely not healthy. But yeah, to get back to your question, why don't people want to talk about it? Particularly Christians, I think. I mean, there seems to be almost like, it's not universal for sure, but I've seen it a lot in my own experience where there seems to be kind of a default skepticism or maybe even a hostility towards like markets and maybe they're just using buzzwords. But I mean, I think that's kind of what I'm getting at a little bit. Right, because they should be rightfully at least suspicious of the obsession with investments and obsession with debt and things like that. There's definitely something correct about that. But I would say that a lot of that is induced by the fiat monetary system. And like getting into the correct view of money, which is it's supposed to serve you, right? Like it's interesting when you think about the fiat monetary system, it's all based on debt. So all money is debt. And the people that get the lowest interest rates tend to be the richest and the highest interest rates tend to be the poorest. The degree to which you have to pay attention to it is the degree to which you're in debt. And even very rich people are in tons of debt because that's how they can make more well from their money and so on. Poor people are certainly in a lot of debt. It forces you to be obsessed with it, right? Like as a Christian, what you would call like serving money. It's literally servicing debt, right? Like it's like there is the bank that gives you a loan of some kind, whether it's a mortgage, credit card or whatever. You are servicing that rather than servicing that. And that to me is at the heart of why people are so low to talk about it because they recognize that their actions are very much serving this monetary God instead of the God that they purport to serve. And I think Jesus made it very clear. You can't serve both money and God. So you have to choose one or the other. If you're in debt, I think to a large degree you are forced to serve money. Your book is filled with Bible passages that kind of support the points you're making. And one of the things that struck me is how there are a lot of stories in the Bible about currency collapse. There was reference to currency collapse in Egypt. And so tell me more about these biblical accounts and what do you think Christians should be gleaning from that? And I guess we've kind of touched on this already, but with all of these references and all of these passages that you referenced in the book, why has this been so... Why is your book novel in a certain sense? Why is it novel? You know what I mean? Yeah, yeah. So I think all of those systems, right? And if you study the history of currency collapse and things like that, it's almost always because of a central control of the currency. So at least in Roman times, the basement of the Donarius ended up causing a lot of problems for the Roman Empire and ultimately led to the collapse of Rome. But that whole... Every single civilization that debases their money ends up collapsing. But the temptation to debase comes from centralized control over money itself. And of course that's happened like at an accelerating rate over the last 150 years or so. There's more and more incidences of hyperinflation all over the place because there's a central control of the money supply and they will always be tempted to go steal from everybody else. And they tend to be the biggest thieves of all. So that in turn means that these civilizations end up collapsing because you only need one bad ruler or one bad government in order to trigger that. And then once it's triggered, it's sort of a snowball going down. You're not really going to stop it. But with Bitcoin, you have something that's actually decentralized. You have no central controller it doesn't even have a physical location. So there's no executive order 6102 to confiscate all gold. So that means that everyone has this ability to possess their own stuff, to be self sovereign over their own money. And that lack of centralization means that it doesn't have to... currency doesn't have to collapse like it always seems to. That I think is the better way and I think that's how we'll be under a Bitcoin standard as long as people actually take responsibility over their own coins and so on. I want to jump back to the seminar a little bit because something you said reminding me that I forgot to talk about something which is you spent all this time in high school and college and no one ever taught you how the Federal Reserve system works and never taught you how the monetary system works. I suspect that's because they don't understand it. I don't know if anyone understands it but with Bitcoin, it actually is possible to understand it. It's open to anyone who wants to take the interest. So tell me more about your seminar in that respect and Bitcoin in that respect as compared to Federal Reserve which is operating in secrecy and that makes Bitcoin pretty revolutionary. Yeah, it's transparent. That's kind of what we're talking about. You're not going to be able to audit the Fed but you can audit the Bitcoin blockchain and many nodes do. If you're running your own software, you don't have to trust anyone because the software checks that the ledger balances and everything is good and you can go in and learn exactly how those transactions are structured, how the blocks are structured, how the ledger is designed and everything else and how to check for all of that stuff. And that's key because if you have an organization like the Fed, they have zero transparency. I mean, they release like meeting notes like once a month, like that's about it. You don't really get to see where's the money actually going, who's benefiting from it, who are the owners of it and we don't know any of that stuff. That stuff is just completely hidden and it's sort of like lurks in the shadows. And this is in stark contrast to Bitcoin which is completely open source. You can examine the code yourself. You can go learn every single thing that is part of the system and there's nothing hidden about it. And that in turn means that you have to really understand that you have to examine the code line by line and so on. And I try to help with that with my seminar and it's not necessarily easy but it can be done. And that makes all the difference in the world. Whereas with the Federal Reserve, all the public information that we have, there is very little chance that you're going to understand all of the things that are going on. Even people at the Fed do not understand all of the things that are going on. They're just sort of guessing and saying, okay, we have this information and we're going to do these open market operations and we're going to allow these loan facilities and all this other stuff in order to save the economy and it's Keynesian arrogance at its worst. Yeah, so I want to close out on this because one of the things in the book is like a couple sentences that was like the most striking part of the book for me which is there's a very common refrain within Christian circles which is on faith, hope and love and the greatest of these is love but let's focus on the hope because you all talk about how Bitcoin can provide hope to people in a way that is new in a certain sense and so expand upon that and talk about what's at the end of your book I think that you want the people to read it to come away feeling very hopeful about the future which in a time like now when things are like so crazy in Bitcoin right now like in the context like we're at the Oslo Freedom Forum and there's some hope here and there's Bitcoin as a big presence here talk about hope especially from the theological perspective and how it ties in with Bitcoin and money because I don't think a lot of Christians would say you know where the hope in the world is going to come from and improved monasteries Yeah, indeed, that's probably not what they're thinking but I would argue that that's true in part because well first of all like if you read like you know ethics of money production or honest money and both were written before Bitcoin and you read the ending and it's something like okay we need to get everybody back on the gold standard and you know work towards that and so on and while I respect that position I just don't think that's realistic and it doesn't seem very hopeful because when you think about like how the system works and how it perpetuates sort of like paying for votes essentially by bribing the electorate to vote for your policies based on you know their perception of what's happening and so on that's not going to happen whereas with something like Bitcoin you can opt out of the entire system and go to an entirely new system that's a lot more fair and that I think is hopeful because it gives you sort of like a prospect for the future that's not centrally controlled by some monolithic entity you know like the government or the Fed or what have you it gives you sort of like self-sovereignty it gives you agency it gives you the ability to do things that you want to do and not necessarily you know things that other people want you to do through sort of like their forced incentives through the monetary system a theologically hope is you know sort of like an understanding of what's happening and what's going to happen in the future and certainly as a Christian that's something that I am very much looking forward to as you know looking forward to what I am becoming and what God is making me to be in the same way I think when you look at bitcoin it helps you see what society can be what civilization can be much in a much better way than the sort of centralized control sort of system that we have now where everything is controlled by somebody and you know you're forced instead of you know volunteering to do whatever and it gives people a lot more freedom it helps people thrive and it's all based on this expectation of having this freedom in the future that you might not otherwise have in a centrally controlled society like that we largely have right now that it's been very much proven in the last 18 months


There it is. So here it goes in and out for the full amount. That makes sense. And then the other sides on the income statement, income statement update and the sales account. And we're going to go into that and just scroll down. Just to check it out. And so there it goes in and out here. Now this is where the issue is, because oftentimes we don't like to decrease sales, but rather to record the returns and allowances or bad debt in another account. So maybe we'll touch on how we might be able to do that. But there it is. It reverses it. If that's not a problem, then you can do that.


What's going on, everyone? Sam here with Lay In Sports Cards. We are doing an 8-box baseball mixer for Nick T. We've got 122 Dynasty, 120 Bowman Jumbo, and 623 Archive Sig series. So let me get rest. Okay. Okay. Okay. Perfect. So we're good on, I know what we're doing now on. Well, so let's start with Archives. See a big one-on-one. See a J-Rod one-on-one right there. Matt Manning is going to be one-on-one. We'll take it. Bowman Chrome. Nice one there for the Tigers. One-on-one, Matt Manning. Uno de Uno. First hit. So starting with a one-on-one. Oops. Didn't realize it wasn't. It was too late. I was already mid-throw, and I realized that as the box was in mid-air and dropped, I was like, oh, my bad. My own fault. You're good. You can have a Hibachi over to the other one. We'll do. Kyle Tucker. 44 of 81. Nice one there on 22 tops for the Astros. Kyle Tucker. Hibachi. Dang. Tough of a trash. Keep it. We've got Bobby Dalbeck on a Bowman first. 44 up. 44. Last one stamped. 2016 Bowman for the Red Sox. Bobby Dalbeck. I feel like we're going to hit a big card at a Bowman. We're going to hit one of the big guys, one of the big four at a Bowman. That'd be awesome. We've got Logan Gilbert. 87 out of 99 on a 2020 Bowman. 2020 Bowman paper. Logan Gilbert. Very, very, very underrated picture for Seattle. Let's see. We've got a Chris Taylor. 85 of 99 for the Dodgers on a 2021 tops. Chris Taylor for the Dodgers. And last box of the archives. We've got Brian Reynolds. 40 of 99 on a 2020 Bowman paper as well for the Pirates. Trade candidate Brian Reynolds. All right. Let's do your Bowman now. Good luck here, Nick. Let's see. We'll save, of course, your dynasty for last. I feel big at Dominguez, Volpe, Witt. Not too shabby. Not too shabby. Ryan Reynolds is definitely a very solid player. I would die. So the big paper guys will ship. None of the other paper will. Just the big first. All your Chrome will ship. Bass, Bass, Rick Scoobal, shirts and Apostle, Everson Pereira. So all of your Chrome first, i.e. this Jeremy Pena first. Will ship, of course. Jerynda Rand first. Chrome. We've got a James Beard bass auto for the White Sox. James Beard. Nice one there, Nick. JD. Gavin Lux. Scrooge Mazzala. Shortridge. There's the Dominguez. First bass, Chrome. And bass. Paper bass. A. A. J. Puck. Sky blue paper to $4.99. Nice one there. Cabello. There's A. Nate Pearson to $2.99 for the Blue Jays on the White Speckle. Kind of amped for Bowman this year. For Wednesday. I love a good Bowman release. It's always a lot of fun. I do. I'm a fan. Gavin Lux. No purse in there, surprisingly. And paper bass. Be a big one. Be a big one. Kenya Gold. Bobby Witt Purple. That is Bobby Bradley, rookie auto for the Guardians. Nice one there. Bobby Bradley. Right, first name. What's up? Right, first name. True. Oops, I got too fast through that. Benzastatio. Herrera, Jackson Rutledge. Paper. There's bass, bass, bass first. They be red words. Refractor Gus Varland to $4.99 for the A's. Tavale, rookie. What's up? Volpe first. There you go. Be the other room's problem. Pantino, bass, bass. Bobby Witt first, paper. I also realize this is a really bad table. Yeah, I know. I did when I was toppling from out of the five boxer and that was brutal. Over here. Jesus, dude. Jarender and first paper. Bale first, chrome and bass. Three packs to go. Still looking for one more auto. Make it a big one. Make it a big one. Oh, Atomic. Come on, baby. Big name. That is Joey Quintio. 86 out of 100. First Atomic auto for the Padres. Nice one there, Nick. Bobby Witt first, chrome. Speaking of, I need to grade mine. I know. I've been thinking about doing it. I'm talking about doing it. Jeremy Pena first, paper. The equivalent of me wanting to grade my Bobby Witt is like laying and buying a new car. That's the equivalent. Jared Kellanick to $4.99. I understand that. And paper. Very nice. Dying first. Still is a ride. There's a first of Dominguez, paper and bass, chrome and bass. All right. Let's see something big out of dynasty. We're due. We're due here, Nick. We're due for something big out of dynasty. Let's see it. One 22 tops dynasty. Dynasty baseball. Let's see it, Nick. Let's see the one-on-one. See the one-on-one right off the rip. We're out of five or a big out of 10. Let's just see something. So it is live. That's good. No redemption. Here we go. That is going to be nine of 10. Mariano Rivera. That is awesome. Enter Sandman. Three colored game use patch of Moe. Hell yeah, Nick. There we go, buddy. There we go. I'm very jealous of this car. This is sweet. That is awesome, dude. Congrats, man. We didn't get the big Yankee prospects. We got one of the Yankee legends. Very nice. Congrats on that one there, Nick. Thanks again. Oh, best signature in sports, in my opinion. Thanks again for the support, Nick. As always, we've got those right out to you, buddy.


The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 3637 in the name of Mike Rumbles, on black hillock to contour transmission line. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now, please. I call on Mike Rumbles to open the debate around seven minutes, please, Mr Rumbles. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Following a very contentious debate this afternoon, we now have what I hope will be a very consensual one, and that's maybe why it's not so popular in the chamber. Could I start by thanking my Liberal Democrat colleagues for allowing me to take only the second member's debate this year, which has been allocated by the Business Bureau to the Liberal Democrats? We only get three debates a year, and I do appreciate the fact that colleagues have recognised the importance of this debate to the people of the northeast of the country. I'd also like to thank parliamentary colleagues from across the chamber who have indicated their support for my motion, at which we're debating tonight. I particularly wanted to raise the issue of Scottish and Southern energy's proposed black hillock to contour transmission line, which would cause, if implemented in the way that they were planning, so much environmental damage to Aberdeenshire's beautiful and unique landscape, especially around Benahy. There are several Aberdeenshire residents in the public gallery today who would have been badly affected by the proposal had it gone ahead in its proposed form, not least from enterprises such as Inch airfield, which lay directly in the path of those proposed huge 165-feet pylons. I'm using the past tense to describe this problem because no sooner had the Business Bureau programmed this debate, then I received an email from Scottish and Southern energy informing me that the national grid had told SSE, quote, not to proceed, unquote, with this proposal. That was very welcome news to say the least. But there was a word of warning here, as it also said, that these decisions by the national grid are reviewed annually and there is a possibility that these plans could come back at some future date. That's why we're proceeding with this debate. There is a real concern that although this grid connection with its threat of huge pylons surrounding Benahy is not now proceeding, the national grid could, as I say, in future years change its mind. That's why I'm focusing on suggesting simply a one-word alteration, one-word change in Scottish planning policy, which would, if implemented, undoubtedly improve the environment around our wonderful landscapes in Scotland. The current Scottish planning policy states that consideration should be given to underground grid connections where possible. It would be immensely helpful, Minister, if that word consideration could possibly be replaced by the word preference. The current word consideration gives companies an awful lot of wriggle room. If consideration was replaced by preference, companies would have clarity over what was expected of them. I know the Minister is aware of the unanimous vote by all parties in the Welsh Assembly on the 18th of January, which said in my quote again, there should be a preference for underground cables or alternatives rather than electricity pylons in any newer current developments in Wales by the national grid. I think and I hope that the Minister will agree with me that this is a very reasonable position to take, especially as technology has moved on tremendously in recent years. New technology, already used elsewhere in Europe, based on high-voltage DC transmission, now makes the act of burying cables a feasible option when it wasn't so much before. It's a more efficient way of carrying the variable power from renewable energy sources. I believe and I hope that you will agree that it's important to stress that I'm not asking for the undergrounding of all electricity cables on the national grid. I'm not doing that. That would be unreasonable and unrealistic. What I am asking for is for the Minister to respond at the end of the debate to say that he will examine the possibility of this one-word change to Scottish planning policy. I'm not asking for a decision today, I'm just hoping that he'll be responsive enough to say that he's going to look at this. I'm sure that the Minister will agree that there aren't many debates like this where he's asked just to really examine one word, a one-word change in Scottish planning policy, but there we are. I certainly believe that this is not a party-political issue. It's an issue where we can all rally round for the sake of the communities that we represent and for the protection of our wonderful Scottish landscape. If this can be agreed on an all-party basis in Wales, then I'm sure that we should indeed be able to agree it on an all-party basis here in Scotland, too. Thank you very much. That was very succinct, Mr Rumbles. You've got everything said, well done. Caught me unawares. I now move to the open debate. I call Richard Lochhead to be followed by Alexander Burnett. Speeches around four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin as is customary by congratulating Mike Rumbles on securing this debate. It's not often that tabling a motion has such immediate impact with the cancellation of a major infrastructure project. I congratulate him on his influence. The influence was pen or whether it was coincidence, but here we are in changed circumstances having this debate. Nevertheless, some of the key points that Mike Rumbles makes deserve the attention of the Parliament and of ministers as well. I'm primarily speaking of course as the MSP for Murray because the black hillock part of the motion is next to Keith in my constituency of Murray. Had this particular development gone ahead, it would have led to the marching through the Murray countryside of rather large pylons. No doubt that led to a lot of concern locally, had that gone ahead. In fact, I visited the black hillock substation just three or four weeks ago and I had a briefing from SSE on the huge investment that is taking place there at the moment to rebuild it and expand it and the existing substation has been dwarfed by this massive complex that is now being completed there to cope with the massive renewable energy potential from the north of Scotland, which of course has to move down to the main centres of population. I was taken outside the building and I asked what size will the pylons be of the new corridor that is being proposed that goes ahead. I was shown the biggest pylon in the area and told that the new pylons would be as big as that under the new development. At that point, of course, I thought to myself that this is going to be quite a big issue in Murray if the corridor goes ahead. I just want to raise a couple of quick points. First of all, the presence of the black hillock substation, which I am told is one of the biggest, if not the second biggest substation in the whole of Europe now that has been built at Keith in Murray, means that effectively in the future it will be a magnet for many more developments coming into the area. Because we now have the black hillock substation, it means that any infrastructure that is going to be built will no doubt head towards the substation as it makes its way further south to Contour or elsewhere in the future. Already some significant developments are taking place that are leading to infrastructure being put in place, from the Cathness route coming down to Murray, also from the Beaches offshore wind project, which is substantial coming under sea, landing at the Port of Gordon and coming to Black Hillock before the Elchester is then taken south. The Dornell wind farm is also potentially being extended, which will lead to even more Elchester coming to the substation from that new wind development near Dofton. That means that Murray potentially is going to host a lot more developments in the future. I asked the minister in light of the concerns raised by Mike Rumbos, which are pertinent to all of our areas that are affected by those developments in terms of the role of underground cabling and other factors, and how we can ensure that they are properly taken into account and addressed. I know that my constituents, at the moment, with existing developments such as the Dornell wind farm, those constituents living in the Dofton and Dramur areas, some of those who are directly affected by the new infrastructure over ground infrastructure, are very concerned about the impact on the scenery, on their own properties and visual impact for their own areas. Community benefit has traditionally been seen as something that should be delivered by the generators and where the actual energy developments are taking place, as opposed to the infrastructure. However, now that we have a particular area of Scotland that is going to be subjected to potentially a lot more infrastructure as opposed to just energy developments themselves, how can community benefit be taken into account for those communities and not just those who live near wind developments or other renewable energy developments? I think that all those issues have to be looked at in more detail for the future. I thank Mike Rumbos for raising those issues today, and I hope that the minister is able to reflect on some of the issues that are raised in this important debate. I call Alexander Burnett to be followed by Rhoda Grant. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I refer to my register of interest, and, in particular, my involvement in renewable energy. I am pleased to have co-sponsored the motion today, and I thank Mike Rumbos for the opportunity to speak in support of protecting one of our most valued natural assets in Aberdeensia, namely Benahee. As my wife was born in the foothills, namely Inch hospital, and brought up at Pytoddry House, I have to declare a further personal interest in seeing its protection. Little did I know that, as we ascended the Snowy summit the other weekend, it was probably inappropriate footwear given the icy conditions in a seven-year-old in tow, that the threat of a pylons was about to subside, and some may think have rendered this debate redundant. However, I need to stress that this is far from the case, and the issues that arose during this matter are still very much alive and needed dressing. The obvious issues, such as landscape impact and the impact on businesses, is clear for all to see, no less than that on Inch airfield, already mentioned, and represented by my constituents Ken Wood and David Saddler. This is an airfield that's operation would have come under serious doubt if a pylons had gone up with the need for a three-kilometre exclusion zone. I'm afraid, Deputy Presiding Officer, that this was only one case of a many that got in touch. Whilst the publication of the new national grid's networks options assessment is good news, we could have a different answer in a new NOAA report next year, and that is simply not good enough. So surely with the investment jobs and concerns of constituents all on the line, there should be more certainty and transparency to such a process. Or even better, the process should allow better alternative solutions to be considered. So these alternatives are not new and come in the form of transmission by direct current, which allows for burying of cabling, a technique already working well for HVDC cables in the rest of the UK and wider Europe. It enables less network losses, resilience against weather, has less impact on the natural environment and is considered better for renewable energy production. In the late 1970s we used to bury large gas pipes with short lifespans for gas transmission. So why is it unacceptable to ask that smaller cables with unlimited lifespans have the same treatment? To speak more broadly about transmissions, it is also clear that we are falling behind in our ability to keep pace with the rest of the world. China, in 2010, introduced ultra-high voltage direct currents, a step up from HVDC and recent examples carry 20 times the capacity of Buleydenny. Recent contracts would see the equivalent of three Black-Hillock projects travelling from Edinburgh to Istanbul. We are literally miles behind international transmission companies. To conclude, I would hope that, whilst the threat of Benaheam may have gone for now, the wider questions remain and require further investigation, not just to protect our landscapes but to deliver our energy needs as efficiently as possible. I congratulate my crumbles on securing the debate and, indeed, the success of the campaign that the motion relates to. It is good to have the wider debate on the issue, although it appears to have been solved for the meantime. There is agreement that I am to underground the line around Benaheam, but there will be other areas that might require similar consideration and, indeed, of power lines that are not yet in planning. However, let us be clear that each site needs to be considered on its own merit, as undergrounding is not always a panacea. It has its own risks, while it might be aesthetically pleasing, it might not be environmentally sound, might disturb natural heritage, because it cannot underground a cable without some serious disruption to the land. It is not just the cable that needs to be undergrounded, it is the insulation, and that requires a reasonably wide trench. If there are sensitive habitats in the area that could be damaged or destroyed, different soil types should not be disturbed, because of carbon release and, therefore, might not be suitable for undergrounding, either. It is the same with areas where there is archaeology that could be easily damaged. Where those situations arise, it might be much better to put the cable overground, where it can be removed if different technologies come forward with a better solution. Cost also needs to be considered, because we all pay for distribution networks in our electricity bills, and those of us here tonight may be able to afford that, but a lot of our constituents live in fewer poverty and I cannot afford the additional cost. Therefore, we must consider each case on its own merit and make sure that the solution that is found is sustainable both financially, aesthetically and environmentally. Therefore, preference might not be a better balance to consideration as is in the current planning guidelines. However, it is clear that undergrounding is not even being considered unless there is a public outcry at the moment. Therefore, the balance in guidance is not right at the minute, and it needs review to make sure that the right vehicle for transmission is put in place at any one time. If I may, Presiding Officer, push the boundaries of the debate a little and look at the costs of transmission cabling. Myself and others have been pushing for interconnectors from the northern and western Isles to the mainland for some time, but dillies have led to increasing prices. I now understand that underwater cables may need to be buried as well, so it is not a preference where underwater looks like it may become a requirement. In some areas, it is sensible that trolling and dredging could disturb the cable, but, where there is no risk of disturbance, surely it is less damaging to anchor it to the seabed because burying it would displace large areas of the seabed and, indeed, the natural habitat that it provides. We know very little about the conditions at depth, and therefore it would be precautionary. We should be precautionary about what we do there. Therefore, I would ask that those proposals be examined to see if they are indeed fit for purpose. That, of course, increases the cost of interconnectors, a cost that is already prohibitively high. Ministers were working with UK colleagues to look for a solution, but I have heard very little progress about the outcome of such meetings. Indeed, if there is any progress being made, I hope that the minister could update the Parliament on that sometime in the near future. I congratulate Mike Rumbles again on securing the debate and allowing us to debate that and, indeed, the wider implications of the issue. The last of the open speeches is Liam Kerr. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to be permitted to speak in this debate, and I am also grateful to Mike Rumbles for securing it. The opening line of the motion is instructive. The concern that has been expressed by communities in proximity to the proposed Black Helic to Contour transmission reinforcement regarding visual impact is a concern that is easily recognised. The construction of a 40-mile-long, 165-ft high corridor of electricity pylons through some of the most iconic and beautiful landscapes in the north-east of Scotland must always be treated with caution and the most intense scrutiny. It might be hard for people from outwith the region to understand what an iconic site the Benneke range is, towering over a predominantly flat, rolling agricultural landscape that is visible from miles around. The view from the Mithertap is one that draws thousands of visitors every year. It is Scotland at its finest. I am delighted that the recent publication of the National Grid Network's option assessment has recommended that the development does not go ahead, at least in the near future. What is most encouraging to me, as someone who values community and local action, is that, when it was called upon to act, the community stepped up. That is clearly a victory for people power. I, too, would like to welcome the members of the community to the chamber. Just a few of the hundreds who for many months have been campaigning hard to make sure that the proposal did not get through. I say campaigning hard, that is not the half of it. I can say from personal experience, as I am sure we all can, that my email inbox left none of us in any doubt of the strength of feeling. It is they who deserve the credit for the decision. It is they who kept the pressure on the National Grid on SSE, who flooded the mailboxes and inboxes of us, their elected representatives. The American anthropologist Margaret Meads famously said, never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. I think that it is important to acknowledge that SSE seems to have accommodated the calls reiterated in Mr Rumble's motion for effective community consultation and the importance of incorporating feedback as a means for addressing such concerns. However, as Mr Rumble has made clear, that is not necessarily the end of it. The network options assessment merely makes a recommendation and can be reviewed. The NOAA is an annual process. A recommendation can change year on year as generation and demand scenarios change and transmission development plans evolve. As such, a signal to stop or delay in one year might become a recommendation to proceed in later years. It is far from over and the Kintor route remains SSE's preferred corridor. The motion is right to highlight possibilities for substantial change and mitigation. Underground and undersea cabling in use across Britain and Europe is more reliable, as Alexander Burnett has detailed, and has less impact on the natural environment. That has been recently recognised by the Welsh Assembly, which, only two weeks ago, on 18 January, unanimously passed a motion calling on national grid to favour undergrounding when developing new transition programmes in Wales. However, I think that Rhoda Grant made important points on that. I hope that the minister will consider those. No one doubts that there is an increasing demand on the electricity delivery network in the north-east of Scotland. Mr Lockhead, I thought, made very important points that, by 2024, a huge amount of additional power will be channeled to Blackhillic for distribution throughout the network. It will come from Shetland, Orkley, the north of Scotland and the Murray Firth, and it is likely to overwhelm the existing 275 KV line south. A new solution is required. However, by supporting that motion today, we are providing a voice to the local communities who simply ask for a more imaginative solution, one that complements and maintains the landscape, one that does not threaten the tourist industry and does not threaten the quality of life for people in the region. I now call on Paul Wheelhouse to close Mr Rumble's debate. I would like to thank the member for North East Scotland, Mike Rumbles, for raising the motion today. I hope that my call does not affect people's ability to understand me, but the motion follows on from the parliamentary questions on the same subject, answered by the Minister for Local Government and Housing and myself last week. As the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy, it would be inappropriate for me, as someone who is involved in the consenting process, to express a view on the proposals themselves for an overhead line that may come before Scottish ministers for determination in the future. However, as the member has outlined in his opening remarks, it is now in the public domain that the proposals referred to in the motion have been recently reviewed by the national grid under their annual network options assessment. It has been recommended that the transmission company does not proceed any further in developing its proposals at this time. The member has asked Parliament to note the motion passed by the Welsh Assembly. Indeed, that has been picked up by other members, Liam Kerr and others, on 18 January of this year. I can confirm the Scottish planning policy that was published in 2014. As Mike Rumbles indicated, it has already stated that consideration should be given to underground grid connections where possible. I have noted, however, Mr Rumbles' point and that of other members present, Mr Lockhead, Mr Kerr and others. On that point, I will undertake that I will reflect on the points that have been raised. I can make no promises at this point in time, but clearly I will listen to the views that have been expressed today. However, the Scottish planning policy is clear that international, national and indeed locally designated areas and sites for landscape and nature conservation should be identified and afforded the appropriate level of protection and development plans. Rhoda Grant made very fair points of thought in relation to undergrounding and impacts on archaeology and natural heritage, and it is obviously something that has to be taken into account in terms of the process. For national designations, the policy states development that affects a national park, national scenic area, site of special scientific interest or a national nature reserve should only be permitted where the objectives of designations and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised or any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. I appreciate a lot that comes down to semantics about language and interpretation, but I want to reassure members that there is at least protection in there to prevent unacceptable damage. Our national planning framework, MPF 3, identifies high voltage electricity transmission network as a national development. That means that it is vital to meeting our ambitious targets for renewable electricity generation, tackling climate change and keeping the lights on in terms of energy security. However, the design and construction of network infrastructure is the responsibility of the network owners, Scottish and Southern electricity networks and Scottish power energy networks. That is done in conjunction with the system operator national grid. As electricity network costs are recovered from existing and future electricity bill players, it is the role of the regulator Ofgem to scrutinise and approve network investment plans in order to protect consumer interests. However, having said that, I note the concerns expressed by Mr Rumbles and indeed other colleagues such as Richard Lochhead, Alexander Burnett and others regarding the degree of community consultation. I want to reassure members that we very strongly value and indeed expect full commitment to community consultation. Scottish ministers require that any application for electricity infrastructure from transmission companies provides detailed evidence of community consultation. I expect that consultation to be meaningful. The application must also demonstrate how consultation has informed the applicants' preferred options and clearly explain what mitigation measures they have identified to address the local community concerns. I will pay heed to such matters in my own deliberations going forward. I note the points that Mr Lochhead made fairly. I think that around where you have a substation of the scale that is proposed, or indeed in other sites across Scotland, taking into account the wider impact of other infrastructure connecting into that, so I will ask officials to give me briefing on the sites of that nature, just to look at the points of detail around policy in that respect. I want to thank Mr Rumbles for providing me with an opportunity to outline how Scottish Government policy already supports and protects areas with national designations, to provide an overview of the planning and regulation of electricity networks and to highlight the importance of the Scottish Government's commitment to involving local communities in decision making. We understand that the transmission company had envisaged submitting an application. Regardless of whether it is Mr Rumbles' parliamentary motion or other drivers in relation to the proposals stated in the motion, that was due to be presented no earlier than 2019. However, as national grid has now indicated, that development of those proposals is not optimal at this point. My officials will continue to engage with the network companies to discuss all engineering options, including overhead lines, undergrinding subsea cables, which a number of members refer to, and I think of a particular interest, and ancillary technologies. Regarding subsea cables themselves, I have taken board the point that Rhodod Grant has said that I want to reassure her about our intentions around the islands communities in particular, to expect this to be on the agenda at Kohai this coming week, discussion around energy strategy and issues to do with interconnection with the islands, has been something that has been a hot topic for engagement with the island authorities. I do take her point around environmental impacts there as well. It is not always a straightforward process, but we obviously look very carefully at the impact of subsea cables being laid, but they do generally provide what is deemed to be a pretty good solution to connecting infrastructure of this kind. I would say this in general to all members that they may wish to, including Mr Rumbles, arrange their own meetings with national good. I can certainly ask my officials for those who are not familiar with contacts for national good. I appreciate it. Some colleagues probably have access to that to give irrelevant contact details to you, so you will be able to take forward your own meetings. I once again thank Mike Rumbles for bringing this important issue to the chamber today. I want to reassure members that we will always take into account the views of communities in these matters. I will look to work with members across the chamber to make sure that our policy is always as supportive as we can be of communities' concerns.


What's up, everyone? It's your girl, Kinsey here from Layton Sports Cards, and I'm ripping a personal here for Matt M. We've got a 2022 Panini Select UFC H2 box. Alright, best of luck here, Matt. Let's see if we can get you. This patty's probably going up in price after that W got today, tonight. Let's see what we get here. Our shot Evans with the Q rookie of Laroni Murphy. We've got another Murphy here on the disco and Silver Rookie of Steven Peterson. Yeah, yeah, for sure. Max Holloway, Torpia, Lasvich, Jeff Molina Rookie. We've got a Rachmanov on the disco octagon side. Nice hit there for you, Matt. It's a sweet looking card. A cat. Rachmanov. I believe that's how it's pronounced. I have two nieces and two nephews, so my sister has four kids. And been through the newborn stage with them. It's been a while. The oldest is now about to turn 15. We've got a Nurmagomedov. Rookie, nice. Grant Dawson and Silver Bisping. Alright, last pack here for you, Matt. TOT's. Docus Rookie. Vera, we've got Brendan Moreno on the octagon side. Disco of Sarah McMahon. And last hit is a Joanne Wood disco. Alrighty, Matt. That will do for each two box. Thanks for hopping in. We do appreciate your order, and we'll get it right out to you.


What's up everyone it's your girl Kenzie here from Layton Sports Cards and I'm ripping a personal for Landon G We've got a 21-22 Panini recon basketball hobby. All right, best of luck Landon. Thanks for hopping in See we getcha. That's for the Pelicans rookie Otto of Jose, Alvarado Pelicans rookie Otto Siakam a Joshua Primo rookie Rickon Yeah, Johnson purple to 49 Josh Hart Blazers and maneuvers Trey young Bible Danny Green hollow and Bo Jean Bo Donovitch Billy we've got red to 199 Kevin Curator and rock the rim John Arant Sean Holmes hollow Yanis and pink rookie of Evan Mopley Yeah, Josh Christopher We've got hollow rookie Jonathan Kominga and case hit SSP on the hollow dots Devon Booker There you go Landon nice hit again. This is the case hit Heck, yeah Deep book to nice player Grats on that one. What do we have here? Oh, here's a cool one How about a claim to fame Steve Kerr 55 is 75 an extra coach on the court Kerr keeps the bowls running That's really cool. It's crazy. He still looks the same to me. It's a little bit Little more wrinkles Gary Payton and pink rookie Darren Sharp, but other than that dude still looks the same He looks so similar like his last year when he played in San Antonio till now He looks so similar Cameron Thomas.  JK. Dom is not playing Yeah, he's really low We'll pick up Kenny and Drake, which I'm kind of happy about when he's like David's birding Two guys are like over the hill. Yeah, but you know vets can you know plug it plug Plug the hole and sometimes Tyrese Maxie hollow and Franz Wagner on the rookie recon Last pack here for you land and book night. We've got blue rookie to 99 It was manga Ruba and maneuvers of Cade Cunningham Alrighty Landon that will do it for your box of recon. Thanks again for hopping in congrats on the case hit We'll get it right out to you


It's hard to believe but the 12 best days of summer are right around the corner. The Minnesota State Fair is preparing for another season and this past week announced seven new rides that will be featured in this year's Mighty Midway. Out of the seven new rides, three of those are the first of their kind in North America. One of those rides is currently being constructed in Italy. The Haunted Castle dark ride is for brave souls who embark on this darkest of dark rides and will encounter two levels of spooks, sounds and lights. Now the next ride is nothing short of spectacular. The Super Frisbee is the only one of its kind. It's at 52 feet tall. The gondola ride rotates at 20 revolutions per minute and it free falls at three and a half times the force of gravity. Other new rides include down draft rock star in the twin flip. A combination carousel and teacups will also be added to the Kidway. Now Lakeland News is excited to be part of the great Minnesota get together yet again and will be bringing you localized stories throughout the fair. The Minnesota State Fair runs August 23rd through September 3rd. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


I'm Luke, I work for Floriam. We basically build online learning partnerships, so we do everything from campus development to content development to actually selling the content under other people's brands. This talk is basically going to walk through some of the problems that we had actually getting into deployments at Floriam, so this is going from single servers to really large scale deployments. We're going to look at the things that we've learned, what we've taken away from the different challenges that we've hit, the tools that we've built and a few ideas that we've got to take those tools forward. So pre-2015, we were maintaining around five to ten instances. This number is slightly off. I wasn't at the company then, so I don't have anything too accurate. But essentially we were checking in all of the components for our sites into every single instance, so we were working out of one super repository. These were essentially just based on the upstream Moodle code, and we would be checking in all of our plugins into a single branch, and that would be what we'd deploy. This meant that almost all of the development that we were doing across our different platforms was not shared. We couldn't just take a plugin and install it on multiple sites. We were maintaining the same plugins across multiple sites. In early 2015, things were quite simple, though. We had a single application server, nice and easy to maintain. We weren't having to do synchronised deployments. We had a few problems with downtime. Doing maintenance was difficult. We couldn't take an individual server out of rotation to do maintenance. It's difficult to deal with traffic surges in that environment. You don't have any degree of redundancy, and one site getting a sudden spike in traffic can have a really nasty effect on all of the others. It also just became a general performance problem. We were seeing really bad disguise, and it was very challenging. We then switched. We were doing all of our deployments with subtrees, so we'd switched away from single repositories with everything in. We had around 100 separate repositories for each of the plugins that we were maintaining, and we were then just merging all of those in production on the servers into a single branch. This presents challenges. Subtrees are not really an appropriate tool for deployment. The subtrees that we were using for releases were essentially like 50 to 60 plugins being merged. We were merging changes from different branches all in together in one go, and we didn't really have much visibility of what was going live until it happened, so we had a lot of problems. It was also really, really difficult to version because we weren't doing this offline. It was all happening online. Late 2015, things got more complicated because we introduced multiple servers, and now, as well as the challenges of keeping the plugins up to date across the sites, we were also having to keep these sites in sync across multiple servers.  It's incredibly difficult to synchronise those changes across servers, and we hit a lot of problems where certain caches would fall out of sync, so you can have one application server that thinks it's running this version of a plugin and another that thinks it's running another one, and they both compete in the cache. It does mean we can mitigate traffic surges a little bit better, though. We're still doing our deployments with subtrees. We didn't make the change to centralising this work, so our release process, it basically involved logging into each server sequentially and performing a merge there and then. Servers could diverge, and as I say, this leads to some serious problems with things like caches which are shared between servers. In hindsight, this stuff's all really, really obvious. We basically learned that we must be able to promote only the code that's actually been reviewed, so once we've had code UAT internally, that's what we want to be releasing, and we only want to promote that code once it's past testing. We want to know ahead of time what we're actually deploying. The deployments needed to be coordinated across the application servers, so we shouldn't be relying on developers manually logging into servers. We should have tools which can take a release and just apply it taking each server out of rotation one by one. We want to get into CI, but because we have this problem of not being able to do reproducible builds, we can't actually guarantee that what we're testing is what's going live again. We also need a means of making it easier for developers to take a site that's in production and actually get a local copy of it. Taking the latest stable code out of every plug-in branch doesn't necessarily work if that's not what you're deploying, and we have no guarantee. In early 2016, our plan is to go into offline deployments, and we've started this with one of our campuses already. We're not relying on the state of any of the servers. We're aiming to treat all of the servers as like a clean thing from scratch every single time we do a deployment, so the files that are in the tree, all of the source files, we throw them away and we start from scratch. We coordinate the deployments across servers, deploying changes in series either, so depending on what we're doing, if it's a UI change, we can take one server down at a time, apply the changes and bring it back up so we have no downtime, but if we're doing a change which involves database upgrades, it's too risky and we want to take the campus down every time, so we take all three servers down at the same time and we do it as quickly as we can. We've changed that development process as well. We've got like a lightweight get flow, so we don't make a distinction between hot fixes and features. We just have a separate branch for every single ticket that we're tracking internally, and this means that we can deploy individual changes one by one. We don't have to wait for the code that's on a branch to pass UAT. We can just merge these changes offline. We've also added a separate integration stage in so that when we're going to go live with something, we have another round of UAT on that to make sure that no regressions have gone in, so this mitigates a problem about us just deploying the latest stable code again. If the merge conflict occurs and it's resolved by a developer who wasn't originally involved with that feature, it will get caught in UAT. So Component Manager is a tool that helps us facilitate this. It's an open source tool. We've published it on GitHub from the beginning. It's essentially a package manager for Moodle components, and what we're going for here is something sort of similar to Composer, but which actually has an awareness of Moodle plug-in types. It has two main operations. One will install all of the components listed in a configuration file, much like Composer install, and it will just drop those into the source tree. The package operation actually goes to Moodle.org and will download either a zippall release or a copy from Git, and it will actually then install the plug-ins on top. So if you're doing a clean build of Moodle, you can do your full installation and it takes about 90 seconds to get all of the code and build everything offline. The big thing for us was pinning the versions as well. So we generate a lock file much like Composer, NPM, and a lot of other package managers. So we're actually able to reproduce those builds later by just grabbing a copy of the lock file. And it means that we don't have to check the whole site into Git anymore. We can just keep track of that lock file. And ordinarily what it will contain is like a Git reference if you're cloning from Git, or all the information about where we downloaded the file, the checks some of the file if we downloaded like a zippall release. So this is just a walkthrough of what a component manager configuration file looks like. It's quite minimal. So if you're going to use a package operation, you're going to want to set up the actual Moodle version. There's a detailed explanation of these on the GitHub project, but there are various different specifiers for versions. This one will grab the latest 2.7 weekly release. So if you're on the long term support release, this is probably what you want to do. And it'll always grab it from Git. We don't want to check it out from, sorry, it'll always grab it from zip. We don't want to be using anything that hasn't been released. Then we throw in resources. So unlike Composer, where you have one central package repository and packages, we wanted to go for an environment that let you use your own plugins internally. So Floriam has a lot of forks of Moodle community plugins and a heck of a lot of bespoke code. We're up to around 150 plugins at the moment. It's not feasible for us to release all of these because some of them reveal details about our configuration that we don't want public. So we want the ability to grab plugins from Moodle.org, but we also want to grab them off our internal server as well. And then components. And this is literally just the name of a Moodle plugin. The desired version, which can either be a release name or a version number. Or if you're using Git, you can use a Git branch name there instead. You say which repository you want to fetch it from. So in our case, we're pulling it from Moodle.org here. And we can specify if we're using Moodle.org that we want to use the Git branch or the Git reference that's been specified by whoever published the plugin to Moodle.org. A lot of developers don't fill this in, so please, please, when you're making releases on Moodle.org, try to tag them. It makes it a lot easier for us to download plugins. But we're using Zip releases in here. And it's just really, really simple to use. We just go into the folder that we want to install these components into. So this is assuming I've already got a Moodle install. And I just say that I want to go and fetch all the information from Moodle.org about the plugins. We cache it locally because it's a huge list. And then I go ahead and install those plugins. And this takes a matter of seconds. It's around five seconds. Or you can package a whole instance from scratch. So again, I'm doing a refresh. Here I'm specifying that I want to use this specific configuration file. And I'm saying that I want to package that whole site. The package format there can be Zip archive or MS deploy at the moment. Fortunately, we deploy on Windows, so wouldn't recommend it. We also give it the name of the file that we want to dump it to. And again, we say the name of the project file that we want to use. So what we've got at Floriam is a repository of all of the lock files and all of the project files for every single one of our sites. And we just specify the one that we want when we're doing it build. This is really, really good for CI because we have one really, really simple definition of basically running BHART and PHP unit. And all we need to do is change the project name once for each of the sites that we're testing, and we can reuse the same set of steps over and over. It's not perfect, though. There's still some things that we're not doing well. Dependency resolution is something I really, really wanted to get in. But it turns out to be a really hard problem that you can't really solve in a matter of days. So we want to be able to infer from the plugins that you specified in that file what dependencies they have. So we need to be able to download a middle plugin, read the version file, understand the dependencies and then try and infer which versions of those to run as well. We want to be able to have more complex version specifications at the moment. You're only able to say I want this specific version or this specific branch of a plugin. We'd like to have more complex build steps as well. So one of our problems is the middle less compiler is a little bit temperamental if you have a really big theme with a heck of a lot of less files. And one of our sites takes around 30 to 40 seconds to actually build the less. If you're trying to do a deployment without any disruption, that's just not okay. And it can actually take an application server down because it's so backed up on requests. So what we'd like to do is have this build take place offline once we've installed all of the plugins. So we don't have to use the middle less compiler. We can just give it a CSS file. And again, it means that you don't have to check in those static build assets. Another use case might be if you're using soap for anything, you can actually build your client offline rather than have to check in all those definitions. And we'd like to do some work on doing some more CI integrations as well. I'm going to release our team city one as soon as I can get it approved. And I have one working on GitLab as well. But we've got a lot more work to do on those. So I think we're taking questions at the end, but I am finished. Thank you very much.