Welcome Jonathan and Peter to launch this new piece of work. Thank you very much, David, for that introduction. So I'm Peter Sims. I'm just going to take you through a bit of a tour of this report. We have paper copies at the back, so if you haven't already picked one up, there's paper copies at the back. It's also available to download online. There's the web links and all the details are on the back of the report. So rethinking demand for energy. So this is rethinking demand in general, but this report specifically focuses on energy in the sense of energy that we use day to day. Not energy embedded in products, but energy that we use on a day to day basis, direct energy consumption. So this report has three answers myself and Jonathan and also the Dean who presented at the online event in Brussels that isn't here in Ireland today. I'm just going to give you a little overview of the project methodology and how we came to produce this report. And then we're going to take you on a little tour of some of the key findings and the key points within it. And hopefully this will stimulate some interesting, interesting reflections from you, interesting questions and we can have a bit of discussion. So as I said, this is a focus on direct energy demand, not wide resource use. We had to limit the scope because there's a huge amount to engage with here. And we thought it was really interesting to just focus on energy for now. We've interviewed over the course of this project 30 leading academics and political elected greens and candidates and various other people. And we've got a range of different views that have fed into this piece of work. We've been told in two roundtable discussions, the report is published today, and the forward by this report is by Philip Lambert, who's an MEP in the Green European in the European Parliament. So that's sort of an overview of how this report came to be. I think it's important to give a bit of context about what we mean by rethinking demand for energy. We're talking here about deliberately reducing the demand for energy. And we're talking about, therefore, changing the demand for energy services, not just changing how they're provided. So this isn't about swapping one technology for another in order to deliver the same energy services. It's about rethinking what energy services actually matter to us, how important they are, what we want to prioritise and what we actually need and what benefits are well being. And doing that requires engaging with two pieces of academic research that we've done for part of this. One of them is called social practice theory, but it's basically about daily practices. It's around the way businesses and individuals go about their lives today. And the other one's about systems of provision. So this is the things that determine, the things beyond our own control that determine what demand there is. So this is things like infrastructure, the layout of our public spaces. What's available in terms of shops and services, the relative pricing and different things. All of these things come together to influence and shape what decisions we make about demand and what decisions companies make about demand. So this is what we mean by rethinking demand for energy. We're going beyond just nudge and behaviour change and just tweaking, swapping one technology for another, which Jonathan's going to come on to a bit later. So rethinking demand is necessary. One of the things that we did as part of the research on this is we interviewed people from the University of Cambridge and they've recently published a report called absolute zero. And this report makes clear that there is only a limited amount of renewable energy, sustainable energy available. There is a limit to how fast you can build renewable energy. There's a limit to how much land we have. There's a limit around resources and material stuff, which I'm sure will get picked up later in terms of the circular economy. So we ultimately have a choice. We either reduce demand for energy or we overshoot our carbon budget and risk going beyond 1.5 degrees. And the consequences that come with that. And I think it's important to frame the situation we're in as a choice. It's not a fate of complete. If we do nothing effectively, business as usual, the status quo will continue. We have to, if we want to change direction, if we want to limit climate change, we have to, we think, we pros and cons fraud, actively choose to rethink demand for energy.  And I think in a lot of senses it's a choice that we haven't necessarily made yet. So we, this almost means we have a choice between the status quo and disruption because rapid change to our ways of our daily practices to our, the ways of business operating business practices. All of this will, it will be disruptive in the short term, it has, you know, by definition changes disruption. So we have to make that choice. And we also feel, and this is the one of things we touch on this report is, it's also a choice between redistribution. It's a choice for a distribution because if we don't choose to redistribute the limited amount of energy that we will then have. We don't think we think the inequality will become unacceptable and certainly the inequality that we've already got will be baked in further but you know to get the political mandate to get the public mandate and public support for this sort of disruptive change. There has to be redistributive in nature. And so that's one of the points that we explore more in the report. And so on the hand of Jonathan now who's perhaps going to pick up a few more bits on this and then he's going to take you through some of the, the governance section of the report and then the policy section report and then I'm going to come back at the end of that. So, over to you Jonathan. I just want to touch on two things. Firstly, how we need to change the governance and then how we need to change the policies that respond to that and why in that order. Well, we started this research thinking it was the policies that needed to change but increasingly we found that it's the wider governance that blocks the policy change that's needed. We found that many places have declared a climate emergency, but it's not just about declaring it it's about then transforming the action completely that follows. It's an opportunity now to address the cost of living crisis through redistribution of energy resources in ways that frame and direct that emergency response to the climate science we need to take that on. Now it's a challenge for emergency governance changes now not at some point in the future to be planned for what and what would that look like what would a change of governance look like that eliminated fossil fuel use globally. We have to avoid those global oil companies and others at corrupting the roles of governments that that are that need to enact the policies that we need to limit the demand for energy in the first place, as well as phasing out fossil fuel supply and unless we do that the chances are that renewable energy that we install will be in addition to rather than instead of the fossil fuel use we currently use globally. There's a strong motivation now as we know for a drastic reduction in demand that reduces our reliance on imports of Russian oil and gas not just here, not just across Europe but across the world, and that really shouldn't mean that now is as important as ever to radically rethink how much energy we use as a better way to improve energy security than securing energy security and somehow in terms of reliance on on imports from elsewhere we need to deal with the cost of living on the energy crisis together. That means we need to deal with excessive consumption alongside fuel poverty, isolation alongside hypermobility jet setting lifestyles but but how do we do that. What will firstly what came through on the interviews is we need to address the vested interest the fossil fuel companies that sit behind the current government system and hold hostage our governments to their demands. We need to change that so that we have transparency that's essential for building trust for politicians to be able to make the right decisions in all of our interest. So let's let's let's just step back from it and really accept that that is where politics is now it's holding back the scale and the speed of change that's needed. We've got greenwash greenwash I used to think was something that was the that the polder of BP or shall oil company claiming to have the future all cleverly wrapped up in their advertising campaigns but increasingly it's also a tool of government that's papering over the cracks. The chasms, if you like, between the talk and the action. I'll just give you one example from the UK, as that's what I know best, the UK government has just passed a new aviation policy is called jet zero. I imagine it may be started as a ministerial joke of someone who likes to sit on have I got news for you because it rhymes with net zero. But what it does is allow the aviation industry to have plans to expand every single airport in the UK and expand the scale, the distance of freight and passengers around the world, driving airport expansion there as well as here. At the time when we should be acting on climate change with the promise that somehow the some technical solutions will fly in or some biofuels will be grown elsewhere around the world to somehow bias out of trouble later. And then we have this mythical idea of hydrogen and an electric planes which really only will work on the short haul which at best will cover something like three or 4% of the emissions of flight. So there's a growing integrity gap that's papered over needs to be addressed we need an honesty. And that means we also need to move away from a financial focus of politics to to have such as a ministry of investment which was suggested to us as a way to oversee and deliberate and arbitrate between government departments on climate grounds. We need to establish the state of emergency. More like that we have within in in the COVID pandemic that allows us to act and react quickly. We need to develop a real mandate to sustain that over a period of time, such as through direct direct democracy and real empowerment at the citizen level. Because I think we really need to localize government and bring government such that it's held by and held to account by individual people. Next, I think on the side we're talking about this idea of disruption. I think that's really, really important we need to accept the rethinking energy demand means changing the status quo. Not blindly hoping that renewable energy will some somehow power a continuation of our current lifestyles, our current scale of energy and material use. That's what the size of the economy is all about. Simply is not possible. We need to drastically reduce the scale of our material and energy use to deal with the climate and connected biodiversity emergencies. That requires change, and that means that the future is going to be different. Disruption will be inherent, but we can work through that through things like a just transition to provide the security and the new jobs we need across all the different sectors. We need to share the burdens, but it will mean that some businesses will decline, they will need to shift, they will need to pivot, and they've got currently their hands on our governments and we need to address that. But crucially, disruption shouldn't just be about helping people through jobs, it should be about helping the most vulnerable to be supported through that change. Those with the greatest need, those in fuel poverty. And if we don't do that, it won't be just a failure of justice, it simply won't work. Just think of what happened to Macron when he proposed changes in fuel prices in France without any measures to address the inequality. The yellow vests came out, we need to take everyone with us. And that means we need to have a change of our current lifestyles, we need to plan support across our economy. We need governments to intervene in a planned approach to universal basic incomes, but really extending that to universal basic services that extend far beyond the NHS into transport, into energy, into other areas. That's the kind of future we really need. And what does that mean? That means we need to think about changes not just in terms of individual sectors in transport, in energy and health and so on, but also across the whole economy. We need to shift from growth being the focus of our economy to post growth being our accepted reality of where economics is. And that means we need to change the metrics, the objectives of our economy. And what happens if we move from a growthist approach to an acceptance that we are beyond that growth stage in the history of humanity. It means that to address the growing inequalities of today, we need to redistribute through the economics that we have. So a post growth economics, we would argue, and it's come out so strongly in interviews, I cannot emphasise them up this enough. A post growth economics is an economics of redistribution. And yeah, and that means we really need to overhaul our systems of governance. Everything needs to change. It isn't a question of somehow delivering on the climate emergency, reducing our scale of energy use by having a set of individual policies within our current governance systems. It won't work. We need to declare a state of emergency. We need to involve people far more actively participating, deliberating, holding our politicians to account, understanding and evaluating what works and really making sure we continue to evolve and adapt our politics going forward. So what do those policies mean so this slide comes directly out of this year's IPCC climate mitigation report chapter five which is about changing demands within society focuses on a void shift improve as a policy framework to to reduce the scale of energy use to address climate change across our society. So so avoid shift improve what it is about. It's like the energy equivalent of reduce reuse recycle, if you like, we need to avoid the need for energy in the first place, before we shift to more efficient production and sorry, more efficient consumption so that will be things like public transport. We don't have shared services rather than individual consumption so there's a cultural change is a huge cultural change in the shift, and then improve is is about using technologies to deal with what's left. It's about renewable energy supply. It might be electric vehicles, but the status quo is very much based on the improve stage it's all about electric vehicles solar panels and wind turbines that's what we hear from our politicians. We don't so much here about the need for the cultural shift. We don't so much here about the needs to stop our dash for growth or dash for evermore infrastructure and resource use in the first place. So let me elaborate slightly more more on that.  It'll also mean reducing amount of energy use in the home. And what one thing that struck me from from a conversation with a leading sociologist is, you know, 18 to 21 degrees the average temperature in in in a house. Why is that that's because that's the design, the temperature for comfort, based on a male wearing a suit all the around indoors. Sometimes people wear less in the summer. Sometimes people wear more in the winter. And there's a much more diversity of people than than that research suggests. But that is locked into building regulations that's been promulgated around the world. We need to address that demand we need to challenge some of those embedded rules that get locked into what we think of as acceptable and normal. Shifting.  It's about retrofitting all of our buildings. It's the cultural shift that you don't see in in the energy security strategies of the UK which solely focuses on on energy supply. And what's the benefits also this avoid and shift before improve it means we can do it faster avoid and shift to things. It's far quicker to change culture believe it or not than it is to build wind turbine. And if you do those two first at scale and at speed, then the amount of renewable energy the amount of technology investment the amount of lithium and cobalt to be mined to go into batteries is one huge amount less. Let me move on. We need to join up policies. We need to think of packages of policies rather than individual policies. We need to bring together the the enforcement sticks with the the carrots of incentives at a economic level but we also need to link together supply and demand so for example in the food sector. Yes we need to move away from an industrial agriculture at the consumption and which can be about incentivising shifts in terms of what we buy but the same time we need a just transition of agriculture to sport it we need to join up the supply with the demand. And we'll find that in all of these policy areas that there's a spectrum of policies you can have from the fairly soft nudges all the way through to progressive pricing and then rationing and then outright bands. What's acceptable at any moment in time in any sector is going to be different in any place. But what we found in our research was that participation involvement of people in decision making will will shift the bars to what's acceptable in any one of those areas so if we want rapid change. If we want transformational change we need to bring people with us and we need to involve them actively in the decision making pro process now I think that's that's absolutely crucial I think finally what I like to say is. And I think it's really to emphasize a point that Peter made earlier on is that involvement in participation. Is also about not just involving people to increase what's possible, but it's also to better inform government of the impacts of policies that's having and the need for these policies to be redistributed me universal basic services shared public transport. That that's going to require public sector investment and public leadership and stronger regulations to direct where we want private sector to go. And that's a really big ask for policy makers of today. And that's why I think it is that transformation of governance that passes a pastry approach that's moving the moving away invest in interest that I think is going to be the really big thing that we need to unblock to allow this kind of thing to happen back over to you piece of. Thank you very much, Jonathan. Now there's a lot to digest that there's a lot of different things in terms of you know this report tries to capture a very broad range of different angles on really thinking to my friends in, you know, give an overview to frame the whole debate. So, you know, Jonathan's to look talked about the governance challenge, the challenge that our current governance systems aren't up to scratch and he's talked about the, you know what the policies look like and what the interventions might look like and how they might need to fit together. I'm now going to talk very briefly to wrap up about how we talk about this, what the narratives, what's the role of narratives, what's the role of communication, how do we, you know, you know, take this message forward. And I think to start that we need to step back a bit we need to not go so therefore I need to, you know, work out what the sound bite is to communicate this we've got to step back a little bit because actually if we're talking about changing culture we've got to look at what influences culture as a whole it's not about, you know, what we message from our organisation or any other organisation or political party or otherwise. What influences cultural influences values what influences the way we people understand the world is huge range of things from advertising to to you know, even the layout of, you know, of the way services are provided has all sorts of influences on how people understand the world and how people process things. Rather than looking at narratives from the this specific narrative here we have to look at the the narratives overall that are portrayed and permeated and propagated by society and you know that might mean think restricting certain vested interests and incumbent industries ability to influence cultural narratives do things like advertising, as well as making space for alternative narratives and crafting alternative narratives. So, I think the other it's also important to recognise the limitations of messaging, you know, we, if you think in terms of, you know, COVID and you know a lot of governments had, you know, public information campaigns which often bought people think about in terms of well how can we get communicate all this rethinking to our message well maybe we need public information campaigns, but there's a real limit to what you can do with public information campaigns and there's some research about that and reference in the report to do with too often public information campaigns or any sort of top down one way messaging focuses on the what the instructions and glosses over the why it's much harder to to build understanding comprehension around the why we need to do things and why is we thinking about an important one. What are the dynamics of that choice we have to make through one way messaging and this again comes back to that point that this has to be a collective choice. Even if not everyone can be involved in every part of it. There has to be have to build a sense of agency we have to build a sense of control appear sense of people. You know, have some agency to shape what this looks like and that we all have some great be part of a collective choice and that requires look at these deliberative forms of democracy. I matters not just what and and we also have to stop this tendency to sort of. Well, because we've got to get it through to one way soundbite we've got to simplify all of this complexity but you know 36 page report down to you know to sentence soundbite and unfortunately you know that just obscures it means that we will never really get to grips with the real debate that needs to happen so we have to trust people with the reality and the complexity and we have to. Not shy away from having those difficult conversations and so there's a role for deliberation. So, the report as well as having that sort of general conversation about what the role of narratives is it also. You know it does say that you know here are some things where we need to build consistent narratives so we need to have a consistent narrative that what we're aiming for is perhaps well being for all. You know energy security for all it's not economic growth that might be a means it might not be a means the economy is a tool it's not a destination in its own right. We maybe need to have consistent messages about what humanities place in the world, you know that we are interdependent with other life on earth with the planetary systems and that we have an intergenerational dependency as well. We have to convey and reinforce values like empathy and honesty and we, you know, we're if we're going to take that redistributive approach Jonathan mentioned we need to, you know, proactively be thinking about well what's the impact of XYZ intervention on this community and that community and therefore how can we mitigate against that how can we, you know, build into the universal resources, ways of compensating ways of both redistribution isn't just economic it's also, for instance, universal basic energy allowances to show if energy prices go up everyone can afford their basic energy needs like that. So narratives need to be differentiated, as well as they're being need to be consistency in some areas they also need to be differentiated in some sense they need to be sensitive to different cultural areas and different geographic areas, and they need to evolve with time there's no, you know, here's the five narratives that are going to communicate all of this to every audience in Europe that just doesn't exist we don't, you know, we, we have to accept that there's a degree of complexity there and work with that. So let's end with this quote from the report. There's no time left we need a metamorphosis not a transition or a transformation we need to change everything. And I think that brings to mind a number of key points and the one that stands out for me is this idea that we can't possibly know what the end results going to look like what they're not the destination going for until we've started the the change that we're is going to be required in order to think rethink energy demand you know if we're going to make that choice to rethink energy demand and limit global temperature rise rather than shoe the status quo. We're going to have to have a leap of faith almost we're going to have to make some decisions and head in a certain direction and we won't know exactly what the society we're going to create school looks like until we've got that. And we just have to accept that and we have to, you know, perhaps talk about that too. So thank you very much David I will hand back to you.


What's the word, y'all? I hope that you are taking a step back and appreciating all the crazy performances we've been getting in the NBA. Let's just talk about this season. A couple of days ago, we dropped a video about Luka Dodgers's 60 point, 21 rebound, 10 and six game. And we talked about how according to game score, it was the six best performance in the history of basketball. We even argued that it probably is higher considering the stakes, considering he got his own rebound off a miss free throw, threw it up to fours overtime and then went into overtime score more buckets. It might have been higher than that. Well, today, was it a week ago? Luka had that stat line today. Donovan Mitchell had 71 points, 11 assists, 71 points and 11 assists and some my career rookie 12 minute quarter stuff and also eight rebounds. And one thing that is getting lost in the shuffle is the fact that they were down by 21 points and they came back at one. He had 71 points, one of six people in the history of this great league to crack 70. And he beat Devon Booker's. That was one of the things the guys were saying in the discord today. He just had the one up Devon Booker to prove he's the best student guard in the league, whatever. I cannot believe the performance I just saw. We talked about Luka's game being the sixth greatest individual performance according to game score. Donovan Mitchell's is the third greatest performance in the history of hoops. We just watched that on a random Monday night and the top of a new calendar year.  And you know what? I want to get my love to Joel and B2. We talked about some of the greatest performance of all time. Joel and B2 had won a couple of weeks ago. Well, I think it was top 10. So I don't want his game to get lost in the shuffle when we talk about Luka and Donovan Mitchell's game. But Joel and B2 was great too. We appreciate that, Joel. So I'm gonna talk about today and a couple different perspectives, okay? We got the perspective you're seeing right now. This is Kenny Beachham, the basketball enjoyer. And the second perspective is Kenny Beachham, the Bulls fan. Because as you can imagine, you know, it's a little bit different between the two different perspectives. He just had to be my team then. It just had to be the Bulls giving up this tonight. I just, I still can't believe how everything went down. But in the midst of all of this, one thing I saw on Twitter, not just of one time, because one time I looked past a few times, is the take that they're not overly impressed with a performance like Donovan's or a performance like Luka's or a performance like Joel's because all the stats right now are so inflated that it's kind of boring. And I'll be the first to tell you, bad take. Yes, we do have inflated stats, but still bad take, y'all. If you're not really familiar with stat inflation, let me introduce you to something. This is a prime example of stat inflation. In 2003, 2004, which was the first season I got into basketball? So that's a Page Story Okavitch. He's one of my favorite of all time. Page Story Okavitch averaged 24.2 points per game on crazy true shooting. And he was second in basketball and scored with 24.2 points per game. This is 20 years ago, not even. And the same 24.2 would have him ranked 20th in the league right now as far as points per game goes. So because the league is shifted so dramatically from just 20 or so years ago, people are seeing these performances to say, eh, not as impressive because we see it more often than anything. And listen, there's a part of this take that I agree with. When people say 40 is a new 30, I honestly do believe that. Right now we are 35-ish games into the season for majority of teams, which means that we're almost at the halfway point and we still have around seven people averaging 30 points per game. Kevin, I'm round enough for you with your 29.7. We have seven people in the league averaging almost 30. So yeah, I can agree with 40 being the new 30 as far as impact as far as wow factor. But still, I can't look at a performance like tonight and saying, eh, it's not as impressive because it didn't happen in 2003 where things were slightly different. And you know, there's this old saying that history repeats itself. And I think we're going through that cycle in the association, right? When the association was first put together, the pace was in all time, how shots was getting up. It was not a lot of resilience, if you wanna say that, from getting buckets. And that's how we get to the point where Will is dropping 100 in the game or he's getting a 50 rebounds seed, like just crazy, crazy individual statistics. Then eventually the NBA decided, we don't really love this idea. Let's implement some rules to make defense more prominent in the game. And that's when we got like hand checking and like illegal offenses type stuff like that. And that's when we saw the point per game, the pace, and all things in hoops kind of go down. And that's how we get to like the 90s and the 2000s where it was so much isolation basketball. I kinda like, when I go back and rewatch too early 2000s ball, I'm kind of amazed that I fell in love with the game then because I'm taking the current version of the game where offenses are more free flowing versus a random auto-generated play.  And I say that everything happens in a cycle because now we're back on that trajectory where we're getting these crazy, crazy statistics again. And you know what I think partially boils down to?  I think part of it has to do with advanced analytics. We found out that the super long two point shot ain't that great of a shot. So let's get our feet off the line and hit a three. We found out that isolation for the seventh best play on your team ain't a way to run a good offense. And we saw teams that didn't necessarily play a ton of isolation basketball go out and win a bunch. And then we went to the era where we were talking about the long two point shots where nobody was taken to. So that was maybe five years ago. It was either a layup or it was a three point shot. Daryl Morey put that in everybody's brain, that advanced analytics. And now we're finding out today that the mid-range jump shot is still a viable way to score baskets. Just maybe get the toe off the line. If you're gonna take a midi, make it a midi. Don't make it a long two. So now we've accepted the things that were working in those previous eras, but added on this other part of ball. And now because of that, we hoop it, y'all. At the end of the day, we hoop it. And I think from an outside perspective, because we keep seeing these super high scoring games compared to like 80s and 90s, a lot of the old haze is what I'ma call them. Other people that would have takes like this. Always look at the game of basketball nowadays and say like, oh, there's no defense being played when in reality the rules have changed and players are just more advanced now. Not to mention the three-point shot has advanced everything. The season with Paige Stoyakovic was second in the league. He made three three-pointers a game and that same three three-pointers would put him 20th in the league right now. So a lot of things has changed and yes, we've had inflation, but I don't think that should take away from what these players are doing. But I do believe that it's gonna make it a lot tougher to compare players across eras because well, the rules are different, the game style is different. And the only thing that seems to be true is the fact that the little orange circular thing has to go in the other orange circular thing in order to get points.  I mean, we were watching this together in Discord and once that third quarter he started popping off, I think he had one point, he had like 14 points in the third quarter and that would make him 30 points total because he only had 16 in the first half. We had Discord and that boy Dairy said he going for 50. And I was like, I was jokingly saying now he not gonna go for 50 because he gonna start settling. He never did. He continued to just cause more foul trouble, get to the free throw line. And I mean, I think he took 25 free throws in this one.  But obviously the big thing is the way he closed this one out, missing his free throw, very similar to Lucas from just a week ago, which is crazy.  And in that moment, I had already knew that the game was won by the Cleveland Cavaliers as a Bulls fan. I saw how all the momentum was shifted and everything. But when they went into overtime, they had a, I ain't gonna lie to you, near 0% chance of winning that game. You know how demoralizing it is for you to be up 21 points and some dude hits overdrive and he drops 40 something points in the second half. There was nothing we could really do to stop this man. That's how I always feel about these super crazy performances. Like it's not much I can really say other than damn. You know what I'm saying? That's how it feels. So shout out to Donovan Mitchell. That's a big win. I mean, they beat the Bulls the other night as well. So they got the little back to back and they won both games and both of them ended up being really close. And that's not good for the Bulls considering there was no Darius Garland and no Evan Mobley in these two games. But I'm gonna shift the gear slightly and look at this game from a Chicago Bulls perspective. Just Bulls fan perspective. Give me a second. You can check the tapes of this channel for the last four seasons, I'll say, of us doing videos similar to this. And I would always say, I don't really commentate about officiating often because I know that they have a tough job and obviously they're not gonna be perfect. And I'm not even gonna talk about the fouls that Donovan Mitchell got because that's not super relevant for me. The thing that bothered me the most as a Bulls fan when it came to the officiating is the fact that Alice Caruso got called for a lane violation two times in the fourth quarter for overstepping his bounds, which is true. He did it. He did. It's not a call you see often in basketball. Honestly, you see it like maybe 1% of the time that it happens because it happens on every day I'm free throw. I'm not mad that they called it that way. I'm mad they weren't consistent because in the shot that Donovan Mitchell put up that he missed and got his own rebound, lane violation. Again, if you're gonna call it, call it. You know what I'm saying? That was my only thing because Alice Caruso did break the rules, but also Donovan Mitchell. And I'm assuming that once a two minute report comes out they're gonna say the same thing. But that's just the thing that bothered me the most. I mean, the Bulls then deserve to win this game. I know people hate when I say stuff like that because I really only say it about my own favorite team. But I mean, you don't blow a 21 point game and allow a dude to drop 60 ish and be like, ah, we got out of there with a win. Let's smile and get on this jet home. No, they did not deserve this one. They did not deserve this one. But yeah, the officiating was, I would argue that it was bad both ways. And I'm gonna always say, compare it to MLB. There's an account named baseball, UMP cards or whatever with a grade. Every single game that an umpire has, they give it a score. They say, here you miss calls, here's your right calls. Boom, you did very good. Oh, damn, you did terrible. And those things go viral. When you have an UMP that plays it terribly or calls it terribly, yeah, it goes viral. I would love to see something similar in the NBA. And I'm not just saying that from this specific game, but I think it would just open the eyes to some of the bad things that goes around. I mean, even the game previous to this where Demarda Rosen tried to go for a game winning shot, he was fouled. In the last two minute report, they said he was. There's nothing we could do about it. The last two minute report is basically just a aha jokes on you. We messed up. Nothing you could really do about it, but it is a part of the game that could be fixed. And I just don't, I don't know the recipe for it. I don't know the way we do it, but just if we call the game consistently, then no big deal, same thing in baseball. If we know that this UMP is calling it low, then we can adjust ourself to start batting that way, if that makes sense. If we know that they about to call lane violation every time, we will be better at it. If you're calling it 66% of the time, and the one time you missed it was the most important one. Like what am I supposed to say? All right, so I'm out of that. I'm actually super impressed with Donovan Mitchell though. We always knew Donovan Mitchell was great. I mean, the argument for Donovan Mitchell for the longest time, maybe not even so argument. I think most people agreed for the last couple of seasons that Devin Booker was the best shooting guard in basketball and Donovan Mitchell was kind of just second for his entire time in Utah. I know, I know I might just be saying this for recency bias or the fact that Devin Booker has been out and you can see without Devin Booker, that team is running around what they has chopped off.  But the way Donovan Mitchell has played this season, I think he might have taken the first best shooting guard in basketball. And he's undoubtedly the best acquisition so far this season. There's nobody even close to the impact that he's brought to the Cleveland Cavaliers. So it was cool for the Cavs fans. Obviously not so cool for the fans of the team that I support. I tell you that. Last year I do want to give a lot of love to Clay Thompson. His 50 point game go kind of get buried after the 70 point game from Donovan Mitchell. But he did that in arguably one of the greatest games of the season so far, double overtime. And I know Hawks fans are hot because they stayed up on the East Coast, the Eastern time zone to like one o'clock to get gamed by Kevon Looney, who was breaking his own personal records and everything. So shout out to Clay Thompson and the Warriors in general because I thought without Steph Curry they were gonna lose 100 games in a row. They have not. Luckily for them it was all at home and for some reason something is going on in San Francisco when it got to that chase arena, chase center, because them boys can't lose there. It looked like they might, but they can't lose there. So shout out to Clay Thompson, Kevon Looney, Draymond Green for the big three down the stretch. Anthony Lamb got a clutch steal or whatever. So shout out to them.  I'm recording this a little after one o'clock center time here. I do wanna give a lot of love and a will wishes to DeMar Hamlin. Legitimately the scariest thing I've ever seen in any sports ever. And hopefully by the time this video is out we've heard some good news and everything is, I know things are gonna be better but in a better state. That's all I'm hoping for right now. You know what I'm saying? Let me know down below what you think about point inflation or stat inflation, the NBA, non-Vermittu, whatever you wanna talk about I'm there in the comment section. I'll see y'all tomorrow.


And once again a very warm welcome back to your fielded breakfast show this is Express on SABC 3 and check it it's drizzling yeah some water some rain here for us we've been praying for it right now we are calling on all first time home buyers as we continue our series of giving you expert knowledge and information and we're talking about conveyancing which is the legal process of transferring ownership from the seller to the buyer and it's a process that starts off when your offer to buy is accepted and it ends when the keys are in your hand but of course there's lots of nitty gritties that can get in the way that can result in a couple of surprises that you might not have expected it's time for us right now to get some expert advice well we're going through the journey of a first-time home owner and the legal side of buying a home is not always the greatest but unfortunately a very important point that needs to be paid attention to we have attorney Lisa Boniface in studio to explain everything to us when it comes to conveyancing Lisa great to have you back on the show awesome to be back so well we are talking about conveyancing what exactly is it so conveyancing is the legal process whereby ownership in immovable property is transferred from one party to another party and obviously all other related aspects like registration of mortgage bonds and real rights so where exactly would you start this process so the first step is receiving the instruction and that's by way of a deed of sale or an offer to purchase once the conveyances have received the offer to purchase we're all very excited the state agents earn their commission the purchase is going to be moving into a new home and the sale is going to be paid out some proceeds we do a deed search immediately and we just ensure that the property description is correct the parties to the agreements are correct once that's been done we then request security documents from our mortgage bond holder and these documents are your original title deeds and your mortgage bonds as well as existing cancellation figures from the banks this is the amount of money that's still owing in respect of the loan on that property so we need to ensure that the bank is covered for that amount of money that's still outstanding it's then that we go to our local authorities and we obtain our rates figures no transfer can be affected at the deeds office until such time as we have a rates clearance certificate once that's been done we ensure all our suspense of conditions have been fulfilled the bond has been granted there's any special conditions that have needed to be fulfilled we ensure that these have been done too then we pay SARS there's transfer duty that's payable on any property that's being acquired so SARS needs to be paid and a transfer duty receipt it needs to be received from SARS once we've got our transfer duty receipt in place we've got our rates clearance certificate in place we sign transfer documents with the purchaser and the seller and these include powers of attorneys and FECA declarations once our transfer documents are signed our guarantees are in place we've got the money in the bank that's when we head to the deeds office and it sits at the deeds office for seven to ten days so yeah and it goes through three different examiners and once the matters on prep the conveyances ensure that the purchase price is paid by way of guarantees or it's been paid at sitting in our trust account and we then give an instruction to our lodging agent to register the matter we have registration transfer of ownership has taken place we then as conveyances will do a reconciliation of finances we'll pay out an estate agent their commission and then essentially pay out the seller their proceeds okay so basically everything happens through the conveyance but I want to know also this seems like such a lengthy process how long does it take from you know before you can actually move in generally that period so it all really depends on the contractual obligations of the parties and obviously the cooperation of the parties is also very important so it's how quickly you go and approach your attorneys and you sign up documents how quickly you pay your transfer costs and if there's any special conditions in regards to the respect of the deal if you fulfill those timeously so it all just depends but on average six to eight weeks for a deal to go through Lisa thank you so much for coming through to share all of that it's a lot of information to process but I think the important thing is to know that conveyancing is a good thing the process is moving along and you are almost moving into your new home well don't miss your feel-good breakfast show and don't miss out on the final stages of our buyers journey of buying their dream home whether it's your first apartment in the city a trendy suburban townhouse or that dream family home on a golfer state there's a home for everyone on private property


Welcome to all hands update. Here's what's happening around your Navy. USS John C. Stennis returned to Bremerton, Washington following a 7 month deployment to the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. During their time at sea, the ship ended strike group work with international partners during exercises Balikatan, Komodo, Full Eagle, Malabar, and RIMPAC. The Navy's eSailor initiative launched that recruit training command over the last year, helping to train new sailors with the technology we use today. SETNAV said the initiative shows the Navy is on the cutting edge of this technology, and its success means it could be coming to the fleet in the future. The surface warfare medical institute in San Diego recognized hospital corpsman second class Miquel Pietro Arena dry line for saving the life of an injured construction worker. Dry line applied life-saving direct pressure to a severed main artery and tendons that were cut to the bone from a construction site injury. You can read more about what's happening around your Navy at Navy.mil.


Let's get started my presentation. This piece can look out the validation and partner then see hash. I'm Kunuki working for AWS in Amazon Linux kernel team. My mission is to make Amazon Linux kernel stable, performant, and secure. We usually maintain our own kernels and package it for our customers. And we usually troubleshoot kind of related issues reported by external and internal customers. And now we talk about TCP PAN at NSE hash that improves some of our walk roads. And what I want to talk about is basically three parts, how TCP SCADs were managed, TCP SCAD look out the validation, and TCP PAN at NSE hash. Let's move on to the first part. When application communicates over TCP IP, that code will look like this. At first, both server and client call the SCAD system calls. And then the server application called bind to assign IP address and port to the SCAD. And the following system call makes the server start. And then client calls connect to establish a connection to the destination IP address and port. In this part, I will walk you through these four system calls to describe how the kernel manages a SCAD. The first is SCAD system call. Depending on the arguments, it allocates various struct that represents the specified protocol. And they have the same base struct as the first member, that is struct SOC. It has enough fields to represent a network SCAD layer. After that, the kernel returns corresponding file descriptor to the user space. Then the application can access the SCAD via the file descriptor, but other processes cannot, unless the same file descriptor is shared. Next is the bind system call. When we call the bind system call with an IP address and port, the kernel set them to the SCAD. And then it recaps conflicting SCAD in B hash. B hash is a hash table. And all binded SCADs are linked in the B hash. Here the kernel checks if a SCAD in B hash conflict with the specified BLSN port. And if the BLSN port can be shared by other SCADs. For example, if a SCAD is bound to a Y lookout of less, like 0.0.0, on the same port, the SCAD bind SCAD conflict with the bind request. So the bind system call will fail with E add less in use error. As B hash is a hash table, the kernel, when kernel looks up the SCAD in B hash, it computes a hash with a local port and networking name space. And it is calculated by iNet B hash fn. And B hash is composed of two different lists. The kernel first looks up a bucket of SCADs with the same networking name space and local port. Then it relates the SCADs and checks each SCADs so-so-less, so-so-sport, and so-so-so-less option, so-so-sport-option, and et cetera. Then it checks if the bind system call is valid or not. Finally, if there is no conflict, the kernel put the SCAD into B hash. This time, the SCAD is prepended in the corresponding bucket and the bind system call returns zero, which means the SCAD is bound to the IP add less in a port and also linked in the B hash. Next is the list in system call. When we call list in system call, it changes the SCAD state to TCP return. But at this moment, the SCAD does not actually work as a server. This is preparation for the next step. And the kernel checks B hash again for conflict. It's because another SCAD could have listened on the same port and IP add less. Let's say two SCADs have the SRVs add less option, then they can be bound to the same add less in a port, but they cannot listen on the same port. And if there is no conflict, the kernel put the SCAD into L hash. Literally, L hash is also a hash table and the kernel calculates an index from the SCADs net NS and local port. Unlike B hash, L hash packet is directly linked to the SCADs. And the new SCAD is also prepended to the SCAD, to the list. And then the SCAD actually starts as a server and incoming SIM packets will be distributed to this SCAD. And the next is connect system call. When we call connect, the SCAD is not bound to any local add less in a port in this case. So the kernel selects an IP add less based on the destination add less. And now the SCAD has three tuple, destination IP add less, destination port and source IP add less. So the kernel searches for an available port in B hash. And if an available port is found, the kernel copies the four tuples to the SCAD. And finally it put the SCAD into B hash and E hash. And E hash's key is a five tuple, net NS, local port and falling add less in a foreign port. As well as L hash, E hash each packet is directly linked to the SCAD. And this time also the SCAD is prevented to the list. Then the kernel starts Lee Ray Hunt shake to initiate a TCP connection. The client sends a SIM package to the server and the server rips up a SCAD in E hash first. However, this time no SCAD is found, the match is the five tuples. So the kernel looks after listening SCAD, the match is the packets, destination of less and a port. If a proper listening SCAD is found, the kernel creates a mean SCAD, which has less field than the struct SOC to mitigate SIM fradding. The kernel does not allocate a full SCAD for clients until three-way hunt shake complete and the connection is proved not to be malicious. So when receiving SIM packet, it allocates a mean SCAD and put into the E hash so that it will be looked up against the following ACK again from the client. And the server respond to the client by SINNACK. When the client receives SINNACK, it finds the corresponding SCAD in E hash, which is initiated the three-way hunt shake. Then it sends out the ACK for SINNACK. Finally, when the server receives the ACK, it finds a mean SCAD that was created at receiving SIM packet. Then the kernel creates a full SCAD and copy all attributes from the listening SCAD and put it into E hash. But this time there is a mean SCAD that has the same five tuple. So it will be replaced by the full SCAD. And after three-way hunt shake complete, the connect system code returns zero. To wrap up this section, the kernel have three hash tables, B hash, L hash and E hash. All bond SCADs exist in B hash to validate the following bind system calls. And L hash and E hash have listening and establishing or established SCADs respectively. And they are used to look up SCADs that is responsible for incoming packets. But this is a story before we next for 0.16. And there were some problems found in kind of heavy workflows. That is what I talk about in the next section. This B SCAD lookup degradation. B hash, L hash and E hash are basically all these of linked list. So the longer the list gets, the longer it looks up or progress takes. It means the performance of such lookups can drop along the length of the list. So we have to know when and how the list gets long and it depends on each hash key. Let's take a look at L hash first and whose hash is computed by netNS and local port. For a hash, the hash is calculated by netNS and local port but in the same networking namespace, it is just a one-toppel hash. Let's say we create multiple SCADs in the same networking namespace and they are bound to different atlases with the same port. Then all of the SCADs are put into the same buckets in a hash. This happens on the famous port like 80 port or 440 SLEE and SRE spot option makes the list even longer. SRE spot option enable multiple SCAD to listen on the same port. This is often used in NGX or Apache web server. In this diagram, SCAD listening on IP1 at a port is placed at the tail of the list, which is the oldest SCAD because we usually prepend the SCAD into the list. So raking up an old SCAD takes longer than others. In such a situation, looking at the listener for same packet takes much time and thus the counter gets prone to same fratting attacks. Actually, this issue was reported by meta and they added changes that introduces L hash two. In 4.16, its hash key is calculated by net NS local port and local atlases. It's three tuples. Adding additional element into hash breaks down the long list into small lists and they are in the different buckets. So let's say multiple SCAD listening on the same port. If the local atlases are different, they always exist in different list in L hash two. The L hash two is injury that places the same processing usage and later as a usage like proc net TCP or something is the bracelet. And finally, in 5.19, L hash was retired as L hash two compute a hash with the SCAD at less. So SCAD requires at most two root caps to find out the corresponding listener. If the listener is listening on the wild card at less. So L hash has a problem due to the it's pro hash key. And it'll have to resolve the issue by computing a hash with local at less. And here you will arrive that the B hash has the same hash key with L hash. And there could be a similar problem. And yeah, there are some same kind of problem. B hash also gets longer if multiple SCADs are bound to different IP at less and the same port in the same networking namespace. And in the case of B hash, in addition to the SO root spot option, the SO root at less option could make the things worse. With SO root spot, with less or use at less option, multiple SCADs can be bound to the same at less and port. The option is primarily for client use case, like FTP server. When we have FTP server running in the active mode, it creates a client SCAD for data connection and its local port is always 20. So they have to bind SCADs on the same local port by SO root at less option. But I think this problem usually happens with the cyber workers with SO root spot. And also there are two differences between L hash and B hash. When it's lighting over the list, we use RCU for L hash, but we have to acquire spin lock for B hash. And another point is that we have to it relates all over the list when the bind system call succeeds. So if B hash of the list gets longer, the spin lock will be held so long, the process context in, so the basically B hash is used in the process context, like bind, listen, connect, system call. So holding the lock does not seem to cause a problem, but it does as I predicted by meta two. If B hash has a long list, let's say on the AT port, then a new bind system calls for AT port traverse the list, then it's spin lock is held longer. What if a new connection completes the slurry handshake on the port 80 at the same time? Then the kernel has to add a new SCAD into B hash. This was done in the first bus, so it's done in the interrupt context. So bind system call could block the interrupt context for a long time. And finally, the interrupt ends up in CPU soft lockup and the connection will be delobbed. And this was fixed in 6.1 with B hash two. So as we, as with the B, L hash two, the hash key is calculated by net NS and port and IP address. This distributes SCAD with different addresses to different hash buckets. However, B hash two does not completely replace B hash. When binding a SCAD on a wide lookout at list, we have to check all SCADs on the same port, but different addresses. So we still need a list that has all SCADs on the same port. This is why we can't remove B hash. This way B hash and L hash has improved hash key. Then the list is E hash. However, it uses five table for the hash. The five table is full identity that we can get from an incoming packet. So in E hash, all SCADs are distributed enough over the whole buckets. And there is no tendency that a specific list gets longer. If E hash is long, it means E hash is just appropriated by too many SCADs. Then we will see some problem. Why the lookups for the B hash and L hash is basically one shot, but we do look up for E hash against all incoming packets. So the performance of TCP connection degrades continuously along the list length. If the connection is long-lived connection like Websocket or database, so then the effect is not negligible. And there is another problem related to networking namespace. Let's say two processes are communicating in different networking namespace. And yet another net NS puts a ton of SCADs in E hash. As E hash is global hash table, all networking namespace shares it. And so net NS cannot isolate each worker in this case. This can be caused by a single noise neighbor, but on a mulch tenant system with thousands of networking namespace where each processes have few TCP SCADs, we could see the same issue. Also, there is another problem. Net NS dismantle cannot catch up with satellite growth. When a left count of networking namespaces leaches zero, it will be queued up for a single counter threat that frees that net NS in batch. When the counter destroy networking namespace, INET TWSK page is called, which traverse all over the E hash and the free time wait sketch in the networking namespace. So if E hash has too many SCADs and net NS is created at the high frequency, the counter cannot catch up with this kind of work growth. And I did a simple test to measure how E hash would come from us in the days. The grace, first learn IPart3 as client and server in different networking namespace and just add a ton of SCADs in different networking namespace that does not transfer any data. The size of the E hash is usually calculated automatically at boot time based on the memory size. And size can be checked in Dmessage. Also, the size is specified by a boot parameter, T hash entities. In the test, I configure the size as one me write and measure the performance. When the length is one, the slope rate is 50GB BPS, but when the length is 64, the performance drops along 10% and the length overs 300, the throughputs will be down to 50%. This is improbable though, but 10% degradation can easily happen on multi-tent system. And so that's why I added TCP Parnet NS E hash. Parnet NS E hash is available from 6.1 and it implements E hash for each networking namespace, which is not shared by another networking namespace. And it resolves the problems described before. The hash key is the same five table to reuse the same infrastructure in the TCP stock. And we can control the size of Parnet NS E hash by ccdl. I added two ccdl nodes related to Parnet NS E hash. One is TCP child E hash employees, which is the size of Parnet NS E hash in child net NS. This node has to be set before creating a new networking namespace. And the following cron or unshashes call see the values and create a new net NS with the size of Parnet NS E hash. The default value is zero by default and then there is no behavioral change. So the global E hash is used for the child net NS. This is because depending on what growth, the best size varies and there is no one size fits all value. And another node is TCP child E hash employees, which shows the size of current networking namespace E hash. If the value is negative, it means that net NS does not use Parnet NS E hash and use the global one. This can be used to test if the net NS use the Parnet NS or not. Let's see how to use the ccdl nodes. First in the initial net NS, we can see that TCP E hash employees matches the values in the message. And the child E hash employees is zero by default. In this case, the TCP child E hash employee in child net NS is negative value. And if we set a positive value to TCP child E hash employees, the net NS has its own E hash. And the maximum value is 16 megabyte. And if the value is not a power of two, which will be rounded up. And if the system running out of memory, it falls back to use the global E hash unless the all M care time nets process. And when it happens, we can check it by ccdl or roughly in the message. And I originally assume the user of Parnet NS E hash was a bunch of small work roles in milestone system and a fixed size is enough. But there may be a user who want to set the different sizes in different networking namespace. In this example, two system control commands, Lacey and process L will not see an unintended size in the new net NS. If you want to use the node this way, an additional unshare is needed that create the dedicated system control nodes. And this is not modified by other networking namespace. There is another notable thing. So the default value of two sets control node is calculated based on the Parnet NS E hash. So this requires care for tuning. And another thing, another notable thing is Numa policy. The global E hash is allocated at boot time and spread it over all available Numa nodes. But Parnet NS E hash is allocated based on the current Numa policy. So for example, in a test machine with two Numa nodes, the global E hash is spreaded over the first and second nodes. But by default, the Parnet NS E hash is allocated on a single node until you change the Numa policy with Numa control or like something. So this is the summary of Parnet NS E hash. It's an optional sketch hash table of connections sketch for each networking namespace. And we can control the size by 6 CGL and that requires additional tuning for related to this control node and Numa policy. And it will improve sketch lookup performance when you have too many sketch in E hash or won't leave the connections with short-lived connections. And yeah, the same feature is available in the UDP from 6.2. At last, I would like to thank you for networking maintenance. They gave a great feedback and labored slowly. I appreciate their help. Okay, that's all for my presentation. Thank you.


In the last election, 23% of Cali Hispanics voted Trump, or 41% did so in Texas. Why did so many Texas Hispanics vote for anti-immigration, immigrant Republicans? Do they just not care about the racism against them? This has been a long-time phenomenon of the fact that in Texas, Hispanics voted Republican in much greater numbers than in California.  In California, the Republican Party has been explicitly antagonistic to the Hispanic community. It has been viciously anti-immigrant. It has been viciously anti-Hispanics. California, which has as a percentage just as many of them are more Hispanics than California has. Sorry, Texas. Republicans in Texas just don't behave in such a horrible way towards Hispanics. They have not made, at least historically have not made immigration as big of an issue as California has. They have not made going after Hispanics a big deal. If you remember George W. when he was governor of Texas, got a significant number of Texans voting for him. Hispanics in Texas voting for him. He was very friendly towards the Hispanic community and indeed as president proposed significant immigration reform, which would allow more legal immigrants to come across the border, a bill that was stopped by the Democrats who were traditionally the anti-immigration party. So Hispanics are very much responding to the attitude of the Republican Party in the particular states to them. They are treated really, really badly in California and they're treated much better in Texas by the Republicans. Still not well, but better. Hispanics both in California and in Texas are conservatives. Certainly when it comes to things like family and when it comes to social issues. But also when it comes to economics, Hispanics are not socialists.  You don't see a lot of Hispanics going for Bernie Sanders. They voted for Biden, but they're not Bernie Sanders fans. So that would be my explanation for what happened. I also wonder whether the, what do you call it, the turnout rates in California among Hispanics were low because the ones who would have voted for Trump, what's the point if you're going to vote for Trump? What's the point of voting in California? It's obvious California is going to go for Biden. So you stay home. So California numbers, because it votes so late, by the time it votes, everybody knows who's won. And because it's so obviously Democratic, it's hard to break down the results. It's hard to analyze them. Hispanics all over the country, maybe with the exception of California, voted in favor of Trump much more than they did in other places because I think that they, they don't actually like the Democrats. And they know that Democrats deep down anti-immigration to a large extent just like the Republicans. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran book show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening, you get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com.  Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


Gràcies per venir i benvinguts. La presentació és la història d'aquest camps de Tòquio, on l'amor de la collèquia de Madrid i en Vitoria i jo anàvem discutint amb Nidia unes idees sobre com canviem les activitats de les grans activitats. La idea és que, a aquest punt, les persones de l'OpenStack acompanyen que era una cosa de 11 o 12% de les persones que venien a la samarit o a la fundació. Ells han reaccionat una sortida que diuen quina manera de les persones actualment contribueixen. Aleshores, vam començar a pensar sobre tot això, i després vam dir que potser podem intentar tenir una veu a això. Bé, tenim uns números, i això és una de les coses que volem presentar per tu. Això és més o menys l'outline d'avui, una altra introducció sobre la història i algun context que hem trobat al voltant de grans companys, com Google, sobre algunes analitzacions de gènere interna. Alguns els primers steps, en el sense d'arquitector de tot, just en el cas que volem entendre com és, i potser volem aplicar-lo a un altre projecte. Després, uns números, un metge. Si tinc una bona connexió d'internet, voldria jugar una mica amb algun dashboard que he preparat, i, bé, unes conclusions. A part de mi, és el mateix que no ser involved en les persones de l'OpenStack grup, això és una de les meves analitzacions i interès. Quan treballo en Beteria, anirem al startup, anirem al 2012, en juli, i bàsicament provem metges d'open source, de performance, comunitès, activitès, aquestes coses. Estic interrompte en l'OpenStack activitès part, doncs pots anar a Activity.openstack.org i tu veus els testos que produ hips. Estic interrompte al report już en quartel, que veiem unes coses juntos amb el Stefano Mafulli, quan jo estic com a manageador de la Fundació. Per què aquesta estada? Com anirem a saber més del context del que per això. Bàsicament, la qüestió que tenim és com les contribuències d'opensors per a les dones que desenvolupen en el temps en la fundació de l'OpenStack. A mi personal de punt de vista, això és probablement tot sobre la transparència. Aleshores, estem treballant amb la mateixa ambbrella. Hi ha moltes organitzacions i companyes amb interès comercial, però estem tots en el mateix vot, i tenim la mateixa missió. Aleshores, tenim aquesta transparència amb tot aquest info, tot aquest desenvolupament. Jo diria que és bo per a nosaltres, i bo per a tot. Aleshores, el que tenim sopar, algunes resources sobre l'OpenStack, hi ha una línqueda, les dones d'OpenStack, que té alhora de 600 membres. Bé, he aplicat, però encara no tinc, no ho sé. Sí, potser. Aleshores, hi ha unes 140 discussions. Hi ha una llista de menys per a les dones d'OpenStack amb 400 e-mails i drets, i 100 participants. Hi ha una línqueda d'interès, amb resources. D'acord amb les dones. Hi ha alguna cosa extra. Hi ha una investigació que va fer en 2013 d'una xarxa de l'Ebresoft. 11% de les persones que s'acabaven eren les dones. Hi ha uns números inicials. I després vaig veure una xarxa de l'Ebresoft, i després de l'Economia, vaig veure una xarxa de 5% de les dones i 80 companyes eren les dones. Hi ha una xarxa de 21% per a les dones de l'Ebresoft, i un 32% per a les dones de l'Ebresoft. Hi ha algunes companyes. Hi ha una xarxa de l'Ebresoft, i després d'interès. La xarxa de l'anàlisi de l'Ebresoft que té unes grups específics per a la xarxa de l'Ebresoft, té un 90%. Hi ha un 20%. En el cas de Google, per la xarxa de l'Ebresoft, hi ha un 80%. Bé, molt clara. Hi ha uns números per a Facebook. Hi ha un 32% per a les dones de l'Ebresoft, en la companyia. Hi ha un 16% per a les dones de l'Ebresoft, en la xarxa de l'Ebresoft, en la xarxa d'enginyer. Hi ha uns dropboxs. No tinc els números per a la xarxa de l'Ebresoft, però deixeu que hi ha un 34% a la companyia. Les dades, per mi, eren al primer lloc del dret de l'espai.com. I al final, en el cas de seguirem aquí. Hi ha uns links, molt de això. I per exemple, aquestes números no són representatives de tota la xarxa de l'industria. Però, en el cas de la xarxa de l'Ebresoft, parlem de un 30%, 40% de la xarxa de les dones de l'Ebresoft, 10 i 20% per les teams de tècnica. Què passa en l'open stack? Això és la segona qüestió. Per primera vegada, què és la contribució tecnic, que és part de l'altre títol d'aquest stock? S'està parlant de comits, s'està parlant de uploads, i s'està parlant d'arribots. Per què vaig fer-ho? El primer comit és la base de informació que algun desenvolupador produirà en la comunitat. I aquest comit ha de ser previstament aplaudit, que és, potser, una altra contribució tecnic. Tu pots tenir diverses literacions, i després hi has d'anar a altres persones que et rebeguin. D'acord, potser has d'improver això, potser no. Aquesta analització és basada en aquestes tres, per exemple, comits, uploads, i reviews. Però potser hi hagi d'una altra manera, una altra mètrica, per exemple, per fer-ho per a una companyia, fer-ne, en el procés de review de la ciutadania, per comparar els females amb els altres persones, per fer-la, entre les diferents organitzacions. Definitament ens parlem de la transparència. Si hi haguem no tan bons punts per al projecte, potser ho hem d'improvar, però ho hem de fer a l'endemà. En el cas que és una informació molt sensativa, So, when I started with this, I was checking the internet again, which is a great place, by the way. Then I found that there's an API named jainderize.io, which is, you give them a name, and then they return something like, okay, you gave me this name, and then I give you this probability of being male or female, which is, oh, that seems to work. And then I said, okay, let's go for it. So, we are talking about 10,000 different identities that I found in Geed and Garrett. We'll go for this later. And then those needed on top of this, some manual analysis, okay? I also focused on main developers. We will see some percentages, but I don't have the 100% of the population, right? The architecture of this, we are talking about the, we are parsing Geed and Garrett repositories. We have some mining tools coming in for the metrics in our toolset and developer there. So, yeah, I know them. We are talking Geed repositories, which is for Garrett, and sorting Hatties to managing identities. Then there's some process for enriching information, like adding the gender, adding the company, et cetera. And then some visualization, which is in this case based on Elasticsearch and Kibana. Some numbers that we have here, these analysis was based in the Jamf file provided by the foundation, which is something like 450 repositories. We are talking about 400,000 commits, or a bit less if we remove bots and mergers and all of this. We are talking about quarter million chainsets, close to one million patched uploads and more than one million patched reviews, right? Just to give you some context here. The mining tools, as I mentioned, CVSanali is focused on Geed, Vicho is focused on Garrett, so we provide, we build some MySQL databases and then we start messaging this, okay? Then CVSanali and Vicho databases are available in this activity board that I mentioned at the beginning. So, if you have some time and you would like to play with the data, you can go there. Shorting hat, this has some organizations information and this gender and everything. It's a bit more sensitive, so you should ask for them. Okay, well, now we are now migrating to a new platform. It's name is Grimoire Lab, more schema-less focused on Elasticsearch and so on. So, we have MySQL databases, I need to aggregate the information. Okay, let's go. So, I use pandas, I have everything there. We are talking about something like three million events, one million and a half from each developer touching each file, which are kind of a lot of them. And the same for the reviews. We are talking about another one million and a half. Then I started to play with the data and with a lot of coffee and some manual work. I had some numbers. And well, Elasticsearch and Kibana, they are kind of a good team together, but you should try them if you have not tried them. It's really good. Okay, some validation, as I mentioned. I wanted to be sure that at least the people listed in the Women of Open Stack Wiki were right, so at least they are right. Then I went for the main projects and the main companies, and then I was looking for the top developers so we can take something like most of the work. Just some numbers, something like 80% of the work is done by a 20% of the community. So in terms of number of things, so that means that we are covering kind of a big amount. I had some really hard process checking Asian names. I'm really bad at this, so any help or any clue is appreciated. And well, some numbers. So I will show now some demo if internet allows me to have it. Okay. This is the task board. On the top left, some big numbers. This is for the last five years, as we can see on the top right here, last five years. We have something like 200, more than 200,000 commits, 5,000 developers, 44, 45 project teams. In terms of the last five years, we are talking that males, it's something like 86% of the total population of Open Stack, right? Well, sorry, they develop an 86% of the total activity in Open Stack, measuring commits. And in the case of women, they develop something like a 7.16% of this. There's some unknown activity there, which is around a 6%, a bit less than a 7%. This is a bit different from the population. So if we go to the population of men, we are talking about a 65% of them.  Around 11% of the population of women are committing something like a 7% of the activity, right? Then the top projects, in this case, we have this chart here, this table, which is, okay, in general, we have infrastructure, natural, Nova, documentation, quality assurance, okay? This is the top 10 projects. And we also have a type of contribution here at the bottom, which is, just have a look at this big particle thing, which is the code, okay? Python, cell, whatever. So we are talking that something like a 52% of the activity in Open Stack is related to code. Let's go for the pure numbers for female, which is clicking here on some time. Okay. It's interesting to see a couple of things. So if we go for women, the top projects are a bit different. We went for infrastructure, Nova, etc. The first one now is documentation. So we have documentation, infrastructure, neutral, and orison. It's interesting to see this chart here, the bar chart, because this is providing kind of a jump in the case of activity for women, right? There's a difference between 2015-2014, which is around 300 commits per month, while here we are talking about 600, 400, 400, 900. So there's a lot, right? In this case, we had something like a 55% in mean of the activity in Open Stack is code. In the case of women, we are talking about a bit less, 43%, right? We can also compare something like, let's go for the last specifically year activity, right? We have similar numbers, code activity, and we are talking that we had something like 338 female developers that were active in the community, right? They participated in close to 6,000 commits, and they participated also in around 40 project teams. I also have information about the people here, but, well, they were anonymized. I didn't feel in the mood of providing such information like these developers has this gender, so it's quite sensitive information, right? If we go for male, which is, I click here, and then I click here. As I mentioned, the code activity is a bit higher, which is something like a 55% of activity. It's a bit different. We are talking about infrastructure in first place, neutron, documentation, and civil novel. Okay, so we have this. Okay, sorry. I also prepared, so this dashboard here is focused on gig activity and gig population, right? I also prepared another one for gig activity, which is again for the last five years. Okay, main numbers. We have the big numbers, like we mentioned before, close to 1 million reviews, something like 200,000 changes, more than 4,000 developers, and around 45 project teams. This chart on the top right is showing evolution in terms of this activity. This is code reviews, specifically code review activity, right? We are talking about that in the OpenStack project maybe in March, in the first of March of 2014, they had something like 28,000 different code reviews. Plus one, minus one, plus two, minus two, right? Okay, we have this chart there. And then let's focus on this pie chart. I don't like pie charts, but let's go for the pie chart. Okay, the one in the center is providing information about the code reviews. So we have plus two, which is this one, which has 400,000. Then we have plus one, which is close to 300,000. There's something like 200,000 minus one, and then minus two, around 10,000. So OpenStack community seems to be really polite. You don't really like to have minus one and minus two, right? In any case, let's focus on... Well, Andy, the circle on the outside is providing the gender. So we are talking that 42% of the class... Oh, sorry. 89% of the plus two were done by men. While this activity in case of female is around 8%. Then we have, again, an unknown activity here. But anyway, in the case of maybe plus one, we have a bit different numbers. So instead of having an 89 by male, we have something like 76. In the case of the female, we have something like a 10%, 11%. But these are code reviews. What's going on with the core reviewers, which are those that can do minus two and plus two? Please remember this chart on the top right. There are something like close to 30,000 code reviews. Let's go for the plus two, which is running. Okay. There are still some similar numbers. We are close to 15,000. You can see that female is kind of increasing, right? It's a bit bigger than previous charts. And it's quite interesting if we click in female that we have a big jump. We have even doubling here. We are talking about 1,000 something and we are talking close to 2,000 here. So that means that during the last year the women activity, at least the core review, women activity has increased a lot and has increased really much. Okay. Some other numbers that I can show you. Well, in terms of activities, it's pretty similar to the previous numbers that we had. Okay. This is related to, okay, code review. And then I wanted to show you something about the demographics of OpenStack, right? Okay. This pie chart is, again, displaying this idea of the population by gender. Okay, so we have male, we have female, unknown, and we have female, right? This chart, the top bar chart, is providing information about the per quarter, the number of new developers that the OpenStack community had. Great. So we had something like in the second quarter of 2013 they had something like 300 developers. Awesome. If you go to the bottom chart, which is this one, this is, again, providing information per quarter, but this is aggregating information when a developer did the last commit. Okay. So we can say things like during the last quarter the OpenStack community had something like 1,500 developers active. Okay. And the interesting point about this is, we click here, we know on the top when the developers were born. So when they are coming. We have some activity at the very, very beginning that are still there. We have something like nine developers that entered in May in 2010. We have some developers that entered in May 2013.  This is quite useful. So we have in OpenStack kind of a long tail of really small contributions. One, two commits. So this is quite useful. Most of the people came, did a commit, that's all. But if we are interested in all of this, as we have the table of top developers, we can go for clicking here and saying, okay, given this list of developers, again, it's anonymized, we can know when they came. Okay, let me remove this. Let me remove this. Interesting case here is again, and hopefully this is useful for the women of OpenStack working group. This is the attraction of new female developers to the community. By the way, there are some jumps that are of interest maybe like May 2013, February 2014, August 2014, August 2015. They seem to be related in somehow to the summits, but I'm not pretty sure. But they seem to be. So similar trend in the general OpenStack. So this is not something really special for female. And the point here is, okay, let's go for this May 2013. We have these people, these female developers that when they did the last commit. So we know that from this 34 here, eight of them left the community right that quarter. But we have something like 10 of them are still contributing to the community. The point here is, in the wiki of OpenStack, and the women of OpenStack, there's a list of 20 or 40 developers there. But we are talking here about a population of 500. So if there are people that are leaving and they have the knowledge about how to contribute to OpenStack, maybe you can send an email saying, hey, we miss you, how are you, we would love if you come around. Okay, so this is more or less the kind of tooling I wanted to present to you, right? Let me go back to the slides. So in the slides are all of these numbers. So don't worry about this. Let's go for the analysis. This is some extra bonus for this presentation, as I have, yes, I still have time. EDI's outreach is helpful for a lot of things, but it's specifically outreach helping the gender gap in OpenStack. So, yeah. Well, the idea of outreach, this is from the website, outreach helps people from groups underrepresented in free and open source software getting involved. Great. How is performing the community retaining those developers? So there's a developer that came to the community, how good is OpenStack retaining those? I think it's a little bit different. I'm going to start with a small analysis about the starting in 2013. So we have four of them. Well, if we say that developers are active during the last year, 2015 outreach programs are not that interesting. Well, we can compare this outreach retention with the general retention of the community. So let's go for some numbers. One is still contributing in orange. So if we go for the first year, as far as I know, that OpenStack started in this, they attracted one developer for the outreach program. It's not contributing anymore. If we go for the second, it's in 2014, February. Four developers were attracted by the community. One still contributing. So 25% of retention. Then we have two developers in August 2014. No developer is still contributing. And we have something like six developers that were attracted in 2015 in the outreach. It's one developer that is still contributing. Let's go for the top right chart here. So this is for those months that I had a look at the outreach. I went for those and I looked for the women specifically that entered in that moment and are still or not contributing to the project. So in blue again, the attracted developers in orange ones that are still contributing. So we have that in the first period. Around 15 of them entered as newcomers to the community and we have five of them still contributing. Around similar number in 2014 in February, around 16. I think in this case it's one or two developers. Then there's a high increase in 2014 in August, something like 22. And we have something like close around nine developers that are still contributing. And for the last period we have something like 20 developers that were attracted and four of them are still contributing. So it seems that the number shows that there's a better retention. So it's something like if we ignore outreach for this purpose and we go for this. I mean if we compare both, it seems that having new women in the companies is a bit better than having women coming for the outreach in terms of retention. I'm only going to clarify that. This is the comparison of the retention rate. The blue chart is showing retention rate for the general open stack community for women. And then the orange one is the retention rate for the outreach program. So in the first period we have something like a retention rate for women coming from any place en August, something like 30 something percent and we have zero in the case of the outreach. If we go for 2014 we have something like, interesting by the way, 5% in the case of the companies and the general organization and we have a 25% of the outreach. In the case of August 2014 we are talking about a 40% but again zero in outreach. And then finally we have a 20% approximately the retention rate for 2015 in January. And the outreach is quite similar in this case. So some conclusions that I may have from this analysis, small analysis. More women are attracted and retained also in relative numbers thanks to companies in open stack. So we have something like a big company coming and they are bringing something like a state claim between 10% 20% d'organitzacions that the outreach programs as they are in this specific focus problem like decreasing the gender gap, right? So even though I would like to say that we have big companies claiming that they are around a 10% and a 20% and they are mostly between close to a 19% but hey, we are having an 11% in open stack so there's still room for improvement. What's going on here? And then a couple of questions that I would like to tell is something like okay, is it worth exploring our kind of investment? So we have outreach, which are great. Can we go to companies and say, hey, you are let's say, we are kindly pushing you to have a more diverse touching group here. We would love to have it and we would love to hear that from you. Because we have the numbers indeed and we can show them to them. Maybe as a result of that we are focused on degree programs maybe what about going to high school? I don't know about the USA or other countries from Spain, so I know what's going on there but not here. So those are some ideas that we have. So some conclusions. First decisions are based on data. So we may have the perception that something is going well but then data tells you no, that's not true but the point is that we need data, right? So probably at least with this kind of dashboard, tooling and all of this could be useful in somehow, I would say. Some answers. So there's a continuous increase in the attraction of women to open a stack and it's growing. We are talking about 11% during the last year. If compared to the last number of summits I think they said that it was a 13% of attendees. There's a great increase in the core reviews. Women doing plus 2 and minus 2, which is great. I would say that most of the women are coming as new organizations showing the foundation. So this is probably a good path to explore maybe. I would say that probably having some tooling is good to have some numbers and to have some comparison and finally to make decisions, right? As I mentioned, we are having something like 25% of the population as a known gender, but they are only doing less than 7% of activity. So there's room for improvement of the data set. I also found some false positive but that was done in my time so I have two hands only. But at least this provides some numbers about the initial status of all of this, right? I don't know, I guess. Some open paths. Well, we are talking, if you remember at the very beginning I mentioned that we had something like a percentage of probability given a name. We are talking about 550 female developers for any kind of probability. Well, more than 50%. But if we go for 100%, we are having those numbers by 200%. If we play with the dashboard as I did before for that probability, we have similar activity. Similar activity and population. Numbers are pretty similar in that case. So, as we have the numbers and emails and everything, well, we can talk to any of them and let them that we are here and that it's open to participate on everything. So maybe as a new developer come together and the system say hello, maybe there's a way of coming to the community, I don't know. Or maybe any other diverse group. So, further work. As I mentioned, this is sensitive info, well, at least from my point of view. I don't know yours. So the dashboard is still private. We may go for something public. Based on this and this is kind of work of Viteria, we are providing any kind of analysis. So we can go for some time to merge firmness, so if the code review is firm between men and women or things like this, we can go for percentages of what are the most diverse project teams or the most diverse companies in open stack. So this may help to say hey, they are doing great, so maybe the others can have a look at this. Quarterly reports or maybe analysis like we define some policy. We have data previously, we have data after this. We can compare the data and check what is going on. So, hopefully this is useful to have a better picture of women of open stack activity. Well, as to say, we are looking for a sponsor for this. It's quite heavy time consuming. So, thank you very much. I don't know if we have any question. Thank you. Oh, please, if someone, I think you should stand up and go to the microphone. Is there a specific call to action to help you get more data corrected for the name identification? Asian names are really hard for this. Yeah, I know that. Is there anything specific we could patch, do, help with? Well, either you can go for each of the companies asking for the specific data so they can provide more accurate data sets. So, is it a call out to the individuals to identify? That would be great as they identify the country and things like that.  You may not know, but one of the suggestions would be to integrate open stack ID with Garrett so that Garrett all of a sudden uses the same ID that is provided when you log in as a foundation member there you specify your gender however you may if you like. So, by the foundation I think that there is 40% coverage in there for new members and there could be a push from the foundation. So, if we end up using the same database we can collect that information much more precisely. That would really helpful, thank you. Probably we need something like from the foundation, something. Daniel, this is absolutely fantastic because it was just a casual conversation that we had in Tokyo and I did not realize how much work you guys have put in and, you know, data speaks louder than words. So, it's really good too and in fact in the breakfast meeting at the women of open stack some of us were saying we want to see metrics because that's the true measure of progress, right? But the actual numbers are changing especially coding numbers and Garrett numbers and things like that. So, this is great and we'd like to kind of see how we can take this further. So, I'll follow up with you on behalf of that. And I also want to give a shout out to Lana and to and gentle. And the reason the documentation project is doing so extremely well is they have very inclusive leaders such as Anne and Lana as PTLs, right? I'm going to start with the Q and A but I'll start with the Q and A so, I'll start with the Q and A and the Q and A and Q and Q and A and Q and A and Q i given that the projects grow and shrink rapidly, it would be very interesting to see clearly there are more and more women participating, but it's not clear whether they are proportionately more and more women participating. Is that makes sense? Yeah, well, I don't have the numbers right here. Yeah, I understand you don't, but... It's doable, I mean, yeah. And the other thing about your presentation, which was great, and that has my head spinning, so I'm peripherally involved with Wikipedia, and we, people that have spent a lot of time trying to correlate these little micro interactions that people have that are largely attracted to Wikipedia, like edit reversions, for instance, and how these positive or negative interactions discourage and cause people to drop out of the project. And of course Garrett is a perfect Petri dish of measurable interactions, right? I mean, presumably a negative one isn't necessarily a negative interaction, I feel like there are great depths to plum there in terms of what process results in developers being discouraged or encouraged or welcomed when they arrive and so forth. Yeah, well, first said that we, as in the activity board, we are aggregating information from much more bunch of data sources like IRC channels, mailing list and all of this. So we don't really have to focus on Garrett or Keith because there are a lot of interactions around. And probably some social network analysis would be great because probably if documentation people are doing a great job there, it's because they are good at some social stuff for sure. This is people, this is a lot of people in the end. So probably kind of measuring things would be great, I guess. Thank you for the great presentation. Thank you. It was really good. One of the things in your recommendations or suggestions which I liked about was high school. You were talking about, I really liked that idea of bringing more awareness and also giving opportunity for high school students. I have not seen much high school students getting even awareness about OpenStack or any contribution. And in extending that, even the undergrad, when I was talking to some of the tech talks in the universities, not everybody is aware of OpenStack and how to contribute and everything. So I don't have any suggestion, but I'm just saying I'd love to help whatever I can. I'm going to definitely help with that. But if there is another way, we can all have a forum or something so that we can say, hey, go and join this. And this is a quick cheat sheet or you'll have mentors and everything. Love to have any kind of resources for that. Yeah, that's it. I agree with you. Just wanted to say thanks for putting together the data. But I was curious if there are any ideas or plans to address the people outside of the gender binary, the non-conforming and genderqueer. A lot of those people in the unknowns or maybe some people that have been marked male or female don't actually identify that way. Yeah, I agree with you. Well, I tried to have this as a semi-automated way so that's the idea I had about the first names and go with this. Then if we need more qualitative data, we should probably, as Stefano mentioned, this gender or something else idea about this. Having this automated, if you have any idea about this, would be great, but I didn't have a clue so far. So, more comments or questions? No? Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.


Hello and welcome to the session. I am Asha and I am going to help you with the following question that says, prove that sin 5x plus sin 3x upon cos 5x plus cos 3x is equal to tan 4x. Let us begin with the solution and we shall start with the left hand side and show that it is equal to the right hand side. Now the left hand side is sin 5x plus sin 3x upon cos 5x plus cos 3x. First let us learn some simple formulas with the help of which we will solve it.  So the elitists can further be written as first we have sin 5x plus sin 3x and using the formula sin a plus sin b here we have a is equal to 5x and b is equal to 3x. So in applying the formula we have 2 sin a plus b that is 5x plus 3x upon 2 into cos a minus b that is 5x minus 3x upon 2 and in the denominator applying the formula cos a plus cos b we have 2 cos a plus b is 5x plus 3x upon 2 into cos 5x minus 3x upon 2 which is further equal to 2 sin 5x plus 3x is 8x and 8x upon 2 is 4x into cos 5x minus 3x is 2x and 2x upon 2 is x upon in the denominator we have 2 cos 4x into cos x which is further equal to 2 cancels out with 2 also cos x with cos x and we have sin 4x upon cos 4x which is equal to tan 4x which is the right hand side of the given problem and thus we have left hand side is equal to the right hand side or sin 5x plus sin 3x upon cos 5x plus cos 3x is equal to tan 4x hence proved. So this completes the solution take care and have a work day.