Greetings comrades! Welcome to the Q&A video for our first series on Marx's views on human development, freedom, alienation and communism. We got a bunch of useful questions in the comments, most of which we try to answer there. But we thought it would be useful to bring some of the main ones together into one video. Since we didn't get many questions on the videos on impersonal domination and alienation, this Q&A will focus on the questions we got for the videos on human development, freedom, communism and the video discussing how altruists views on the early and late Marx relate to ours. So, let's go through some of the most important questions we got on each video and our answers to them. Part 1 – Human Development When Marx thinks that human development is valuable in itself, isn't he making a normative claim that we should maximize human development? Isn't that basically having a conception of morality, or at least justice? Let's do this in two steps. First, how is it not a claim about morality? That depends on what you mean by morality. What we think Marx and many others have in mind when they talk about quote-unquote morality is something that's first and foremost about individual behavior. In particular, rules governing good, bad and permissible, impermissible actions. For example, thou shalt not kill, never lie, etc. We're saying that what Marx thinks is valuable in itself, i.e. not on the basis of or derivable from anything else, is human development and that he uses this loose and open-ended kind of commitment to evaluate things. This is not the same thing as saying that we ought to maximize human development or that, for example, one should always follow the maxim, always act so as to maximize the total human development. That would be a claim about morality in the narrower sense, but it's not what we think that Marx is doing. And we think that this misunderstanding is, furthermore, something we tend to do a lot because there's this tendency in our contemporary capitalist society to turn everything into rules or standards that you, the individual, needs to measure up to. For us, it's become very natural to take certain commitments about what is good or valuable, say, x is valuable in itself, and turn them into rules and imperatives, always act so as to maximize x, you ought to maximize x. However, the former kind of thing, human development is valuable in itself, is not the same kind of thing as, and does not entail, the latter kind of thing, that you must or should always act so that you maximize x. For one, the latter first and foremost says something about how an individual person should act, whereas the former does not. Marx, as far as we can tell, never does the latter. He is interested in saying why capitalism has certain shortcomings. It restricts human development relative to what we would now be able to achieve without it. He's not really interested in laying down rules for people to follow, and as such, he just isn't very concerned about morality, in his and our sense, in his political thinking. Now the second part. Why isn't this a claim about justice? That depends on what you mean by justice, which today is typically used in a much broader way than it was in Marx's day. If by justice we mean practically anything to do with normative aspects of society and or politics, then what Marx is talking about definitely counts. But this isn't what we're denying, or what we think that Marx is denying, when he says that socialism and his arguments for it aren't based on the notion of justice. If, however, you mean something more specific by justice, such as some general principles that tell us how goods ought to be distributed, or which rules should govern individual interactions, then things are a bit different. We try to be really careful with how we phrase this in the human development video, because what Marx is doing is something very different from how lots of us do, and those who went through universities typically are trained to, think about these things. Note first that Marx doesn't say that everyone ought to have equal access to human development. That certainly sounds like a principle of justice of a standard sort, a kind of rule governing the distribution of some good. But that's not what we think that Marx is doing. Marx himself writes that he isn't. For instance, in the Critique of the Gotha program he criticizes German social democrats, many of whom consider themselves Marxists, writing that it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principle stress on it, because any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. In fact, Marx goes further to argue that focusing on the distribution of goods and services in political theory, what we today call a focus on distributive justice, is a capitalist confusion that gets in the way of good socialist theory. He writes that, Valger socialism has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production, and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again? So if he's not doing this, what is Marx doing in his discussion of human development? Marx is taking human development and using it to critically diagnose a problem about capitalism that socialism can and will solve. You can do all of this without having to base it on some rules of justice of the kind that everyone should have equal access to human development or so on. You can argue, as we think that Marx does, that capitalism is inferior to socialism because it's unfree and therefore restricts human development without turning human development into a rule-like kind of principle of justice. In the same way, you can compare and evaluate cars according to how fast they drive or buildings according to how well they keep the rain out without having to appeal to some rule about, say, what the perfect speed of a car is or some rule about how fast cars ideally should be. Question. Wouldn't Marx's notion of human development always be or have to be based on some pre-established yardstick? Different societies typically have different standards for what they consider to be important or essential. A medieval peasant isn't really expected to be able to drive or assemble Ikea furniture while a modern office worker is really expected to be able to harvest barley. First of all, it is possible to tie a conception of human development to various such pre-established yardsticks. So you can have certain limited, typically highly contextual, conception of human development based on particular yardsticks, say what you, as an ancient Greek or contemporary American, might think of as a desirable kind and degree of human development for the relevant time, place, etc. This, in practice, is what people do in many contexts. However, when Marx values human development, it's not a conceptual human development tied to any such particular yardstick. Rather, what he is doing is evaluating certain things based on an open-ended commitment to human development in general. In other words, he is judging certain social arrangements as better or worse based on the way in which they enable and facilitate human development in general. And as we see in the episode on freedom, Marx thinks that one thing, not the only thing, but one thing that's very important for enhancing human development is freedom. What is the relation between the labour theory of value and Marx's thinking on human development and freedom? Basically, this is a complicated question and it's the kind of thing that we could discuss for hours to get all the details right. Since that would be a bit much for one video, we'll make a couple of brief points that we hope will suffice. The literature on this is basically a mess, partly because Anglo-American philosophers since the early 1970s have been doing political philosophy in a very specific way, focusing overwhelmingly on abstract and rule-like principles of justice. And as a result of this, there's been a whole cottage industry trying to find bits of Marx they can shove into that mould. The problem is that Marx never really uses rule-like principles of justice, like people like Rawls or Nozik do. So they end up doing a lot of very weird and creative theorizing to come up with something they can use, usually with fairly little basis in Marx's work. They often try to use Marx's accounts of the theory of value and exploitation to backwards reconstruct some principles that exploitation violate. None of this really seems to fit Marx's repeated statements that it doesn't think socialists should base their views or arguments on any theories of distribution, which we talked about in the human development video. So let's turn to the question of how these things connect to the labour theory of value, the LTV. Basically, we think there's very little connection between the LTV and Marx's views on freedom. This might sound weird, since isn't freedom a value and so on, but it becomes less weird once we remember what value means in the classical political economy that Marx is building on and his language he is drawing on. Classical political economy is based on an assumption. We think that even though actual prices fluctuate continuously, they tend to fluctuate around certain rough equilibria. They then abstract away from the noise and focus on explaining changes in equilibrium prices. Classical political economists, like Smith, Ricardo or John Stuart Mill, use theories of value to explain how equilibrium prices shift from one equilibrium to another one. While we, sort of modern people, use value to talk about things like what we want, what we think is worth having or being, or what we would say that we value, classical political economists instead use that word to refer to the thing that underlies and explains shifts in equilibrium prices. However, when they talk about what really matters, what's really worth having and so on, they instead talk about wealth. So for example, clean air or the clean water in an unknown river would, for a political economist, be examples of wealth, because they're good for us to have, but not value, since they don't have any price, much less an equilibrium price. So when Marx uses the concept of value in his political economy, he is using it like Smith, Ricardo and so on. He is using it to explain changes in equilibrium prices and through that the laws of motion of capitalism. By contrast, Marx, like Smith and others, when he wants to talk about what matters in a more normative way, he talks about them as wealth instead. As when, for example, he talks about true wealth consisting of human development and flourishing, as we saw in the video on human development. This means that the LTV is part of a descriptive analysis of capitalism, not any sort of ethical or normative critique. In other words, it's part of Marx's theory of how capitalism in fact works. It's not something that he uses to criticize capitalism with. Instead, Marx is criticizing capitalism for not being able to increase true human wealth, human development, in the ways that socialism or communism can, given the current development of industry and technology. If you want to learn more about the labor theory of value and the basics of Marx's political economy, we cannot recommend Michael Heinrich's an introduction to the three volume of Karl Marx's capital highly enough. It is very clear and by far the best introduction to Marx's political economy, starting with this theory of value and what it means. Part two, human nature and freedom. Question. Marx has a positive concept of freedom, but didn't Isaiah Berlin show that such positive concepts of freedom can be used to justify totalitarianism? If being free is defined as living or acting in a certain way, doesn't this mean that it becomes possible for someone else to know better than you do how you must live to be free? If so, can't they then force you to live in exactly the way you need to in order to count as free? Doesn't this justify things like churches or states or parties forcing everyone to live like they say, because only doing that can make everyone free? I'd like to start by pointing out that of all the people Berlin talks about as having a positive concept of freedom, first, none of them have the same one exactly, and some of them, like Rousseau, have a republican not the positive concept of freedom at all. Secondly, literally everybody who is an expert in any of these thinkers that I've talked to about this, thinks that Berlin is wrong for their thinkers, not just about its conclusions or critiques, but about the basic theory of freedom he attributes to thinkers like Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and so on. This may or may not mean very much, but it is worth noting that Berlin's interpretation of virtually all of these thinkers is widely rejected today. With that out of the way, let's talk about how his argument doesn't work for Marx's concept of freedom. The first part is pretty obvious. If freedom is self-directing your own activity, anything that prevents you from directing your own activity necessarily makes you less free. That means that if something or someone else, like the state or the church or a powerful corporation, forces you to act or live in a specific ways, controls and directs your activity in any way, then you are necessarily made unfree for Marx. In other words, they can't force you to be free because their very act of forcing you to act and live in certain ways by definition makes you unfree according to Marx. Here's a response you might be thinking of based on Berlin's argument. What if we assume that the right person or institution, say the right party or government, is the true or real you and that whatever it does and says is therefore something that you yourself do or say in some way? If we accept that idea, then the party or state's actions are yours in some sense, and when they force you to act and live in a certain way, you're not being forced to these things by something else or someone else, but by yourself instead. And forcing yourself to do things doesn't make you unfree, so it again becomes the case that you can be forced to be free by the right kind of party or state. But look at what's happened here. What made the difference here wasn't the concept of freedom, but the separate and very weird theory of the self. It basically shows that if you identify a person with a distinct institution, then what the institution forces them to do doesn't make them unfree. Why? Because it would just be them doing it to themselves. But this doesn't work just for positive concepts of freedom, it works for negative ones like the one Berlin argued for as well, although Berlin doesn't see it. For Berlin, negative freedom consists in the absence of restrictions on possible courses of action, so when someone else restricts or interferes with possible courses of action, you are made unfree. But if the state counts as you in some way, then the state restricting what you can and can't do no longer counts as reducing your freedom. Why?  In other words, the problem here isn't any one concept of freedom at all, but a very specific theory of the self. Now, Marx would never adopt this very odd theory of the self, and there's no basis in anything that he writes to think that he did. As a result, this is nothing but a strawman argument that simply doesn't work as a critique of his concept of freedom. Question. Isn't Marx's conception of consciousness as a single undivided thing that separates human beings from other animals a bit implausible in light of what we now know about the cognitive capacities of other animals, in particular other primates? Basically, yes. Marx's writings on this are, we think, in need of further testing, development and elaboration, especially in light of the major advances done in the study of human and non-human animals since Marx's day. We're not going to try to do this now, of course, since we'd have to do a lot more reading first, much less actual research, but we can make a couple of general points. In general, we do think that Marx underestimates the behavioural variation and plasticity of at least some non-human animal species, and that a contemporary version of Marx's view would probably need to take a more precise and graded view of what consciousness is and how what humans have of it differs from what non-human animals have of it. Interestingly, however, we also don't think that this causes problems from Marx's arguments, because, unlike many other thinkers, Marx doesn't base his concern for human beings on whether they have consciousness, and because it doesn't affect his claim that human's consciousness is what enables us to be free. Part 3. Communism. We got one question in particular on this video that we thought was very important. We responded to it, but the poster then removed the question, and although we managed to note down the question itself, we didn't keep a record of our response, since we thought that this would start a discussion. Part of the very long and very impressive comment was about developing consciousness and the role of the revolutionary party. Since that's not something we talk about in the video, we're leaving that aside here. But the comment did have some important stuff to say about the role of the working class in developing communism according to different strands of Marx's theory, and we think that's very worth talking about in this Q&A. Here's a chunk of the question. At 4 minutes 22 seconds, contrary to what you are implying here, Kowski's conception of social democracy as the historic merger of the socialist and working class movement, C.F. Kowski's The Class Struggle, is not at all elitist and is in line with Marx's teachings. It's simply a historical fact that socialism predates the emergence of the modern proletariat, that the working class movement wasn't consciously socialist at the beginning, and that scientific socialism was synthesized by Petit Bourgeois intellectuals, i.e. Marx and Engels. This is the core of Lenin's critique of economism in what is to be done, and is very much based on a Marxist understanding of class consciousness. Georg Lukacs gives a very good elaboration of this idea in his tailism and the dialectics. The question goes on, but we've skipped a few bits in between. As Lenin explains in what is to be done, correct class consciousness, he used the term social democratic consciousness here, would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, and that means conviction of the necessity of organizing as trade unionists, i.e. the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. However, this is a historical process, and the spontaneous element is the germ seed of a conduct that is conscious of its aims. Moreover, the transition cannot take place elementally. In spite of this, there is, of course, a dialectical interrelationship between this from without and the working class. For while Marx and Engel stem from the bourgeois class, the development of the droctine is nevertheless a product of the development of the working class, of course not in any immediate way. So, much of the stuff that's being claimed here, we agree with. More so than I think the poster perhaps thought. From at least Kowski onwards, the so-called merger thesis was a staple component of Orthodox, state-centered, second and third international Marxism. It was not entirely uncontroversial, but it was definitely a staple. From the social democratic Kowski, it filtered through to people like Lenin, Lukacz and others, who became part of the third international. And, as Lars Lee has shown, this is probably rooted in an analysis of how the Marxist social democratic party merged with German labour movements in the 19th century and have a similar dynamic seemed to take place in Russia. Basically, their view is that what they call social democracy, which at the time referred to their kind of Marxist ideology, was essentially developed by people they consider bourgeois intellectuals, i.e. Marx and Engels. It was then brought to the workers' movement from outside by intellectuals in the party, and the resulting movement, the party and trade unions, were a result of this merger. Note that they are first and foremost talking about the body of theory or ideas here, namely social democratic Marxism or social democratic consciousness. However, we think that this is not something that Marx comes up with, and as far as we can tell, he never says anything quite like it. We also think that to say otherwise is to underestimate the further development of Marxist ideas by later Marxists. For one, Marx never really talks about how social democratic or Marxist ideas come to the working classes at all. In fact, at one point he angrily declares in a letter that is not a Marxist. He does, however, talk about communism, but as we can tell from his criticism of other communists, he doesn't think that that's just him or his ideas. So Marx's talk of communism does not refer to the same kind of thing as Kowski and Lenin's talk of social democracy or Marxism. Since when Marx uses that term, he includes thinkers and ideas that he disagrees with. Also, although there are ideas that are part of it, unlike Kowski and Lenin's discussion of Marxist ideas or social democratic consciousness, Marx doesn't define communism in terms of ideas or ideology at all. Instead, he defines communism as the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. As far as we can tell, Marx never really says anything like the merger thesis. That is, he never says anything about how the correct Marxist ideas were developed outside the workers movement and has to be brought to it from the outside. We would, however, be very interested to see if anyone could find a place where he says something like that, because it's always possible that we've missed something. We got another kind of question on the communism video. In that, we said that the Soviet Union wasn't what Marx called communist. Isn't that heresy against any true Marxism? Basically, we don't think that it is, and even if it were heresy, the question isn't whether it fits with what some people think, but whether it's true. Here, we should remember that all of Third International Marxism, i.e., most forms of Leninism, all forms of stylism, Maoism, and so on, despite often disagreeing on many things, all agree that the Soviet Union definitely wasn't communist. According to basically all Orthodox Leninist theory, socialism is supposed to be the first step to communism, still has a state, and so on, while communism comes afterwards, and is properly free, stateless, and so forth. That's why they always called countries like the Soviet Union socialist, not communist, because they thought that these countries were at an earlier stage, not a later stage. They were not, in other words, what Marx called communist. These countries only got called communist in the US and Europe, basically as a downstream effect of capitalist propaganda, often by people who didn't know what they were talking about. So in other words, if you're outraged that we say that the Soviet Union wasn't communist, you disagree with basically all of Marxism, and you're weirdly agreeing with western anti-communist propagandists. But even if that wasn't the case, what we should care about is whether it's actually true that, for example, the Soviet Union was or wasn't a communist in Marx's sense. We made the point that the Soviet Union wasn't a communist according to Marx's conception of communism, because it didn't have what Marx said a communist society would have. For example, it didn't distribute the means of subsistence according to need, and wasn't based on the free association of workers. This is just a fact, and anyone who knows how the Soviet Union worked would concede that point. Workers also, of course, didn't self-govern the economy. Now, you might think that that would be much too much to expect of these societies given, say, the state of the world, their state of development, the western aggression they faced, and so on. But those are explanations for perhaps why they didn't or couldn't develop into full communism, or didn't do so yet. They are not explanations for them being communists in Marx's sense. And that's all the point we're making there. Part 4. Alterser and the Epistemic Break To be honest, from the people that disagreed with us, there weren't a lot of good arguments that were backed up by evidence. In fact, we got virtually nothing that was both directed at what we actually argued in the video and based on anything that Marx wrote or did. But we will mention a couple of things that came up. One thing that came up was Marx's quotes, where he talks about human species being. Of course, we're aware of these quotes, and quote a number of them ourselves. But the fact that Marx mentions human species being, or species essence, in the German, Marx uses only a single word that is quite vague and covers both. Doesn't mean that he's necessarily thinking about it in an a historical or transcendental kind of way. We've argued that he doesn't do so in his later or earlier works, and nobody seemed to be able to challenge our arguments or our analysis of the texts. Some people found one or two quotes where Marx criticizes other thinkers for having a static and a historical conception of the human essence. They then said that this is Marx criticizing himself. The main problem with this is that it's at best misleading. Marx criticizing other thinkers for thinking about human nature in a static and a historical way is not the same thing as, and does not mean that, Marx himself ever thought about human nature in this way. Criticizing someone else for doing something doesn't mean that you're criticizing yourself for having done it in the past. Now that our first series is finished, we think we have shown that there's a bunch of evidence and argumentation for there being a fair bit of continuity in at least some of Marx's ideas, properly understood, especially on the things we've covered so far. This is not so for many of his other ideas, which we'll discuss in our next series, and there we'll be focusing squarely on the later Marx. But if anyone wants to take some time and give us some arguments about Marx's development, properly based in an analysis of what he wrote, we'd love to see it and respond. That's it for now. We hope you've enjoyed this series. Our next series will look at Marx's theories of praxis, history and social change. In other words, his dialectical and historical materialism. But before that, we'll do a special episode on democratic socialism and some response videos to some widespread misrepresentations of Marx by the right on the internet. Have a good day.


Principles of Planning Setting Priorities, Timetables and Budgets Welcome! By the end of this presentation you should be able to Describe the link between objectives, activities and priorities in the planning strategy Apply the process of ranking priorities Relate to the priorities for human resource and infrastructure requirements for service provision Relate to the eye care needs of various socio-economic groups for integrated, sustainable, equitable and excellent services This is known as ISEE In this session we will be discussing step four of the planning cycle It is important that a plan's aims and objectives have already been agreed and prioritised before any practical decisions on time and money are made Let's look at an example Zrenja Eye Unit has developed a plan which aims to reduce cataract blindness in the district The plan has three key objectives Increase cataract output by 150 surgeries each year Improve the outcome of cataract surgeries so that less than 10 surgeries have an outcome of less than 660 within a year And establish a subsidy system of payment within two years Many activities need to be done to achieve each of these objectives For example, improving theatre efficiency, securing additional cataract sets and consumables and ensuring that the anticipated demand for surgery is costed and an affordable price set for patients It is tricky to try and do all of these at once and sometimes it's not even possible So planners need to decide what is important and select the order of the actions to be taken This is known as prioritisation There are many ways to prioritise activities The following method is practical, effective and straightforward to apply All the activities that could be carried out are listed And then for each activity a scale of one to five points is applied in four categories One is the lowest score and is applied to categories that are hard to do or not so important or expensive Five is the highest score and is applied to activities that are relatively easy to do, very important or comparatively cheap The four categories to be scored for each activity are Severity, for example if cataract surgical outcome is poor due to high post-operative infections A severity score of five points would be valid Importance, this category is based on local need So for example a high district prevalence of cataract blindness might be awarded three points Feasibility When scoring this category planners should ask themselves the question Is it possible to make the change with the available resources or are additional resources required For example, if a planner applies a score of one to an activity to obtain a regular supply of intraocular lenses This implies that this is not a feasible activity for this plan Cost This is often a deciding factor It can refer to present cost or to finances that need to be obtained to carry out the activity Here a score of one means that the activity is expensive and five that it is cheap Finally, all the scores for each activity are added up Activities with the highest scores are given the highest priorities for action And this provides a strategy for the plan Disease and the ability to access services varies by age, gender and socioeconomic grouping These factors must be considered when establishing priorities for the plan For example, cataract is most commonly a problem for people over the age of 50 Older rich people are likely to have access to eye care services already And can afford early intervention Therefore it would be reasonable to target access for poor people over the age of 50 Particularly women A named person must be made responsible for each activity This person is responsible for managing the activity and ensuring it gets completed The most important resources that need to be managed in an activity are People and their time And money, including the things that money buys To manage time, an activity time plan such as a Gantt chart is developed Each activity pair objective is listed Along with an indication of when it will be carried out and completed This is monitored and updated as the activity is carried out Managing money and budgeting Eye care programs are integrated into district health services Planners and managers need to present a budget for their programs to those who allocate funds Whether they're government or external donors Budgets list expenditure, outgoings or costs and income Under expenditure, budgets include capital and running costs Capital costs or one-time costs They include items such as buildings, vehicles and equipment Running or recurrent costs include items such as salaries, consumables and overheads It is important that all costs and expenditures are included in a budget If the exact amount is unknown, then an estimate should be used Finally, a 5-10% contingency budget can also be added Budgets should list all of a program's sources of income These include fees, funding from government, local and international donors In-kind donations, government salaries Income generated from canteens, spectacle sales and so on An itemized budget layout for each activity is established in order to be able to update or vary estimates and quantities Information on both expenditure and income is part of a monthly report that should be produced for management To do this, the percentage of each line item that has been spent, expenditure or collected, income, is calculated Items worth 10% or more are especially important In conclusion, clear objectives and targets are achieved through a detailed activity plan Not everything can be done at once A strategy is the prioritization of the important activities which must be done Ranking priorities also allows for the best use of available funds and resources for integrated, sustainable, equitable and excellent services known as ISEE Time tables and budgets help planners to monitor and manage the progress of activities And finally, budgets are developed based on targets and activities and they include both expenditure and income Budgets are updated and reported on to management every month


25-yard-trim goal, back to goal. Brooks wants it back, he's shattered all the way by McNair. Brooks onto his right foot. Tried to fight one! Oh, the goalkeeper's got a great touch on it. David Brooks on his weaker right foot nearly came up with something spectacular there, but better than any of the lone goalkeeper clawed it away. Three-nil down at Blackburn in the championship. Here's Danjouma's corner from the near side. They tried to flick! Oh, great finish! What a finish from Dom Solanke! A back flick at the near post into the bottom left corner. That's when you try on the training ground and doesn't often come off in matches. A moment of brilliance from Dominic Solanke to open his account for the season and the Cherries have stunned the 1,000 into silence, seven minutes before halftime. Tracked by Dyke Steele, it's going to run for Solanke here. It's opened up for Dom Solanke, who's running through for his and Borba's second save by Betanelli. That was the opportunity to win the game for the Cherries for Dom Solanke through the centre and in the end too close to the goalkeeper. Oh, dear, what a great move, a great breakout. Solanke's fell over fast over here again this time. Crossing for a white position towards a summer longer on the equaliser for Marcus Brown. Cross from the far side. Evaded everybody in blue, but not the head of Marcus Brown and the Cherries concede that with 10 minutes left on the watch here at the riverside. Middles for one, for McLean. Lofts it forward, billing on the right side. Mepham wins a good header. Surridge now, right side, early cross low in towards Solanke. Oh, flashes it past the post, off a deflection, the substitute fry got a toe on it. In comes the corner from the right-hand side. Jefferson Lerma, great save from Betanelli. Lerma cut, Rose High is there, but the Cherries give away a free kick and Marcus Betanelli made a great save moving to his right side. Absolutely great header, only thing is you would say it's a good height for a goalkeeper. If it's into the ground, you can't get it.


Three common marketing mistakes that artists make. Number one, not identifying who the ideal target audience is and therefore doing marketing that's a bit like sending dots out into the dark and hoping something's going to stick. Number two, not building a mailing list from that audience and therefore every time you want to promote something you're looking for new customers. And number three, not having a strategic plan to work to and therefore overwhelm can hit as you just don't know what you're doing day in, day out, week in, week out. Now if you'd like a solution to all three of these common problems look below this post and I've got all the details there.


Woman upset when Stranger's kid smacks service dog, she hits back.  Instantly, the shopper braced herself, knowing she would have to pass them in the aisle with her service dog. That's when the little girl reached out and smacked the dog on the back. Standing up for herself and others, the disabled woman hit back with the last response they ever expected. Laura Juice was simply trying to finish her errands at Walmart when she encountered a family who needed an important lesson after their mistake could have cost the woman her life. Almost right away, Laura noticed the family coming down the aisle towards her. It was a mom with her three kids in tow. The woman's youngest child was in the cart, but the older two were walking next to her. As they moved towards Laura, they noticed she had a dog with her, but it wasn't just any dog, it was her service dog. From far away, Laura heard the mother point out the animal to her children, and almost immediately, the children started walking faster toward her, their arms excitedly stretched out. I was dreading it, I knew your kids were going to try and pet my dog. I knew you had no intention of telling them, don't pet the dog. It's working, Laura recalled. Although she did what she could to avoid it, her efforts failed and Laura was forced to walk slowly past the woman and her kids. Your daughter reached out and smacked my dog. Hard, audible thud as her hand hit her back, Laura wrote in a Facebook post addressed to the fellow mom at Walmart, hitting back with a reality check for this mom and those like her. She's a service dog, please teach your kids not to pet them, Laura told the mother who lashed out with an unbelievable reaction. With a snotty tone, the mother snapped back with an excuse you aimed at Laura, but she wasn't having it. Yes, excuse me.  Then, Laura laid out what this mom didn't see. Five minutes before I saw you, I got an alert from my dog, my heart rate was steadily climbing, my chest was becoming tight, my vision was going fuzzy, I felt like I was underwater, she recalled. You couldn't tell my hip was sliding in and out of place and every step I took was painful, agonizing. Laura juice upset when strangers kid smacks her dog in Walmart.  My heart rate now nearly 120. I felt like I was going to vomit. Luckily, I made it to my car before the full effects of my heart rate hit me like a ton of bricks. Laura almost lost consciousness. Luckily, my kids didn't have to stand over their mother in the middle of the grocery store waiting for her to wake up. Luckily, your kids didn't have to see some woman hit the ground. It can be scary for young kids and even some adults. I'm sorry that my tip to help you help your kids and help the service dog community pissed you off. She hit back at the woman who berated her for giving sound advice. I'm sure you wouldn't allow them to grab someone's cane or yank on their nasal cannula that supplies their oxygen, Laura pointed out, driving her point home. My dog provides life-saving assistance to me every day. She keeps me alive and safe so that my kids can enjoy their mother, she wrote. I'm not asking much. I'm just asking you to give the same respect you would expect had you been the disabled mother and service dog handler. So mom, if you're reading this, no I'm not mad, just disappointed, she added.  I'm safe. I'm home and I'm alive because yes it could have ended completely different. I could not be. Just like that. Thankfully, Laura's condition didn't require a trip to the hospital, but it was enough to cause her concern and rightfully frustrate her deeply. All parents should know and teach their children this important and simple rule when it comes to service dogs in public. Service animals aren't just fluffy friends who keep their handlers company. They serve important purposes are a lifeline for people with severe health complications and they are working. Give service animals plenty of space and don't distract them. Focusing the animals attention away from its owners needs even for a second can make them miss an alert. Apparently, some people need to learn this lesson. Hopefully, they can do so by reading this post rather than by having to witness the negative ramifications of their ignorance like almost happened here. There's a reason service animals often were do not pet and other patches and vests to indicate they are working. Remember to show respect and remind others to do the same. Not only are these situations annoying for owners, but they are also dangerous.


Good morning. Well, we got a packed house here, although I know we had about 500 people who registered for this. And I was looking out on the lawn last night and saw a lot of people out there very late. So I suspect they'll be coming in in a few minutes. Couple of housekeeping announcements. First of all, the heat. We've asked them to turn up the heat outside because I know it's a little bit chilly. We'll make that happen for you. We've also ordered a terrific sunset tonight, right over the ocean for everyone. It's going to be beautiful. If you caught the one last night, it was amazing. We have a great week ahead and lots of great news from the Linux Foundation, our projects, our member companies. I do want to, though, thank our sponsors. In particular, our attendee reception Intel is sponsoring our attendee reception tonight, along with our LF Energy project. It's going to be amazing. It's out on the lawn. I looked at the weather forecast, and I think the clouds are going to clear. The sun's going to come down. It's going to be an amazing evening. I also want to thank IBM, IBM VMware, and Walmart Labs, who are sponsoring our breakfasts and breaks. And finally, our executive lunch and dinner sponsors, GitLab and CloudBees. Let's give them a round of applause. Again, so the evening reception is going to be just out on the lawn right over here on the Half Moon Bay golf links from 545 on. Please come and join us. There are also going to be lots of evening networking opportunities, so from 5.30 to 7.00, we have the Oceanside happy hour. And then every night from 8.30 to 10.00, we're going to have nightcaps and networking on the fire pits and the ocean lawn and all over the place. So please take advantage of that. Everyone is on their own for dinner, but there is a shuttle service to the downtown area from the hotel. So if you want to take advantage of that, please do. And then also, please use our networking application. So we have the Brella networking application. There is the link and the code right there. Please take advantage of it. We also have a few news announcements that we already announced this week. The CHIPS Alliance start we announced yesterday. This is a new initiative around open chip design, a new security initiative called the Red Team Project, which is helping improve the security of Linux distributions in particular. And then we're proud of one thing. The Cloud Native Computing Foundation has reached their 375 member mark. I don't know if the executive director of CNCF. So there's Dan. If you see Dan, he will incessantly tell you how they're the fastest growing open source organization ever. It's actually incredibly annoying. But congratulations to the Cloud Native Computing Foundation. So just an amazing amount of news all the way around. And it kind of culminates from a 2018 where the Linux Foundation itself grew faster than we ever had. It was an amazing year. We launched more projects than we have in the history of the organization. More people join the organization than ever. It's just amazing. And I think it encapsulates sort of what I want to talk briefly about this morning before I introduce the rest of our amazing speakers for the day, which is that we are really entering this amazing golden age of open source. Now, having said that, I am certain that I have called it the golden age of open source for at least 15 years. But this time, it really is the golden age of open source. There we go. It's always. But the thing that I thought is interesting about this is it's 2019. And it's something that we shouldn't all take for granted in terms of the fact that open source is just so widely successful today. And I started thinking about how could I communicate how tough it was in the early days for a lot of the vanguards of open source, particularly in terms of people where open source intersected with the business world, how difficult it was in the early days. We have so much to be grateful for in terms of standing on the shoulders of giants, the Richard Solmans, the Linus Torvalds, the people from the Apache Software Foundation, from OSI who define the meaning and definition of open source. These are real giants. But I kept thinking, how can I go back and kind of get a really concrete way about how challenging it has been and how far we have come? And so what I did was I went back and looked at the Red Hat S1. This is the documents you file when you go public. And this was in 1999. So in 1999, Red Hat went public on NASDAQ. It was a big deal. And when you go public, I was part of a company that went public a long time ago, you have to file all these SEC documents, including your S1 statement, which includes not only the upside for the investment opportunity, but then the downside risks. And these are literally verbatim the risk statements from the Red Hat 1999 S1. And I think it's just such a great encapsulation of what people were super worried about at the time, worried enough to have to disclose it in this regulatory document. The fact that the business model of open source still wasn't quite proven, that the open source community itself would react negatively to the concept of monetization or business as it relates to open source. The Red Hat folks were worried that they rely on the support of Linus Torbalds, another prominent Linux developers, which I might add they continue to be worried about to this day. I don't know if that was my laugh line, you didn't even get it. All right, but again, interesting that the competition from Microsoft, the fact that all of this independent code is hard to bring together, it's maintained by all these disparate people around the world, and then they were really worried about intellectual property rights. These were heady times back then, 1999 to early 2000s. You had sort of this ascendancy of people figuring out the concept of open source. Microsoft was running ads in Europe, sort of keying in on these weaknesses that were described in the S1 around fragmentation and the disparate development effort. SCO, the corporate enemy number one there, does anyone remember SCO, the UNIX company, right? That was essentially bringing litigation against all of these folks claiming that they were the true owners of the Linux copyright. Again, we were facing the internet bubble and so on and so forth, huge challenges, big things that needed to be overcome, and the most amazing part about it now, in retrospect, 20 years later, is just how those obstacles were systematically overcome. How far we've come in terms of overcoming all of those risks and turning them into real opportunity, and I think if you look back, history judges it as this amazing, amazing success. I mean, certainly in the case of Linux, we have come a long way. Could advance that slide there. You're just ruining my pacing here. There we go, a really long way until we get to the next slide. So Linux has really come a long way. I mean, it really has eventually come to dominate almost every market that it has entered. It's just amazing to think about. Back in 1999, Red Hat has worried about whether or not the Linux platform, as a business concept, as a platform itself, in the wake of this competition, was even gonna succeed, and it has probably succeeded, at least in my case, beyond our wildest dreams. The Linux Foundation itself has also become very successful and a critical part of the tech ecosystem. Today, we have over 1,300 members. Many of you are here today. This is our member event. 100% of the Fortune 100 tech and telecom. We have thousands and thousands of developers working just on Linux Foundation projects, which are a small percentage, I would argue an important set of projects, but a small percentage of the overall open source projects that are out there. Just creating an amazing value. In 2018, a new company, a new organization joined the Linux Foundation every single day. That same pattern continues into 2019. I think what's really interesting, though, is if you look back in particular over the last couple of years, you just have these great, concrete ways that all these challenges that we were all worried about 20 years ago in open source have been overcome. For example, the concern about competition with Microsoft. I mean, certainly that has completely won 80. Many Microsoft, is there people from Microsoft here in the room? David, there we go. I see a bunch of you. Microsoft has turned from a competitor of Linux to one of the biggest contributors to Linux open source in general in the world. It is really impressive to see the work that's going on at Microsoft. Microsoft is putting their money where their mouth is, and this is a hat tip to David Rudin and some of the legal team over there at Microsoft, where not only are they big contributors to the open source community and participating in all these projects, but they've also come to help us solve another problem that we were all worried about back in 1999, which was intellectual property concerns around open source. As a signatory to the Open Invention Networks license, I think Keith Briegel, the CEO of Open Invention Network, is there in the back. We've essentially had peace break out in the IP world of open source. It's a meaningful agreement where Microsoft has agreed to not state claims on Linux and related technology. And it's not just intellectual property or the fact that Microsoft, we now love you. It's also just the business model itself. In 2018, I think really culminated how much the business model of open source has proven to be successful. We like at the Linux Foundation to call this the Torvalds effect, of course, because obviously Linux works at the Linux Foundation, but last year, number one and number four of the largest tech acquisitions were both directly based on technology that Linux had started. The Red Hat acquisition, $34 billion, one of the largest software acquisitions in history, actually the largest software acquisition in history, and obviously GitHub, $7.5 billion. Just demonstrating the amazing value in clear, huge numbers that show just how valuable open source is. Red Hat in particular, are the Red Hat folks in the room here, a few of you? See you around, there we go, Chris. What an amazing, for a company that in 1999 was worried about your business model, 69 straight quarters of growth? Like the whole in one, I mean, just this amazing journey for an organization. Like, I mean, if that's not a good business model, I don't know what is. But it's not just the two mergers and acquisitions we saw last year, but just lots and lots of amazing outcomes in open source from a business perspective. I look at just the amount of value that's demonstrated here, that is sort of you can measure, right? Based on private equity investment in IPO, some kind of M&A, that doesn't even include all the value that's being captured by organizations like Toyota who are using open source to build their automotive cockpit experience, or companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Alibaba, Tencent, Wallway and others who are using open source to power their cloud, right? But none of that is even, none of that value is even captured in here. So we're not talking, I mean, it's far more than $70 billion outside of the IPO and M&A activity that we see here. What's also interesting is the, as we talk about M&A, today we are launching an e-book, an open source e-book that you can all get on M&A practices. So for all of you who are involved in open source and are looking at acquiring more open source companies, there was so much M&A activity, we decided to write a book about it. That's why the slides didn't work before, we missed my punchline. All right, anyways. The thing that I wanna talk about today is that at the foundation, one of the things that we talk about all the time is how do you build healthy, robust, sustainable open source ecosystems? And this generally works, sometimes it doesn't. We're gonna talk about that this afternoon. But generally what we wanna do here and what we're working with all of you to achieve is to be the best possible upstream for a commercial downstream so that open source projects can be multi-stakeholder driven. They start with great code, but they don't end there. The code then is created by a robust diverse group of stakeholders who then use that to create commercial products and services that capture the kind of value I just demonstrated, that then take that technology, create these products, services to get profit for their organization or capture value in some other way as a government organization that's reducing cost or a nonprofit that's trying to achieve things for the greater good. And then people take that value, take those profits, reinvest them back into the open source project, largely in the form of those thousands and thousands of developers who work on the project that create better code, more value, that begets better products and services for all of us, more profit, more value, more reinvestment, better products. It's that cycle that we're trying to promote and that's what really creates this economic sustainability of open source. It's one time where in seeking profit we can all collectively benefit at the same time. Where helping yourself is helping others at the same time. And I think that's something that really has proven out historically to be the most effective part of open source. And doing this requires a lot of work. This is one thing that the foundation is super proud of. The fact that in over many years we've figured out a process to help these big projects create big sustainable ecosystems. Whether it's hosting events like this or many of the hundreds of developer events we host all over the world that thousands of developers attend. Our next big event is gonna be the KubeCon, CloudNativeCon in Barcelona. We are expecting 12,000 attendees at that single event. Just amazing. I've gotta give a shout out to Angela Brown back there and her team at the amazing work they do. They're the ones who got the dirt cheap room rate here at this hotel. For those of you who got in on our room rate, good for you. For those who didn't, you gotta register early next time. You really, really do. We have a legal team, Mike Dolan, Scott Nicola, Steve Winslow and Karen Kopenhaver who are some of the foremost IP minds in the world. They're the ones, yes, that call you up and make sure you've signed your agreements that the trademark has been properly registered, that the intellectual property, the provenance of the code, the way that we run these organizations is clear so that you can share what you wanna share, keep what you wanna keep. That is one of the golden tenants of open source, allowing people to share in a way that is trustworthy and allows them to build this code very fast. We've trained millions of students at the Linux Foundation to help these projects create value more quickly. Certification is something that we've really focused on particularly in the last few years. This is solving one of those concerns that Red Hat had in their S1 again about interoperability, cobbling these components together, making sure that, for example, in Kubernetes and their Kubernetes service provider certification platform, you can be assured that whether you're running on one cloud or another, you're using the same consistency across those for Kubernetes and many, many more. We have a whole DevOps team that helps these projects through the infrastructure that they host, release management and more. And then finally, this year in 2019, and you're gonna hear more about that today, we are really focused on application security, in particular for these big projects that the world and industry is depending upon. Again, we're gonna talk more about that today. But I thought it would be fun to see how Linux Foundation projects are being used in the industry. And this is my favorite thing to show all of you today. How many people watched the Oscars the other day? Any more? So the chairman of one of our projects, well, like three people.  Geez. Just this morning is going terribly. So one of the chair, the chairman of one of our projects was actually nominated for an Academy, he and his team were nominated for an Academy Award this year for visual effects. They didn't win it. Dang it. But we started an organization called the Academy Software Foundation. Rob Brito, who was the gentleman from Industrial Light and Magic who was nominated for a visual effects Oscar. And it was such a great advocate for the concept of using open source in the film industry. You know, if you look at companies like Lucas, Disney, Pixar, others, they're storytellers. But they tell their story through digital effects, through computer graphics and animation. There's this great story that they tell where the 168 most profitable films ever made, like one through 168, are all CGI and animation driven. 169, I think it's the right, something 160 something. The only live action movie that gets up that high is Mamma Mia, which I actually really liked. It's just, it's a wonderful film. But I wanna show you just, when you're trying to explain to someone what open source is and what it's used for and why that collaboration works, sometimes it's a little tricky to explain to somebody who's not super familiar with technology. The following video, I think, does an amazing job of doing that. So let me show you the video here, oops. Creative filmmakers today rely more than ever on engineers and scientists using open source software to help craft fantastic visionary images. Every single part of the filmmaking process is touched by software. And a lot of that software is open source software. Some of the greatest innovations we've seen in the modern era of filmmaking have actually been supported by open source software. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Linux Foundation have created the Academy Software Foundation with support from industry leaders. The Academy Software Foundation exists to provide a great home for open source projects that we as an industry use every day. Two projects the Academy Software Foundation is currently working on are OpenVDB and OpenColorIO. OpenVDB is a volumetric data block format. It is pretty ubiquitous in use. Anytime we have an explosion, it's VDB. Anytime you have clouds, it's VDB. Anywhere where you have a lot of fluid simulation, fireballs, gas flowing across a surface, things that are big. We think there's value in having an organization outside of DreamWorks take responsibility for this. And I think we've already seen a benefit in that that we've had other studios step forward in a way they had not previously with contributions to the standard. OpenColorIO is an open source color management solution for motion picture production. And then everyone working on a show from an artist at a workstation to a director in a theater can see the same image and speak the same visual language. OpenColorIO is compatible with ACEs and can be used to implement any well-defined color standard. Highly critical projects need oversight, particularly for more than one studio or company and can benefit greatly from not only shared development resources, but also the solid infrastructure offered by the Linux Foundation and their involvement in the Academy Software Foundation. Whether you are a user of open source software or an engineer or a company that relies on open source software, we want to create the right ecosystem for you to get the most out of the open source software that you need to use. Find us at aswf.io and join the mailing list and see how you can get involved. Pretty impressive, right? So a couple of quick notes on that. The narrator, the woman you hear at the beginning, that's literally the voice of the Oscars, which is so amazing. For our open source projects, A, to describe an open source in project as anytime anything explodes in a movie, that's OpenVDB is awesome. To have Thanos and Spider-Man in a promotional video for an open source project, I don't think it's ever been done. I mean, think about it. Linux, all they have is tux, right? I mean, I'm talking Thanos here, right? Like, destroying half of the universe, right? To their credit, CNCF, they have Phippian friends. Not quite the same. And then, probably one of the, our networking projects are a good example. They have these really difficult to understand architectural diagrams like nobody gets, right? But here's one thing that is interesting is our networking projects, and I think this is easy to understand, the Open Network Automation Platform is being used to do something that I think is easier to understand. Check out this video of how open source software is being used to orchestrate a network that's saving people's lives. Let's roll this video. FirstNet is one of those opportunities to make a fundamental difference in every public safety responder's approach to managing emergencies. You've got agencies converging onto one central geographic location. Communication and getting resources where they need to be is a challenge. By no fault whatsoever of the individuals that are there responding to the scene, it's the technology that they had available to them. They're trying to coordinate a disastrous mass chaos. This is when the network gets bogged down. And they can't communicate with one another because the system was not set up to do so. The technology that they've used at this point really pales in comparison to what we're gonna provide them on FirstNet. This individual is missing. This is their potential location. And then we can call for a helicopter to have live infrared searching for an individual. Captain, take your guys now. Communications between agencies and among agencies. Always talking, always up on the network, always using the data, live in real time. Everybody inside. Keep the communication open, please. So we can search quicker, we can find people quicker, and then as soon as we find a victim, we can get them extricated, triaged, treated. We're over here. Transported to the hospital. You're okay now. Taken out first, he's really hurt. We're putting tools in their hands that they can see what's happening around them and react to it in a way that saves lives. I'm really proud to be part of something that's gonna revolutionize public safety. We're gonna take really good care of them. Bank AT&T, powered by open source, the open network, there's the architecture, it's somewhere in there. But really, really impressive that open source is being used to do all these amazing things you would have never thought 20 years ago. I'm also happy to report that one of our other projects, the Yachto projects, is being used in space. So this is from Yachto. It's an embedded Linux distribution. It's a build tool for that. And this is being used on a satellite that currently is in the vicinity of Mars. I think this goes on the record for the farthest distance a Linux system has ever traveled into space. So we wanna call that out in 2019. Our Hyperledger project is being used in supply chain management to help people and to reduce exploitation. Tantalum is something that you've got in your pockets right now. It's a rare earth element that's used to create transistors in smartphones and laptop. Our Hyperledger fabric project is being used to manage the supply chain of this rare earth element to make sure that we know where it came from and that it doesn't come from places where you have child exploitation, slave labor, and others. So we're not only helping making the world a safer place in disaster recovery situations, but helping supply chains be honest and transparent. Even more than that, here's another project of the foundation that I'm super happy to be associated with. Is Josh in the audience somewhere here? Josh from Let's Encrypt, I saw him somewhere. There he is. When Josh and I first met, we were talking about how he wanted to create this free certificate authority that was super easy for people to use to encrypt internet and web traffic. Just app get Let's Encrypt, install it, it's free, it's awesome. At the time, I think the amount of HTTPS paid flows in the US was like 40% something like that. And now it's up to 87%, right? And Let's Encrypt is now the world's largest certificate authority and has had a meaningful impact on all of our collective security and privacy. Drone Code, another Linux Foundation project, has clocked more flight hours than any aerospace company this year. They are down in Tijuana, flight testing every day, putting in code revisions, figuring out how to do this. It is an impressive operation. They're working with regulators to use that code and those clock all those flight hours to draw conclusions about the future of drone technology in the United States. And speaking of drones, it doesn't stop there. Another Linux Foundation project, Automotive Grade Linux, is being used for the onboard operating system for the Dimler, for the Mercedes drones and vans, vans and drones delivery vehicles, right? So these are vehicles that go around and a drone comes out through the roof of the car and delivers packages. Drones don't stop there. Our Zephyr real-time operating system project also participated in the Super Bowl halftime show this year with the drones Pepsi Sugar halftime show if you saw that. So all of this stuff powered by open source is amazing to see how far we've come. But for as far as we have come, I think we still have a long way to go. And that's what I wanna talk about this afternoon. After we listened to our speakers this morning who have amazing news about new projects at the LF, lots of exciting things they're doing, for everything we were worried about back in 1999, the amazing accomplishments over 20 years for open source, we still have a long way to go. I think it's important now here at this event with leaders in open source and the industry to confront some of the tough problems around open source. The first one I think we can all agree on is application security. Application security continues to be an issue for all forms of software and open source is obviously a critical part of the software ecosystem. We see vulnerabilities that are exploited on a regular basis, whether it's Equifax or Heartbleed or things like that where vulnerable code, bugs in software are exploited to expose the private data or worse of people all over the world. And if you look, you know, SNCC did a recent survey where open source maintainers are telling us we need help, that they're getting better at application security but it's just not enough. One in four open source maintainers does not audit their code base. Even worse, and I think this is one of the toughest things, it's just the number of vulnerabilities found in open source as open source increases in popularity and in the sheer amount continues to increase at a very, very fast pace. We need to collectively do something about application security. And it's not just application security. There are important open source projects that lack resources. Funding and resources to help make those projects better.  A gentleman right here in the front row, Mark, you can relate to this statement. You know, who can do all this stuff? You know, maintain this for free. You know, often in a GitHub repo you have people who just fly by and expect commercial support from somebody who's maintaining a code base essentially for free. There are these awesome Twitter feeds that I see all the time about like, stuff maintainers here, you know, hey, can you just, I have to do this for a product and can you just apply this patch or release a little bit earlier for me and just are not ponying up anything for that. The final thing that I think is a meaningful problem that we need to be introspective about and help is the shortage of diversity in our communities. It's just an obvious fact. I think that in 2017, one of the most recent surveys about gender in a large group of open source communities, just these numbers are not good, right? I think we all are aware of the issue. I think everybody agrees that diverse communities are strong communities. I mean, there's just academic study after academic study about how diversity creates better outcomes. This is something that is a challenge that we all need to collectively work on. So for as far as we have come, the challenge that I wanna have, everybody think about the entire week you're here, how can we create better application security? How can we get more resources into the developers hands that we, the developers who we depend on and how can we create more diversity in these communities? And as a part of that, this afternoon, the Linux Foundation has some new ideas. I'm not just gonna get up here and complain about things. We've been working for quite some time on some solutions that we can think, that we think can help improve all of these things. And this afternoon, we're gonna introduce you to something new that we think will solve all of these challenges. So, any organization like ours or any of all of yours every once in a while needs to think of new ways to approach and solve problems. And I wanted to show one last clip from a Super Bowl series of advertisements that IBM launched way back when we were worried about all these things. And I think it's time for us to take the advice of the gentlemen in this video about how we can change once again. Hey, come on, hey, hey! Never, never make me no one to talk and never talk about who wanna stop me. I must be the king! I shook up the world! I shook up the world! Shake things up. Shake up the world. That was from maybe 16, 17 years ago, IBM ran these iconic set of ads that showed this little child who was sharing knowledge with folks like Muhammad Ali and others that was gonna change the world. I think it's time for us to shake things up again and we've got some interesting stuff this afternoon. So with that, I wanna thank you for listening to me for an extended period of time. And I wanna introduce our next speaker.