Have you heard anything about 432 Hertz, the mystical frequency set to have unique and special healing powers? Well, this is the real truth about 432 Hertz frequency. No one will tell you. I'm David Wong, your go-to guy for all things sound and frequency. I work with tunes, beats, and affirmations to give your subconscious mind a major boost. Why? Because believe it or not, our subconscious is behind the wheel for most of our life's journey. Some people are a bit skeptical about the 432 Hertz frequency since it's not part of the famous sulfegio frequencies. And yeah, that's totally true. But that doesn't make it any less awesome. Science and research has shown that 432 Hertz can really chill you out by doing some pretty sweet stuff like cutting down anxiety, lowering your stress hormone levels, slowing your heartbeat to a calm rhythm, and even helping you sleep better at night. Basically, 432 Hertz is proven to have a positive calming effect.


This paper reviews existing techniques for segmenting and classifying 3D point cloud data. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches, as well as providing examples of how they have been applied in the cultural heritage sector. Open issues and future research directions are also identified. This article was authored by E. Greeley, F. Mena, and F. Riemondino.


This paper proposes a new approach to decomposing electromyogram, EMG, signals into individual motor units, MUs. The authors use a segment, Wise Convolution Kernel Compensation, CKC, algorithm to identify MUs from multiple motor neuron populations. This allows them to decode more MUs than previously possible, increasing the potential applications of EMG decomposition for neural decoding during multiple motor tasks. This article was authored by Chen Chen, Sherhan Ma, Yang Yu, and others.


Well teaching kids that it is better to give than to receive is a valuable lesson. Our Josh Peterson shows us how area churches are instilling in kids the true meaning of Christmas through one special program. The hallways of Bemidji's evangelical free church was dressed for the holidays and filled with Santa's helpers as they prepared boxes of toys to be shipped all around the world as part of Operation Christmas Child. The whole every single one of the boxes is gonna have some sort of Bible gospel tract in it and so it's going to be telling the message of Jesus all over the world. Each age group had a bundle of toys ready to be sorted, picked and placed into decorative shoe boxes all in an effort to spread Christmas joy while educating kids at the same time. The kingdom of God is going forward not just here and I think a lot of times we have an idea that things are just happening in our little church or are in our town but they don't understand the magnitude of what God is doing all over the world. For the kids when they went shopping it was all about relating to a child that they don't even know and making sure they experience the best Christmas ever. I want him to feel happy and excited because he got a Christmas present. While the kids get into the spirit of giving there's also a special message that leaves an impact on more than just the child. We start them young and we start this process people are going to be you know able and understand the process more as they get older. Each box contains more than just toys and treats it also contains a message of hope and love. I want them to feel happy and that they know that Jesus loves them. With only a few days remaining before all the boxes are shipped and delivered all over the world kids and adults alike will be busy playing the role of Santa's helpers. In Bemidji, Josh Peterson, Lakeland News. The official operation Christmas child shoebox drop-off site is the evangelical free church in Bemidji. Boxes will be packed and loaded on a semi next Monday. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


Kept them obvious Now talk like an egyptian Don't like an egyptian Oh, you have to cannot move your shoulders to do that, right? There you go Alright Multiple control of verbal behavior This is really the thing that Jack Michael and a whole bunch of his colleagues say that really is what it gives skinners verbal behaviors It's punch, right? This is where the argument is between functional contextualism and radical behaviorists and anyway So that's a whole nother issue that we can get into at another time And I'm sure all of you FC people will get up mad at the RB people and and vice versa And you'll hammer it out in the comments down below But just remember as you're hammering out this discussion in the comments that your behavior is under multiple control Right, so you have convergent control which is multiple Things in the environment stimuli whatever controlling the particular response that you're making so a single response and divergent That was right. Yeah See we have cheat sheets down here So multiple things Controlling one response and then divergent control hold on divergent control is when a single Antisident event or motivating operation or whatever affects multiple things, right multiple verbal responses So it's just saying really across the board that verbal behavior is extremely Complex and that there are lots of things that control our responses some responses are controlled by multiple things and some things control multiple responses It's all yours to it


So, we're going to be talking this afternoon about the AMD SEV S&P feature and specifically an update on the open source development that's been going on related to that. My name is David. I'm going to be starting things off giving a bit of an overview of what that feature is and some of the important flows with it. And then I'm going to hand things over to Bergeshe here. He's going to be talking about some of the patches that he's been working on and have sent upstream related to S&P. So the S&P feature is the latest evolution of the AMD SEV or Secure Encrypted Virtualization Technology. If you've been to past security summits, you probably had to endure me talking about it. And S&P is the newest version. It is a substantial security update to the SEV feature. In particular, it offers some stronger protection against various kinds of hypervisor based attacks and builds on top of the previous versions of the features. So initially we had the SEV feature which had memory confidentiality with memory encryption and then the ES feature which added register state protection and now S&P is the third generation of that. The initial SEV and SEV ES features are currently supported upstream. They've been supported in hardware since the first generation Epic server processors. S&P is the newest version. It premiered in the third generation Epic processors which became available, I believe, in March of this year. And this is our entry into confidential computing. This is our confidential computing solution and it can be used in a variety of use cases. You can think of public cloud as being a primary use case for this type of technology. So as far as the threat model goes, it's very similar to other kinds of confidential computing technologies. The trusted components include the AMD provided silicon, so that's a CPU hardware as well as the AMD signed firmware. And then of course we trust the operating system within the guest VM itself to do its best to protect itself. Nothing else is untrusted, so the hypervisor, the other VMs in the system, external devices, et cetera. The threat model goes into specifics of what we are and are not protecting against with this generation of the technology. I talked more about this in my presentation a couple of years ago. We also have a white paper that goes into these in more detail. As a summary though, we have a few big categories of things. So we have confidentiality protection, which is primarily handled through the AS engine in our memory controller, so we encrypt the guest memory. We have integrity protection, which prevents the hypervisor from manipulating or corrupting guest memory, and I'll talk a bit about how that works. We have some physical access protection for things like cold boot attacks, which is again accomplished in memory encryption. There are also some new controls around protecting against malicious interrupt injection, bad CPU ID values, as well as certain side channels, including speculative side channels. The S&P technology as it stands today does not protect against things like availability attacks on the guest, so the hypervisor retains control of scheduling and system resources. More advanced physical attacks, including active voltage tampering, as well as other types of side channels such as monitoring page faults over time and things like that. So I'm going to talk about a few things in particular that are going to be relevant to the patches that Bridgesha is going to be discussing later. One of those is around integrity, which is really the big new thing with S&P, and this is enforced in the hardware through a new structure called the reverse map table. This is a large memory structure that's allocated at boot. There is one entry in it for every 4K page of assignable DRAM in the system, and those entries are 16 bytes each, and they indicate the owner of that page. So that could be the hypervisor, that's the default. It could be a specific guest at a specific guest physical address. It could be what's listed here as firmware, which would be it's reserved for use by the AMD secure processor, which helps manage the life cycle of these guests. The RMP's primary job is to enforce writability in order to enforce integrity, and so it makes sure that only the correct entity is able to write to those pages. That checking is done in hardware, both in the CPU as well as the IOMMU. So a device DMA goes through the same source of security checks. A violation of the RMP table results in a page fault or nested page fault, depending on the circumstances, or an IOMMU page fault, if it's DMA, and the RMP table itself can only be manipulated through special X86 instructions that are designed to enforce the security properties. So as an example, I want to talk about this concept called page validation, which is about how we get pages into the guest address space, and this uses some of those new X86 instructions. By default, pages start in the hypervisor state, so they are accessible to the hypervisor they cannot be written to by the guest. The hypervisor first assigns the page using an instruction we call RMPUpdate. And that changes the RMP table to switch over the ownership, but it is not yet accessible by the guest. The guest then has to accept the page by doing something called validation using the pValidate instruction. And it uses that to transition the page from that guest in valid state you see over to the guest valid state. And once the page is in that guest valid state, then the guest is able to read and write it normally. I should mention that this is specifically for private memory in the guest, so memory that the guest does not want to share with the hypervisor. We also, of course, support shared pages, which are accessible by both and are used for things like DMA and hypervisor communication. Those pages stay in the hypervisor state. So the guest accesses memory, it can access it either as encrypted or unencrypted using something called the CBit. And if it accesses the pages unencrypted, it should be a hypervisor state page. If it accesses it as encrypted, it needs to be a guest valid page. And this two-step page validation sequence is very important for security. And there was a discussion about this on the mailing list upstream recently, I believe, that page validation ensures that there is only one GPA to SBA translation that's valid at any given time for that GPA. And so it's very important that the guest OS does not execute Pvalidate multiple times on the same GPA because that could potentially create multiple GPA to SPA mappings that a malicious hypervisor could switch to it will. So it's important that the guest tracks what page that's validated and make sure that it never double validates a page. So the next thing I wanna talk a little bit about is the launch flow, since that's of course how we get started. The launch starts with a plain text image, which I think is rather common in this area. And the hypervisor works with the AMD secure processor to get the guest going. The AMD secure processor for those who aren't aware is our little embedded security subsystem, there's an ARM core in there and some crypto hardware. And there's an API that, and we have the specs for this on our website, with the various commands that the hypervisor can call. And so the first things it's going to do is it's going to allocate what we call a guest context page that contains information about the VM. And then it's going to call this activate function which will generate a random encryption key and assign it to that specific VM. The next step is we're going to go through this launch process. So there's a launch start command that creates the context and then the hypervisor can call launch update multiple times to add memory pages into the guest and then finally a launch finish command that closes the context. The initial memory image in the case of the open source patches typically consists of the OVMF image as well as the CPU register states. So that'd be the reset state for the VM. And then there's a few other things in there too. So going into a bit more detail there, there's actually six different types of pages that you can add as part of the initial VM state. The most common type is the normal page, which is just a standard data or instruction page. And when this is added, both the contents and the metadata of the page are measured and are included in something called the launch measurement. So the contents of the page, that's obviously the data. The metadata includes basically the entry in that RMP table. So that's the GPA, where the page is placed, as well as the information about the type of page. So in this case, the fact that it's a normal page. As opposed to something like the next type, which is a VMSA page. The VMSA or virtual machine save area is a special page of memory that holds the CPU register contents for the VM. And these contents are arbitrary, so you can specify whatever reset state you want in the case of Linux. We typically use the standard x86 reset image. And this is, you can almost think of it as a runnable page. So this is a page that can be targeted by the VM run instruction. It's marked in a special way in the RMP. The next thing is we have a zero page, which is really just a shortcut if you need a lot of pages of zero. We also have an unmeasured page type. I don't believe this is currently used in our patches. But this is a page that can be used to supply information from the hypervisor to the guest, but that information itself is not measured. However, the metadata is measured. So the fact that you have an unmeasured page at a specific location in your address space, that is part of the measurement. The contents are not. And so this can be used in order to pass host specific information. The final two types of pages here I'm going to be talking about a little bit more detail. These are special pages that the security processor helps create. So the first one of those is the secrets page. This is a new concept. Actually, both of these are new concepts in the SNP architecture. Typically, there will be one secrets page in a VM. The guest physical address of this page needs to be at a known location. So the guest is going to be built knowing that it is going to have a secrets page at a certain address. And of course, that is measured as part of this metadata. And there's a structure in our spec that defines what's there. There's some information such as the actual family model stepping of the silicon, which can be important for some reasons. Some fields to help with live migration. But really the most important thing in this page are a set of keys that are called the VM PC case or virtual machine platform communication keys. These are ASGCM keys that are used for secure communication between the guest VM and the AMB secure processor. So we have this mechanism that we call a guest request, where if the guest wants something like an attestation report or some certain types of key derivation to get ceiling keys or things of that nature, it can construct this encrypted message. And send that through the hypervisor to the security processor. And the security processor, of course, has the same keys, and it can use us to verify that the message is authentic and provide a secure response. So these keys are very important. I'll talk about attestation in just a little bit here. The last type of special page that we support in the architecture is a CPU ID page. And this is a page that is filled in initially by the hypervisor. And then it's filtered by the security processor. And the security processor verifies that the hypervisor does not violate any security properties as we define it when supplying CPU ID information. CPU ID information in some cases is completely harmless. The values really don't matter. There are other cases where we are concerned that there could be security issues in the guest if it were to get bad information. An example of this would be something like the size of the XAV area. If the incorrect size information was provided, it could lead to a buffer overflow in the guest or something like that. So the hypervisor fills in this table with information for various CPU ID leads that it thinks the guest is going to need. And if those do not pass a security policy, we'll fail the launch update. What that means is that if the guest is actually running and has managed to get through the launch update and launch finish, then all the information in that page is safe. And so the guest can consult that page for any CPU ID needs. It doesn't need to go back to the hypervisor for CPU ID emulation. The specific rules that are used to enforce the security are documented in something we call a PPR, the processor programming reference. That is a public document. It's on our website and there is a table here with the information on each leaf. In some cases, for each field, what security checks apply. Because each generation of processor that we make has different CPU ID functions in it, that's why this information is in a processor specific document. So if you look up the PPR for family 19 hex, which is our third generation EPIC, then you'll find the security policy table here. And there's a few different types of common checks that are used depending on the field. All right, so this point we have created the launch context. We have done launch update to install pages into the guest. And then the final step is to do this thing called launch finish, where we can supply an ID block. This is another new concept in the S&P architecture. The ID block is something that is created and signed in advance by the guest owner, and it contains the expected measurement that we are going to verify as part of launch finish. It also contains some information about policy as well as various unique parameters that can be used in key derivation. And one of the most important things is that it is signed by the guest owner using their private key. And this is important because that signature can then be used to identify my guest from your guest versus somebody else's. So technically this is an optional aspect of the S&P architecture. You can launch a VM without it. However, if you do supply an ID block, then that is used in both key derivation as well as in attestation. And Projesh is going to talk in a bit more detail about attestation in some ways that it can be used, but I want to give you a high level first. During runtime, one of these VMs can ask for an attestation report. And it does that using those VM PCK keys, those ASGCM keys that we talked about a minute ago. And so it creates a message saying, I want an attestation report and I want this data to be included in it. That encrypted blob then goes through the hypervisor to the security processor, which will turn around and provide a report. That report contains the identity information. So from that ID block, the VM supplied data, some other platform information. And it is all signed with something called a version chip endorsement key, or VCK, which is a chip unique key that is specific to the TCB versions running on that platform. And so that signed report is given back to the guest who can then supply that to anyone it wants. The remote party can verify that report by taking that report combined with a certificate from AMD. So if you go to our website, we have something called a KDS, a key distribution server. And you can supply a specific part number, along with the TCB versions running on that part. And we will give you a certificate, assuming of course it's an authentic part. We'll give you a certificate that is signed by an AMD root key that you can use to verify attestation reports from that box. An important thing is that that certificate is valid for all the attestation reports coming from that box at that version. So this is not something that you need to go and do every single time. It's more of a at the time you provision the platform type thing. And so you use that to verify that the attestation report you get back is legitimate. The data in that attestation report can then be used to securely communicate with the guest. And so one example that's shown here is the guest generates a public private key pair and asks for an attestation report that contains a hash of the public half of that key. And that way when the guest gives that key and the attestation report to a third party, that party can verify the report and it can know that that key is in fact associated with that guest. And so it can then use that to encrypt communication that it knows only that guest will be able to observe. So that's not the only potential way to use attestation but that's one of the key ways that we see. And attestation is a very important part of this architecture because until you do the attestation you really don't have assurances that the guest is running in a secure environment. That it's running at TCB versions that you consider acceptable. So I know that's a very quick sort of whirlwind tour through the basics of S&P, I'm going to hand things over to Brejesh. He is going to talk through a bit of an update on the development status. So. Thank you, David. My name is Brejesh Singh. I've been working on S&P enablement. I'm part of Linux kernel team at AMD. I did the SEV work and the SEV is now on S&P. So I'll just walk through what are the things we have been submitting upstream and get your feedback. So the very first thing which we have been, if you follow the SEV and SEV ES enablement is we have introduced a bunch of iOctals in a KVM driver to create or manage the encrypted virtual machine. So in a SEV case there was these iOctals for SEV initialization, launch start, launch update and all those things. The similar concept is there in S&P. So now KVM will have more support called S&P init which can be used for initializing the context and it can allocate the ACID. Because one of the thing with the encrypted guest is it need to use a particularly specific ACID range. So with the init we allocate that ACID and with the launch start command which David just talked about can be called by VMM with all the parameters given to it and KVM will take those parameter, pass it down to the security processor. And launch update, same. It will take all the parameters given by the QMU or any of the VMM and pass it down to the KVM and KVM pass it further down. While passing these parameters down, KVM also does some pre-processing. For example, if VMM gives guest memory or basically guest BIOS and that BIOS might be put in the virtual RSS space. And KVM will go and find it's corresponding system physical address space and call the PSP firmware commands to encrypt the pages. And then finally it calls this launch finish is there, which can take all these various parameters like ID blocks and all those stuff and pass it down to the KVM. So one of the new thing which as David talked about is in S&P architecture is we allow guest to communicate to the PSP through the guest matches request. So there is one of the things which we have been adding is controlling how many guest request can come from the guest owner. Because it can call this starvation malicious guest can just start issuing all these bunch of the guest request to the PSP and could compromise or create denial of service attack. So with these eye optals, we can limit the number of the request you can receive. And for the QMU support what we have done in the past, there is a new object we added called a CV guest. So basically you take the current QMU command line which you used for launching a virtual machine, you add the CV guest object in the QMU, and it automatically becomes an encrypted guest. For S&P, all you do is you just actually, instead of using a CV guest this time, you use a CV S&P guest. And it converts that as a S&P guest. There are few new eye optals also added for the system wide configuration such as the platform status. So this eye optal actually gives the status information about the firmware. For example, what version of firmware is being used and all those details. So you can find all the parameters or all the output information in the S&P specification. And then some eye optals to get the configuration or set the configuration which is used during the attestation report. So next is the GSCV version. So what are the things if you follow the CV development, right? From a CV ES, the registers are encrypted. In a S&P, registers are also encrypted. So what this basically that means is whenever guest is doing something which causes the world switch, the registers will be encrypted. Guest, a hypervisor will no longer able to access those registers. To help that architecturally, there is a notification which goes from the hardware to the guest telling that there is no automatic exit happening. And then guest can validate what are the registered states it want to expose to the hypervisor and then. So that all this contract is being done through this GSCV called guest voice communication specification. So this specification was developed during the CV ES development. And now we extended it to add few more non automatic exit to support the S&P. So there are a bunch of, you can see many of them, I'll not go through each of them. I'll just go through some important one. So one of the most important one is the page state change. As Zephyr was talking that one of the thing which we need to do is before guest accesses a private page, it need to validate that page. And validation is two step process. First, you transition a page in the RMP table, then you call P validated. So the page state change VMG exit can be used by the guest to ask hypervisor to add a particular page in RMP table as a guest private page. So that's the page state change exit. And also then there is new VMG exit which can be used to query the feature supported by the hypervisor. Because in S&P there are multiple features available. And it's possible that hypervisor may implement certain feature. Other feature may not be yet available. So through hypervisor feature VMG exit, a guest can query what are the capabilities of that hypervisor and then act accordingly. And then another one is the guest message request. So this is the VMG exit which a guest can use to issue a request to the PSP about the attestation report or the key derivations and all those things.  So those are AP create and adorable pages. You can find all these detailed information in the GSC specification. The link is there. So let me go through the page validation because this is one of the very important part in the S&P, right? So page validation, if you look at the specification, then there's this VMG exit called PSP page state change. And the page state change, VMG exit basically takes a structure. And so there is this structure here on the slide. The first thing which a guest does it, issues the VMG exit sign, add this particular GPA as a private GPA in the RMP table. So he issues the request. Request comes to the hypervisor. Hypervisor goes, finds that system physical address for that page, and then uses the RMP update instruction to add that particular page in the RMP table, then resumes the guest. Guest would go and call a P-validate instruction to make that as a final step as a private ownership of the page. So this entire process, when you can actually, through VMG exit, we can batch multiple requests at a time. So you can go up to all the way up to 253 entries. And one of the things in the page state change request is the page size. So guest can actually say that he wants to add this range of the GPA as a two-meg. So you can do two-meg operation. And it is just a hint to the hypervisor that guest wants to add this as a two-meg. Hypervisor may choose to add those pages as a 4K, because if he's not able to back those as two-meg, then he may choose to do as a 4K. So in that case, when the guest will go and try to validate the page as a two-meg, he will get the error. P-validate will give the error something like size mismatch. So there's a hint to the guest that the page size which you requested was not honored by the hypervisor. But then guest can go and use the smaller size, which is 4K, to validate those particular range. And this process will keep on continuing to complete the page validation state. So one thing in the integrity, in the RMP table check, which Davis was talking about, there are two types of RMP fault can happen. One is the RMP fault can occur during the page walk from the host, or RMP fault can or nested page fault can happen when the page walk is happening from the guest side of it. So the first one I want to cover is how we deal with the RMP violation fault if it is coming because host is trying to access a guest private page. All these violations will occur if the host is trying to access a guest page. So that page could be sometime a private page or it could be a guest or it could be a shared page. So the strategy which we have taken is what we do is when the page gets added in the RMP table, we actually un-map that page from a direct map so that Linux kernel should never ever be accessing those pages because if it accesses those pages it's going to see a page fault and there is no way to recover from those page fault. So that's our proactive way of just making sure that page is not present in direct mapping. But the user space can go and try to access that. So when user space accesses a guest memory and we see a host RMP violation then there are two things which we could do. If it is a right access then hyper-project don't have any region to write to the guest private page.  But if it is a read access that's all fine, we'll never see the fault. So another thing what happens is the host backing page support. So there are situations where we will run into is that for example like VMM allocates a backing page as a two-meg backing page. And guest issues a page state transition says this page needs to be added as a two-meg in RMP table and we will go and add the page as a two-meg. But sometime later guest can come and make one of the sub-pages within the two-meg as a shared page. And ask us to access the page, ask Hypervisor to access that page. For example it could be a DMA page in between that. So when Hypervisor goes and attempts to access that page, if Hypervisor mapping is not the same page size as what is added in the RMP then it's going to cause RMP violation. And to solve that problem we split the pages on demand. So when we see the fault, if it is fault is because of the page size mismatch then we go and split those pages. So that's the strategy for the host. So in case of the VM, if VM is trying to access a page and that is causing a page violation then when the RMP check violation happens then we will get this nested page fault with some additional information about what caused those RMP check failure. So there are a few more bits added in the nested page fault. So for example one of the bit is RMP bit which basically tells that this nested page fault happened due to the RMP check failure. And then there is a one bit which actually can tell whether that particular page was getting access as encrypted which is c equal to 1R was getting access as a sale. And if there is some kind of size mismatch for example consider the case where guest is trying to be validate a page as a 4K page but the page was backed as a 2 meg then that's a size mismatch on the Hypervisor side and we get those hints. So whenever we see the nested page fault and the fault was due to RMP check failure then we go and take some corrective action to fix it. And so one of the action which we do is basically call the RMP update or RMP update or p smash and all those other instruction to resolve the fault. So yeah there are multiple ways on how the page validation can be approached or can be done here right. So page as we said page validation is one of the key thing. All the memory pages need to be validated before accessed. So there are two approaches which we can take here. One is be pre-validated the entire memory before it's getting accessed. So in case of in the current implementation what we are doing is we have the guest OVMF bias pre-validating the entire memory before Linux kernel is loaded. So what this was like so in the first one is Hypervisor copies some or put some data or guest bias in the guest memory as a space using the launch update commands. So when launch update command is getting issued it is copying the data in guest memory space and it is also validating those particular pages. So there are few pages which will be pre-validated before virtual machine is being even booted. So when the virtual machine starts booting the OVMF bias takes over and OVMF bias very first thing he does as soon as he knows that how much memory is there on the system he uses the pages to transition request to add all these pages as a private pages and then cause the pre-validate instruction to validate the entire memory. So from there onwards all the pages are pre-validated and guest kernel does not have to worry about validation. But if guest kernel makes a page a shared page then it need to issue the pages to transition to unvalidate or basically change the pages state as a shared in the RMP table. Another approach which we could take is the lazy validation which is we do on demand validation whenever the page gets access that's when you validate it. So in this model what we could do is guest bias will validate only the memory which he needs during his execution then there is in the latest UFI specification a new memory type is added called unaccepted memory type and guest bias can build the unaccepted memory type table and pass it down to the guest OS. Guest OS can pass that table and validate the section which was not previously validated. And yeah and yeah so while doing so he also probably guest OS or even in this particular case guest bias also need to ensure that he's not double validating all those memory. So he need to maintain this information in itself. And also another interesting problem could happen if guest OS is wants to do kexec then if the memory is previously validated by the guest OS then you need to pass that information down to the next kexec kernel so that the new kexec kernel would not go and double validate those memories. So one next thing which we added in our kernel is the VM attestation driver as Davis talked about it right so one of the things which SNP provides is provides a method by which a guest can talk to PSP and to talk to PSP it need to call the VMG exit is specified in the GSCV specification so for that we wrote a driver call SCV guest driver it provides few I octals to the user space and user space can call those I octals to send the request down to the to the PSP so though from user interface point of view is a it's very simple they'll just open open the device driver and issue an I octal to it and kernel driver will go construct the entire packet because when you are sending a request down to the PSP that request need to be encrypted through one of the key provided by the secret and the SCV guest driver will take care of encrypting the packet sending it down to the PSP receiving the packet decrypting it verifying that the message is successfully decrypted and then passed down the report to the user space so it can do the get report or key derivation or there is another one is called get extended report so the idea behind the get extended report is the same as the report but it provides some additional certificate which can be configured a system-wide configuration can be done by the hypervisor and this was done through one of the I octal which I talked about in very start of the presentation at AMD our colleague Jesse and Liam they have been developing an example application is we're calling it a CV guest driver which actually makes use of this attestation driver to query the report and that verify or validate the entire chain so what they have been doing is they are extending multi-pass open to multi-pass package to first create an SNP guest so that's the first change which they are doing so in in in this what they are doing is multi-pass client running on a guest owner side sensor request down to multi-pass demon and multi-pass demon over here creates an SNP guest while they send the request they also give this guest owners public key so during launch of flow one of the thing which you can provide is you can provide user data while creating the launch context so what what what that multi-pass demon does it takes the user provided data the in this particular case guest owners SSH public key and use that while during the context creation and boot the virtual machine and once the virtual machine is booted then use the attestation driver to query the report and when you query the report the report contains measurement and all other additional information it also contains the information which was passed during this host or user data during the long text launch context creation they take that data and give it back to the to the multi-pass client which goes and verify verifies the entire certificate chain and once the entire chain has been verified they verify the measurement and have stuck and make sure that it is actually a guest it is actually the guest which they wanted to launch and while doing so they also add this in the SSH SSH known host so that now guest owner can easily connect to the connect to the client or in this particular case to be so just to summarize everything for a CV and a CV ES so a CV support landed in the kernel 4.15 the host that's where the guest support went hypervisor support went in 4.16 kernel and a QMU 2.12 that's where the a CV support landed and Libworld 4.5 and from a distribution distro point of view I think from Ubuntu 18.04 has the a CV guest support and then later version of Ubuntu or Fedora have support for a CV hypervisor all the rel have a good support for the this and the CV ES is recently landed and one thing which we are right now working on is the live migration support for a CV and a CV ES so let me quickly go to the CVS NP for a CVS NP I've been submitting the patches for almost four to five month we have been getting very very good feedback from the community and so far we have reached to the version 5 we are feeling very pretty confident that things are going in right direction and for guest OS for guest BIOS we have been contributing to the OVMF and this slide says it's version 6 but actually recently I just submitted version 8 so we are we are getting pretty close over there I think guest BIOS patches are in very very decent shape what we have because SNP is very complicated feature right so what we are doing is we are doing base enablement first and then we will keep on adding the support as we progress so what we have support for right now is the guest driver which you can use to carry the attestation and then a thing which David talked about the CPU ID so the guest guest kernel as well as the guest BIOS they use the CPU ID page to get the CPU ID values instead of going to the hypervisor and in the current support we go with the pre-validation approach where OVMF validates the entire entire guest memory and it supports the multiple vCPUs yeah so where we will be focusing after the base enablement is the restricted interrupt injection so one of the things which SNP provides optional feature is provides is to partially disable the interrupt induction interface from the hypervisor and it then hypervisor can use this newly defined exception vector called pound HV to send an event or interrupt to the guest and then the VMCV specification has good information about how all those things can be achieved and then we will be also working on lazy validation stuff where we can speed up the boot time then we'll work on live migration support and another thing I'll just touch this real quick is the vTPM support so one of the things in the SNP architecture provides is the VMPL virtual machine privilege level so here idea is that you can divide the guest addresses space into multiple privilege levels so what we can do is for virtual TPM one thing which we could do is we could take and run a code in the VMPL 0 a separate code in the VMPL 0 which which is called SVSM so this is the specification proposed by Microsoft they have proposed a specification call SVSM where they are defining what are the things can be SVSM can provide a bunch of services and they are defining what are the services SVSM can provide and in this model is pretty as what because when you when you divide the virtual when you divide that is a space then then you need to there are certain instruction which lower VMPL cannot do for example P validate lower VMPL cannot do that for that it has to go to the VMPL 0 and when it goes to VMPL 0 that's the specification will give I think I'm running out of time so just for just to conclude everything the SNP support all the patches are available in the github you can download it from there and the fullest and and this will if you have epic processor 3rd generation then this all should both work there and yeah and please give us a feedback the feedbacks and stuff on the mailing list thank you


I just see a motivated group you know to be better than last year you know that was kind of the main thing in the offseason you know just trying to push out the bad you know technique stuff that we had last year you know and I'm seeing that improvement that we've enforced over camp in the preseason game so I mean I see definitely improvement. I think I've done good you know just focusing on a little thing each day every day still much more room for improvement don't think I'm near my best so you know it's just taking those liberty things that I find myself working on practice every day.  Definitely I would definitely say that's probably the main thing as far as being consistent you know just staying on the field and you know just proud of myself you know I made that a real emphasis for me you know taking care of my body early in training camp mid and towards the end of training camp and you know I just want to keep that going towards the start of the regular season. It does a lot you know once you see somebody else make a play you know you even motivated more to make a play so it's good to see everybody making plays also it's just the competitive nature of the group that we have this year you know a lot of guys you know Kim ball you know and I fight for a spot so you know it's it's just us competing against each other you know putting stuff online you know just trying to make sure you know we make plays for the defense and the team.


Hey, this is Dr. Ruscio, let's talk about dietary fiber. Now, if you've been keeping your ear to the ground in healthcare, especially digestive health, you've likely heard that fiber is very important for your gut health. And that statement is probably a bit of an over extrapolation from what the research shows, but fiber can be helpful. However, many things, especially as they pertain to gut health are very individual, meaning a given recommendation will work for some and it may actually be detrimental or at least not work for others. And so it's very important to have an understanding of these simple nuances so you can look at a recommendation and say, okay, here is how I can figure out if I should or should not do this. So dietary fiber, the background has been fairly well documented to be able to improve constipation. So in those who are constipated, increasing or supplementing with dietary fiber has fairly compelling evidence showing the ability to reduce constipation. However, this is not an absolute. And one of the things that you see with a higher fiber intake can actually be a provocation of some of the symptoms associated with irritable bowel syndrome, increased bloating, increased gas, increased abdominal ascension or abdominal pain and looser stools in some cases. And as the study I'm about to share with you documents, in some cases, ironically, fiber can actually make constipation worse. So again, while the general or broad body of literature seems to suggest that increasing one's fiber intake can help with constipation, there's some evidence showing that it may actually make constipation worse. So let's cover this study and then wrap up with how you can navigate this nuance. The title of the study, I'll put the abstract up here on the screen, stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms. So the setup of the study continuing here, a few quotes, 63 cases of idiopathic constipation. This means constipation that didn't have any other cause. One of the main, I guess you could say causes or subtypes of constipation is IBS constipation. So this is when you have constipation associated with altered bowel function, which can be constipation and or diarrhea and also abdominal pain. And sometimes bloating. So when you see this constellation of abdominal symptoms along with constipation, the cause of the constipation might be the IBS, the irritable bowel. However, you have another subset who just has constipation and that's what this study was looking at. But these results I think apply to either subgroup. So they looked at a six month intervention where patients either went on a essentially a no, meaning a very low fiber diet, a reduced fiber diet or kept their fiber consumption the same. And what they found to quote here, patients who stopped or reduced dietary fiber had significant improvements in their symptoms while those who continued on a high fiber diet had no change. And continuing at six months, 41 patients of this 63 remained on a no fiber diet. So obviously it's working for the majority and 16 patients on a reduced fiber diet and six resumed their high fiber diet for religious or personal reasons. So in conclusion, idiopathic constipation, that means constipation that has no known cause and it's associated symptoms can be effectively reduced by stopping or even lowering the intake of dietary fiber. So what does this mean? Well, fiber and gut health is really a double-edged sword. Now, I think there has been a misinterpretation of data or the misreading of the science and led to an erroneous extrapolation from that data to make many health gurus and doctors and clinicians conclude that we all need a high fiber diet in order to be healthy. That does not seem to be true. And this study helps document that. Fiber can be helpful for some, but it can also be detrimental for other. And it's important that we don't fall into this absolutist type of thinking that it's either all good or all bad. Now, what do you do about that? Well, in healthy gut, healthy you, I lay out some simple steps that you can take to determine what your fiber intake should be. It's actually not that challenging, but you need a roadmap to walk you through the appropriate sequence of steps to determine this. And I also, in healthy gut, healthy you detail the literature on fiber as it pertains to overall health, risk of colon cancer, cardiovascular disease, other cardiovascular incidences, diabetes, obesity, and so on. And what the data clearly shows is there's no consistent benefit from fiber. Some studies show benefit, but an equivalent number of studies really show no improvement at all. So we really shouldn't be saying that you need a higher fiber diet for your gut health. And this is actually a common problem. I just got off the phone yesterday with a friend of mine who is a very well-known doctor in a health space who was a real health enthusiast. And after we had a discussion months ago, he kind of revised his diet and he said, boy, this is the first time I haven't had these loose stools that haven't plagued me for a while after cutting back on my dietary fiber intake slightly. So it's important that we don't, again, fall into this thinking that fiber's always good and you need a high fiber diet or fiber's always bad. But rather, there's a simple sequence of steps you can take to determine what you should be aiming for in terms of your fiber intake. It's actually quite simple. You start on a lower fiber diet and then slowly tighten it up to find where you feel best. Now, if you have other symptoms and imbalances in the gut, that can murky the process a little bit and that's where I'll refer you to the map or the great innate plan that's contained in my book, Healthy Gut Health to You. But the take home here is that fiber in your gut health is not a one-size-fits-all recommendation. Some do better on higher, some do better on lower. So make sure to do some experimentation and listen to your body and take your body signals as the barometer for if you're doing the right thing or if you're doing the wrong thing. So this is Dr. Ruscio and I hope this information helps you get healthy and get back to your life. Thanks.


Good morning, everyone. This is the Senate Health and Welfare Committee meeting, and it is February 16th. And we're joined today in committee by Senator McCormick, who's going to give us his introduction to S74. So Senator, thank you for being here today and we appreciate that. We did have a run through of the bill. Just briefly last week, but we felt it really important that you as lead sponsor be here to give us the reasons for for the bill introduction so. Thank you, Madam President, I have submitted. I just got promoted, but I'll tell you. Madam Chair, I have submitted written testimony, but I'll, I think I'll speak more front spontaneously. First, it's good to be back in the committee I served on this committee for many years with Senator Cummings and with the chair. At that time, the chairmanship of Senator Claire air, who is successor from Madison County is now on the committee so there's certain continuity here. I have been out of the Senate for several years as a private citizen before coming back and serving on this committee. And during that time I also much of the work that did was as a private in the private sector as an organizer on the same issue of patient choice at the end of life. And I think the best work we did during my time on this committee was getting that bill, the patient choice bill passed. We, we modeled the bill, which is now the law on what was already an existing law in the state of Oregon. And the reason for that is that at the time that Vermont was considering this policy. It had already been the policy in Oregon for several years, and had worked well. So much of the opposition, some of the opposition was purely feel philosophical that the argument was that this is a choice for God, not for the patient and so on. And those kinds of philosophical decisions devolved to the question really, what is the proper role of the state we have never made a judgment on whether it is moral or proper or good in the eyes of God to hasten death but rather the matter for us was what is the proper role of government in the matter. And if there is a the will of God is a question well then it's up to the individual patient and his or her beliefs. Yeah, I voted against the bill and you are not characterizing my opposition correctly that was the total just to be clear there were other reasons to oppose the bill. Yeah, that was one of them but there were others. That's that's where I was going, actually. I said that the, the philosophical reasons. Ultimately, we had to the state made a choice, but the other widespread opposition, most of the opposition. This is not to accommodate my friend senator coming this is in fact where I was, what is in my written testimony as well. The, the opposition was conjectural because we were going into something new, and just as the benefits were somewhat unethical, so too were the, the opposition. What if, what if there are greedy grandchildren, hastening grandma's death so they can inherit. What if the patient is super annuated and not really totally in possession of his or her faculties. What if the prospect of imminent death is so depressing that the patient really isn't thinking clearly. What if the press patient is being pressured, and those what ifs were conjectural but perhaps worthy of being taken seriously. Similarly, any benefits were were conjectural, at least at the time that Oregon was considering their bill when they first passed it, because it was a. It was uncharted territory. And so they did not powerfully resist the what ifs, they responded to the what ifs with safeguards. And a major characteristic of the Oregon law was that it not only provided a dying patient with the option of hastening death under that that is her choice. They provided a body of safeguards various steps that had to be taken before that could happen. And those steps were all designed around the, the perceived problems. The same conjectures were raised in the Vermont debate. And the response of those was advancing the bill was to allude to those safeguards. And so several years down the road, and the, the law, both in Oregon, and in Vermont and now in several other states as well has been that the law has worked well, that the perceived problems have not presented themselves, and largely because of those safeguards, or at least the safeguards, as the term safeguard implies, guarantee that they that the feared problems not present themselves. What this bill does is it responds to the experience of the several years that this has been the law to identify some details of mechanizing the safeguards that do not have been shown to not be necessary, and in fact have been shown to make it more more difficult to for a patient to fully access the benefits offered by the law. Would you like me to go through the bill or I see that that Jen is here was drafted it. I suppose the other one. If you want to have, I will get I will get into the details if you if the chair prefers. I think, rather than get into the specific details. If you could give us kind of the thumbnail sketch of what the bill does I know there are about three very important changes made to the process.  Section one removes the requirement their request for a prescription be made in person, allowing for requests to be made via telemedicine when appropriate. This requirement upon a telemedicine was not even on the table when we passed this. I guess it was talked about in theory but it was not in legislation was not in law. The this requirement and this requirement has been burdensome to very sick people for whom it's difficult to go physically to a doctor's office by removing the requirement that the patient's oral requests be made are made, quote, in the physical presence quote of the doctor, the law would align with the practice allowing tell telemedicine when appropriate. Currently, Vermont is the only state in which physical visits are required for aid and dying. In all other areas of medical practice Vermont law allows the use of telemedicine based on Medicaid, based on medical judgment and standards of appropriate practice. The bill also removes the requirement that the prescribing doctor and herself do a physical exam when the doctor is able to make the necessary and required determinations through telemedicine and clinical review. Telemedicine was only a theory of I'm reading my prepared remarks I'd already written it. Section and also section two clarifies liability protections, but section one also makes a slight adjustment in the act 39 time timeline, the proposed amendment keeps the mandate of 15 day waiting period, but removes an unnecessary and burdensome 48 hour delay period after the second oral request. The last step in the process before prescription can be written. The additional period creates an added burden for those individuals who have already invested a significant amount of energy in the process. This is a very difficult time. The total of the 15 days and the 48 hours makes Vermont's aid act 39 timeline, one of the longest among the 10 jurisdictions that have made that have these laws, the amendment would delete the 48 hour delay. It clarifies that acting in accordance with the law would protect all parties involved in its use from claims of liability. Current law explicitly provides immunity only for doctors involved in the process. The Attorney General's office has to find that immunity for other providers involved in act 39 and specifically pharmacist is implied in the law. However, some pharmacists in Vermont are not satisfied with implicit immunity and have required doctors to sign onerous indemnification agreements prior to filling prescriptions for their patients. Other state laws immunity and have required doctors to sign onerous indemnification agreements prior to filling prescriptions for their patients. Other state laws. I'm sorry I'm getting lost in my text. Other state laws covering these laws provide immunity for all persons who comply in good faith with the with the law. This amendment makes what is implicit explicit. So that's, that's the middle. Just so what I'm hearing you say is that the provisions the proposed changes in the bill helped to bring Vermont law more in line with other what other states are currently doing. Would that be an appropriate characterization. In line with what other states are doing also somewhat updating telemedicine as I say was something talked about in the halls but it was not in law was not in legislation. We did that a lot of telemedicine just very recently and and to make to remove unnecessary impediments to the patients. Okay. Thank you. So questions for Senator McCormick. Senator Hooker. No, okay. I do. Yeah, I do. I'm trying to use my iPad for the first time. So this will be patient. Don't worry. Thank you. Thank you. So, Senator McCormick, when you talk about telemedicine, obviously you're talking about video. We're not talking audio. Audio only, which is another topic that we're covering. I don't know if the bill explicitly says about but that's certainly my understanding.  But it's also, but it also can involve just looking at the medical record as well. I mean that's that's looking at at what what has already been researched what are test results. And I guess I'd be a little concerned if audio only were include looking at getting a sense of what Senator Cummings perhaps was opposed to in the initial bill, the types of things that could happen. So, and at some point I'd like to hear from Senator Cummings about what your concerns were when the bill was first brought up. I don't want us to be very cautionary about going back to the underlying bill. If the concerns relate to the current proposed changes then that's one thing, but I don't want to resurrect the concerns that were in place that for the for the underlying for the underlying bill right now. I think your issue around audio only versus audio visual is a very good issue for us to bring up as we look at the bill. I just want to caution us that this is not about, you know, removing the underlying. Yeah, so that that might be a good conversation offline with Senator Cummings but and I'm sorry to interrupt that thought but I do think we need to stay focused on what the bill 174 does and what it does not do so. Thank you. All right. Other questions for Senator McCormick. Senator Hardy. Thank you. Senator McCormick I'm just wondering if you have heard from people for whom these have been barriers, these various waiting periods or access issues, or you're just making the assumption that they are barriers. No, I, when we passed the patient choice law, the people the private citizens who had been organized in support of that policy formed an organization which is end of life choices, and in Vermont, and they monitor the conduct of the law and the experience of people using the law and they actually had had raised the issue with me. So I would expect that the committee would hear from them at some point. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Exactly that this is the beginning of our testimony but we will have those folks in and others who have an interest in the bill itself. Any other questions for Senator McCormick? Wow. Before I leave. See you did a great job, Senator. Thank you. Thank you. As a point of personal privilege, since I'm here before I leave, I would like to say I am well now one hour into the effort to get my COVID vaccine appointment and health and welfare committee might want to lean on the health department a little bit to get a more workable system. Well, you'll have a chance tomorrow to ask that question of the commissioner. I'm not sure that we can dive into all the software issues that exist out there if we did we'd be here all day but your point is very well taken there are a lot of people who've had difficulty. Senator Taranzini. Thanks, Senator Lines I was just going to mention since you mentioned it Senator McCormick. Senator Brock in our Republican caucus this morning was very frustrated as well he had been almost an hour trying to get through as well so it's certainly felt in all areas of the state it seems so. Thank you for that. I don't feel so bad. No, don't. That actually, when you think about it, it could be the good news with the bad news the good news being that people are so interested in making appointments that there's a backlog so but we don't want to go there yet we want to make sure that the system is totally functional. In defense I set up my thing yesterday and I got right in today. But I had trouble getting Regis registered in in and he called. And they had him booked in five minutes. Tell us how good. I called and they told me to go to the to the website. They did the first time he called they were not taking calls because they were inundated. I think it's variable today is the first day it's been open for 70 plus and so the first day is always hard. And, you know, Senator Taranzini mentioned Senator Brock he said in our committee and finance that when he went to get a shot. Everything was really smooth. It went really great so it's obviously a mixed situation right now some people it's smooth and some people are having a harder time. Regis is just getting his first shot as we speak. Well, so he was further booked out because he was later getting in. I have one for next Tuesday. All right. Madam chair, I apologize for getting this started. No, I'm trying to get Regis registered it. And even me, it would not take a password that met all their qualifications. It took me a while to find a password. Put a lot of symbols in it swear. That was the only way I got through one symbol did not do it, along with one number. All right, well. Thank you, Madam chair thank you committee. Thank you. Okay, take care. So, Jen, I think, Jen Carby, are you there. There you are. So I think we have been through as 74 but what would be helpful I think just for a few minutes. And then come as then we want to move on to the flexibility bill to identify for us in the sections of the bill where the proposed changes are and remind us of exactly what they do so we could pull that bill up together and and look at the end of the I think the outstanding question is on telemedicine is it audio only is audio only allowed or not so that's an important question. Sure. Jennifer Carby legislative council so do you want me to put the bill up on the screen. Yeah, I think that's helpful. Okay. Great. All right, so you should be able to see it now. We'll go to the very beginning so this is as 74. And we'll go past the statement of purpose for now because we're really looking at the language. As Senator McCormick had said this gets rid of the requirements that these oral requests to the physician be made in the physicians physical presence so it does not speak to what alternative modalities may be used if physical presence is not required it doesn't speak to either telemedicine or audio only telephone or something else. It does have to be oral so it would have to be something that the physician could hear but it doesn't specify. And just one small clarification.  The legislation had been discussed in a number of previous bienniums, but actually in that when it ultimately passed it was the year following the first year of the telemedicine legislation being enacted so they did coexist but I don't think it was nearly telemedicine was not nearly as prevalent as it has been and certainly since the pandemic. So if you are interested in, in looking at removing the physical presence requirement you may want to think about whether there are certain parameters that you would want to allow, like audio and video together, or if you want to, if you want to be less involved in that I mean again, look thinking about the audio only language there's a lot of emphasis on what's clinically appropriate so it would have to be clinically appropriate to be doing this part of the process by audio only telephone if that was the choice that the provider had made. So that may weigh into your calculations as well. So that's the first piece is taking out the physical presence requirement for the oral requests for medication. And then, going along with that, the physician's determination that the patient was suffering a terminal condition, taking out the requirement that that be based on the physician's physical examination of the patient so it's still based on some sort of examination of the patient and a review of the patient's relevant medical records, but it doesn't have to be a personal physical examination. Well, but it does imply some kind of visual. I don't know how you have a, have an examination we'll have to hear from the, from folks about this. Right, I think it would be important to hear from the medical community, what they would determine to be the appropriate standard of care for an examination of the patient, if it is not a physical examination. And then we have the, that waiting period that Senator McCormick spoke about this is that provision saying that the physician has to wait at least 48 hours after the last to occur of several events. That includes the 15 day waiting period between the two requests but taking out that 48 hour requirement after the last of those to occur before the physician writes the prescription. And then lastly we have the section to more general immunity, not specific to physicians as is what's specific explicit in the bill. He was talking about making the implicit explicit this is that language saying that no one would be subject to civil or criminal liability, or professional disciplinary action for acting in good faith compliance with the provisions of the chapter. I have a question here. Is this, is this something that the judiciary committee in any way should look at as as we're going through the bill. I think they had looked when when the original law had passed I think they had looked a fair amount at the immunity language so it might be right now I will leave that up to you either officially or unofficially to consult with the chair there and find out if that's something you would want to look at. We'll do that. Madam chair. Yes ma'am. May I ask a question of Jen.  So you mentioned the provision that's actually in our audio only bill and I don't want to conflate the two too much but it's kind of relevant to both about the the clinically appropriate. And I think that makes a lot of sense to have here as well my own personal opinion but I'm wondering in both instances, is it the physician who determines what's clinically appropriate how who who get who makes that call. Yeah I think it's a good question I think in the, in the immediate timing it would be up to the physician to you know in that in the moment to make the determination about what's clinically appropriate but I think that can play out in in further role of ways if there was a malpractice claim brought there probably be looking at whether it was clinically appropriate and what the you know what the appropriate standard of care is within the medical community for whether it was appropriate to deliver care in that way, and then also for insurance or Medicaid reimbursement. They could, they could potentially decline to pay for something if they did not deem it to be clinically appropriate and that's why there's in the audio only language some requirements for documenting the physician to their provider to document the reason that they thought it was clinically, that they determined it was clinically appropriate to deliver the services using audio only telephone so that there would be that information immediately available if there was an audit or, or other exchange with the payers. And speaking of payers are the services provided under Act 39 these end of life services are those covered by insurance or, or not believe they are specifically required to be. I don't think there was a I'm just skimming through here. I don't think there is a requirement for them to be covered so it may. It may depend. And it may be that some of this conversation happens as part of it or these various conversations happen as part of medical appointment that would be covered. The processes may be sort of inherently covered in that sense, but I don't know for example if the prescription medication that would be provided to hasten death is on a form, you know on the insurers prescription drug formulary such that the regular cost sharing would apply or not that would be something you might want to hear from providers about or from pay the payers about. What they are specific rules regarding hospice care within Medicare that are different. This is not hospice. No, but if if the individual were in hospice that would be different so anyway, or if they were in a I'm thinking of a nursing home or other location. Okay, go ahead Jen. I don't have anything else. That's it. We've got it all. Okay, so we do have, we do have some questions I will I'll circle back with Senate judiciary about the liability language to so that they can review that on our behalf. And we'll want to hear from end of life choices and others about the specific requests that are in the bill specific changes that are in the bill. And we'll get that on the agenda sometime fairly soon. Any questions other questions committee members. All right. I guess I need a clarification as to what's clinically appropriate. You know, how is that defined and is I'd like to have some discussion about that perhaps with some of the providers or whatever. We can we can try to do that you know this is the clinically appropriate definition is one that gets it becomes somewhat controversial. So we'll, we'll try to at least address it a little bit but I don't know that we're going to resolve that one in our committee we can try and certainly understand the differences of opinion around it. So we can consider it, but good point, Senator. All right. Any other questions. I've written that one down. Thank you.


If you follow my channel, you know that I recently, four months ago, switched to GNOME to try it out and I've done a couple of videos about it and giving like my thoughts and impressions. Now I'm switching back to KD Plasma and not because I dislike GNOME but you know KD Plasma is what I is what I work on most of the time and I actually really like it so it was necessary after a bit to come back but a good question would be why now exactly and the answer to that is 5.25 because when I first started using GNOME I was actually blown away by some features that it had like that overview was really good the overview effect which is is it called overviewing GNOME right yeah when you press the metakey and also gestures were super amazing so my first thought was like okay I'm gonna stay here for quite some time because it's really good but KD Plasma just improved a lot in this month so maybe I should do that more often but I mean seriously now KD Plasma has one-to-one touch but gestures that are really good the Wayland KD Plasma session is so stable I have had zero issues with it whatsoever and it has a new overview effect that's like pretty cool to say the least so I'm actually really happy really really happy with what KD Plasma is doing and when I switch back to KD Plasma nowadays to do a development because I've always used GNOME daily and then switch to KD Plasma for actual development I'm I feel just more at home and I feel I don't have the feeling anymore that KD Plasma is lagging behind compared to GNOME in certain aspects like beauty and gestures and the overview now KD Plasma is really pretty I'm also really proud to have implemented the floating panel which makes me happy it has a lot of blur and everything because I contributed to that as well and the new gestures are amazing so 5.25 just convinced me instantly to go back so yeah the second question is well what do you think of the experience with GNOME and that is it has been really nice actually I'm leaving behind GNOME but not in a bad way at all I actually really liked the extensions concept there's a however I really like them because they actually worked very nicely out of the box and they allowed me to customize much more than I thought at the same time GNOME does have some issues with like compatibility bringing extensions from all the versions to the newer ones I was lucky enough to not have any issues switching from 40 to 42 but maybe if you stay GNOME for a longer period of time switching between periods might be switching between versions sorry might be a bigger issue I've also had some bugs which I think were caused by some extensions and they shouldn't have as an example it literally often happened to me that the top bar was completely going inactive and responsive that was weird it didn't annoy me that much but still so extensions cool concept there are some dubs in my opinion in the actual implementation still there's also everything about theming I just love Kiri Plasma theming so that's where my heart is GNOME does have some theming to some extent but with the whole don't theme my up thingy I don't fully agree with that personally but overall nothing of this is GNOME's fault really maybe some bugs but for the bigger things it's just that me personally I'm better fit for Kiri Plasma than GNOME on the long term so I'm back and actually I do have a question for y'all which is I've used Ubuntu for the last four months because that's what came out of the box on this machine with GNOME installed by the way this was a linux laptop Adele and now that I'm switching back to Kiri Plasma I'm actually wondering how to do that I do have a couple of options the first option is to keep my computer as is currently which is having GNOME provided by the distribution normally and then also having Kiri Plasma which is not actually provided by the distribution I didn't install it it's actually built directly from source which is super useful because you know actually developing stuff is easier if you have everything built from source and always updated to master it also means that it's super unstable I can deal with that but it might be nicer to have a stable and an unstable Kiri Plasma versions and I'm not sure if the Kiri Plasma provided by Ubuntu is the best way to approach this maybe it is have you ever tried installing Ubuntu with GNOME out of the box and then later on installing Kiri Plasma did it work well I don't know the other option obviously is just do a backup and kill off this operating system and switch to something else which might be Kubuntu which might be Kedinion which might be Fedora which might probably not be Manjaro but I actually like how my files are okay I don't have another drive to backup currently so every time I have to switch to something else it's kind of pain also all of the configuration files I just don't want to switch to something else if I could so I don't know what would you suggest like should I try to use Ubuntu as it is now maybe sometimes if I want to try something I'll switch back to GNOME since I mean it's there I would prefer not to try to uninstall GNOME from Ubuntu GNOME in the past that killed my operating system in the past I'm having very bad flashbacks will I do this again yes actually I will do this again as soon as my startup light which was donated to me and that's amazing arise then I will try out and let me try your OS as my main OS for a bit I don't know how much one month two four eight twelve sixteen I don't know and so the next one that I'm trying out is Elementor OS just to you know keep in touch if you do have some desktops to suggest suggest them but I think that GNOME Elementor OS and KD Plasma are like the main competitors GNOME and KD Plasma mainly but Elementor OS is really good too and I never actually used Elementor OS as much as should have like I had used GNOME before Elementor OS not quite I just tried it for a couple of hours which is not enough so I'm really looking forward to actually trying Elementor OS and seeing if it fits me probably not better than KD Plasma but that's not the point by the way I'm so sorry that you're just staring at a blank desktop however this is just me sharing what my current plans are and there was nothing to actually illustrate them so forget about the desktop and focus on me and that was actually everything so thank you for watching if you have any suggestion comment them I will go through all of the comments and see you tomorrow with a new video