All right good morning cyber traders. Welcome Tuesday. Hopefully everybody's excited. We are getting the blitz the blitz I call this the blitz. You know what the blitz is look at this stock I mean everybody was in the in the pre-market should have did Phenomenal with the stock and pre-market this one just came out of nowhere. This is the 830 blitz Okay, and we all found it if you hear any 30 cyber group traders You're in there, you know if you're watching on social media You just got to click on that little QR code on top left-hand corner and get in there, but a ISP This thing just ran from a dollar seventy up to three forty even if you showed up Fifteen minutes late. Okay, and you showed up at eight forty five you and you chased it at Two dollars and fifty cents it ran to three thirty if you got out now you did phenomenal I know a lot of traders did really well in this in the pre-market This is what we wake up in the morning We haven't had a stock this simple this easy and I hate to use the word easy You know what the hardest part about the word easy is hitting that button It's taking that mouse planning just clicking that little button right there. That was the hardest part, but Great run up. I mean like it has everything that we were looking for good spread good tier sizes good volume Everything good iceberg orders You know, I'm gonna check that stock out include a few others that are out there But before we do that like as usual, let's go talk about what happened yesterday Let's talk about what's coming up in the market and what we're gonna look and see if you'll find more stocks like a ISP this morning now regarding about the big news yesterday If everyone was watching me on Nasdaq, okay I was on the Nasdaq show last week what I was talking about was Bitcoin Bitcoin Bitcoin Bitcoin We were all over it Bitcoin was literally less than 500 to a thousand dollars away from an all-time hide now You know, we're not big fans of you know, we don't pay trade Bitcoin really here But we do trade certain stocks that do really well with Bitcoin. Okay, and And there was some it was kind of weird because some of the stocks that the miners didn't really move up as much Other than one stock and one stock only and that was coin coin is basically It was probably the best mover coin actually went up more than Bitcoin percentage wise. This is at 120 right at 233 That's almost a double. That's like Bitcoin going for like, I don't know when we sort around that time It was like 42,000 that's like Bitcoin going to 80 90,000 But coin is really benefiting from it One of the stocks are on our swing trade did really well on it And it's just and believe me you if you think you're chasing Bitcoin. Listen, we have to go back into 2021 to find any resistance levels and you know Bitcoin obviously has that I mean Coinbase has that low resistance right there Coinbase is going back on the swing trade. You know now we're breaking highs and you know, obviously coin it has a lot to do with this going with with with Bitcoin, but You know the stocks did not do too well the miners didn't do too well married and do too well CLSK did not do too well They did run up recently right here from 750 to 22 But they didn't do too well, but we are going to keep an eye on some of those stocks out there and also Everyone thinks they're getting missed the run-up in Bitcoin. Maybe some of you want to trade it. I know it's very expensive I don't know. There's some talk that people are going to start Maybe this is going to trickle down to other coins that are out there that might pick up But I would be very very careful on those There's a lot more speculative than Bitcoin because the difference is you can you can mine more of the other stocks Like Ethereum and other other ones out there asana all of them, but you might not do it You know, you can't do it on Bitcoin. That's one of the reasons I mean there's some rumors going on now people already predicting I was saying a hundred thousand now people already had a quarter million already talking about so And also it's doing pretty well as Gold gold obviously has finally broke out of that major resistance of 2000. I think last time I check all who's that We put a ticker to come across think it was right around. Oh, there it is. Yeah, we're doing pretty good on gold We're already at twenty one two thousand one hundred and thirty three. We're about seven dollars So a lot of those are currencies obviously doing pretty well But you know, that's not our big thing that we teach here The big thing that we focus on mainly is certain stocks So let's talk about some of the stocks that we also did trade besides some of the mining stocks You could assure it, but there was a couple other ones that did really well. I want to bring up some of them right now ocean Was a really really nice stock yesterday. You could see it right here very inexpensive stock This one literally went from like 50 cents. It's already at 450 And no, it's not a penny stock. Okay. There's a Nasdaq national We had iceberg orders and everything else, but the stock did a great job But from literally from 230 up to 350 all the way in the afternoons literally about a hundred percent Really really nice move yesterday on ocean BB AI the AI stock is this has been doing fabulous This one's at two dollars already at five dollars.  You could make a lot more money You could borrow a lot more shares at BB AI, you know, then, you know trading coin if you can't afford it afford it But this stock obviously doing really well I still like this stock a little bit because it's kind of it's doing what we call channeling The longer it channels the better it is So I'm putting the BB AI back on the watch list BB AI It's because now I'm thinking it's gonna probably be a little bit more of a swing trade But remember back last year this stock went from two dollars up to six and it came crashing down Not really a fan of that and that was pretty much around the same time about a month prior Then what is trading right now in March? I did that back in February. It looks like it's doing the same kind of trading pattern You know those couple stocks that you some of you missed yesterday, which I thought was absolutely fabulous Phantom that was probably the best trade of yesterday now remember If you are a fan of President Trump your anti-president Trump as traders if you are anti anything Trading is not for you.  Yeah, go short and look what happened you if you watch the videos that I've done in The past that stock was at $20. We don't run to 500. How's that working out for you? But this stock right there this one right here the reason why this one went up so much because maybe some of you would wish that Oh, I can't believe the Supreme Court just ruled nine zero, you know to allow them to be on the ballot You know now that's not your decision Okay, the decision is you could have made money trading pH UN which has a lot to do it which is trading with DWAC and sure enough That was absolutely a phenomenal phenomenal run-up this thing when that news came out And it was pretty much around 10 o'clock right around here You could see it boomer ran from $11 all the way a whopping $16. It was a phenomenal trade It was a great trade and you know what it's holding there steady that is gonna go back on the watch list also and it could be more More of a maybe a swing trade now remember they did a I think it was a 50 to 1 reverse stock split on the stock right here So that's the reason why It's up a little bit if you remember on site about two years ago That was when DWAC actually came out that this was a Subsidy stock of it. Anyway, let's go through the watch list and see what's going on. It's has some fun, right? So let me let me go back and change these this to a book viewer view and Now by the way, I don't know if you guys have sort. I've been posting some new videos Regarding, you know, um book viewer Hopefully everybody here is subscribed to our YouTube channel I know that some of you here are watching live on social media But make sure you subscribe to our YouTube channel our Instagram our our X our TikTok please watch those videos because I'm starting to pump them out to kind of educate you a little bit more how to use it You know, it's an important tool, but let's go over the stock that we're looking at let's start off with this AISP So AISP had some pretty decent iceberg orders There was a big seller around three dollars. He got filled it came right back down And if you look around here, it looks like it's hovering right around that price right now. So AISP is going back on the watch list You could see I have plenty of time to get out before we got started But I see there's a 10,000 shares sell a buyer down here I see another 10,000 shares seller out here another 10,000 will be here at 325 So we got some really really good good iceberg orders on that stock this one a little bit expensive I like the tier size.  That's already in a watch list Dave I don't know what's up with this stock. This stock has been on a really really good swing trade I mean really awesome problem Don't like the actual movement of the stock very very shallow KS we saw this one as a pharmaceutical stock this one did pretty well But I don't like it because it pop at seven o'clock this morning went to eight dollars came back down to six That right away tells me it's a very very ugly stock very volatile LVTX this one doesn't look so bad good volume. Let's look it up on level four A VTX All right, so you got a 12,000 shares seller right here looks like you got a couple of decent iceberg orders It is channeling right now since eight o'clock. This one is not terrible LVTX know the nice little pharmaceutical stock and What else we got here? We're at 10% so that was scratch Wow, that's not a really good sign. Well, we're at 10% and we already had the 11th biggest percentage gainer in the market Losers pharmaceutical stock this one's getting crushed. We know they don't come back So don't think you're gonna get a bottom fish on that one. This one's a little too expensive Foo-foo. That's what we saw yesterday. Remember that was a pretty good mover that stock got halted so many times Obviously being on the big percentage gainers they show up on a big percentage losers Our in XL can pretty much done there pay Let's go in New York stock exchange Not really that good right there FMS Targets moving Tarje Wow Tarje what a big comeback look at that that stock got destroyed back in the holiday season Was our intent $110 came only at 160 wow Tarje obviously it must have been earnings announcements It looks like that earnings, but that stock has done great. What else we got in New York Usually don't get really good pre markets in New York any good losers Nothing really there Most active Yeah, this starts to look like it's on the downtrend now So we want to be careful this one right here Tesla obviously I was another thing to yesterday a lot of the EV stocks got crushed Not really looking too good and you know what was crazy apples getting a little beat up to APL Apple's just getting really hammered here Apple looks like it's getting close to a really really good buy right here on a buck 70 I know that you talked about that lawsuit the two billion dollar lawsuit that happened in in EU and I mean look but I was that's like two billion what those two billion for Apple to trillion dollar company, okay? It's a it's a thousand billions Okay, so what is it a what a half of a quarter a quarter of a quarter of one of their quarter earnings But but it is coming to some good support levels. I'll keep an eye on that apple trade on a swing trade I'm throwing Apple on that watch list right there APL. All right, so a couple of things couple announcements We got to get ready for class. So I got phase three today So if you're a student, we just posted a link up there If you're a student CTO or you're not you want to learn how to get in it That's where we're gonna do live trading take everything we've learned. It's gonna be recorded be on your dashboard We also we have traders talk today. So don't forget at 11 o'clock once we're done with class We're gonna broadcast live on social media So make sure you subscribe to the channel make sure you ring that bell and give us a thumbs up So, you know, you actually gonna be get those alerts That's one of our most popular classes of the week and then we have a bunch of little events that are going on this week We got top gun options. We got BK forks. It's coming on a lot of great great speakers coming on this week So just make sure you look out and subscribe to the channel and register for those events And if you can't make it don't worry about it We'll be in your dashboard and we'll be on our social media so you can watch that recording Let's get ready for the market everyone. I want to get ready for class. I got less than 15 minutes We'll be back in 15 minutes. Oh Josh and Richard gonna take care of you Well, some of you will be in with me in class and once again on social media We'll see you back here live every morning 9 a.m. And at 2 30 and today at 11 and don't forget that QR code I'm on the top left hand corner. Just take it skew this can and we'll get you in the trading room Good luck everyone. Happy trading and be safe


Everybody forced here ripping 2021 prism football team all ten box number seven. This is a random team style break You can always find those results at late in sports cards calm Here we go. Good luck everybody. So again, we're looking for red and yellows are numbered 39 for the vets and eight for the rookies You get a silver for box as well. Well, there's a chance at autos. I don't they're they're pretty rare, but I've seen them We got Silver rookie Devontae Smith and I start red and yellow to rel Davis Broncos to 39 TD 39 to 39 on the bookend Guy team all I like a lot of the team all products Good skews See a big rookie here silver Chargers rookie Rashawn Slater red and yellow to 39 Patrick Peterson Vikings well silver rookie Cardinals Ron Dale Moore Red and yellow Vikings again Patrick Peterson again Very strange. What was that one number two? This one's 11 at 39 really interesting No offense to Vikings, but I like to see some other players other than Patrick Peterson David Carr Elijah Mitchell Trey Lance rookie a Silver Texans rookie Davis Mills nice one Texans a Red and yellow Kevin Byer for the Titans to 39 More egg Trey sermons silver rookie Vikings Chas Sarat and red and yellow Broncos Vaughan Miller Oh, there's some scratches on that Vaughan Miller 28 to 39 send an empty box and wrapper for your Broncos Ryan.  We do and it is a Bears green scope auto Steve McMichael to 49 What size Tommy fam Jersey do? Silver rookie Patriots Remand Ray Stevenson and the red and yellow Texan Zach Cunningham the 39 I Don't think I want a Tommy fam Jersey I think I'd rather have a husband Probably gonna be with him for longer the DFA JBJ man. Yeah, I saw that silver rookie Panthers shy Smith Red and yellow drew sample Bengals out of 39 Got silver rookie Chargers Lavery Roundtree the third Red and yellow Giants Jeremy shock you to 39 Come on big rookie last box here. There's a Trevor Lawrence rookie base Silver rookie Panthers shy Smith In a red and yellow Broncos to rail Davis to 39 Broncos there and that's gonna do it everybody Got more football coming up next


So, just to recall for you that for this particular molecule with 3 atoms, I have shown a big mass with a bigger circle and 2 identical mass with a smaller circle. These are like the bond length changing, this is you know it is an asymmetric kind of it is going here in an asymmetric way this one is going in and this one is coming out ok. These are bond length changing, this is bond angle changing and these are symmetric stretching. So, this you would have seen in the video also. So, we would like to see how to get these pictures from group theory. You know it physically for this 3 atomic you know non-linear molecule with 3 atoms very nicely have given a simple example and is it true if I give you a complex if I give it in your exam some 10 atoms will you be able to do it is the question you will all be little worried, but I am trying to simplify it and tell you now this methodology of what I am going to show in the next few slides will show you how simple and powerful the tool of character table tensor products actually plays a lot of role. It is just manipulating only matrices and you can see that you can get these diagrams drawn from those matrices ok. Still it is a suspense, but you will see it today by the end of today's lecture. I hope I can drive in the fact that normal modes of at least the non-linear 3 triatomic molecule you can understand from this picture ok. So, long method I have gone through right now. So, far whatever I have done in the last half an hour is a really a long method and can we use group theory to determine that ok. Now comes the matrix representation I have tried to use the basis. So, I am going to use the basis q 1. Since I did the long method first let me confine to this long method and I will use the basis. So, this was x 1 plus x 2 right. These things were derived by the long method. Let me for completeness write the basis for these and then worry about how to get these basis also in the next step ok. First since we went through this long method we know that q 1 is one independent degree of freedom, q 2 is another independent degree of freedom and q 3 is the third independent degree of freedom ok, q 2 is actually x 1 minus x 2 and this I think is z 1 plus z 2 ok. This was known the right hand side was known because of the long method ok. Now, in this basis I want to write the matrix representations of all the elements of the C 2 v symmetry of that molecule ok. So, C 2 v is a symmetry of the molecule of the tri-linear non-linear tri-atomic molecule. So, remember the picture I had a bigger mass here, two smaller mass here and I have used a notation z axis, x axis I think this one was x 1, z 1, this one is z 2, x 2 ok. So, this is what I am using as the degrees of freedom in the x z plane for every atom in that molecule yeah. This is capital M, this is identical that side that is the way I am looking at it I am taking it is you assume that the molecule is quite heavy and you are doing putting the axis through that molecule and do the rotation C 2 correct, correct I am assuming all those things ok. So, another way of seeing is that if I put an axis through this, if I do a 180 degree rotation these two will exchange and if I put a mirror here then these two atoms which are identical will go into each other and if I put a mirror on this plane this is like you know it remains it goes into itself, this atom goes into itself, this atom goes into itself that is also symmetry. So, C 2 v is a symmetry of such a molecule under consideration ok. So, now how do I write in this basis in terms of the q 1, q 2, q 3 basis I want to write the matrix representations of all the elements of C 2 v. So, identity element is trivial, but if you want to write the C 2 element what happens? So, what does C 2 do? C 2 takes x 1 to minus x 2, x 2 to minus x 1 in the directions which I have taken. So, what will happen to q 1 which is x 1 plus x 2 under C 2 operation q 1 will go to minus q 1, what about q 2 that is the difference that will go to somebody x 1 will go to minus x 2, x 2 will go to minus x 1. So, q 2 will go to q 2 no change, what about q 3? So, the corresponding matrix representation for this which is a 3 cross 3 matrix it better be reducible because C 2 v is an abelian group with each irrep being one dimensional you cannot get a 3 cross 3 matrix. 3 cross 3 has to be reducible for the C 2 element in this basis q 1, q 2, q 3 will be such that when it acts on q 1 it should go to minus q 1, q 2 should remain this, q 3 should remain this. Tell me what will be the matrix minus 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, is that clear? So, write out for the sigma v treated to be the x z plane, sigma v is also like the identity matrix as I shown in the screen. So, identity element is this, C 2 element is this which I worked it out elaborately. Now, sigma v is the x z plane, x z plane will not change x or z coordinate. So, q 1, q 2, q 3 will remain invariant, but if you take the y z plane x coordinate is going to change sign right and you can show how the elements in q 1, q 2, q 3 are modified ok. So, this element I have not worked it out take it to be the y z plane and do the same exercise I did for C 2 and fix the in the q 1, q 2, q 3 basis write down this matrix ok. So, what have I done by the long method I had found out that q 1, q 2, q 3 essentially will contain the normal modes. Now, I have written a reducible representation for those three coordinates to find which linear combination of q 1, q 2, q 3 will actually give me the normal modes ok. Instead of doing that diagonalization of matrices I am going to now play around with matrix representations for the C 2 v group ok. So, we need to find which linear combination. In fact, we should find that q 1 is untouched right we know that also q 1 equation was completely decoupled from q 2 and q 3 right is that clear ok. So, character table yeah which matrix this matrix. So, I have to do the gamma of C 2 when x on q 1, q 2, q 3 should give me minus q 1, q 2 and q 3. This is the meaning of this q 1 goes to minus q 1, q 2, x 1 goes to minus x 2, x 2 goes to minus x 1. So, x 1 minus x 2 remains same. So, I need a matrix which when acts on q 1, q 2, q 3 should give me this. So, what is that matrix? So, you have to make this diagonal because they are all diagonal and the first element has to be minus 1, the 2, 2 element has to be plus 1 and 3, 3 element has to be plus 1. This means this is the matrix is that clear ok yeah. Any other question? Should we go ahead ok. So, back to our character table basis states and so on ok. This representation reducible I am calling it as the notation I am using on the slide is V, it is a reducible representation and you can find the characters for the identity element of course, trace of the 3 cross 3 matrix is identity and y x z plane will also be an identity matrix. So, that trace is also 3. This one trace of course, you can see that the trace turns out to be 1 right for the C 2 trace is 1 and similarly for sigma V prime which is the y z plane you can find out what is a trace ok. So, once I have this what do I have to do? I have to find out what is the number of times any of these irreps occurs in the reducible representation. Then it will tell me what are the irrep language for the vibrational degree of freedom or the normal inputs ok. So, do that exercise break that gamma V, A 1 appears twice, A 1 appears twice and you have B 1 which appears once. So, totally rank 3 is broken up into 3 rank 1 irreducible representation. So, this is the first step. The next step is what? If I want to find the actual degrees of freedom, what is what do you have to do? You can write a projector in the space in these matrices which I have write a projector and do the projection to get the basis states in the Q 1, Q 2, Q 3 ok. I leave it you to check it out and see what you get you understood. So, given this you can write a projector for the A 1 representation. This projector will involve character of A 1 times the gamma V 3 cross 3, check the rank of this matrix because V is broken up into A 1 twice I would think that the rank is 2 and find the basis states ok. Will you do that? So, P A 1 on an arbitrary vector should give me a piece which is 1 0 0, what does that mean? This is Q 1 ok. One of the vibrational modes is exactly Q 1 ok. So, Q 1 is x 1 plus x 2 clear. One of the vibrational mode is exactly Q 1 if you find this, but I am going to leave it you to check this out and if it is a rank 2 matrix should be able to find two independent basis linearly independent basis. The other basis should involve not this one, but the Q 2 and the Q 3, is that clear? So, this part I am not doing it, but please check it out and then do that a long winded diagonalization to see whether you get the same linear combination of Q 2 and Q 3.


Greetings laddingtons today I want to talk a bit about Patreon, Sargon of Akkad, Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin and of course also about the fact that Subscribestar is back in business so for those of you who do not know what I'm talking about in December last year, so a month ago Sargon of Akkad got kicked off Patreon for saying a bad word in another person's livestream very silly thing he got banned for but it is what it is. Now I will say the following before commenting upon these three individuals and that is that I do like Sargon of Akkad, I think he does brilliant work in exposing leftist hypocrisy etc. Now Dave Rubin and Jordan B Peterson I can't say too much about, Jordan Peterson does some good things but he has a tendency to counter-signal people who get too close to the truth so Jordan Peterson not quite a true friend but he still does some good work. Anyway the reason I mentioned these people is because they took the decision of leaving Patreon after Patreon kicked Sargon of Akkad. Now I will say this that I am on Patreon and I've never had any problem with Patreon and I've chosen to stay there because I'm hardly in a situation where I can you know do something like that to score some political points I have a lot of things to take care of now especially with a baby in common so I don't have the luxury to play with money in that sort of way but I understand completely that Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin did this because they obviously don't want to be next.  I don't think that's the case at all I think he is very pro free speech but he has to play ball with the people who are higher up than him in the hierarchy and he understands that Patreon is a problem for the powers to be because the powers to be do not want independent content creators to be able to be financed by the public.  It can take Sweden for example you have leftist journalists who are mocking independent journalists and content creators saying oh you are using these services and in Sweden we have something called swish as well which means that you can very easily pay people or send donations etc. Now these leftist journalists they're mocking people who do this swish journalism because oh you don't have a real job you don't have a real employment etc but the hilarious thing here is that the journalists in the mainstream they're there for one simple reason and that is that they have gone through life like this never taking any hard battles themselves you just said the right thing to the right person at the right time and you know just sold their integrity completely to whatever the powers to be wants to hear so then they have a well-paying position within a newspaper or within you know whatever media outlet it might be and the fun thing here too is that these big media outlets in sweden at least they do get paid by the state as a support so it is extremely silly of them to try to score some points against other people who does journalism or create content without this sort of support and that is also why patreon is very hated and swish too hated by these leftists because they see that other people can get the funding to present an alternative worldview because they obviously they get they have the big money behind them the mainstream media have a lot of big money behind them so they don't need to count on you know crowdfunding or anything like that so patreon and crowdfunding is a problem in the eyes of the established powers so to speak so for me i obviously support anyone who is trying to facilitate freedom of speech who's trying to facilitate payments to people who promote you know politically incorrect opinions and for me personally this is extremely important if you think that i can get a regular job with my name in sweden of all places at this moment in time uh you're playing wrong it would be very very hard so obviously i rely on crowdfunding as well to have youtube as a source of income simple as that now on to subscriber star i thought when they got into trouble last december i thought okay this is the end for them but they said that you know we're not gonna lie down we're gonna fight this and now you're back in action and sargon avacad he has completely switched to subscribe star now and i have signed up for an account there too so if you want to get access to my weekly training summary you can do so there as well i will keep posting on patreon and i would definitely appreciate if you who are already a patreon stay on patreon so i have a bit more robust system so i don't have everything in one place so if you are already a patreon please stay there if you do want to support me but you don't want to do it on patreon you can sign up on subscribe star and i don't see this as a donation i see this as you know you get access to the training notes and also obviously that you contribute to the metapolitical cause here on youtube so with that said the big battle of 2019 is freedom speech no question about that at all so anyway thank you for watching xoxo boom


How's it going guys, and welcome to a JHR microscope review. We're going to be looking at the difference between live human blood and dried human blood. Now these were both taken from me using my diabetic poker. I use this on a daily basis so it's not really a big deal for me. So we're going to put this under a microscope that is hooked up with a camera directly to my PC so you guys can see this really up close. Let's go ahead and check out the microscopic world. Alright, so the first slide we're going to be doing is the live human blood. So let's go ahead and put this on here and find the blood itself. There we go. And now we just need to zoom in. We're going to turn down the lighting a little bit so that we can get a good look. Wow, look at that. So you can actually see if we try to focus on a little bit more. You can actually see the individual blood cells.  So this is the farthest away zoom. It goes in about probably 900 times more than this. So we're going to get a really good look at these in a minute. But this is basically what it looks like at a glance. And oh, wow, look at that. You can actually see the end of the blood right there. Like the edge kind of looks like a red ocean. It's kind of interesting. Alright, let's go ahead and switch it up a little bit. So we're going to zoom this out. And then we're going to switch to the next zoom. Whoa. Alright, let's turn down the lighting a little bit. Oh, do you see that movement right there? There's a little bit of movement in there. That's so interesting. Alright, let's see if we can move this around just a little bit. I'd love to be able to fall. There it is. Look at that. See how we can focus in a little bit more. How crazy is that? You know, it's crazy because it just came out of my body like a minute ago too. So seeing like all these little things that are currently inside of me right now. It's kind of a kind of a trippy experience, you know? Alright, so let's go ahead and zoom out again. And now we're going to go to the one that zooms in the farthest. Alright, so it took me a second to get a proper zoom. But here we are. We got a little bit of the blood cells on here. And we focus in a little bit. You can kind of see their shapes. It's really interesting.  It's really interesting stuff. If it sounds like I'm talking from the side, it's because I'm looking at my monitor while doing this because you can actually see on your computer screen what you're seeing through the microscope because it has a built-in camera. So it's really cool. I bought this specifically for the channel. So this has been live human blood. And honestly, it doesn't move around as much as I thought it would. I've looked at this before on a worse, much worse like $20 microscope. And I didn't really see any movement either. So I'm not too surprised. I think maybe it would be like slow, gradual movement. Or maybe we're just not able to get that super zoom in that we need. Let's go ahead and switch to the dried human blood. Alright, I got the slide on of the dried human blood or the J.H.R. blood. And we're going to go ahead and zoom in on this using the first zoom. Whoa. Look at that. You know what it kind of reminds me of? It kind of reminds me of like lightning bolts or something.  Kind of reminds me of that too. That is super interesting. Let's see if we can move it around a little bit.  It's kind of hard to tell because they've already decayed so much because this is a slide from about, I'd say, a few months ago. Really interesting. Let's go ahead and switch to the second zoom. Alright, I'm going to head and found the focus point. Let's go ahead and zoom in. Almost there, almost there. Wait. And fine tune it. Look at that. That is really interesting. You literally could take that and like, I don't know, fill in like the color or something, you know what I mean? You could do like a, it almost looks like a abstract art piece. That's so weird. I like how like all of the cracks in there are like super defined and they're all different shapes. This is all just my blood. Alright, so let's go ahead and go to the last zoom. Now this one is going to zoom in really far. Alright, so I found the zoom point. Let's go ahead and focus in. Whoa. Look at that. That is insane. That's really crazy.  That is so cool. But yeah, this is a series that I want to continue on. So if you like this video, please feel free to subscribe to the channel in the description below. I'm going to go ahead and link where I got the microscope itself. And if you want to drop by my Patreon, I have a bunch of different tiers that you can help support the channel for purchases like this. But yeah, huge shout out to my Patreons. Thank you guys so much for your support. You guys are awesome. And I'll see you in the next video.


Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. It's been a great pleasure for me today to meet with Senator Dole and to discuss his support for the treaty signed here during last week's summit. The INF Treaty was the end result of a process that took over six years to arrive at the moment of signing. I, in fact, proposed the zero option in the first year of our administration. As a matter of fact, I did so at the National Press Club. Many of the points contained in the agreement were hammered out through tough negotiations on both sides. I welcome the support of the Senate Republican leader and count on his efforts to help ensure Senate ratification. I understand there's a certain degree of apprehension about reaching any agreement with the Soviet Union, but I believe that once the details have been closely examined, the consensus will be that the INF Treaty is a solid step forward, a recognizably positive note move for America. The treaty is consistent with the goals set out by the administration from its first days. Building up our defensive strength was designed to convince the Soviet leadership that they couldn't win an arms race. The second half of the formula is reaching agreements to reduce weapons on both sides to an equal and verifiable level. Such reductions are in our interest and the interest of world peace. This treaty accomplishes exactly what we set out to do. First and foremost, it is the first agreement in history to reduce, not simply limit the buildup of nuclear weapons. The Soviets are in fact giving up more weapons in order to reach equality at a lower level. This is a breakthrough precedent that can serve as the basis for progress in other areas. Furthermore, this treaty is not based on some notion that the Soviets can now be implicitly trusted. Given their record, I would never have signed a treaty that did not contain the most stringent verification regimen. There's been an impressive exchange of data, and there will be continuing exchanges after the treaty goes into effect. There will also be the right of on-site inspections to confirm what we've been told. During the entire process of destroying the INF missiles, each side has the right to observe in order to ensure compliance with the treaty. We will even be monitoring the facility where their SS-20 missiles were assembled and have the right to visit other INF missile facilities on short notice. It's not a matter of trust. We will watch, inspect, and be present for the destruction of these missiles. And for 13 years after the treaty enters into force, American personnel will be on-site in the Soviet Union to make sure there are no more SS-20s being produced. succinctly put, this treaty contains verification provisions and other safeguards that should impress even hardened skeptics. However, but I believe some of our opposition is not just a result of a perceived defect in the treaty, but also flows from a concern that our country will continue to deal with the Soviets from a position of realism and candor. This treaty is reason for hope. It is a good first step, but we're not letting our guard down, and we don't want anyone to have expectations that cannot be met or verified. As Jefferson and other presidents before me have stated and restated, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That's never been more true than today. And we'll remain vigilant, realistic, and dealing with the Soviet Union. This treaty is consistent with that commitment, a verifiable trust. I'm confident that over these next several weeks, as more senators have the opportunity to review the terms and provisions of this agreement, that they'll come to the conclusion that it deserves ratification. And now I'm going to turn this and oh, I'm turning this over to Senator Dole. Is that the word, Mr. President? Mr. President, we're very upset about this, sir. Do you feel that you're helping Mr. Dole off the hook on INF? Let's put the same thing up. If we would like to have the President a question before he leaves, can you answer the... He's going to leave until I finish my statement. Well... Are you being dragged into the campaign, Mr. President? No. What if I might just give my statement, then? As I told the President a couple of weeks ago, when we were asked about the treaty, I said, give us some time to look at it, some time to read it, some time to analyze it. And I've done precisely what I told the President I would do. I've not only read the treaty, I've had the opportunity to have it analyzed by experts in and out of government. And I've spoken directly with our key NATO allies. And I've had a series of meetings with the President, members of the administration, to address my concerns. In all of this, I've been concerned not only about the treaty itself, but also about its strategic and political implications. Now that the treaty has been negotiated and signed, the focus will shift to the Senate. The Senate will decide whether this treaty goes into effect or not. And as the Republican leader, I will lead the fight for its approval in the Senate. I've been the point man in the Senate for the President's national security programs. And over the years, we've won big critical fights. And I hope that we can win this one too. What we want, what I told the President just a few moments ago, is a big bipartisan majority. I think it's also fair to say, and we've discussed this with the President, with Colin Powell and others, that there are areas of concern that have been identified, special concern to me and my colleagues, whether it's verification or compliance and the imbalance of conventional forces in Europe. And I think by addressing these areas, working with the President, working with the administration, the Senate can strengthen the treaty even further while not requiring renegotiation of the Soviets. And I think we've been assured that we can work together on these areas, and that's the only intent and the only purpose of it. So I guess I would say, as I said a couple of weeks ago, that as soon as I've been satisfied that we could verify and that there was compliance and a strong support from the Allies, pretty much what the President said in his next to last paragraph, as soon as other Senators go through this process, you're going to see support building for the treaty. And finally, I think we're all very grateful to the President, talking now about my colleagues in the Congress in both parties for his outstanding work and for his efforts that led to the signing of this very significant agreement a little over a week ago. President, if you get a question up in presidential politics, sir, what about presidential politics? No, there's nothing of that kind here. George Bush feels that you're bailing him out because he was failing in Iowa because of waffling on the treaty. Were you afraid to stand on the platform with him when he spoke? I used to be in. I thought it was the courteous thing to do. Hello, Senator. Thank you, Mr. President. Bush's guy says that this isn't a matter of conscience. It's a matter of expedience because you're slipping in the polls in Iowa. Well, that's not accurate, but you know, I don't want to get into a Bob Dole-George-Bush thing, but we just have different roles. Mine is an active role. Mine is the leader of the Senate. He doesn't even vote on the treaty. It's true. I mean, it's a fact. I mean, he does not vote on the treaty. You were being hurt on the INF issue. You lost the mayor of Ames, Iowa. You lost three people, three top supporters in Rhode Island today.  No, no, I don't think there's been any change. In fact, we had to plan a question in Iowa last week to bring up the INF treaty. So, you know, I don't want to spend the Bush people putting on it, but my point is this, the president's done an outstanding job. It's going to come to the Senate. I said from the start, it's a two-phase operation. The first phase is negotiating, signing the treaty. The second phase is the ratification process, and I'm going to be a vital part of that. I'm the only Republican candidate who's going to even vote for the treaty one way or the other. And I'm here to keep my promise to the president. He wanted my support. He has my support. And I'm going to be very active as I have in the past to try to get the treaty ratified. You weren't stampeded by the political scene? No, I said ten days ago, I can read the polls. I could have read the polls two months ago. But we had to, you know, as soon as the treaty was available up in S-407 where it's secure, then it was made public, we started to work on it. I talked yesterday with Margaret Thatcher, with Helmut Kohl, with the prime minister of Italy. I spent some time this morning with Secretary Schultz and with Admiral Kroll. I think overall I've visited about 16 different sources that I have some confidence in, obviously including the president on a couple of times. And if I'm going to provide the votes, I had to be objective. I had to make my own judgment. And just, I don't think it's criticism, but the vice president was for it when the president was for it. That's the way it works. That's the way the system works. Senator Dome, you made this impression. Senator Dome, you made this impression. Senator Dome, you made this impression. Senator Dome, you made this impression. Senator Dome, how unequivocal is your support? You came out here and said you support it, but then you seem to want some reservations. This has been the perception that people have been talking about. Do you support the treaty? What are your reservations? What reservations will you support? I told the president I supported the treaty. My job now will be to try to get as many Republican votes as I can, and I want a lot of Republican votes. I don't want all the Democrats or nearly all the Democrats and a handful of Republicans. That doesn't mean that we cannot work with the administration, as I believe we can, to strengthen the treaty in certain areas. And we'll be – well, whether it's – you know, we're a lot of concern about conventional weapons imbalance. And it seems to me that's an area that's bipartisan concern. It's a concern, obviously, to the president. We discussed this with Colin Powell when he met with us the other day. And I think we can work with the administration on that. If there's any question about verification, we can work with – What can be done through reservations? Well, there all can. You've got declarations, understanding reservations, and amendments. They have different impact. We can make it clear that – at least a statement that, you know, there'd be no other treaty considered unless there's some redress. You know, there are a lot of things you can do. It wouldn't be a start – a serious start. We can do anything. Well, we don't have any language. I'm just saying these are areas of concern. Nobody, as far as I know, has any amendments drafted, but, you know, we are alert to what's happening up there. Are you suggesting this won't be ratified without amendments? Are you suggesting this won't be ratified without some amendments and stuff? I don't want to get into – there are amendments, declarations, understandings, and reservations. It won't come through clean the way it was written. Well, no – but you can have these things without – they're not killer amendments. In other words of this, no renegotiation. It depends precisely on what it is. You can amend the implementing legislation, and you avoid all that work with the treaty. Would you vote for this treaty in its present form if it's not changed in any way? Well, it's not – Did you vote for it right now, the way it is? I'm not certain I'd answer that, but, you know, I'm support the treaty. If the vote were to date, I'd vote for it. But it's seen me we have the right and we have the obligation of the Senate to do something else. That's to go through the process. Is it equivocal in your support if you're not prepared to say you vote for it now, as it is? No. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says the Senate shall advise in consent. We've had about 1,500 treaties before the Senate in the last couple of hundred years, and some haven't been accepted, and a lot of them have been modified, but not many of them have been modified to the killer amendments. What are your concerns about verification? The President says it's about as good of a perfect verification system as one of your – It's a very good verification. Why don't you do that way? Why don't you do that? No. What I said, I expressed the concerns of some of my colleagues on verification. We had 10 of my colleagues down to see the President a couple of days ago. I don't express concern about verification. Senator Wallop expressed concern about compliance. I'm the Republican leader. I'm not expressing just my concerns. I'm expressing concerns of the Republicans, who I hope in the long run will vote for this treaty. Can you have enough concerns about verification, Chief? No. We're looking at verification. I don't have any present concerns. Senator Al Haig, that George Bush cheapened the summit by putting commercials on the TV about his meetings with Corbettel. No, I don't want to comment on that. Are you willing to pledge to us today you won't put commercials on TV showing you with the President here? Yeah, I didn't discuss that with the President. But no, I don't know. I don't have any with Corbettel. How about with Ronald Reagan here? Senator, you said I do support the treaty. I told the President I do support the treaty. And then you said you wouldn't answer whether you would vote for it. Well, I don't think that's a fair question. It's not going to happen that way. But let's say we had the debate and weren't anything offered, and it's in the present form. Yes, I'll vote for it. But that's not a good question. Aren't we turning your endorsement today into the Senate's role in more or less of a rubber stamp? You've tried to distinguish yourself from George Bush by saying it's your job as a Senator to live up to Article II, Section II of the Constitution with Dyson Consent. You're implying that the hearings that are going to be held before the various committees are irrelevant. And that you're just going to push ahead and try to get the support for this treaty. So any attempt on my part? You must have been not listening when I talked about the concerns about verification, compliance, and the imbalance of conventional weapons. That's what we're... Do you want to see your role now? We're not undermining the role of the Senate. No, no, I see my role supporting the role of the Senate. That's precisely the role we have. I see my role pretty much as Senator Byrd described it the day before yesterday on the floor when he said that the Republican leader wanted to fulfill his responsibilities on the Constitution, and he doubt that there would be a two-thirds support for the treaty without the Republican leader's support. So what I'm doing is precisely what I told the President I would do. I have a different role than the Vice President. I'm not here to quarrel about the Vice. We just have different roles. I'm the leader. He's the Vice President. Yes. I think at this point we don't have any language. I mean, we're looking at conventional weapons. I know Sam Nunn is. I know Senator Byrd is, but nobody's running around and say, here's an amendment. You know, we've only had to think about eight days. Yes. Senator, were you trying to say earlier that you do not think your delay in endorsement of the treaty has hurt you politically at all? No. I think when people understand, as they will, because suddenly all the actions moving to the Capitol, the will when the treaty is set up, I don't think it's been set up yet, hearings will start the 19th or the 26th depending on when we come back. And I'll be testifying before the Foreign Relations Committee. We'll have a lot more information at that time. I assume Senator Byrd may be testifying, too. But I think there was so much hype and a lot of misunderstanding in the media about what the role of the Senate was. But I don't think there's been any change. Senator Byrd, you said you had reservations. That's what I said. I wanted to have some chance to look at it. So I've done that. You mean you think those people who are defective would have anyway? Who were they? Well, the mayor of Ames. Good, now. I'm a honey of... She got a job from the governor who's for Bush, you know. So it's just a payoff? Senator, if the treaty is not a question of standing in line, what is more than the erosion of your lead? We don't have any erosion of our lead. We think it's a tight race. It's been a tight race from the start. We've always said it was a tight race. You know that... But that's another matter. Senator Byrd, you're not losing points. You're not losing points. Some polls show you can drop it. Who's? I don't know which one. Well, there aren't any. Senator, do you think that your presence here with President Reagan gives a boost to your campaign? And on the other hand, Kurtz, Vice President Bush? I don't think the president's trying to do that at all. He said precisely what he was doing. He was staying neutral. And I think it's just a matter of fact that I am the Republican leader and I'm going to be active in this process. And I told the president to give me a little time. Let me take a look at it. It took seven years to negotiate it. Give me a week to look at it and I'd let him know. It wasn't mine. It's a pretty good idea, though, as it worked out. Senator, the vice president's people say that... Who are they?  You've got to identify people. I believe it at that, but the time being... I don't believe they're here. But trust me when I tell you that the vice president... I've been verified. That the vice president's... I don't know that in Russian. The vice president's people are saying it's fine. If Bob Dole wants to support this treaty, we welcome him on board. Johnny, come lately as he is. The vice president's been for this thing for six years. And basically saying that the vice president will continue to benefit by taking the high ground on this thing. How do you think that's going to play politically? Isn't it just a little too late for you to get any political... No, no, I think he just... Maybe I've made it clear there is a difference in our roles. I vote. I vote on the treaty and he doesn't... He does it inside. You're going to be a tie with a two-thirds majority. You figure that one out. Yeah. That's what Dupont said. So I was ready for that one. No, I don't think I had anything to do with it. Somebody suggested it. And I thought it sounded like a pretty good idea.  No. I agree to come willingly. You know, that's... Well, it wasn't mine. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I don't... This thing just happened. We're just passing through town. I understand what you're saying about the treaty itself. You talked about declarations and amendments and various other things that couldn't propose it as they are. I'm still trying to understand exactly what Bob Goldfinne thought of the additive. I understand that. Not in your role as Senator in order to Republican leader by talking with you personally. Do you feel that it should be changed, amended, declaration...


Thank you so much, Candice. Pleasure to be here. First of all, I'd like to introduce ourselves. And I think it makes sense for Ben, if you'd like to go first. Oh, thank you very much. Hi, guys. It's great to be here. Yeah, I'm Ben, CTO and Coplander at Armo, and one of the maintainers of the Q&A project. The important activity in CNCF and my previous experience that I had was, you know, Waiteth Hecker for many years and went into cloud native later. And my name is Alex. I work as a director of Kubernetes at Canonical, the company that brings you Ubuntu and OpenStack and other technologies. I also work on the Open Feature project, which is a CNCF sandbox project. I enjoy collaborating with lots of communities and folks who are in the clouded ecosystem. And I guess that's also why I'm here today, because, you know, my interaction with Ben and the CubeScape folks was really one out of native interests for cardning Kubernetes and security. And I suppose it was sort of a natural overlap that we had these intersecting interests. So just to get started on why we're here. I mean, Ben, do you want to take us through? This is a powerful statement that I picked out from this recent gardener report.  Yeah, so honestly, it's a very strange statement because when I first read it, I said that this cannot be, OK? This sounds, I mean, very strange and futuristic. And then I started to think it was so unreal that it actually makes you think, OK, what is here? And then I looked at where is the industry today and where the industry is going, OK? And today we are in the after, I can say today, really, that we are after the cloud revolution, OK? We are in a place where most of the things we, as application vendors, operators, people who are working in this industry and providing certain computational services are doing are mostly related, OK? Are defined by code, OK, right? And all these infrastructure components, which are the actual computers and remand system, all these things together are provided by other services, which we love, OK? And all these great cloud vendors are enabling us to define all these systems, all the things we need as code. And if I'm thinking of this again and of this statement and I see that, well, if the cloud vendor and we assume that the cloud vendor does his work right, OK? We usually I don't want to say brand names, OK? But we all know them. And we know that they are investing a lot of efforts into securing the infrastructure. And they have a lot of experience doing it. So it means that if where the things can go wrong is the place where we are defining, OK, what we need from this infrastructure and what we put above this infrastructure. And these are mostly coming from configurations. And this is why at the end, when I after thought it through, OK, this made sense, OK? And I'm not going down to numbers, but it is really misconfigurations and definitions going to be the core sources of security bridges in the future. I think that's a really interesting point. I approach this from a product perspective. I mentioned that I direct to Kubernetes engineering team. We build Kubernetes distributions. That's our bread and butter. And the more customers we see on board to Kubernetes and start to work with container orchestration, the more it becomes apparent that you get folks from all over the spectrum, right? So you get people who are super into low level components. They understand it in and out. And you get teams who are just being mandated to simply move into containerization. And this might seem like a no-brainer, but what this is introducing is a whole new set of attack surfaces, not just at the Kubernetes level, because of everything that Kubernetes is connected to. So using images, OCI images, they have a whole set of attack surfaces that build pipeline and change the provenance. So it can be really overwhelming for folks to even start to think about this. And I love this diagram that we have put together for this, because I think that illustrates two things. It shows a modern CI CD pipeline. And I'll talk about it in a moment, but it also shows a GitOps approach as well, which is starting to trend more towards the favorite way of doing reconciliation between your configurations you mentioned and the reality. And if you think about this from a left to right, Dev is the dream, releases the reality. It's almost the idea of the reconciliation showing desired state versus the actual state. So when I'm coding, that's my dream of what I wanna create and that's what my configuration is defined. And then as it goes through this machinery, it comes out into our cluster and that's the reality. And so I think that this is the new attack surface because there are so many joints in it, right? There's so many moving parts. It's almost the sort of analogy of building a rocket with the cheapest components possible. You've got to make sure that that cheapest component is still gonna work to get you into space. Equally here, this might look secure if you use all the right practices, but there are many ways that these components weren't designed to work together. For example, DDoSing on container registries, if that container registry goes back many strategically, many strategic cost is actually you will have a fallback registry, which you can then manipulate the in cluster credentials or you can fetch the credentials from that fallback registry if you can use up the or intercept the root. So just that simple example gives you kind of an idea. I hope that there are so many different ways that we need to start thinking about securing this new sort of challenge of CIC pipeline. I mentioned that it starts with the development environment as this dream of what you're building, right? But this really is where you start to introduce everything from semantic misconfigurations all the way up to not having the correct kind of testing or even testing in an isolated environment. For example, if I'm testing SQLite database locally, but actually in the cloud we're using a distributed SQLite database and sorry, distributed SQL database. It might work in a very similar way. However, the credentials and the connection strings and the encoding and the security practices that I have around this may differ somewhat. And so therefore I've already introduced the difference between the desired state that I'm creating and the actual state. And specifically around, you can see some of the icons around the Kubernetes side of things around things like Helm configurations and YAML configurations. I'm opening ports for my application to work locally. I might not think about what that does remotely. A simple example of the case is setting host networking to true. That's something that people who work in Kubernetes might have done to be able to obtain IP address or to talk to a host system. It introduces vulnerability into that system. And even when you've got from your local environment and you've started to push that up into your remote repository, compilation doesn't necessarily mean that you're detecting vulnerabilities, right? The build being successful, whether that's a Python build of a package or it's a Golang build, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're free of vulnerabilities. And equally, many scanners, right? You might have a great Sonar Boy or another sort of scanner set up to scan for vulnerabilities. Many of them use static configuration files that are scanning for. And they weren't actually looking for CVV vulnerabilities. They'll be looking more for sort of code compromises or even things around misconfiguration in the code or in optimizations. And then when you do get to actually employ detection tools at a larger organization, many of those will have soft warnings because if you're running 200 teams and they're using centralized tools, the amount of tickets that these tools create end up inevitably having humans that operate them, turn those down to warnings because we don't have the people power to deal with that. And then the final part of this is that most base images, you just fetch, right? From something, from Fedora, from RHEL, from et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We don't really think about where those base images are coming from. Now, I will then do a little shout out here to projects like six store, which are thinking about provenance, but there's a long way to go between thinking about it and having it be out to the majority of people in the cloud native ecosystem. And then the final part, as I mentioned, multiple times is that desired state is not an actual state. And if you've worked with Kubernetes enough, you'll realize that actually there's a drift that occurs in clusters when you start to introduce users playing around, you start to introduce different deployment mechanisms operating in the same cluster. Perhaps you have GitOps plus client side queue control plus Helm as well. And so therefore those differences, those drifts can be vulnerabilities. They can be made to exploits. Converting a cluster IP into a load balancer can easily give somebody an ingress into a cluster on the port 80, which is an unsecured HTTP port. So we have to be really sure that the actual cluster is continuously being reconciled and we understand what's going on in that cluster. And so that makes you ask the question when you're running a small organization versus a large organization, can we really afford not to improve these practices? What is the cost of building our COCD pipeline just kind of ignoring that stuff? It might be nothing.  It could be the loss of a contract. It could be a master service agreement torn up. So not doing these things can mean the loss of business and eventually the loss of your job. So it's very quickly spirals depending on the context of this question. But what I would say is that we need tooling to make this easy but to do that, we really need to be able to consolidate this in a way that is digestible because it's so much. It's such a big topology. There's so many moving parts. Where do we even start? And I thought this would be a good opportunity for Ben. I wanna get your take on kind of this idea of security games. Yeah, so I think that at the first stage, I think that we really succeeded in frightening all the audience here about how many problems we have. But now we are still talking about the good parts. That we are safe, there is a way. And not just there is a way, but I think that the way is much better than what we have before. I mean, before cloud native, before CICB pipes and so on. And it really starts with all these phases that you mentioned, that when we're going into, when we're talking about the development phase, we can hook up really the user experience of these tools, which are actually the developers and DevOps engineers and SREs, who are writing hand charts and YAML files and implementing application and scripts and so on. What they are doing is what we enable them, can enable them is already a tooling at this phase. This means that when they are starting to write something, they get an immediate feedback, which is awesome because I'm just re-looping to what you mentioned about the costs. The cost of delivering something wrong to production and I'm not talking about actual cost of actual security breaches. I'm talking about there was something wrong from a security perspective, we need to fix it. Before there is a breach. The actual cost is obviously, it's much higher. If it happens, if it's identified down the road and as close we are getting to the developer where the inception is happening, okay. The cheaper, okay, we can go with it. Okay, you mentioned, okay, connecting the pods to the host network, okay. If it's done, you know, without understanding what does it mean, okay, which is okay because not everyone needs to be a security expert and not everyone needs to understand everything, but this is why we are doing tooling, okay. If we can explain these things, for example, while the code is implemented, okay. The solution can be very, very fast and it's not just, you know, actually hooking up in the development environment, okay, the ID, in the VS code or something, but even if we can hook into the pre-commit hooks of the Git repository and, you know, when someone tries to commit, okay, his work, you know, we are checking his work already. We have done a big leap, okay, forward. Okay, we already save a lot of time or work and we can deliver more secure things. The second thing is actually is the policy, okay, because for everything, and you will see through this whole presentation in the sense that there's something, okay, what we are doing in order to save ourselves time and money, okay. We are trying to, you know, notify early, but somewhere we need to enforce these rules, okay. And if we are going through the first step, okay, of, for example, implementing a new hand chart, okay, the developer had, you know, committed it to his local repository. Now he's pushing it to GitHub, okay, and creates a full request, okay, for the maintainer of the project. Now, okay, at this stage, okay, we can do two things, we need to do two things. One is we have to check in the pull request whether, just as, you know, any unit test would happen, we have to check whether the new thing stands in the security standards of what we want to accept. So we are adding another gate, which is a hard gate, okay. Accepting only, you know, secure code into a repository, okay. Which is, you know, in case of GitHub action, okay, it's really, you know, an action of a pre-check of PR and we are not accepting the PR while the security issues are not solved or not decided that they are acceptable, okay. So Ben, to interrupt you there, would that mean that, let's say I opened a PR on a repository and I put like a host network true on the YAML file, that would be a check that auto fails because that's a control that you would have on that repo, right? Yeah, so absolutely.  What is the security level? What is the acceptance, okay. There is obviously needs to be, we have, there has to be here some, I'm not sure that the word leniency is the right word, but we have to be a little bit, you know, adaptable, okay, because otherwise, okay, we are creating, you know, problems for ourselves which are not really worth it. But yeah, I agree with you.  So, and the next step, okay, is also, okay, when after you have committed, for example, your YAML definition, okay.   First of all, it's good practice, okay. And it's also security gates, okay. But it is also important from day to day to witness can your images in your container registry. Why? Because every day there are new security vulnerabilities found in different projects, okay, which are, which might make your container, be part of your container images. And if you have scanned your container, like, you know, even a week ago, and you, for example, you didn't get any new critical vulnerabilities, you might say, okay, it's fine. But what if there is a new critical vulnerability found, you know, two days ago and was published. And now if I'm re-scanning the same image, I will do find this specific vulnerability. This is why this cannot be a single, you know, single event, okay, in your processes. You have to, you have to re-scan your containers, you know, every time there is new release of list of vulnerabilities in order to be able to understand what you have.   Because, again, you went through a few, already three gates, okay? But what if, you know, there is someone who was able to bypass one of these gates, okay?  But also, you know, the same thing with new vulnerabilities which are happening, which are being found every day and, you know, new issues which are raised. So as after your deployment, you still need to be on top of all of these things. And the great good thing is that the tooling is there. It's interesting because the emphasis on the gating is sort of like, I guess, locks on a dam or on a river, right? And that you need to go through them and only once you've gone through every one and they've all passed, can you continue to production? And I think that it sounds really simple, that kind of idea, but it's an ideology. It's a philosophy that engineering team can get behind, right? They can understand that, right? Okay, these are the checks that have to be green. This bill has to be green because once you start speaking the language of product engineering teams who are just looking to deliver their workloads on top of Kubernetes and build them a pit of success. It's like what I was talking about at the beginning of this webinar. It's about making it so easy that the alternative is unthinkable, right? Because it's like, we don't have to do anything, right? These gates are here. When they go red, we know something's gone wrong. Otherwise, it's straightforward and that's our path to success. At least that's how I see it, right? Yeah, completely. And also, it's also about empowering, okay? Empowering, okay? You know, the developer to know about these things and save himself and everyone as much time as he can. It's also sort of an interesting one because I think that when we start to think about the security tooling, I mean, looking at this sort of complex, distributed, multi-substrate environment to see ICD, right? Because you could be building on one thing, you could be deploying on another. It really comes to mind that there needs to be some sort of way of aggregating this, right? And the ability to sort of start to bring this all together. And I know that you and I have talked about this is why Kubernetes is becoming so popular is that it seems like the POSIX of cloud native in that it's an interoperable layer that people can build on. But also it means that it's becoming the greatest attack surface that we've seen in recent years. So I guess that with all of this focus on case, building a single pane of glass to monitor all the ingress and the egress and the continuous reconciliation and all those other steps we've described seems to be something that's just a net ability. And what I wanted to get you to talk a little bit more about on this slide is those characteristics or those things that you think are really important in these pane of glass to really help people on this journey. Right, right.  And I think that beforehand we talked about, you know, tooling in different, you know, stages.  And really, okay, I think that really what, you know, is important is to bring all these things under one hood because security is at the end, okay, is one question, okay. Is the attacker able to penetrate? Is there a problem or not? And I can tell that I'm using, you know, 12 different tools, okay. And I worked really hard, okay, to implement them, but at the end of the day, okay, I still, you know, I'm still managing 20 tools and different things can fall in between the cracks. So really, okay, having a single, you know, solution, which brings you through the whole journey, okay, between image vulnerabilities, which is more closer to what we are running inside the Kubernetes cluster to workload configuration and API server access and their interconnection, okay, because these things are, you know, are affecting each other, okay. I can give you a very simple example, okay. If a workload is a public-facing workload, you talked about load lancers and ingresses, okay, right. If it's a workload which talks against traffic from the public internet, obviously it's securities, we look at it's security in different way than, you know, workload which is, you know, gets CPU metrics one time a day, okay, behind the scenes for your knowledge. So having this interconnecting, also this information is also very important and it's very important to, you know, for the users to enable them to have one tool instead of, or one platform instead of like, you know, 12, 20 or more different platforms. And I think you've reminded me of two things. I think having a single platform gives you an ability to educate. That's the first thing, is that a lot of security issues are around education, around learning what is a good practice is one that leaves you vulnerable. But the other thing I think is very interesting is that having a single pane of glass enables you to perform a level of forensic analysis. You can look across your cluster and look at the vulnerabilities over time. You can look in your armband, you know, you can start to perform deeper introspection and evaluation of potential issues and potential controls that are, you know, that are being flagged. And I think that you're right, like when you do have a bunch of different tools, you can do it, it just makes that a much more cumbersome experience. And then what happens if you're working with five other professionals and you need to reproduce that effort or say, hey, look at this. I mean, everybody I'm sure would be familiar with projects like Grafana, where you can just simply send a link to a dashboard and say, are you seeing what I'm seeing here, right? And there's sort of a level of collaboration, which I think is super interesting. Right. And so I guess this is really where we wanted to, or I mean, you especially wanted to talk about how Cubescape effectively covers some of this stuff. And so I wanted to do a bit of a demonstration in a moment, but do you want to run us through this sort of high level of how does an open source tool like Cubescape cover your basis across these security gates? So Cubescape is, you know, an open source community security platform, okay? Which we started from, you know, when we went to our customers and we wanted to understand what are their problems, okay? Most of our customers were going in, were new to Kubernetes and went into Kubernetes. And they said, well, I'm just, you know, functionally I was able to build my first, you know, system in Kubernetes, but I don't know if it's secure or not. And, you know, this is where the project started a little bit more than a year ago, okay? That, you know, understanding, okay, different Kubernetes objects where you have these configurations inside them. But I think that after, you know, after a few, first few months, okay, where we, when I have to tell a hero again, okay, that we got a huge love from the community and which was awesome, okay? And really made us think of, made us continue, okay, this, down this road is that we created a kernel of understanding Kubernetes objects, creating policies around them using OPA Open Policy Agents language, okay? And detecting, you know, misconfiguration issues around, you know, around Kubernetes subjects. And it's so very fast that it's not just what we have to look into what you have in your Kubernetes cluster, okay, what are the deployments, but, you know, people and ourselves want to look into the same objects on the left side of the screen, also right in the depth and the pre-deployment phases. And this is where we created in a way the kernel that is portable.  We can distribute it along the different phases, okay, we've been talking about. We can edit in the development phase, in the interface phase in, and later on when we added the image scanning capabilities, okay, we added also image scanning inside the cluster and also in container registry, which was our container registry spending, which was our, you know, third gate, if we recall that before. So this is the way we created KubeScript to be able to be portable by designing, be able to, you know, stuck in those different phases for the user because we understand that they need this knowledge in all of these phases. One of the things that was introduced to me as well in this diagram is that KubeScript is also on the Grafana icon. Is observability an important thing for you? Yeah, I think that, you know, first of all, Prometheus and Grafana is such a, you know, such a great project, okay, and really enables you to create security dashboard for yourself, okay, for your company. And, you know, observability is really important. Security must have observability. And I think that, you know, any maintainer, any kind of life system knows that it goes both ways. So there's no real observability without security. So it was really given from the beginning, okay, that, you know, it is that data has to be also going in the Prometheus Grafana space as well. That makes a lot of sense. And I've had a chance to play around with KubeScript for a while.  What I wanted to do in this segment was to just sort of run you through some of the things that I found interesting and really kind of, I guess it picked Ben's brain while teaching this webinar as well around kind of the motivations behind them. So I'm going to share my screen here and please do mention in the chat if there are any issues, you should be seeing a VS code screen of some example code. So I've got a very simple piece of YAML and for those of you who are in the community space, you'll know that this is a deployment for a simple pod for engine X. This is typical of what you might find in a Git repository, you know, you have some organizations that centralize the YAML files but I think in the majority people tend to package their code with their YAML in the same project. Now, that definitely is down to opinionation. Now, what's interesting here for me is that you have this idea that with, when you're in VS code, you get kind of linting errors.  And what's quite interesting about this is that the warning says, hey, you know, setting this up is not a great idea because effectively you are allowing this pod to have access to the host network. And I like as well, then you can go on and find, you know, so some more information about it. And I think that as you describe, and as you've been talking about throughout the course of this conversation, education is the first step, right? Having some education around, oh, okay. Well, I didn't know that, right? I didn't know that was a good or a bad idea. So for me, when I'm onboarding new engineers who have to, for example, in my world, build an operator and they're writing YAML, they might be writing a service or a deployment, just knowing these little tips around, this might be something you've got to think about rather than just do is super useful. I mean, hands up if we've copy pasted a YAML deployment before, right? Like everyone does it. And I think sometimes you copy something from Stack Overflow or whatever it might be and you have this thing in there, you don't know what it is and you look at it and you're like, well, I'm just running that CPU server, that CPU ticker you mentioned, maybe it's not the best thing to do. So removing that, and I always think it should be like least privilege, right? You need the least amount of configuration too, should be the kind of philosophy is a really important approach to this. So I'm gonna switch back to my browser now and show you something else that I like. So that's the development journey that I really like. It's super easy to use. Now, I'm gonna change gear and change tab here and put cats. Cats is a simple repository which shows you pictures of cute cats. This is a lot like your typical Golang-based Kubernetes repository, right? You got your package with your code in here and you've also got templates that form your Helm chart. Helm is a popular tool. There are lots of other popular tools you've got customized, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I wanted to introduce a way of actually passing my repository, my configuration to see what happened. So what I did was I used the CubeScape workflow, right? Which is like, you know, what, squiggly, it's 18 lines, super simple.  And what's quite cool about this is I can choose to make this either pass or fail, but what you will see is that I do get the annotations coming back as errors from JUnit saying, hey, by the way, in your deployment here, chief, you've got some problems like, for example here, privilege escalation, I've got resource limit, you know, there's a whole bunch of interesting stuff. And if I was not in a demo environment, I would most certainly have this as a fail, right? Like we described, you pick your controls, you pick your exceptions, and I think that's a really interesting one. I mean, out of those two things I've explored so far, do you think there is kind of a prevalence for one or the other? Are you starting to see people use these in conjunction or use the local sort of implementation on VS Code and also the GitHub action, or is it kind of more of a one or the other sort of approach? So I think that, you know, the answer is wise around a little bit of everything, okay? Because I met guys who said that, well, okay, I just want to hook this up in my PR action, okay?  And I met some of the guys who said, well, you know, VS Code is everything, okay? And if I had it in VS Code, I'm fine. And I met, you know, a team leader from a company who said that they are using both. And I think that somewhere the answer comes from, what is the right thing is really depends on who you are and what you're trying to achieve. But because in general, okay, maintainer, okay, of a project, we'll add this to his, you know, to his PR actions, okay? I took a point, yeah. Yeah, because this is how he is gating, he, this is how we are, he's protecting, okay, his stuff. And those developers who are very, you know, security savvy and want to work ahead of time, okay? They want to sell it. Well, I know that what I'm going to do is right, okay? Because, you know, I'm the king of the castle, okay? And what I'm going to do is I'm going to use the VS Code and I will fix inside everything. And, you know, there comes those who are working in our organization, looking all of these phases in one, you know, in a single pipeline and not just different phases and we'll say, okay, I will, for sure I'm going to put this into, you know, into the repository as, you know, as a gate. But they all will tell, but they will also tell my team, guys use this plugin, okay? Because, you know, it will save us time. That makes a lot of sense. And actually you reminded me of something. I just wanted to segue before I show the last part of my demo, I've been using Cubescape as part of the open feature project. So there's a, there's a tool called CLOMonitor.io, you know, and CSCF projects get monitored by this. And what's interesting is that, you know, I was the author of FlagD and the open feature operator. So I have to, the blame lays at my feet here somewhat and that we have a 69 out of a hundred score. And what I'm going to do off the back of working with Cubescape is that a lot of the stuff that is being flagged around our YAML, our dependencies, you know, and stuff that we described in the VS Code. So for me, there's like a real incentive to add this in because this is a health check for our project. So as we showed, you know, in this action, maintainers do have a stake in this, right? And maintainers want to keep the hygiene of their projects really high, especially if they're working under the umbrella of the Linux Foundation or one of its sister organizations. Right, we're sure. So the last bit I wanted to show was the bit I was holding back, because it's the bit that's still giving me the wow moment a lot is, I love using the Cubescape SaaS solution because, well, I'll tell you why, there's a few reasons, but one of which is that I have a bunch of different clusters that I monitor at any one time. And as we've described so far, it's kind of been on that single track journey, right? It's always been for like APR against a repo for a cluster. Now, of course, if you want to go multi-cluster, you need to think about that, right? I was really interested as well, especially with you on the webinar, Ben, to get kind of your thoughts around what Cubescape cloud needs to you and to your users. And what was sort of the incentive to build, we'd spoke about this single pane of glass, but what was your incentive to really build this out? Because it feels like it's just something that brings together what we were talking about earlier on. Yeah, so really okay, the Cubescape cloud project, which is our part of our solution today, is really a way to bring you all to this information or collecting in different phases, okay? Enable you to not just to see the results in a graphical way and get understand faster, okay, of your security issues, but also later on, okay, also to interconnect, okay, these features. So Cubescape is really a very young project, okay? A very young project, okay? But we are already building things where we are trying to connect all these information sources, okay, together. And this is gonna be the place where we can do it, okay? This is where we can bring information from your production cluster from Cube API together with your vulnerability information, using your cloud, your assistant, your cloud API and reading, you know, some of the cluster definitions from there and, you know, showing these things together to you and also to prioritize.  As we are going to forward the cable, bring more interconnections, okay, between these data sources and, you know, we are really looking into this as a single pane of glass, okay? Giving you a single security solution for Kubernetes, okay? And getting you not just, as I told you before, okay? Not just single pane of glass or from different, you know, subjects, okay? Of the Kubernetes security, but also from different phases, okay, of your security, okay? Scanning your repositories, scanning your container registries, scanning your clusters and so on. And I think that this is the way, okay, we want to work. Okay, we would not want, if we need to, we are building, you know, solutions from different parts, but if you're talking about security, I think, and my philosophy is that if you are putting, if there are too many things, there will be things which will fall between the chairs and we need something that covers you from, you know, from left to right and keeps your cloud is meant to be that. I am, I try to do some justice here by putting some takeaways together. What I, as an end user and as a product engineer who builds things in this grand cloud ecosystem of taking away is CICD security is particularly challenging, right? There's a bunch of stuff you ought to consider in all these moving parts and safeguarding that system is critical for not only commercial leads, but also as you've described, but they are a maintainer of a project for your credibility, for your ecosystem and you're actually protecting your end users as well. And I really like this kind of, it's too easy not to approach, I call it a pit of success and I believe that I've taken that from somewhere I'll have to remember where that quote was from, but I love that idea of like, it's so easy, the part, you know, there's no reason not to and I think that that's one of the things that I've really liked about it. In particular, you know, when we're building operators, whether it's open feature, whether it's, you know from my work, I like the idea of being able to have engineers who are like, oh yeah, I caught this thing, you know, and they can say, oh yeah, this is something that's come up, let's go fix that, not this kind of sentiment of dreading pushing something to the build phase and, you know, seeing it go through, actually becoming more familiar and more comfortable with it. So I think that's really nice. And I'm just really happy that I got to, to talk to you about it today, even. So I don't know if you want to give any closing thoughts or anything you want to share before we finish up. Yeah, I think that the only thing, okay, I think you've summarized it so great, but, you know, really just my takeaway for you guys is also to see this as really as an opportunity to improve, okay, CICD, although it opens up a lot of security questions, okay? But it can also make these security questions disappear even more if we are working a little bit more methodologically and using the right tooling and the right approach. I think it's a great opportunity for all of us. And I would, you know, just like to echo the sentiment that I'm excited as mentioned at the beginning of the call, you know, contributing to the tech lead that this is now a maturity point in the cloud network ecosystem that we're seeing these tools starting to address some of the gaps in our tapestry of cloud native projects. And it's great to see that it's becoming so easy to use that we're lifting each other up and becoming more secure by design. So again, thank you for indulging me on my questions, Ben. And with that, I will hand back to Candice at the Linux Foundation. Thank you so much, Ben and Alex, for your time today. And thank you everyone for joining us. As a reminder, this recording will be on the Linux Foundation's YouTube page later today. We hope you join us for future webinars. Have a wonderful day.