Coming up on DTNs, prop tech does not involve propellers or fake swords, but it might make it a lot easier to buy and sell your house. Plus, is everyone ditching Spotify for Amazon? And Dan Campos tells us why privacy issues led to a record-setting Twitter Spaces event. This is the Daily Tech News for Monday, February 14th. Happy Valentine's Day 2022 in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt from Lovely Cleveland, Ohio. I'm Rich Schiropolino and I'm the show's producer. There is a longer, oh, sorry, Roger, there is a longer version of the show called Good Day Internet, available at Patreon.com slash DTNs, where we were just talking over that Coinbase ad from yesterday. And we want to give a big thanks to our top patrons, including Dr. X17, Dustin Campbell and Tim Deputy. Thank you. Let's start with a few tech things you should know. Last week, reports surfaced that Nike and Amazon discussed internally about acquiring Peloton. The news came as the company laid off 2800 employees and appointed a new CEO. Now, in an interview with the Financial Times, incoming CEO Barry McCarthy dismissed the company being acquired for the foreseeable future. Further stating, there are lots of other things I could be doing with my time that are quite lucrative, then hanging out with the business that's about to be sold, emphasis my own. He emphasized the company had room to grow, saying it was a connected fitness company, not a bike company. Snap announced it will introduce mid-roll ads during Snapchat stories for creators in its Snap Stars program. Creators will earn a share of this ad revenue. The company already began a beta of the feature with a small set of creators in the United States, but plans to roll it out more over the next few months. Apple registered three new Macs with the Eurasian Economic Commission, including one laptop. Apple devices generally appear in the database about one to three months prior to release, although a few registered products have lagged for up to a year. The EEC requires registration for any device that relies on encryption technologies. Bloomberg's Mark Gurman previously reported Apple will hold its first event of the year on March 8th. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against Metta over its use of facial recognition on Facebook. Metta announced in November that it was shutting down Facebook's facial recognition system, no longer identifying opted in users and deleting more than a billion facial recognition templates. However, despite being shut down, Texas alleges that the program violated the state's privacy laws while it was in operation. Samsung announced the Galaxy Tab S8 series of premium Android tablets last week. After opening pre-orders on February 9th, the company has now paused pre-orders on the Tab S8 and S8 Ultra, citing overwhelming demand in the first 48 hours, listing them as sold out. The middle child Tab S8 Plus remains available for pre-order. All right, let's talk a little more about what's going on with Spotify and Amazon and all that stuff. Yeah, you I don't Tom, I don't know if you've noticed this, but over the past, I'd say about two weeks or so, there's been seemingly like a lot of interest in or at least expressing the desire to maybe move off of Spotify to another streaming audio service. I don't know, maybe this has something to do with content deals with prominent podcasters. Maybe there's just a lot of Joni Mitchell fans out there. Maybe they just don't like the color green. It's it's a mystery to me, but the conversation is out there, certainly. And, you know, I thought it was interesting to kind of look at the overall kind of streaming audio landscape and, you know, just see how like what are the options out there, I guess, and what how do you get out of these walled gardens kind of once you're in there? Because I feel like that is a lot of the staying power of like, I got my playlist set up, you know, even if I'm mad at Spotify this week or, you know, I want to support maybe there's another streaming service that, hey, I like how they're treating artists and stuff like that. You know, there seemingly is kind of a wall on there. And, you know, Spotify is kind of the 800 pound gorilla here, 31 percent market share globally out of, I think, in Q2 2021. There was like 325 million or 523 million total streaming subscribers out there. So Amazon leading the pack. But, you know, outside of Apple, I think there was an interesting piece in protocol that Amazon makes kind of a compelling case for, you know, picking up maybe some of the Spotify slack if people are trying to move off of there. Yeah, I don't use Spotify myself. I use Apple music. I used to use Google Play music until it went away and became YouTube music. I used to use Artio or Radio back in the day. So I have not been involved in this in any way. I don't use Spotify, so I didn't have to make a decision. But I do have Amazon music. I thought about this when I read David Pierce's article here, because I've got Amazon Prime. Now, I have the base thing. It's only, you know, 10,000 or so songs or whatever. So it's it's not everything, but I do have it. And the fact that I have it means that Amazon has a leg up where if I were to get upset at Apple music for some reason, I'd kind of already have Amazon music and I could just add a couple of dollars and boom, I've got Amazon music. I think a lot of people still think of Amazon music as limited because when it launched, it was very limited, but it's full-throated now. We do have lots of other choice. YouTube music, obviously, title, etc. I set up a title account this weekend for the first time. And I really liked the setup. I really liked the way it draws you in. I think it's just a matter of marketing. And I really like David Pierce's point that Apple and Amazon have the advantage because they don't have to market as hard. Music for them is a feature, not not the service itself. It's not the business. Yeah, and honestly, that like those integrations, I was kind of in the same boat as you where I was on Amazon music. I was using that a lot for the kids, right? They have like a ton of like free kids' music on that Amazon Prime tier and stuff like that. And it came down and I was a Google Play Music subscriber and it came down to, all right, do we use the Amazon ecosystem more or the Google one more? We ended up going with YouTube music for now, but it really was like that convenience feature. And I was thinking about this with, specifically with title, where over the past like three, four months, they've made some changes to their tiers. They've introduced a free tier and they've also added a lot more visibility, I guess, into how your funds are going into supporting artists. They kind of they definitely have a reputation. They're partially artists. They started as an artist-owned company. They're still partially artist-owned now for being artist-friendly in terms of payouts and that kind of stuff. And you can do things there with like direct artist funding. You're most listened to artists.  There's a tier at which your payments are artist-direct, like 10 percent or so. Yeah, I think it's your most listened artist. Yeah. So like that really interests me. But then I was kind of questioning, well, why people like supporting artists or at least saying they support artists? Like why? Why isn't that a greater draw? And I was I was kind of looking into it. And the reason is it like title doesn't integrate. We I listen to with my kids. That's like the primary use case. A ton of my listening is through our Google Hub, where we, you know, put on kids music. There's no direct title app on there. I can do it through cast. I can do it through Bluetooth and stuff like that. But I like I can't do the direct voice interaction, which is the chief. Like my kids are, you know, like three and four, they're calling out the songs that they want to hear on the Google. And I like I as someone who likes a home where things go smoothly, I'm not going to change that behavior anytime soon. But there are some interesting ways. Wired had a really great piece kind of putting together some of the ways to get around this walled garden aspect, if if you're not locked in with your kids to a Google Hub of apps that let you transfer playlists, like songs and stuff like that. But these are all third party solutions for the most part.  There's even one that will work on Linux, which I was I was super psyched on. Free your music cross platform, even to Linux, Tom. So don't fear, you can get it off Linux. Oh, good. Yeah. No, I I've actually used that one. I've used for your music when I moved off of YouTube music to get my playlist on Apple Music. It's pretty good. I did pay for it in order to make that happen. I have never enjoyed moving services. It is it is a chore. It is something you have to get a how to article for most people to figure out most people don't have the steps memorized. What's the name of the program again? Because they're not doing it every day, which is one of the reasons I think, again, David Pierce's point about these are features, not businesses, is good, is that once you get them in, you've you've kept them. And Amazon can just say, well, we already have you because we've got you as an Amazon Prime subscriber. Apple can say we've got you.  I really think that is kind of the future of music services. And Spotify had an early mover advantage that it may lose. It may become the Yahoo and MySpace of music. Well, and what's interesting about Amazon is their strategy, at least when it comes to like overall audio, does mirror Spotify in a lot of ways, kind of goes under the radar, but they've acquired podcasting studios. They have exclusive deals with several popular podcasts to get like weak early access, not exclusive to their platform overall. But they do get some of that access. They have hosting and you know, podcast hosting and ad tech acquisitions they made over the past year.  All right. Opera is enabling emoji based URLs in its browser. They're not domain names, they're URLs, but all you have to do is type in a few emojis because they've done it in partnership with a company called YAT, Y-A-T. YAT sells emoji URLs as a one time purchase and it calls them YATs. You have a YAT when you have like Skull Cowboy Hat shrug as your URL. Pricing is based on character length. The fewer characters, the more expensive. At the time we wrote this three character YAT cost several hundred dollars. Four characters is about 50 bucks. Five characters was just a few bucks because it's easier to remember fewer characters. You can customize a YAT page that they give you or you can have it redirect to your own website if you want. The company also lets you create an NFT on the Ethereum network for your YAT and plans to connect YATs to electronic payments at some point so people can pay you by your emoji string. Other browsers can get these URLs, but they have to precede them with Y-A-T because again, these are not domain names. These are just Y-A-T slash emoji, emoji, emoji. So it's no different than any other, you know, it's subbrilliant.com slash ace detect or something like that. The opera browser, however, is supporting just using the emojis and just assuming if you just type in some emojis, you must mean Y-A-T slash emojis. They also will take emojis embedded on web pages and automatically turn them into a corresponding YAT address. But the URLs do still live at Y-A-T. TechCrunch's Aisha Malik points out that you can already use emojis in a domain name. The domain name system supports that. So you can buy a domain name that supports emojis and set up something similar on your own. But that does require knowing something called puny code, which converts emojis to ASCII. And not all registrars deal with that well. Some do, some don't, it kind of depends. So it might limit your options. Certainly YAT is trying to make this easy, Rich, and say, like, hey, you want an emoji name, we'll make it easy. Even if behind the scenes, it's really just a URL, a subdomain for us. So I understand the appeal of, hey, you can have a very specific URL that can redirect wherever you want it to go.   She's got one, she's like a poster person for this. That have been integrated. I've been trying this out, I'm sure. And so I can see the aspect of that. But like from Opera's perspective, I guess, like, what is is Opera's focus here just to kind of trying to win whatever the whatever the race for Web 3 ends up being? Are they just trying to win that at this point? Like they've integrated a lot of cryptocurrency features as of late, you know, and obviously this is unrelated, but it feels like, hey, we want to be on whatever the next hip thing is. Opera, that's our I just remember when they just had a fish tank widget you could install. That's my main opera. Well, I do think that Opera and Brave have been trying to differentiate themselves with privacy and now Web 3. Both both of them have tried to do things to protect your privacy built in VPNs and things like that. Both of them now trying to incorporate crypto in various ways. Brave's been doing it for a while, honestly. So Opera's maybe even a little later to the game. But I think what they're looking at is we're behind Chrome. Everyone is behind Chrome. We don't have the advantage of a Microsoft or an Apple where we could just use our heft to try to get people to adopt our browser. So we need to do something else to catch people's attention and Web 3 gets attention. You use Web 3 these days. You're going to get a lot of people looking at you. You could you can judge out there in the audience, whether you think that's right or wrong, but it is true at the moment. And so coming up with, you know, we're going to support emojis, we're going to we're going to support crypto wallets and all of that are all attempts to try to capture an audience that's being underserved elsewhere. I will I will get that. Can we know that's that's something different? Well, we'll move on. Yeah, it's Queen. Thank you for making that so I didn't have to. All right. Moving on. You know, we discuss a lot of stories dealing with data privacy on the show. You know, it's often focused recently, at least on the US, Europe, GDPR, the ever evolving transatlantic data transfer laws seem to, you know, every every couple of quarters seem to get a couple of new ones. But Dan Campos is here to tell us about personal data privacy in Mexico and some of the social media reaction to it. Take it away, Dan. Hi, there, the DNS crew. This is a special report from NTX. In Mexico, the longest and most least in the Twitter space in Spanish took place on Friday 11, according to a Twitter spokesperson. The forum, entitled Todos Somos Loret, reached a maximum attendance of 64,000 listeners. It began around 5 p.m. on a Friday and ended on Saturday, February 12th at 3 a.m. with 27,000 people still listening with more than a million plays registered by that night. This space was a protest forum against the president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, after he published the late income and personal data of journalist Carlos Loret de Mola by letting Article 16 of the Constitution that refers to personal data privacy back to you, amigos. So I will say, researching this, I was trying to look for what was the second most Twitter space. This is like amazing to use this, like these tools that we've kind of all taken for granted for this. The second most one I could find was about 45,000 BTS fans getting together on the spaces 2001. Bigger than BTS. I mean, what else? What else can we say? Hold on, hold on. Not bigger than BTS, just bigger than the single BTS space. I full respect for BTS. I love BTS. Yeah, that's a huge, that's a huge, huge number of folks getting together. And one would assume that it would have to be either BTS or privacy issues to get people to that level, right? Exactly. Exactly. Well, Dan, thank you so much for that. And remember, you can catch Dan on NTX every weekday. Hey, we love to hear from you, the folks supporting us. So if you have some time, it only takes a couple of minutes. We have a survey out. We're asking a few questions about things. Let us know what about DTNS is working for you and what is it? Just visit dailytechnewshow.com slash survey. Protocol has several stories out Monday on something called prop tech, which sadly is not making props for cosplay, but property tech, things that make buying and selling property easy. Protocol focuses particularly on something called iBuyers, i, the letter i, B-U-Y-E-R-S. We're learning so many new buzzwords today. This stands for instant buyers, not interactive buyers, although it probably is meant to kind of signal both. Their companies, iBuyers, are that use algorithms to decide whether a home is worth buying and then make all cash offers with quick closing. So if you've ever sold a home, this is going to sound like a dream to you. No staging, no buyer requested repairs, no contingencies. They resell the home for more money than you paid for it, but you get to cash out fast and without the hassle of showings and giving you more control on when you move. They'll set the closing date when you want it, within reason, obviously. If you're thinking, didn't Zillow do this and totally fail? Yes, there's a lot of good coverage on why Zillow had to stop being an iBuyer while Offerpad and Redfin and OpenDoor have all thrived and basically it comes down to better algorithms. Zillow paid too much in the spring and summer of 2020 for its houses and bought too many homes in a race to try to catch up with OpenDoor. Now, OpenDoor has kind of become the de facto leader in this space. It says it trains and tests its models several times a day. So it's keeping its algorithm sharp. It says it thrived in the pandemic because it had better data. It has its own proprietary data that it doesn't talk about, but it also uses seller data and home inspection data. And OpenDoor also uses humans in the process to step in where the data is uncertain. OpenDoor is also trying to move into the rest of the process. They bought RedDoor so they can offer you a mortgage. You can use another mortgage if you want. But if you want to buy something through them, you can get a mortgage through them too. They also have Pro.com and Skylight. They've shut down both those services and now we're using them to offer home renovation through OpenDoor. OpenDoor already offers a service to sell and buy a house simultaneously. So you don't have to move into a rental or handle two mortgages while you move. They if you're buying and selling through OpenDoor, you can you can time the closing so that you go right from one house to the other. Offer Pad lets you stay in your home up to six to nine months after you sell it to them. That's Offer Pad, not OpenDoor. So Offer Pad is just like, yeah, don't even worry about the closing date. We'll just make it really far down the road. But I know a lot of folks don't own a home at all. Some companies are trying to make it easier to get into a home as well. Protocol also talks about divvy homes and zero down offering alternatives to traditional mortgages. In those cases, you buy a home that they own. They basically buy it for you and then rent it to you with a portion of your rent going into a savings plan for a down payment with some guarantees that you'll be able to buy the home from them once you've got the down payment saved. It's a spin on rent to own. Or if you change your mind, you can walk away and keep the cash from the savings yourself. So there's some innovative things happening with finance here, but the algorithmic buying of houses really does promise to help simplify the selling and the closing and all of that. Roger, I know you've been messing around with one of these as well. I've been messing around with Sunday, which is the only reason I know about it is because they sent a little flyer to my to the house I live in your LA asking if I want to sell there. So my house, because they'll take care of it. One of the more interesting facets of what they offer is they will give you if you go through the deal, they'll give you $10,000 immediately so you can do things like move ideally out of the house or you need it to do something. It has the same thing. Don't have to don't have to worry about showings. Don't have to worry about repairs.  And I think that's really, really amazing for people like myself, because I have a property that is some distance away, 300 miles away from me, that I'm looking to sell. And having something like that where I don't physically have to, like, drive up there and manage all that stuff. Sure, I'll have to go up there and talk to the tenants, but it's one of those things that people have been waiting on forever because of all the simplifications in life that need simplifying, outside of taxes buying a home is like right up there. It's dealing with the, it's dealing with the realtors, dealing with escrow, dealing with, you know, getting the mortgage, all of that. And a lot of these services really kind of hit that on the spot. How much of a value they are remains to be seen because these are relatively nascent, but I am definitely very excited about it because it could take care of a lot of things quickly. The thing that sticks out to me though is like the outside of the oftentimes intensely personal process of buying a home where it's like you're meeting with agents and brokers. There's like reams of paper you need to, like it does feel very old school. It's been a couple of years since I made my father home, but the one thing that this doesn't feel like it takes away is a lot of times when in the process of buying a home, you feel like you are the least informed person about this process where someone's telling you you have to get this inspection done. Someone's telling you you have to, all of these people, this is the course of their everyday day. And for you, this is something you'll do, I don't know, maybe five times for most people that's like the most homes they would ever buy or something like that. So you feel intimidated at best and oftentimes kind of drowning in either information or process or that kind of stuff. I don't necessarily think this takes away, certainly believe me, the convenience of not having to have people awkwardly walk through your home while you have to stage this completely neutral decor that you have to live in for a year while you try to sell your home. I fully welcome that for whenever we sell our house because that does not seem like any fun at all. But that's like one of my stresses as a homeowner outside of kind of the anti-diluvian process of signing mortgage documents and that kind of stuff. But the intimidation factor, I don't know if that solves that and I don't know if that's the intent is to solve that, certainly it streamlines a lot of the issues. I think really what they're trying to solve is the timeline, right? So if you've ever been and unfortunately, fortunately, I've been through four or four or five mortgage applications in the whole process. It takes a very long time for when you see the house, even a quick house selling can take, I mean, the shortest I've ever seen is a couple of weeks because there's a lot of paperwork that gets shuffled around and you're dealing with multiple people, right? Because the mortgage people aren't the same people as your title company. Your title company is the same thing as your realtor. And of course you have two realtors. You have the selling and the buying and they each get the 3%. So closing costs on a typical home, say like if you sell like for $450,000 house, you look at $96,000 rough estimate of what your closing costs are. If they could whittle that down because they do everything internally, I can, and they sell your house for maybe a 10% premium over what you sold it to them for. I could totally see this being a viable business for those companies. Yeah, that's the argument, is that companies like OpenDoor are taking less of a percentage than the agents would take in a typical transaction. They're reducing closing costs. Yes, you could possibly sell for more if you did it yourself, but their argument is, hopefully they are going to reduce the cost that it won't be so much more that the convenience of just being able to go to them and get an immediate price and they give you cash, doesn't outweigh the amount of time, the amount of effort you'd have to put in to get that extra money out of it. The other thing is, will this lower or raise the prices that people have to pay for homes? And there's some arguments in the protocol articles about this that it could lower the price of homes by adding some fluidity to the markets. Again, there's a lot of questions of whether these algorithms can really stay accurate or whether OpenDoor was just lucky. But if they can, it would mean easier buying and selling, which means more people would be willing to buy or sell and move because you've taken out one impediment, one downside to it. And in which case, they're also partnering up with new home construction to try it like they're literally partnering with the companies that build new homes to say, let's get people on OpenDoor who's selling their house into a new home construction. That encourages new home construction. It could, I'm not saying it will, it's conceivable that it could lower the price. But we're so far early in PropTech that it's hard to tell how it's actually gonna shake out because we haven't had it around long enough to have good data about what works and what doesn't. We just have anecdotes. The other thing that we have is a wonderful voicemail from Nick in Australia. And he's talking about feeling the support from Samsung. Hey, DTNS crew, this is Nick from Australia. After Samsung's aggressive marketing campaign in Australia for the Fold 3 last year, that included over $1,000 worth of bonuses for purchases, I decided to buy one. With yesterday's big Samsung announcement, I was very happy to hear they will be providing software updates for four years to my Fold 3. This thing was very expensive. So anything that helps extend the life of it beyond the one to two years Android phones used to get updates for is something my wallet is very grateful for. Thanks and keep up the great work, guys. Thank you, Nick. Yeah, no, it has multiple benefits. Longer support means better benefits. So good on Samsung for doing that. Also, thanks to our brand new bosses, Diogenes, Mike and Damon, who all just started supporting us over the weekend on Patreon. We got three brand new bosses. So thanks to all of you, Diogenes, Mike and Damon. And thank you, Rich Shruffin. It's good to have you today. It was a pleasure truly from the bottom of my heart, as always. Remember, we are live Monday through Friday at 4.30 p.m. Eastern 2130 UTC. Find out more at dailytechnewshow.com slash live. We'll be back tomorrow to talk about what's up with game DIY announcements with Tricia Hirschberger. See you then. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at frogpants.com. I hope you have enjoyed this program.


Filed yna'r TV o'r trofiu. Yn yw'r rhagl. Mae rhagl roedd yma efo chi chi'n 10th, a bod ni'n gweithio'r cywir gafodd. Aro i'n gweithio'r rhagl i'n gweithio'n gyffredig, mae'n rhaid yn cyffredig, ac yn llaf i'n gweithio. mae'r ffêl iawn yn yma, byddwch. mae'n gwneud i'r右 yn y gweithio. Mae'n gweithio llai o'r dweud o'r llog, felly mae'n gyffredig o'r rhagl,それau yna yn yn teim York i wych yn ddweud hynny. Over 10th, I guess the sandbiter already out there, I think 10 points better than the gun last year, 11 away wins, things like that, or overall, and I know it is overall, it's a bit of a disappointing end to the season, but overall what will be your take away really from the season? Where season in the history? No genuinely, I have not, this is not real football. This is not real football, what this season has done is absolutely confirm the notion that without fans football is irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant, pointless and irrelevant, so even though it had loads of big moments, because there's no fans to share those moments, number one, they will always be looked at as in, did it really matter, did it really happen, did it really count? So you'll have that side of things, and then because there was no fans there to share the experience, you can't look back and go wow that was an amazing victory we went there, because when you watch games of football, when you win games of football, you equate what happens on the pitch to the celebrations off them. It's not worse than seeing a goal going in the crabby and just go, you want to see arms and limbs going, that was amazing, I was in there, or I had mates in there, or that's what I am part of what that is like to be. You know, even if you watch someone when we win an away game and I see people in there going I know, I know people in there, and they're having the time of their lives and even though I wasn't, I feel part of that. And now we haven't had that this season, it's been completely lost, so that's my first thought on it, I never want this to happen again, because if it does, football to me is absolutely pointless. You've got a lot on with that obviously. I totally agree with it, football without fans is not on isn't it, let's be honest, it's just so strange winning at places like Hanfield Leeds, never won at Leeds, hardly. And still, it's hot in them, it would have been great days out last minute, equalise it, and I thought, if all of this had never seen it, so it's all happened at once when I haven't been there. Many others have the same, but it's just been a long draining, tiring season I think, I've got to be honest. Like we've said many times, it's like a Netflix series to me, because you're just tuning for the hour and a half don't you, and you're like, oh yeah, that's what it felt like to me. The only time it felt real to me was when we beat Liverpool on that field, I got all my hands up at Dislike Liverpool. No of course. I haven't seen that in my lifetime, that was fantastic to watch and must admit, being waiting for that for all my life. But it's just a shame that it's been a full season with our fans basically, and when you'll have your life going away, going at the home games, even like Lincoln and the Cup and stuff like that, it's just been very strange for me. It's when you think of, I'm feeling you think of Sir Madge and Sigurdson's penalty, played the same way, and then he scores that penalty and runs to that corner with the rest of the user. The emotion in that. Everyone's, ah, them pitches are there for ever. It's just for ever isn't it? It's just said people might love that and go all good at that. But I guess to take stuff like that though, from that perspective it's been good hasn't it? We've got the record at Spares, we have won there since 2008. We've won, and I'm feeling our first time in 22 years, we won at Arsenal for the first time since 1996. Leaves like Kane said, we've got hardly won there, we won there. We're the good winner West, I'm less than we won it again. So there's been a lot of records that have at least deep dispatched some of them haven't they? Yeah, but I wonder how much that will play a part in anything. I don't know how much that's ever played a part in us not winning those places. But it's good to just not have that. Yeah, it's good to not have people go, oh we haven't won a game and I'm feeling since 1999.  That's great, I just wonder how much it'll hold weight going forward. Or is it just a thing for us or things for just someone's says, does it really matter to the players? So that'll be interesting. But they're all good wins in their own right aren't they? Beating most of the teams above us. I don't need a top two, he didn't beat in me. So that's good in its own right, especially away from home. And I suppose the only negative in that is it hasn't counted for anything. It hasn't counted for anything. Normally when you win games of football, like big games, you want them to go to something. But when you look back at the season and go, finished 10th. And I know the points are high.   Four more points in Europe. Let's just pause it there for a sec. Well Ned, Ned just put that off for us three points. Total thing there. So here's the points from the 1670. This is around obviously Ronald Coon's first season. Everton finished 7th. 61 points that season. 17 wins the same as this season. 10 draws 11 defeats was enough to get Everton's 7th. The next year on the Ralladys 49 points. 13 wins 10 draws 15 defeats. 18 19 seasons 54 points. 15 wins 9 draws 14 defeats. 19 20 49 points last season. 13 wins 10 draws 15 defeats. 12. And this season 59 points. 17 wins 8 draws 13 defeats. 10th. So you know after Coon's first season with the 61. Is the second highest points. Same amount of wins. The same amount of wins. And it's instead of getting us 7th. It's got us 10th. So I guess came in you look at it from that perspective. To win 17 out of 38 games. And to only get 10th. I mean, if like Peter said, if you just look at the points on its own. Forget the league position. Because it was gold difference that knocked us down a couple of places. But 59 points isn't a terrible the 10. People have lowered at Leicester City. It's the leary. And they're where you're doing things. And yet they finished 7 points above Everton who have been terrible. Apparently by a lot of people's standards. 8 points off Champions League. But you look at it like that. It's weird isn't it? Yeah. Well, the only thing I'm let down is that we didn't get Europe. That was everyone's objective at the start of the season. We need to get European football. The manager made it clear that we need to be in Europe next season. To go with the plan. And that's just been the biggest let down. I'm not really bothered where we finish. 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th. I'm not really bothered. 59 points on another year. We'll get us 7th places. We've been unfortunate with our missed opportunities at home. And it's our own fault really. We shot ourselves in the footpoint again for me. Because we had a really good chance of getting into the Europa League at least. The season of the Conference League. But this team don't really seem to have a mentality. Where they can overcome big games when it's somethings on the line. Sheffield, United at home. I keep going back to probably bored of me. I still wouldn't have gotten Europe back then. I guarantee it's the Villa game. Villa, Sheffield, United. These two games. The home games. We've got 4 points in those two games. Exactly. I look at more of. I wouldn't put Sheffield, United on its own now. Because the home form is consistently poor. You've got to look at the home form all the time. I told me with that too. What I mean by the Sheffield, United. The game is dull. But if we beat Sheffield, United. Then Westam, then Tottenham have got something to think about. Because they're right on the back then. No, but I say this. As a whole, I totally agree. The home form is absolutely pathetic. And let's be honest. 11 away wins with nothing in empty. In a full stadium. Sorry, do you know what I mean? No, but I think that's obviously a big positive. I know we can say to the game of 40. Forget about whether it was home or away. It was just a game on a pitch. Because there was no fans on Evergreen 17. But I guess if you want to break it down a bit and say 11 away wins is really good. Only man city won more away against than ever. So that's a big positive this season. It's something that we've bemoaned for years. Haven't helped her a 11 with being away from home. But I guess the key disappointing thing is the fact that we were only able to manage two wins from December at home. And we had games against Burnley. The second half of the season was a lot worse than the first half. I think the first half we finished with the first 19 games. We got 33 points. So the second half has been disappointed. The wins have been far in between. Apart from the three we won in a row when we beat Liverpool and Southampton and West Brom wasn't it? That was the real catalyst that we thought was going to get us Europe. Ultimately, I think it showed that this team, number one, it wasn't good enough. It hasn't got good enough players. The squad's not good enough. That's been shown by the second half of the season when it's been a bit more stretched. It's not been good enough. We picked up a lot of injuries. You could sometimes say that's unlucky or you could say, well, it's the type of players we carry. You know, we've got players who are in the late 30s. We're picking up a little knocks. They're not playing as much. Players and then how many players are saying I'll play injured? Well, we know some players won't play with any kind of knock.  And we haven't had any consistency. And the simple fact is this team isn't good enough. The reason why we've won 11 away games, most of them have become because we had a particular style of play. And I think the managers done brilliantly together. Those wins tactically set us up. The win at Leicester, superb. The win at Liverpool, superb. The win at Leeds, superb. Three games there were tactically, we were brilliant. We were brilliant and every single player had done their job on those nights. And off against three very attacking sides. And we won, we scored a couple of goals in those games as well. And we got the first goal and there was a belief, there was a belief that we were playing. And when people criticise Calamantulotti in the style of home, the flip side is the style of way, because he knows that isn't that very good. You know when people say again, Mr Leary, people say we're 18 months in and we've got no style of play in addition with that. I was saying to Kay before it, to me, I disagree with that, we've got a style of play. We are a defensive counter-attackers team. That's what we are. Is that what everything want to be? I hope not, because I want us to play more attacking football. But that's what we are, aren't we? You said yourself, you got to Christmas and went, we're letting goals in. We sat here going, you know what, take a few nil nils at the moment. Just to stop letting goals in. And I think that's what Carlo did. I think Carlo got to Christmas and went, yeah, we're not very good at doing the other stuff. Of trying to attack. So let's be tight. I remember Fulham, Fulham game 3-2. We were terrible second half. We were terrible. We were absolutely shocking in that game. And we had to bring Tom Davis on. And he sat in front of the back four and that got us a little bit more going forward. We were awful. You missed the pen Fulham that day.  And I remember afterwards people going, what are you both for? We were like, because we can't defend. And we got to the playing game and he got a little bit lucky. It's not lucky, I suppose, but we got injuries and he went to the four of the back centre backs. And it clicked into Ben Goffley. It clicked into place. And he discovered, you know, at two home games Arsenal Chelsea against teams who know we've come and have a lot of the ball. So it worked in those games. And actually, it's funny, because where it started going wrong, when you talk about like, saying Sheffield tonight, and I think the West Ham game at home where it started going wrong. If we'd won that night, then we would have been like second in the league going into January thinking, we've got, we can do this. And when we got beat by West Ham, it sort of took the wind out of our sails a little bit. Give them the catalyst. That was a big game at the time West Ham was, wasn't it? We'd had a break as we didn't have the city game. The city game. And it felt, we'd come on. And that was the game to me where things started going the wrong way. Just a little moment. You have little moments in the season where we started, with December we'd been brilliant. That was New Year's Day, wasn't it? What about when we got ourselves back into the mix with Windsor Wolves and Leeds? And then we'd come home against Newcastle. It would fall from bottom. It'd be terrible. When we went to Leeds, I thought we had to go that day.  Because we did the game plan. Yeah. But we were attacking as well. That's what it means on me. That was the most attacking I've seen this play or season at Leeds. In my opinion, because normally we go away and we defend and we keep it a shape and stuff like that. But the thing is though, the problem going forward is that we can't really be playing like that at home. Don't you think that one of the big problems this season has been was that mentally the players just couldn't defend at home? You look at the Sheffield United. Sorry, you go back to the Baylor game and you look at how we give the goal up. You look at the Sheffield United the way we give the goal up. It was like when we went away. When we went away. When we went away, we had a steeliness about us. The mental attitude was we were going to play this way. When we played at home, that mental attitude wasn't like there. It was like, we've got to play football today. It's like, it doesn't mean you stop defending Leeds. That mental attitude wasn't there. Again, I think that's cost us where at some games we should have just gone. There's games where we should have gone Leeds tonight, it's not happening.  Dead easy. Dead easy and I think that's where three or four more draws I think that's where other teams had the edge over us where they could go.  Don't concede. If we draw, we draw. We move on to the next one where we'd be like this in-between team. You look at the bench and stuff. The manager didn't have anything off the bench. The injuries that happened. There was key injuries. Ultimately, ultimately the squad really, really pulled. I mean, let's look at the plays he brought in for the season. You know, we sat here after Bournemouth and we were putting the table like that before knocking the coffee everywhere. But he brought in Alan, Adelaide Ikorey, Hamers Rodriguez, Ben Goffrey, Robin Olson, and obviously Nielsen Cungcw came in early and was supposed to be a part player, I guess, and I guess that's where he was and he's done all right. He looks like a decent player for a quarter of a million quid. But in general, Olson's kicked-picked on, I think, and done all right. So on then signings, because they were at the very start, I mean, three of them made the debut with Tottenham on day. Exactly. So have you been happy with those players for the season, do you think? Yeah, yeah. I would say I've been, to be honest, because when Alan's had a big injury this season, Hamers has been in and out with his injuries, but when they've been on the pitch, they have performed. I think it's just the players around and what just don't help, I think. So does that give you confidence then, because obviously they were Carlos and Marcel Branders first. And don't forget, you had a brand that came in in that time as well, just in January, but since Carlos being here. So is that giving you confidence moving forward then that the five or six that he's brought in together as this new team, have all been players who have helped us? Yeah, I do personally, but what I would say to that is, they need to go and look in the market now and look out for younger players who are hungry. I don't want to be going for players who are 20 or 30 years old. You don't want to cut your own bail? No, no, no, no. Is go, all of them. No, thanks. So I don't want these type of players. I want Carlos and Brands to work together this summer and just basically put an idea in place and pick players out who are young and hungry. Oh, Ben Galfreys. Yes, Mr Diabe, Leon Dailies. And we are sick and tired of talking about them, but we'd love these type of players to come in. I don't want these is-goes cutenials who've got injury problems, the 30s, rejects. We need up-and-coming players. They should be going to play in the MLS. I will mention Leicester with the recruitment side of things. No, I was going to be Leicester. Don't worry. It's not a no-go zone to come on Leicester. But they bring in a player and become an important part of their team. And they sell them on. And it's like they've replaced them like that. Well, I've just got the wrong plan, man. Well, I was going to say. We sell Ramblau Le Cachew. And in the turns out after four years, the replacement was already here for now. But maybe we need another centre for it with that. Don't get me wrong. Ghan agai. That was all up in the air for a bit. But Gabamans being unlucky with injuries. Don't get me wrong, the luck hasn't been there. But on the flip side of that is, if Gabamans out on a long-term injury, you buy some more. You've got to replace them. Do you know what I mean? You can't put all your legs in one basket and depend on one player to come back from injury. That's been a problem for me too. Leicester, I think Leicester, show a way of doing things that would probably suit Evan and other ways to do it. And it is by bringing in young players and having that little bit of experience. But having that be your template, having other teams have done it as well, Leicester obviously just missed out on Champions League, but he won the FA Cup. But it is that idea of getting young players in who provide energy, work rate, who don't come with all the sob stories and all with the baggage or whatever. You've got to have a team that can play. Six, seven, one. You want eight of them every week who can play for you, don't you? So that way maybe one does go out with injured. You replace them. You know, towards the end of the season, Madison couldn't get in the Leicester team because other players had stepped up. They'd seen what was going on and got in the team and said, I'm going to keep this place. Whereas with Evan, the whole season it's been, on Jay Gomez starts the season, then he goes out of form and he comes out and then Sigarton goes in and then someone comes out and then Alan gets an injury and then Tom Davis comes in for him and then the Corry gets an injury and no one can replace him and on Jay Gomez is back in and then he's out and then Delph is in and he's out. We need players who are in there who fit the... Look at all those players I've just mentioned there. None of them are similar. Not one of them is similar to each other. Delph and Tom Davis have got a similar attitude. No one's got any attributes near the Corry. No one's like Alan. On Jay Gomez and Sigarton are two completely different players. Sigarton's the same kind of player to Hamas. But they're all completely different players and you're introducing them into this midfield and then you think you're going to get a continuity. And none of them are starting. The right back, Shane, is coming. He shouldn't be starting games. And it's replacement. Colgate, who's the centre back? And it's like there's no left back. It's a replaced team. So every player you swap around doesn't have a player behind them who's similar. The only ones who we have, really, is the centre backs. And your goalie. Your goalkeeper. The others. I mean, we've got Niels and Konky. We've got Terry Small. Terry Small's a baby, isn't he? You've got Konky who's an expert. So Goffrey went there. But you're right.    Because when you look at the Premier League, it's basic attributes are physical athletes. Liverpool built their team on where men like midfield and then brilliant everywhere else, you know. Wingbacks. And Man City have Man City a little bit different. So let's move them out the way. But all teams, even teams like Leeds United, finished above everyone on goal difference. You wouldn't go through that Leeds team going, I wish we had Luke Eiling. I wish we had him or I wish we had him. Oh, he's brilliant. You look and go, you've got Raphina, who's had a great season, lovely left-up, Patrick Bamford's being on fire. Calvin Phillips is a good little player as well. You know, Jack Harris and I rarely like, but I've liked them when he was at New York City. He's another one, but they've improved him. But they're all physically ready. Luke Eiling runs up and down for 95 minutes, as if it's the first minute. Well, dude, that's the centre-back. Suit what Bielsa wants. Cos he's had three years to build it. We had it last year with Wolves. Wolves had a team where it was built over three years, coming off the championship, the same as Leeds. It's been built. He and Sheffield United went wild out. They had had a few years to do the same thing. Leeds have got a team that is a team. So much more a team than we are. It's been built to play in the same way.  Whereas... And they have all these names that I've never heard of. It sounds like players who should be in the Scotland squad every week are just like, who's he? If you get in from Kilmarch or something, it's just like... And we get players who played for Barcelona and did this and that. Well, ironically, the two, they spent a lot of money on the rent, and Rod Rigo. I mean, Rod Rigo, come on, this weekend, he's got two lovely goals for them, but they've hardly played because they've been... They haven't been able to do what he wants.  And as I said, our team... I don't know, they've done quite well. Our team is just a... The squad is like the land of misfit toys. It's like you've just been given all this stuff, it's been dumped on the floor, and the manager's being told to do something with it. The only real formula he's found is the defensive shape, cos he asks the team to a certain thing, but when you ask them to do patterns of play and all that, and you're saying, well, our most attacking player, our most creative player, sorry, is Hamas Rodriguez. He's going to play a couple of games on the run and then be out for three weeks. It's like, how can you build any relationships? Let me ask you about Hamas, because we had a conversation about him when he was signing, and we knew that his medical took a few days cos quite clearly his body isn't up to scratch of what it could be. But we both had a chat and said, well, if he gets 20 to 25 games out of him, we'll do well. This, I mean, you hope that his quality takes over. And he finished evidence there, top scorer. He created, I think he was involved in 15 goal contributions, which was miles more than anyone we had last season in Arminfield and Bernard. I think it was the top scorer last year with three or something in Arminfield, and he never played. So on the whole, he's done all right. He doesn't cost us anything, and I think he's had a good season, mate. Honestly, I think when we signed him, we had that chat and I said to you, as long as you get 20 games out of him in the Premier League, I'm happy, cos it will improve us. And it's improved us, because I point to Tally, and all the position doesn't reflect. But like I said, when Rodríguez was about him, he was out for a long time there too. It's nothing. I don't want to play these at all, but it's not that. I've obviously got something wrong with this. The calf's the big issue, isn't it? The calf's the big issue. And I think what we need is, we can't be, for the next market, we can't be the lion on Rodríguez for our creativity next season. We need at least two other players. They should be the sherry, really, shouldn't they? We need at least two other players to come in to be creative in the team for me, and one will be a winger and one will be playing in the middle. You've been trying before, that home we struggle, because there is no creativity. We don't know how to do it, do we? Having hammers as your sherry, in and out, not the lion on, you can't build a thing on them. That'll be key, so get someone in and just have them in the squad.  You've got to have someone, you go, I expect them to play 39 games in the Premier League, 38 games in the Premier League and other games. Introducing the 39 games.  If you're expecting someone to play 25 games in a certain position, then you need someone else to play the other 13 games. Except, you know what I mean? You can't just go for those 13 games and we're going to have nothing, because again, it's about chemistry, it's about building up relationships, it's similar to each other, and we've said this for years, you bring a gabamen and it gets injured, you need a prototype gabamen, you need another one, you need to have someone and go, you know, easier to come in. Next season, I hope we have, you know, decorate, but then you have one of the young kids coming through who's the backup to him, if he can play, you can have this thing with it, it's like, we've got him, and then his replacement is completely different. That's not on the manager, that's on now getting rid of the dros. You know, we have Hammers' Rodriguez and it's like, oh yeah, well we can play instead. But the drop-off is just, it's not even a drop-off, it's just that they're not the same kind of players. When people are frustrated with Hammers, I understand that, because it's not fit, but the key really is the fact that we've got no-one to come in and replace him, it's not really Hammers' Rodriguez, we've got no-one to come in and replace them though, with people being on and about Rodriguez. What I'm saying is, for example, if we had another creative midfielder, right, who got us like five goals, five or six, right, I don't think there would be that much of a backlash on Rodriguez personally, because the goals on the assist were back up, and then it would improve our position, and then fans would be happier.  We did the Leeds actually, we didn't play him at Leeds, we kept him for United, and he's good, but I'd be doing that, I'd be looking going, we're playing against Mans City, you don't give us a second on the ball, so we have to be quick in transition, so you're sub, but next week, when we're playing barely at home, and we need someone to unlock them, we're going to play you in the 10, because the Abbey, we need this pace, and then you get the best out of him. That's the key though, isn't it? Amazon City, you should miss games, when we want them to miss games, not when his body dictates, so if he plays a game, and we're thinking right, he's coming to the red zone or whatever it is, he's overdone it, on his car or whatever, we'll leave him out of this game, and that's on us then. When the manager came up and said, he's having this break, it's because when he comes back, he'll be ready and fit, and it didn't quite work out the way we wanted to, but that first game, he came back, he looked so much fresher, and that jail, he got round the pitch a lot more, and we benefited from that, but imagine you could do that every now and again, and just go, you've played a couple of games in a row, we've got a tough game away from home, sit this one out, and we'll bring this other kid, and play on the counter attack, and actually this suits us, because when he went into Leeds, he was like, that makes sense, because we can play on the counter attack, and it worked, and there's no way he can play in this game, and that's what you want, you want more of that, but that's having plays you're coming into it, and at the moment we don't, we just miss fit. We over rely on players, don't we? One play we did bring in in January, was Josh Kingen, and he never got a sniff, did he really got a minute there? I mean, I've seen people say, what a pointless signing, but was it a pointless signing for you, or was it something that had to do with it? Hadn't had to do with that, but it obviously wasn't an enchillote signing, wasn't it? You don't know what it really doesn't seem to be, but had it not to do with that, because if Calvert Llewman was missing, then the Charleston, because there were points up walls where the Charleston was at an injury, and there was players playing, and now we've been in the game. Wolves away, the Charleston was sub, and we didn't have them in the front, but Brighton near the end, Tom was out, the Charleston was carrying a knock when he played, because Josh King was out, it would have been a game he started, but we needed it in January. We shouldn't have even left it at that land to bring in the forward, even if you didn't fancy Josh Kingen, we should have been in the market for a forward, and we left it very late, and then the minute they pulled the plug, we went back for Josh Kingen. But that should be sorted for the West Ham game, to my opinion. Now the West Ham game, New Year's, do you know what I mean? We should be that old. But I think Bairns Calvert Llewman out, for the second half of the season, definitely. He went down. That's it. Players, don't forget this season followed on OK, there was a six-week gap, but there was only a two-week gap from the end of the season, and they didn't go anywhere, they couldn't go anywhere. They were stuck in this country, they haven't had a proper break. So people like Dominic Calvert Llewman who tailed off the end of the last season, tailed off the end of this season, there's got to be something in that. They've worked, Tom would play every single game, and then he starts getting a couple of inges and it's no coincidence that him and Hammersfield's Eager started picking up more inges in the second half of the season when there wasn't that, there should have been times when you've got, you squads that good or it's better that you can go right, Tom, being great, but come on, you sit this one out tonight. I squads that bad though, really, with that West Ham, I've got Jared Bowman coming off the bench. Look where they are this year, the bench should come on, and that's why our players did... Well, funny enough... The enchilote has always had over them that, the fitness side, the things with players. I remember someone going on about it when he was at Bayern Munich and the players were playing fit there, but this season especially, we haven't had options to come off the bench like the West Ham can bring on Bowman and players like that for an hour. They had the scoring goals and the creating goals for them. At the time afterwards, I remember after about an hour in the West Ham game, there were a lot of games, of course, it was over Christmas, and they brought subs on that were very... It was like they were precise when they came on. It was like he was managing them, and I remember thinking that... You wrote Antonio Lanzini, and... And they upped the game, and it was like these players have been left on the bench on papers to come on in the last 30 minutes, freshen everything up and give them a little bit, like probably only made maybe one or two, but it was almost... Can you imagine, by the way, if we played City on the 28th... But that's what it felt like, but it felt like... It felt like they'd worked their squad perfectly over Christmas, they understood, Moise understood how to use the squad because he had the squad, whereas us it was like, it's done looking like he's tired and there's a challenge and we'd better bring someone on now or a week. Do we need something? But that's the problem is we can't manage our squad to get the best out of it because we simply don't have the players, and the squad's awful.  It's unbalanced, that squad. It's unbalanced, but you could see how bad the squad is. We had a thousand of runs and we're going into exit time against them. Who was it now? That's a lot. What's the call? I can't beat Rob, I'm after 90 minutes when you've changed players. It's poor. I think the problem when you look at the squad is you've got, like, your subs are all like similar things, like, wow, we've been at it through wide players, you want to come inside, you want to check back and come in.  There's none of that. The midfielders are all the same. They're all Tom Davis, or the Gomez, or the Delf. It's like, slow. They're not going to win your game. They're not going, and there's no striker. You know, we got King in and we didn't play him. Would you have played them more, though, if you were the manager? I would have, but I don't shame every day in training. I know of that, isn't it?  You haven't been able to train. You don't see that as fans. Exactly. It's just frustrating, though, isn't it? When you see him at Bournemouth, and he was scoring goals in the Premier League of Bournemouth, and he thinks he's hopefully going to get three or four goals from now to the end of the season. I've seen his strategy. He's had three shots since he's been 11. And also, you've got to remember that Dominic Cavallun has been, was the person this season, most of the season kept us where we were. His conversion rate was unbelievable. When you're the manager and you're thinking, that's our best player, Dominic Cavallun's our best player, consistently, then I don't want to take him out of the team because if he's our best player and we rely on him to score the goals and this fella can't, then there's half the game for Dominic Cavallun. I think it's just the odd game where he should have gone with the three in the middle of the film. Not a way because he had a way of playing, but there was a couple of games where people got them playing four, three, three, so they were having a genuine three. But then if Josh King is not training brilliantly and the manager is looking at him going, can he get through 90 minutes or certainly 70 minutes of pace? You said he'd come on at Westland. I never interested in the time when he comes on so maybe they're looking at him and testing him and going. He never looked fit. I'll say one thing, that's on him because he started the season unprofessionally for Bournemouth, trying to get a move away from them and not really offering himself up. He never really looked like he got fit pre-season, never really coped with that. They didn't play him did they? And they didn't play him because obviously he looked like he maybe had a bit of an attitude because he wanted to leave. A couple of deals failed, don't forget it as well before the season for him. I just think he had an attitude. He never got himself fit and it's come back to haunt him because he's come to everything and he's not been up to the level. Don't forget, you've got games of 40. When you're training in the season there's no time to get fit if you haven't already been fit because the players are at that level already and if you're down here, you're going to just be chasing them around training. You'd actually have to go away and actually do. There's been less of those full weeks of training because when the games have been less don't forget the league cup was every week in the first half of the season. There's been, the man that you've probably had haven't any weeks where they've had a week. There's probably haven't been loads of time when you've had a full week training before a game and he's then been unable to train because of a back injury that he's had. So I think we've done the right thing getting them, it didn't work. You have to have a back. I'm asking if we've done that goreng and either goreng it. The place would have been that. It is what it is. We've got to the end of the season. We've had good things that, like I said before we've got rid of a lot of unwanted records in terms of like landfill and stuff like that. You can argue the importance of them or not, but it's good to be going to them grounds thinking we won last year. It's off your shoulder isn't it? When I go to landfill with my mates in 1999 and when we go to Chelsea it's like 1994. So next season you'll just be like we won here last year. The fans then start going we won here last year. So we can win here again. That's the difference isn't it? Hopefully as we move forward but ultimately it is. It will be looked on as a disappointing season because I honestly believed when we beat West Brom I thought we're probably going to be in your we've been in the race for the Champions League unlikely I was thinking that's probably got us into your and we had games like Burnley Home and Villa but they don't mean anything if you don't win them and that's proved it. A guess going into the summer the key will be to get the right player it'll be to get players you can play us on the front footer home because I think away from home with a plan we're very good, we're good at that and these players have shown that you can stick to a game plan. When people have a go at everything and go they're not disciplined these players don't know how to do this they do because they've done it so many times on the road when there's a specific game plan I think the key is like you said before stick into the game plan the best teams stick to the game plan even when you go a goal down you don't only go ragged in the last 5 or 10 minutes if you're in the game they stick to the game plan so that's faced and foremost they didn't do it at City the other day they just threw it caution to the winner but the key for me will be getting those players you can win the games against Bay and Leesarow when they come and sit and we just simply haven't got them in the squad we definitely haven't there you go I guess it's I don't know, people have said it's prog so I've seen some people saying it's been a season of progress we finished high and we did last year we've got 10 points more than we did last year and we've got some more wanted records the flip side to that will be we didn't get your up and we've probably blown a really good chance this year because the league was in flux but the best chance we could ever have really last year well it's up to us now you've both mentioned Leesarow it's up to us to get our plan on right and start to perform isn't it and if we do that we've got a it would be that far away, don't very quickly because like you said to me before the 7 points away from the team that everybody holds up is doing everything perfectly so I don't know first nine on games the same seven so I don't know but one thing I will say Leesarow will do better than us is plan their recruitment and that's where we do after follow their lead and go don't be afraid to get plays you might move on in two years you might move on in two years for double what you pay for them then you reinvest it we go again I think that's where everyone can learn it's just the interest on all that fans who are panicking about carpet living going to Tottenham should know what they mean after some people have set them on Leesarow they are best players don't they because I know for one comes in and does equally as well but you said early on in this the Lukach who think we never replaced them so there you go let us know what you think in the comments section below about the season if you looked at it you're bitterly disappointed you're just kind of like well it's a bit of progress and this summer will tell us what we need to know because I think that's what we think this summer will give us the biggest indication of whether we are actually moving forward or whether we are just going oh Leesarow I bail let's get him or Leesarow you know one of those so let us know in the comments section below give the video a thumbs up subscribe if you haven't and if you want more video join us over on Patreon see you later


Hi, I'm Daniel Wicks. And I'm going to tell you about incompressible encodings. This is joint work with Tal Moran. Let me start with a question. The question is, how much space does it take to store Wikipedia? So it turns out that you can actually download the entire Wikipedia contents for offline use. And depending on which version you get, it can be something like 50 gigabytes. And this is for the text-only English version. But there's an alternate way of storing the Wikipedia data, which is just to store the link, www.wikipedia.org. That only takes about 17 bytes. And with this link, you can access the Wikipedia data whenever you want. And the point I want to make here is that when it comes to some public data like Wikipedia, even though the data can be very large, just by storing the link, you can essentially have this data for free without storing it. And the question for this talk is, can we take such public data, let's say the entire Wikipedia contents, and make it incompressible? In other words, can we come up with a representation of the Wikipedia data that would require, let's say, 50 gigabytes of storage to store this representation, even for people that have the link to the underlying Wikipedia data and have access to that for free, don't need to store it? So let me tell you what I actually mean by this. Let me make this precise, and let me get straight to defining this notion of incompressible encodings. So incompressible encoding consists of two algorithms, an encoding algorithm and a decoding algorithm. And the encoding algorithm takes some underlying data M, let's say the underlying Wikipedia data, and encodes it in a probabilistic randomized way to derive some codeword C. And here, I made the image of the codeword C have some noise or look noisy to indicate that it somehow uses randomness to drive this codeword. But this codeword C is essentially a good representation of the Wikipedia data. Anybody can come and decode the codeword and recover the original data itself. So storing the codeword is as good as storing the underlying data itself. You can think of it as just an alternate randomized representation of the data. Again, I wanna emphasize that the encoding and decoding procedures are public efficient procedures. Anybody can run them. There are no secret keys or public keys or anything like that. Anybody can run these procedures. And we will correctness. So correctness is that whatever message you start with, if you encode it and then decode it, you should get back the original message with probably one where the probability is over the randomness of the encoding procedure. But we want this encoding to be incompressible. And that means that it should be hard to compress the codeword C even for an adversary that knows the underlying data. So we're going to consider an adversary that for whom the data M is public, let's say has access to Wikipedia on the internet. And the goal of the adversary is to take this codeword and compress it down. So remember that the codeword was created using some randomized process, randomized encoding procedure. So it contains some additional information beyond the Wikipedia data. And the goal here should be that it should be hard to compress the codeword itself, this new representation of the Wikipedia data, even for someone that knows the underlying data for free. So the adversary consists of two algorithms, compress and decompress. The compression algorithm takes the codeword C and I'll put some compress value W, which will be of size beta. And the decompression algorithm takes this compress value W and its goal is to recover the original code words. And security says that this should be impossible for an efficient adversary to do. So we're going to say that for any message that you start with and any adversary that consists of this compress and decompress procedures. And notice I'm quantifying over the worst case choice of the message. So this indicates that the adversary could actually have the message hard-coded inside it. In other words, this message is completely known and we don't pay anything for storing it, okay? And we're going to say that if we take the message encoded by this probabilistic coding algorithm, give it to the compress procedure, which outputs some compress value of beta bits and then apply the decompression procedure, then the problem of us getting back the original code word should be negligible. In other words, the problem of the adversary succeeding in compressing this code word and later being able to use the compress value to recover it should be a most negligible. Okay, and the goal is to come up with such some scheme where the size of the code word alpha is as close as possible to the original data size. So we don't want to have much overhead and it should be incompressible again, almost to the entire code word or data size. So the adversary cannot compress it much beyond the underlying size of the data. Okay, so let me tell you a little bit about this problem. This problem was actually introduced in prior work and so I'll tell you a little bit about the prior work and our results. So there's a prior work of Damgar, Ganesh and Orlondi and they defined a variant of this notion of incompressible encodings, essentially as a building block to build something called proofs of replicated storage and I'm not going to get into what these are in this talk. But in this context, they constructed these incompressible encodings. I'll be with some major caveats. Again, I'll discuss those later, but one of them is that their construction only work in some idealized model like random worker model. And so in our work, the main point of our work is actually to take this notion of incompressible encoding and define it as a standalone object that we believe is interesting to study in its own right. And we give new and improved constructions of this primitive, in particular we'll show as we'll see later we get some constructions in the standard model without a random worker. We also give some lower bonds and negative results and we give a new application of this object to something called Vicky cryptography. So completely different application than the original one proofs of replicated storage. So let me actually start by giving you this application. I think it'll also illuminate a little more about what the notion is and why it's useful. And then we'll talk about the constructions. So the application is to something called Vicky cryptography. This is an area that's been studied in the past and it's motivated by the problem that computers can often become compromised by various malware or Trojan horses or et cetera. And essentially it means that a remote attacker can get access to the compromised computer. And if you have any kind of a secret key on this computer that that could can just exfiltrate it can download it and get the secret key. And so that means that whatever the security the secret key was providing is complete law so that that could can then let's say if this was a decryption key that that could can decrypt any messages that were encrypted with respect to this. And a really nice idea to prevent these types of attack is to make secret keys intentionally big. So instead of having a secret key be like 128 or 256 bits let's think of a secret key which is 50 gigabytes in size. And the idea is that a 50 gigabyte secret key is difficult to exfiltrate from the compromised system. It's a lot harder to get it out than it would be to take to get a small key out. Maybe there's some firewalls et cetera that can detect huge amounts of exfiltration but wouldn't be able to detect just 128 bit keeping the exfiltrated. And so I wanna use an image that's due to Adi Shamir. So Adi had this great analogy. He said, if you wanna protect a small diamond you really need a lot of security you need to watch it very carefully have a security team. But a Statue of Liberty is also a pretty valuable object. You're not really worried about people stealing Statue of Liberty because it's very difficult to steal. And so that's the idea. Here we're going to sort of make the key intentionally huge to make it difficult to steal it. Okay, and so this idea actually goes back. It's been studied in quite a few cryptographic works. Often it's referred to as the bounded trival model or big key cryptography. And these crypto systems have two goals. So the first goal is to design a crypto system that has a huge key, 50 gigabytes key and ensure that security holds even if let's say 99% of the key data leaks. So even if 99% of the, even if let's say 49 out of 50 gigabytes are leaked out of the system the adversary cannot break the security of the crypto system. And the second goal is to make sure these crypto systems are efficient even though their secret key is huge. So for example, reading even just reading an entire 50 gigabyte key to like cryptographic operation would be really inefficient. So we want to make sure these crypto systems only read a small portion of the key in each operation and their overall efficiency should not be much worse than that of standard small key crypto systems that have 128 or 256 big key. So there was a lot of work devoted to this idea. But one problem with all of the prior works is that they require the users to store a huge 50 gigabyte key and waste its storage on this. The key is completely useless for any other reason other than to do cryptography. So you're essentially just wasting storage. And so the new idea in our work is let's make the key useful. Instead of just storing some making the key random data let's make the key store something useful like let's say the movie database that a user would store anyway or maybe an offline version of Wikipedia that the user wants to store or when the user goes offline and wants to still read Wikipedia. So the idea is let's make Wikipedia data let's make the secret key consist of Wikipedia data. Now, is that a good idea? Is Wikipedia a good secret key? Well, no, it's a really terrible idea. Wikipedia is public. Anyone can access it on the internet. So it's a really terrible secret key. It's really terrible idea to use Wikipedia as a secret. But the idea is don't use Wikipedia itself as a secret key. Instead use an incompressible encoding of Wikipedia. And here you can only see that this starts making a lot more sense. So first of all, there was some randomness that went into making this encoding. And therefore the encoding is not predictable. So at least there's a chance of being a secret key. And moreover, even if the system is compromised an adversary tries to exfiltrate some small amount of data this incompressible encoding is incompressible. So it ensures that if you use it as a key the adversary can't steal the entire key by downloading, by exfiltrating some small amount of data from the compromise system. So this tells us at least it has a chance of working. Of course, that's not, we're not done yet in order to actually make the use of this key. We have to design new crypto systems that ensure that security holds as long as the attacker doesn't download doesn't compress the entire key. And we managed to do this. So in our work, we show how to construct public key encryption in this setting. So essentially construct public encryption scheme where the secret key can be a huge incompressible encoding of some public data incompressible encoding Wikipedia and security will hold even if that attacker gets a very large exfiltrates a large fraction of the encoding size as long as he doesn't exfiltrate enough to be able to recover the encode to be able to recover the code work. Okay, so that's the new application artwork. And I want to tell you a little bit about the constructions of incompressible encodings both from our work and through the previous work. So as I mentioned, this problem was originally studied in a work from crypto last year by Damkar, Ganesh, and Irlandi. And they give a construction in the ideal permutation model additionally using trapdoor permutations or RSA. Okay, so this was not in the standard model. They assume they have an ideal permutation which is something that's a little bit stronger than a random oracle. So that's one caveat of their work that they needed ideal permutations. And the other caveat of their work is that the complexity of the encoding process was quadratic in the message size. And this is actually quite a big caveat because we want to apply this to large messages like the gigabytes or the terabytes in length and a quadratic complexity on such large data is really, really inefficient. And lastly, there was one more caveat which is that the proof of security in that work was flawed. So we noticed this, that there was serious issues with the security proof and it seemed to be flawed beyond some simple patch or simple fix. And actually there was a concurrent work, concurrent towers by Garglu and Waters. They also noticed that there was a problem with the proof and they actually managed to fix the proof. I want to give them a shout out. This was not a simple fix. They, it really required an entirely new proof and quite a bit of difficult work. So this was actually a new, major new result to show that the original construction from the work of Ganesh, Nongar Ganesh and Irrondi can actually be fixed and be proven secure. And in doing that, they actually also managed to improve it in one additional way. They managed to replace the ideal trap or ideal permutation with just a random oracle which is somewhat simpler permutation. So in our work, we give actually a brand new construction of incompressible encoders, different construction. So, and we managed to give a construction that is provably secure in the common random string model. So we avoid the use of random oracles and we prove it secure under either the learning with errors or decision composite residuality assumption. So that's one improvement. We get a construction standard model. The other improvement is that we improve the complexity from quadratic to linear. And as I said earlier, because we're thinking of applying this to big data, this is significant. But there are some caveats with this construction. So it actually only achieves selective security where we assume that the message has to be chosen by the adversary before seeing the CRS. And the CRS size is very long. It's as large as the size of the data we're trying to encode. So we're trying to encode Wikipedia. It'll be out to 50 gigabyte long CRS. And we show that we can remove both of these caveats in the random oracle model. So we go to the random oracle model, then we can get adaptive security. There's no CRS, it's just random oracles. So we don't have to, we don't need a long CRS either. So we essentially get the best of all worlds. And this still improves on the previous work by removing by improving the complexity from quadratic to linear, even in the random oracle model. And we also give some black box separations to show that these constructions are essentially optimal. So for example, we show that we cannot have provably secure non-trivial constructions of incompressible encodings in the plain model. And in the CRS model, we actually need to suffer from all of the caveats that are construction apps. So the CRS needs to be long and we can only achieve selective security. So this holds for constructions that are provably secure using game-based or falsifiable assumptions. Okay, so let me tell you a little bit about our construction. I'll give you a slightly simplified version of this. And I wanna say that our construction, what one additional, I would say benefit of our constructions, constructions that it's conceptually very simple and I'll actually be able to even show you the proof of security for a slightly simplified version of this construction. So for the simplified version, let's pretend that we have a really nice object called a lossy trapdoor permutation. So a lossy trapdoor permutation is like a lossy trapdoor function. So this is a notion due to Picard and Waters, which is also a permutation. So we assume we have a family of functions indexed by some public EPK that maps embeds to embeds. So both the domain and range are embeds. And we can sample the public in one of two indistinguishable modes. So in the first mode, the function is injective. So this is the standard notion of trapdoor permutations. You can sample the public key with a trapdoor that allows us to efficiently invert the function at any point. But in the second mode, we can sample the public key in a way that the image size of the function EPK is much, much smaller than the domain zero one to the N. So it's two to the little of N, which means that if I give you EPK of X, this loses a lot of information, almost all the information about that input X. So it's very loss. Okay, so using this object, this lossy trapdoor permutation, let me show you how to construct incompressible encodings in the CRS model. And in this construction, the CRS will consist of some number of random values, and bit values. You can think of these as outputs of this trapdoor permutation. So this is just a common random string. Now to encode a message M, which we think of as consisting of L blocks, each of n bits each, we're going to sample a random public key along with a trapdoor for the lossy trapdoor permutation in injected mode. And then we're going to invert the trapdoor permutation on the values MI XOR YI. So we're going to take the message XOR it with the value in the CRS and invert it and output XIs, the XIs. And that's going to be the encoding. So the encoding is going to consist of the public key and all of these pre-images. And we're going to forget the trapdoor. Okay, so the trapdoor was part of the randomness of the encoding process, but the encoding is going to forget it afterwards. And this is efficiently decodable. So if I give you this codeword C, you can easily just apply the function in the forward direction on the XIs. You can take fpq of XI XOR them with the values in CRS, XOR them with the YIs and recover the message. So anybody can decode the codeword and recover the original data. Okay, and so I want to give you the proof of security intuitively very simple. So the adversary in this game sees the common random string and some codeword C, which is an encoding of some message and that the adversary knows. And in the original game, the distribution of these two values is that the public key sample injective modes, the YIs in the CRS are uniformly random and the XIs are computed by inverting the function on the message XOR with the CRS. But we can actually think of this distribution in an alternate way, which is completely identical. So actually this is an identical distribution. So in this case, think of sampling. So before we were sampling the YIs in the CRS at random and computing the XIs by inverting the permutation. Now let's switch it up and sample the XIs uniformly random and compute the YIs by applying the function in the forward direction. So this is exactly the same distribution. Notice the XIs and YIs are individually random in each of the two cases subject to this relation holding that YIs fbq of XIs or mi. Okay, so this is the exact same distribution but syntactically now we're sampling the common random string in a way that depends on the message. So this is something we couldn't have done in the original construction where the CRS was chosen independently of the message but in this hybrid distribution, we can do that even though nothing has changed from the distribution perspective. And now we're just going to make the public key lossy. Okay, and this is indistinguishable by the security of the lossy type of permutation. So what's happening now? Now the adversary gets the CRS and the codeword under this lossy public key. And notice that the codeword has a lot of entropy even given the CRS. Why is that? Because the XI values in the codeword are chosen uniformly random and then we apply a lossy trapdoor permutations on them which loses a lot of information about the XIs. So actually even if I give you the CRS, the codeword has a lot of information theoretic entropy even for a completely fixed message MI that is known in public. And this says that in this hybrid, the codeword is actually information theoretically incompressible. Even an unbounded adversary in this and the last hybrid cannot compress the codeword down at something much smaller than the codeword size because it has a lot of real information theoretic entropy. And because it's indistinguishable from the original distribution, it means that no adversary can succeed in compressing the codeword also in the original distribution. So that's the entire proof of security, very, very intuitively simple idea. So last I wanna talk about the instantiation. So unfortunately we don't have lossy trapdoor permutations that are as beautiful as what I assume we had where the domain and range is just zero one to the N. So if you look at known constructions of lossy trapdoor functions, the vast majority of them are not surjective the output size is bigger than the input size. And in this construction, our construction, we crucially use that we have a surjective function because the ANAS scheme actually inverted the function at random outputs. Okay, so we cannot use the vast majority of constructions of lossy trapdoor functions because they're not surjective. And or they also don't have like nice domains like zero one to the N. So their domains are much more structured like group elements or something like that. So in our work, we show that we actually don't need to have these beautiful lossy trapdoor permutations we can do with something a little more relaxed, something called surjective lossy functions. So the domain doesn't have to be as nice as zero one to the N. And they do have to be surjective but they don't actually have to be fully injective. So we relax the injectivity requirements. And we managed to construct these from decision composite residuosity and learning with errors assumption. And I wanna mention actually the LWE version construction has some interesting new ideas. So for example, we didn't even know how to construct trapdoor permutations from LWE. So you really need something different than let's say even the random or construction of down card ganesha or landi which relied on trapdoor permutations. So here we managed to show something under LWE. It's not quite a trapdoor permutation but it's something that's as close as possible to trapdoor permutations. It's a surjective function where the domain is not much bigger than the range. So it's surjective, it's a little compressing but not by much. And this is some interesting new idea. So I encourage you to look in the paper. And that's all I want to tell you. So thank you very much for your attention. If you have any questions, I'll be giving this talk live during crypto and I'm also happy to answer questions by email. So please email me. Thank you.


I joined the Labour Party rather than the Labour Party, I joined the National Party. Should I start again?


My name is Corporal James Teter and I'm a 1316 metal worker. We weld, fabricate parts for marine core equipment. Basically anything that comes down and has to do with metal, we work it. I enjoy what I do because I mean it's really nice taking like all those raw ingredients, turning it into something that people can enjoy or people can utilize to keep the mission going forward. Every day, get to teach, teach a junior reiner, teach your peers something new. My end goal is that they will be able to confidently perform the task without any supervision. Everybody that we work for, they come back and they're completely satisfied with work that we put out. What it means to me is you know every day come in and put in your hard work, teach people what you can. And you know at the end of the day going home and looking at yourself in the mirror and be like you know I did something for somebody else today. Got to continue to work hard, never give in to the complacency, never give in to your everyday monotonous job because eventually it's going to matter. Little as it seems today, somebody's going to see you and they're going to be like wow, this job helped complete the mission.