OK, so let me first of all express my thanks to the organizers for inviting me and to give me the opportunity to speak over here. I was an organizer for a Park City program three years ago, so I have a good sense of how much, I mean, how complex it is to actually run this. So what I want to do is to basically talk about some stuff which is very, very recent and also some parts of it are still somehow tentative because it's sort of work that was just developed very recently. So the talk is all joint work with my student, Vivian Olsiulski-Hilly, who's moving to the University of Chicago in fall as opposed to dark. And the talk basically includes some results from his thesis and also some sort of more recent work. And I would also like to kind of acknowledge the help of Stefan Roder from the University of Washington. So somehow, I mean, this was one of these things where once you got the right idea, everything is very smooth, but to actually get the right idea took a long time and sort of a couple of weeks that Vivian spent at Washington was very important. OK, so great. This thing is supposed to move. Let's try this. OK, so the talk is actually about three pieces. So somehow two of them are classical probability. So Galton Watson-Proed trees, which describe the genealogy of birth death processes. And that's a binary Galton Watson tree. What I'm doing is there's a mother. Mother has zero or two offspring. And it keeps going independently. And the scaling limit of the Galton Watson trees and more generally scaling limit of trees of this nature was sort of understood in profound work by Aldous in the early 90s. And the scaling limit of these trees now should really be considered very subtle knowledge. And so what I want to do is to somehow combine knowledge about sort of Galton Watson trees with the Lovner equation. So what I want to do, OK, so the Lovner revolution is a sort of, let's say, canonical method of developing conformal mappings. And this talk is really about somehow three questions, one of which is completely nailed, one of them which is not quite nailed, but somehow we have a very good sense of what should come out. And the third one, which is a little bit more tentative. So the first question is really can we use the Lovner equation to construct natural graph embeddings of Galton Watson trees in the upper half plane? So what I want to do is I really want to find somehow a natural way of building trees or building sort of conformal mappings which have the property of making trees. In particular, what I want to do is to actually understand the scaling limit of the object upstairs. And so the word graph embedding, so the CRT is actually a random metric space. And the graph embedding over here is somehow when we started out what we really wanted was isometric embeddings. And that's not quite, our work doesn't quite achieve this. There is a notion of isometric embeddings or something called conformally balanced trees. And at the end, I'll sort of introduce these ideas. So in some sense, at first sight, it will appear that there's nothing to do with random matrix theory. What I'm trying to do is just to build up these conformal mappings. But in fact, Satya Majumdar and I several years ago organized a meeting on random matrix theory in India at the time when I didn't know anything about random matrix theory. And so it was really turned on by sort of these amazing lectures that Jean-Bernard Zuber gave at that meeting. And so somehow, all of this work actually originates in that meeting about six years ago, seven years ago. So somehow there is random matrix theory over here. And it really comes about through the connection between map enumeration and matrix integrals. OK, so the talk, basically, there's a little bit of background that I have to do because there's a very diverse audience. And I feel Houston speaking about other people's work. But this is truly necessary. And there are these several beautiful papers by Lagal, which basically describe the CRT. So I want to introduce you to the CRT. I want to introduce you to the Lavner Revolution. And then I'll tell you, in some sense, what's our central result in our central conjecture, which is that we find this new stochastic PD. And this stochastic PD sort of connects very nicely with random matrix theory. And finally, I'll conclude with some remarks on sort of the motivation that started us out. OK, so what's a plain tree? It's a rooted combinatorial tree for which the edges are assigned a cyclic order about each vertex. And the standard way of taking scaling limits of such trees is to actually look at their contour functions. So you take the tree, and you build from the contour function an excursion. And you can go backwards. So trees of this nature are in bijective correspondence with such excursions. This thing seems to keep. OK, sorry. It's just a time delay. OK, so the trees over here are really discrete geometric objects. But somehow to take their scaling limits, what we really do is to sort of extend them to, let's say, the continual setting. And so a real tree is a pointed compact metric space with the tree property. It's a little bit hard to absorb at first sight, but somehow there's a very intuitive way of thinking about it. And the way you think about it is that you imagine that you have an excursion as above. And what you do is you use this excursion to introduce an equivalence relation on the interval 0, 1. So given an excursion with F0 is equal to F1 is 0, an excursion means that it's positive everywhere in between. What you do is you use a distance function. So for example, the distance between these two points over here is defined by the values of the function, these two points, and then the min in between. And the equivalence relation is that two points are identical if the distance between them is 0. So given an excursion of this nature, we define a sort of quotient set of 0, 1. And we define the tree Tf to be the real tree coded by F. So the continual random tree introduced by Aldous is the random real tree coded by the normalized Brownian excursion. So somehow this is a natural scaling limit because when you look at the uniform distribution rescaled parts of length 2n, then this converges to the CRT. OK, so the CRT was introduced by Aldous in 93. So somehow this is the framework in which you want to think about taking scaling limits of trees. So what we want are these branch structures in the complex plane, then we really want to be in a framework where we can take continuum limits of these branch structures. OK, let me tell you a little bit about Lovner theory. So I expect some of you have seen it. But the Lovner evolution is sort of a constructive way of building up conformal mappings. And the standard way in which it's presented is that you're usually given, let's say, a simple curve in the upper half plane. And what you want to do is you sort of want to build up a family of conformal mappings of this region with the simple curve in there mapping it to the upper half plane by gradually wiping out the curve upstairs. OK, so the Riemann mapping theorem implies that for each T there's a unique conformal mapping which maps this region, so the portion of the curve, the upper half space minus the portion of the curve over there onto the upper half space. And in order to get uniqueness, you basically normalize that infinity. So that's a standard normalization in this business for some reason. It's called the hydrodynamic normalization. And that number up there is something called the half plane capacity. OK, the real point is that there is a constructive way of building these mappings. So somehow if you know the value of the boundary value over there, u of t, then if you solve this initial value problem, you get the conformal mapping. So the Lovner, I mean, this is the first sort of proof of the Riemann mapping theorem was developed, I think, Gobiad did it in 1905. And Lovner was interested, so sort of Lovner sort of found, let's say, continuous time description of Gobiad's theorem. And what Lovner was really interested in is sort of resolving the questions from univalent function theory. In particular, he's the one who made the Beeperbuck conjecture famous. Now it turns out that there's a general version of the Lovner evolution. You need not restrict yourself to slit mappings, and you need not restrict yourself to just sort of a driving measure, which is one point. In fact, there's a general theory which says that if you have a family of Hugglotz functions parametrized by a positive measure, then you can define a conformal mapping with it. So what's going to happen for us is that what we're going to do is we are going to try to make this curve be not a curve, but to be a tree. So all of my effort is going to be to describe this set, which is going to be a tree. And somehow what I need to do is I need to figure out what the measure that goes with it is. Now there's some very, very mild conditions to get this theory to work, so it turns out that you really need only that this measure, that this family, that you have a family of non-negative Borel measures, and you just need continuity of these measures and some sort of very mild boundedness conditions. But there's a sort of subtlety in terms of you need actually much finer properties of this measure to actually establish finer geometric properties of the conformal mapping. OK, so the standard examples of the Levena theory are the first one is just this sort of point measure that I showed you, something that derives a slit mapping. And there's a sort of generalization of the slit mapping, which is very, very recent. So it's in a thesis just a few years ago. And the real issue over here is the following. So the issue is related to the following. So if you go back to this theory, so you can generate a family of conformal mappings only if provided this measure is just weakly continuous. So it's sort of like you can find solutions to the Levena PDE, and these solutions will actually define conformal mappings. All you require is that this measure is continuous. Now the catch is that what you really want is you want to be able to say something about the geometry of the hull. OK, and here it turns out that you need not just continuity, but you need sort of helter continuity. So the basic condition which is found by Marshall and Rota is that these guys must be helter one-half. And as many of you have probably seen, somehow there's driving measures which are not well a helter one-half. So these are the sort of celebrated Schramm-Löwner evolution, so SLE kappa. And in these cases, depending upon what kappa is, you get sort of completely different geometric properties of the hull. That's really at a threshold. So you need helter one-half to get the Levena evolution. Brownian motion is not helter one-half, but still you can work.  So the question that we are really interested in is really the following. So which measures will generate embeddings of trees? And how can we get sort of continuum limits of this? OK, so the general form of Levena evolution, so this full measure is rarely used. So one of these is, it's a historical thing. So what Levena was interested in was the Beiber-Webbach conjecture. And for that, it was enough to look at slit mappings. The other one is somehow in conformal mapping theories. It's known that slit mappings are enough in the sense that every conformal mapping can be obtained as a limit in the caratheodary topology of slit mappings. So that's actually bad news in the sense that it says that the continuity properties of Levena evolution are very weak if you look at geometric properties of the house. You have to be far, far more careful than that. OK, so there's a one-line summary of our work. The one-line summary of our work is the following. I'm going to claim that graph embeddings of continuum trees are generated by Levena evolution when the driving measure turns out to being a suitable super process. OK, so this is a measure-valued Markov process. These were introduced, for example. I mean, these were studied extensively in connection, in fact, with continuum trees. And it'll turn out, I'm going to give you an example of the simplest super process in our class. And this is something that we call the Dyson super process. So the reason we choose the name is the following. So there's something called the Dawson-Waternabe super process. It's also sometimes called super Brownian motion. And so we played with either calling it the Dyson super process or calling it super free probability or super free Brownian motion. But somehow, I think this name works better. OK, so to kind of tell you where this is coming from, I'm going to show you a short movie. So this should start. So this is a Levena revolution, which is actually driven by a Dyson Brownian motion with branching. And this is kind of a striking movie that Vivian did after she came back from her stay at Washington. And this is when I became convinced that what we were doing was actually very interesting. So what's going on in this picture? So there's sort of the pure, let me call it the pure combinatorics. Yeah, sure. So what I have is just a binary. So this is just a Galton Watson tree, where I'm going to develop a Galton Watson tree in continuous time. So mother has two children. Each of these children live for a random amount of time. And then these guys could either branch or they could die, again, at random times. Let's see. I have something like this. And so what's going on in that picture is somehow this is just an abstract sort of combinatorial object with a time axis over here. So this is the genealogy of a branching process. And what I'm really doing is I'm going to use the genealogy to obtain a driving measure. OK, so this is going to be really something with spatial structures over here. I have space x. And what I do is that associated to each of these points is somehow what I'm going to do. So at time zero, when the mother has two children, I put down two points over there at, let's say, zero to be concrete. And then what happens is that these guys will evolve by Dyson Brownian motion. OK, so then at the first branching time, this guy dies. And then over here, there's two offspring. OK, so there's a pure genealogy part over here. And then there's a spatial motion. And so in that picture, so it turns out actually. And so the spatial measure over here is what I call mu t dx. And then this guy drives. OK, so is this clear? This is the basic approximation. So there's the Lovner evolution, which is this machine for generating conformal mappings. What has to go into this machine is some sort of spatial motion or some sort of measure. And what I would do is I use the branching process to actually drive this measure. So the key fact over here, and this is sort of like it's a pure conformal mapping theory fact that took us a little while to figure out, is that somehow Dyson Brownian motion is just tried to actually get the Lovner evolution to branch. So it's not obvious that the hull over there is actually going to branch. So people had tried to do this. And somehow it turns out that you have to have exactly the right interaction. And it turns out that sort of the 1 over x repulsion of Dyson Brownian motion or Coulomb repulsion is exactly the right thing so that the hull itself has a branching property. Yeah. Oh, so here, at each spatial time, the equation for these guys? OK, so over here, let me put it this way. It's Dyson Brownian motion on these time intervals. So I have the genealogy, so there's a time axis over here. So initially, I'm starting out always at sort of a singular point. But I have two points sitting on the boundary of the symplex. And then I move forward. So somehow think about it as being Dyson Brownian motion on time slices. So at any time slice over here, so on.  These are given by the branching process. Let me not put in any scaling factors. OK, and these must be continuous across. And then I'm setting, sorry? You're wanting to use your time. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. But somehow what happens is that I have these branch times. And at these branch times, either remove or put in a particle. And so it does matter that I have. And in fact, it'll turn out in the end, actually. I should be a little bit more careful. So this is the prettiest picture. But it turns out that what we really do in order to prove our theorems at this stage, we're still just doing pure repulsion. But we're going to be in scaling limit where we're doing a law of large numbers. So this guy is actually going to vanish. OK, so the sort of super, the standard Dyson vatanam-based super process basically comes about in the following way. You again, imagine that you have the same genealogy. And you have a bunch of particles, but these particles execute independent Brownian motions. OK, so what you're interested in is a situation where the time steps over here become shorter and shorter. So you have more and more branching. But then you're looking at the continuous state branching process limits or somehow the number of particles that you start with gets larger and larger. So the main claim actually is that somehow there's a nice scaling limit. Now this is part rigorous, part formal. And the scaling limit is actually, at least formally, let me come back to that issue in a couple of slides described by the following stochastic PD. So I'm just going to write this out because it's going to come up. So this over here is space-time white noise. OK, so let me just be again explicit. This is just a formal SPD. So what I'm trying to do is take a scaling limit where I'm taking, you want to imagine this picture being sort of zoomed in to the kind of picture I was presenting with my numerics and then somehow taking the limit, but I have infinitely many particles. And so the way I want you to think about this equation is as follows. In some sense, the way you want to think about it is just by, let's say, analogy with the super Brownian motion or with the Dawson Watanabe's super process. And so the Dawson Watanabe's super process is the scaling limit of branching Brownian motion when the discrete branching process is converged to the fellow diffusion. And in that problem, somehow, the spatial motion of each particle is independent. And so it's described by this SPD, at least formally. And the SPD has two pieces. One piece is pure sort of linear evolution. So it's a sort of linear evolution given to you by the heat equation. And there's a second piece, which is the sort of the branching piece, which is where the noise comes in. In both of these problems, sigma is just a fixed parameter, positive parameter. So somehow the PDE that I'm writing down, so you want to see the left-hand side over here as being, and I think this goes back to an early paper of Boykuleskoum, you want to think about the left-hand side over here as being the sort of free probability analog of the heat equation. So what you're doing is you've got a linear operator, which basically gives you the free convolution with the semicircle law. And on the right-hand side, somehow, you have this noise there. OK? What is what? Sorry, this is the Hilbert transform. OK? OK. So somehow, there's a very important difference with Dawson-Wathanambi. So Dawson-Wathanambi really got in particles doing their own spatial motion. But for us, really, the particles are interacting. And it's a very singular interaction. So it turns out that this is actually not covered by, let's say, standard theorems of Perkins and people like that. OK, so let me give you another way of thinking about this. So somehow, a very natural way of thinking about the evolution of measures on the line is instead to think about the Cauchy transform. And what I'm going to do is somehow our basic object is always this measure, which is randomly evolving, which is driving the Levner revolution. And so based on this measure, I'm actually going to build a family of Gaussian analytic functions with a Bergman type kernel for their covariance. OK, so somehow, the following form, it's sort of like an equivalent form of this PDE. Instead of writing out a PDE for the density, let's see what happens in the upper half plane. And so I'm just taking the transform of that PDE. And what happens is that now truly, I get an analytic function in the upper half plane. And I just have a noise term, which is just the sort of Brownian motion in time. And this PDE, I can actually think about just solving by the method of characteristics. OK, so what I'm really doing, so the left-hand side over here, you want to think about, this is just the equation that shows up in free probability theory. It's just the equation that describes evolution by semi-circular law. But what I'm doing is I'm pushing this. I'm pushing this with this sort of field, which is again determined back again by the rule. And it turns out that somehow, this is intimately coupled with the Lovner revolution. So a very clean way of actually writing out Lovner's PDE is finally just through this OD. OK, so there's this coupling between these two. So it sort of fits very cleanly. That's kind of what I'm trying to convey over here. So H is the sort of Gaussian analytic function, which is obtained again from the measure. OK, so this is somebody can ask a question while I'm figuring this out. OK, so you see what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to find what should be the right limit equation for sort of embedding trees into the upper half plane, OK? Continuum trees. And now let me just sort of comment on this aspect of the stuff being formal. So it turns out there's this sort of this key technical aspect that we can't prove right now. And I was really hoping I would have it by the time we came here, but we don't. The issue is whether there actually is a density. Does this SPD actually make sense or not? And so this turns out to being an interesting question in the case of already the Dawson-Watanobi super process. And over there, it's known that you have a measure, you don't have a measure, depending on the space dimension. So it turns out that when the space dimension is one, you truly do have a measure for the Dawson-Watanobi process as a result of Konoh and Shiga from 88. On the other hand, the dimension is greater than or equal to 2. It's actually known that this measure mu is singular, OK? So we don't actually know what the answer should be. And it sort of comes down to how you think about this SPD. So somehow if I time step, so I do dt rho plus dx. So if I imagine sort of solving just this PD, this actually is smoothing, OK, in the following sense, that if you start out with, let's say, some measure, it could be singular. Let's say you've got two atoms, so let's say this is. So I'm always using, I want to know if I've got a density or not, OK? So what I'm doing is I'm looking at the free convolution. So if I look at, and let me say mu t is equal to mu t, this is free. So this is, let's say, semicircle. OK, so a very basic result of Beyond says that if you just go up a little bit in time, then what's going to happen is that these guys are basically going to become like semicircles. And what Beyond actually gives is he sort of gives an infinity estimate, which tells you how the density of the measure, so it's something like. So the sort of Beyond's estimate goes, OK, let me write it out. So it turns out that there's the following sort of estimate, rho squared. So it's something like this is less than or equal to, I think, it's 1 over d squared. So somehow what happens is that if you think about this equation, so if I drop, if I have 0 over here, what I have is a kind of smoothing term. On the other hand, what I'm doing is I'm sort of adding in fluctuations. So the fluctuations are kind of roughening the measure and the sort of free convolution is smoothing in. And I actually don't know how this balances. And it turns out this is absolutely critical, because for the sort of way we are formulating this problem to have any sort of meaning, what we actually need is that this measure should not have a density. The reason I want this measure not to have a density is let me go back to the very start. What I want to do is I want to solve Lovner revolution. And somehow this is Lovner revolution with this measure. What turns out is that the measure is sort of supported on points that are escaping the upper half plane. So what I want is that I want the set of points. So what I want is I want a tree to be built up. And in order to have this tree to be built up, I need it really to be sort of driven by a singular measure, which is spread out in some place. And we don't have the estimates. So that's sort of the analytical picture. Or let's say the conceptual picture. That was supposed to be more or less the introduction. But anyway, let me tell you more precisely what we can prove, what goes into this proof, and somehow how this actually sheds light on certain other problems. OK, so what I'm doing clear is I'm actually trying to formulate somehow what should be the candidate driving measure for embeddings of trees, of these continuous trees. Now these continuous trees are kind of singular objects. And so it turns out that the measure I need has to also be a singular object. And the singular object, so this measure, is actually described as a solution to an SPD. So that's kind of the way the pieces fit together. OK, so let me actually tell you what we can prove rigorously somehow just at the outset. So there's two pieces. One is a conformal mapping piece, which basically says that the square root interaction, or the square root to T scaling of Lovner revolution is basically perfectly matched with the kind of square root T singularity in Dyson Brownian motion. So that's just a sort of deterministic fact about Lovner revolution. And what I will next tell you is somehow what we can actually prove about the SPD. So roughly speaking, what we can prove is that our sequence of approximations is tight. And the limits of the sequence actually solve not quite this SPD, but a martingale problem that goes with it.  OK, so let's see. OK, let me tell you about the conformal mapping piece. So this is really one of the theorems proven by Vivian. And it's actually, it's got nothing to do with Dyson Brownian motion. It's got nothing to do with probability. It's really the following fact. How do you make a Lovner revolution, which has the property of splitting splitting particles into branches? And the way we'll do it is somehow by thinking about a Lovner revolution, which is driven by a bunch of points. And I'm going to ask for a sort of singular initial condition. So I'm going to take n continuous functions, each of which I'm mutually non-intersecting, except for sort of one index at which these two guys are the same. So I'm going to ask myself, what's the, so I've got two points over there. And I have a double point over here. And I want to know how the Lovner revolution works with that. So let me, let me not give you the detailed derivation of here. What we are trying to do is we're sort of trying to understand. So this is really a pure conformal mapping piece. What we are trying to understand is sort of what


And the first time we'll talk about simple, simple delusion, right? And on your lab there, we have a couple examples of a simple solution, right? If we took a solution and in there, in the example, we had two mils of solution that had 20 particles in it, so that it had 10 particles per mil, right? It had 20 per two mils, so it had 10 particles per mil, right? So if we take one mil and transfer this tube, we're taking 10 particles, right? And then you can't read that, but that's 10 particles, right? If we take one mil buffer as our diluent, then we're going to wind up with a total of two mils, right? That have 10 particles, so we have 10 particles per two mils or five mils. So we went from 10 per mil to 5 per mil, so our number was half, so we had one mil plus one mil, right? And so that was one mil now to two, one mil up to two mils, so it's one half. So our one half times 10 per mil is five per mil, so our dilution would be a one half of fractional form, so we multiplied our concentration initially, which was 10 particles per mil, then our resulting dilution gives us five particles per mil. So that's a simple dilution. If we did the same thing, we took a mil, let me come over here, there's our one mil in there and we put it in kind of a shaky looking tube, but we're going to add nine mils of buffer, right? So this one mil still came from there, so it has 10 particles in that one mil, so our total volume then is going to be 10 mils. So we have one out of the 10, so we've got one over one plus nine, right? So we've got one tenth, so we've done a one tenth dilution, so this 10 particles in 10 mils is a concentration of one particle per mil, right? So if we started with 10 per mil, multiplied by the dilution, then we wind up with the resulting concentration of one particle per mil. And as I said, particle, dilutions, it could be your concentration, your molar, it could be one molar going to 0.5 molar, going to one tenth molar. It could be milligram per mil, any kind of concentration, these could be cells, these particles could be one million cells per mil. But this is a notion of a simple dilution, you're taking something of a concentration in some, do you want some buffer and getting the resulting dilution of that.


SpaceX's Boost 7 can be static firing soon, SLS has returned to the pad again, Starliner has been delayed again and a lot more is coming up in Mondays to Amore Space News. Starbase has been extra busy this week with full stack testing getting in full swing. Boost 7 can be seen here with its liquid oxygen tank getting frosty. The full stack has also seen another real-time quick disconnect test of the ship QD. Just imagine the vehicle lifting off the pad at the same time as this release. It looks like it could work in my head at least. Ship 25 was joining in the cryoproofing action getting frosty itself on Tuesday and Wednesday. A full stack cryoproof was graced upon us again this week with the methane tanks on the booster and the ship both being partially filled. This was followed after arrest by a cryoproof of the liquid oxygen tanks on both the ship and booster. The next super heavy booster, number 9, has been stacked in the Mega Bay. We can assume that this booster will have upgrades on its predecessor, booster 8, as that booster's fate is bound to the rocket garden. Next ship along the line, number 26 has received its transfer tube. This connects the top tank to the engines through the lower tank. The new tent next to the propellant production site at the launch site is pretty much already covered and it was barely a skeleton a week ago. The first armored raptor engine on the vertical test stand has been spotted down the road in McGregor. The shielding around the outside is supposed to better protect the engine from shrapnel if another engine was to suffer a failure. For all of us orbital flight test fans out there, NASA is predicting that early December is a reasonable time frame to follow. This does include an orbit, not a nearly orbit, with ship 24 entering a stable orbit before immediately re-entering the atmosphere. We're still waiting on the 33 engine static fire however. We were expecting a D-stack around now however at the time of writing on Monday morning, S24 is still firmly a top booster 7. We won't be getting a 33 static fire straight away either, SpaceX will be building their way up through various static fires. Remember the big boom under B7? We've been told that SpaceX has now put quote additional rigor into the testing as well as new leadership to ensure a large amount of fuel doesn't end up being pumped into a cloud of oxygen again. It has also been confirmed that the FAA is yet to grant a launch license to SpaceX, which is obviously needed for a flight. The Psyche Independent Review Board report was released last week and it has some big hits against the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The Psyche mission missed the August 2022 launch window because of delays in the development and testing of the spacecraft however that wasn't the only issue. Fundamental management problems and institutional issues at JPL were found to have caused unresolved software problems, vehicle systems not being fully verified and insufficient preparation for mission operations. These issues are also impacting other missions, more on that in a minute. Other issues with the management of the mission included engineers not being able to bring problems to the senior leadership leading to them going unnoticed. This lack of communication was also exacerbated by the pandemic restrictions with remote work limiting informal interactions at JPL. In fact the report noted that the first in-person gathering of this whole team after 18 months was a Christmas party at the end of 2021. The report recommended to JPL that they should improve the hiring and retention of important personnel however it did also highlight that this is becoming increasingly difficult for JPL as the wave of new aerospace companies that have been popping up the Eftereiton Centre can offer engineers and developers much higher salaries than JPL can offer. JPL also has more work than their current workforce can support leading to inadequate staffing, worker burnout, inexperienced managers and therefore a lack of mentoring. The report also recommended that senior management should have a better insight of the current ongoing projects which NASA has confirmed they will be implementing into the psyche mission. A review into the hybrid working style, a mix of being remote and in the office so to speak has also been recommended by the report. JPL's director Laurie Leshin has said that they will investigate this however they will not return to pre-pandemic working policies. On those other mission delays I mentioned earlier the next JPL-led NASA Discovery class mission the Veritas mission to Venus has been delayed by three years to 2031. This move will help to save some money which can then be redirected towards psyche which requires more funding. However Leshin has said that not all of the required funds can be found in a delayed Veritas. It is very good to see though that JPL and NASA are taking the lessons learned in this report and implementing them straight away. Missions such as Europa Clipper and Mars Sample Return will each be checked over to ensure that the institutional problems psyche faced will never be faced again. The full 63-page PDF document will be linked down below with this story's timestamp if you want to give it a read. Some happier news, the space launch system destined to fly the Artemis-1 mission has been rolled out yet again to launch complex 39B. First motion was at 11.17pm local time about three quarters of an hour ahead of schedule. As always the crueler stopped just outside the door to high bay 3 allowing the crew access arm to be swung around and locked into position. After a road trip through the night SES arrived at 39B at half-past eight in the morning on Friday. After being lowered onto the stands that hold up the mobile launch platform the crueler was driven to the perimeter fence of 39B where it will remain for the time being. The next launch date is 0507 Universal Time on November 14th, exactly one week from this episode's release. Surely after all of the bumps which have been flattened out through the various wet dress rehearsals, launch attempts and the critical tanking test this window is THE window where NASA can begin our journey back to the moon. Mother Nature though has once again decided that she wants to be in the spotlight and now there is a subtropical storm north of Puerto Rico which has been given the name Nicole. The eye of this storm is expected to make land for just south of Cape Canaveral in the early hours of Thursday morning local time. According to Eric Berger the majority of the weather models right now show winds under the limits for SLS remaining at the pad but still expect some delays as NASA will not be risking safety with high winds as a hurricane watch has been put into place over the coastal region where the KSC resides. For the latest information on this use the National Hurricane Centre's website as there is a chance that this could develop a lot further before the next news episode. The maiden flight of Starliner with humans aboard has been pushed yet again from February 2023 to April 2023. This time however it's not actually Boeing's folds it's just down to the scheduling of traffic coming and going from the International Space Station during the start of the year. In the first three months of 2023 the ISS is expecting Axiom 2, Progress MS-22, NG-19, Dream Chaser Demo 1, Soyuz MS-23 and SpaceX's Crew 6 and that's not mentioned in the vehicles which will be departing the station. Moving the crew flight test to acquire to time of year is probably for the best in case there are any teething issues. Because of this delay however the operational life of Starliner is no longer expected to start in 2023. SpaceX's Crew 7 mission has been pulled forward from spring 2024 to autumn of 2023 filling the crew rotation gap. The date of the first operational crewed flight called Starliner 1 will be announced following a successful end to the crew flight test. The Long March 5B course stage which started the Monction model's journey to the Tiangong Space Station crashed back into Earth last week just off the coast of Mexico. This ground track courtesy of Jonathan McDowell shows the route the booster was taking towards the western coast of Mexico and Guatemala. According to the US Space Command there was a double re-entry which indicates that the course stage could have broken into two large chunks during re-entry. No debris on land is yet to be found so we could be looking at a pure ocean ditching however the principle of directlessness is still important to amplify. Spain closed airspace because of the possibility that the booster could end up on their territory with Barcelona and Ibiza airports grounding all aircraft. A new model of China's next Super Heavy Lift rocket the Long March 9 has been showcased at the Zhuhai Air Show. This new design takes inspiration from starship with reusability in mind. The boosters are gone. A single stick is the new design. This vehicle will be capable of 150 metric tons to LEO and 50 tons to a lunar transfer orbit. The new Long March 5G has also been unveiled which is the Heavy Lift crew vehicle of China's space program. It does look a tad bit like the old Red Dragon Falcon Heavy concept but that is no match for this next Chinese knockoff. I have no words apart from the fact that whatever this is clearly an improvement it has an extra pair of chopsticks. This model is being displayed by a startup called Space Epoch but do keep in mind that this is just a model. And if this week couldn't get any busier, Japan has performed a static fire of their new H3 rocket. There's not a huge amount to say other than the setting of rockets in the hills is always a good one. Nothing was destroyed either and there wasn't an explosion which is always a plus. Stay tuned to the channel to see how this vehicle developed over the coming months. Space traffic time in the first launch to cover this week is the return of the Falcon Heavy although the only people who managed to see it were out to sea. Luckily though SpaceX had some tracking cameras positioned out of the fog. Right at the start of the 30 minute window which opened at 1341 UTC on November 1st the three cores ignited their 27 million engines and lofted USS F-44 away from launch complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida heading for a geostationary orbit. After the side cores separated the core stage continued burning until it was entirely depleted sending the second stage away to continue its way up to orbit at an extremely fast pace compared to the Falcon 9's we've been watching for the last three years. Because of this what was remaining of the core stage was expended into the Atlantic Ocean whilst side booster B1064 touched down on landing zone 1 and B1065 returned to LZ2. Both of these boosters are currently planned to serve as the side boosters on the next two Space Force classified missions which are USS F-67 next January and USS F-52 next April. The following day out of Russia we had EKS-6 also known as Tundra-6 which was launched on this Soyuz 2.1B at 0648 UTC on the 2nd of November from an unknown pad that possessed Cosmodrome. This military early warning satellite was placed into a monia orbit. That's an orbit that allows the spacecraft to spend the majority of its time over the most northern parts of Earth which is where Russia is. Next up is Hotbird 13G, another telecommunications satellite from UTELSAT. This mission was launched at 0522 Universe on the next day, the third of the month, from Slick 40 at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on a Falcon 9. All 4,500 kilos of satellite were delivered to a geostation every transfer orbit whilst the booster supporting this mission, B1067, completed its seventh flight by landing on the drone ship. Just read the instructions. A launch which was designed just days before it was flown was this Electron rocket which flew Rocket Lab's latest helicopter catch attempt. Catch me if you can. This launch commenced at 1727 UTC on guess what, the following day, the 4th of November from Launch Complex 1B on the Mejia Peninsula in New Zealand. Once the first stage had sent the second stage and the payload, the Swedish atmospheric research satellite called MATS, on its way to a 585km sun-synchronous orbit, it re-entered the Earth's atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean. The helicopter was flying around the catch zone, however sadly this catch attempt was even less successful than the last. The last time, the helicopter caught the first stage before having to drop it for safety, however this time around the rocket wasn't caught at all. During re-entry, the telemetry was lost from the first stage and for the safety of the helicopter and its crew, it was immediately ordered to leave the catch zone. On the bright side however, Electron did perform a water splashdown and it was scooped out of the ocean. Of course, it wouldn't be space-traffic without something from China and this week it's coming in the form of the launch of China SAT 19 on this long March 3BE rocket from LC2 at the Xi Chang Satellite Launch Center at an urban 50 universal time on, you've definitely guessed it by now, the following day, the 5th of November. The satellite is assumed to be a KA-band communication satellite broadcasting television radio and relaying data. Its exact masses are known and it was placed into a geosynchronous transfer orbit. It'll be raising itself up to a geostationary orbit. And if you want to know where one of the ferries ended up, it's on someone's house. Sadly, because of a fire alarm in the Douglas Mission Control Center on the first attempt, Northrop Grumman's NG-18 ISS resupply mission did not launch on the 6th of November, but the 7th of November at 1027 UTC from Launch Pad 0A at the Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. All 3,700 kilos of supplies, which includes the first satellites from Zimbabwe and Uganda, were successfully delivered on their orbit up to the station and Signet will be docking to the Nadir port on the Unity module after this episode's release. Also included in this launch was an interesting manoeuvre after ferrying separation. I have no clue what happened here, but Signet seems to have managed it. It wasn't all smooth sailing prior to the launch, however, quite literally, as a boat inside of the range had an engine failure, leaving it red for launch. And this range violation was caused by a range boat. On Tuesday, SpaceX will be flying the Galaxy 31 and 32 satellites from Slick 40 at the Cape. This launch was then actually pushed to Saturday during the editing of this episode. On Thursday, we'll be saying farewell to the Atlas 5400 series at Vandenberg Space Force Base and Atlas 5 in general from Vandenberg Space Force Base. Whilst it carries the joint Polar satellite system to payload for NOAA, Saturday we'll see the Tianzhou 5 Tiangong resupply mission from Wenchang and we could be seeing Artemis 1 finally fly early on Monday, depending of course on how Nicole will impact space coast activities. Thank you to the citizens of tomorrow. This group support the show once a month financially, and they help to keep the lights on onboard Station 204. If you want to see face-new scripts as they're being written, you'll want to hang out in exclusive hangouts, and much more, head to join.tmro.tv or click the join button below. Here's what you can expect to see over the next week on tomorrow. On Wednesday, Dr. Tammathasco will return with Space Weather. On Friday, me and Jared will return with a live show and then next Monday I'll be back with even more news. Thanks for watching this episode, I'll see you next time. Goodbye.


Okay, welcome back everyone, Cube's live coverage of VMware Explorer 2022. I'm John Furrier, host of theCUBE. Two sets, three days of live coverage. Dave Vellante's here, Lisa Martin, Dave Nicholson, all hosts of theCUBE, 12 interviews today. We're rockin' and rollin', getting down to the end of the show as we wind down and look back and look at the future. We've got Stephen Jones here, he's the general manager of the VMware Cloud on AWS. He's with Amazon Web Service, Stephen Jones. Welcome to theCUBE. Thanks, John. Welcome back, CUBE alumni. I've been on many times going back to 2015. Yeah, pleasure to be here. Great to see you again. Thanks for coming on. Obviously, 10 years at AWS, what a ride has that been? Come on, tell me, it's been crazy. Wow, learned a lot of stuff along the way, right? I mean, we knew that there was a lot of opportunity, right? Customers wanting the agility and flexibility of the cloud. And we still think it's early days, right? I mean, you'll hear Andy say that, Adam will say that, but it really is, right? If you look at even just the amount of spend that's being spent on clouds, and the billions, right? And the amount of spend in IT is still in the trillions. So there's a long way to go. And customers are pushing us hard, obviously. It's been interesting. A lot going on with VMware, obviously around with them. Obviously changing the strategy with their third generation and their narrative. Obviously the Broadcom thing is going on around them. And 10 years at AWS, we've been, this will be our ninth year, no, 10th year at Reinvent coming up for us.  So if you look at the marks of time, now the history books are starting to be written about Amazon Web Services. It's about 10 years of full throttle cube hyperscaler in action. I mean, I'm talking about real growth, like hardcore. For sure. I'll give you just one anecdote. So when I first joined, I think we had maybe two EC2 instances back in the day. And the maximum amount of memory you could bridge into one of these machines was, I think 128 gig of RAM. Fast forward to today, you literally can get a machine with 24 terabytes of RAM. Just insane amounts, right? My son, who's a gamer, tells me he's got 16 gig in his PC, and he thinks, that's a lot, right? So we're excited about that. That's not even on his app, it's a graphics card.   I mean, look at, everyone's changed their strategy to copy AWS, Nitro, Dave Vellante, and I talk about this all the time, especially with James Hamilton and the team over there, Peter DeSantis. These guys are constantly going at the atoms and innovating at the level. I mean, that's how hardcore it is over there right now. I mean, in the advances on the silicon and the graviton, performance-wise, it's crazy. I mean, so what does that enable it? So given that's continuing, you guys are continuing to do great work there on the CapEx side. We think that's enabling another set of new, net new applications because we're starting to see new things emerge. We saw Snowflake come on, a customer of AWS, refactor the data warehouse. They call it a data cloud. You're starting to see Goldman Sachs, you see Capital One, you see enterprise customers building on top of AWS and building a cloud business without spending the CapEx. It's exactly right. And so you mentioned gravitons, graviton is one of our fastest growing compute families now. And you mentioned a couple of ISVs and partners of ours who are leaning in heavily on porting their own software. At Reinvent, Adam announced that we're working with SAP to help them port their HANA cloud, which is a database as a service offering. HANA, flagship, to graviton as well. So it's definitely changing. And I think, we're going to circle back to VMware because this is kind of a point to this conversation. Is that if you look at the trends, right? Okay, VMware really tried hard to do cloud and they had a good shot at it. V cloud air, but it just, they didn't have the momentum that you guys had at AWS. We saw a lot of the stragglers try to do cloud, they fell off the road, open stack, HP, and the list goes on and on. I don't want to get into that. But the point is, as you guys become more powerful and you're open, right? So you have open ecosystem. You have people now coming back, taking advantage and refactoring and picking up where they left off. VMware was the one of the first companies that actually said, you know what? Pat Gelsinger said, and I was there, let's clear up the positioning, let's go all in with AWS at that time, 2016. Yeah, this was new for us for sure. And then now that's set the standard. Now everybody else is kind of doing it. Where is the VMware cloud relationship right now? How's that going? I would say it's worked. It's working well, very well. And we're celebrating, I think we made the announcement about five years ago at this conference, at 2016.  The best part are the customers who were coming and adopting and proving to us that our vision back then was the right vision. And what's been different, I think, about this relationship, and it was new for us, was that we purposely went after a jointly engineered solution. This wasn't, hey, we've got a customer or a partner that's just going to run and build something on us. This is something where we both bring muscle and we actually build a joint offering together. And that's the main difference. Yeah, and that's been working. But now here at this show, if you squint through the multi-cloud thing, which is just, I think, positioning for what could happen in a post-Broadcom world, the cloud native has traction. They're Tanzu, customers we're leaning in.  They're now thinking, okay, I'm going to go on continued accelerate in the public cloud, but I'm going to have hybrid on-premise as well. You guys have that solution now. They're going to need cloud native. And we were speculating that VMware's probably not going to be able to get them all of it. And that there's a lot more cloud native options. As customers want more cloud native, how do you see that piece on Amazon side? Because there's a lot of benefits between the VMware cloud on AWS and the services that you guys have natively in your cloud. So we see customers really taking advantage of the AWS goodness, as well as expanding the cloud side at VMware cloud on AWS. Yeah, there's probably two ways I would look at this. So one is the combination of VMware cloud on AWS and then both native services just generally brings more options to customers. And so typically what we're seeing now is customers are just able to move much faster, especially as it comes to data center evacuations, migrating all their assets, right? So it used to be that, and still some customers, they're like, I've got to think through my entire portfolio of applications and decide what to refactor. And the only way I can move it to cloud is to actually refactor it into some new application. More and more we're actually seeing customers, they've got their assets. A lot of them are still on-premises in a VMware stay, right? They can move those super quick and then modernize those. And so I think where you'll see VMware and AWS very aligned is on this idea of migrate now. You need to get the benefits of TCO and the agility that comes with being in the cloud and then modernize. We took it a step further, which is, and I think VMware would agree here too, but all of the myriad of services, I think it's 200 plus now, AWS native services are for use right alongside any asset a customer wants to run in VMware. And so we have examples of customers that are doing just that. And that's how you guys see the native and VMware cloud integrating in. Yeah, that's important because, I mean, I always joke about being here 12 years listening in the hallways and stuff. You know, on the bus to the event last night, walking in the parties and whatnot, listening in the streets. There's kind of two conversations that rise right to the top and I want to get your reaction to this, Stephen, because this seems to be representative of this demographic here at VMware conference. There's conversations around ransomware and storage and D-Doupe and recovery. It's all a lot of those happen.  And then the other one is, okay, I got to get the cloud story right. So there's kind of the operational security. And then there's like, okay, what's my path to true cloud? I need to get this moving. I need to have better applications. My company is the application now, not IT serve some sort of back office function. It's like my company is completely using technology as its business. So the app is the business. So that means everything's technology driven, not departmental silo. So there's a, that's what I call the true cloud conversation. How do you see that evolving? Because VMware customers are now going there and I won't say they're behind, but they're certainly going there faster than ever before. I think it's an interesting way to put it and I would completely agree. I think it's very clear that I think a lot of customer companies are actually being disrupted and they have to move fast and reinvent themselves. You said the app is now becoming the company, right? I mean, if you look at where not too many years back there were big companies like Netflix that were born in the cloud, right? Airbnb, they're disruptors. There's, that's the app. Right, that's the app. So I would exactly agree and that's who other companies are competing with and so they have to move quickly. You talked about some technology that allows them to do that, right? So this week we announced the generally availability of a NetApp on tap solution. It's been available on AWS for some time as a fully managed FSX storage solution. But now customers can actually leverage it with, with VMC. Now why is that important? Well, there's tens of thousands of customers running VMware on-premises still. There's thousands of them that are actually using NetApp filers, right? NetApp filers and the same enterprise features like replication, DDoop that you were talking about and snapping clone, those types of things can be done now within the VMware estate on AWS. What's even better is they can actually move faster. So consider replicating all this petabytes and petabytes of data that are in these filers from on-premises into AWS, this NetApp service, and then connecting that up to the VMC option. So it just allows customers much, much better. You guys have always been customer folks. Every time I sat down with Andy Jassy and then last year with Adam, same thing, we worked back for them. Now I know it's kind of a canned answer on some of the questions from media, but they do really care. I've had those conversations. You guys do work backwards from the customers, actually have documents called working backwards. But one of the things that I've observed, we talked about it here yesterday on theCUBE, was the observations of re-invent versus say VMworld now explore, is VMworld's ecosystem was very partner-centric in the sense of the partners needed to rely on VMware and the customers came here for both more of the partners, not so much VMware in the sense there wasn't as much, many, many announcements. Compare that to the past say eight years of re-invent where there's so much Amazon action going on. The partners, I won't say today as a second, as a backseat to Amazon, but the attendees go there generally for what's going on with AWS because there's always new stuff coming out and it's amazing. But this year it starts to see that there's an overlap or change between like the VMware ecosystem and now Amazon. There's a lot of our interviews are like they're on both ecosystems. They're at Amazon's show, they're here. So you start to see what I call the maturization of partners. You guys are continuing to grow and you'll probably still have thousands of announcements at re-invent this year as you always do. But the partners are much more part of the AWS equation. Not just we're leasing all these new services and look at us, look at Amazon, we're growing because you guys were building out and the growth has been great. But now as you guys get to this next level the partners are integral to the ecosystem. How do you look at that? How is Amazon thinking about that? I know there's been some a lot of active reorgs around AWS around solving this problem or I'll stop the problem addressing the need and this next level growth. What's your reaction to that? I mean, it's a good point. So I have to be honest with you, John. I spent eight of my 10 years so far at AWS within the partner organization. So partners are very near and dear to my heart. We've got tens of thousands of partners and you are, you're right. You're starting to see some overlap now between the VMware partner ecosystem and what we've built now in AWS. And partners are big stories. By the way, you sell out every re-invent. So you have a lot of partners. I'm not suggesting that there's no partner network there. But partners are critical. I mean, naturally we want a relationship with a customer. But in order to scale the way we need to do to meet the needs of customers, we need partners, right? We can't interact with every single customer as much as we would like to, right? And so partners have long built teams and expertise that cater to even niche workloads or opportunity areas. And we love partners for that. Yeah, I know you guys do. And also we'll point out just to kind of give props to you guys on the partner side. You don't, you keep that top of the stack open on Amazon. You've done some stuff for end to end where customers want all Amazon. But for the most part, you let competition come in even on AWS. So you guys are definitely partner friendly. I'm just observing more of the maturation of partners within the re-invent ecosystem. Because we're there every year.  I mean, it's not like there's no action. There's a lot of customers there. It's sold out as big numbers. But it just seems that the partners are much more integrated into the value proposition at AWS because of the rising tide. And now their enablement, because now they're part of the value proposition even more than ever before. They really are. And they're building a lot of capabilities and services on us. And so their customers are our customers. And like you say, it's rising tide, right? We all do better together. Okay, so let's talk about the VMware Cloud here. What's the update here in terms of the show? What's your main focus? Because a lot of people here are doing sessions. What's been some of the content that you guys are producing here? Yeah, so the best part, obviously, is always the customer conversations, the partner conversations. So a lot of sessions there. We did keynote yesterday in Orion and I where we talked about a number of announcements that are pretty material now to the offering. I joined an announcement with NetApp yesterday as well around the storage solution I was talking about. And then some really good technical deep dives on how the offering works. Customers are still interested in like, how do I take what I've got on-premises and easily move it into AWS and technology like HSX, HCX solution with VMware makes it really easy without having to re-IP applications. I mean, you know, it's super difficult sometimes to move an application if you've got to figure out where all the firewall rules are and re-IPing those things of a source. But yeah, it's been fantastic. A lot of migrations to the cloud too. A lot of cloud action, new cloud action, you guys have probably seen an uptake on services, right? On the native side? Yes, yes, for sure. So maybe I'll just outline some of the announcements we made this week. Absolutely, go ahead. We announced a new instance family as a major workhorse underneath the VMware cloud offering called I4I. You mentioned Nitro earlier. This is based on our latest generation of Nitro which allows us to offer, as you know, bare metal instances which is what VMware, actually VMware was our first partnership and customer that I would say actually drove us to really get Nitro done and out the door. And we've continued to iterate on that. And so this I4I instance, it's based on the latest Intel Isolate processor with more than double the RAM, double the compute, a whopping 75 gigabits per second network. So it's a real powerhouse. The cool thing is that with the NetApp storage solution that we discussed, we're now disaggregating the need to provision compute and storage at the same time. It used to be, if you wanted to add more storage to your vSAN array that was on VMware cloud, you had to add another note. You might not need more compute for memory, you'd have to add another note. And so now customers can simply start adding chunks of storage. And so this opens up customers, I had a customer come to me yesterday and said, there's no reason for us not to move now. We were waiting for something like this that allowed us to move our data heavy workloads into VMware cloud. It's like the alignment, you mentioned alignment earlier. I would say that VMware customers are lined up now almost perfectly with hybrid story that's seamless or somewhat seems, it's never truly seamless. But if you look at like what Deepak's doing with Kubernetes and open source, you guys have that, they're talking that big here. You got vSAN 8, vSphere 8 out, it's all cloud native. So that's lined up with what you guys are doing on your services. And the horsepower, they have their stuff, you have yours, that works better together. So it seems like it's more lined up than ever before. What's your take on that? Do you agree, and if so, what folks watching here that are VMware customers, what's the motivation now to go faster? Look, it is absolutely lined up. We are, as I mentioned earlier, we are jointly engineering and developing this thing together, and so that includes not just the nuts and bolts underneath, but kind of the vision of where it's going. And so we're collectively bringing in customer feedback. What is that vision, real quick? So that vision has to actually help meet even the most demanding customer workloads. Okay, so you've got customer workloads that are still locked in on-premises, and why is that? Well, it used to be, there was a big need for data, and migration, right, and the speed. And so we continue to iterate this. And that, again, is a joint thing instead of, say, VMware just building on AWS. It really is a tight partnership. Okay, the lift and shift is an easy thing to do. And by the way, that could be a hassle, too, but I hear most people say, the reason holding us back on the workloads is it's just a lot of work, a hassle, making it easier is what they want. And you guys are doing that? We are doing that, absolutely. And by the way, we've got not just engineering teams, but we've got customer support teams on both sides working together. We also have flexible commercial options. So if a customer wants to buy from AWS because they've negotiated some kind of deal with us, they can do that. They want to buy from VMware. For a similar reason, they can buy from VMware. So. Are they in the marketplace? They are in the market. There are some things in the marketplace. So you talked about Tanzu. There's a Tanzu offering in the marketplace. So, yes, customers can contract. Marketplaces, I'm telling you, that's very disruptive. I'm really bullish on the AWS marketplace. I think that's going to be a transformative way people how they procure and deploy and how channel relationships are going to shift. I think that's going to be a disruptive enabler to the partner equation. And we haven't even seen it yet. We're going to be up there in September for their inaugural event. I think it's a small group, but we're going to be documenting that. Steven, final question for you. What's next for you? What's on the agenda? You've got re-invent writer on the corner. Your OP ones are done, right? I know it's doing all that. Internet, that's an internal Amazon joke, FYI. You've got your plan. What's next for the VM world? Actually, they're going to go, take this, explore global. No matter what happens with Broadcom, this is going to be a growth wave with hybrid. What's next for you and your team with AWS and VMware's relationship? Yeah, so both of us are hyper-focused on adding additional options, both from an instance compute perspective. VMware announced some additional offerings that we've got to fully complete. So they announced things like VMware Flex compute, VMware Flex storage. You mentioned earlier there was a conversation around ransomware. There's a new ransomware-based offering. So we're hyper-focused on rounding out, continuing to round out the offering and giving customers even more choice. Real quick, John, they made me think about the ransomware. We were at Reinforce, Steven Smith's now the CSO. Now you've got a CISO, AJ's the CISO. You've got a whole focused huge emphasis on security right now. I know you always have, but now it's much more public. It's more positive, I think, than some of the other events I've been to. There's been more gloom and doom. What's the security tie-in here with VMware? Can you share a little bit real quick on the security piece update around this relationship? Yeah, you bet. So as you know, security for us is job zero. Like, you don't have anything to give you enough security. And so one of the things that we're excited about, specifically with VMware, is the latest offering that we put together. It's called this ransomware offering. It's a little bit different than other ransomware. I mean, a lot of people have ransomware offerings today. Just air-gap it, right? No, that's easy. No, this one is different. So on the back end, so within VMC, there's this option where we can be taking iterative snapshots of a customer environment. Now, if an event were to occur, and a customer is like, I have to know if I'm compromised, we can actually spin up. Super easy. This is cloud, remember? Yeah. We can spin up a copy of this environment, take a snapshot with NSX. So VMware NSX, firewall it off, and then use some custom tooling from VMware to actually see if it's been compromised or not. And then iterate through that until you actually know you're clean. And that's different than just tools that do maybe a little bit of scanning. We had Tom Gillison yesterday, and one of the things Dave Vellante had to leave taking the sun to college, his last one in the house and being nested there now. But Tom Gillison, we were talking about how good their security story is in VMware. And they really weren't showboating it as much as they could after a year. I thought they could have done a better job. But this is an example of kind of them really leaning in with you guys. That's the key part of the relationship. Yeah, it really is. And I think this is something that is materially different than what you can get elsewhere. And it's exciting for customers. Okay, now the real question I want to know is, what's your plans for AWS re-invent? The blockbuster end of the year, Amazon, Sir Show, that gets bigger and bigger. I know it's still hybrid now, but it's going to be hybrid, but people are back in person last year. You guys were the first event really to come back and still had massive numbers. AWS Summit in New York had 19,000. I heard last week in Chicago, big numbers. So we're expecting re-invent to be pretty large this year. What are you going to be there? What's your role there? We are expecting, well, I'll be there. I cover multiple businesses. Obviously, we're planning on some additional announcements obviously in the VMware space as well. And one of the other businesses I run is around SAP and you should look for some things there as well. Yeah, really looking forward to re-invent, except for the fact that it's right after Thanksgiving. But I think- It always ruins my head. I always get an article out and like, why are you, we're having Thanksgiving dinner. I got to write this article. It's got to get, Adam Sileski, exclusive. We, every year, we do a CEO sit down with Andy was the CEO and then now Adam. But yeah, it's a great event. To me, I think it sets the tone and it's going to be very interesting to see the big clouds are coming to the big cloud. You guys, and you guys are now called hyperscale scalers, now multiple words. It's interesting. You guys are providing the capex goodness for everybody else now. And that relationship seems to be the new industry standard of you guys provide the enablement and then everyone, you get paid because it's a service. A whole nother level of cloud is emerging in the partner network. GSIs, other companies. Yeah, I mean, we're really scaling. I mean, we continue to iterate and release regions at a fast clip. We just announced support for VMware in Hong Kong. So now we're up to 21 regions for this service. The sovereign clouds right around the corner. We'll talk about that soon. Stephen, thanks for coming. I know you got to go. Thank you for your valuable time coming in. We're going to put Stephen Jones, who's the general manager of the VMware cloud on AWS business for AWS here inside the Cube. Day three of Cube coverage. I'm John Furrier. Thanks for watching. We'll be right back.