Welcome also to all who are following us online through the WF and LPAI's website. We are gathering today under a powerful headline in my view, the return of the state where next for industrial policy. I think it's one of the most significant trends of the changing times we are living in. We've got a wonderful panel here assembled by the WF. I'm going to briefly introduce the speakers we have today to you. From the other side of the stage starting from there we've got Mr. Music Gafela who is Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry of Botswana. Next we've got Mr. Mark Zwilling, Chairman of the Board of Directors at Development Bank of Southern Africa. Next we've got Madame Kelly Tsai, Dean and Chair Professor at Hong Kong University in Science and Technology. And here close to me we've got Mr. Gerro Corman, Head of Digital Technologies and Platforms at Volkswagen Group Production. Thank you for being here. I'm sure it's going to be a very hot provoking panel. So let's go for it. As you all know we are living in times marked by hardening competition between powers, threatening climate change, concerning global health issues. All of those are converging towards the first idea of our panel which is the return of the state. And the second one, the second syntax of our headline, the industrial policy is one of the most meaningful ways in which the state is returning. It is of course in purely economical terms thinking about jobs and growth, which is the idea of the conference here in Geneva, thinking about supply chains, thinking about innovation, risks of protectionism, but also in terms of geopolitics. For many industrial policy can be a factor defining the future balance of power between states. So I think we have to think about two aspects of it. And of course big players are fully swinging in this field. We got made in China 2025. We got in the U.S. the IRA and the Science and Cheaps Act. The EU is getting sucked together in this and other actors of different science and different parts of the planet are moving also. So we're going to try to think about this. We're going to try to think whether industrial policy can achieve its objective, avoiding provoking bad backlashes, trying to keep this into the realm of competition, not steering towards confrontation. We're trying to take stock of where we are in specific important places right now, who could be winners and losers, what are main opportunities and risks. So let's go for it. Let's start the discussion. I would like to do it showing to you some data assembled by the WF in its chief economist outlook published today. I think they are very significant. I hope they can be shown here. Here they go. So please have a look at that. I think it's a very significant data here. 24% of the economists polled in this believe that this trend will become a widespread approach to economic policy globally. Alarmingly, 90% believe it will deepen geocomic, geoeconomic rivalry and tension. 70% that it will stifle competition and 68% that will lead to a problematic increase in sovereign debt levels. And then we have here not much confidence about positive outcomes. 39% believe it could be a driver of innovation. Only 20% believe it will lead to an overall increase in global economic activity. So this is the context. This is the forecast of chief economists. It's not very well optimist. And on the ground of this data, I would like to kick start the conversation. I would like to start with you, minister. As a political leader coming from a country of what many call now the global sound, I would like to hear your assessment of what's going on right now in industrial policy, which is mainly happening in the northern hemisphere. How do you look at it? I guess there must be some part of it that are interesting to you. For example, investment in green technologies that may produce a reduction of emissions in the future. Other things maybe concerning, how do you look at it from the global sound perspective, from your country? Thank you very much, Andre. Since 2014, we embarked on industrial policy where I come from. And one of the things which we are embracing under it is pursuit of green technology and increasing reduction of reliance on fossil fuels. But we are a larger part of the African continental free trade area. We are larger, we are part of, oh sorry, we are also a part of the Southern African customs unit. In Sadek, African countries in the South, out of all of these regional blocks have embarked on industrialization. Our heads of state have mandated ministers responsible for trade to embark on it. Because for quite a long time, Africans had been relying on, the economies were pretty much based on resources, but increasingly the trend is towards industrialization of Africa. The challenge of course that we have is the manner by which we will accomplish that. Pursuit of green technology is in the forefront of our minds, but as the AU has declared, it's got to be a just transition, it cannot be a sudden occurrence. Of course we are all committed to meeting the Paris agreement and zero emission by 20, by 20, 20, 20, 30, but there is a challenge, Andrew, and there is a challenge there in that we are, a lot of Africans don't have access to energy. And even under the use of fossil energy, they still do not have access to energy. As politicians, it is absolutely important that for us to be meaningful to them as leaders, they should access energy. It's going to take quite a while, I must say, for a transition to occur in terms of which a sort of green energy then becomes a day-to-day occurrence. But I must say, from the Bosona's perspective, we have embarked on a lot of programs which support green technology, we are quite alive to our geographic location where we are. We have 3,200 hours of sunshine in a year. So this is an opportunity for foreign direct investment in green energy in Botswana. We do not have much, water is not abundant. So hydro energy is not something that we can really look into, but wind energy is. The southern part of Botswana, the southwest part of Botswana, there is some potential of use of wind in those areas for energy. So as we transition towards 2030, we need to, I would really urge that the whole world should be alive to these challenges which Africans do have in terms of the drive towards the complete eradication of fossil energy. Thank you very much, Minister. Now to hear your views, Mr. Zwilling, industrial policy is changing, it's changing its nature quite strongly. I'd like to ask, what is your point of view about this change from someone who has a very profound knowledge of a big region, sub-Saharan Africa, how do you see this change of nature of industrial policy worldwide? Okay, thanks very much. I think the reality is that this conversation is pitched in as part of the discussion about changing geopolitical realities. Part of that is the extraordinary competition that's been triggered by the Inflation Reduction Act. What this effectively means is that the US is going to trigger a competitive dynamic around industrial policy for green tech with Europe, which in turn is going to further stimulate Chinese investment to participate in that competitive dynamic. All of that doesn't spell good news for the Global South. The Global South is effectively excluded from that dynamic. So what we have to face is industrial policy strategies that are going to have to address typical Global South challenges. This new geopolitical reality is going to change the cost of capital, is going to change the directionality of financial investments, which up until now in terms of green tech has been fairly advantageous for the Global South. I suspect that that's going to shift. That's my first point. The second point is that survey, I find very depressing. Why? Because essentially the chief economists are talking about old generation industrial policies, which were about picking winners, about cost benefit analysis, and about market failure. The new generation industrial policies are not about that. The new generation industrial policies are really about facilitated collaborations around mission-led industrial policies that create innovation spaces and spaces for thinking about blended finance solutions that could result in the creation of whole new industries, whole new opportunities. So that's, I think we need to take seriously that. If you hang on to a traditional conception of industrial policy, you end up thinking in terms of, oh, this is going to worsen the sovereign debt crisis, oh, this is going to diminish competition. Actually, new generation industrial policies are actually having opposite effects, which is actually what underpins the I read in the Inflation Reduction Act and various strategies in sub-Saharan Africa. So I would ask us to just think critically about what we mean by industrial policy going forward. And as an academic, I would say that as the chair of the board of a developing finance institution, I have to say that because we have to participate in blended finance solutions. Thank you very much. I would like to hear now from you, Madame Tsai. Mrs. Willing has just stressed the geopolitical aspect of these new trends in industrial policy. I really would like to hear your point of view about how China's industrial policy has been evolving lately. It is, of course, a very important actor worldwide. And I would be really happy to hear from you on this. Sure. First, thank you for including me on this panel. It's an honor to be here. And I really appreciated my panel co-panelist point about differentiating among different types of industrial policy. I think there's a misunderstanding that China's rapid growth and becoming the world's factory is due to industrial policy, and that's really quite inaccurate. For the first couple of decades of China's reform era, starting in the late 1970s, there were efforts to engage in industrial policy, but it was actually bureaucratically too fragmented and there was just too much. It was actually quite disorganized at the central level to be able to pull off a type of coherent industrial policy like what you might see in Japan, Korea, Taiwan in the post-war era. It really wasn't until 2008 that it developed the bureaucratic capacity to have something resembling industrial policy, and it wasn't until 2015 that China then launched its very ambitious Made in China 2025 industrial policy, which I think it's important to understand the context under which that occurred. China's evolved from a familiar model of state capitalism to what we would consider now party state capitalism, and this evolved due to a deep sense of insecurity, both in terms of domestic concerns as well as external perceived threats. China started to bubble up in the late 2000s with the global financial crisis, with riots and Xinjiang protests in Tibet, social instability, growing corruption. These were all perceived domestic threats to the Chinese Communist Party's role. Then externally, there was Arab Spring. The global financial crisis was a real wake-up call in terms of China's dependence on export markets, and then I think more than anything else, the Edward Snowden affair led China to realize how risky it was to be dependent on foreign technology, and so all of that combined, the perceived internal and external threats led Beijing to really take industrial policy seriously and securitize its economy and come up also with this concept of comprehensive national security, which was introduced in 2014 right before the Made in China 2025, which identifies 17 different types of security for China, like ecological security, economic security, biosecurity, it's comprehensive national security. So China's industrial policy has been securitized, its mode of political economy has been securitized very heavily, and that's expressed in industrial policy. Just one last point I'd like to make is that industrial policy isn't always effective. It's really important to look sectorally, you know, by sector. China's most successful companies, its internet companies, the FinTech, Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent, they were not the products of industrial policy. Their most successful surveillance firms, Hikvijian and Dahua, again, private sector did not benefit from industrial policy until they were already very large, and so the sectors that have benefited, PV photovoltaics, solar, they produced so much they had to export. They didn't do well in autos, though, and commercial aircraft was an utter failure, so I think it's really important to keep that in mind when we're thinking about industrial policy. It doesn't always work and can be a colossal waste of resources. Thank you, so we just heard that it's not always successful. Mr. Korman, how do you see this triangle unfolding in Europe and the United States? Both wagonings, of course, a global group, it's taking a look at things worldwide, analyzing it, for deciding its strategic investment for the future. How do you see specifically how things are evolving in Europe and the United States, so important actors globally and for your company? We see those big programs in the US and in Europe showing up. We've seen protectionism also in Europe, like Volkswagen Group producing car all over Europe, all over the world, with Brexit, etc. and our very complex supply chains. We were facing challenges, while my colleague just said about industrial policy, what is actually targeting, what's part of it. Automotive often was in the past and is still in terms of components. And this is like something that we try to leverage. So the US pushing for more local production is nothing new, right? So in the automotive industry, local content is a very familiar term. So trying to met regulations in terms of where manufacturing actually happens. That's something that the automotive industry, as a global industry, is very familiar. And that is happening in the US, that is happening in Europe, it's accelerating. I think what's actually new is that it's not only about production capacity. That's one part of the story, like for example, of course, Volkswagen is investing in factories in the US, a new battery factory for the North American market in Canada to fulfill rather the idea of build components and cars locally for local markets. But I think what's new is also that it goes deeper in the value chain in terms of what kind of components. So restrictions and limitations and regulations about what kind of components and even what kind of manufacturing technology can be used and will be used in different areas. Will it accelerate innovation? Well, if I follow the report, probably not. Will it give some steering or might give some advantage for specific countries? We will see in the near future. Thank you very much. I will start now a new round, but I would like to tell you that afterwards, we will have some time for questions from you. So please, if you wish to ask, just later on, I will open up, raise hands, and we'll go for them. So, ministers, since we've got you in this panel, I would really like to have a political view, because we've seen how much this policy is intertwined with geopolitics. And we see that many consider this as a way to reduce dependency on others, to increase resilience, to get a hedge over competitors in strategic technologies, and therefore to ensure the economic strength in this global power struggle. So we think it's unfolding in a frightening way, and it's mainly from the north. So I would like to go with a political question. How do we avoid this going towards confrontation? What do you expect from these great powers, which are on course of something that may have bad effects on the rest of the world, especially on the South? How do we avoid this spiraling out of control? Well, the global powers, I would really invite them to peer into the African agenda, the African continent of free trade, area agreement, and to learn what collectively Africans are in pursuit of. Our approach, as Africans, Botswana included, is one of peaceful coexistence. Am I not audible? Thank you, sir. Peaceful coexistence, economic integration more than protectionist tendencies. So the way we look at it, even at the regional level, is an approach in terms of which we create winners of all of us. We avoid as much as possible scenarios of policies which, like the IRA, which perhaps may compel manufacturing to take place exclusively in a particular area. We try to spread it across the whole of Africa, because if the competition spirals out of control, it's likely to then beget a lot of unrest, a lot of global geopolitical tension, and possibly it can plunder us into all. Some of the conflicts that we've had in Africa, they have their roots in economic disparity, in economic inequalities. So we approach it from that point of view, and I'd really urge the rest of the world, I mean, America included in Europe, to pursue industrialization in a way which accommodates peaceful coexistence. Give some and take some, not when it takes all approach. So the IRA, I must say with respect, there's some parts of it which are quite useful to us and good, but there are some which are in sharp conflict with our outlook as Africa. We approach it, as I said, as a collective, and I can't speak from Bojana's perspective alone, because we have agreed to be a team, the whole of Africa. Thank you very much. Mrs. Willing, I'd like to ask you, do you think there is scope for the sub-saharan region to get ahead with industrialization? How should the region position itself in this new global scenario? Do you look at it with optimism? Do you think is it possible to go ahead or are you pessimistic about this? I'd be pessimistic if the focus was traditional industrial policies, picking winners and expecting bureaucracies to manage innovation. Then the predictions we saw will come true. The broad-based, mission-led, coalition-delivered approach to industrial policies got much greater potential. I think we're seeing that at a global level, for example, around oceans, the new ocean agenda is very much. A broad-based mission, we have to save the ocean, and a multiplicity of coalitions are emerging around that. I've done work for the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, which is pursuing quite strongly a green industrialization policy for the region. And the outcome of that work is very much about the kinds of coalitions that would be required to ensure that there are centers of excellence that emerge as partnerships between public, private, and civil society sectors to kind of grow high-potential areas, which can be in energy, yes, of course, but also mobility. We can't replicate the old-style concrete and car kind of combination that clogged up cities in the developed parts of the world, as well as communications, where we had leapfrogging over copper cables, and food systems. Food systems, in particular, are really about focusing on new ways of managing soils and nutrient cycles that result in localized value chains that can actually feed Africa. So those are just examples of where everything depends on the kinds of coalitions that get facilitated for innovation and flows of capital to happen. The bottom line is a lot of Africa's dreams are going to be scuppered because of the rising costs of capital and increasing indebtedness, unless we, if we don't think of industrial policy in this more creative way, those are problems that are going to get in the way, and we're gonna end up with another lost decade. Thank you very much. Madame Tsai, I would like to hear about a very, very important issue in this sector. It's about microchips. We've seen tensions growing about this specific area, which is fundamental for all industrial policy. We've seen the Biden administration taking steps. Recently, I think it was in past autumn to restrict exports towards China. Then we saw how other important countries like Japan or the Netherlands, which have important companies in this field that apparently are following the lead of the United States, restricting the exports towards China. So my question is, how is China reacting to this? Since it's so strategic, so strategic for the whole area, how do you see them reacting? How is that unfolding? Yeah, it's a really important question. And I especially appreciated the way that you just framed the context for that question, because what we see here is the rise of a security dilemma in the economic realm. It used to be that in international relations, security dilemmas refer to when a country pursues activities to make itself feel secure, has the unintended consequence of making other countries feel less secure, who then in turn try to make themselves feel secure, and this leads to a downward spiral of mutual insecurity in the arms race during the Cold War was the perfect example of that. And it used to, and then for a good part of the 80s and the 90s and through the early 2000s, it seemed that economic interdependence was a way to foster cooperation. But instead what we've seen now is the rise of a security dilemma in the economic realm, where China's made in China 2025 was in reaction to its sense of both economic as well as national insecurity. Then in turn the US comes along with a CHIPS Act in response. And now you ask what is China's reaction? It feels even more insecure, right? So more specifically, its response has been first to use very kind of wolf warrior discourse saying that it's going to backfire on the US. It's not going to work out. Second, it has accused the US of violating WTO rules Third, it is stepping up efforts to invest them. There are all these state government organized investment funds over a trillion dollars have been poured into them at different levels and the problem with them though is all this investment, those dollar figures look really intimidating and scary, right? Fueling that economic security dilemma. But if you actually look where the money is going, they've had to replace several fund managers of what they call the big fund of their national integrated circuit investment funds because of corruption. So much money is going into it but I think it's important not to get too intimidated by it. Other reactions include Huawei claiming that it can now manufacture I think a 14 nanometer wafer that it's developing the internal capacity to do it. It's very nervous that Japan is going to stop supplying it with components and so the reaction is both kind of external anger and defensiveness and then an internal even greater insecurity, unfortunately. Thank you very much. Mr. Korman, I'd like to point of view about how the global landscape of production might change. We are in this since quite a few time now. Data tells us that there is no de-globalization but probably there is a metamorphosis of globalization towards a more politically pushed globalization, more polarized globalization, nearshoring, inshoring, et cetera. So how do you see the perspective for the new global production landscape since you work for such a globalized company? Yeah, so I think from an automotive point of view, like automotive is going to its biggest transformation ever and it has different dimension and all dimension are influenced by industrial policy. So starting with the product itself, so from combustion to more sustainable mobility, of course, industrial policy can steer it, can accelerate, can slow down developments here. The same is for autonomous driving as a product, right? So we go from driving the cars ourselves towards autonomous technology, but that's all over the globe. The second question is what you mentioned and what I just said in the first round of questions, where to manufacture and how does supply chain look like? So one challenge the automotive industry is facing is how to increase and how to make supply chains more resilient and this comes along with a trend that we can see towards more vertical integration. So to do more components in-house, like batteries, et cetera, et cetera, that come along with this transition. So, and this comes also along with the question on where to manufacture, right? As I said, the local for local, the local content topic is nothing new. It has accelerated and it was always on the agenda for the automotive companies, building up joint ventures in China, producing locally in Asia, in Africa, et cetera, to leverage incentives of the countries. But the third dimension is now on how to manufacture. So what kind of technology are you using? And the question is can you leverage the same technology all over the globe or are you facing limitations? So that specific technologies that has been developed somewhere in the world are protected and cannot be used somewhere else. And I'm talking about technology, like advanced manufacturing technologies. I'm talking about technologies that are AI-enabled, artificial intelligence-enabled. And I think that's also an opportunity for countries to try to use that as an accelerator while others still try to figure out regulations on how to optimize manufacturing. I'm not talking about AI, like JetGBT and all these next generation of agents, et cetera, that will change our lives. I'm talking about using artificial intelligence for quality inspection, et cetera, et cetera, which in many countries is not yet allowed. So it's not like an official quality tool. But we see artificial intelligence being applied more and more. And again, the question, can you leverage the same technology across the globe or do we see very local for local manufacturing technologies? Thank you. Well, I would like to open up the discussion if you would like to pose questions to our speakers. We'll be very happy to take it. Please, go ahead if you can introduce yourself and then go for a question. Thank you, good morning. John Morrison, Institute for Human Rights and Business. This question of interdependency. I think many of you sort of correlate interdependency with stability and peace as a good thing. Just want to drill into that a little bit more. Is the current interdependency we've had the past 30 years actually been good for people? And is it something worth preserving? And if so, how do we preserve it? Or should we let it fall away and try and rebuild another form of interdependency? Thanks.  No, I think we'll be on the panel because the IRA has been cited in the US as unfair, element of competition, et cetera. I'm intrigued by what governments could or should be doing to safeguard interdependency and to strengthen it or whether actually the current interdependency we have is not worth preserving. That's my question. Thank you for your question. Some of you would like to take it. Please, go ahead. Well, that depends on what you mean by interdependency. So if you mean multilateralism, from a global South point of view, yes, we've benefited from a relatively peaceful world. But if you mean interdependence from a developmental point of view, it hasn't been good news. And Larry Summers ended the last, was talking at the last session of the Wave in January in Davos. And he listed a whole bunch of good things that are happening and some challenges. And then he ended off by saying that one of our biggest problems is no one's figured out how to relocate capital from the global South, from the global North to the global South. And I was struck by that because in the context of, well, the majority of solar and wind resources are in the global South. The majority of the biodiversity adaptation resources in the global South. But the majority of the minerals we're gonna need to build the new infrastructures are in the global South. The capital is in the global North. And in the context of geopolitical, rising geopolitical competition, which is gonna be exclusionary of the global South, we, from a development point of view, face very serious challenges. And it's not gonna be good for the world because the resources, you know, how those resources gonna get accessed if you have strong states that are gonna say, no, no, we want better terms. Some more questions? Please go ahead. I think I'm, Mike, is coming. Thank you very much. My name is Jamal Grip, Director of Economic Development Integration and Trade of the African Union Commission, based in Addis Ababa. Well, I just first to salute our minister. Just two, three issues or comments. Well, first of all, what I have noticed really, there are those drivers of the economy, even on the industrial policies. The drivers, we know them. It's more or less North Africa, North America, you have Latin America, Europe, Asia and South East Asia. So these are really the drivers, but the future. I'd like really that the next edition of the web that we think about the future, how to position the world now going forward about 20, 30, 50 years from now. And I think the future is Africa. It's not because I'm from Africa that time, but the reality is there. The CFTA is on the African free trade areas already there. And within 10 years, they will be coming with one, the most biggest single market in the world. It's about 1.5 billion population. I'm not just talking, I'm talking about the opportunities. And we see some of the countries that are taking advantage from now and coming in. And I see all the remaining within talking those big countries, like big drivers, US, Europe, US, China, US, but not talking about US. And frankly, there are those big things happening in the world, but there is a reality. And the reality of today, leaders, the African leaders are not the same of the 60s or 70s. There is a huge shift. And I can't tell you being really, even in the front of the Agua, that the African growth opportunity act discussion in US, things have changed. And I'd like really to call on the weft to think about going forward to position Africa of the hub of prosperity, with what I call shared prosperity. Because when I listen to the minister about the green transition, yes, but we are not responsible of that one. So for me, going forward, there are many opportunities in Africa. One of them, I think the GVC, we are working a lot on the African Commission with UNICEF, with AFDB. For me, something that we have never talked about the subcontracting, some contractors. We never ever done a study about the subcontractors in Africa. This is something I believe is the future because yeah, this is not only talking about that very advanced technology, but the mid. For me, the weft should a little bit shift, really talking only about those, but bringing to North-South discussion. Thank you. Do you have a question? No, for me, how do you see, for example, the role? Not as a provider of, but how do you see the future? For example, green technology, yes, battery, that, lithium. We know where is it based, now where you have the resource. The raw material, we know where is it located. How do you see the future? Do you think this is the real future? Talking about the electrical car, do you think this is going forward for 50, 60, 100 years? And how are you thinking about how to recycle those batteries, the lithium one of this? I think like the advice and trying to think in the future, let's try to answer it in a way that we have been talking about markets and consumers in different markets, and I think you touched based on that some people might underestimate the future market Africa, et cetera, like happy to discuss. And then we talked about product, like selling cars, producing cars. We touched based on, oh, it's not about the product, it's about components. We talked about ships. We talked about ships not being able to, like making supply chains even more difficult and even more complex, because you can't use the same components. I mentioned also technology in terms of manufacturing technology, and there will be an age where we see it's even about sharing data. So how to connect the world in terms of sharing data and given access to data. And I think that's something we have to have in mind. Like that everybody is doing on its own, for own markets, et cetera, et cetera, with own technology that will not work out because it's not leveraging the capability of this planet in terms of resources, in terms of many, many other topics. And in order to make sure that we also save our earth and beyond, right? Like I think it's crucial to think beyond just like where are markets and where to sell products. Please go ahead. But please just straight to the question. We have not much time left. Thank you. Rachel Dorenci-Chana from Iconzenda. You mentioned old industrial policy versus new industrial policy. They're obviously created by humans, by leaders. Can you tell me how far we are along that transition in the mindset from an old to a new? I think the shift is taking place more in practice than with any conceptual clarity. Somebody like Mariana Matsukato is trying to give a conceptual framing of what's already emerging. But if you just listen to the panelists from Volkswagen and you hear the same from Siemens and so on, the previous paradigm was about cheap labor, long extended value chains, free flow of capital, no care for the environment. Now the paradigm has shifted. Circularity, localized value chains, costly labor they can handle, they can pay more. Environment matters and constrained capital. In that environment, states have to return and play a role in creating not a disciplined regulatory specification, which like as you say, failed in China in some sectors, managed by bureaucracies, but an opportunity space where problem solving through collaborations can take place in new kinds of environments where the language is about blending, blending finance, blending knowledge, accessing opportunities and multiplicity of spaces, but taking into account these new drivers. Please. We can move forward if we actually understand what we are up to and that the whole paradigm simply is not gonna work. In our context, we don't have the kinds of bureaucracies even if we wanted old style industrial policy. In South Africa, we've tried and failed many times to do that. So. I was etching Andre to comment on the question about the future. We are quite concerned in Africa about the future. As we transition to green energy, especially in the automobile industry, already we have a lot of African countries which are having influx of exploitation of great, great vehicles to them. A lot of the countries in the Central Africa and some in Southern Africa, South Africa has prohibited that entry, but we are seeing an influx. And we think that once we move away from combustible engines, we're going to see an influx of damping, of damping of vehicles in Africa. Already it is occurring. So we just, if we could cooperate with each other so that those which are not usable anymore, far distant places, they shouldn't be shipped. They really shouldn't be shipped over to, because what happens is that they find communities which are in test rates are in dire need. And these are usable for their own day-to-day getting by. So it's readily attractive to them to embrace them. But in the long term, we are really going to see a catastrophe of getting rid of that which is not useful, but sending it elsewhere in Africa. It's really a problem, I'd really urge especially from Asia, because that's where a lot of them do come from. And we, it's difficult for politicians once they have arrived for us to then not accept them. But if from their source, the source itself could stop sending them, that could really help us a great deal. Thank you. I know there are more questions, but we really have to wrap up. So I just would like to give a final word to you, Madam Tsai, a bullet point if you agree about state and party capitalism in China. Could you just give us a point and that we think there is an important thinking about that all over the world. What would you say about it? Or would you explain it very briefly? Okay, sure. I think the rise of party state capitalism is due to a deep sense of the Chinese Communist Party's insecurity about both perceived domestic and perceived external threats. So to the extent that the policies taken by other countries can be framed in less threatening ways, I think that could be a step towards de-escalating what has become an increasingly tense geopolitical situation between China and OECD countries. Well, thank you very much for being with us today here in the room and also all those who follow us online. I would like just to get some takeaways from this session. Well, I think it's clear from the thinking of our speakers that we are in the midst of a profound transformation with many risks in it, many risks. We've seen it from their words and also with the data of the chief economist Ankh Luk. So well, hopefully it will not be of spiraling into confrontation. There is a lot of potential in it, but a lot of risks. Time will tell. Thank you very much for being here with us today. Thank you.


So many people want the results that I have in my business, a full-time business that allows me to do what I love in a highly competitive industry. Your industry is probably less competitive than mine, which is business and marketing training. So many people want the results, but they don't want to do the work. I talk to so many people and I notice what's happening with you is that you're telling me you want this and you want that, but you're not willing to do the work. And let me tell you why you're not willing to do the work, because you have been lied to by so many of the other Instagram influencers and YouTube influencers that are telling you, oh, it's supposed to be easy and light and fun. When you're doing the right thing, when you have found the right system, when you have finally found and purchased my right perfect ultimate system for you to build a six-figure business, it's supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be step-by-step. There's no uncertainty involved. There's no doubt.   Let me tell you, with my experience of 10 years of selling these systems, myself, I have created dozens of systems myself and I have worked with dozens of colleagues who have sold dozens of systems themselves. Let me tell you that it's all a lie. When you're talking about ultimate systems and business being easy, light and fun, it's a lie, people. It's a lie, okay? And here's what I discovered to be the truth. If you want a business that is authentic and meaningful for you, it is not going to be implementing someone else's system step-by-step because by definition, even whatever I say, step-by-step, you're not going to be like, well, it doesn't feel like me. You're still going to have to use your creativity to customize the system and creativity by definition means uncertainty. It means, I don't know if it's going to work. I don't know if my course launch is going to work. I don't know if this video is going to work. I don't know if this blog post is going to be read or even liked by anybody. I don't know. That's the definition of creativity and that's the definition of meaningful work because when you do create in spite of uncertainty and doubt, which is what I experience all the time, but sometimes some of those things work. It's like, oh, my God, this is amazing. This is my calling. It is so profoundly joyful and meaningful, but you have to be willing to work in spite of the daily uncertainty, the daily confusion, the daily doubt, the daily, what the hell am I supposed to be doing right now? That happens every day. Well, now, of course, I have so much experience now that I have a very solid schedule, but even a very solid schedule, it says on my schedule, okay, time to do some marketing optimization or time to improve my services to my clients, but then I have a long list of things that I could do for my marketing. I have a long list of things I could do to improve my services. Which is the right one to pick? And I don't care if I have the most expensive coach in the world. He or she is not going to tell me this isn't the right thing for you to do. I have to just learn from my own creativity, understand myself and go, ah, I'm just going to try this one because this one, based on my experiences and tuition is probably the right one to do right now, but there's still uncertainty and there's still doubt. So what I want you, what I encourage you to do is to reframe the experience of uncertainty and doubt as you work on your business. And here's how I see all of life and this might be useful to you as well. I see all of life as a giant video game and that might in some spiritual way be true. I see this body, this flesh and meat body as an avatar and spirit, some spiritual player is playing this game of life through this avatar and the video games purpose, how we rack up points in this video game is not how many days did I sit on the beach and relax, how many days did I was in that luxurious Airbnb enjoying the luxurious life? That's not the point of this video game. That's not how you rack up points here. You rack up points in this video game not with wealth and fame and luxurious and easy living. That's not how you, you rack up points in this video game with experience, experience points, okay? But more importantly, just like an irregular video role playing game, you are trying to build up the strength, intelligence, agility of that character, that avatar in this video game, you are doing the same thing.  That's what you're racking up in this video game. And for the avatar who's fighting that big monster, it's scary and on the surface. For the avatar, it's really scary and painful, but for the player, it's deeply fun. So I want you today to reconnect to the player, reconnect to your spirit to say, my God, this whole thing, I am completely secure because this is just an avatar. This is just a game. After I play this game, I get to play another game, right? This is just a game. And I'm completely secure in the real sense of things. And therefore you can see all your life's challenges and all your business challenges and all the uncertainty that you need to push through to work your business as a deeply fun process.  On the surface level, it's painful, but on a deep level, it's fun if you know how to connect to that deep level. So that requires your spiritual practice, whatever that may be. So I hope this video is encouraging for you. And until the next video, I wish you a true connection and a frequent connection. I do this multiple times today, a frequent connection to your spirit so you can play a deeply fun game no matter what's happening at the surface level. Go and do the work that you need to to have an authentic business. I wish you well. And thank you for joining me.


Our next speaker is Dr. Karl Krzysztofnicki from Australia. I saw him do a talk at TAM Australia, it was wonderful. He's an Australian science journalist, and he's a media personality, and I just found out that he's Ukrainian, so that made me very exciting. His talk is great moments in Australian science. Oh, and by the way, he got the science or fiction correct, he was backstage. Totally nailed it, totally nailed it. Here's his limerick. Australians are known to produce great science, both grand and obstruc. But when put to the task, all I can think to ask is, wait, is your name not Bruce? Please welcome Dr. Karl Krzysztofnicki. Hello, thank you. My name is Karl Krzysztofnicki. I'll have a soft introduction to cover the fact that I have a strange accent. It'll take about five minutes for you to understand what I'm saying. So this is some footage that I took down in the Antarctic. And I'm up in the pointy bit of the ship. So I've been trained, just a bit of background. I've been trained as a physicist and mathematician, a biomedical engineer, doctor and surgeon. But I don't do any of that stuff anymore. Instead, I tell stories. I'm a storyteller. I read my way through $10,000 worth of science fiction of science. So literature review, which is a pile of about a meter thick or a yard. And to make sure I can keep on reading my way through that big fat pile, I've got a very well-equipped library so I can spend hours and days in the library just thinking away and reading and wondering, what on earth will I come up for when I'm here to talk about the brain? Well, first, here's a bit of introduction about Australia. Over here is a map of Australia, superimposed upon the contiguous 48 states. So you can see they're roughly the same size. And I've spent 20 years test driving new four-wheel drives across the outback of Australia. And I've been through 15 of the 17 deserts. And this is my own personal vehicle. We've been in it through water up to the blue line. And here we are bogged in the oldest river in the world, 150 million years old, the Fink River. And we unleash the cable. And you can see on the roof we've got solar cells. All together we carried, for this particular trip, 160 gallons of fuel. We took my 12-week-old baby out. And here you see a whole bunch of diapers on the back of the car. That's a month's worth of diapers. So we started off in the middle of Australia, went west for 1,000 kilometers, turned north, went north for 1,000 kilometers. And in that month, we saw only one other group of people. And we had to carry all of our own food and all of our own fuel. The reason that the outback is red is because of rust, iron ore.  And so we took off from the center and out we went. And here you can see more of the outback. And there's our vehicle. The curiously soft quality of the sand dunes. And some of those plants have got roots that go down 20 yards, 20 meters, in an effort to try and get water. Here you can see some camel tracks. We've got a lot of camels in Australia. And this is a plant, a honey grevillea. And you can see, if you look at the arrows, you can see these little drops of honey. They are literally liquid sugar, liquid floating there.  That's me with hair several years ago. In this trip of one month, we drank between the five of us. That was three adults, two year old and a 12 week old baby. We drank one and a half tons of water, which we got by going to a well and pulling it out. And here's my 12 week old baby saying, oh, it's getting a little bit hot for me now. And on one occasion, she actually began to get floppy on us, which anybody who's worked in kids knows is a terrible situation. You don't want anybody to get floppy on you. So we chucked her in our drinking water bucket and she came good, hooray, that cooled her down. My two year old son then immediately wanted to duplicate that so we shoved him into a bucket as well. And he had a good time. So in our next trip, we start off at the center of Australia and went directly west, straight left. And we came across this, you've heard of life on earth being around for a long time and how the oldest fossils on earth are of stromatolites 3.8 billion years ago. That is a living stromatolite. It's a weird creature that sort of filters the water coming into it. And of course we've got dolphins, which we went there to get our psychic enlightenment. Nearby we saw a beach. And here on this beach, we call it Shell Beach. And there's 50 miles of shells like that. That's what it is, just for 50 miles, no humans. And here we are at another place called Calabari. It's not a very big arch compared to your archers, but it is Australia. And right next to it, it had an outcrop and I said to my wife, honey, carry the two babies and just keep on moving closer. No, no, a bit closer, it looks better this way. Keep going. And then on another trip, we went in a big loop around the center of Australia. You can see to the sort of middle right. And here we are looking at, or, this is weird. Ants, if you get an individual ant, it's got no IQ.  This is up in the top left hand corner of Australia now in an area called the Kimberley. And you can see that sort of curious chute coming down that shiny thing and the arrows point at a tree. That tree is 15 yards high. So that chute, which is as smooth as a baby's bottom, incredibly smooth from all the water that goes down it, is about Olympic swimming pool size. These are the bungal bungal. Not bungal bungals plural. They got it wrong on that. It's just a plain old single bungal and the water flows through there at the rate of one cubic kilometer per hour in the wet season and it just gouges through the rock. These huge grooves and leaving behind these curious behaved structures, nice ponds up there and then going for another loop around the middle of Australia. This dingo kept on following us. You know about dingos in the Australian Outback? And this dingo would just follow us day after day and we end up at a pool which was only slightly radioactive and we swam in the hot water. So looking here, what are we talking about? We're seeing a brain, right? Is it a human brain? Maybe go and have a look at Wikipedia brain and see what the first picture is. And so we came to this fine establishment here and we had no idea what this was like. We thought, wow, this is a huge casino. Let's go for a walk and we went walking downstairs and we saw this, a poster for a movie called Lucy and my two daughters are going, hmm, I'm a little bit worried about this. Not Scarlett Johansson, but this, the average person uses only 10% of their brain capacity. Whoa, really? Now we have a clipping here, Dr. Bruce, we've got to have a clipping from a movie. This is the download of the trailer. Really slipped in package into your lower tummy when you're going to transport something very special to us. Yes! Take me to the hospital now. Hospital? Somebody put a bag of drugs inside me, I need you to take it out. It's leaking. It is estimated most human beings only use 10% of the brain's capacity. Imagine if we could access 100% interesting things begin to happen. Yes? Professor Norman, my name is Lucy, I just read all your research on the human brains. It's a little rudimentary, but you're on the right track. I thank you. I have access to 28% of my cerebral capacity. I can feel every little thing. Since when did you start writing Chinese? Happens when she reaches 100%. I have no idea. This knowledge, given unlocks secrets that go beyond our universe, I'm not even sure that mankind is ready for it. It's like all things that make me human are fading away. So by an amazing coincidence, we turn up here for a conference on the brain and what should we find but a movie advertised in the foyer saying, hey, you use only 10% of your brain. So I thought, of course, I will change my program and make up something special for you guys. So this is actually, the brain is actually very complicated. Okay, now Steve, very expensive to run, weighs a couple of percent of your body weight, but uses 20% of the energy that your body generates and it creates 20% of the heat generated. And the myth is that you use only 10% of your brain but if you use 100% of your brain, well blow me down, you'll be able to get a Nobel Prize and an Olympic gold medal and of course, according to Uri Geller, psychic powers. How did this myth started? You have to go back in time and one of the main do's was Carl Spencer Lashley. And he did an experiment back in the 1920s, he was a good guy and what he was trying to find out was where is memory, that same thing, the strange thing that makes us ask, where is memory stored? And what he did was he trained mice, rats, by the way, the definition of a rat is that creature which if killed in sufficiently large numbers will generate a PhD. So he got the rats to run through a maze and he removed more and more of their brain to see how they ran the maze and what he found was basically that memory, the strange thing that makes you, you and me, me, is not stored in a single part of your brain and secondly, he found that you remove any part of the brain, it led to memory problems. Okay, fair enough, at no stage did he ever say that you need only 10% of your brain, never said that.  How did this particular subset of the myth arrive? This guy here, Dale Carnegie, how to win friends and influence people and he wrote a book that sold 15 million copies eventually back in 1936 and he said in the way that motivational speakers do that if you just work a little bit harder after you buy my book, of course, you can improve your life enormously and then in his book with absolutely zero proof, he wrote that most people use only 15% of your brain. Now, this is wrong for various reasons and here is one reason why 100% usage of any part of your body is impossible and this is a fairly disturbing photograph of a man who has got tetanus and all the muscles in his body are switched on at the same time so his arms are both trying to contract and extend and the same with the legs and there have been cases where either the muscles in tetanus tear themselves off the bone or they stay attached to the bone and they break the bones. So you cannot have the situation where all of your muscles are switched on all of the time.  You can't use all of your brain at the same time. There are a few, so while I've on one hand sort of busted this myth to some degree that you use only 10% of your brain, there are a few exceptions here. So consider the condition called hydrocephalus where about two of every thousand babies have. You've got a constant flow of cerebrospinal fluid being generated in the brain, flowing around the brain and if you either make too much or if you have a blockage to the reabsorption, you can end up with two situations. Situation one is it can make the skull a bit bigger. The skull can actually expand in size or situation number two, the brain meat, the flesh, the substance gets squashed. So here's the CSF being generated in the blue area of the brain. You make about 500 mils. By the way, for our mostly American audience, I will translate mils into your normal unit. One mil is a cubic second per square furlong per day. That's the conversion. And you, okay, 150 mils is about a cup of tea. Okay, tea, you don't know tea. Okay, right, don't worry about it. Okay, and it flows, it's generated in the center and it flows around, comes back again. And here's a little movie of the CSF being generated and being reabsorbed. And the problem is when you can't reabsorb that.  It happens, it's rare. And here you can see the black area is grossly enlarged. And between the black area and the white, which is the skull, is the brain meat. And that brain meat, the flesh, the stuff that makes you, you and me, me is normally about 45 millimeters thick. There is a case on record of a young man who had one millimeter of brain flesh, not 45, one. The inside of his skull was mostly fluid. And he had a Nike of 126 and an honest degree in maths, plural. You've all got it wrong, it's not a single math. There's a whole bunch of them.  What it does prove is that in certain and very rare cases, the brain can recover from or compensate from major injuries. That's the first sort of disclaimer on the 10% brain. The second one is a new field called transcranial magnetic stimulation, where you get a magnetic field either from one ring or two when you shove it into the brain, induced currents, faraday, all that sort of stuff. And in transcranial magnetic stimulation, it's a little bit like ECT, kind of, in that you're inducing currents in the brain. And it's used to some degree with moderate effectiveness in depression and in migraines.  If I want to get from here to the airport, okay, I've got to go to the phone and then ring up and then find out when the shuttles are going and then give them my name and then pack up my bags and then be down at the front desk so I can get to the airport, they can't do that. For a brief window of time, they lose the ability to work out how to comprehend a timetable. In response though, suddenly, they have this ability to draw a horse accurately for the first time in their life and they hold this ability for 10 to 15 minutes. So there are things that we can do with our brains that we don't fully understand yet, but to try and say that we use only 10% of our brain is rubbish. Talking about the brain even further, the well-known Flynn effect. IQ tests are calibrated so that the average IQ is 100 and you've got a bell-shaped curve. And looking at a standard test called the Wishler Intelligence Scale for Children, it has been recalibrated upwards three times over the last two thirds of a century, leading up to WISC-IV. And if you get a kid of today and you say, take the exam of 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, the average kid will get more than 100. Are we smarter? It goes back a long way, but the latest reincarnation is this guy here, James Flynn, currently in New Zealand, written about in the Scientific American called Solving the IQ Puzzle. Are we getting smarter? Looking at the results of IQ tests worldwide, you can see that the numbers in various countries are rising. Looking at just a single population, a single country, you can see that since the 19-somethings, the IQ scores are going up, but roughly three points per decade, nine points per 30 years, or in other words, your kids have got an IQ score nine points higher than you. And looking at it in different areas, you can see that there's a whole different ways of measuring IQ, verbal, spatial, mathematical abilities, similarities, blah, blah, blah, and they all come out differently, but the average is about 0.3 of the IQ point per year. Why, what does this mean? Well, over the last century, there have been massive changes in how our society runs. Back in 1900, only 3% of the jobs involved thinking. The rest of it was shifting stuff that people told you to shift. And our society has changed enormously from the concrete to the abstract. Get a kid back in 1900 and say, what is the similarity between a cat and a dog? And the kid would say, you use a dog to hunt a cat. That's concrete. Today's kid, what's the similarity? Oh, they're both mammals. Are we actually getting smarter or are we dealing with data in a new way? Read the articles, it's too deep for me to go into here, but James Flynn puts it nicely himself when he says that it is officially mysterious. Now, I'd like to talk a little bit here about the Apple logo because that deals deeply with the brain. Hey, how come the Apple logo has a bite out of it and originally it had a rainbow and how on my computer, why do I have snow white cuddling up to the Apple taking a bite out of it? It'll all come clear in the next couple of minutes. So this was the original Apple logo back in 1975. And you can see it's got Newton. It's really complicated. And this is the one with the sort of rainbow from 76 to 99 and they changed it after that. But what the heck? That is not a rainbow. See how red is in the middle? I have a rainbow on my house. See out the front? I just put it up there. That is a real rainbow, right? Right, and it goes from red to purple. This one is just a crazy rainbow. So going back to the Apple logo, okay, the colors are in the wrong order. Okay, we've got that out of the way. But why does it have a bite out of it? Is it some sort of pun that a B-I-T-E and a B-Y-T-E, which is a unit of data, pronounced the same? Or is it the Apple of Knowledge or Isaac Newton or all sorts of stuff? No. It is due to one really, really clever guy, Alan Turing. Alan Turing counts as one of the genuine geniuses of the 19th, of the 20th century. By the time he was 16, he could truly understand Einstein. And he, he invented the concept of a universal machine.  What you do is, suppose you can get one number. You might have a tape and you get one number and then you add it or subtract it to another number and then you store the results somewhere. He proved mathematically that if you can do that, you can invent, you can have a universal machine. A universal machine can do anything.  It is the computer of today. Let me explain. In 2009, the family walked across Spain following the route of the El Camino. Read the book by Shirley McLean if you wanna have an interesting laugh. So we started off at one end and we walked about 790 kilometers, which is about just under 500 miles. And we walked our way across Spain and it was a lovely walk, about 25 kilometers a day. The olive branches, blooms, storms came. Ladies, look at my leg muscles. Now it wasn't me, it was some other guy who was a bicyclist. Oh God, he had leg muscles. Okay, so what was this universal machine? It was my smartphone. My smartphone was not just a phone or a camera and GPS and email and it's talking English, Spanish, dictionary. It was all these other things as well. All of this in one machine. Truly, Turing had put forward the idea of the universal machine. And in the Second World War, we're getting to the Apple logo and why I have snow white over here. And in the Second World War, the Nazis conquered Europe. And the United Kingdom was regarded either as an unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of Nazi-occupied Europe or an offshore attack base. Supplied by the United States who sent supplies across with high-speed sea convoys and these high-speed boats were sunk by the slow Nazi U-boats. How on earth do slow submarines sink fast convoys by being told where to go via radio messages that were encrypted via enigma? This is the enigma. By the way, I'm giving away a prize of a... This is okay, DJ Grovthy. He said it's okay. I'm giving away a prize of a BMW, a condominium block, and Australia to anybody who knows who funded the movie called Enigma. You've got five seconds. DJ, over there, that guy there. You can give him Australia as well. So Mick Jagger, in fact, did fund that movie.  You type the letter A again and you get back X. You type the letter A again and you get back N.  It was a wonderful, wonderful machine. And to bust the code, they needed somebody clever and that somebody clever was Alan Turing. And he had to invent this machine to help him do it. Alan Turing, it is said. He did all his work at Bletchley Park. Alan's Turing shortened the Second World War by two years because it didn't begin to end until they could send the troops from the unsinkable aircraft carrier of the United Kingdom into Nazi-occupied Europe. D-Day happened just a little while ago. He shortened the war by two years, but nobody knew about it because the British had the Official Secrets Act. After that, in the 1940s, he worked on a stored program computer and then a thing called Baby, one of the first electronic computers. And in 1952, in 1952, he got robbed and a cops came up and they said, who... Sorry, whom? I used the objective, he said it's a subjective case, oh God. Whom do you suspect? And he said, I think that it was a friend of my boyfriend. He was gay, which was a crime. And he got busted. And he had a choice, go to jail or undergo chemical castration. He went for the hormones. His brain didn't work the same way anymore. He got depressed. And in 1954, he got an apple, injected it with cyanide and killed himself. Why? Because his favorite movie was the first full-length animation movie ever made, Snow White. And you know that scene in Snow White where she eats the apple and falls to the ground and see how the apple has a bite out of it and see how this apple has a bite out of it as well, the apple logo and the rainbow for gay. It's not true. It's mostly true. I'm an honest liar, thank you, James, ready for that. Alan Turing did die of cyanide poisoning. And yes, there was a half-eaten apple in the room. But the coroner did not analyze the apple. He analyzed him, but not the apple. And the guy who did the graphic design of the apple logo said and I quote, every apple I drew looked like a cherry. So I took a bite out of it and then suddenly it looked like an apple. And the rainbow, come on, it's San Francisco in 1970s. So it's a nice story, but it's not quite true. Sorry I had to lie to you there for a bit. So I'm just coming up to the end here with four minutes to go. So talking about the brain, I have to talk about how alcohol influences the brain. Rum and cola and blood alcohol, and this is some Australian research. Beer, God invented beer to show that he loved us. The pyramids were built on beer, which is why they have no doors. So if you have three rum and diet colas, the total calorie intake is around 225. If you then go for the regular cola, regular colas, three of them, will have 65 grams of sugar, which by an amazing coincidence is roughly equal to the average world daily consumption of sugar. Okay, forget that because we're getting off the topic. And so if you have your rum and your regular cola, you have twice as much energy in it, 450 kilocalories. And that makes a difference. So the stomach, that's this organ under here, not just the generic, everything from the bottom of your ribs to the top of your legs, with the specific organ called the stomach, it pushes its contents along into the next section into the small intestine where the alcohol can be absorbed at a specific rate. It varies. It's around two to three calories per minute. The longer that the alcohol stays in the stomach, the more it gets broken down. So if you have a couple of rum and diet cokes, you will go to 0.05, which is over the legal limit in Australia. If you have rum and regular coke, you'll be under the limit. Isn't that amazing? You drink the same amount of alcohol and you get either more drunk or less drunk. And the easy way around this is simply to remember the D for diet, D for drunk.  Got two minutes to go? Yeah, two minutes, yep, there it is. Okay, I'll try and do this one very quickly. This is a story about alcohol, and it's called alcohol consumption increases attractiveness ratings of opposite sex faces. The aim of this experiment was to see how alcohol, we're talking about the brain, affects male and female attractiveness of opposite sex faces. The method, reasonable sort of sample size, 80 people, and it was not done in the best laboratories in the world, which we know are the hair product companies where people with incredibly beautiful hair toss their hair around in slow motion, but rather the proper place, the quiet corners of university bars, and in the best tradition of psychology experiments, they lied to their subjects. They said, what we want you to do is to tell us the distinctiveness of opposite sex faces.  And as a control, can you tell us about the rating of attractiveness of watches? And then, when they were a little bit drunk, they said, oh look, by the way, we got all set up, you hear now anyway, why don't we just measure the attractiveness of opposite sex faces?  They do find watches more attractive when they're drunk. And ladies, haven't you had the experience of rolling over in bed after a night out with the ladies, rolling over in bed and finding an unfamiliar wristwatch on your left hand and saying to yourself, ladies, why didn't my girlfriends protect me from myself? I'm sure it's happened to you. I know it's happened to me. And when it comes to finding men more attractive, they definitely do. We have a scientific term. We call this the FAI or Facial Attractiveness Index.  They still are a sucker for a pretty watch. But when it comes to finding women more attractive, they do. And we in Australia have a term for this. We call this beer goggles. Thank you very much. Dr. Carl, Dr. Carl. Awesome, so much fun.


Well I will say so I did a couple of college courses while I was in high school so I've been in the college system for a while now and starting from like seven years ago the college system just progressively got worse and worse. What are you studying to just for background for the listeners? Economics, most libertarian things. Economics or political science. Okay well yeah you can go ahead with your story sorry I just wanted to make sure our viewers kind of understood where you were coming from. Yes but I I've literally had to write essays about wrong think like you know some of those struggle sessions like in North Korea like I'm a guilty white male we should allow everyone in just just absolutely guns are bad and if you didn't do that you would you would fail a class I've actually had that happen before I had a critical writing class and I wrote something that was about how you know maybe the differences in pay between women isn't because of sexism maybe it's just because of the decisions that that each group makes individually and then bam I failed the class but then I found the one English Republican professor. This is a big problem I mean I've listened to Jonathan Hite talk before in some of his lectures and he talks about the the liberal arts you know being like a 20 to 1 ratio of people who affiliate with you know sort of a leftist political ideology versus a right and he said as far as the social sciences he said the only one that isn't really that way is economics he said so now he said that it's still kind of left-leaning but it's it's not quite that bad there but yeah every place else like here's I'm in English class you were lucky to find one life liberty and the pursuit of happiness always


Thank you So I'd like to start with a quick introduction to secure to party computation So the idea is we have Alice and Bob and they have some circuit C they want to evaluate on input sex and Y and So the goal is for us to develop some protocols that let's Alice and Bob learn some value set and The properties that we want is that the protocol is correct So the value that I was involved learn is actually the output of the circuit Second we also want some kind of privacy so that the private inputs are kept private even after the When we talk of active security we say that this should hold even if we have an adversary that can corrupt one of these parties and deviate from the protocol in any arbitrary way For this work in particular we also care about a somewhat more vague property We want the protocol to be practical and what this means is basically we want it to run in some reasonable amount of time For reasonable sizes of circuits, and we want it to be practical enough to solve Kind of real problems. This leads us to the first motivation for this work So we actually want to use this to solve some real problems So one thing that we've been very interested in in office is Computing the outcome of auctions. So I think we always have to mention this Thing here a few years ago when some people in office actually implemented the and secure auction for some sugar beet farmers in In Denmark, so there are real people who care about these The kind of more specific motivation for this work was that when we at least started this there was kind of a lack of diversity of practical Solutions to this problem. In fact, all the solutions that we saw were a based on yaw's gobbled circuit technique and not that there's anything wrong with this approach, but You know just for having a larger pool of ideas to draw on it seemed interesting to see can we do something else? So what are the main building blocks of our approach? So instead of using yaw? circuits we At kind of the base of our approach is another passively secure two-party computation protocol, namely the GMW protocol and Then on top of that we add some information to your information theoretic max to sort of ensure that active adversaries behave Honestly now this approach on its own would not necessarily be Practical Because the GMW protocol uses a lot of OT and we know OT must be based on public key photography, which is Usually seen as something computationally expensive so to get Efficiency what we use is these OT extension techniques where we can take a small seed of oblivious transfers that are Let implemented with some public key photography or something that and then we can expand it or extend it to this huge amount of OTs that are amortized a low amortized cost and particularly for our Protocol we're going to rely on the passively secure protocol of Isha Adele and then we're going to add some tricks to make it So our results are that we get a new OT extension technique with active security Now this technique does not improve what we know we can do sort of asymptotically, but it gives us a more practical protocol Which is only affected to slower than this passive secure protocol of Isha Adele What this translates into is that we can implement this in Java and we can get something like half a million OTs per second per core and Using this we get our practically Practical 2pc protocol which is uc secure against an active static adversary in the random Oracle model In terms of practicality we get something like 20,000 gates per second or If we just look at the online phase we can actually do More like a million gates per second Okay, so what did this mean? Well at least when we did in this implementation We had the fastest implementation of 2pc That we knew of unfortunately for us within kind of the recent year Khojda, Shilat and Shen they presented a new Implementation based on garbled circuits, which does a little bit faster than we do Well at least it seems to show that our approach is somehow competitive With the garbled circuit approaches and anyway, it's kind of hard to compare because everything is implemented on different hardware and so on anyway let's start with a Kind of high-level overview of our protocol. So As I said, we are based on the gmw protocol. And so let's see how this works Alice and Bob. Let's say let's think of everything here as just being bits So what Alice and Bob will start by doing is that they will create XOR sharings of the input bits then they'll proceed in a gate by gate fashion and If this for instance is an internal gate of the circuit What Alice and Bob will do is that they'll evaluate this gate in a way so that they learn an XOR sharing of the gate And now if they do this for all gates in the circuit they will end up with an XOR sharing of the output gate and Then it's very simple to learn the output. You just exchange shares and reconstruct Okay Now this is very good for the passive case, but there are some kind of obvious problems in the active secure case namely Maybe the most obvious thing here would be that Bob could just send some different share of the output and this would disrupt the correctness of the protocol So In order to deal with this what we do is just add messages indication codes to all these XOR sharings throughout the whole That you know are in the whole protocol and the idea is then we can use these These mechs to ensure that the opposing party will use the correct shares that they're supposed to Okay, so at a very high level. This is kind of all of all the So like the two previous talks we Live in this pre-processing model and what we do in our pre-processing model is Essentially just we prepare a lot of authenticated Random messages so bits with the max on them Particularly we need one for each input gate and we are going to need 16 b for each and gate to get security 2 to the minus b times size Log the size of the circuit this means that for very large circuits with this b Parameter is going to be low. So we're going to it's going to be something less than 10, but still For the whole circuit. We're going to need quite a lot of these The second part of the pre-processing phase we prove some correlations between these authenticated messages I'm not really going to get into this, but you can think of something like multiplication triples for for MPC in the online phase then we do something similar to The other talks have been here. We use these pre-processed values along with some very simple protocols in order to evaluate the circuit on the actual input, okay, and The important thing here is that we don't really use any crypto primitives in the online phase So the online phases is super fast. So Essentially something like 10% of the time is going to be in the online phase even less actually Okay, so since this is in the pre-processing phase is where we do the most kind of heavy lifting I'm going to Focus on this For this talk and I'm going to focus just on how we get these random authentications So let's look at These max that we use so the setting is that we have Bob here will have some global key delta which is going to be a random string the length of the security parameter and Then for every message that Alice has X Bob is going to have a local key K Which is also just going to be a random string and the Mac is then K X or X times delta and To argue that these max are unforderable Let's first see that the Mac does not actually give us any information on Delta But if we let M0 be a Mac corresponding to a zero message and M1 be a Mac corresponding to a one message We see that if we know both these max we can easily compute the global key. So somehow intuitively Forging a Mac should be as hard as guessing this Okay, so how do we get such a Mac? So this is the functionality we want it's pretty simple We call it an avid because it doesn't indicate spits So we want something where Alice inputs X Bob inputs a local key and a global key And then we just get out these The Mac like I defined it before and we want to implement really a lot of these these guys Okay So these are to the two steps of the protocol that implements this so first we obtain a few very very long Macs for Alice's random bits, and then we're going to turn this into a lot of Short Macs on on Bob's random bits. Okay, and this is where we use this OT extension thing of Isha Adele It's something very similar to their their protocol So to authenticate These bits we're going to use the OT functionality. So What this does is that? Bob will have two messages as zero and as one that he implements to the functionality Alice will input a choice fit C and then out of the functionality will come the message that that Alice chose Okay, and no one learns anything now for this particular application We need the messages to be of length T where T is some large value essentially any polynomial in security parameter So kind of the naive approach to doing this Authentication would be to just have Alice input the bits that she wants to authenticate and Bob would input the two possible Macs and The oblivious transfer would then output the Mac that that we need However, we need for Bob to use the same global key Delta here for each one of these and OTs so we need some way to force him to do that because if he's actively corrupted obviously he could choose a new global key every time Okay, so this is our problem and the solution is that We will actually just use the naive approach to authenticate twice as many bits as we need and Then we're going to use some cut-and-chat choose like technique in order to force Bob to use consistent deltas Now unfortunately this will sacrifice half of the authenticated messages that we get but it's okay because the other half is going to be good now I call this a cut-and-choose like technique because Kind of the good news here is that while Sort of half of the messages will be revealed during this cut-and-choose the keys for still be remain secret. So Yeah, there are some details that I'm kind of hiding here, but you can Okay, so now for step two Here I've written up these n max that we created in step one in this nice matrix form where you can see there are these long Column vectors are the first thing you'll do is just swap the position of the max and the keys and we see this Equation still holds the next thing to do is to kind of tilt our heads a little bit and instead of looking as things as Columns will look at them as short rows I'm going to do some renaming the first rows here I'll call N and L and Over here. I'm going to take this vector of X's X1 of 2xn and just call that delta and These are excuse me gamma or and these delta bits delta 1 to delta t. I'm going to call those y and What we see then is that this? Equation here in the bottom is going to hold Which basically means that we can look at ni as being a Mac on Yi under the keys Eli and gamma so now we have our short max for Bob So just to give a quick summary of what happened here We took a few otees with long messages. So 2n otees with messages of length t Then we implemented n Long max for Alice so max of length t n of those and then those we turned into Many short max for Bob. So t max of length n And what you should notice here is that while these are short They're still the length of the security parameters, so they should still be hard to guess But yeah, so this is what I told you here But what I would like to note here is that actually the initial otees with long messages These we can implement using otees with short messages if we only have a pseudo-ren generator And at the other end of the chain here We can take these authenticated bits and then we can use those to implement Otees with short messages Just using a hash function or something like this for every For every otee that we want So if we look at the whole chain we get this this ote extension technique that I told you about in the beginning Okay, so yeah Finally, let's just conclude. I wanted to find some Takeaway messages for you here. So the first one is you know, finally we have a non Garbled circuit approach to a practical 2pc. So yay, that's fun Well, it's based on GMW and ote extension. It's maybe less exciting, but you should remember that as well It's really fast. So I mentioned that it we were beat a little bit, but still You know Very nice protocol So if you're planning to implement some 2pc protocols at any time soon, I think you should try So this is all I have to say, thank you


Justin Jefferson, Cooper Cup, DK Metcalf, Deandra Hopkins, Devon Diggs, Debo Samuel. Y'all are facing all of them next year. Who you want, Taylor Britt? It doesn't matter. I love following the top guy. That was one thing that we did when we played the Bills. So I followed Stephon. That was the first game that, you know, they trusted me to follow a guy wherever he was on the field. You know, once he hit the slot, you know, I didn't get a chance to guard him then, but no, if he switched sides, you know, I wanted the best guy on the field and I want to continue to do that. So all the guys that you name, I plan to guard all of them.  What was Stephon like? Stephon, he'll talk. He was talking more crying than anything, but, you know, he was all right.


I'm Indian and today I'll be talking about some metaprogramming APIs which are there in JavaScript like object.observe and ES16 proxy. So have you guys heard about object.observe or proxy before? Okay, so these are some of the APIs that's exposed in JavaScript which lets you do some interesting stuff. Let me just give you a brief introduction of what each of them are. So the first is object.observe. So assume you have a normal object say obj and you want to observe some changes that are happening to your object. So what this API does is that it gives you a callback function and as things keep changing that object you can observe the changes in that callback function. So there are different changes that you can observe like if your property gets updated or new property gets added or if a property gets deleted and so on. All these callbacks happen to your function that you specify. So for example after attaching this observer and if I just say obj.ba or equal to 2 then what happens is that your function gets this change notification saying that a new property called bar is added to your object and what is the new value of it and what type it is whether it's an add operation, update operation, delete operation and so on. So this is object.observe and it was mainly created so three people championed it initially and one of the main use cases was that all these MVC frameworks were coming up just then and one of the things that they had to do was to figure out how to keep the model and the view in sync. So one of the normal ways to do this is that you say assume your model is a JavaScript object and you want to observe if the model has changed and if your model has changed I will go and update the view. So Angular has a complex mechanism of dirty checking where it used to see if your model has changed and it will go and update the view for you. So the browser vendors were like especially people from Chrome were like okay why don't we expose this natively from the browser. So that's what they did using object.observe. So yeah it was supposed to be the next big thing everyone was so excited about it. This is a new way for different frameworks used to do this dirty checking in different ways like knockout did it in a different way, embedded it in a different way and people thought once browser vendors expose this it will be a standard way to sort of do this. So Chrome was the first one to ship it, it came out in Chrome 36 some time ago and it was also supposed to be a part of ES 2016 and there was a proposal for it which I think it was in the stage to process approval stage for yeah to get into ES 7 yeah 2016. So and recently there was an update to this proposal so this update basically said that okay we are removing object.observe so that's the next big update. So basically the developers were like so we initially thought Polymer was going to use it but we found out that after Polymer became Polymer became 2.0 we didn't end up using object.observe so I don't think it's really useful and all that and they also gave statistics like I don't think anyone is using this in the while because we Chrome did some telemetry or something and found out less than 1% of the users were using it so I don't think it's really useful and they just pointed us to some polyfills which could polyfill the behavior for object.observe so yeah I don't that shows like even if a feature is supposed to be on the spec it does a proper spec and stuff for it but still it got no kicked out just to the day so I was using this in one of my pieces of code and I started looking at alternatives so this another thing called proxy which is another metaprogramming API and it's been there in Firefox for quite some time as a non-standard feature but it recently got accepted as a feature and I think in Chrome it's behind a flag right now in Canary it's there without a flag and edges already implemented it so this is going to be a standard feature and proxy works in a slightly different way in compared to object.observe so okay forget the handler part of it so assume you want to observe or proxy this target object so what you do with a proxy is that you say I want to new proxy of target which is the object you want to observe and you pass in a handler to it so this handler is an object which can has which can have multiple properties so suppose you have the get property these properties are called traps so these traps means that you want to trap some specific operation on your object so if you implement the get property of it it means that I want to trap all accesses to the object so in this case for example I'm saying if there's someone is trying to access some property of me call my function that's what the get function is saying and I'm basically I'm checking if the property that you're trying to access is already there in the object if it is there return it or just return 37 because why not yeah so pretty interesting stuff can happen because of this so if say p of a equal to 1 and p of b is undefined so if you access p of a p is the proxy here so p of a will be one of course but p of b is undefined now if you check c is in p which basically checks if c is the property of we'll return false because it doesn't have an property c but if you actually go out and print p of c it will print 37 so that's because the proxy seeing that okay the property is not there and I'll return 37 so yeah there are some crazy things that you can do with proxies so yeah so it sort of behaves some things are similar to object.observe so one thing which is different from object.observe and proxy is that when you get notified of your changes so for object.observe the callback is called asynchronously so you just say you want to observe an object and you get notified later on when someone is making changes to it like accessing it or something not access sorry delete or updating it and so on this actually this notification comes at the end of each micro task so without going too much into it's basically when all your JavaScript stack is empty and it's sort of the same time when your promises get resolved something like that so for proxy it's way more powerful than object.observe in the sense that it happens synchronously so if someone is trying to access some property of an object and you can just deny it or something because the proxy basically intercepts it's not just an observer so one thing that's different between object.observe and proxy second thing these are the type of things that you can observe using object.observe which is adding a property update delete when someone changes the property descriptor and setting a different prototype and so on these are the stuff that you can observe with proxy I won't get into all of them but so these are different traps that you can implement so if your object contains any of these keys then it's you can do something with so suppose someone is trying to set a different prototype for your object you can intercept and do something you want at that point so yeah one thing is that you can't observe the window any global object so that's just one caveat that's there but in proxy you can pretty much observe you can proxy almost any object that's there can even proxy an object which is a proxy to another object is a proxy to another object and so on so it's pretty interesting if you actually think about it so yeah there's some neat stuff that you can do so so yeah it seems like proxies can do almost everything that object.observe can but this just this one small thing probably it's a deal breaker for you depending on so suppose if you have a script say you have including jQuery and you want to observe who's using jQuery or like if there's someone know some someone who suppose you don't want anyone to add say a custom property to the jQuery object like you don't want to use any jQuery plugins or something so what you can do is like you will just create an object.observe which you can't anymore because it's replicated and stuff but just to for highlight the difference you can attach a observer to jQuery and say that okay you can keep logging accesses to it but if you have a proxy if someone accesses jQuery dot custom property you won't get notified because they're accessing the target object directly so if they do jQuery proxy dot custom property then you will get the log but so this is just one small difference and oh I forgot to mention one thing before so in terms of the number of things what you can observe in using object.observe you can't find out if someone is accessing your property so in object.observe there is no way to no equivalent of get basically yeah so that is possible so one of the different it might break in some weird cases like if you're doing like type of checks and those kind of things but especially if you're playing with host objects and stuff like that it lot of stuff break because yeah they are host objects yeah these APIs are fun so you learn a lot of about what happens out of in inside the browser by playing around with stuff like this so suppose you have an if you have an array a and you do an object.observe of a and you just print out the changes and I'm basically doing a of 0 equal to high over there so I'm adding a new property new element in the array so you can see that the observer gets triggered and you can see that okay the probably the browser is adding something to the array and it's also updating the length property of the array so some stuff that you can see and yeah if you attach say observer to say you try attaching a proxy to the window object or something as you keep typing in the window console you see it get it getting triggered a lot of time so it's probably fun to figure out why each print happens and yeah even like simple things like function dot prototype dot to string you can see that like this is a node if you FS dot read file supposed to be a native function but if you do a two string of it you can actually see the internal source code of not the entire implementation of course that's the JavaScript part of it so yeah you can do a lot of cool stuff there are others APIs like this which you can use to inspect your own program monitor it intercept it do stuff like that that's about it I think yeah you can follow me on Twitter so so I was actually doing something in JavaScript security so I was able to so that's this attack called on base cross-site scripting so one of the ways in which that happens is when an attacker uses some sensitive operation sensitive objects in the location or the URL of the web page and he uses uses it the developer not that I could sorry the developer uses the location object in say eval or something like that so I won't sort of figure out who's you accessing my location object can I do that in a nice way so I just attach a proxy to that and I can figure stuff like that out it's not very mainstream use cases like that but yeah it's there's some fun stuff that you can do with it so if as he mentioned the suppose if you replace window itself with a proxy to a window and you can just do the program run you figure out what are the oil accesses to it others weird stuff to do this would be say enclose the entire program with a which statement and the width parameters of proxy and yeah so there are a lot of weird stuff that you would obviously not do in production code but for analysis and those kind of stuff it gets pretty interesting you can't it really comes down to who gets to inject their code first so if the attacker injects his code first right so and he there's not pretty much nothing that you can do about it so he manages to say modify some object you won't and he managed to do that in a safe way I mean there are some APIs which he can use to you know like prevent extension of an object or if yeah so if you can't code runs later that's pretty much nothing that you can do about it yeah in 50 it is so that's a canary version it is and in edge it is Firefox has been having it for a long time yeah yes I would assume so I haven't actually measured it because I'm just using this for like all analysis tools and stuff like that it doesn't matter much what use cases where it so it also depends on number of objects you are proxying and all that stuff so if it's pretty small I guess the browser vendors would have optimized for that use case I'm pretty sure anything like this is going to just completely ruin any chance of using like the built-in stuff for optimize like all the optimizations in the product it's just going to throw them out like now if you're on your own so I did stuff yes yeah but that stuff you probably the browser can't make assumptions that it would have if you're not use that so yeah okay thank you


I'm gonna say get a thousand though But once you get that one year, so the feeling of that one year will care you, maybe the few you need for the other hundreds That's all you need So how many... What was your... How did they start out? How big, how small was your first small country? Eighty thousand Eighty thousand? Eighty thousand And it moved up to 150 Yeah? It goes up to 200 Yeah And now? Not a million dollars


filtration wope afi nmistor nil kuni So I haven't really felt that way with the different officers or with the different copies that we work with especially because we really talk about drinking, not just drinking but drinking responsibly. So what we kind of do as brand ambassadors is also to kind of teach the society, educate the society about how best to drink, not just, oh these are botees and you should drink. It's about responsible drinking. We even have a campaign called Drink Water Campaign, Drink More Water Campaign. That's about how to balance your alcohol with your water search.  Our spirits are known as, I mean we're a convivial company, we're about enjoying your good time and not really getting drunk or getting wasted. The brand ambassadors have spoken to you guys. I see what you just did with alcohol but that was a good one. Now Alan we're here because of Nyashinsky. What do you think about what he's doing today? No cap. I know a majority of my friends, I have very many friends in this industry, in the entertainment industry and I don't want to, I don't want to cut it too close but Nyashinsky is actually my best Kenyan act. I came here personally to listen to his rehearsal set. He's doing amazing stuff in terms of of course him coming back and him trying to also lead the next generation in terms of music as well. I personally relate to his music, his vibe is amazing, his work ethic is also really strong so I really like what he's doing and I personally also kind of feel very motivated towards listening to that type of music and listening to him. What is your favourite Nyashinsky jam? I can't speak one but I would say Marathon Runner, I would say, I mean that one probably like all jams. I feel, this is someone like if I check my phone right now, I have jam after jam after jam. Fino, Fino is mad. Nikona too much on my mind. Just enough kukuna, what? Let me wait for him to do his thing. Alright Alan, we're going to let you go now. Just enjoy the event and see you soon. See you soon as well.