Welcome to Free Thoughts, a podcast project of the Cato Institute's Libertarianism.org. Free Thoughts is a show about libertarianism and the ideas that influence it. I'm Aaron Powell, a research fellow here at Cato, an editor of Libertarianism.org. And I'm Trevor Burrus, a research fellow at the Cato Institute Center for Constitutional Studies. Our topic for today's episode is egalitarianism, and joining us to discuss it is Elizabeth Anderson. Professor Anderson is the Arthur F. Thirnau Professor and John Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan. Welcome to Free Thoughts, Professor Anderson. Thank you. I want to start with what I think a lot of libertarians, when they hear the term egalitarianism, they have this picture of wanting to make everyone equal in the sense of how much stuff they have. So, radical wealth redistribution. Hating merit. That's another good one. That everyone should just kind of be the same in everything that they have. Is that an accurate picture now? If it isn't, has that ever been an accurate picture of egalitarianism? Right. So, I agree with you that that's the popular conception, but I've been doing work now on the history of egalitarianism basically from the mid-17th century forward. And I'm arguing that the core ideal of egalitarianism isn't essentially connected with issues of distributive equality of income and wealth, but it's much more fundamentally connected to a critique of social hierarchy. Deep down what egalitarians oppose is hierarchies based on race, ethnicity, gender, caste, religion, and social hierarchies are fundamentally defined in terms of specific relationships between people, the most important one being relations of domination and subjection. So the most important kind of hierarchy that egalitarians oppose is one in which some people get to order other people around and tell them what to do. And usually those hierarchies are based on some background identity difference between the rulers and the rules. The rulers might be a different caste or a different race, but sometimes it's based on wealth too. But if you look at the origins of egalitarianism, they didn't oppose any qualities of wealth in and of themselves. What they opposed was a ruling class based on wealth, the idea that you're entitled to rule somebody else just because you own a lot of property. That was the core idea behind the levelers, and that's an idea that's really carried out through the egalitarian tradition, and we can even see some of those concerns in the present day. And of course the Enlightenment tradition and the founding principles of America and even part of the French Revolution had equality as one of its core aims, not just liberty as maybe libertarians would like to say, especially coming out of a monarchy and different types of class system that had been the norm in the world throughout history. That's quite right. So a lot of Enlightenment thinkers were really they opposed aristocracy, and what is aristocracy? It's not just that you have a bunch of wealthy landowners, but the landowners are the ruling class in virtue of the fact that they own a lot of property. And that's a very problematic idea, but the Enlightenment in general was not opposed to some people having more money or wealth than others. The question is whether having more wealth entitled those people to rule over other people who had less. You mentioned the levelers. Are they the source of egalitarianism? Are they the first egalitarians, or does this idea go back even further? That's a wonderful question. You can find egalitarian ideas going back even to biblical times. I think a core idea of almost all monotheistic religions that there is an equality of souls that one soul doesn't differ from another. They're all equally eligible for salvation, at least in principle. The difficulty was with these older biblical forms of egalitarianism was there was always a million reasons why the equality of souls never translated into equality of social relations on earth. You only get into an egalitarian position in heaven. What's interesting about the 17th century is here you have a movement in the English Civil War, the levelers who really want to bring egalitarian social relations down to earth. Now you can see some precedents even before the 17th century that start to arise really with the Protestant Reformation. Luther declared the priesthood of all believers. That is, you didn't need some priests to mediate an individual's relationship to God. At the same time, common people were learning how to read and they read the Bible for themselves and they decided, hey, we can interpret the Bible on our own. You don't need the priests to tell us how to understand what the Bible demands. And so if anything, you can see the origins of more egalitarian thinking arising earlier in the Protestant Reformation with the rise of a variety of egalitarian religious sects, including most notably the Quakers and also some Dactus sects, which wanted to reject the hierarchy of priesthood and achieve a much more egalitarian style of worship within the churches. So if you want to go further back, I suppose you could trace egalitarianism to the Reformation. But as far as state relations go and limitations on state power, that's largely arising in the mid-17th century around the time of the English Civil War. And in many ways, the concept of republicanism as was used by founding father figures like Alexander Hamilton really just expressed a lack of social hierarchy to a degree and you read a lot of early founder writings and you see them complaining about the opulence of George Washington's carriage, for example, as being a demonstration of not having egalitarian Republican principles, which seems kind of similar to complaining about Catholic or nateness against Protestant austerity, right? Yes. I think there's something to that. Although I wouldn't necessarily cite Hamilton as among the founders who were keen on opposing... Monarchy. Monarchy, yeah. It's a good point. Monarchy. I think he's sort of, he's a little bit more an egalitarian. The real star of the American Revolution from an egalitarian point of view was Tom Paine. And Tom Paine really embodied a style of radically egalitarianism that was also quite libertarian and that informed radical movements, not just in the United States, but in France and importantly in England. The Chardis movement took a lot of its ideas from Paine and a lot of those ideas resonate pretty strongly with contemporary libertarian critiques of the state. You've, so far what we've talked about has been mostly this quality of power distributions and an anti-hierarchy view, but there has been, I mean, there has been a strain in egalitarianism of what you've called a quality of fortune or distribution. And is that, when did that come in? What is that? And also when did it come in? Yeah. Right. So why don't we go back to the levelers for a moment, because they represent a really interesting kind of movement. The levelers were called the levelers because people accused them of wanting to level all differences in wealth. And they disavowed that completely. In fact, they argued in favor of free trade and private property. They were totally in favor of these institutions. But if you look at the core of what they opposed, they opposed monopoly privileges that were granted by the state. That's the sense in which they were free traders. They saw the state as creating a bunch of cronies by granting monopoly privileges to various manufacturers and merchants that would then shut everybody else out of access to opportunities to set up their own businesses and compete on a level playing field with everybody else. So there is a true sense in which they were levelers. They wanted to level down privilege. They wanted the state to grant everyone an equal set of rights. And in that sense of leveling down, there's really nothing objectionable to it. It just means getting rid of a class of cronies whose wealth is founded on special monopoly privileges that the state has granted them. So you can see in this sense, if you think that the source of property inequality is due to the privileges that a particular class has obtained from the state, libertarians should equally well oppose that kind of inequality and equally well call for leveling down or perhaps what you should say is leveling up everybody to equal rights to set up their own business and compete with the people who at the time had been granted monopolies to engage in certain kinds of trade and manufacturing. So that's a point at which distribution comes in. But I think that concern with distribution I think is something that libertarians could sign on to completely. It's only later really with the rise of socialism that you get a much more strongly distributionist sense of egalitarianism, which is founded in a critique of the unequal outcomes that free markets deliver. But that's really a 19th century idea. You look at the 17th and 18th centuries and egalitarianism is not fundamentally about distribution except in so far as it's opposed to unequal distributions that are created by state privilege and monopoly. And then industrialization though of course changes the world a little bit more because if everyone's more or less farming, it doesn't seem like anyone can really shoot ahead of everyone else without having these large factories and industrial things to create that level of wealth. That's exactly right. So if you read somebody like Adam Smith, who I take to be the star of an earlier fairly moderate kind of egalitarianism, as Smith was not a radical like Tom Payne because he hadn't really signed on to a fully Republican program. He was more or less happy with monarchy, although he certainly had his critiques of the ruling class who we thought were largely either a little bit dull if they were landowners or conspiring against the public if they were manufacturers trying to get their monopoly privileges. We're going to leave that aside. Smith didn't really have a clear alternative to to monarchy in his day, but he did share a lot of the radical Republicans sympathy for free markets precisely because the alternative that was on the table at the time was government granted privilege. And it's one of the reasons why Smith, he opposed monopolies, he opposed also primogenitor, that is laws that forbade the breakup of estates through inheritance where right all the land would just go to the first born son and that would consolidate these huge estates and disinherit all the other second and later born children. He wanted, there were all kinds of other laws in England too that opposed the breakup of large estates and he thought a free market in land would naturally lead to more industrious yeoman farmers. They would be more efficient at farming the land and so you would generally see a breakup of these huge estates because the aristocrats were not very entrepreneurial. They were sort of dullers. It'd be better actually if the rules of inheritance were changed to allow the estates to be sold off in pieces and enable more people to lead independent lives of self-employment. And then the Marxist critique or I guess socialists even predate Marx a bit but then they start talking a lot more about wealth or actual holdings I guess. Right and the key thing as you noted before that what happened was Smith was writing before the industrial revolution or right at the beginning and he was actually fairly skeptical that you would need huge large-scale enterprises. He thought oh there'd only be a couple occasions where you'd need that say for building a canal. Once the industrial revolution is well underway in England around the 1830s you see people starting to worry about the factory system and here you have huge numbers of people who were formerly self-employed in small workshops now they have been tossed into unemployment because the giant factories are much more efficient producers so they lose their independence and then they have to hire themselves out to the factory owners for poverty level wages. That's the point at which people start realizing that the older egalitarian vision in which in principle all enterprises would be small scale and consequently there would be a huge number of opportunities for self-employment. People see that vision isn't really working out as anticipated. The industrial revolution means the vast majority of people are going to be wage laborers. They're going to have to be working under the subjection of their employer who orders them around in every little motion minutely for most of their waking lives. Remember in those days the length of the working day could easily be 12 or 14 hours and then people start thinking well okay if we can't break up the big factories into small workshops then we have to find other ways for workers to have fulfilling lives and there are two main techniques. One of them is to reduce the length of the working day so workers have more hours where they can be under their own reconnaissance and decide what they do just for themselves without having to take orders from an employer and secondly ensuring that they have a decent enough level of income so that they can do something with those free hours other than just barely scraping by the means of subsistence and that's the point at which a concern for distributive justice in and of itself becomes really prominent especially in socialist movements social democracy and so forth in Europe and it took longer for that to come over to the United States but in Europe it was already very prominent by the mid 19th century. When did egalitarianism emerge as I guess a self-consciously like recognized school within political philosophy because so far we've been talking about you know we talked about Adam Smith we talked about Karl Marx but these people didn't see themselves as necessarily part of a school that would be called a egalitarian but nowadays it's a it's a branch of political philosophy. Now that's a great great question in fact it's highly controversial whether Marx would have thought of himself as a egalitarian I think not there's a lot of good scholarship I think that shows that equality wasn't really what he was up to so you see at least intellectually the late 19th century is appointed which self-conscious egalitarian thinking in the distributive sense starts becoming prominent and the reason for this is you have this long 19th century during which all the theories of distributive justice are essentially founded on some notion of class conflict. The older painite radical republicans basically hated the lazy idle landowners and the government cronies who were living off of tax revenues in these no-show jobs that the state had set up for them those were the idlers and they should be you know dispossessed and pain all the way through George with his single land tax right they think the landowners are the parasites of society and to a certain extent people living off tax revenue in these no-show jobs and then you have on the other hand you have the socialist tradition coming out of Marx who sees capitalists as the exploiters the coupon clippers they're not doing any work the workers are doing everything um so you see a little shift but it's still a very class conflict point of view and even the laissez-faire capitalists people like Spencer and Sumner they explicitly endorse class warfare and they said look it's the capitalist versus the workers and you know whatever pops out of that conflict uh is going to be the just distribution by the late 19th century people are coming to realize that that way of understanding distribution is really problematic a main reason is that obviously you can't get any kind of consensus so the late 19th century you see theorists trying to come up with ideas of distributive justice that could in principle be inclusive of everyone's interests in the united states you can even look around world war one you see these ideas being formed in england it's a bit earlier uh a late 19th century picture people are striving for a notion of equality that will be inclusive of of all classes but distributive justice in its contemporary formulation with clear principles of distributive justice is mostly starting to happen around world war two you see for instance the famous beverage report articulating the principles of a welfare state and comprehensive social insurance in britain before then you actually had bismarck and his plans for social insurance uh uh that was already in the late 19th century and bismarck basically was trying to figure out a way to make capitalism acceptable to the workers and to to dislodge the popularity of the socialist movement by showing that capitalism could deliver real benefits to the workers and that's why bismarck the arch reactionary anti socialist was in fact the author of germany's welfare state it seems like you start having a conversation about dessert obviously what do you deserve and responsibility too to some extent workers versus capitalists or underclass versus versus rich people and whether or not people are getting what they deserve and what they're responsible for yeah if anything i see dessert based notions of distributive justice are much more where the 19th century class conflict view was coming from right that the labor theory of value is based on a theory of productive contribution you you should get in accordance with what you contribute but the labor theory of value said workers for the only people who are contributing at anything right so the workers should get 100 percent of the product and that himself had a problem with that and he criticized that view but that was a very popular view among you call popular Marxism if not Marx himself yeah the harder you work the more blisters you have the yeah the more sweat on your brow the more you deserve quite right uh and it's really later on starting with ideas of social insurance you see both the social democrats and people like bismarck people get the idea that look uh a lot of times people can be prone to illness and industrial accidents and unemployment it's not no fault of their own you have a recession and millions of people are thrown out of work it's not because of anything wrong that they did but now they no longer have an income it's not their fault um and so uh instead of deserved as productive contribution you get the notion of well this suffering is not deserved because it wasn't their fault and that can be a rationale for social insurance that you could see that people are prone to systematic risks of illness disability unemployment and so forth and the workers who get together pay into a fund managed by the state or sometimes by private entities so that if this risk befalls them they'll have something to fall back on and will not suffer destitution as a result of some undeserved bad luck you've been talking a lot about political and social movements and and views of egalitarianism within those within the academy at this time was where i mean were philosophy professors kind of mirroring what you're describing on the outside world or were they going off in different directions yeah i mean the academics too uh already by the late 19th century as i say people are trying to move towards a vision of distributive justice that isn't just going to be based on class conflict but something that could unite all classes of society around a common vision so you see in england people like uh uh tawny or in the united states ralph barton perry famous philosopher around world war one they're kind of groping towards this but you don't see really uh sharp analytical accounts of distributive justice uh until the post-world war two era and of course in the united states uh really difficult thinking about distributive justice uh was largely propelled by john ralph's theory of justice where he puts distributive justice back on to into academic discourse in a major way uh by articulating and defending egalitarian principles of distribution but it seems like he kind of has a responsibility theory or maybe in the what you call luck egalitarianism of the things that are not your fault such as your natural intelligence or natural speed or maybe your birth parents should not factor heavily into your placement in society ah so yeah there's a cup there's a number of different ideas that are that are connected here many people have thought that ralph is with what is known as a lucky egalitarian who says that nobody should be less well off than anybody else because of uh uh bad luck or factors that are not their responsibility i actually think that's a deep misreading of what ralph is up to uh ralph in fact uh was ready to tolerate uh quite a lot of inequality in the distribution of income and wealth that could be traced to things like the genetic lottery that some people are just born with uh with talents that are highly valued by the market and other people are born with uh genetic endowments that are not highly valued by the market ralph's actually did not have a fundamental objection to the fact that any qualities generated by an efficient market-based system would reward some people with some genes rather than others even though they didn't deserve obviously nobody deserves the genes that they were born with that's pure luck um ralph's more fundamental uh kind of egalitarianism is based rather on uh a certain conception of how the rules of the market game should be designed it's about the rules of the game and not about the outcomes okay so his idea is you should design the rules of the economic game the rules of property and contract and regulation and so forth and taxation in such a way that um those rules will ensure that inequalities that that help the better off will also help the worst off in society what you want is inequalities to be to the advantage of everyone so ralph's fundamental idea is look he's going to tolerate inequality but he wants to make sure that inequality is serving everybody's interests and not just the interests of the people at the top this is what he called the difference principle uh and there's a lot of inequalities of that sort right some people have much nicer jobs that involve a lot of intellectual thinking and discretion and freedom of judgment and responsibility those things are generally enjoyable features of the job but if you're going to be a doctor uh you need a lot of discretion and a lot of opportunities for intellectual labor it's not a good use of a doctor's time uh to have her scrubbing toilets or something she everyone benefits if she can devote her energies uh at work uh towards uh serving patients and the the poor also benefit uh from the fact that her professional life is relatively cushy in the sense that it's insulated from dreary drudgy uh uh burdensome labor but in fact it's pretty interesting work uh but hey otherwise you wouldn't have enough doctors you'd be way more expensive to help the sick uh uh get better i wanted to talk about luck egalitarianism because you have you've raised some really interesting criticisms of it in some of your writing but before before we turn to that i wanted to see if you could give us a sense of what egalitarianism broadly looks like now i mean one of the things that trevor and i have talked about in past episodes of free thoughts is the idea that libertarianism is not one philosophy but it's a it's a group of different views that share some traits in common but also have meaningful differences between them and egalitarianism is is the same way there are different kinds of egalitarians who can disagree with each other about very fundamental issues so i was wondering if you could give us kind of the bird's eye view of what some of these different sorts of egalitarianism are the the big ones today and how they differ from each other yeah so i broadly divide egalitarianism into two groups of theories one i call lucky egalitarianism and that's based on the view that nobody should have less than anybody else due to factors that they're not responsible for or that they don't deserve okay so if somebody's worse off than somebody else due to sheer luck that's considered unjust according to lucky egalitarians and then they derive a whole bunch of other ideas about distributive justice from that fundamental idea that inequalities due to pure luck should be eliminated the other group of theories i call relational egalitarianism because what they're most interested in is not the distribution of income and wealth and other goods in and of themselves but rather how people relate to each other in society uh so according to a relational egalitarian the fundamental egalitarian objective is basically to eliminate oppressive social hierarchy relations of domination and subjection relations of stigmatization where some people are despised or degraded because of their social identity you know their race or their sexual orientation or things like that and also social relations in which some people basically just don't count in the eyes of others say relations in which the state is organized in such a way that whole groups of people and their interests just don't figure into the state's calculations of how to formulate public policy so those three sorts of hierarchy hierarchies of domination and subjection hierarchies of honor and stigmatization and hierarchies of high and low standing uh uh in the eyes and calculation of others uh those are the three kinds of social hierarchies that relational egalitarians oppose and they want to replace those social relations with social relations of equality where you know people recognize that they have to interact with others on terms of mutual respect in regard for their interests and can't go around uh uh just despising them because of their social identity and treating them as outcasts on that account and that second relational form of egalitarianism is what i've been trying to promote i'm arguing that you can trace this all the way back to the earliest days of egalitarianism with the levelers and that this former egalitarianism also it can accept a variety of modes of inequality in the distribution of income and wealth although on this view there will be some inequalities in income and wealth that will be uh too extreme to be acceptable then before we get into exploring those exploring what sorts of inequalities are acceptable and what's not and why and what we ought to do about it um you're on on the topic of luck egalitarianism you're pretty down on luck egalitarianism and so in a way that that many i think libertarians would would appreciate your critiques of uh what they generally think of luck egalitarianism right and so i was could you tell us what's what's wrong with luck egalitarianism sure well um there's a lot of problems i have with lucky egalitarianism um they uh for one thing lucky egalitarians i think just foundationally they have not articulated uh any realistic sense of what could possibly be an injustice so i'm on my view for something to count as an injustice you have to identify somebody who is uh suffering something uh that they're entitled to complain about and you have to identify somebody else to whom they can address that complaint who is uh responsible for it which is actually a view that that Friedrich Hayek actually also expressed about justice that you you have to identify a person not just a volcano or something impersonal like that that's exactly right and my problem with it is that if somebody's born with less talent say than somebody else number one i fundamentally don't think that that is in itself anything to complain about uh it's nobody's fault here we're assuming that you know the person wasn't subject to uh you know like the mom when she was pregnant with this person wasn't maliciously uh drugged with something that caused a genetic mutation will set aside those kind of perverted cases in the normal case if somebody's born with less talent than somebody else it's just a matter of luck there's nobody to blame for it but at the same time i also think that it's kind of perverse to uh direct ones anger or complaints against the more talented in a well-ordered society uh the more talented the exercise of the talents of the more talented should read down to the benefit of everyone right we all enjoy watching the superb athletes do their great performances in the sports they engage in most of us of course will never be that athletically talented similar for musical talent or any kind of artistic talent and also various productive and entrepreneurial talents when society is running well the more talented when they exercise their talents are actually doing stuff uh that redounds to everyone's advantage and so if one is less talent one should feel happy that other people have talents uh uh that are helping them so i don't think that kind you know and and the lucky galatarianism i think inspires a kind of unjust envy towards the more talented uh and we should discourage that uh that sense of grievance against the more talented it also seems to as you write uh have something more like pity rather than compassion in one line in your essay which we'll put a link up to in the show notes uh you say compassion and pity can both move a person to act benevolently but only pity is condescending quite right right so the other the other side of the complaint is that lucky galatarianism not only inspires envy against the more talented but also a kind of condescending pity towards the less talented right oh it's because they're so pathetic that we have to give them more to make up for their innate deficiencies i think that is also a very in egalitarian thought uh it's obnoxious and offensive and people should not want to uh claim resources on the basis of their inferiority to others i that was one of things i really liked about your critique of luck of luck egalitarianism was this this sense that it's at a very deep level is simply disrespectful and not not respectful of human dignity yeah that's right yeah and you bring it up in a variety of ways uh saying that uh putting yourself on the obligation things that a lot of conservatives would it would resonate with conservatives which uh probably would maybe strike people as odd but uh there's something about these these laws that are insulting uh both to the people administering them and the people they're being administered to i think that's right now i do want to stress though that both kinds of egalitarianism that exist today both the relational egalitarians and the lucky galatarians are willing to accept quite a lot of distributive inequality i've already explained how ralls accepts inequalities that as a matter of fact redown to the advantage of everyone but lucky galatarians too are perfectly happy to accept inequalities that really are due to say somebody working harder than another person or more prudently managing their assets they're perfectly happy to allow that or even people being being misfortune for their own fault sometimes through their own fault so lucky galatarians are perfectly happy to say that you know if you screwed up and it's your fault that there's no injustice and you're being less well off than somebody who behaved uh more industriously and and more prudently so you don't really see it's a very rare today to see somebody who is trying to advance a really radical distributive equality that rejects any inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth i can't actually think of anybody right now who's who is that extreme in either egalitarian camp on the relational egalitarianism as you've described it a lot of it seems to be stuff that libertarians could get behind i mean we could say like people should be equal in in their rights they should be equal in treatment before the law and and that sounds great so i'm wondering where does relational egalitarianism as you advocate part from libertarians what are we going to disagree with as far as your vision for for egalitarian justice right so um here's one place uh where i think libertarians and relational egalitarians uh might part ways uh relational egalitarians do see a pretty strong rationale both for a ceiling uh i'm sorry a floor below which people shouldn't fall so you know we believe in safety nets uh and also see some rationales for limiting extreme accumulations at the top and why don't i focus on the top because i think people are more familiar with the idea of safety nets uh but relationally egalitarians are are pretty worried about say the contemporary distribution of wealth in the united states with more and more wealth accumulating to people at the top the fundamental reason for that is is political uh it's that the more extreme the wealth inequality the more likely you're going to end up with a plutocracy where the rich are calling all the shots uh in government and i think we see some evidence for that so if if you want equality of standing in the sense that the state should treat everyone's interests as on a par and not just curry favor with some privileged group uh then the current dependence of people in congress on having to spend about 60 or 70 of their time fundraising from rich people uh and having to offer attention and agenda setting power and return for that uh is very problematic but so the prime objection to extreme inequalities of wealth is not that some people just get to be really rich but rather that that wealth gets translated into unequal political power until the rich just capture the political process you don't have a democracy anymore that that seems like a concern that a lot of libertarians are actually on board with i mean when we rail against say cronyism it's it's that people who are politically connected and people who are wealthy can bend the government to their will to get special favors that the rest of us can't but the the libertarian solution to that is simply to reduce the the size of government and the scope of its powers to the level that no one can kind of get it to call shots in their favor that that the government if it's limited to simply protecting rights say then no matter how much money you have you're not going to be able to get it to give you favors because it doesn't have any favors to give right and so yeah and here's the rejoinder from relational egalitarians is that uh contemporary capitalist systems actually depend on a very complicated infrastructure of property rights uh these are the constitutive rules of the game for how capitalism is supposed to run and it turns out that as technology and the scale of production get larger and larger you need more and more complicated rules things like intellectual property for instance they can get pretty arcane and the difficulty is i think most people acknowledge that some form or other of intellectual property is going to be needed to stimulate innovation but at the same time intellectual property is a state grant of monopoly rights at least for a temporary period so here we have a problem because you can see how you can game the system of intellectual property rights in order to shore up massive monopoly power but it's but you can't say we're not going to have the state engaged in acknowledging or creating intellectual property rights i don't know maybe some libertarians think that there actually are a lot of libertarians who think that and for exactly the reasons you said one of the reasons first one being that they don't think it's really property in the sense of it's not rivalrous i don't take anything from you by taking an idea from you and then the other sense of it's just constantly political gamesmanship for an intellectual monopoly established by the state in almost the same thing going back to the levelers and saying it's just as good as a king's monopoly over over shipping to the east india company right and that happened of course with the mickey mouse protection act of 1998 when the sunny bono copyright act is what it's actually called when when disney was complaining about the fact that mickey mouse was about to go into the public domain and that was one of the biggest reasons they extended that right so you know i think it would be an interesting experiment to see whether we can come up with some alternative method for encouraging innovation you know i'm sort of of two minds of this my own personal view is that copyright is completely outrageous and beyond the pale and that the term of copyrights if you allow it at all should be radically reduced from what they currently are and the evidence for this is that as we can see from the explosion of information on the web it looks as if people are perfectly willing to share their ideas with each other for free they just want to be read and yeah creative media it's very impressive actually how many people just just want to communicate ideas to others and they're not asking for any money for it or or perhaps only a voluntary contribution on the other hand with patents i have some worries that there are certain kinds of invention that requires spectacular amounts of upfront investment and if other people could just kind of seize the results uh say for pharmaceuticals uh it's not to say i'm not a great fan of big pharma but hey it really is objectively expensive to develop effective new drugs and it's hard to see how that could happen if without patents as soon as you invent it other people can start manufacturing because a marginal cost of manufacturing a pill is almost nothing at all the cost is in development well yeah we'll probably we'll definitely have some intellectual property episodes in the future um probably on both sides it's a debate within libertarianism i wanted to go back a little bit though when you were talking about political influence i think this really gets to a core of relational egalitarianism that it's not just a wealth that's a problematic steve jobs brought us a bunch of awesome things but if steve job starts courting government power it's different but one of the things that's interesting in your work is when you're talking about egalitarianism you sort of have to start talking about uh who and what what trait should get equal access or should create equality what what thing should we be maximizing equality on and if you remove money from the political process it's not the case that representatives would therefore then treat all of their constituents the same or even more interestingly it doesn't even seem to be the case that the representatives should treat all of their constituents the same and not prioritize certain people in their districts over other people not just like anyone who calls i will give you as much as say about public policy as anyone else well you know it is true that given that we have uh that all modern democracies are based on uh competition among political parties and parties themselves are organized around various constituencies um and ideologies that you can't expect any given representative uh to treat absolutely everyone equally so uh given the realities of modern democracy uh the best you can hope for is not each individual representative treating every constituent exactly equally but that the interplay of competing parties will bring about uh a rough parody uh but do you think do you think it should be a pair i mean that's the question of like in that some i think about this is some things might make it unequal which goes back to the core question wealth other people might have inequalities such as the ability to be well spoken or the ability to have uh create political coalitions and have a lot of friends and rally and that would be an inequality in some sense that guy's super charismatic and he gets people behind him so he gets more of the ear of the legislator than someone who is not charismatic and can't rally people behind him so you could have egalitarian concerns about that oh i see yeah so yeah i'm not so much concerned about that because they're purely individual so it is true that the smooth talkers and the better lookers are liable to have an advantage in electoral politics uh you know in the age of mass media and so forth i that doesn't worry me so much um yeah that's just another way in which unequal talents uh tend to uh uh give people unequal advantages in competing for certain kinds of jobs what i more and more worry about is uh once the person is in office uh how are they treating everybody else and here i acknowledge that you know any given politician is is uh not going to be strictly impartial among all constituents because they're representatives of political parties that are coalitions of different groups of constituents but that in the aggregate uh in a well-run democracy uh the play of interest interest group politics uh should in the aggregate uh work in such a way that everyone gets adequate representation of their interests uh uh you know in in a representative democracy in this democratic equality as you've referred to it you talk about a need for for a quality of capabilities that we should make sure that everyone is as capable of participating as everyone else we've talked about this just now in the in the political sphere of you know political influence but you also say that this we need this equality of capabilities within civil society as well what what do you mean by that right so remember i don't think that uh i'm not advocating literal exact mathematical equality of capabilities uh because that's really impossible there will be some people who uh will be more highly educated than others partly just because they have a taste for studiousness right they study hard they learn a lot more they're really interested in in academic learning so they'll move further in the educational system but but i do think any egalitarian society is interested in ensuring that everybody has access to a decent education at the primary and secondary levels and has a reasonable shot given their opportunities for primary and secondary education that if they work hard and are studious that they have a reasonable shot at a college education too uh that they that you know that their k through 12 education is not so deficient that they could never qualify themselves for higher education i think that's unjust uh you know the state should provide decent opportunities uh for everyone but it doesn't follow that they would be that the outcomes would be equal uh nor even necessarily that um every single public school say would offer exactly the same opportunities as every other i i think that's both impossible and probably unjust because different communities have different tastes for education too some people some communities would rather spend their money uh uh on other things and that's not inherently unjust as long as every kid gets a shot at uh decent education so they have the capabilities they need uh both to function successfully uh in the economy and to function effectively as citizens but in in the essay in your essay what is the point of quality um i guess one of the things that you you say that egalitarianism demands for each of us is quote the social conditions of being accepted by others such as the ability to appear in public without shame and not being ascribed outcast status and i was curious about that when i read it because i was wondering is that it seems to be like there are we could say you know for for races it's it's not okay to shame or ascribe outcast status to people on the basis of race or sexual orientation but does that extend even to say cultural attitudes or beliefs or behaviors because it seems there can be you know beliefs that one holds that might in might make it so that one deserves outcast status if you're a you know just virulent bigot uh or a member of the kkk or you know hold their views that are just really repugnant the phelps church right and so and you should and so you absolutely ought to be shamed when you're in public right yeah well the phelps church has uh almost uniquely among political actors in contemporary america figured out a way to be equally offensive to all groups right or left that's an achievement of itself yeah yeah it takes hard work to do that um so yeah you know we we do live in a free society freedom of speech and so the freedom to speak your mind uh is very very important but of course it doesn't mean that you that you are thereby entitled to be insulated from harsh criticism uh and uh rejection by people who hate your views so in that sense right if we're talking about pure ideological disagreement uh we can hardly uh ask people to uh restrain their denunciation views that they find uh appalling i mean that's all part of a free society and it could be that right some some groups then on the basis of their uh ideology uh will not fare well but at the same time remember this is just a cultural matter it's it's a matter of civil society it's not the state's business to go around enforcing real outcast status even on the falst right they're entitled to freedom of speech and all the legal rights that everyone else has but then in civil society that is ex you know not not in the legal or the state sense but just in terms of their day-to-day interactions with other people uh you know other people despise them and don't want to have anything with them well they have a right to despise them so uh we're almost out of time but um it was a final question erin and i had talked about this uh for a long time but the the question about uh the efficacy of the state being a consideration for political philosophy so you could have one situation this something libertarians take very seriously you could say that what should the state do is the first question and then what can the state do is a second question and generally political philosophers sort of sit in the should realm and we've talked today about egalitarianism and a theory of it and different theories of it say the state should be doing this but if the state is unable to do certain things if it if it can't do it and if ought implies can which might be something you disagree with then could that ever change the should could the fact that the state is unable to do something effectively mean that we shouldn't even be saying that the state should be doing it in the first place or erin or or not just that the state might not be capable of of executing the mission that's been given to it but that it might be able to do it but granting it the the amount of power that it would take to carry out that mission carries huge risks as far as the state could then use that power and i mean as if history serves in many cases will use that power to do really awful things to us or even in the education sense too of just i completely agree in the principle that i would love i would live in a world where people have the best opportunity to succeed but i don't think that state education does that and and so we can we show that principle but it's different efficacy different use of the tools that we're going to use for that right certainly on the principal ground i entirely agree with you that ought implies can so if the state can't do something then you shouldn't give the job to the state to do it i i agree entirely with that and of course it's an empirical question what the state is capable of doing or not and it's also worth vigorously exploring alternatives to state provision and seeing what other sorts of institutions can solve the the problems that we face yeah absolutely yeah unfortunately a lot of times the state sometimes keeps people from thinking about those other possibilities which is uh because they think they have something in front of them but maybe uh there are better possibilities outside of it yeah for libertarians who are listening to this and aren't i mean we're not ready to get on board with egalitarianism what what do you think what should we still take away from this what do you think is even without abandoning libertarianism what can we learn from egalitarianism well i think if you if you look at the relation egalitarian tradition i think libertarians would see a lot to like libertarians and relational egalitarians are united in their suspicion of some people wanting to boss other people around and and that's where we really have a lot of common ground then the question is what kinds of social practices and institutions do we have to construct in order to nemy step bossing around well thank you very much for coming on free thoughts professor inderson ah it's a pleasure to talk to you thank you for listening to free thoughts if you have any questions or comments about today's show you can find us on twitter at free thoughts pod that's free thoughts pod free thoughts is a project of libertarianism.org and the kato institute is produced by evan banks to learn more about libertarianism visit us on the web at www.libertarianism.org


Today's topic is linear animation, and hi everyone, my name is Zhao Jinjiang, and this is my Chinese name. I also have English name and another Chinese nickname called Gou Sen Gu Si, and this is my GitHub ID, Twitter ID, and the email address. So that's self-instruction. And today, so back to today's topic, the topic is named lean animation. You may ask, what does this word lean mean? Just because I read several books called lean blah blah blah, it's all kind of, all kind of book who tell you something easy to understand, easy to remember, and easy to practice. So I really love this word lean. So today's topic is just some lean way to do something. And another word is just animation. So what does animation mean? Animation just means animation. But today we are talking just as a right, so the animation just means some kind of animation could be implemented in CSS, maybe CSS animation or transition. And the goal is, I want to help all of you to simply try animation into your product or design system, because I found sometimes we love animations. We want to create some creative animation effects, but it always costs too much time. But when you create some product doing your job or building some project, the time is always limited. So a lot of friends of mine just spend some time off work to try different animations. But how to use these animations reasonably and with less cost in your real product or your job, maybe the lean way to create animation could help you. And let's go to question number one, why we need animations. I think that's some reasons or some user requirement, just like there is something really important on your screen. So we need animation to track users' eyes. And also something has changed or something could or should change that people maybe couldn't notice. So the animation could help you doing this kind of job. And also at the last, maybe just for fun or for art or just show yourself skillful enough to making some animations. Honestly, maybe this part of our lives, so also a requirement. And there are fun animations, there are some common scenario I guess. Let's talk one by one. The first one is showing and adding something just like components or dialogues or pages. So the second one is called macro feedback. Just like when you hover on a button or click a button, you may find the button has some little bit change to tell you at the button you have clicked or have hovered on. So the first two is quite common, but the last two I think is also important. The second is emphasize. That means maybe there are some primary button or action point really important, but you want to make sure a user could pay attention to it. So maybe make some little animation to attract users' attention. And the last one is logic or regularity. I'll explain more details later. And next, when we got some common scenarios, the next thing is just find all these kind of scenarios in your product and choose, appropriately choose animations for each of them. That sounds simple, but maybe not just like this, how to draw a horse. You could easily do the step one to step four. But what happens, how to do is to make the final things happen. Maybe it seems simple, but really hard. So yeah, we should find some way to do the last steps. So how to choose or how to make this kind of animation effect is really important. So let's talk about how to choose animation effects first. My first advice, rule number one is just get some inspiration from the reality or real world because maybe your users are not familiar, unfamiliar with your product. But everyone have some real-life, real-world life experience. So we could get some inspiration from the real world and just apply this kind of animation effect to your product to help you better understand your product. And here I want to show a really special and particular case that animation effects from the real world. This is the video. It's a FBM 729 magnetic tape unit. So this machine is just rotating in different ways. Yes, and this is the real world things. So we just build this kind of animation effects in our UI for some loading spinner. And potentially tell users maybe nothing had happened, but the machine, your application is still working, physically working behind. So just be patient and wait. I think this case is really special and interesting. So that's one case, the animation effects from the real world. And also today we could also find more inspiration or design materials or some cases from the internet. You can just search and find a lot of design resource or materials. So that's another way really easy to help you. So rule number two, how to choose animation is just to fit the characteristic of your product or just fit the style of your product. I think that's really important because you could find all kinds of different animation effects, but what kind of animation is just fit your product. It's really important, you should think. For example, would you like your animation effects more soft or hard or more fast or slow or more or less? That's all really important to reflect your style or product and gives your user different feelings. Okay, so that's rule number two. So I will give you some demos today. So for today's demo, what I have chosen, I will show you first. This one is just showing and has just a slight left or right, it's just from the real world case, right? That's the first kind of animation effect. But I think just one kind of animation effect for showing or hiding things is not enough. So the second one is fitting and fade out. It's like day and dark in gradient. And the third one I choose, it's like a shape of your window, so you can roll up, roll down from the top. So it's also from the real world. So the three kinds of animation effects to show or hide things.  Okay. And the last one is bounce. Okay, so I will explain later as I mentioned before, just to show some logic or regularity. Okay. So here's the demo time, and this is, I can, okay, I'm not sure, okay. That's the demo I prepared for today's topic. And maybe the text is a little smaller, but I can, I could explain one by one. The first animation I want to show is depth navigation. For example, if I click this link to go to a deeper path of your application, it will slide from right to left. It will imply users, maybe there is some kind of depth of your different pages. If I continue to click next, maybe I go to a more deeper path, and then again, and also if we click previous button, previous button is from left to right. So it's a kind of logic or regularity to let the users potentially know the logic. So it's showing and hiding things in your application. So it's a first example. Second example is some layers. For example, if I click button, something happens at the same time. First thing is when I click the button, the button will pop up a little bit. So it gives you a macro feedback that you will click the button. The second thing is the whole screen will, there will be a gray mask on the whole screen. So try to hide something not important or not should be attention. And the third thing is just pop up a dialogue to track your attention to notice there is a dialogue you should care about. So when I click confirm or cancel, the gray mask will disappear, fade out. And the dialogue will drop down and back to the page. Same thing, similar things when you pop up action sheet, it will slide from bottom up and also when we choose one option, it will slide down. Also the filter or drop down select, when I click, it's just like a roll up. So it's some kind of layers. That's a second example. And now let's go to the next example. This one is more complex. So please watch carefully if I open the list. So this animation effect telling three independent things at the same time. The first thing is you should read the list from top to bottom. Because it appeared one by one from top to bottom. So it tells you the logic or the regularity. And the second thing is there is no more, there would be, might be more list items on the bottom, below it. So you could just scroll it down to find more information. And the third thing is it just tells you there is no more item above. Because it bounce to the top, just like hitting a wall. So no more content above. So that's the animation effect of this list. But we can check it out again. So here it is. And the last example is type bars. So just similar to list, but it's the horizontal effect. And there are two different type bars. The first one, there are only four options. So you could all display in the whole screen width. So there is no animation. You could find everything. But for the second one, you couldn't display all the options at the same time. So we use animation to tell users there is more. And you should read it from left to right. And there are no more tabs left side. So that's all. Yeah, here are four different examples to show animation effects. That's a demo. And after that, you may ask how to implement this kind of animations. And I found there are two different ways, common ways, to implement the animation effects with CSS. And one method is one way is just find some math formulas or physics formulas from the real world. If you find them, maybe you could just implement by CSS transition. You could just change the duration and timing function. That's the two most important properties to implement the animation effects through some formulas. And the second way is just simulating the animations by frame by frame. You could define some keyframes and find some way to record each keyframe from the real world and just code them down as a CSS animation keyframes. So that's the two common ways to implement animation effects. So it's time to show some code. I have prepared. And this is the source code of the demo. And the whole project is implemented based on Vue.js. But for any submission part, it's just framework agnostic. So just pure CSS code. So you could see the left side is all this animation effect written in CSS. The first part is just some formulas, physics formula or math formulas. For example, slide left, right, or fade in, fade out, or pop up, or drop down. Yeah. I think any of you would just love CSS. And you're often here with CSS transition and animation. So I won't go into the details, but I just show you how I just write all the CSS code together as some fundamental styles. And that's the first part. And the second part is keyframe just like the bounce top or bounce left. Maybe I should change the name to bounce inline or bounce block. But anyway, yeah. For these two animation effects, I just record every keyframe and code it up. So that's two different ways to implement CSS animations. You may be interested how to implement the animation effects on list one by one. Actually, it's a feature in Vue.js. So it has a building component named TransitionGroup. So we just find an event, a peer event, and find the index of the list item and just write a timeout. So it performs one by one, one after another. So it's a small trick. So that's so cool. And that's almost all of this topic. So some takeaways. When to the user requirement, something important or something has to change. The common scenario is just emphasizing macro feedback, show or has things or just some logic or regularity. And how to find appropriate animation effects just from the reality and at the same time fit the characteristics or style of your product. And the last thing is the way to implement just from formula or keyframes. So that's almost all of this. And the one for the reading, if you already practice these kind of animation effects well, you may challenge yourself to do more. I highly recommend this. It's the 12 principles of animation from Disney. Yeah, this great company summarized 12 different principles of animation. I think it's more helpful to build more brilliant, fascinating animation effects. So just for the reading for all of you. So yeah, I think it's done. That's my first public English speech. So, Zhong Yi Jiang, thanks. Any questions? The people are shy. So let's take a question break. So please make yourself available. And let's take a 10 minute break. So you can ask questions if you want to. And as promised, I have speakers here. So we'll come back in 10 minutes for our second interview. Sorry. So for those who are reading the single premise, so remember to return your-


What is going on guys welcome back to the channel critical over low here reading taught a few different horror topics in this video here today We'll be talking about nightmare in Elm Street. We'll be talking about screen three We'll be talking about the exorcist believer and we'll be talking about saw X just to start off with nightmare in Elm Street I did a video a couple of videos a week or two ago Telling you the status regarding the rights to a nightmare in Elm Street mostly a rumor and sharing rumors that I had heard and Then other people Bigger than me more credible to me like big screen leaks and other Creators out there who have been doing this a lot longer than me like Jimmy champagne shout out to you Started chiming in and sharing their thoughts on this whole matter because it all started with a tweet from the V scooper who was alleging that Blumhouse was working on a legacy sequel to the original film but What came out from big screen leaks was that Blumhouse does not have those rights And we at least did get confirmation of that bidding war that was rumored earlier this year as well But big screen leaks also followed up in another recent tweet from the V scooper who was clarifying their tweet about the legacy sequel Blumhouse was allegedly working on they said That it's not a collab in the works The rights will belong to one studio in one only Blumhouse isn't close to finalizing details either the only studio It's remotely attached to his new line cinema last I heard either new line cinema renewed their deal Although that's not a hundred percent or the Craven still have them now Here's my response to the two big screen leaks is Tweet to the V scooper I think most people who grew up with that classic new line logo would not mind New line regaining their rights and I know people who hate Blumhouse is treatment of these classic IPs are relieved that Jason Blum Seemingly isn't close to having his hands on this property Nightmare on Elm Street is undoubtedly going to return sooner rather than later I hope and to be honest perhaps they should take up Robert England's suggested idea from earlier this year of doing a modern dream warriors type of film with a new cast of characters or with a new set of characters though, but We'll see what happens with this franchise sooner rather than later screen 3 Apparently well not even apparently the viewer non has given us evidence already Script a 1999 assembly cut of screen 3 seems to be in viewer non's possession But what does this over?  Not too long ago of Roman setting up his voice changer So getting to see this moment could be quite cool because it would it would appear It's a part of this assembly cut that viewer non now has their hands on I'm certain viewer non will tweet out the differences in this cut versus the one we got because The assembly cut according to them is a hundred forty minutes they have actually shared a few clips of the opening and The Roman reveal on their Twitter if you want to go over to viewer non's Twitter and look at these clips of screen 3's assembly cut Cotton has to answer a question about Carrie Asking like the killer still using the woman's voice and saying something about name name the movie with the car killer Or the killer car and then he's like oh Carrie and then Roman has some lines about faking his age to get away with this free Which doesn't sound like it makes too much sense without seeing the full Assembly cut, but I guess viewer non might actually upload it if they if they of course have no rights Or have no legal issues with this because with them sharing this clips I don't know the ins and outs of all the legalities that they're doing it They're doing it then they're just doing it But I I hope they don't get into any trouble if they decide to upload the entire assembly cut I know a lot of us would love to see the assembly cut of screen 3 but whatever if they can somehow in this assembly cut also Have a second killer included that Roman disposed of midway through the movie I'll bump up screen 3 several points just from knowing we had two killers not a one-man wrecking crew The voice changer given the year it's set in is still unrealistic despite being ahead of its time But the moment Roman uploading files and downloading voices Downloading voices could provide some nice context on how exactly this device was created now diving into the exorcist believer We got this new image of Catherine from the exorcist believer acting in full during church as we see in the trailer as well This is from the total film magazine issue that's coming out Who they also had some new interesting comments from David Gordon Green discussing Chris's return or discussing? I should say What is what is her name Ellen Burston's return? They said I he said David Gordon Green I read her biography and then it became like a mission Could I invite one of Hollywood one of the Hollywood icons to step into this role that she hasn't been in in 50 years? That's a true Undertaking the inspiration that her book gave to me in terms of her perspective about the movie and how the success of the Movie I say success but also a lot of obstacles and hardships were faced because of the notoriety of the film So I got to know her and we swapped literature and ideas and we evolved this character to be meaningful for Ellen Beyond just a Chris McNeil revisit. So I liked it. I Like that Ellen was of course included in the process and her thoughts were taken into consideration when it came to how they were Portraying Chris however again, I have to say this despite Ellen being okay with it there's a lot of people who have already seen it who have already told me how they are using her and Just because Ellen is okay with it and just because the writers are okay with it doesn't mean that you guys are gonna end up being okay With it. There are a lot of things that she is doing that do not make her seem like an expert They do not make her seem like she is the same person. We were with Not I get I get that she can change over time But it just seems like what she went through 50 years ago. It hasn't helped her Smarten up in any way. You'll see what I mean when you see the movie and what happens to her It has nothing to do with her living or dying. I will say that jumping into the last topic here Saw X now the Hollywood handle this Twitter page is tweeting out that apparently saw X is an hour and 58 minutes I could have sworn that saw space who was the reliable person who was telling us when the saw X trailer was dropping One of those other reliable people over from the saw subreddit who already has a lot of knowledge on what is happening with saw X Like like another user over on the saw Reddit page of Inc. 360 They were claiming it's a note. It's an hour and 48 minutes like the same time as saw 3 But of course that doesn't make sense either since people were saying it's the longest entry in the franchise coming out of the Screen mid-summer screen panel before we got the trailer online that weekend so if it's actually an hour and 58 minutes that would justify the claims from the panel of it being the longest entry but of Course maybe saw space was referring to a different cut at the time because the Hollywood handle over on their Twitter is reporting That it's an hour and 58 minutes So who is telling the truth because in order for it to be the longest like we heard coming out of mid-summer screen Maybe there's they're referring to the cut that Kevin has Before was trimmed down because saw space is saying it's only an hour and 48 minutes We'll just have to wait and see who is telling the truth because it can't be the longest if it's just the same runtime as Saw 3 if it's if it's longer by two or three minutes It's officially the longest but let me know just think about this down the comment section below if you haven't already Of course make sure you subscribe turn on post notification in the video in the description. I'll have links on my social media Accounts I'm on Facebook Twitter and Instagram you can message me there Of course, there's any movies news or views let me to cover in the future and with all that in mind guys I will see you in the next video


Everybody can be great because everybody can serve. Coming into the school, we didn't have any murals, we didn't have anything to promote a college-going culture. We didn't have anything that would remind me of a traditional or typical elementary school when I first walked in. Everything was very bland. Schools are anchors in communities. Schools are a safe place for families and kids to go to. So partnering with schools, Kaiser Permanente and schools together is really the formula that's necessary to create healthy communities. When you come into an elementary school, kids should want to be here. Sometimes visual is the way to pull people in and then you get the hard work done. It's like family. It's family here. Even before my son got here, it just always felt like a family. We kind of take responsibility for each other and all of our kids at the school. Everybody has a different place. Miss Turner's a mom. Miss Hernandez is like the dad. And all of our kids, you know, they're our kids. There's like a thousand plus kids. Every child needs something different. We're making changes instructionally, socially. We're more ingrained into the community, getting my parents more actively involved. So we're transitioning from working as a standalone entity into more of a community environment. I'm really big on giving people the opportunity to change. In Barrett, we are trying to form and move forward as a unit, as a community. So this year we're working really hard along with all of our staff. Everybody from the bottom all the way to the top, working together to come to and work towards a common vision, which is to move our school forward and to increase our student achievement. And one of the ways that we're doing it like today is beautifying our school, making our school a better and positive place for kids to come. Because when kids come to school to a place that's safe and clean and conducive to learning, they will learn. If we want to make communities healthier places for everyone, schools are central to that. I came to help my school. It's been lately very messy, but I think if we actually work together, I think we can make a beautiful school. Do you like painting? Yeah. I painted mushrooms. I paint two fishes because it was, it's the March of the Little King Junior. MLK has always been a day on, not a day off. It's really great to work for Kespermonte that allows us to go out into the community and volunteer and give back to the communities that we serve. So what we did is we cleaned it all up, stripped it down. LAUSD helped us out with that as well. Dug out all of the garbage, put in brand new soil. We added all the nutrition and we planted along the line of the fence. There's a lot of things that have to take place to make this project happen. We are doing at a library. We are basically creating one from an unused classroom. Today we are building a brand new upper elementary school library by installing five separate murals, four within the space and one on the outside. We're turning this entire wall into a large oversized bookcase. So we're going to have each individual color is going to become its own book with a real title that the librarian downstairs already picked out for us. My name is Darryl Fukushima, a librarian aide here at Charles Barrett Elementary. When I first came here, this library had so much work to be done and I told them, no, it's like this library is not finished. Every library I've left, I've always left it better than when I first came here. But here, there's so much work to be done. They're so happy when they see me, they wave at me. I mean, they tell the teacher, it's like, it's a library day. When's our turn for the library? When's our turn for a library and that stuff? They get really excited to come over here and to be able to check out books and read books and stuff like that. And it does make an effect on that actually. All right, who knows what we're doing here today? Planting plants. We are planting plants, not just any plants. We're planting California native plants, special to live in California and thrive in the soreness of California. So just a California native plant. First things first, what are we going to do guys? We're going to dig a what? Oh.  We're going to crane it out. Go ahead, make a hole. All right, check that out. What do you think? Is it fun? Kind of. Be good, jump Johnny upside down. Perfect. Oh, we're loosening the roots so it can keep growing. When we're able to kind of meet our partners in the middle and understand kind of something they can do and what can we do that might be unique or but still within our artistic temperament, it felt like this was something that we could add to and that we could work with and that we understood what was going on in schools. Hey, so what we're doing is for the Barrett beautification we're working on making some desks really beautiful for their up-road grade library. And then now we're doing the final coat of lacquer, hopefully somewhat resistant to children gouging it up again. We'd be amazed at how many of our students do not have books. There is an incredible amount of joy when a student gets a book. Wow, the colors that they're putting make you feel very relaxed. But I think they're going to be very excited when they look at the library up there. We see that in terms of long-term health that people who are, can read, who have high, good, high literacy skills live longer, they're healthier all around. The community helps educate everybody. We learn through our parents, we learn through our teachers, we learn through our peers. It takes partnerships that are willing to come into our communities and it's easier said than done. Staff of Barrett's been really great partners and LAUSD really was a really good partner as well. So we went from a classroom that was on use. We didn't start with a blank slate. We started with a room that needed to have both cases removed, the dry erase boards removed. All of a sudden we found holes behind those dry erase boards so now you're talking about getting walls patched and getting them ready, getting the surface ready for a mural so that the muralist would have a blank canvas that she turned into a magnificent piece of art. But just to get to that process was a collaboration of many individuals. Our superintendent had a vision to create pathways, new pathways for our students. My role with Kaiser Permanente Watts Counseling and Learning Center I work a lot with students. A lot of the things that we focus on in my role is to ask students what they want to do when they grow up. Kaiser Permanente thinks that's really important because when a student, especially in this area, sees themselves in the future, they're more likely to protect it. And what do you want to be when you grow up? Paleontologists and YouTubers. Why paleontologists? Get rich. That's good enough for me. Alright, well thank you so much. We're in this together. We stand together. They put resources in. We put resources in. And it's really that working together that creates the magic for what we have as a shared vision. Supporting our children and being the very best that they can be. Helping them dream. Helping their dreams come true. This is a STEAM Academy. And the A in STEAM stands for Arts. So we really wanted an opportunity to help solidify that idea of how important arts are and how the arts, when you bring the arts into any situation, you can transform. You can transform a room. You can transform a life. That that engagement is really critical, I think, to the health of any strong community. Just to kind of get our kids to dream. You know, we tell kids you can be anything you want to be, but I don't know what I'm dreaming for and I don't have any examples of what that is. Everyone in this room is going to make a difference in our society because of what you're doing. My name is Dr. Wanda Austin, and I am a STEAM hero. As a child that grew up in the inner city, I didn't have role models. I didn't see examples of African American heroes. And so I'm truly honored to be on the wall of heroes, of STEAM heroes, because I hope that it encourages young people that they can be whatever they want to be with the education that they're getting here at Barrett in science, technology, engineering, arts, and math. It will ensure that they can achieve their goals and be great STEAM heroes themselves. What's important is that a lot of times in our programs, we might only be able to be here for a day or a week. In some cases maybe a little bit longer, but with a project like this, we get to live at the school. The message continues forward for many years, and it's something that hopefully will exist a lifetime. Recognize wonderful. If you want to be great, wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. That's a new definition of greatness. By giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great. Because everybody can serve.


The NCDC has stated that there are 63 new coronavirus infections and 11 recoveries. With the 63 new infections, a total number of COVID-19 cases in the country now stands at 166,254. The NCDC announced this late on Friday via its official Twitter handle. It added that the new infections were recorded in eight states including the federal capital territory.


Hello. My name is Kim Mojärvian. I will present our work, Speed Reading in the Dark, Accelerating Functional Encryption for Quadrided Functions with Reprogrammable Hardware. This is a joint work between Miladvahdori and myself from University of Helsinki, and Tilan Mark and Mihas Doppar from XLAB. The work was done in the EU project Ventech. We will go through this architecture for the first hardware accelerator for functional encryption for quadratic functions. It is a hardware software code design, a design particularly for Xilin sync ultra-scale MPs of devices, but it is also usable for other such SOCs. The accelerator is optimized particularly for the decryptions of this functional encryption scheme, and this decryption operation requires bearings and discrete logarithm computations. One of the central contributions of our work is this parallel version of Shank's famous Baby Step Giant's discrete logarithm algorithm, and we utilize pre-computations and parallel processing in that algorithm. What we show is that our implementation provides large speed-ups compared to software-only implementations. We get several attempts or even hundreds of times faster results than a software library called GoFay, designed for the same operation. We also showcase to practical use cases in the domain of machine learning, in particular image classification, and show that these speed-ups translate also to practical use cases. So what is functional encryption? If you think about traditional encryption, it's all or nothing in the sense that whoever has the decryption key, okay, here, gets access to the full plaintext and sees it entirely after decrypting this hypertext. Then again, if you don't have this decryption key, you get nothing at all. Or maybe you know something about the length of the message or something, but actual contents are completely hidden from you. Functional encryption then again provides more fine-grained control. So it's possible to hand out decryption keys that allow to compute a specific function from the ciphertext. So a function of the plaintext when given this ciphertext. And this decryption key allows to compute this function, but doesn't give any other information about the x. Every time that somebody talks about computations with the ciphertext, one of course thinks about homomorphic encryption. But in this sense, homomorphic encryption is more like traditional encryption, that whenever you decrypt, you get the entire plaintext. And if you cannot decrypt, then you get nothing at all. But the functional encryption actually lets you compute something, but doesn't reveal the entire contents of the message. So then the question is of course, what kind of functions can we compute? And in general, general functions are possible in theory, but not in practice. So in practical sense, we are limited to very basic functions. So there is functional encryption for inner products. And those schemes allow you to compute inner products. And you can compute means or weighted averages or these kind of very basic statistics over a vector of data. Functional encryption for quadratic functions lets you compute already quadratic functions and can lead to much more powerful practical applications. And the focus of this work is the EPQF. And as we will show, we can actually do some simple machine learning tasks, even with these kind of schemes. So here's a small example of what kind of problems or practical problems could be solved with functional encryption. So we have a setup where we have a patient. And then in this case, two different doctors. They might be, for example, from different specialties. So it might be a cardiologist and oncologist, for example. And now keys are given for the patient, the encrypt data, and two different keys are given to the doctors. So the cardiologist can compute the function F and the oncologist function G. And now the patient may encrypt her data, like genomic data, as an example, and send it to a server. Then the cardiologist can query this genomic data and see, for example, if there is some hard condition based on the patient's genetic data. And the oncologist can search similar things, but for other diseases. So in this case, for example, some cancer. And nobody, not the doctor and not even the server, has full access to the patient's genomic data. And the central computation in this kind of a setup is the decryption function of this functional encryption scheme. And that's the motivation why this work also focuses mostly on the decryption operation. Because it's quite seldom when these keys needs to be generated. So there is probably quite little need for accelerating the key generation function. And then patient encrypts her data maybe once or very seldom in any case. And it's also very likely that patients can't have access to hardware accelerators. So this decryption operation that is both frequent and done in a centralized server is a very good candidate for hardware acceleration. Okay, so let's take a look on the actual decryption algorithm that we focus on in this work. So this is from a scheme described in a paper titled Reading in the Dark. And that's also the origin of the title of our paper, Speed Reading in the Dark, because we do that faster with our hardware acceleration. And if we look at this decryption algorithm, it takes as an input the specific format ciphertext and then a decryption key for specific quadratic function f. And then it computes a number of pairing computations, actually the number of pairings that are required in the decryption depends on the length of the ciphertext vector. So how many values are encrypted in the ciphertext vector. Then there are some finite arithmetic operations required also, but those are rather insignificant if you look at the big picture. And actually the performance of this algorithm is mostly determined by the pairings and importantly the final discrete logarithm that needs to be computed in the end. So this discrete logarithm returns an integer value as an output and that's the output of the quadratic function that we want to compute with this algorithm. And our work has focused, all the normalties in our work are concentrated on this discrete logarithm computation. So in this presentation I will focus mostly on that, but the details about how we compute the pairings are available in the paper. So a discrete logarithm is the problem of finding x when given alpha and beta in some cyclic group and beta is such that it's alpha to x. A famous way to solve this problem is the Sank's baby step algorithm which is based on this equality here. So once a match is found where some power of alpha equals this right hand side then we know what the x is. And the algorithm splits in two phases. Baby step phase which computes powers of alpha and stores them in a table and then the actual giant step phase is the one where we try to find the matches. And the discrete logarithms that need to be computed in this description algorithm are actually quite special in the sense that we know that the x is in a specific bound, which is very small compared to the size of the cyclic group. And so in most cases we know that the function that we evaluate can return output values in the interval from minus b to positive b. And it's also the case that this alpha value is fixed in this. It's a domain parameter so we can pre-compute this baby step, the table t. And although the size of the cyclic group is huge and that would prevent us from computing the whole t we can still compute the t up to some predefined bound and in this work we denote that by bp and then it allows us to evaluate all functions that satisfy this inequality. It's also noticeable that we don't have to actually store the entire alpha to j but it suffices to only store some bits of that value as long as all entries in t are unique. And this helps us to save a lot of space, which is very central in this work because we are actually computing huge tables. Then our architecture that I will present in the following slides is a parallel architecture so it is of interest to parallelize this algorithm. Both of the steps can be fully parallelized in the sense that if we have n cores we get almost n times speed up. The resulting algorithm that takes this list into account is actually quite complex. It's about one page algorithm so I spare you from that and you can take a look in the paper if you are interested. Okay, so here is the high level architecture of our accelerator. So as I mentioned it's a hardware software code design so that there is a software side so you can see this arm core here and then there's a hardware side which is implemented on an FPGA fabric. The most important components in the hardware domain are these n parallel processing cores. So n is 16 in our implementation case, but basically it could be another value for n could be used as well but we filled the FPGA and that meant that we could fit in 16. 16 parallel cores. These cores are optimized for speed and area which allows us to optimally use the resources that we have available. The actual architecture of this course is based on a pairing co-processor architecture designed by Mila and myself and published in FPL last year. So it's optimized for pairing computations but as it ultimately relies on the efficient finite third arithmetic it can be also used to efficiently compute the other parts of the decryption algorithm including the discrete logarithm computation. Here on the hardware side we also have a hierarchy of local memory so there are local memories in the CP cores but there is also shared memory which allows the CP cores to exchange data with each other. The main purpose of this memory hierarchy is to reduce the amount of data that needs to be transferred between the software and hardware domains because that communication would easily become a bottleneck if not implemented with a smart local memory in the hardware side. In the software side there is this ARM core that takes care of general control and flow management but also certain what I call auxiliary processing meaning small operations that need to be computed but which are either not supported by the hardware domain or that doesn't pay off to be delegated to the hardware at that point. An important component here is also this DDR memory which is actually not part of the designing chip but it's on the same board. This large DDR memory is used for storing the pre-computed T and actually we used almost 2 gigabytes of that memory so that's a very central component in this computation. Let's take a look on the results next. We compared the results of our work against the GoFail library also a result of the FENDEC project that implements the same FEQF scheme but in addition to the original GoFail we also compared against optimized GoFail which is the same GoFail library where we have implemented discrete logarithms with our discrete logarithmic computation with pre-computations and we can see from here that actually this algorithm has a very significant impact also in the software performance so you can see that with the normal original GoFail the discrete logarithms quickly start to dominate here and the decryption times grow to impractical levels quite quickly because all of these samples here are actually rather small impractical sense so in some cases there is only one value in the largest 20 but as soon as the size of the result grows the GoFail library gets slow. With the new discrete logarithms algorithm we get significant speed-ups but by using the hardware accelerator we get even much better results so we get speed-ups of over 1000 times compared to original GoFail but almost 20 times even against the optimized one and it's so that the bigger the functions are the more benefit you get from the hardware accelerator and that's a good showcase of the importance of hardware acceleration for practical use cases because in those cases the functions usually are on larger end At the beginning I said that we also tested our system with practical-like scenarios of use cases and we tested them with two different image classification use cases so the setup is such that for example in the first case we used this famous MNIST database of images of handwritten digits and the task there is to normally to give this image to a computer and it should then say which digit is there in the image in this case that we have the task is much more difficult because we actually encrypt the image so it's not possible to visually even look at that and tell which image there is but with the functional encryption it's still possible to do this machine learning computation giving out 10 different decryption keys one that gives the likelihood that the digit is zero one that it's one and so on all the way up to nine and in this example for example we see that the decryption with the key that gives the likelihood for the digit eight gives the largest output and then that means that the image in that encrypted image is likely to be eighth the fashion MNIST database is similar but instead of handwritten digits it contains images of different kind of clothes like t-shirts, trousers and so on and the task is to find out which one that is there are also 10 different classes in that case so in both cases actually the images are 28 x 28 pixels and on 10 different classes but because the task of classifying these handwritten digits is much easier actually the computation that is required there is much simpler so we can use N is 40 as a parameter in that case and we get on average 29 bit outputs from the computation and actually this kind of a model gives 97% accuracy in the case of MNIST we have to use bigger parameters so we have N is 128 on average 37 bit outputs and still we get less than 90% accuracy so if we look at the literature original GoFay was reported to have this MNIST case done in less than 20 seconds when we do that with optimized GoFay we get on average 1.3 seconds for that computation for the MNIST and fashion MNIST is done in 5.2 seconds with our accelerator we are 0.09 seconds for the MNIST case and about 0.4 seconds for the fashion MNIST so we get 15 times speed up which is something that already has a lot of practical significance so as a conclusion what we showed was that functional encryption for quadratic functions is difficult to form hard for acceleration although we focus on one specific scheme in this work also the other FAQ schemes that have been proposed are actually very similar in structure so they use bearings and discrete logarithms so we expect that our results can be used our results generalize to them also rather rather easily and our accelerator can be used for different FAQ schemes with only very minor modifications if you are interested in the paper or the details about the architecture algorithms and for discussion on side channel attacks please see the paper okay thank you very much and questions can be asked if you have any online session or mailed directly to me email address kimmo.u.järvi thank you very much for your attendance


A titan misses a plane. Vinciang was the 2006 NFL offensive rookie of the year. He led Tennessee to eight wins and nearly into the playoffs after a two-and-seven start. That was the titans record when they strolled into Philadelphia to meet the Eagles on November 19th, 2006. But when the titans arrived in Philly the day before, Vinciang wasn't with the team. Vinciang was late to the team plane. He was left behind. Vinciang was so upset by this development that he had to be talked into flying to Philadelphia that night. Vinciang did make it into Philly on Saturday and started the game on Sunday, but he really didn't play that well. Everyone else, however, did for the titans. The defense had three takeaways and scored a touchdown. 30, 20, pitches it back to Bullock. Who will take it in the ins-out for a touchdown? Titans! Titan's special teams recorded a touchdown on a punt return. Breaks a couple of tackles spent for it, 15-20. Ins-out! Pac-Man Jones! Touchdown! Titan! And Travis Henry rushed for 143 yards, including a 70-yard touchdown run. The Titans whipped the Eagles 31-13, the first of six straight wins. It was a run that began with the starting quarterback missing the team plane.


Matt's fossil is our next speaker from electrical and computer engineering his title long-term installation of active electronics embedded in compliant neural probes Your brain is your body's most important organ and figuring out how brains work is one of today's major scientific questions The implications cover a whole range of medical conditions from sensory loss like blindness and deafness to neurological conditions like depression and schizophrenia Brain-computer interfaces can help not only understand how does the brain work, but also provide paths for treating these conditions if Their their promise is so great, then what prevents a wider adoption of brain computer interfaces in research or medicine The major issue is the tools that we use to interface with the brain In order to capture the information generated by individual neurons probes have to be inserted into the brain Typical probes used today are essentially silicon needles with metal electrodes at the tip The issue is that because the brain shakes a little bit inside the skull the area of the brain around the needle gets damaged over time And so the probe gradually loses its capability to detect the neural information In order to address this we've developed a flexible probe shown at the top made out of a bi-compatible polymer called periline Which doesn't damage the brain? But one typical issue with the polymer materials that people use to make flexible probes is that they degrade in water and Water makes up about 75% of the brain So in order to make long-lasting flexible probes, we have to use combinations of materials as shown schematically in the middle We use periline as a structural layer to define the body of the probe and we use a metal layer To define the electrode and carry the electric signal and between the two we had a thin ceramic layer In order to keep the metal protected even after the polymer layer was degraded But silicon probes have another advantage because silicon is also The material the base material for making micro-electronic chips And so chips can directly be built into Silicon probes in order to improve the signal quality or increase the electrode density Essentially make the probe more efficient at at communicating neural information None of that is possible with polymer probes not directly and so I've also developed a method to Integrate silicon chips into polymer probes First by thinning the chips and then by attaching them to the to the probe during the fabrication process To the metal layer before adding the ceramic and and polymer protective layers. These are this is what the bottom picture shows and this this method um compounds the benefits of flexible probes and active electronic chips In order to yield a long lasting and highly effective neural interface And so it's our hope that um these flexible multi-layer probes with embedded active chips can provide durable and high quality neural interfaces and Unlock the potential of brain computer interfacing Improving the lives of millions Thank you