Well, good evening from me, Kaya. My name is Matias Lippis and I'm from the Australian Research Data Commons. Thank you very much for coming to our webinar today on the recent report written by more brains for the Australian Research Data Commons and Australian Access Federation. I would like to start this webinar by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which I am the Wajaka people of the Nongar Nation. And pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. I would also like to extend that respect to all of the First Nations people of Australia, and of course any First Nations people in this webinar. Without much further ado, I would actually like to hand over directly to Josh Brain, Josh Brain. Josh Brown, one of the brains of more brains. Over to you, Josh. Thanks Matias. Let me just share my screen. Okay. Well, good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening everyone. Thanks for joining us in whatever time zone you're in. It's brilliant to be able to talk to you all today. My name is Josh Brown. I'm a co-founder of more brains co-op and research and strategy lead. And I'm going to talk to you today about some of the process and findings of cost benefit analysis of the adoption of persistent identifies in the Australian research system. This is based on a study that we did previously in the UK as well, which is where we saw first developed methodology we used here. And we extended it a bit and I'll explain how that works as we go through the presentation and talk and tease, try and tease out some of the implications of these findings before we hand over to our fabulous panel for more discussion later. So, I mean the context of this research is that there is a huge amount of wasted time and money across the research ecosystem. There is a lot of a lot of effort, a lot of expertise being squandered on administrative tasks. Some estimates say it could be as much as 40% of a researcher's time is spent on that in straightened times. This is an unacceptable drain on funding for research. Now, our study showed that that kind of equates what we can demonstrate for just a limited set of the metadata that people are putting into their administrative systems comes to 38,000 person days a year with an opportunity cost of 24 million Australian dollars a year. And those are the headlines and that's some of the context. So I'd like to talk more about some of this as well because it's not just that expertise is being squandered it affects people's ability to understand the research ecosystem. So, the Jason Claire here the Minister for Education actually asked the Australian Research Council to investigate ways of making the national research assessment excellence and research for Australia, and also grant application process is much more efficient. Now we'll show in the case study later that they've made great strides in this direction already, but I think it kind of just helps to give the context that here for policymakers as well as researchers at every level in the research ecosystem. These costs are mounting up and it's really clouding everyone's ability to assess to deliver and assess research. Our focus for the for the project was on a set of five priority pits. These are listed here on the screen we've got DOIs for grants or kids for people, raids for projects, rules for organizations and DOIs for outputs including data articles and preprints. Now, all of these have open options. Now, one of the things I'll just say here is this openness the open metadata being available under a very permissive license means that that information that's associated with those kids is available. It's accessible and it's reusable, whether that's in a someone's proprietary research management system with their institution or within a kind of an open analytics database that serves the whole community that reuse is absolutely critical because that's where these benefits come in so I just want to emphasize the importance of openness to these solutions. In understanding the scale of activity, we really did concentrate on the number of entities those kids could actually identify in the Australian context. So we used kind of official numbers for the number of researchers getting to about 108,000 full time equivalent researchers active in the Australia University sector. So we looked at the number of researchers per publication and the amount of time it takes to type in basic factual information just real simple descriptive things like the title citation for an article and so on into into an electronic system and we used pre existing research for this rather than reinvent the wheel. So all of these citations on the slides we will share them afterwards are there if you want to check our check our workings as it were. So to quantify the number of grants and the number of publications. We've got. So, we've got the grant coming from a funder so one award. They reckon this kind of hog is around 6000 a year we got to this by combining data from digital science dimensions database with information from the Australian Research Council and medical research futures fund. And so that's kind of it oscillates a bit but it's roughly steady and then we have a steadily growing number of publications, which is up to about 180,000 a year for the last year in which we had reliable data. So to identify the number of researchers we have currently active as well with an orchid to understand the coverage. We went for the number of active records now we've defined an active record as one where someone has logged in or updated their record in the last year. So that's one of those orchid IDs that have a dot a you email suffix associated with them there are 122,000 at the time of writing in the report. And we analyze the number of projects as distinct from grants as someone has observed in the Q&A. So that's going to be roughly about 25,000. Now we did that by using the evidence we used from the UK cost benefit analysis to assess the number of projects in the UK and we scaled it according to OEC data about recent levels of research funding. We talked about the fact that information about grants and publications and so on is being manually entered into systems. And we recognize that one of the limits in the UK one was we had to assume that each piece of data was only once. So this is one where we took a step forward with the analysis and the method that methods that we use, and we actually got time to survey Australian institutions and find out how many of them are how much time they are repeatedly, you know, inputting the same data across the population. And what we found is that about half of this effort is being put in by researchers who are manually putting this in, and in the other half comes from administrators so it really is split between professional services and professional researchers here. But grants information is typically entered manually, manually entered into a system 3.25 times and publications just that basic citation information is typically entered 3.1 times. So previous research cited on previous slides estimates that project descriptive information it can be entered as many as six times. So those are the numbers we used for analysis. Now, just just to mention the UK study again we can actually we've just we've revisited that study and use these multiplier numbers there to arrive at new figures which I'll talk about a little bit later. I skipped one slide too many, but this is the core analysis. As we said this is how we got to the 38,000 days and the 24 million Australian dollars. So if we say there are 180,000 publications with four authors multiply that by 3.1 re keying events and evidence but you know based on work that just did in the UK. And that's about 6.73 it's quite precise for an estimate minutes of date of data entry time taken per citation, and that adds up dramatically as you can see. So following that sequence across all of these for grants, average of 10 minutes to enter that information. Same for projects. So six re keying events for projects and so on you get to these numbers of just under 38,000 and close to 24 million dollars a year. Now, these are, that's a significant opportunity cost, but I would just like to say that's the basic metadata. The key point here is actually there are a whole other kinds of benefit that can arrive here, because the presence of the pit in the system triggers that pool of metadata, which is vital and that's what saves researchers time and effort, but it could also automate processes. And once we have this kind of level of coverage, there's a whole level of insight analysis aggregation of information that becomes possible that enables better strategic planning enables institutions providing better support for their research portfolio. These kinds of benefits we haven't been able to quantify in the study so we just like to say this is this is these were that these are the numbers based on just the easiest to quantify. There's a lot more benefits to be addressed. And we also did an analysis about the kind of level of adoption that's required to deliver this now. The one of the key things here is nobody really benefits until everybody benefits it's a bit like a social network if you're most of your friends are not on there. Why would you interact with it. So these kind of network benefits are really important. The more organizations that are using PIDs and optimizing their workflows to pull in that metadata and reuse it. The more data actually becomes available because more people will be registering identifiers and recording that metadata, and the more the benefits build up. So we looked at this and we used the, we used the kind of lazy S curve you can see in the, in the top left. And we estimate that you know if you get to about 80% levels of coverage for the identifiers for these key entities that we talked about earlier. And you get 90% of benefits, which I think is kind of you know, it's realistic it's achievable. I think the Australian orchid consortium shows that in a five year period so we think it's a really important to have that ambitious goal. As I mentioned earlier we did some case studies to kind of humanize the story and put it put some of the context in as well. So the first one we talked about with the Australian Research Council. They have an integration in their research application system or their funding application system called RMS that pulls information from orchid records and pulls information from the Crossref API to populate publication information. And you can kind of see how that process works in a schematic on the top of this slide. But really, I think you know they said 78% of the publication data that was has been submitted since late 2018 when the system went live has come by orchid, and just those citations have saved the equivalent of $850,000 Australian research time. And in, you know, but this is not always evenly distributed of course. So one example from Joe Schapta who wrote a piece for the Australian Access Federation blog on this said it saved that that new integration saved him personally three to four days of effort, her grant application, which is, as he says that absolutely staggering. And we also spoke to researchers at the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network, which is a really complex, very demanding, very highly collaborative research research institution with a real range of sensors instruments different kinds of equipment, which is students projects running simultaneously. And in all of that complexity the pins they already use are delivering significant benefits. And what they're hoping to do is extend their coverage of peers, bring in more data site DOIs bring in international generic sample numbers and so on, so that they can actually have what they're calling a ground truth for the data sets for categories and samples that they use. This is really important in such a complex and diverse research environment as well so it really to the way that the, you know, identifiers and structured metadata and the exchange of these things across systems can actually bring some clarity to a really fast moving dynamic and complicated research process. We also looked at some of the case studies provided by Australian Research Data Commons and AAF Australian Access Federation, who are providing research, research identifier services or access to those services to the Australian research sector. The ARDC as you can see here of our providing a number of those services, AAF is focused on leading the National Orchid Consortium. But just that orchid consortium alone, just in terms of reducing the cost of orchid membership and lowering the cost of integrations has saved 24.6 million over five years of its lifespan. And that's before we get on to catapulating the benefits that pulling that data from orchid records is brought. So I mean really significant benefits and actually this centralized approach that has taken has been taken in Australia has really helped to drive down the costs of pit integration and adoption, and that of course maximizes the available benefits which needs to be upset against those costs. So in summary, you know just to repeat that number that that staggering number of 38,000 person days wasted on data entry a year people you know trained researchers trained professional supporting researchers who could be using that expertise to do something much more valuable with their time. So we also kind of made some recommendations for a strategy in Australia to help to get to that 80% target. So things you know we need to build on the leadership that Australians already benefit from in this space with AAF and ARDC funders need to follow the example of the Australian Research Council and start automating a lot of this kind of the data processes that they, they have, and there needs to be a whole sector approach. This needs to be something that supports small institutions, maybe smaller institutions with a large institutions with a very small research footprint. We don't have the kind of investment in support services or, you know, software platforms to provide data about research it needs to be inclusive, and it needs to be comprehensive in order to get to that 80% target. And that's my last slide. If you, if you want to read more about the study getting to the detail of our work. The DIY that takes you straight to the record. If you want to if you have any questions you want to stay in touch with me that's my email address. And we've doing a lot of other work around identifies looking at the benefits, analyzing the workflows ways that his can be helpful metadata exchange can deliver the benefits. So if you take a look at the website for more information about that. Now I will hand right over to Tash, I think he's going to talk to us about the way that some of these, some of the findings have been received across Australia so Thank you, Josh. Thanks so much. I don't have any slides but I'm just going to talk for a few minutes about the response to that report in Australia so the first of all those figures as Josh mentioned are staggering and have gained quite a lot of attention from the research environment. We've socialized the report fairly widely so it has gone to the deputy vice chancellor's office search they have a committee through universities Australia that they meet and we presented to that group. We have also done various presentations to our main funders the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia and various other presentations so I think really there's three main responses I'm going to The first one is wow those figures are really impressive and people can immediately see how those figures were arrived at they can see the wastage of re keying something multiple times by multiple people in multiple systems and the way that fits can help with that so I think the arguments in the report are very clear people understand that and that's really you know there's no kind of arguments around that people like well yep you can see that that's very beneficial. The second response is around the alternative to the excellence in research in Australia exercise which is our national research assessment exercises Josh mentioned the Minister for Education in our government has asked to look at has asked the Australian Research Council to look at alternatives to the current era exercise and kids are of course part of looking at that so the ARC case study is you know there's a lot of evidence there that what they've done integrating orchid into the RMS system has achieved massive gains for researchers and for the ARC in terms of I mean that quote from Professor Joe Schachter that he saves three to four days per grant application because of that integration that's absolutely massive especially if you think about not just the successful grants but also the grants that weren't successful but that people spend a lot of time on so there's a lot of gains to be had there and then that is demonstrated so now they're thinking well if we've used orchid for that what other identifiers could be used to make similar grants to use it in a reporting exercise. So, so those things are the top of people's morons. And the other third response is around looking at the gains we have made so far and the infrastructure we have so we don't have a formal national aid approach. So we have the Australian Orchid Consortium which, as Josh mentioned has say 4.5 million. What was that figure again for the Australian Orchid Consortium it's middle of the night here in my brain's gone but it's a 4.6. 4.6 million for, yeah for Australian research organizations to be part of that. And it's not just the savings you know we're talking. This is a paid cost benefit. So the focus is on the costs but there are of course significant benefits from the Australian PIDs that are to do with accuracy in reporting and you know the persistent identification and research outputs and objects and linking those to researchers that are all beneficial in a system to make it more trustworthy and to be able to track impact and site confidently and things like that. But this report's mostly focused on that cost benefit side. So the next steps for us I think are to move from national approach international PID strategy and how do we do that. So the first kind of step that we'd like to make is to to leverage the interest that we currently have in the report to have a national conversation around this and what might be a useful strategy for Australia so we need to get together a steering group of people who are probably at a more senior level who are able to take this forward strategically and probably spawn some working groups from that as well to look at particular aspects of the strategy to move it forward. It's sort of similar to the way us that we built the Australian Orchid Consortium which was you know to get up that demonstrator model look to look at the problem we start with the problem what is the common problem that we all have and our PIDs going to be helpful in solving that. And then what kind of model would be helpful here and float that as a as a as a document that people can comment on you know have an iterative approach to that and then have an action plan or a sort of roadmap to take that forward. So we are fortunate that we have the National Infrastructure in ARDC to help take that forward as well and in collaboration with our colleagues at Australian Access Federation. So also the we have also contracted Linda O'Brien as our consultant for National PIDs strategy. So Linda is on the call tonight and she is also the chair of the International Orchid Board and has been with the Orchid Consortium she helped set it up right at the beginning in Australia. So a really fantastic person to have on board to help lead that discussion forward in Australia. And the last part I wanted to reflect on was some of the potential decisions we might have to make around a National PID strategy. So some of them might be around scope. So, you know, are we going to focus on the cost benefits, for example, and therefore, you know, are those five priority PIDs the ones we want to focus on. Because there are challenges in some of those PIDs in terms of current adoption levels around RAID, for example, or around more you know how do we take these things forward. We might have a sort of we'd like to have kind of a five year approach, which sounds like a long way off but that's what we actually did for Orchid and we achieved that. So I think we need to have the grand vision here is also a question around do we focus on the sort of saving side or the impact side or a bit of both, because for example, assigning PIDs for research instruments is a big discussion in Australia, we have an instruments community of practice. There's a lot of interest in that. And that's less about the cost benefit because not many people are assigning PIDs, and therefore there's not the metadata to reuse around that. But it's more about tracking impact. It's that big research facilities that are funded by the government in particular want to track the usage of those facilities. So should that be part of a national PID strategy. And if so, how do we do that and how do we see the gains from that. And you know where is that in terms of scope where does research start and government stop or where is the what's the role of government data and this because government agencies don't tend to see themselves as producing research, however, the things that they produce are used in research. And where does an orchard apply, for example, in a government setting, where does a role apply in a government setting, what about for organizations that are transitory that are sort of funded for a few years and then go away does that fit in the role framework you know, where does RAID as a research project identify a fit in government who have different kind of projects that are not around research and things like that. So we've got quite a few questions that I think will come up, but I will leave it there and I will hand over to Alice to open up. Thanks Natasha and hi everyone I apologize I'm going to mostly have my video off because my internet has been a little iffy and it's probably more stable that way. So thank you to see everyone. Thank you Josh and Natasha and Matias for kicking us off. We're now going to get into sort of more of a discussion parts of the session and I'm really delighted that we have representatives here from all fives as a priority PID organizations that were mentioned earlier. I'm not going to introduce you in great detail if you don't mind. You can add more about your context but we have Chris Shillerman map base from Auckland data site respectively who are representing the executive director position. We have product managers Maria Gold and Sean Ross from raw and ARDC and then director partnerships from Crossref Jennifer Kemp. I want to say a special thank you to Maria and Sean Natasha and Matias who are at the extreme ends of the time zone situation here Maria is in California and Sean Natasha and Matias are in Australia and you're all heroes. So without further ado, we are going to do this we're going to do sort of each each speaker has is going to take an initial stab at one of the questions we've come up with and then we'll open it up to see if anybody else has anything to add to it. I really love your questions and your comments as well so please do put them in the chat or Q&A will do our best to answer them one way or another before the end of the webinar but if anything is unanswered we will get back to you afterwards with an answer. So without further ado, Matt is up first. So, what's your sort of immediate thoughts on the report and what sort of stands out most to you both from a kind of data site perspective and more broadly if you want to. Well, as you mentioned it would be really great to hear from some of the attendees in the chat and also others following on some of their thoughts. I think initially or the sort of first impression that I get is how do we make these figures a reality. And so, you know, I think we all look at these and go this is great like this is what we talk about and this is, you know the promise that we make into the community. So how do we make sure that that's a reality a lived experience for everyone in the community. It definitely resonates quite closely with the approach that we have that data site and many of the other. I know, you know our partners around the table today, and have an approach where we look at building communities of practice and coming together across stakeholders within with a common, common goal and common effort. And so I think the report speaks to that and it starts to focus on how do we translate that national pit strategy or how do we translate that national focus around persistent identifies an open infrastructure into tangible benefits and those benefits being that reuse automation aggregation of information for downstream use cases. I think it also definitely emphasizes the need for open infrastructures to work together and so everyone, you know, is sitting on the room today we work very closely with and it's really important because that helps us demonstrate the power of that interoperability and coordination. A lot of these benefits really only come from that interoperability and coordination, but also noticing that this is not just a technical solution it's really really important that we focus our collective efforts around what I'll frame as technology and engagement. It's one thing to just make it technically possible but it's really important that we understand the work that researchers are doing and their workflows and the key touch points that they have in their day to day. And I know this from some of the projects that we running like the fair workflows project where we really before any pre registration was done we worked with the research group to identify. What are the workflows one of the steps that you go through that we can support you across the ecosystem so all of the priority persistent identifies that are included in the report how do we bring those all together and to really actually make sure that this is a lived experience for that research group, and then also noting that this is not just about doing it in a pilot environment it's really demonstrating this at scale across, across domains across board is how do we make sure that that really does scale to bring the benefits and then make sure that these figures are reality so those I guess and yeah one of the key and yeah some of the key things that stood out to me interested here at this thoughts and comments around that. Thanks Matt and yes lots of good points and I'm guessing that probably everybody around the virtual table would agree with with what you said does anybody have anything additional to add to that at all. Not it's actually I think quite a good segue into our next question, which is, because I think this is going to be in many ways critical to achieving, achieving the reality that you that we all want, both in Australia and actually in other parts of the world where similar conversations are happening which is how do all these priority pit organizations currently work together. You know whether it's in terms of messaging or technical developments or whatever. And do you see this changing at all in future or how how what what what can you can give us a sort of sense of how you see that shaping up as some in I guess particularly in a response to this report but also just in general, Maria I'll throw that to you first please. Yeah, thanks Alice and thanks everyone for being here today. So I'm here representing Roar and also representing my primary solution at the California Digital Library which is one of the organizations that operates Roar and just to pick up a little bit about you know on what Matt was just talking about I was, you know, struck by this notion of their report really highlighting the, the, the value and power of, of this framework of thinking about how all of these various kids can work together and achieve transformative results but also the, the challenges of treating them all as a group because they are quite, you know, there are some important distinctions between them and Natasha was kind of picking up on that a little bit too, you know, Roar, for example, is not itself an organization or standalone service in the way that Davis item cross trust and work at all represent membership organizations I think there's a lot of power and thinking about how we can connect the dots of these kids but also have to understand nuances between them and I wanted to answer this question and in particular because I think Roar is, is really emblematic of what we can achieve with, with the kind of collective action and collaboration across the community that that the report touches on so Roar is an open registry of the organization that ratifiers for research organizations. It was developed through a collaboration by 17 different organizations and it's currently being led by three organizations, California Digital Library cross trust and data site and that's a deliberate choice, you know, in other words the end goal is not for Roar to ultimately become an independent organization but to continue running it as a collaborative effort because Roar really depends on on wide adoption in cross trust metadata in data site metadata. It depends on organizations and across academia like California Digital Library advocating for adoption and use of open identifiers so Roar is really a strategic part of what our three organizations are doing and by extension Roar also enriches the strategic goals that our three governing organizations have around open metadata and interoperability and community leadership and community investment in infrastructure so I think Roar really emblematic of how organizations can work together to support kind of open metadata infrastructure that we're talking about in this report, and that's one of the unique values that Roar provides. And the other thing that I wanted to to mention is Roar is one of the newer one of the newer kids on the block so to speak, and I came into a context in which there was already a really strong framework and fabric for collaboration that really helped Roar got off the ground I know that data site and cross trust and work it already had really strong working relationships. Cross trust was very involved in launching orchid and Roar has really benefited from the strength of those existing collaborations both to build networks and also to help drive adoption. I don't personally see a lot changing substantially in terms of how our organizations already work together but you know, speaking from the standpoint of Roar really trying to insert ourselves in that existing framework and really trying to leverage our collective knowledge and expertise and communities to help drive change. Thank you and yes totally agree Roar is an excellent example of how all these organizations have come together and are already working together. I know we also have quite a lot of people from these organizations on the call so you know if you have examples of how you're all working together please do also share them in the chat I think people will be very interested. But Chris, Matt, Sean, Jennifer if there's anything else you would like to add specifically about things you think that are ways that ways that you're working together that people would be interested in. Now is your chance. I guess I could say it's just a word or two about that. Since I've just come a couple of weeks ago from meetings with several people here in in Europe raid is sort of the new kid on the block as far as these as far as kids go. I'm definitely benefiting from the experience of the longer established kids. They've gotten an enormous amount of help with, you know, everything from metadata to sustainability plans and everything in between. And then in a more concrete sense, technical integration that we're we're looking at senses I'll talk about in a minute. The rate is to a large extent and a container for other kids working out we've started already discussing how we're going to do that integration to ensure data quality that the that something that purports to be an orchid or a do I actually is, and is the one that you're looking for. Thank you, Sean. And again, a perfect segue into the question the next question which is for you as you note. And actually it's come up in the chat as well so I'm glad that we have you here to help answer it so I think, you know, it's easy to see why grants and people and grants are important in the PID cost benefit analysis but projects are new as an entity for having a persistent identifier. So could you tell us a little bit more about why they're so important. I mean, I think you know those of us that have worked on or read the reports can absolutely see it and in fact I've seen a lot of enthusiasm heard a lot of enthusiasm but it's not necessarily super obvious until you kind of realize what they're trying to do so if you could explain a bit about that that would be great. Yeah, sure. So I guess the way that I like to explain this is that we may not all agree on what the definition of a project or research activity is, but at least colloquially as as researchers and as research administrators, we talk about we talk in terms of projects all the time. And I mean, I'm also a researcher in history and archaeology and even in has disciplines where there are a lot of single researchers who aren't necessarily working in large collaborations, but they still talk in terms of what project is going on now. So, I think there'll be a bit of organic definition of what a project is. But as far as rate is concerned we're really looking at it as the envelope or container for all of the inputs outputs organizations contributors. It's a kid that ties these other things together, and I'll just give sort of three quick sort of examples of how this can can help. And I think Natasha mentioned this to that even in these numbers you've got when we talk about the cost benefit analysis we if you think about all of the unsuccessful grants and if you think about the applications I mean. And if you think about the life cycle of research project at the, at the, at the front end or the direct sort of savings from efficiency gains, you know, a group of researchers can come together and come up with an idea, get some internal funding from their organizations and considering the, you know, a sub 20% success rates for grants like the Australian Research Council grant flagship Australian Research Council grants. They may apply for any number of grants before they're successful. A raid offers a source of truth a place for the information about those projects to be stored that could then be, you know, referenced for the across the half dozen organizations and, you know, 10 or 12 researchers who might be involved in a project to make sure that it's consistent, that it doesn't have to be re entered as you know we move from one grant application to another. Sometimes there's a little bit of and I think this came up in the, in the chat and in the, in the q amp a little bit of I wouldn't call it confusion but a question about what's the relationship between a project and a grant and I think I like something that Natasha said a grant is something you get and a project is something that you do. And as a, as a humanities and social sciences scholar I can say that there's a very loose relationship between grants and projects many projects function without a grant and and other projects have multiple grants. So it's there, it's not a one to one thing and, and, and a project ID I think can capture that bigger picture and just very quickly then in reporting and I saw this recently when I went back and looked at a record tied to a grant ID for an old grant that I'd won some years that said, oh, this, this grant produced three outputs. Whereas now that grant was essentially a seed grant that that that launched a project that's been going on for 12 or 15 years now and has produced probably a dozen outputs, and has, you know, now mapped, you know, a big swath of heritage in Eastern Europe and had a lot of other impacts that you could capture with a project ID that individual that none of the individual grants on their own would have would have captured and I think, you know, beyond even just the funding aspect of it. But if you're looking at any of the inputs that organizations the people the instruments anything else it can really give you the bigger picture of what outputs in the long term are associated with that. And finally, I'd say beyond just the strictly strictly sort of efficiency or and and reporting improvements that you might get out of a raid. I think that capturing the the history of a project and that's something we're building into a raid is the ability for the raid to evolve over as long as people come and go organizations Lee enter and leave publications come out etc. It really gives you an important piece of metadata or para data about the research outputs the data sets the publications the software that can come out of a project and an open research perspective, I think it's important as well. So, I think I'll leave it there I ramble when I get there. That's great Sean thank you so much. It seems to me that the one of one of the wonderful things about raid is this really kind of all embracing this, if you can register a raid at the very beginning of a project, you get all the benefits from being able to bring all the different types of data in at the start but it can also go and living way beyond the end of a project so you can add all the, all the, as you say sort of historic information as well so pretty pretty amazing thing. And Matt has already mentioned in the chat how data sites are going to be starting to use raid. I don't know if anybody else would like to chip in about how your organizations are planning or thinking about using raid going forward. But to the point about how we all work together at, we at Crossref already collect project information in grant records and I'll talk about this a little bit later but so obviously we're interested in what rate is doing and part of the project advisory board so we're definitely keeping an eye on what develops with that. There's an interesting comment in the chat from Laurie about some how how in the US tend to equate project with grant which as you say Laurie does not acknowledge multiple funding sources which particularly, I think one or maybe not particularly but certainly in some of the humanities type projects is is is, you know, they tend to get lots of little grants which are very hard often to keep track of in outputs and things like that so I have heard a lot of enthusiasm from that community about raid which is great.  And I think you're the perfect person to answer this question with your director of partnerships hat on so you know it. It takes a village doesn't it we've been talking a little bit about how your organizations can work together. Who else needs to be involved in order to realize the benefits outlined in the reports and again I think you know this is obviously partly a question specifically for Australia and Natasha you talked a little bit about this in your comments but there's also obviously a global elements being national national strategies are great and we're delighted that that that one is being developed but PIDs are global so it is also a sort of global initiative as well at that some level so. Jennifer what what what do you see as the sort of the the core constituents who need to be involved to make sure that we are successful. Well I think I mean I think the report covered a lot of this very nicely but there are a couple of things I want to call out and for me. From my point of view I think some of it is definitely a question of scale so we've talked a lot about funders and funding information. And registering grants I think is a really big piece of this. So funders can register grants with cross draft currently and to an earlier question in the chat and some of the notes in the chat about definitions of what can be included how information and how how PIDs are related. Just I'll put a link in the chat. So this gives kind of an overview of what is collected in grant information and so you'll see some of how. Funding is defined in general some of the project information that we collect so you know orchids are part of the information that is collected in grant records. So there's a lot of ways to tie these together already. And we need more of it basically so so getting more funders involved, getting more of those grants registered, even sort of older grants are so often important to the related research outputs because as noted here. It takes time to complete these projects and to publish the output so so I think that's that's a very big piece of it and the other thing that I encounter all the time one of the groups I work with across our service providers so third parties that some of the vendor systems that were mentioned in the report. And that comes up so frequently is the manuscript submission systems because that is the initial point of capture for so much of this information. And if the so those systems are certainly involved, but as these things develop as new identifiers emerge and as the data that surrounds them evolves because that's really a lot of the key to it to me. So in the report as well the metadata reuse it is the metadata that's associated with the kids that is so so important to all of this. Those systems need to accommodate those new fields so if there is not a field in one of those systems to collect a grant DOI or rate or whatever the case may be, then it really interrupts kind of the metadata supply chain so I think we've got the right communities involved for the most part but but maybe the participation needs to kind of scale up a little bit or just adapt as things move along a little bit more quickly. Any other comments are there any sort of groups or organizations that people feel really should be brought in who perhaps aren't participating as much as they should be at the moment. But the one other thing I might add is just libraries in general so you know the rim and Chris systems have come up in the report of course but there's so much really rich information out there and you know in the sort of traditional library systems mark records and things like that just don't accommodate a lot of this information and a lot of cases which I think is is a little bit unfortunate and I hope that that changes bit over time. I mean I think from my perspective one of the possible challenges is, and you slightly alluded to that just then Jennifer is getting the service providers and vendors on board because none of this is going to work if we don't have systems and interoperability people if the people building systems don't actually build pids into them and I think you know there's clearly some great success stories there but I think we've still got quite a long way to go so finding ways to bring those people into the conversations into the conversation and really make sure that they're floating thumbs up coming from somebody. Making sure that they're brought into the conversation and really brought into the idea of making this a reality seems to me to be a really important thing as well so perhaps something to think about going forward. Sorry, we are. We knew this was going to be a good interesting long discussion so I'm going to move us on again and Chris, as you know you are up last please. And I think this is a nice sort of wrap up that will segue into perhaps Josh is going to just very summarise very quickly right at the end but what do you see as the concrete next steps on this how can we actually make this a reality. What will that look like both at all kid answered more generally. Sure. Well hi everybody. Good morning good afternoon good evening wherever you are. Nice to be here. You know I think picking up on something that was clearly stated in the report and Josh mentioned it in his talk earlier. The question really is, you know, given that this is a collective action problem. So we move it forward, and it's pretty hard to move forward on all fronts at once I think. So you know I think that one of the important things to think about here and that's the thing we're doing at all kid, but I'd also advise anybody in their own community to think about this is, what's the thing to do next, not, you know, not trying to do everything at once. So the things to do next are the things that are going to have the most impact for the most people. So I think a really good example from one of the case studies in the report is the integration of orchid into the into the AC grant application process, because I'm assuming Australia. This is a system that's used by lots of people so it's broadly applicable. And those kinds of processes tend to be quite high stakes right people are highly motivated in getting grants, as they are with funding. So, having a really good integration with kids in that system is going to drive impact, and it's also then serving as a case study to see, look at the benefits that can be achieved from this kind of integration. So in the case of orchid one of the things we're looking at and this except on something you said earlier Jennifer as well, is that we're really looking at the service providers that have orchid integrated into their systems will be, we have a certified service provider program that will be launching next relaunching next year. And we really want to encourage and motivate service providers to have better deeper integrations with orchid, because you know if we get a better integration in a service provider that's used by 1000 institutions. That's going to have much more impact than one integration at one institution. So I'd encourage everybody in their community to think about what are the most impactful processes workflows that we can really focus our attention on, because I think you get further by making those important steps and trying to take thousands of tiny steps. So I think the other aspect of that is incentivization and figuring out what are the incentives for every actor in the system to move in the direction of adopting pits we live in a fairly complex multi stakeholder world we've already talked about researchers and institutions and funders, their vendors their publishers, everybody's got to get something out of this because everybody has their own priorities, and everybody's going to be incentivized to participate. So I thought another, you know, referencing that that case study in the in the reports again of the RC implementation. There's huge incentive for researchers to participate and use that integration, because they save a bunch of time and hassle, right. And they also then are delighted by it would seem from the anecdote from Professor chapter that it's unbelievable this this this integration has made his life better or seems unbelievable it seems like magic. And I think we want to kind of create those incentives for people to actually participate because researchers let's face it they want to do research, right. They don't want to do administration and anything that kind of gets out of their way, and makes it easier for them is going to be positively received. So I often see, you know, in our case, Chris you just put yourself on mute. What happened. I often see orchid integrations which are just collecting orchids and doing nothing with them, right. And that's just an extra step for researchers that doesn't help anybody. So if you're going to do an integration, think about how you're going to use whatever pit it is, and how you actually going to give some benefits back to the person you're asking to do something, because again that will create kind of positive momentum.  Or could we're all about research and control right we want to give everybody the control that how their data is used, but increasingly, we want to make sure that the thing that most people probably want. What is most useful for most people happens by default, and then they can go and change the settings that they want to, to make something different happen. And again I see a lot of integrations that still have a lot of button pressing involved. You know if you're going to, if you're going to have the possibility of automating a workflow, turn it on by default and let people turn it off if they want to write. And then press an extra button to turn it on because it's a good chance they'll never find that button. They won't know what it is until they see the benefit of it. So, let me stop there, but I'll say it's kind of sequencing, figuring out what you do first, what you do next impact making sure there's something in it for everybody who you're asking to do something. And automation, so that people have to do less to get what you'd like them to get out of the system. That's Chris I'm pretty sure cheers all around for all those, all those suggestions. We are about to wrap up does anybody have anything to add into what Chris said before I hand over to Josh to wrap things up for us. Thank you very much, Josh. And thank you very much everyone this has been a really really interesting conversation I appreciate it. Thanks Alice, and yet thank you to everyone on the panel for your thoughts it's been a really insightful, and I do say slightly inspirational conversation I think there's a lot coming out of this, I mean, in our in our in our work we focused on the in institutions, and we focused on the time that could be saved by metadata automated metadata reuse. This, as I said in my presentation, it skips over a lot of potential benefits here. And actually I think what we need to think about is kids as a bridge between these systems whether they're open or closed whether they're institutional or publishing where they wherever you are in the research lifecycle, these connections between kids we talked about how you could attach a rave to a to a grant identifier. But what if as Ray picks up adoption, it was a but you were able to auto update the grant ID as an investigator is hired six months into the lifecycle of a project that could go back to the grant ID. And when somebody signs in with their orchid in their publishing process to give their orchid the public. And the publisher system looks in our orchid record pulls up that grant ID and says oh you've worked with these people. And is this the correct grant and then it automates the grant acknowledgement and it picks up the raw from their orchid record and automatically populates their affiliation and saves them time. And within the publisher, they're able to look at the raid and the grant and their previous publications and identify potential conflicts of interest and streamline the process of organizing peer review. There's a realm of ways that working across communities. And I think this speaks to Chris is coming about aligning incentives. There are costs at every stage, and sometimes if a publisher doesn't pick up a piece of institution, a piece of data. It's an institution, or a funder who has to pay the price of replicating that information, or filling that gap, but often that the real burden of that ends up falling on the researchers. And I think one of the things we've really covered today is that if we're all working together, there's a lot we could do to bring down the cost and the complexity of integration, but there's also a lot we can do to really accelerate the value and deliver the value of these values a long way beyond time or money savings. And I think if we can keep keep it on a shared focus on that shared goal. And as you know, be pragmatic, look at improving our own systems, look at building up adoption, but also look at those key integrations where that value is going to be delivered and think about how we incentivize other communities who are researchers depend on to actually develop pids implement pids and do it well and do it effectively and do it soon. I think we've got a real, a real case to be made here and I look forward to seeing how our colleagues on the call from various pit providers in the community representatives joining us today, work together to drive this forward nationally and internationally, as well as in the lab or in the library or the archive.


The wind blew off the desert as it almost always does here in Riyadh, so it was a testing opening day in the Saudi Open, presented by PIF. Not a great day for Andy Ogletree, last year's Order of Merit champion. Four bogies and a double on his card. He would finish over par. Henrik Stenson was runner-up in the last Saudi Open in December. 69 today for the former Open champion with the help of this birdie at the 7th. And it's good to see Keredek Hapi Barnrat back to his best. This birdie putt at the 4th for the tie, round of 68, and he's on 3 under par. Current Order of Merit leader David Putes looks to have things very much under control, particularly early on. This was his second into the 7th. And the double at the 16th was disappointing, but still a round of 67, so he's 4 under par. Japan's Tatsunori Shogenji, this into the 2nd on his back 9th. Beautifully played at the par 5, he would hold the putt. Shogenji with 66 for 5 under par. Justin Keeban of the Philippines, another man who had a good day. This at the 4th, beautifully hold. He too at 5 under after 18 holds. Wade Ormsby had a tough start to the year, all beginning to come good. This at the 4th, beautifully judged birdie putt. 5 birdies, no bogies. 66 for Wade Ormsby. And his fellow Ozzie Scott-Hend is already one as a senior golfer, but don't worry, he's still competitive among the youngsters. Early birdie at the 17th, 66 for 5 under, he's only one behind. But the man who leads after 18 holds is the man who shot 59 and won in Makau last time out. John Kaplan of the US, a birdie at the 7th, 65, he's 6 under.


My name is Tamasi Wong. I'm from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Originally I didn't really have a plan after high school. I thought college was a nice idea so I joined up to go to school. And then after I joined up, I kinda hopped on the bandwagon and wanted to live in the Army life so I went from being enlisted to going to ROTC at LSU and commissioning from there. I commissioned right in December of 2022. Started LSU as soon as I got out of basic training in AIT when I came back into the reserves. I wanted to be a leader. I think that was always kind of my calling throughout my life is to lead others and be like a steward of the profession, kind of, you know, lead from the front. It's kind of what I've been doing my entire life, being able to sibling everything, sending an example for other people. So I think that's kind of what motivated me to start, you know, thinking about the officer out. Originally I was planning on branching armor. My dad, he was in the military and he was a tanker. But, you know, I gave it a long heart thought and my mom, who was also a military, she was a air defense crewman. She was like, it was the best thing you'll ever do in your life. She said, FA, all that does not compare to ADA. I said, all right, mom. Now I love it, you know, I'm enjoying life, being in Bullock, enjoying my time out here, learning a lot of good things. Bullock's been treating me great. The course is strenuous at times, but as long as you're good with task organization and you're keeping, you know, you're minding your P's and Q's and you're staying on your feet, you know, Bullock, it can either make or break you and right now it's making me. So I'm enjoying it. You're written decisive about joining the military. I think it's an experience that everybody should do. The military gives you a lot of core discipline values that a lot of people will need in their lives. And it's not a bad experience. You make it how you want it. So, you know, if you have a positive mindset going into it, you're gonna have a positive outcome. What I would say is take your time, really think about what you want out of the military, what you want your career to look like and then go with your best two or three options that'll get you there.


If you remember, there was a story about the Fair Tax Act, and everybody got very excited. A lot of, I guess, free market types got very excited. There was a lot of my chat. Oh, Republicans are going to abolish the IRS. This is great. It's going to come to a vote on the House floor, and they're going to pass it. They're going to pass it. And I said, many, many flaws to the excitement about that. There's zero to be excited. Even if it passed, the Senate wouldn't pass the House.  Even if it passes the Senate, Biden would veto it, even if a veto could not be overturned. But the reality is that it won't pass the House, and the reality probably is that it's not even going to come to a floor vote in the House. That is, the House of Representatives will actually not vote on it. It'll get stuck in committee. Because Republicans don't want to vote for it, and they don't want to vote against it. There's a lot of backlash against this tax that Democrats are making a heyday out of it. They're calling it a regressive tax, and it punishes the poor, helps the rich, they're playing into that. Republicans have no answer to that call. Yes, trickle down. The economy will do better. But they can't make a moral argument against the income tax. They can't make a moral argument against progressive taxes. So they have no way to defend this tax. They don't know what they're doing. They don't really have a clue about how to defend the Fair Tax Act. So they're basically going to give in. And I think that because they promised they'll take it to committee, it'll get stuck in committee. Even if it comes out of committee and it goes to a full vote, it'll lose by a large margin. That is, I believe that at least 25%, if not more than that, of Republicans will vote against it. They're already on record for Republican votes against it. That would be enough to kill it, assuming all Democrats vote against it. But it's going to be a lot more than four. A lot of Republicans will vote against this. So it ain't happening. Sorry, guys, I know a lot of you were very excited about the Fair Tax Act. I mean, I wish it was possible to pass, but it's just, it's just not happening. You would have to have a true moral revolution in this country to actually get to the point of abolishing the IRS. And even then, you would also, to get my support, you would also have to overturn what is it? The 14th Amendment, the amendment that allows for the income tax. So, you know, we'll see. We'll see. But I'm pretty sure this is not even going to come to a vote. I think McCarthy realizes that it's a loser from the perspective of the party. You know, you can't defend it. If you can't defend it, don't propose it. And they can't defend it. Any one of those, any one of those channels also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content. And of course, subscribe, press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


I don't have my screen up yet for those of you that are asking. I've looked for longs, I've looked for shorts, and I, I mean, I, I'm, I am actually shocked in the last five, six days, week that since earnings season has started about the level of quality of earnings gaps. I am absolutely, absolutely, absolutely shocked. Now it's only one weekend to the start of earnings, but I could not be more surprised how low quality we are seeing here so far in within the first week. I'm, I'm, I'm utterly shocked.  I don't know if this is going to set up right. So starting to back up, I looked at every single earnings. I looked at longs. I looked at shorts. I looked at everything. My view and opinion has not changed on the market for those of you that are wondering as well or Boeing or anything else, but I'm utterly, utterly, utterly shocked about the level of quality here in the last six days. So I know we had a great play yesterday. If this does not set up right today, I have no, no other picks whatsoever at all. And we're not going on the market. So Google is out tonight. Boeing is tomorrow, I think to double check it. So we'll have stuff this week, but there is really slim pickings here today in either directions. So know that. Well, I mean, let's not, we're not judging on just the, the IBM ones, Jackie, necessarily, and Netflix, but I mean, Netflix is a strong stock. This is not. But this has had a rally and completely flipped last week. So, you know, looking at this, could this do the same thing? Maybe. I mean, we're going to watch it. And I'm probably going to be conservative on the entry here just because of what happened with the IBM last week. So we'll, we'll say this is worth watching. I like it. I will say one last thing here though, as far as this is just a general comment for the week, because Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon all affect the market in a massive way. Normally they're all reporting this week on different days. Okay. One thing I will say is that if even one, one of those stocks bombs on the earnings, the market will sell off. So I don't know if any of them were bomb. I don't know if all of them were bomb. I don't know if none of them will bomb. I don't know. I don't know.  So that's something to watch out for. And the first ones tonight, we had a good day yesterday. But again, we didn't, that wasn't an earnings trade. So I'm, I'm, I'm really shocked. I mean, earnings last weeks and weeks and weeks will be trading earnings into the end of May. But I'm just saying like very strange. I should have 20 things here right now that I like five at least. I'm lucky I got one. It's weird. Strange. We're going to see if this sits up right. Did Ford have earnings? I didn't, I didn't look at anything with that. Yesterday was a good day. Bun was a nice short. I know that's up today, but you just have to move off of it. I'm not doing anything with that today. All of a sudden now this is getting really spreading. MMM. I mean, I really looked at everything. I will relook at some of this stuff, but no, this is a bullish gap. I don't want to go long this. No, I wouldn't be surprised if this sells off. But if the market rallies today, this could rally only with the market. Is this alone? And we're looking for something alone, good in its own that doesn't need the market. Or it's very tricky. And that's all I'm going to say about that because I don't want to keep reiterating the same thing I've said every day for the last three weeks because no one believes me anymore. So one day you'll get up and see I'm right. Until then, we'll just want to talk about it. I already looked at MRK. All right. So we're watching this here and it's very spreading. And so we're going to have to be wide with this stop. And this is going to be 99 85. And I don't have the entry yet, but 99 85. And you have to give this plenty, plenty of room. So just trust me on that 99 85. And I don't have the entry yet. Just wait, more of this sells off the better here. Okay, we can do let's do let's do 29 by 85 29 by 85 20. Take it. Just get it. Don't worry about where you got filled. It's going to go. Get the stop in right now. This hit this hit here. And don't worry about how you got filled. This is what it is. It's going to roll over. Here it goes. Here it goes. First, I really think 95 is the target on this now that this head 97 will watch 96 95. Here it goes. This is we're on pace here this week now because this may not have set up. Just make sure you have the stop in at 85. And when we're done, we'll go over this for the people here in the trial. If you're here for a trial, you should be observing not trading. Here we go. UPS. I mean, just look at the market. No one believes me. Thank God I have conviction. Thank God I know what I'm talking about. I'm sure no one here believes me. Doesn't matter to me. Watch the market sell off. One day you were going to roll out a bed and you're going to say this girl is a genius. I don't know when that is. Could be today, could be tomorrow, could be Friday, could be next week. Jackie believes me. All right, let's take a look at this and make sure the stop is right. Man, now it's 45 cents spread. All right, just because this keeps wiggling and jiggling in the spread, I'm going to give this a tad bit more room. Let's put it over 100. Let's put it at 100.15 simply because of the wiggles and jiggles in the spread here. 100.15 movement. You're only giving this slightly more, slightly more. This is not, shouldn't be a big deal if you size yourself right, given the fact that this was a big stock to begin with. 100.15 and that's it. If this goes over 100, we're going to get blown out. But let's see. I think this is going to go. We've got the market going right now too, which is good for this. Not that I would prefer to have needed it. So again, target in here again, 97, 96, 95. And if you didn't do it, you could hit it in here and probably get a better fill. It's going to fall through, but it's a little jiggling. Time of the day here is 9.33. And again, if you didn't do this, you could do it at 99. Stop though is 100.15. Here, this is going to go. Here, let's stay with this. Here we go. We're getting it down. Whatever it is, it is. We don't have anything else to do today. So we've got to get out of this with profit. Even though theoretically this could come all the way down in here and here and here. Let's take a look in the market. Well, I'm glad Jackie believes me because nobody else probably does at this point. So look at this. Oh, my lentia. All right, UPS. Here we go. Hand of the button here because we're going to kind of scout this because it wasn't amazing and I didn't call any options in this because I really don't even know if it has any follow through at all. Here we go. UPS. Try to let it break. Big stop though. I mean, this is expensive, but 25. All right. Here we go.  Here we go. We're going to get this down at least through 97, at least preferably 96. But you could shave a little off right here if you want because this is very wild. You could shave some off here if you want. With the market to stay, this could really fall like a rock. Let's just see where the market is here. This market is hilarious. Again, Google's tonight. Gotta watch it. Gotta watch it. But remember what I said. If you've been one thing, actually, I would prefer it to be Google. It might be, I'll look at that chart more done. And the reason I say that is because of the fact that it's earlier. It's the earliest of all the ones. Everything else is Thursday night. Here, this is backing up. You could have shaved some off if you wanted to, right down in there. Let's give them one more sell off. One more drop off here. One more drop off. 940, 945. Here we go. Nice call. And but I gotta be honest with you, like I said earlier, they're really, this did get to 97. So you could have gotten completely out if you wanted to. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Come on. You can keep going. I know you can do it. You can be out if you want. It's just strange to me. Very, very, very, very, very, very strange that all last week, five days plus yesterday is six days, six days into earnings season. And the amount of quality of earnings gaps has been pathetic to me.  And I don't think that has anything to do with necessarily with the market. It's like, is anybody training right now? I don't know.  I don't think that's indicative of the next six weeks, but it was obvious to me even on Friday. I was like, this is really bizarre. Anyways, you could be out of this. You could be out of this right in here. Broke 97. I think this flips though, so you could still be in it. Let's take a look over here. Someday someone will believe me. Look at this. We can show it this again, but we're not going to do it. It gapped up. So we're not going to do it. The people bought this. They bought it yesterday. They bought it yesterday. The area, really, where we exited. People bought this yesterday because it bounced. Where we got out? Where we got out? People bought it. Bought it, bought it overnight. I mean, that was like, I saw that last night too. And I was like, oh, that's funny. All right, let's look at Google. Again, I don't know what this does, but in an ideal world, tanks. So we'll see. All right, who's still in UPS? If you get out of it, fine. If you're still in it, fine. Gyro got out. Jackie's still in it. Gyro, you've been doing great with the fast exits. I think I need a little more coffee. What else did I want to look at? Oh, the banks. This is selling off too. Again, these are rallies into resistance and they're selling off or are going to sell off, which I pretty much said yesterday. So it is what it is. Nothing goes straight up and nothing goes straight down. I would like this to go straight down, but it's not even still. So nothing goes straight up and nothing goes straight down. We're still in this. We're watching through the break of the low. It basically touched the first target and broke it. 97, went to 96, 77. Let's see if we get it through there and see and then just get out once it gets through there with a nice flush. If you want to tighten up on this, you can put the stop at break even. If you want to protect yourself, if you didn't get out, you could do that too. There's another idea. This isn't going to back up at all though. This is either going to go again right here fast or fall all day with the market, but the market is very sketchy here at best. It's hard to believe that anything's going to have good earnings this week though, except Amazon. There's a possibility that Amazon could have good earnings, but you say, okay, how is anything going to have good earnings? Because the outlooks for all these companies, Apple, Google, all of them, you say, well, how could any of them have good outlooks? Amazon, yes. So even if they end up having good earnings, their outlooks aren't going to be good, but you never know how the stock's going to react. So some people could, there's some of these options. If you're going to hold them through the earnings, there's several of them. You got to know it could go either way. Could go either way. Yeah. I mean, I know Boeing, that's what I'm saying.  Pretty much everything that's important is out this week. Yeah. Will Boeing affect the market though? Maybe. I mean, I don't think the market's going to collapse if Boeing collapses. It might, but I don't necessarily think so. Okay. Who's still in this?  If you got out, fine. I'm going to just look around here and see if there's anything else to do. And we're obviously not going to day trade Google tomorrow. So I'll look at that for an option, but let's see what's really out that we could day trade tonight and tomorrow. ACAM is tonight. We'll take a look at that. I know Ford is tonight, Jackie. Ford is tonight. ACAM is tonight. Ford is tonight. KBR is tonight. Juniper's tonight. There's plenty of things here for us to do tomorrow that we can day trade. WW. Let's look at tomorrow morning. CCL is tomorrow morning. That one too. Is that right? Yeah. CCL is tomorrow morning. I think they had pushed it back. All right. Let's take a look at that. There's a million things this week. We just need them to be good. So that's my whole point is that even though it's been an earnings season, it's been bizarre for the start of it because there hasn't been anything that's been like, oh my God, this is so good. This is amazing. We haven't had anything like that. And it's not like I've had 25 things to look at every day. I have, but then none of them are good. So it's like really strange. Here this UPS is backing up. I'm trying to hold through it. I hope I didn't miss the exit. I don't think so. But again, the day is going longer and longer and longer and longer. Fast exit was down there at 935.   Let's look at CCL because I really haven't looked at that for a while or at least two days. At least the last 24 hours. Sometimes it's a good to take a break from something like take a break from Boeing today. Don't look at it. Just go about your day. La, la, la. Sometimes it's good to just take a take a break, move off of something. In fact, I may not look at the market all day today. Sometimes it's just good to give your 24 hours break from charts. And it's just good to do that. You can back with a fresh mind and see everything clearly again. Yeah, this will be interesting. That's tomorrow morning if it actually reports. All right, here we go. Let's see if there's another setup in this. I'm not going to take any more because it's going to ruin my price, but I will call another trade if I see a setup if you want to retake it a second time. You could do 97.50 by, I'd still put it over the high 100.15. But if you want to take it again, you could do that as a second entry. I'm going to just leave what we have here. But you can do it again. Oh, you know what? I didn't look at it. I didn't look at FDX. Was this a sympathy play? This capped up and fell. UPS capped down and fell. No, that didn't do anything with that. Interesting. Okay, what else do we have to talk about? What else do we have to go over? All of you are asking about trade calls. The first number is the entry. The second one is a stop. I don't give the front number. I did have time to do that today where we moved the stop to 100.15, but normally I don't give the front number. And I never write it in the room because it can't take the trading right at the same time. That would be impossible. But if you're here for a trial, you should be observing, not trading. Let's go over this.  This wasn't fabulous. This really wasn't fabulous. It was worth watching. I didn't know if it hit it did. It did. We were aggressive. It worked. Some of you got out here. Some of you got out here. Theoretically, it did go to the first target. It was 97. Again, I hope I didn't miss my exit on this thinking. It was going to have more of a movement. I do think it does, but we have to wait it out. Again, we gave it more room up in here. Now we're waiting for secondary move down. Could take till 10 o'clock. I hope not, but it is what it is. Now it's going to need the five minute and probably the 15 too. The spread has tightened up. Let's take a look at the daily chart here. And again, why this wasn't really fabulous. I mean, here is this. This is, this is not as good as I would have liked to see. Not as good as this one back here, but good enough to watch. Again, the quality lately has really just sucked. I mean, there's just no other way to put it. I really don't think that has anything to do with the market. Quite frankly, it's just low quality. And I did not call any options in this because I really didn't think it was going to have any follow through enough that it would make sense to do an option trade. But for the day trade, it did make sense and it does make sense. And let's see where it goes. So the market gapped up into selling off. Is anyone surprised? I'm definitely not surprised. I'm definitely, definitely not. Spy is trying to make its way up to the 200 pair move an average. Let's see if we can get there if it fails. Again, critical night tonight for the market. Why Google? What could this do? I don't know. I think it does something pretty big. Why it's traded a range pretty much for the last two months. It's not moving out of the range. I like this lower and called several trades in it. Some have worked, some have not worked. And if you've done the trades, they've been very, very expensive. Again, some have worked, some have not worked. So it's interesting to me because my expectation on that was some of the calls I've made on it was that it was really going to tank. And if I don't know if any of you remember me discussing that on different videos and things I've done, if you're on the options ladder, I had really high expectations for that a couple weeks ago. And it really didn't meet those expectations even though some of those trades were profitable. So I wonder if it's going to do what I thought it was going to do in the last month, like on earnings. Like, does anyone remember what I said? I don't remember if I did an actual video. Did I do a video on Google or did I just talk about it in the room? Did I do a video? Does anyone remember? But didn't go back and try to find it. But my expectations on that were so high. And even though some of the trades were profitable, it never met my expectations. And I wonder if it's going to do what I thought it would do normally on the earnings. All right, here's this UPS. Again, if you want to take a new trader ad under 98, this isn't really much different than originally. So I'm just leaving it. I say that I'm going to look at when I called the ones that were crazy far away. It was like, it was early April. Let me look. Actually, I can find it, but just putting it in Google.  Yeah, four one. No, where was the one? It was after that. I think this is going to do what I thought it was going to do the last month on earnings. Now that I kind of remember that I was saying that, kind of remember that I was saying that. And now I remember what I said. Yeah, what did I say? I should videotape everything I said, but sometimes I forget what I said. Sometimes I forget what I say. All right, UPS, we're waiting, we're waiting, we're waiting, we're waiting. All these ones I, all these ones I called worked here that I'm finding, there was, I called something. When was it? It was a ridiculous number and it was one of the ones that did not work up here. It was, it was last week. Gosh, every day runs together now, being here in quarantine. It was last week. That's when it was. Sometimes go back and forth. You don't see the chart right now. I'm looking on the internet and I'm looking at my email for a trade all over. There's nothing to see. I have UPS up. Here it is. There's nothing to do. If you're in it, you're in it. If you're not in it, you're not in it. Stop is 100.15. And again, you should be observing on a trial. It's nothing to see right now. There's the chart. I was looking at my email and sometimes I take it off and I go back and forth for a few minutes. We're not doing anything else today. Anyway, so let's go look at Google. It was last week. But I know I had a talk in the room and the talk in the room wasn't last week. The talk I had in the room was a while ago. Maybe it was around here. I just don't even remember. But those ones that I called was last week.  But anyways, it wasn't last week. When did I talk about this? I don't remember. I honestly, God did not remember and I wish I had done a video. I think it was early in April and I just don't remember anymore. But it wasn't last week when I talked about it. I don't think. I think that's going to do what I thought it was going to do whenever I said it, which I don't remember, March, April on earnings. So it'll be interesting to see. What do you want to go over? What do you want to talk about? Some of you get out of this, some of you are waiting and we're probably going to have to wait down until 10 o'clock. So the morning exit was here. If you're still in it, you got to wait. Wait it out. Let's take a look at the market. Let's take a look at Apple. I haven't looked at that this morning. Again, this is Thursday. This looks exactly like the market. Looks exactly like the Q's. So Amazon is taking a tumbling two. Again, glad I didn't do any breakout plays in that because it would have failed. Again, earnings on this on Thursday night and three days ago or Friday or last week, I said in any normal circumstances, I would have gone on this whenever that was a couple of days ago and I was glad I didn't do it. Just couldn't get behind it, couldn't have, didn't have the conviction. I'm glad we didn't do it. The trade would have lost. Trade would not have worked. Let me look and see why Apple's rallying and I'm taking this off. I go back and forth all over. That's normal. There's nothing to see here right now. I'm going back and forth and sometimes I do that that's totally normal. We're not doing any other trades but UPS anyways. There wasn't anything else to do. I'm just looking up here at Apple. Is there a reason that's rallying? Smartphone sentiment starting to improve. Whatever. I don't think it's anything of any consequence. Okay, what we're waiting for now is a second drop off in this. If it's going to have it and I certainly hope it does but we have to wait. We'll be looking for it to break through the low. Low was 9777. No, 9677. I'm sorry. 9677 was the low so we're looking to get through that and then get out. 955. This looks good though. Again, we've been talking and talking and talking and talking and talking about this in reference to institutional money. You see here what this market's doing today? Look at this. There's nothing to talk about here. I'm not even surprised here. We're just going to sell off here right now. I know we gapped up but it's like what are you going to do with it? Nothing's happening. So it's like how can you go long? Again, when I was talking about Amazon, I can't get behind this. Why? The momentum isn't there.  This is what it is, quite frankly. It's like a waste of our energy. Do something already and it's not rallying. One day we'll get up and I'll be right but I have no idea what that is at this point now because I expected it to be way before now. China's discounting iPhones and UPS. If you want to do it again, you can hit it at 99. Stop. I would still keep it at 100.15. I'm not adding because it would get heavier in it. I don't want to be aggressive today. It doesn't make any sense. We're lucky this is good because I'm telling you there was nothing today. Oh, what happened with the MRK? Nothing. What happened with the MMM? Nothing. Not good enough. Not, not, not good enough. Let's look at Netflix. I forgot to look at this today. Time for questions now. Oh, look at this. This is falling. Interesting. That was really a bugger the last week, wasn't it? Now it's falling. Target. When are target earnings? Is Target doing something today? Target's been strong. It's been one of the few strong things. Target rally. Target's up. Target was up in the market. I wouldn't go along this here. And I don't know when earnings are, but Target was one of the very few things that you say, wow, this is holding up. Target's holding up. Walmart was holding up. Still, even though it fell the one day. This goes sooner. I'm going to fall asleep. Any questions from anyone about anything at all? We should have a good week. We've had a good week. I've been very focused. I wish there was more things to do, but so far there is not. So I'm narrowing it down to the quality that's all that we can do. And we were lucky that this set up right today. And for those of you that got out in the first five minutes, good job because that was a fast, quick exit. Again, I did not call any options in this because I don't think they would have moved enough to make sense. And I really don't see this following through. Now, if the market tanks, this could anyways, but I'm not going to deal with it. And the way the earnings options have been playing out, I said, screw it. Didn't want to do any overnights in this, but this is working out here as a day trade. Here we go. You could take it again right in here. You could take it again. You could be in it again. Here it goes. Nice call. Your kids are delivering Instacart. Oh, that's good. Are they wearing gloves and masks and things, Jackie? I had a food delivery today between five a.m. and seven a.m. It was the only time open. I got some tomatoes, some lettuce, more keto ice cream. It was the only slot available at five a.m. What I wanted to talk about. So we were talking about real estate.  Guess what? Tons of places have just taken listings off. So they've just taken all the listings off. So people have just pulled all the listings for home sales, for rentals, everything. Well, they can't keep listings off the market forever. So they put, so you can't even get a gauge of the prices because they pulled all listings off. Can you believe it? Because they don't want to look like they're stale. I mean, that can't continue forever, at least here in New York. Very interesting. Not that anyone's moving. Yeah, I'll have my pick, but I want to watch prices. So I want to watch the prices. So I was talking to the people that I know in real estate yesterday, because I was like, here this goes. And it just dawned on me. There may have been people that didn't pay their rent in April that couldn't pay their rent or didn't pay their rent. But there may have been people that paid their rent. And this is why what I said last week about the unemployment numbers is going to ring true and the financials. There may have been people that just listened to me that paid their rent in April, had the money, paid their rent, but had no idea or their mortgage, whatever their housing, but had no idea that this would drag on this long. And some of those people will not pay the rent in May or their mortgage in May, or may not be able to. Do you know what I'm saying? So like no one thought this would continue as long as it has. So even some people that paid in April are not going to be able to pay in May. Like people thought, oh, 15 days. Well, we're way past the 15 days. Like, do you know what I'm saying? So people may have paid and could have paid, or people may have scraped it together to pay thinking things would be out back to normal in May. Things are still not back to normal. We don't know when they're going to go back to normal. So I think there's going to be a lot of people that don't make housing payments in the month of May that can or don't. And I also believe that some people that can make payments are not going to because they're going to use this as an excuse. They're going to say, well, like, well, I can't because of COVID-19, but they can, but they're going to use it as an excuse because that's how people are. They're going to use it as an excuse because they're worried about their finances for whatever reason, or they just don't want to. And there's nothing that landlords are going to be able to do about it. Literally nothing. And mortgage companies will just report the leads, but that is going to happen as well. And that's why I said to watch the financials. That's why I have to watch the financials. And that's why I think this continues on into the end of 2020. So as far as prices in real estate, it's going to drag into 2020. It's going to drag into 2021. And right now with no listings on or hardly any listings on, it's really hard to see what the market's doing for prices. But I'm going to have to watch it. Gosh, I hope we're not in this all day, you bugger. It looks fine. Market's selling off. I'm so good at what I do and no one believes. I'm going to do a video on Google. So in an ideal world, what happens tonight? Guess what? Google crashes. Does everything I said it would do whenever I said it in the last 30 days and does it on the earnings and the market tanks tomorrow. And everything we're in goes green. Make millions of dollars. And that's what happens. And it happens tomorrow, which is Wednesday, today's Tuesday.  I actually helped a friend fill it out. That lives in California yesterday. I had to, he even had to fill it out. He never did it his life. I'm like fine and call me and I'll answer the questions. I'll help you walk you through it. He was afraid to feel something out wrong.  It's like, this isn't that complicated. I cannot believe that I missed the fast exit on this. I didn't have enough coffee. It's more, it's up too early because it's getting the groceries. I was up way too early. Way too early. Anyways, getting back to the real estate.


and that we close and deal with the gap that still exists so the new duty in the bill will require councils as has been discussed to have due regard to the desirability of reducing inequalities of outcome through the delivery of education and we believe that is the right approach and to respond to the questions from Mr Maxwell about what actions might be open to local authorities in achieving that aim. I can merely say that statutory guidance will exemplify some of that but I think for certain we can say that it would include issues around the setting of education budgets arrangements for monitoring standards decisions around the school estate and, indeed, specialist provision and I'm happy to take an intervention Minister for doing so I don't think that there's any doubt about the desirability I think that's absolutely right the convener and I understand it in the committee report has asked about the specific actions and it's on that basis that really ask again why is legislation per se necessary to achieve this Minister I think that as has been explained it is right that we do put some of these aims I think that the member would probably be concerned if we legislated to the point where the things I've just exemplified were imposed upon local government through legislation in quite that detail but I'm happy to have discussions with her about any concerns she has outstanding and I know that I think she and others for instance have asked around some of the terminology that's relevant to that I think the government, I would say in response to that, is keen to respond as we can to those comments and the comments in the stage 1 report around terminology our response to the report therefore clarifies for instance that the term attainment means educational performance and the acquisition of skills, knowledge and attributes needed to succeed in life I hear what Miss Scanlon was saying around that but I think the relevant parts of the bill are fair in their definitions other definitions perhaps around for instance the term socio-economic disadvantage although not defined or accept on the face of the bill we will use statutory guidance to support education authorities in identifying those children who are to be supported and are more than willing to correspond with members who have any outstanding concerns around terminology in the bill itself I want to pick up on comments that have been made towards the end of this debate around for instance the annex sorry around Liz Smith's comments on the national inclusion framework I think I should possibly clarify that this will indeed encompass early years education and that is in annex C of the bill which makes that clear so I hope I can reassure on that point Mark Griffin asked specifically about league tables and of course as he'll appreciate the Government themselves have never produced league tables of schools regarding those as essentially unhelpful constructs produced by others but we are alive to the issues he's mentioned and we're working with the EIS and with local authorities to ensure that there are no perverse or unhelpful consequences of our direction of travel on standardised assessments the issues around the attainment fund and challenge advisers are relevant to mention in summing up two meanwhile the attainment Scotland fund is a targeted initiative over four years totaling £100 million focused on supporting pupils in the councils with the highest concentrations initially seven local authorities the Scottish attainment challenge is intended to help all councils and all schools indeed to consider how best to use their existing resources to support pupils from more deprived backgrounds 24 attainment advisers have now been assigned to local authorities and the remaining eight will be in place by the end of next month many members today and also in committee mentioned the parts of the bill which deal with Gallic media education and I'll try again to pick up as many as possible of the comments that were raised today around that Mr Maxx will raise the issue of preschool education and it is worth referring I think here to the order making powers that exist within the bill allowing the government to return to this issue although as has been mentioned there are reasons why it's not being done just at the moment given the number of things that are happening in the preschool education world at once just now on secondary education of course the points that have been made about the shortage of Gallic medium teachers which are particularly acute in secondary are relevant but I hope that not only being said about Gallic media education in this bill but also the responsibility that's being given to local authorities to promote Gallic itself is relevant to promoting Gallic within secondary schools Yes Mackintosh Can we have Mr Mackintosh's fault I can try and project a little more Would the minister be able to confirm whether or not when his presumption on Gallic medium education is introduced whether he believes he will have delivered on the 2011 SNP election manifesto promise Yes I do I think that when we look at the amendments that the government brings forward I think as I indicated earlier on to him that really there is very little distance I can now see between what the government is allowed to propose what the member is talking about what Gallic organisations have been talking about I feel very strongly about the need to promote Gallic medium education and indeed about the need to strengthen the bill I'm very happy to meet with organisations around that and indeed have been doing so the question that has been not unreasonably asked throughout what happens at the end of the processes that are described in the bill once a need has been demonstrated locally further to be a Gallic medium unit I recognise the strength of those concerns and have asked that the government amendments be drafted to make it clear a presumption in favour of Gallic medium primary education will exist in those circumstances and I can say in response to one or two of the wider comments to have been made on Gallic provision not so much within this chamber but out with it that I make no apology for supporting learning through the medium of Gallic as I think most members will agree and as has been evidenced today it's not really possible to be supportive or even accepting of the future existence of Gallic but then to complain when it is either seen or heard and the bill and the government amendments should be seen in that light I share Mr MacArthur's concern that we do not see the loss of the Orcadian dialect or indeed others of Scotland's dialect but let me also be clear about this point if we do lose the Orcadian dialect from the speech of people in Orkney it's not likely to be the Gallic language that displaces it and Scotland's dialects the Scots language and Gallic actually have much in common many shared interests in terms of where we should be approaching government policy from so I don't think they need to compete Liam MacArthur to the minister for taking intervention I would certainly acknowledge the efforts he's made specifically in relation to the Orcadian dialect I think the point I was making that when education budgets are under considerable strain there is a danger that if you add additional pressure in something ends up getting lost off the other end and I would say that perhaps Orcadian dialect is not as much at risk as anything else As I said I completely acknowledge both the risk and the value of Orcadian I want to pick up on a couple of points in the couple of minutes that I've got left merely to say that the additional support for learning part of the bill, the provisions on support for learning officials have benefited from significant discussions with stakeholders and have therefore agreed to bring forward some amendments to the bill's provisions on stage 2 that have been detailed within our response to the committee It's our intention through these regulations to introduce strict timetables for instance timescales rather also on the relevant parties affected by the section 70 process I appreciate the points that were made by Miss Smith and others in response about the need to ensure that all pupils whatever kind of school they go to enjoy the benefit of having teachers who are registered with the General Teaching Council of Scotland and around the points that have been made on the consultation ministers acknowledge the concerns raised with regards to detailed consultation it is and will remain to be normal practice for the Scottish Government to consult fully on the content of bills prior to introduction ministers had a desire to inject some further measures on social justice into this bill and therefore because of timing detailed consultation didn't take place however that does not mean it was not the right thing to do Presiding Officer I welcome the support that we have heard here today for the principles of the bill and I also hope that the Government's willingness to amend the bill is evidence of our openness to constructive ideas from other quarters as the Cabinet Secretary has indicated today we will of course continue to listen throughout the parliamentary process to further improve the bill and to make sure Presiding Officer that we keep at the forefront of our minds always our shared determination to do the best for Scotland's children and young people Thank you That concludes the debate on the Education Scotland Bill and the next item of business is consideration of motion number 1 3938 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Education Scotland Bill and I call on John Swinney to move the motion Thank you The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary motions to move motion number 14632 on designation of a lead committee and motion number 14650 on the suspension of standing orders The question of these motions will be put decision time to which we now come There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business The first question is that motion number 14614 in the name of Angela Constance and Education Scotland Bill be agreed to Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to The next question is that motion number 1398 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Education Scotland Bill be agreed to Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to The next question is that motion number 14632 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick on the designation of a lead committee be agreed to The next question is that motion number 14650 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick on suspension of standing orders be agreed to Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting