Happy Friday, everyone. Let's get started today. We've got a lot to cover. Project 2 is due today. And very soon afterwards, in this night of tomorrow project 3, we release, and it's going to depend on things we're going to learn in class today. So it's very important. And you'll have like four weeks, almost four weeks to work on this, which is a month. And if you're thinking, well, maybe I'll scare you on Monday. Maybe I won't scare you now. Just tell you, it takes four weeks. It does not take one week or three days before the deadline. That's how you're going to go. That's how people end up failing in class. So, we've been talking about parsing. Right? We've been talking about how... So what is parsing? What does parsing mean? What is it? What do you want to... Think about input and output. What are the inputs? What kind of tokens? A sequence of tokens, and what's the output that you're trying to build? A parse tree. Yes. Parsing generates a parse tree from the sequence of inputs that we created with the lecture. Awesome. So we already kind of got a high-level idea of what parsing is, right? So we have kind of seen, okay, we have this, maybe this parse function. We have some commentary grammar. And in the parseS function, we're going to get a token. We're going to check and figure out which one of these rules. Because we have three possibilities. We have S can go to A, S can go to B, or S can go to C. Right? And so based on that first token, we want to be able to decide which rules we actually choose. And so we kind of briefly went over this. I'm going over this very generally to refresh your memory. Because we now need to build up some intuition and some additional functions that are going to help us actually calculate and to create these parsers given a grammar. So maybe something we didn't take about. Check end of file. So after I parse A here in S, why would I want to check end of file? See if the screen is done. Why? Because that's what we talked about. So why do we check for end of file? As we keep going, let's think about this scenario where we have... I'm going to steal this. See if this works. Boom. Alright, cool. Let's think about this scenario where our input string is, let's say A, B. And our grammar here for refresh our memories. So this is our grammar. Okay, so this is our grammar. So first self-check. Is this string in this grammar? Can this grammar ever produce this string? So which production rule? Create a derivation. So let's start with S. Which rule do you want to use? S goes to A. Okay, and then which derivation rule? A goes to small a. Are these strings the same? So is this the derivation of this string? Alright, let's try again. How do I direct this string? Take B. So we go to B. And then which rule do I want to use? So let's say I choose B goes to little b. It's going to be little b. If instead, I choose the second, maybe the first one here. Big B, little b. I need to choose B again, so I choose B. So can I ever drive this string A, B? No, it's not valid syntax, right? The grammar says, so somebody, what does this grammar say? Like how we did with regular expressions, right?  Alright, sorry, in this context free grammar. So what are the strings that are in that this context free grammar can produce? Tell me about the other one. What was it? Single A. A single A, from this rule, S goes to A and A goes to little a, right? So a single A, what else? Single B. One or more B's. One or more B's, what about zero or more C's? Yeah, you can think about one or more C's or the empty string, that's long. So those are the strings. So the string A, B is not in any of those, right? It's not possible for this context free grammar to generate this string. So then let's step through what happens here for parse S. So this is our input, right? So we're parsing, we haven't consumed any tokens, any input. Small t type equals get token. What's it going to return? Small a, right? So remember now we're talking about terminals and non-terminals. So get token is going to return a terminal in this case A, B, or C. Or I guess any other character. So it's going to return A. So t type is A. So we say is A equal to A? Yes, just say yes. Or just don't say yes. Believe it in your parse. So we put it back. So we first called get token. So now we move the input here. And then we call unget token. So we put it back here. We call parse A. Let's go steal the source code of parse A. Oh, I don't have it. Okay, cool. So we already did that last time. So we call parse A. So what's going to happen to the string after this point? Yeah. So it's going to consume that A here. So we just stopped and said, okay, great, parse A returned. That means that there was no syntax error and parse A were all good. But we know we're not good. We know this is an invalid syntax, right? The string cannot be... We cannot create a parse tree given this grammar of the string. So now we want to check. So what would check end of file look like if you were going to write this? Yeah, some t type. Well, maybe let's flip it around a little bit. If it's not equal to... What do we use $, right? To specify end of file? Then what? Error. Yeah, syntax error. So let's assume we have a function syntax error. We know, hey, there should not be an end of file. There should only be end of file. If there's anything else other than an end of file character, then we know it's a syntax error. Now we can say it's a syntax error, and so now, now we're good. So now we're actually going to correctly say that this is a syntax error as opposed to just this string. Right? Similar things happen. We say t type equals getToken, we say a. So here we say a. We check here, we say ungetToken, so we're going to move back. Then we say parseA, parseA is going to be here. We're going to go into check end of file, we're going to check and say yes, that's end of file, and so that means we're good, and this string is good. So this is where we want to go. The question is, how can we actually do all of this? So to do that, we have to build up some examples. So, and we saw last time, right, that we saw here that I can check based on looking at the very next token, right? I can peek ahead and look ahead one token and I can decide is it this parseA? Is it this parseB or this parseC? So why could I do that? Each of them begins with a different Yes, A, B, and C, all strings that they could possibly produce start with a different token, or character in this sense. So what we really want to be able to understand, so let's think about a different, let's say I switch this language around and I say B goes to B, something like that. Now, by looking at one character ahead, can I tell? No, I'm in parseS, I read A, do I know if S goes to A or S goes to B? No, because they each congenerate a string that starts with the same character. So, to help us out, we need to write a function or we need to, well, we're going to study the algorithms for how to do this, but I want us to do this and develop this so it's not terribly complicated. We want some function, let's call it first. Let's spell first right why can't I spell first? F, I, R, S, T, and so on. There we go, perfect. Does that have a function? It's going to take in what we'll call let's do, what do we do, alpha? Is that alpha in your Greek anomalies? I'm not super good at my, that is alpha, right? Okay, cool. Okay, we'll say it takes an alpha where alpha is a sequence of terminals and non-terminals, right? So thinking about first is a function so it takes in a list or a sequence of terminals and non-terminals and it's going to return a set of of what? So what do we want this function to represent? So let's think about it like this. Let's get, change this back to here. So I want the first of A to be the set containing A and so what would I, what is the first of B then? Big B? Little B? So then what would be the first of C? Epsilon or what? C, epsilon. Right? So what I want is, I want to know given a sequence of terminals and non-terminals all possible strings that that sequence can generate what's the first thing that those strings could start with? And we know that eventually when we do these derivations, right, we're going to get a sequence of terminals right, concatenated together. So it only makes sense to talk about terminals so if you think about type checking we should never see non-terminals in this set. So there should be a set of non-terminals or sorry, just terminals and epsilon. This is a little tricky, right? Are we ever going to read epsilon from getToken? Is getToken ever going to read epsilon? What is it going to read? What is getToken return? Tokens, yes. And what else? Which are what in our kind of three grammar? Terminals and what else? What else could it return? End of file, yes. It can also return end of file. So it's only getToken can only return a terminal or end of file but our first sets can have terminals and epsilon. So we'll figure out how we can deal with that later. So this is at a high level. So we think about, this is actually a lot of times the way I like to think about code is okay, let's think about this function. What's the input to this function and what's the output of this function? And then we can talk about how to actually write this function but if you start with that basic building block, everything else becomes a lot clearer and a lot easier. So let's So I said alpha can be a sequence of terminals and non-terminals. So I say let's say that I have first of lower case A. What would that be? Just A, right? This makes sense. Literally, there's no rules, there's no derivation. It's a terminal. So that means that all possible trains that generate today are going to be a terminal. Let's think about this. Let's Does that logic change if I add an arbitrary number if I can catnate an arbitrary sequence of terminals and non-terminals after it? So think about it in concrete terms. Let's say, what's the first of like A, B, A, B? A or what? More precisely. Small a is more precise, more precise than that. Is this correct? Let's think about it this way. The set containing A, yeah. We're thinking about the sets, right? So this is the set containing A. Awesome. So then, A arbitrary. So would this change if I change this B to a capital B? Or if I change this B to a capital B or this A to a capital A? No, because for this sequence of terminals and non-terminals, it doesn't matter what happens after that first A. Every possible string is going to start with this lower case A. So then, what would be the first of A concatenated with any number of sequence of terminals and non-terminals? Oh, did? Sorry. Set containing A. Yeah, perfect. Cool. Variety of rules. What about epsilon? The set containing epsilon, right? Because we want terminals and epsilon in here. Just like up here, what we said the first of C is C or epsilon. This will work a little bit. So we have S goes to A or B. A goes to B goes to a little B, B or epsilon. So then, I said what are the first sets of all this S, A? So let's say well, let's say the first set of A is going to be the second containing A. Perfect. And B, why do you say or epsilon? How many rules are there for B? Two. Two. So actually what are we doing? So we're saying the first of B is really the first of each of the rules, right? Little B, big B, union with the first of epsilon. So this is so what we said the first of the terminals starting with the terminal will be epsilon. If you think about this, it's actually a really powerful function we're writing. Right? Because we're able, using this, to tell something about all possible strings that are going to be generated by this context-free grammar. So let's give this a little bit forward a little bit more too. What's the first of S? Second containing one element little A will be epsilon. Right? So these are, this context-free grammar generates an infinite number of strings but we're able to very easily well, in this case very easily tell but we'll actually see that we'll develop an algorithm that can run on any context-free grammar and it can tell you precisely for every non-terminalist language and any sequence of terminals and non-terminals all possible strings that can be generated what they start with. That's something that's pretty cool and then we'll see how that comes into play later on. Let's make it a little bit more complicated. So I have some rules here, right? In some sense. I have a rule here so let's say you can say these are the same rules. Anything that starts with a terminal the first set is that thing. So we have a rule here about epsilons, right? And here, I kind of have a rule about what to do and actually even here whoa, whoa, whoa that's very fancy fence. Here I have a rule about what to do when I have ORs and I have two different rules. So the first of B is going to be the first of whatever that rule is union with the first of any other rules that B has. We have the non-terminals in the same collection of other terminals and non-terminals in that non-terminal map. On here, each of these are rules production rules. I actually like to think of it as left-hand side and the right-hand side. So the left-hand side you have one non-terminal and on the right-hand side you have an alpha which is a sequence of terminals and non-terminals for epsilons. The first set of a non-terminal with several other non-terminals on the right-hand side would be the union of the first sets of each of the non-terminals in the right-hand side. Yes. We'll dig into that more, trust me. We're going to especially dig into this more. So Preview Project 3 you're going to be writing code that does this. So you're writing a program that takes in a context for grammar like this and spits out first sets of any arbitrary grammar. So it's super cool. I understand I can give you the formal rules but I find that if you actually understand why these rules work you'll apply them a lot better and be able to think about how to write a program that does this as well. Let's make it a little more complicated. So I have S goes to A A goes to B B goes to what are you going to do? A little B, B. So let's say I go in the same order I went before. So what's the first of S? Small B. So how do you get there? Think about your thinking about how you actually arrive to that small B. Try to break it down into kind of an algorithm or some kind of explanation. What was that? First of A. Yeah, so the first of S is really the YA. Yeah, so we kind of said it's like first of what's on the right-hand side here. So we can say first of A. Do we know what first of A is? No, we don't know. But we know, so if we look at it and we try to do first of A it's the same, I'm just going to use an F right now. First of B. But what do I know about first of B? Yeah, the second containing B and now if I revisit it as the first of A would I know what to put in here? Yeah. If I did this for first of S so what is first of A now? Second containing little B. So at this point you might be thinking, ooh beautiful recursive algorithm, right? Or to calculate the first of S I need to calculate the first of A, and calculate the first of A and calculate the first of B. So let me right now dissuade you of thinking that way because you will run into problems if you program things this way. So let me show you an example. New context free grammar, S goes to A A goes to say S or B B goes to little B. So right, is it, so first thing you have to ask is this a valid context free grammar? Why is the question? Yeah, right, so all we said really is the left hand side of the rule must be a non-terminal and a non-terminal by itself you have the production, the error symbol and then an alpha of any sequence of terminals and non-terminals. Right, and we know that this bar is just shorthand for another rule that says A produces B. So, then why the question? I understand the question, I just want you to think about why, why is it weird that we're different than what we've seen before? It gets stuck in an infinite loop or you get stuck in an infinite loop thinking about it? Yeah, but it doesn't break any of the context free grammar rules, right? We just said we can do anything here. And S is only important because we know that all trees must start with S and all derivations must start with S, but we didn't give any restrictions to say that S can't appear during the derivation. Right, so in this example valid derivation would be S, A, S, B and then a little B, right? This is a totally valid derivation. What quiz is this ambiguous grammar? You guys can really look up at that. I should say that one often. Yes, so is this ambiguous? Yeah, probably. Why? And how many part trees are there that can do the same string? Craft. Yes, I think an infinite would be probably more half. Well, maybe not more half, but more polite description I guess. Cool, okay. But it doesn't matter that it's ambiguous. We can still define first sets for these. So let's think about this. Okay, let's think about kind of like we were doing before. Right? So we said first of S is the same as first of A. And first of A is going to be the union of first of S union with the first of B. And if I was writing this recursively, I would do first of S as the first of A as the first of A. And I would get into an infinitely recursive loop and I would run out of stack space and actually crash. So this is the way we break that loop. Usually what we care about is we care about right, at least right now, we're going to care about what is the first set of the non-terminals in the grammar. And this is going to help us in parsing, right? I tried to give you a little flavor of that because when we have different rules we can actually distinguish between them based on the first sets. So what I'm going to do is before I even try to start thinking about first sets I'm going to assume that they're all empty set. So I said the first of S is empty, the first of A is empty, the first of B is empty. So this is my step zero. I'm going to say they're all empty sets. Now I'm going to say, okay what's the first of S? What do I know based on what I thought of these rules? Yeah, the first of A. What's the first of A? No, no, no. What is the first of A? We have it right here. Empty set, yeah. So I say, okay, it's the empty set. So I do one step and I say great, it's the empty set. Now for first of A I try to calculate first of A. So what's the first of A? First of S union with the first of B? So what's the first of S? Empty set. What's the first of B? Empty set. Empty set, great. Okay, what's the first of B? Small B. Small B, so that was, like, yeah. So this would be the second thing in B. Now because I've changed something I need to do this again. Right? Before when I first set things up I can think about it step zero. They're all empty sets. But when I started to go through and try to calculate each of the non-terminals here I made a change. I added something to one of these sets. So now I got to start again using let's see I didn't give myself enough room. A, B. So I'm going to start again using empty set empty set empty set B. So then I start with an S again and I say the first of S is what based on this? The N is the first of A which is empty set. Yeah, nothing changed here. Now I go to the first of A. What's the first of A? First of S union with, and the first of S we know is empty set and the first of B is second hand B. So union those together and we have the second hand B. We do this one more time for B and we see that B also is the second hand B. So did I make a change? Yes, so I got to do it again one more time. Well, maybe not one more time. I don't know. So now I see the first of S is what? First of A which is the second hand B. I just calculated that right here. I will do this. S union with B, the first of S is the second hand B. The first of B is the second hand B. So I can say it is the second hand B, right? Set number doesn't matter for the second hand B union with the second hand B. Cool, we do it again for B. Am I done? No. No, I need to change. I need to do it one more time. So I do it one more time and I would find that it's all the same. So I go through one more time here second hand B, second hand B and I say did I make a change? No, so then I stop. So you can think about I keep applying these rules that we are going to come up with empty sets. I keep applying them until I make no changes. So you can think about you are starting a state where you are assuming that they are all empty sets. Then every time you go through those rules you try to add more information to what you know. So in the first step here we found out oh, the first of B is lower case B. Then I do it one more time and I go oh now the first of A is the second hand lower case B. Then I do it one more time and I find out the first of S is B. But I apply all my rules one more time and I said that didn't give me any new information therefore I don't have to keep applying these rules because all of our first set rules depend on the other first sets. What we just went through is a way to get first sets with only terminals in them without going into some freaky infinite loop. Yes. Regardless of the context free grammar we can always get a first set with terminals without. You assume that they are all empty sets and then you work from there. So if you are calculating first of A so first of A is first of S. So what is the previous step S or the upper S? Actually technically either way will work I believe because you've already made a change but really you should use the latest value that you have of S. Exactly, because you just calculated it right? It may change in that we add more things but we never take things away so you can always use the latest value you have of calculating first sets. Exactly, cool. So if we never actually what we have right here this is enough for you to do I think like 60% well less than that. Of the first set calculations of project 3 it's enough to do about 50% because we didn't really talk about what to do with epsilon so let's think about how that changes things. So I have a new grammar S goes to A, B I have A goes to little A B goes to little B so using what we just did so can we calculate the first sets here for S, A and B? Yes Okay, so let's think about what's first S or actually starting with A and B, those are a lot easier right? So A is what? Little A and B is little B great and so first of S is what? It's the empty set. Well first time through what should it be? Intuition without calculating and just looking at it. It should be small A? Yes. Why? Yeah, so when we're doing first we're doing first of S is equal to the first of the right-hand side so here we have first of A, B Do we actually talk about what to do in this situation? But what should we do? That's a concatenation. Yeah, we don't care about the first character right? Yeah, so it's going to be we saw that a terminal makes sense right? And so here we have the first of S is really the first of just A B the second-hand A So this makes sense because this is essentially concatenation we have S produces A B So if you think about all the possible strings that S can generate like my cool squiggly line trees Whatever the first character that they generate is going to be the first all strings that A can possibly generate the first character of those strings Is it pretty straightforward? Yeah How do we know that one? Three columns worth of information so like the first one would be like an empty set Oh it would be, we were just going through calculating but thinking about it and just looking at it Yeah, this is more building up intuition time not calculation time but we definitely would we'd have to go through all those steps to figure it out So, yes Good question reading my mind So first thing to ask yourself is A, does this change things and B how and see why So does it change things? Yep Yes It does Why I guess how, let's go with how first So how would this change maybe the first sets like intuition based Yeah, so, okay good So first will this change the first set of B? No, it would change the first set of A Yes Based on the rules we already talked about Now what about the first set of S So let's talk about why this changes things So now I have I still have this same thing as here right, I first of S S is the same as first of A B right, the sequence A D But can I make that simplification of this is the same thing as first of A? Why not? Because A could go to nothing right, thinking about the tree again We have the tree of A A B and all possible strings that S generates right We care about this We care about what's the first character that all S's could possibly generate right, and so in one scenario if A does not go to epsilon then we have the first of A right, A is going to generate a bunch of strings and in some scenario where A is not epsilon we need that first set whatever A can generate but in the case that A goes to nothing, then what do we care about? So this goes to absolutely nothing an empty string, and so now the first of whatever S produces is going to be the first of what B can produce So let's try to put that into maybe a kind of rule So we have first of S and we have first let's call it A alpha right, so A non-terminal, different from our other rule of little A of a terminal so here we have first of S is the first of non-terminal A and alpha so we know one thing right, you already said well it's definitely at least going to be the first of A right, almost though, is that true? Did that apply here in this case? Sorry, here in this case? Why, what's wrong? What didn't we include from first of A and first of S? In the case of A goes to epsilon so you can think about looking just at this first character here I know that in the case that A does not go to epsilon then S will have could possibly start with all the first characters of A minus epsilon, everybody agree? Another thing is the only rule I'm saying is one rule we can apply Yeah, we're going to do that Don't worry, let's go Alright, so now we have cool, so what does this mean? So, the first of S we want to see is in some form of first of A alpha and epsilon is in the first of A so what does this mean we should add to the first of S? The first of what? So let's say this took care of the case right, so this will still apply so it will be first of A minus epsilon but what else should we do? So first of, in this case in the previous example we used B but here we need the first of whatever comes after A right, and so this alpha can be a sequence of terminals non-terminals, so if it's a terminal the first rule will apply if it's epsilon the second rule applies if it's another non-terminal then these rules will apply and I'm saying equal here this is really kind of like a union thing we're adding to our knowledge of what first of S is so let's play this a little bit, so using these rules so we start out with empty set of first of S A first of A I sort of like to put these in F of B start out with empty sets so let's start with B first because I don't want this to take forever Why does B start with empty set? Huh? So why does B start with empty set? Why does it B? Oh it would think about programmatically start everything with empty sets so you assume no knowledge of what the rules are and then you go through each of the rules so if I just start with B what's the first set of B? It'll be awesome first set of A so how do I handle this recursion here first of A is the first of A do you mean with the first of epsilon? what do I use as the first of A? empty set because that's what I know the first of A is empty set union with what's the first of epsilon? epsilon awesome and now when I do first of S so by let's say this rule 3 right here let's say this is rule 4 so by rule 3 here I have the first of S is what? first of capital A for what? minus what? minus epsilon so it's going to be what? empty set okay great and then what's the empty set? union that with what's the first of S for this rule so what does this say? yeah so this is going to be well in this case the first of S is going to be the first of little A big B which is we know from the other rule is the second containing little A do I go then look at the first of big B? no because little A does not have an epsilon in its first set right the first set of little A is little A that was our first thing so this AND here does not apply right it's also not a non-terminal that's also why this AND could not apply okay one more scenario it goes to epsilon it goes to D or epsilon that's easier cool so our first set S of A of B so I starting them off with all empty sets starting from the top down so the first of S would be what? the first of A minus epsilon which is what? the first of A is empty set so it's the empty set first of A is little A and what else? and epsilon and B is little B and epsilon did I make a change? yes okay go through it again so S S goes to capital A B so what I had first first of A minus epsilon and then where I had first of B first of B the first of B I had the first of B minus epsilon which is B but is this correct? why not? yeah so that wasn't anything about S if B can have epsilon too S can also produce an epsilon exactly it can start with an epsilon right so epsilon but how do we get there right so none of our other previous four rules apply the third rule said always take the first of that thing, add it minus epsilon the fourth rule basically told us when we move on to the rest if the first non-terminal in our sequence had epsilon in its first set but we don't have a rule of what happens if you get to the end and it was all epsilon right we can see here by intuition there is a possibility that both A is going to go to epsilon and B is going to go to epsilon S can also go to epsilon so we need a fifth rule that says something to the effect of the first of S is equal to well the second containing epsilon if what? yeah so every so if let's say for the rule S goes to alpha right let's call it I don't know if it's simple for this let me know yeah so for every if I was writing code I'd say like for all well not code but for math for all let's say A in epsilon or in alpha let's see I don't want to phrase this epsilon exists in the first of A then we add epsilon to S's first step so this would be if so the rule is in the form S goes to alpha so here alpha means the entire right hand side of the rule so we're not pulling out in some sense the first character like we did before with A alpha or little A alpha here we're saying the entire sequence of terminals and non-terminals if for all A in that sequence epsilon exists in the first of A then you add epsilon to the first of S and really when you're looking at it you say okay is epsilon here yes is epsilon here yes then I add epsilon to the first of S and wait a second we just derived all five of these rules


Hey, what's up everybody? Ricky Caruth here and there's so much to talk about concerning the housing market in the US right this second. I've been gone for three weeks speaking to you guys all over the country and the market went absolutely bonkers. I want to talk about that. I want to talk about the dangers that we could see if the housing market becomes too overheated again. But Redfin came out and they said that the housing market is recovering. We're in a recovery stage, which I thought that was a little too soon to really say that because are we in a false, you know, are we having a false rally here? Is this just a false sense of security with the buyers coming back temporarily? Are we looking at more pain down the road? So this is something to think about, but we are getting multiple offers. We're getting multiple offers on listings all over the country. Okay, and actually this is in the media now. There's articles being written about this and I have messages from agents all over the country. I'm going to read several to you here in just a second, but there's more positive data. NAR came out and said in their pending home sales report that they were up 2.5% month over month in pending sales. That was the first time that we had an increase since May. Very interesting stuff. Mortgage applications also were up 28%. They're up 28% right now compared to the low. And so we're seeing this wave of activity starting to brew. And when you see these multiple offers start to happen, this really should be eye-opening to you about the state of the market and what's really happening because as I have been saying, demand is sitting there brewing and building. And when you have a situation where inventory is dropping like a rock, which is what it does every year at this time. And it's what's happening right now. I'll show you the data in just a second. When you have inventory dropping and demand building and interest rates coming down like they have, what do you think is going to happen? We're going to be right back in the same boat where all the buyers are fighting over the same houses. This wasn't hard to see. It's happening in slow motion. But I want to dig in to all this stuff with you today and share my thoughts. First, I want to share with you some of these messages. And I have absolutely hundreds of messages, hundreds of agents all over the country just like this. Here's one an agent said, as a new agent, I toured three open houses yesterday, one fixed flip, one fixed or flip, and two million dollar properties all had double digit visitors at the open houses. Boston market heating up suburbs, 15 groups at open houses. Condo market lags, but lots now moving at ask or just over. Over 60 offers here on a listing in the Bay Area. Two homes under contract in one day last week. My listing and buyer and new build. Boom. Multiple offers in New Mexico and we had our biggest year yet last year. Excuse me. Top 10 in MLS for units. Okay. Let's see. Let's get to some more real data here. 26 offers received on a house here in northeast Wisconsin. It was listed at 200. Any agents who thinks the market isn't going to, is going to crash should turn on their license. Been in two multiple offer, uh, over asking deals in the last two weeks. Central Ohio is back to multiple offers and low supply. It's not that it was ever, you know, the multiple offers made have went away, but the low supply was kind of always there. Like we're nowhere near where we were pre pandemic and we were already low pre pandemic. Honestly, builders can even keep up. Last two offers submitted, seven offers, seven offers on one and nine on the other one. And so we're seeing this all over. I could, there's so many messages in my phone, hundreds from agents all over the country that are talking about multiple offers and open houses.  I talked to a lender, this lender, this group of, uh, this lending group, they were doing around 150 to $200 million worth of mortgages before interest rates started coming up. And now they're doing about 80. They're trying to get it back to a hundred million a month. This is a, this is millions per month that they're closing in loans. And he said that mortgage applications, they have about 120 million worth of mortgage applications, pre approvals, sitting on their desk. Those haven't, those haven't converted into pending deals yet. But guys, this is just the beginning stages of this. Now this, this could go, you know, a different direction than what we want.  And we're seeing that already. Lumber prices soar 13% as, uh, as the, the housing market begins to heat up again. Okay. This is in essence, the definition of inflation where, you know, you have so much demand, so little supply, and then the cost of goods and services go up to compensate for that. Um, when we see lumber start to go up that, that's an indicator. That's a key indicator here in the housing market of, I hate to say it, but inflation. And if we see a second wave of inflation, that's going to raise the 30 year, uh, fixed mortgage and that, that could slow the market back down. Um, we're still going to have an inventory issue of course, but when you, you know, interest rates are literally the lifeline. It's the bloodline of the housing market and it really dictates what people can afford, uh, on houses. And it's going to dictate how, how strong, uh, demand is in terms of not pinned up demand. You know, pent up demand is going to be there. You know, but as far as how many people can actually afford to go out and buy a home. And so that's what's very interesting. So I want to move over to, I want to show you some, some data here in, in, uh, the red fin, um, news data center, which I think is a really incredible platform. But first let's look at home sold.  Okay. It's identical. And you see every year, you know, around February, March, it starts to pick up and it starts this up climb. So we're in a normal yearly seasonal cycle right this second. But when you look at this chart, what is so interesting is the similarities. When you get here to, um, June and you see this dip, you see it's the exact dip and the exact spike. And you go over here and you have the exact dips and spikes all the way, all the way to the end of the year. Look how similar these dips and spikes are in terms of the number of homes sold throughout the country throughout the year. And when you add 2020 to the mix, look what this does. You see during the, you know, when we shut the economy down, how it dipped, but then look when it got right back on track, look how identical it was compared to 2021. Look how identical that is. It just goes to show you that this stuff is incredibly seasonal. You know, as you move through the year, if we look at prices, you know, the orange is 2021. This is prices. And you see that, that it peaked out in July and then it came down, right? It came down all the way to October. It drifted down in the year of multiple offers and a hundred thousand more than asking price. Actually, median sales prices went down that year from June to October and then just kind of stayed flat for a little while. And you see every year prices start out a little flat and prices start out a little flat. And you see that's the same for 2023. It's flat. What's going to be very interesting here is that if prices stay the same and the blue line intersects the black line, which is 2022, as soon as it intersects, that means we're negative year over year as far as median prices go. And that's when the media is going to have a filled day with articles and headlines and negativity in the market. Now, there's a lot of YouTubers that I've been watching that feel like when the media does start this negative headlines about prices, when in fact prices are the same as they are now, we're still at that point probably going to be getting multiple offers and tons of demand and inventory is going to be low and it's going to be a great, great market. And kind of we just take just a second to recognize and appreciate what the market is right this second. This is like a dream come true type situation where you can go out, you can stack listings, maybe have to take some overpricing, take them because I think we're going to see a wave in the spring, a wave of activity. And you're going to want to be the agent that has piles of listings, whether they're a little overpriced or not, if you're the only one with listings, they're going to have to come to you. But we're able to stack listings, sellers are giving concessions, prices are down from the peak. I mean, this is like, this is what dreams are made of, but if prices stay the same, we're going to see huge negative year over year, negative numbers. But that's just compared to last year and, you know, we're really in the same boat that we're in now, really great market. So I want you to be prepared for those negative headlines. Now, this is very interesting right here. Of course, the orange line is 2021. And you see how it dip? This is the number of active listings. Okay. So, but right here in from February to August, from February to August, the active listings and inventory went up. Okay. Now the black line was last year and inventory went up more than normal, of course. But look at the trend. It's the same trend. It's the same, you know, seasonal trends as we have every year. And look right now, dropping like a rock. This blue line indicates 2023. And we're dropping like a rock just like we do every year. And then around February, March, the active listings and inventory starts to creep up. And that's what I believe we're going to see this year. We're going to see this trend go down. It may go down further than normal. We'll see how far it goes down and when it starts to creep back up. But it will creep back up just like it does every single year. But why isn't anyone talking about this? This is what's very interesting to me is the year of the boom, we had prices come down. We had inventory go up, you know, during that time, but nobody's really talking about that. So, you know, when you look at the market, overall, we're in a really good shape. The dangers are is if inflation comes back, that's what the dangers are. Wage growth is too high right now. The job market is been resilient through this. We're looking at so many incredible data points in terms of showing the resiliency of the economy. It's just going to be a matter of can they control spending? Can the government control consumer spending? Because if we get into a place where we're spending too much again, then that means inflation is going to go up because the cost of goods and services are going to go up to compensate for the amount of demand. And so little supply and we're going to be right back in the same boat. That's not going to be a good thing because if inflation comes back up, so will interest rates. And, you know, we're kind of just going to be in this cycle. So that's what I want to keep an eye on. That's what I want to think about in these videos for you is to try to keep you ahead of the curve. And I'm just going to say what I've been saying is that if you can go out there right now, because I feel like if I had a crystal ball, I think I would see that mortgage rates aren't going to go up by spring. But I have no idea. But if I had a crystal ball, I would say that they're not going to go up back up to seven by spring. I feel like we're going to have a massive surge of demand and buyers in the spring.  So my advice to you is go as hard as you can right now to go out there and stack so many listings to the moon that you just can't even like take some overpriced listings, negotiate down on your commission if you have to here and there. Do what you have to do to go out there and stack some listings up because you're going to be the one that's in the driver's seat when we hit one of these massive waves. I'm going to age it right now. He's got 21 active listings, five pending. And he's just stacking, stacking, stacking, stacking. So I feel like that's the play right this second. What happens beyond spring? We'll have to take a look. We'll have to take a look at the data and the market and where we are and where interest rates are and what's happening. And then we can kind of plan out where we go from there.  Is that going to be a bad thing?  No, not at all. You win regardless. And that is what I stand by. I'm going to tell you things that you can go out and do where you're going to win regardless of what happens in the market. That's what I live by. And that's what I built my business on. No lose situations. How can I go out here and crush it in a situation where, worst case, it's a home run? So that's what I'm excited to see.  Let me know what I can do to help you. Of course, I have all my free courses and everything on Circle Prospecting, where to get phone numbers, videos of me making calls, 60-day challenge. All that stuff is absolutely free. That's at zero2diamond.com. I'll put a link in the description for that. And anything else that I can do for you. I'm absolutely here to help you through this market and 2023 and beyond. I'm going to break out a video tomorrow. It's going to be the number one listing opportunity right now in the market. I'm excited about that video. And I'll put another video right here for you to go out and listen to. I feel like this video right here is going to be one that absolutely changes your business as well. And let me know your thoughts on today's video in the comments. So take care and have a great rest of your day.


This is the ideas lab. Usually the best ideas come up when you think outside the box. This is especially true for some old topics. People always think in a certain way. They don't question any more the theories or the practices or what they are doing. My example is related to solar cells. Of course this is the goal we all want to have, the green Earth. In order to reach this we just have to make the solar panels more affordable. The good news is that the industry already knows how to make good and rather ghost effective panels. People are actually quite happy when they measure the power output of their brand new solar cells coming right after their manufacturing lines. The problems appear when they put the solar panels outside, they are after all solar cells, they must be put outside. The sunlight is harmful for them. Basically what happens, the power output starts to gradually degrade from the initial value. And this degradation can be actually as high as minus 30% from the initial value. And this is actually a big loss. And this will also have a huge impact on the cost of the solar panels. I think about a standard size of the photovoltaic company today who produces about one gigawatt solar panels per year. For them it means millions of euros of losses each year. And now if we think globally, how many companies we already have and how much production we already have, the numbers get much bigger. The problem is not a new one. It's been there for a long time, basically from the beginning. But the impact has become bigger and bigger each year. Because the technology advances and the solar cell efficiencies become initially higher and we get much bigger outputs initially. But what's causing all this trouble then? Well, you can call it a mystery, but there is one old theory which most people believe in. And that's related to oxygen and a reaction of oxygen with light. However, if you believe in this theory, basically you have to make some trade-offs. You have to use material that is free of oxygen. And this kind of silicon which doesn't contain oxygen is very expensive. So I wouldn't call it as a solution. Therefore it's a good time to think outside the box. I have background in microelectronics. And previously I have noticed that in these microelectronic devices different light sources have caused some troubles for the device operation. And in most cases the root cause for this failure was found to be ionized copper. Now having this in mind, I raise the question if the solar degradation that we observe in the panels today is due to the ionized copper. What is even more important and what I'm excited about is the solution that I'm proposing, how we could get rid of this problem. Well, we know that copper is positively charged and it moves very easily in silicon, even at room temperature. And then positive and negative charge attract each other. So what if we put some negative charge on the solar cell surfaces? What happens is what you see in the picture. So we can kind of get rid of this harmful copper. And actually our preliminary results are quite promising. So the next question will be, of course, when do we see this idea in production? What is the time scale? Well, the idea that I just presented to you is very fresh and I have just received ERC grants to do studies on this topic. So we, of course, have to do more testing on this, but I hope it will happen soon. And then my final slide is about the importance of collaboration between industry and academia, even though we are doing fundamental research. And my question to you is, how can we encourage the solar cell industry to implement these novel technologies into their production? Thank you.


Hi, and welcome to the session. My name is Shashi and I'm going to help you to solve the following question. Question is, form the pair of linear equations for the following problems and find their solution by substitution method. Second part is, the larger of two supplementary angles exceeds the smaller by 18 degrees. Find them. First of all, we should understand that the sum of supplementary angles is 180 degrees. This is the key idea to solve this question. Let us start with the solution now. Let the larger of the two angles be equal to x degrees and the smaller angle equal to y degrees. Now, according to the question, angles are supplementary. So, their sum must be equal to 180 degrees. Condition given to us in the question is that the larger of the two supplementary angles exceeds the smaller by 18 degrees. This implies the difference between the two angles is equal to 18 degrees. So, we can write x minus y is equal to 18 degrees, right? Let us now name these equations as equation number 1 and equation number 2. Now, from equation 2, we get the value of x is equal to 18 plus y. Now, let us name this equation as 3. Now, substituting the value of 3 in 1, we get, substituting the value of x, we get 18 plus y plus y is equal to 180 degrees. This implies 18 plus 2y is equal to 180 degrees. This implies 2y is equal to 180 minus 18 degrees. This implies 2y is equal to 162 degrees. This further implies y is equal to 162 upon equal to 81 degrees. So, therefore, y is equal to 81 degrees. Substituting the value of y in equation 3, we get x is equal to 81 plus 18 or we can say x is equal to 99 degrees. Two angles are 99 degrees and 81 degrees. So, pair of linear equations is x plus y is equal to 180 degrees and x minus y is equal to 18 degrees and the two angles are x is equal to 99 degrees and y is equal to 81 degrees. This completes the session. Hope you enjoyed the session. Goodbye.


Day one of the mining industry, Toronto, Ontario. We are fortunate today to have one of the world's leading experts in the uranium industry come visit. Deverendawa. Thank you for having me. Oh, yes sir. I'm very good. Always nice to see you. Good to see you, Peter. The uranium industry has gone through some upheaval over the past 15, 20 years, but right now we have an interesting application in the United States under section 232. Yes. Generally, how does that affect the uranium industry? I think what's caused it to do is frozen it. It put uncertainty, as you know with any stock market, when you put uncertainty in, people know what to do. So I think the last year, there was great hope that once 232 was done, Ebers would be buying all these stocks. Right. But that didn't happen. And it didn't happen because the order's been pushed out. Not that it was denied, it's just been delayed. Because people are uncertain. So I had the wonderful chance of having a ball of wine with Tim Getzel. And I said to him, what's going on? And he says, well, when we go to buy, we can find uranium that's sneaking out of all spots. I don't know where they come from, but we get it. Right. But the one thing he noticed was the utilities, the inventories, the utilities are now putting a request because the inventories have dropped. Right. Chemical used to have 30 million pounds inventory. Now it's six. Right. They prefer to be 10. So the inventories are dropping. Is that a global phenomenon or just North American? It's everywhere. As you're seeing, you can't, every year you remember you're producing about 145, need about 185. So you've got a gap of 45 to 50 million pounds. How does that supply gap get filled? Well, SWU, which is underfeeding that Russians do. And then you've got, I think, backdooring. I think you could have, you know, I can be in one country, but I don't want anybody to know I'm selling it. So I sell it to my buddy at, you know, a bit of a small discount. He sells it and makes a bit of a spread. Right. So I think financial institutions are playing a nasty. Traders are playing a role. They're hiding the sellers and buyers. But at some point that has to even out. And you need new production. Absolutely. You need a higher uranium price. Absolutely. And if the 232 order is made, we run the risk of having two spot prices globally for uranium. One for US sourced. Possibly. One for external. But the only thing is that what they have said, what I saw the latest thing from Trump is that they're putting money aside. You know, basically it's $150 million. So if it's, they're going to buy, you know, six, eight million pounds a year. It also tells you that defense no longer has the uranium they've had. Because defense used to have so much uranium. But now they run the risk of these submarines running out of energy in the middle of the ocean. Exactly. So you don't know when it's going to turn. But one thing I've learned in our industry is when it turns, it happens so quickly, stocks double. They don't move up 5%. It's not like gold. Gold is like a storm on our prairie. You can see it coming. Right. When it comes to uranium, it happens overnight. Boom. Things are gone. And you just happen to have a uranium deposit, which can fill that supply gap. Down the road. But I think what's simple for uranium investors today, there's only in my view five, six companies worth investing in. A couple in the U.S., I would say two or three in Canada. But I think those are the cream. Right. But you know what's going to happen? When I was in 2005, there was five companies. I went to 945 in literally a year. Yeah. Everybody that was doing... And now we're back to five again. Back to five again. So how was your deposit then different from everybody else's? Well, I believe the only two places in the world you can make money. You've got to be in Kazakhstan, ISL, which is working well. Right. Or being Canada. Because Canada's got jurisdiction. And the Athabasca produces about 14% of the world's production. Because they've got high... They're 2%. The average is about one or two. So you've got 10, 20 times the grade. You want to be in Canada of high grade, but you need to be large. Right. That's the given. Those are the given, but the thing what makes... It sets us apart, not better, but it sets us apart, is that our deposit is 50 meters from surface. And if you look at every deposit... Which is considered surface. Yeah. So if you look at the... Every deposit ever found in the basin that was close, that's mined out. But I can find you 10 deposits that are down deep, nobody's touching. Right. Because of technical risk. So the other thing would be is that we're actually not in the basin. We have no sandstone, which is like a milkshake on your deposit. So that's what sets it apart. It's big, it's in Canada, high grade. Sounds like it's easier to produce. Much easier. CGN, the Chinese government owns 20% of us. Okay. And they spend millions of dollars doing a due diligence on everything. They're very thorough. I think CGN is the mothership of our industry. They build reactors. They're secure. They process. They do it all. They're vertically integrated. Like Arriva used to be. Right. Now Arriva's kind of gone back to what they've done. They've got O'Rama, which is called Rano. They're kind of redoing it. Chemicals kind of got out of more of that. So they're really focused on the mining. And so I have a lot of time for Mr. Getzel and the guys at them at O'Rano. But it's really divided up. But I think CGN now is the mothership of our industry. I told you he was one of the world's experts on uranium. Thank you for coming to PDAC 2020. Dev Randawa, Fishing Uranium. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Peter.


From Orlando, Florida, it's theCUBE. Covering ServiceNow, Knowledge 17. Brought to you by ServiceNow. We're back, this is Dave Vellante with Jeff Frick. Chris Beatty is here, he's the CIO of ServiceNow. Chris, good to see you again. Good to see you as well. Yeah, so a lot going on this week, obviously. You said you're just getting pulled into a million different directions. One of those, of course, is the CIO event. Decisions, yeah. CIO decisions, it's something that you guys host every year. I had the pleasure of attending parts of it last year. Listen to Robert Gates and some other folks, which was great. What's happening this year over there? So, CIO decisions, it's really where we bring together our forward-thinking executives. We keep it in to mid to about 100, because really it's about the dialogue, us all learning from each other. It really doesn't matter the industry. I think we're all after the same things, which is driving higher levels of automation, increase the pace of doing business, and innovating at our companies. So we had Andrew McAfee, MIT research scientist, really helping push the boundaries in our imagination on where machine learning and predictive analytics could go. And then we had Daniel Pink talking about his latest book to sell as human, and really as CIOs, we often find ourselves selling new concepts, new business models, new processes, new analytics, new ways of thinking about things. So really trying to help call it exercise our selling muscle, if you will, because we have to sell across, up, down, and within our own teams, and that is a big part of the job, because as we move into this new era, I think the biggest constraint is actually between our own ears. Our inability to imagine a future where machines are making more decisions than humans, platforms are doing more work on behalf of humans. Intellectually, we know we're headed there, but here I'll help really bring it home. Well, you know, it's interesting. You talk about selling and the CIOs. Typically IT people aren't known as salespeople, although a couple years ago, I remember at one of the knowledges, Frank Slubin sort of challenged the CIO to become really more business people, and he predicted that more business people would become CIOs. So do you consider yourself a salesperson? I do. I'm selling people on a vision, a concept, the promise of automation, you know, technology. People fear it, right? You know, when you're automating people's work, the fear and the uncertainty and doubt or what I call the organizational antibodies start to come out, so you have to bust through that. And the large part of that is selling people on a promise of a better future, but it's got to be real. It's got to be tied to real business outcomes with numbers.  So we always like to take the messaging from the main tent and then test it with the practitioners. And this year, there's this sort of overall theme of working at light speed. You and I have talked about this. How does that resonate with the CIOs and how do you put meaning behind that? Because, you know, working at light speed, it's like, oh, that sounds good, but how do you put meat on that part? So the way I think about working at light speed is three dimensions. Velocity, intelligence, and experience. And velocity is how fast is your company operating? And I read a study that said 40% of Fortune 500 companies are going to disappear in the next 10 years. That's almost half, right? But I think what's going to separate the winners from the losers is the pace at which they can adapt and transform. And with every business process being powered by IT platforms, I think CIOs and IT are uniquely positioned to explicitly declare ownership of that metric and drive it forward. So velocity, hugely important, intelligence, evolving from the static dashboards we know today to real-time insights delivered in context that actually helped a human make decisions. And BI and analytics, as we know it today, needs to evolve into a recommendation engine. Because why do we develop BI and analytics to make decisions, right? So why can't the platform, and it can, is the short answer, with the ability to rapidly correlate variables and recognize complex patterns, give recommendations to the humans, and I would argue, take it a step further, make decisions for the humans. ServiceNow did a study that said 70% of CIOs believe machines will make more accurate decisions than humans. Now we just got to get the other 30% there. And then on experience, I think the right experience changes our behavior. And I think we in IT need to be in the business of creating insanely great customer and employee experiences. Too often we lead with the goal of cost reduction or efficiency, and I think that's okay. But if we lead with the goal of creating great experiences, the costs and the inefficiencies will naturally drop out. You can't have a great experience and have it be clunky and slow. It's just impossible. And it's interesting on the experience because the changing behavior is the hardest part of the whole equation. And I almost think back to kind of getting people off just an old solution, people used to say for startups, you got to be 10x better or one 10th of cost. And a 2x, 3x is not enough to get people to make the shift. And so to get the person to engage with the platform, as opposed to firing off the text or firing off an email or picking up the phone, it's got to be significantly better in terms of the return on their investment. So now to get that positive feedback loop and this is a much better way to get work done. It has to. And we can't bring down the management hammer and force people to do things. It's just not the way people work. And very simple example of an experience driving the right behavioral outcome. So ServiceNow is a software company, very important for us to file patents. Process we had was clunky and cumbersome. We're not perfect at ServiceNow either. So we re-imagined that process, made it a mobile first experience built on our platform of course. But by simply doing that, there was no management edict, you have to, no coercion if you will. So an 83% increase in the number of patent applications filed by the engineers. So the right experience can absolutely give you the right desired economic behavior. You talked about 70% of CIOs believe that machines will make better decisions than humans. We also talked about Andrew McAfee, who wrote a book with Eric Brynjalsen. And in that book, The Second Machine Age, they talked about that the greatest chess player in the world, when the supercomputer beat Gary Kasparov, he actually created this contest. And they beat the supercomputer with a combination of man and other supercomputers. So do you see it as machine sort of intelligence, augmenting human intelligence? Or do you actually see it as machines are gonna take over most of the decisions? So I actually think they are gonna start to take over some basic decision making. The more complex one, the human brain plus a machine is still a more advanced, right? Where it's better suited to make that decision. But I also think we need to challenge ourselves in what we call a decision. I think a lot of times what we call a decision, it's not a decision. We're coming to the same conclusion over and over and over again. So if a computer looked at it, it's an algorithm. But in our brains, we think a human has to be involved and touch it. So I think it's a little bit, it'll challenge us to redefine what's actually a decision, which is complex and nuanced, versus we're really doing the same thing over and over again. Right, and you're saying that the algorithm is a pattern that repeats itself and leads to an action that a machine can do. Yeah. It doesn't require intuition. And we don't call that a decision anymore. Right. So in thinking about, you gave us sort of the dimensions of light speed. What are some of the new metrics that will emerge as a result of this thinking? Yeah, I don't think any of the old metrics go away. I'll talk about a few. You know, in light speed, working at light speed, we need to start measuring, for one, back on that velocity vector, what is the percentage of processes in your company that have a cycle time of zero, or near zero. Meaning it just happens instantaneously. We can think of loads of examples in our consumer life calling a car with Uber. There's no cycle time on that process. Right, so looking at what percentage of your processes have a cycle time of zero. How much work are you moving to the machines? Right, what percentage of the work is the platform proactively executing for you? Meaning it just happens, right? I also think in an IT context of percentage of self-healing events where the service never goes down because it's resilient enough and you have enough automation and intelligence. But there are events, but the infrastructure just heals itself. And I think, you know, IT itself, we've long looked at IT as a percentage of revenue. I think with all of the automation and cost savings and efficiency we drive throughout the enterprise, we need to be looking at IT as a margin contribution vehicle. And when we change that conversation and start measuring ourselves in terms of margin, I think it changes the whole investment thesis in IT. So that's interesting. Are you measured on margin contribution? We're doing that right now. If an IT organization is waiting for the CFO or CEO to ask them about their margin contribution, they're playing defense. I think IT needs to proactively measure all of its contributions and express it in terms of margin. Because that's the language the CEO and COO and CFO are talking about. So meet them in a language that they understand better. So how do you do it? I mean, you certainly can create some kind of conceptual value flow. IT supports this sort of business process and this business process drives this amount of revenue or margin is... But so I stay away from revenue because I think anytime IT stands up and says we're driving revenue, it gets really hard because there's so many external and internal factors that contribute to that. So we more focus on automation in terms of hours saved, expressing and dollarizing that, hard dollars that we're able to take out of the organization and then bubbling that into an operating margin number. Okay, so you sort of use the income statement below the revenue line to guide you and then you fit into that framework. Absolutely. When you talk to other CIOs about this, do they say, hey, that sounds really interesting. How do I get started on that? I think it resonates really well because again, IT as a percentage of revenue is an incredibly incomplete metric to measure our contribution. And with everything going digital, you want to pour more money into technology. I mean, studies have shown and Andrew McAfee talked about this over the last 50 hundred years, the companies that have thrived have poured more disproportionately more into technology and innovation than their competitors. So if we only measure the cost side of the equation, we're doing ourselves a disservice. And so how do you get started on this path? I mean, let's call this path sort of, what we've generally defined as light speed, measure it on margin, how do you get started on that? First step is the hardest, but it's declaring that you're going to do it. And so we've come up with a framework that maps at a process level, at a department level and at a company level, where are we on this journey to light speed? If light speed is the finish line, where are we? And I define three stages, manual automated cloud before you get to light speed and then using those same three dimensions of velocity, intelligence and experience to tell you where you are. And very first thing we did was baseline all of our business processes every single one and mapped it. But once you have it mapped on that framework, then you can say, how do we advance the ball to the next level? And it's not going to magically happen overnight. This is hard work. It's going to happen one process at a time, right? But pretty soon everything starts to get faster and I think things will start to really accelerate. When you think about sort of architecting IT at ServiceNow versus some other company, I mean, you come into ServiceNow as the CIO, everything runs on ServiceNow. That is part of the mandate, right? But that's not the mandate at every company. Now it increasingly may be coming that way in a lot of companies, but how does your experience at ServiceNow differ from sort of the traditional G2000? Well, probably the unique part about being the CIO at ServiceNow is actually really fun in that I get to be customer zero, in that I implement our products before all of our customers, get to sit down with the product managers, discuss real business problems that all of our customers are facing, and hopefully be their voice inside the four walls of ServiceNow and being a strategic partner to the product organization. Now implementing everything, our goal is to be the best possible implementation of ServiceNow on the planet. And that's not just demonstrated by go lives. It's demonstrated by, again, the economic and business outcomes we're deriving from using the platform. So that part is fun, challenging, and hard work all at the same time. So how's Jakarta looking? Fantastic. We're super excited about everything that's coming out, whether it's the communities on customer service, software asset management, that's been a pain, right? For IT organizations for a long time, which is these inbound software audits, right? From other companies and you're responding to them and it's a fire drill. In my mind, our software asset management transforms software audits from a once a year, twice a year event to always on monitoring, right? Where you're just fixing it the whole time and it's not an event anymore. I mean, the intelligence that we're baking into the platform now, super exciting around the machine learning and the predictive analytics concepts. We have more analytics than we had before. I mean, there's just so much in there that's just exciting. We're already using it. I can't wait for our customers to get a hold of it. Well, CJ this morning threw out a number of 30 plus percent performance improvement. I had said to myself, when you're saying that with conviction, that's because you guys got to be running it yourselves. Yeah, we are, and that's not a trivial number. And I think the product teams have done a great job really digging in and making sure our platform operates at light speed. One of the things that Jeff and I have been talking about this week and really this is your passion here is adoption. How do you get people to stop using all these other tools like email and kind of get them to use the system? I think showing them the promise of what it can bring. And I think it's different conversations at different levels. I think to an operator, someone who's using the email to manage their work, they're hungry for a different solution. Life working an email and managing your business that way, it's hard, right? To a mid-level manager, I think the conversation is maybe about the experience, how consumers of their service will be happier and more satisfied. At the executive level, it gets maybe more into some of the economic outcomes of doing it because implementing our platform, you're going to burn some calories doing it. Not a lot, our time to value is really, really quick. But still, it's a project and it's initiative and it's got to have an outcome time to it. Chris, as you're saying that, and it's always tough to be stuck kind of halfway. You're kind of on the tool internally and it's great. And unfortunately, yeah. We don't use the word tool. No, it's the tool. Yeah, the platform actually. But then you still got external people that are coming at you through text, email, et cetera. I mean, it's part of the vision and maybe it's already there, I'm not as familiar with the parts. It should be in terms of enabling kind of that next layer of engagement with that next layer of people outside the four walls just to get more of them in it as well because the half-pregnant stage is almost more difficult because you're going back and forth between the two. And our customer service product does a lot of that. If you look at what Abhijit showed today, which is fantastic. Communities is another modality to start to interact with people. Certainly we have a connect part of our platform as a collaboration app within the overall platform so you can chat just like you would with any consumer app in terms of chatting capabilities and that mobile-first experience. And we're thinking about other modalities too. Should you be able to talk to ServiceNow just like you talked to Alexa and converse with ServiceNow? Farrell touched on this a little bit through natural language, right? And we all know it's coming and it's there. It's just pushing in that direction. How about the security piece? Sean shared this morning, you guys are well over a year in now. And he talked about that infamous number of 200 plus days. Nine months, yeah. Compressing that. Are you seeing that internally in your own? We are. We use Sean's product. We're a happy customer. The vulnerability management, the security incident response, and very, very similar results. And just like the customer who was on stage said, go live and iterate. And that's exactly what we did, right? Everyone has a vulnerability management tool like a QALUS that's feeding in. Bring in all those QALUS alerts. Our platform will help you normalize them and just start to reduce the level of chaos for the SOC and IT operations. Then make it better. Then drive the automation. So we're seeing very similar benefits. How do you manage the upgrade cycle? We've been asking a lot of customers this week on the upgrade cycle. Some say, I'll do N minus one just to sort of let the thing bake a little bit. You guys are like N plus one. How do you manage that in production though? Sure. So we upgrade before our customers. And that's part of our job, right? To make sure we test it out before our customers. But I'll say something in general about enterprise software upgrades, which is there is a cost to them. And the cost is associated with business risk. You want to make sure you're not going to disrupt your business. So there's some level of regression testing you just have to do. Now strategies I think that would be wise are automating as much of that testing as you can through a testing framework which we're helping our customers do now. And I think with some legacy platforms that was incredibly expensive and hard and you can never quite get there. Us being a modern cloud platform you can actually get there pretty quickly to the point where the 80, 90% of your regression testing is automated and you're doing that last 10 to 20% because at the end of the day IT needs to make sure the enterprise is up and running. That's job number one. But that's the strategy we employ to make upgrades as painless as possible. So that's got to be compelling to a lot of the customers that you talk to that notion of being able to automate the upgrade process. I mean, you're automating a lot of time and they can count that as money. It is money and automating regression testing it's a decision and a strategy but the investment pays off very, very quickly. So there's an upfront chunk that you have to do to figure out how to make that work. Just like anything worth doing. Yeah. Right? Excellent. What's left for you at the show? What's left for me, I love interacting with customers. I got to talk to a lot of CIOs at CIO Decisions. I actually enjoy walking through the partner pavilion and meeting a lot of our partners and seeing some of the innovation that they're driving on the platform. And then just, you know, non-stop I get ideas all day from meeting with customers. It's so fun. It's great. Chris, thanks very much for coming to theCUBE. Thank you. We appreciate you seeing you. Good seeing you. All right, keep it right there everybody. Jeff and I'll be back with our next guest. This is Kuber live from Knowledge 17. We'll be right back.


Hello everybody. So today we got a special guest here with us. We got sedan car and today He's gonna help us answer one of the most asked questions that I have been asked on my YouTube channel Which is how can I get a mining engineering job in Canada as a foreigner? And so many of you guys that have asked this question are from either India or from Africa So today I got sedan car to sort of help us Deconstruct what that process is like seeing how he's went through the process himself So we'll just jump right into it Sid can you tell me a little bit about yourself? Sort of your background where you came from where do you study in India? And yeah, just get the audience a little bit of info about yourself Sure Thanks one for having me on this conversation And I know this is a burning question for a lot of people. So I I'd love to help out but What if I can I can So talking about me I'm like I'm from India and then I'm from New Delhi So I did my bachelor's back home from the south of India. It's it's it's a college called College of Engineering Gendi And a university so I did my four years of bachelor's there and then was that I worked for a couple of years in India with a multinational company It's called Vedanta resources and that was in the northwestern part of India What sort of company was that was it like an engineering mining? Yeah, it was a mining company and then I was working as a shift engineer like regular shifts that kind of I used to So I was working there for like a couple of years. It was a lead zinc Silver underground mine. It was a pretty good experience. And then As time passed I kind of wanted to gain more skills, which is why I decided to pursue my masters That's when I applied for the ubc mng Program and I Luckily got selected into it I kind of did the course over a span of another 18 months if I'm not wrong which includes a co-op work term And here I am Okay, so uh, lots of good information there. I'm going to dive a little bit deeper in each of those parts Uh, so just to summarize how long of roughly of a work experience Did you have before coming into canada like year-wise? Yeah, I think it was about uh to be precise. It was two years two months So I kind of started around uh, I graduated and then started somewhere uh in uh, june of 2015 20 june of 2013 and then I left that job in 2017 july approximately end of july and uh, august 2015 is when I started with the masters program Right on Okay. Um, so can you tell me about what your journey of immigration to canada was like? Sure. Yeah, so uh, yeah First of all, like while I was working I was I was relentlessly applying to these different universities. It was ubc east of canada, then it'll be montreal um megal university and then there were a couple of universities. I was looking in germany and then uh australia as well like And I was kind of comparing all these different options, right? So uh when I Kind of balance it out like which is kind of feasible for me back then but what uh, I had financially and then My my whole interest of being in the mining industry. So I kind of locked in on canada And uh, which is why ubc just happened to be yeah, uh, so like yeah, I just applied Luckily, I didn't have to write any g re examinations or anything It was uh, a fairly straightforward process applied as a student visa Okay Yeah, and how long does that last for the student visa? The student visa kind of lasted for the program duration. So, uh I think when I when I when I came to the border like the port of entry Uh At the canadian airport. So I kind of got awarded for like a two years student visa term So but anyways like in the middle of the program there was there was changes, right? So I I went for the co-op work term. So that's where my visa Does that actually goes for a new visa all actually goes and has a new visa So to apply for a co-op work visa So that lasted for the duration of my co-op work term in case there was an extension I have to again reapply for that For the extension as well. Oh, I so like was the completion of the Uh, the co-op work the matter again reapply for the student visa Gotcha. So like once you got that co-op offer in hand you you say, okay, I'm gonna work for this many Many many months and then that's when they extend it, right? Exactly. Okay, right on Um So, yeah, so you said um when you apply to the ubc mnch program You didn't have to do any gres But what was the application process like like what documents did you have to provide? Uh, first of all, like I just happened to fill out the form general application form. That's on the ubc website And post that the program director restarted to me that, okay, like we we Yeah, have a strong resume and then Kind of qualify for the for the program But however, we kind of require a letter of recommendation from Few people so at least I'd say I'd advise anyone who's interested for the program to at least have three references And independently apply your letter of references to the university That's one and then If I am not wrong Yeah, the only other thing was like your transcripts from back back back of the university like back home Uh, I think we have a different Credit system. How we yeah, I think it's out of 10. You get a cgpa or a gpa While while with the canadian system. It's a little different. So you could use independent um bodies like ws which kind of convert your international experience into a local canadian Um Qualified I mean they recognize it as a local canadian experience. So that really helps. Yeah Okay, next question. Uh, what was your experience like in the ubc and men's program? It was a it was a good really enriching experience because I was pretty much sure what I wanted to do in the program Like I was targeting Uh, I was I was always interested in my economics and rock mechanics. So these were my couple of interesting, uh Subjects that that I pursued and then I had also the option of choosing And structuring my program as I wanted to be like you could cherry pick your most favorite courses And and kind of structure your whole program like I think I think that's probably the usb of that program Which is why it was a very fulfilling experience. All right. Yeah, that sounds good Was there any like particular courses or experiences that stood out to you? Oh, definitely I I was fortunate enough to have a course on blog caving and uh, the professor He was an adjunct professor, but he happened to be an ex GM with rear dinto. I don't know if you know of this guy. Um, allen moss He happened to be with the Um with with the rear dinto group and he has his own Uh, private company. So he was also my Mentor for the final projects on mission that I did for the program. So Yeah, that was a really good course Excellent good to hear Yeah, all right. So, um, basically for the audience, uh, how med said was through working at shell canada So we'll jump into that portion now So what was the application process like for applying to shell to work there? Oh, yeah, so for the shell, uh, I think Not just shell like any anywhere in canada. There's usual processes kind of the network with The recruiters and the HR look for your job applications on the company website. Um, and yeah, just relentlessly pursue Structure your resume and your cover letters Gatering to the job profile like read it through thoroughly. Uh, that's exactly what they want And yeah, if you if you really are a suitable candidate like your skills match Then you definitely gotta hear back from them And for some for for shell, that's exactly what I did. I I kind of look up the job postings Uh, you could definitely see it on the website Um, yeah, I just had to structure my cover letter and resume Gatering to that job description and It was pretty straightforward from there. Do you recall anything about the interview process? Because first only I remember when I went through it. I thought it was like a very rigorous process I know. Yeah. Yeah. What were your thoughts on that? I think I think yeah, it was a pretty rigorous process. Like they had they had Analytical exams and all that stuff too, right? Yeah. So yeah, it was a pretty rigorous process and then and What do you call it? The interview Yeah, the interview was actually with with the recruiter for me in my case. That was the first round of interview Um, if I recall the guy, I think it was uh, steward young if I'm not wrong. Yeah. Yeah Yeah, so he happened to interview me and then He liked me in the interview. That's funny. He's like, okay, I'm gonna schedule you a one-on-one interview with the technical lead of the Uh, geotech team They are probably looking for a suitable candidate like you and it could definitely value that team So in the geotech team, I think I had an interview with uh, Derek um, so Yeah, that was a little bit of technical skills like but but they were trying to understand like Why do I need this role? Why do I want to apply for this role? Um, what are the skill sets that I have and what skill sets do I need to Like what am I looking at gaining out of this co-op term? So Yeah, it's it's it's good to have that thought uh process started Even before you even apply. Yeah, for sure. It's gotta be prepped as early as you can Um, so now your work term at shell was that for it was 16 months, right that you did? No, it was it was eight months. I wish it was 16. Okay. Yeah eight months So, uh, student eight months. Uh, can you tell us about what you did with your job title was and just your experience overall? For sure. Yeah, I was based out of uh, shell gallery office and I was working with the geotechnical design team Uh, but in a yeah, I was pretty much assisting senior engineers who are licensed p engineers. So I was assisting them with drafting reports supporting them with auto care drawings Kind of prepared a framework for an as per report, which is a regulatory document that kind of needs to be submitted to the regulatory body. So I assisted with that Did a lot of slope stability analysis works for them uh, like particular case studies, um Worked a lot with you. I I remember you assisted me a lot like there were a lot of mining plans that I had to come to you Uh, like what what's what's changing in this location? What's the future plan of work? So things like that So it was like it was very valuable experience. Yeah, it sounds like a very enriching experience. I know Um, so I think that just about wraps up our interview. Was there any last parting gifts of advice that you have for aspiring students Who want to be like you? Oh, um, I think definitely like pursue your dreams, but yeah be realistic uh keep like like I think I think for a lot of people they they kind of Have a structured Job hiring process back home. I think they kind of pass out of the university and then there's a university like What do you call it? tie-ups with the industry So wherever you can go for career fairs stuff like that and they kind of expect that Universities will just come in Like all these different companies who just come into the university and just hire you but that that's pretty much not the case here So in terms of being realistic. Yeah, definitely work on your resume. Work in your cover letter Network as much as possible Uh, yeah, definitely. It's it's about knowing your things, but it's also about knowing the right people in the industry Well said, thank you so much for joining us for this interview. I know so many people are going to find this interview So very helpful. Yeah, I hope so Yeah, no, I'm pretty sure like you're gonna get lots of people just going to be following up and asking you questions I'll be more than happy to help them. Yes. Excellent. Good to hear. Well, we'll wrap up here then Thank you everyone for tuning in to this interview. We'll have more I guess any q&a any questions that you have or any future videos you want me to do Just leave them in the comment section below and hopefully I'll get to catch up to it next time So that's it