Hi, I'm Dr. Praveen Nayak, Chief Consultant of Department of Podiatric Surgery, KNC Mangalore. Diabetes is quite a common condition, it's about 8% of population and 15% of these come across with food problems. Diabetic food, if you look at the diabetic food itself, diabetes on a long term affects the blood vessels and nerves. Coming to the blood vessels, they are the parts of the cardiovascular system which heart pumps the blood and the blood is taken to various parts of the body. This takes the nutrition what is required. For example, if it is food, the skin, the bones, the muscles for its life, it needs nutrition which is taken by the blood vessels. Whereas the nervous system is a little different. It is connected to the brain with so many wires. It does two functions, sensory and motor. All the sensation, the touch, pressure, pain, temperature, all the various kinds of sensation from the feet are taken appreciated in the brain taken via these nerves. That is the sensory part of the nervous system. At the same time, there is a motor part of the nervous system which helps in movement of the toes or ankle or any other part of the foot or any part of the body for that matter. Now as I told you, there are two systems cardiovascular and nervous system. Nervous system is commonly affected in diabetic food. So what happens is you lose the sensation of the feet and you lose important movements of the feet. So this is the main problem. So what happens is injury goes unnoticed. Once the injury goes unnoticed, it will not be identified at the time of injury and by the time the patient realizes the injury, it is almost a week or a 10 days and it would have already complicated. So what we have seen earlier is, it is the loss of sensation which has led to a major complication. A decreased blood supply will lead to vulnerable foot, diminished nutrition and a vulnerable foot for injury and further complications. So how do we manage this? There are 10 commandments of diabetic foot care. The most important three, one should always, if you are diabetic, you should always remember is examine your foot every night before sleeping. Look for any injury. If any injury is there, treatment has to be started immediately. Do not walk barefoot. The prevention is the best way. So as the foot doesn't have any sensation, if you wear the footwear all the time, once you are getting out of the bed, it should be in the footwear. So chances of injury becomes much lesser. The second one as I mentioned earlier is examine the foot every night to see if any injury has occurred in spite of wearing the footwear. And the third important thing is examine your footwear every morning before you wear the footwear. If it is shoe, you have to put your hand inside the shoe and see if any object is there inside the shoe or you have to also examine the outer surface, outsole of the shoe and insole of the footwear to confirm that there is no foreign object is there in the footwear. These are the three most important things. Other than these, there are a few other important things. For example, do not give hot water bath to the foot. The many people have a habit of dipping their feet into the hot water. Since the foot doesn't have a sensation, all sensations I mentioned to you touch pressure, pain and temperature. They don't have a hot sensation. So they can even dip their feet into the boiling hot water without any pain. So one should avoid dipping the feet into the hot water. Do not give hot water bath. Do not give vigorous oil massage and do not apply any plaster. If you have a small wound or a nail injury, some injuries there, do not apply plaster onto the skin directly because as you remove the plaster, you may create another wound that becomes even more complicated, especially if it is a decreased blood supply or an ischemic foot. And cut the nails regularly, cut trim them square. I feel it's very important for a common man to understand that vessels take the nutrition and nerves give the input from the feet or various parts of the body to the brain. These inputs are very, very important. They are protective. So losing this protective sensation is the most common complication and the most common cause of a diabetic foot ulcer which can be easily prevented by taking good care of the feet.


First of all, I'm absolutely delighted to be here. I had no idea what a brilliant conference this is. I'm just extraordinary. I'm very annoyed I have to leave it tomorrow, but I've already got such a great vibe for the different types of people who are here and the conversations I'm hearing. So thank you very much, whoever invited me, probably Sophie. I arrived from London. I'm only going to mention the Olympics once. Okay, hope I get away with it. I'm going to talk to you about some very practical things in many ways. As you'll see, my job is to kind of try and create the future now in quite a practical way and design what these future digital experiences are going to be like. So as Sophie said, I once had a design consultancy with a young student from Newcastle called Jonathan Ive, who's clearly much more famous and wealthy than me now. And he still rings me up every six months and tells me he's had tea with Bono or somebody. Thanks, John. But initially as a product designer, I was designing things like Apple portable computers and a very over-expensive Hi-Fi. And I was head of design at Samsung in Europe where we were creating very physical things that were increasingly using technology. I then got a fetish for working with people who had square logos. Seemed to like that quite a lot. And it was at Orange that I started becoming, I think it was a mistake. I don't think they realized I wasn't really a user interface designer, but I started to meet technology. And the first product I was given at Orange actually when I joined was this wonderful phone that had an internet browser open system to allow applications to be developed. Email, text, you know, sound familiar. And this was about 10 years ago. The first thing I noticed was it was impossible to use. It took me, I refused to read the manual and it took me two weeks to actually make a phone call on it properly. It was meant to be about the web. The screen was tiny. It was cluttered with little text and it was all about business, business speak. It was ugly. It was just really ugly. And the keypad was really difficult to use. You couldn't see what was on the keys. I realized there was a problem with this technology. We could do amazing things with it, but if it wasn't well designed, if it wasn't designed with an empathy for the people who'd actually use it, it was useless. And this was a very troubling thing. So I also found out at Orange that they had a fantastic brand. And as many brands, they're very, very good at communicating their core DNA. And, you know, they could describe that this phone had email in the palm of my hand. That was a lovely description, but converting it to reality was somewhat different. And whether it was email or many other wonderful applications that Orange and France Telecom developed, sorry if there's anybody from Orange or France Telecom here, it generally followed that. I was asked or told, here is an amazing piece of technology we have developed which will help people do things we confidently predict. They always wanted to do and now they'll do it all the time. We've made all the important decisions, worked at how to work, chosen the suppliers and developers and built a fully working prototype at great expense. Now you've got two weeks to design it or we will be late and it will be your fault, my fault. Thanks guys, that's a great brief. And I realized when they said design, you know, actually the design had already happened. I wasn't doing the design, I was putting the logo on or something and playing with the font. And I realized there was a real big problem here with the definition of design in technology. And to be honest, it's only got a little bit better. But why do I say design is important because people's perception of design is usually, certainly is in the UK and maybe here that the physical, it's about beauty and here's one of Jonathan Ives' loveliest pieces of work. And so it's something to do with making something beautiful. Design can be very contentious. There's the one mention of the Olympics right there. This logo was very, very unpopular when it was first launched. Everybody hated it, couldn't see any symbolism in it. You know, as the event itself has gone on, it's become deeply loved. And so people's reactions to pieces of design can be very emotional and they change. Information design, a little bit on the lines of some of Sophie's examples. The signage at Dusseldorf Airport was so bad people didn't know how to get out when the fire happened and lots of people died creating clear, wonderful signage. We can understand why design is relevant and appropriate to that. And then of course we meet designers who tend to be rather difficult, egotistical people who insist on the world being cast in their vision like Philip Stark will sprinkle his magic dust on a train or an orange juicer or whatever it might be. You know, and just trust me, I'll make it beautiful. I'm not sure that's the kind of design I agree with or encourage or I'm really talking about here. But back to my friend Jonathan and his marvelous evangelist leader, of course. When you do combine design and technology and I do think this is a marvelous combination of design and technology, all the same functionality that I had on my terrible orange phone suddenly becomes usable, suddenly becomes joyous, almost magical. And you go from internet, mobile internet usage to day before the iPhone was launched was 18% of mobile users who could access the internet did it once a month. The day after 98% of iPhone users access the internet every day. And of course we know now that it's just constantly being accessed.  And of course what we also need to understand it's not just an object. An object is just a little part of an ecosystem of a total customer experience. And I increasingly find myself designing not just the piece of technology but the whole journey that gets to it or it is part of more often. So with Apple we have apps, we have iTunes services of course and we have shops, shops that do not behave like shops behave normally. They are completely different experiences so that design, thinking totally changed. So what on earth am I doing at Cisco who make these things? They make things in racks that blink and engineers get very excited when they see them. It's a little worrying. And why on earth would I take my wonderful second best designer in the world after Jonathan Ives' skills to a company like Cisco? Well the interesting thing about Cisco is they develop the applications that sit on that technology. For those of you who don't know Cisco makes the kind of nuts and bolts of the internet. So it's not very sexy but on the other hand what you can do with the internet when it's fast and accessible and all those things suddenly you have amazing video conferencing. When I take people into this telepresence video conferencing people have a life-changing experience. There is a legend, I think possibly untrue that when George Bush Jr met John Chambers, our CEO at the end of the conversation over telepresence he tried to shake hands with him. I'm sure it's just a joke. But he had a point and I actually do think we should stick fake hands on these so that you can do that and they should tremble a bit when you touch them. But it's interesting that we take that at the application of technology and then we go imply it to medical, talk to a doctor, talk to a lawyer or buy something complicated like a mobile phone or a holiday by having a video conference or buy a kitchen and the one on the left is a live thing in the US where you can go buy a kitchen and speak to a kitchen designer of every type of style you might want which is very difficult to do in a physical store. So you begin to see how designing a physical space actually becomes a more interesting experience than the live one. Cisco also dream, and I like this dream they had and they put in telepresence screens in a village in Italy and a village in China and eventually as people walked past these screens they worked out that they were seeing people the other side of the world. And you can imagine that's a very uplifting thing to do with technology. It was all fixed, it was a fake for the advert but the idea was good. So I like the fact they at least had a good idea. So technology we really believe and I certainly believe it's a very transformational tool. You never quite know what it's gonna do but it will certainly transform. And ultimately it's about unlocking capability of us, of everybody.  The investment in technology is staggering sometimes luckily for my bonus. But technology, how can you make that technology, that investment, how can you make it relevant, desirable, accessible, unusable?  So what we try and do, what I do is I work with the customers of Cisco we try and create those transformative technology experiences but we design them. So when Caesars Palace in Las Vegas wanted to do something interesting with technology I obviously volunteered for the job and went out there and they wanted, very often our clients simply have some technology and they just want to use it. They wanted to use RFID tags and they had tried it in their topless bars in Las Vegas. So that when you're at the pool, the topless pool I hadn't been there. I didn't do the user research, okay. Then you could pay for your drinks with a little bracelet, sounds a great idea. After a week they found out that nobody was using it and the reality was that the waitresses were telling the punters, the customers that it didn't work because with the tags they didn't get any tips. When it was cash they were getting $500 bills well not down their front because they didn't have one on but down their pants or something and suddenly their whole life changed by this bit of technology and that hadn't been predicted, hadn't been understood and I love it when technology fails for that reason but that's why we need to understand how people really are. What we did end up doing in Caesars Palace was convert all their basically their posters, sites into displays. We put on RFID and your room key had an RFID sticker so it knew where your room was. You could touch it in, find out where your room was, where you wanted to go. It also knew because Caesars Palace is very clever and cunning in understanding their customers. They would know whether you were on a bachelor's party stag night I mean or whether you were here on your 50th wedding anniversary and advised you to go to the Pussycat Club or whatever it might be or not. Make sure they get that right. So they were able to give a very personalized digital experience that normally they lost contact with their customers the minute they actually arrived at their resort. So we were using technology to keep that relationship going. Another concept we created was a very clear vision. Wouldn't it be great if you had a cafe with that kind of digital video, high quality video and you could talk to somebody at the side of the world in a cafe and young people could talk to somebody in another part of the world and try and overcome their prejudices and just become more educated with their points of view. So Cisco were sure this was a fantastic idea. As a test, they put in their lovely telepresence screens into an art college central, St. Martin's, my old art college in London where the students immediately complained of surveillance. They felt they were being watched. Cisco were very upset about this. No, no, no, it's just about communication. And then the students said, but this is ugly. This is designed for a business. So they hid it with wood. So there was just a hole for the screen itself. And then they configured a whole load of games where people on each side of the two screens that were put in had to learn something about the people on the other side. And every time they did that, they would receive a free drink. So it was a game designed to slowly collapse as they went on learning more and more about each other. But also they found that using it for themes like Valentine's Day was great. You suddenly got a reason to communicate and then the technology worked, but simply putting the technology into the space failed completely. I love that again. So we could then design, in the more conventional sense, a beautiful and flexible installation that allowed you to be very private or allowed you to be quite public and have a group of people talking to somebody in, I don't know, Libya or South America. Obama caused this Kansas to Cairo because you can have groups of people in a controlled way talking and learning about each other. Very often we look at new technology that looks very exciting. This is a magic mirror. You can put, you stand in front of this thing. It is gesture. It's the world's first sensible use of gesture, Sophie. Because it's like a fashion mirror, you have to be away from it. And you wave at it and different clothes come through. The whole store's clothes, if you like.  It locates all your shoulders and you can see yourself in this dress. But it was a horrendous piece of design. It was unusable. And ergonomically, it did all the things that Sophie warned us about, gesture. You did get tired and it was very difficult to use. So we brought in design teams. We created a generic version and learned from that. It's a very learning experience to design technology. And then eventually found a live client where we perfected that user interface that was absolutely critical. Now this technology costs a lot of money. Everyone was paying a lot of money. We could not get a budget for design. We eventually found a very small budget for design. If we hadn't had a design budget, this whole technology would have failed. This pilot would have failed. And I'm constantly amazed how people will go so far and then forget to make sure that things are actually designed because that will be the thing that makes a difference. I'm glad to say six weeks of this, and it was a huge success. They sold a lot more dresses. They're desperate to have it back. Few. A couple of other examples, it's slightly different. We're very interested in how technology, the role of technology in our aging process, we are all, I'm sure, familiar that certainly right across the globe, society is aging. What do we do with people when they live longer? How do we help us look after ourselves more? We worked with a town in Holland to understand how technology could help us age better. And the first thing I did was Google all the people in that town who are over a certain age because nobody in the team in this town, Elmira in Holland, had actually got in their mind the people they were designing their services, designing this technology for. And we quickly found a bit of a dope fiend up there in the hat, a guy next to him, that's a dating agency. He's well into his seventies, but he's still hot. The guy in the middle is laughing, not dying. And some people using technology with the Wii. There's some great stuff there. All class, some people protesting. And it made them realize, and you might not think this is design, but it's about starting with people, starting with the people who will use your services. And this was very important to them. So important that they completely change their town planning process. And they now have personas of people, their own citizens in their offices on the walls to remind them who they're actually designing for. In this case, we just put some video screens again in. We got people singing. We got people who would go to a community hall and slightly younger, more able people would go to the brand new art center that none of the old people could get to. And they had one crazy conductor who taught both choirs in the same place and they started singing to each other then they started singing to people the other side of the world. And it became a very emotional thing actually. And people who had been bedridden or house-ridden for months got out and engaged again in their community. So sometimes the benefits, I liked, there was an earlier talk this morning, they talked about how do you measure something? And I've always been asked, how do you measure things? It was difficult to measure this, but there was a lot of happiness. And people were doing things differently. You could see that was happening. We went on with the aging project to look at wisdom because as you get older, you obviously have life experience. We have knowledge, we have skills. Amazingly, people in the UK and all over Europe retiring at 50, 55 with a huge amount of knowledge and they just go and play golf or something. Trying to harness that knowledge, trying to mentor younger people, mentor older people, use the web as a platform for knowledge exchange was something we were very interested in. However, when we asked people what did they know, they would write longhand. They don't know that they have to write a word and then put a comma after it so that we can tag it easily. So we have to learn a whole new way of tagging knowledge so that we can identify what wisdom they have. But we wanted to use the power of technology to create that kind of cloud picture of who people really are, not just a teacher or a policeman. We want to, and there's so many examples of people in older age using the web, but in a very static way. We wanted to use video because you just see that guy's face. You know that a young person's just told him what they did last night and you see that emotional response and this is why video mentoring is so powerful and why on the top right, it helps young kids going into violence in Chicago where they share the testimony of older kids who've been through their violent gang warfare. They don't go and follow that route themselves. So we have prototyped this. We are finding wisdom, sharing wisdom, connecting wisdom. And by taking this very user-centered approach, working with a bunch of people to understand what their wisdom is and then build that into the technology, I think we're going to create something really exciting. So what's different about what I'm saying here? Why is this any different to anything? There are a few main principles. One is let's understand what the real experience is. My wife is a teacher. She buys lots of books, real books, not e-books as we saw just now. She hasn't actually read my book, but I encourage you to, which you can get on a wonderful site like Amazon, which is not very pretty, but incredibly effective and brilliantly designed in the way that it works and the reference. We then have a wonderful logistics system that can deliver those books to your door, which is fantastic.  And then I go to the post office on Saturday and join the other 500 people trying to get my bloody books. That's a real experience. Lots of bits of brilliance in between, whether it's the logistics or the website or whatever, but the whole experience, nobody takes responsibility for, and it's usually broken. And anybody in the business with a brand that understands that succeeds, but most people don't, they don't understand. So we begin to have workarounds and new innovations like little local grocery stores will take your internet collections for you or your returns that you don't have to stay on all day waiting for the delivery, et cetera, et cetera. And technology is a powerful force in that, but understanding the right amount of technology is something we often get wrong.  Why? Because every chip has a clock in it. So let's give people a digital clock. And then the hour changes at the end of the summer or the beginning of summer.  And then I go to my mother-in-laws and do hers as well. Thank you technology so much for all those damn clocks. And I think it's a silly example, but it noise the hell out to me just because we can, we do. That's the wrong thing. We need to understand what on earth for. So many devices not interconnected even with the same manufacturer. No strategic vision, we just throw plastic and PCBs at us and plunk them in our living room. We need to have a much more strategic and sustainable view of devices.  He's puzzled by TV that he has, now he has to navigate around TV. You know, this is complicated. He can't see it anymore. And his laptop, he now has a Mac, so it's got easier. And his Wi-Fi system, you know, I'm the one that spends, I'm his IT department, of course. You know, I'm the one spending my weekends on the call centers trying to work out how these things should work. So what goes wrong here? Why has that happened? And what can we do about it? And the obvious thing people always say, well, let's ask people what they want, how they want it to be. That isn't always the right, easy solution. Phillips gloriously in the 80s designed this wonderful radio and asked people, did they want it in very bright colors or did they want it just black and techy? So they did the right thing. They had a focus group and everyone said, we love the bright colors. We will definitely buy that one. And as a gift for taking part, they're allowed to take these radios away. And they all took the black one, the one they said they didn't want because suddenly they had to make a decision that was, hang on, I've got to take this home. I've got to put it on my kitchen table. My partner's going to look at it and say, what did you get that for? You know, so suddenly the reality of the decision and that design is about prototyping that real experience, not just having market research come up and say, do you want this or do you want this? Because you never have enough reality. My favorite, favorite story at the wonderful Heathrow Terminal 5, I'm being ironic, is it's a big project. You have to get these things right. You know, you have big foresight. So they understood that people were getting older too and that older people would be traveling a lot more. So they followed them around the airport to see what needs they had to factor into the design of the airport, found that they all were going to the toilet a lot. So they thought, right, okay, we've underestimated their bladder weakness. We need to double the numbers of toilets. And when they got, one of the researchers strangely decided to go into the toilet. And when they went into the toilet, following these poor old people, I hope they didn't spot them, they then saw that they were just standing around in the toilet listening to the announcements because it was the only place in the airport they could hear. It wasn't about toilets at all. It was about a better sound system and places where you could have silence and lots of displays so that your confidence, you get your plan. Now, I think we have to get into the toilets of life if we understand. Because when you do, there is innovation right there. There's nuggets of possibility. So that's what we need to do. We all think we know what simple is. Engineers think they know what simple is. This wonderful example, gladly, is not there anymore, was an old London tube ticket machine where I can see the engineer saying, if we had one button for every station, that would just be the simplest thing. So there's 350 buttons there. With typeface, this poor guy hasn't got a hope. Now, how would design have solved that? I think if the guy had printed it out at full size, as it came out of the plotter, he would have thought, that's not the best idea I've had today. I'll now go back and have another idea. Which is an important point. Because I think we have to work with users and increasingly the message of design in technology is working with users, collaborating, co-creating. These are all the buzzwords. They're important things. Interestingly, politicians are doing it a lot as well. But it's not just about that. It's about having real pictures. I'm working, I have a great job. I'm working for Manhattan Transport Authority at the moment. We're designing what the customer journey on Manhattan trains is going to be like. And having good pictures and personas again of people is really, really important. So they have it in their head. But having more than one idea is really important as well. And very often, technical people, chief executives, politicians only have one idea. And then they just protect it.  Design school, if you don't have five ideas in your presentation, you fail. You've got to have one idea, then another, then another. And even if your first idea was really good, your other four ideas will build on it and find other things that will support it. I think every child, every one of us, should be taught how to have more than one idea. Because it's exciting and you go on a journey and you always end up with something better. So that's, I think, where design makes a difference. And I'm very nearly finished. Because finally, I think we can design the future. Somebody today said they couldn't see the future. I think we can design it. This is my favorite product of all time. It's a washing machine. Yep. It's a washing machine where you put your clothes in the bucket and you leave them there for a week. And the natural process of the plants, the water goes through the washing. And during that week, your clothes become clean through a completely natural process.  That's a nice idea. But I couldn't put up with a week. But the company that did this also did the research on the length of time your garments are in their laundry basket. And the average length of time is one week. So actually from you putting them on the floor and then getting them clean is exactly the same. Now what I love about this is it's not real. It's a bit of plastic and a story around it with a bit of fake grass on it. Because it's saying if you want an environmentally sustainable future, we might have to think about this. We might have to wear dirtier shirts and put up with our smelliness. But that means we use less detergents. It's a dialogue with our future. It says, how about this? We're going to make you believe this is real. You can experience the future. And I think that's a very powerful tool that design can bring to all of us. Finally, when we have done all these things and we have created wonderful technology, there's one last bit that can go wrong. And an Apple, sorry, Microsoft very famously did a video a few years ago about what would happen to the beautiful Apple packaging that they created around iPhone. If Microsoft had done it, 25 marketing people would have come up with their input on it. And they would have been incentivized to say, ah, this is not expressively human. We must add the price rebates. So you get this just horrendous iPod, 2,040 dollar rebate. This is an empty box, a nightmare of packaging because they've been incentivized. I think managers should be incentivized to shut up and hold the vision. I've never seen it, but once you've got it all right, hold it, defend it, then you can defend it. When you've had more than one idea and you've used users and you've done the whole stuff, now we deliver it. That's what Apple do that no one else does. Design is not an option. We do it all the time. We just do it unconsciously or poorly. In this digital world where we interact with each other, the objects around us and they with each other, we've got to design technology that's usable, delightful and successful and not just cross our fingers and hope for the best because, as this SIFTables tells me from MIT, every single thing around us will be connected, be talking to itself, it'll be a screen, all the things we've been hearing about. So let's make sure that that is simple, not complex and helpful, not a hindrance. Thanks very much for your time. I'm sorry if I went over.


This is going to be a streamlined episode as I've already talked about both movies prior, but you keep requesting it. So here it is, Rise of the Planet of the Apes vs. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes on Movie Feuds.  He's much grittier and standoffish with the humans in the sequel, but still retains strong character development, especially when forced to trust people again, particularly Malcolm, played by Jason Clark. Clark does a fine job, but he doesn't have that magical spark Caesar and James Franco did in the first movie. It's telling when the most emotional scene in the second picture is footage of Franco's Will Rodman and his best friend talking in the kitchen, footage that was taken right from Rise. John Lithgau was another big draw for me, while Franco's love interest Caroline was an unnecessary inclusion, one that went absolutely nowhere as she doesn't come back and down to the Planet of the Apes. Barry Russell and Gary Oldman are both solid in Dawn, but very one-dimensional, with the second biggest star being that of another ape. I'm referring to Koba, who is great in Rise, but has given a much bigger role in Dawn. Most of the Apes have stronger personalities than their human counterparts, such as Maurice, Blue Eyes, and even Cornelia, played by Judy Greer. Rise of the Planet of the Apes may be a terrible title for a film, but the story is executed brilliantly, following the early life of Caesar. As we see him born into this world, he learns from his adopted human parent, and he is wrongfully punished for defending his family. This all ends with the rising taking place. He trains his fellow apes and leads them into battle, where they'll eventually take refuge in the woods. That's where the story gets really interesting, but also where the credits roll, because this is just the beginning of what's to come. It's also where Caesar has to say goodbye to his best friend. It's tough to watch, and I still choke up a bit when I think about it. Why did you break his heart, Caesar?  I kind of wanted to see more of a resolution between the characters, but Dawn of the Apes for some reason jumps forward in time. I guess the writers thought that was best, but I'm still not convinced in that decision. Regardless, Dawn is a damn fine movie. There's a new threat, not just from the humans, but also within the ape ranks. Juggling between Caesar's wavering feelings towards Homo sapiens and his outright foolishness in thinking all apes are good apes leads to some very intense scenes. I think Dawn is paced a bit slower than Ryze, but the payoff is spectacular. The battle with Koba is intense, and it puts the bridge battle from the first film to shame. Where I could make a strong case for Ryze in the first two rounds, this is a hard one to argue. Dawn is three years newer, and technology continues to make strong strides forward. The apes look almost life-like at times, with major improvements to shaders and detail. Ryze is very strong CGI as well, but it looks a bit dated already compared to the 2014 film. Neither of these movies are big action spectacles outside of one or two small portions, and I'd say each has an equal amount of memorable moments. The first having the terrific prison-style escape, and the San Fran finale, while the second gets a badass apes on horse's hunting section topped with the killer conclusion. You can't go wrong with either, is the bottom line. Patrick Doyle gave Ryze a nice range of sound. With the help of Hollywood Studios Symphony, Doyle was able to match emotions in the movie with that of the score. The music goes on the journey with our protagonist, and a lot of times really sells the feelings of our ape. Michael Gachino steps in for the sequel. I don't remember the score here near as well, but it definitely makes itself present when needed. These 19 tracks are much darker than the previous list, but this once again sticks with the tone of the film. So there!  These were two big surprises for me personally. I didn't expect Ryze to be such a good movie, and with the sequel taking so long to come out, I thought Fox was going to give us a half-ass follow-up. I was wrong on both counts, and this is my favorite trilogy to come out of Hollywood in the last five years. I really hope they maintain that quality when Fall of the Planet of the Apes comes out, or whatever the hell they're going to call the third outing. Leave your thoughts on these movies and vote for the winner. Like the video! If you liked the video, it's pretty self-explanatory, but I'm going to say it anyways. So if you want to keep updated on what feuds are coming out on Feud Nation, head on over to the Facebook page, Facebook.com slash Feud Nation. More than just reviews, this is Movie Feuds. I need to speak to Caesar! Why wasn't that in the movie? It better be on the goddamn DVD, or I'm going to be pissed. Yeah, there was that emotion I was missing earlier.


Yeah, so I'm just gonna start this thing off. Accord is the next great Bitcoin transaction protocol. That's right, this is your Crypto Bro path to happiness. And I'm gonna talk about how you can make a million dollars today with Accord. You didn't expect that, did you Blake? Yeah, yeah, on the money, yeah. How's everyone's summit going? Is this good? We're almost through, right? Yeah, like, day two is hard, huh? Because you burn hard the first day and you're like, I could do this two days. Then you wake up and you're like, no, I can't. Yeah, that's what, I always feel like we should have like a day and a half conferences. Like a two day late conference. And like re-invent is literally a week now. It's Sunday to Saturday now. What's that? A long morning? I'm like, yeah, we could do that too. We start at three a.m. and end at noon. We'll start at midnight. I know some of you are probably like, that's the middle of the day for me. All right, four 10. I think this is when I'm supposed to start. I don't know, I'm kind of losing track of time. So I'm supposed to be entertaining. Josh. Let's do this. All right. Everybody loves acid. Yes, it is. Funny, I just read an article about how Silicon Valley is the acid capital of the world. And I'm like, yeah, that's my talk tomorrow. Not that. All right, yeah, I mean, come on, the jokes are easy, right? Let's just go. Okay, so here's everybody. So when I've talked to any user about Cassandra since 19, no, it was probably around 2011, 2012. It was the thing I keep hearing like, oh yeah, Cassandra's awesome, man, uptime is awesome, scale is awesome, but I need transactions. And I get it. I mean, we all have lived, you know, we're like Barbies living in a Barbie world, right? We're living in like relational database world. I've been using relational databases since a long time ago. And that's what we all expect. They were built around acid transactions, right? Oracle started this whole thing in the 80s and it's just gone crazy since. So it's not weird. So we're just gonna have to deal with this. So there are three use cases. I'm gonna talk about three use cases, macro use cases that Cassandra can't do yet. And this is what I've always had to talk around. Now it's either you don't do it or you make up something super crazy. Hey guys, how you doing? We've done that. You're like, oh, it doesn't have transactions. Let's use magic and code to make it work, right? And you can fake it, but you're putting a lot of work on yourself and not on the database. So number one, bank transactions, be classic, right? Even though banks would actually work like this. You know, it's this thing of like exclusively moving from one table to another. That's the big deal, right? There's this order. Like this thing happened before that. The exclusivity, you know, that it's only one person or one process making a change.  I asked it to give me an Alice to Bob and there's Alice giving Bob a big fat stack of Benjamins, say, but that's a transaction. This is a hard one, right? This is probably the number one thing that people talk about when they talk about transactions is like, oh, I want to be able to do a bank transaction because people love money, right? And money, if money gets lost, that's a data loss that hurts, right?  Inventory management. And this is one that I think once you understand the problem, this is probably more of an issue with like inventory is being finite. So it's not that you have inventory, it's that eventually you're gonna go to zero. Good example is if I want to buy PlayStation 5 and there's only five left, you know, you all had this problem, right? Am I the only one, right? The PlayStation 5 and there's five left and everybody clicked, who wins? Well, what you don't want is you find out that you now have negative 300 PS5s in inventory. That's just not a normal number, it's not okay. So you need to be able to be precise and first come, first serve. And it's a high concurrency problem too. Like if you have one record in your database that says PlayStation 5 and here's your inventory account, that's a problem. So this is another issue that definitely stay away from. And then finally the distributed ledger. I told you it was gonna be Bitcoin in here. But actually this is much more than just Bitcoin. It's a more generalized problem. It's like, and this is one that's really tough. It's like the changes have to be in order but also it has to adhere to some sort of timing as well. This happened before that. And this is wall clock. If you talk about consensus protocols, there's the real time. Like if I'm sitting there looking at the clock and the second hand ticking, I wanna know that the order is I clicked here and then that person clicked here, I win, right? There's no funny math when it comes to time. Time is supposedly an arrow. So that, and that's a really hard problem is sticking to that. So what needs to change in Cassandra? All right, I should say what has changed in Cassandra because this has been, spoiler alert, this has been working, this has been happening for a while. So what needs to change? Well, this is a great, if you wanna know more about consistency levels, I've been going back to this Jepson website for a long time just because this is a really good explanation of consistency levels as you can find because they're gathered in one place. And I love this chart. I've been using it for a while and it just shows you the hierarchy, you know. The higher you go, the stronger the consistency, the lower you go down, yolo. And we fit, Cassandra's fit in various places in that, but really serializable, see if you notice there's a fork in the road here, there's, over here is linearizable, God, these words. And then serializable, I don't even think those are real words, but we've made it word. They fork off, they're two different things, right? Well, serializable is the one that is really the current limit of distributed databases where people are at. And these are like the Spanners, Aurora's, Cockroach, yeah, goodbye. And the reason is is because, and they're very clear, like you go to the Cockroach website, they say, hey, we are serializable and this is why, because to make it linear, it is super hard and it's not that it's impossible, the costs are too high. Like to do it, it just takes too much time and resources and users would have a terrible experience. So it's just a trade-off. It's not a terrible trade-off, but it is a trade-off. It's really, it's maintaining that strict sequence. So you don't have this race condition where one process overwrites another. And that current limited distributed databases is good enough for a lot of things, but not the best. And what we want to say, oh, current, that's the current limit. I'm sorry, my slide is messed up. It should say word Cassandra and what we're trying to accomplish with Cassandra with a cord is taking it all the way to the top, to strict serializable. So you get the strict sequence and the real-time ordering. And that's a pretty squishy word strict serializable. There's a lot of definitions out there, but really the thing you need to understand is that it's not just the order of when you did it, but it's also the wall clock time and maintaining that time order. Which is a great way to not lose data in the long run. Because all of these, the only reason we care about consistency in a database is because we have situations that could lose data or have overwrite. And so the lower you go down, the more of those cases could happen. The higher you go up, and this is the best thing is you can be super lazy. So the developer experience, as I said, is browned this whole business of, we in the Cassandra community have decided to put features lighter in the database at first. It's very much put and get, but we put a lot of complexity on the developer. That has been evolving and changing for a while. And that's good because what we're doing is we're making, because developers are like, yeah, no, member thrift, it was awesome. But you had to really understand how to write good code to not destroy your data. So as we make more features available for the database, we make it easier for developers to write code against it. And it really just transfers all that complexity over to the database where it belongs. And it really is where databases have been for a while, right? I was an Oracle DBA, don't judge. But yeah, there was a lot of complexity put into that. And so whenever I wrote a very simple SQL command, I knew lots of stuff happened, but I also trusted it, right? Well, after like nine, eight was, but after nine it was totally solid. But you just trust what that does, but I didn't have to write a lot of complex code. I just threw it all in the databases and figured it out, right? And because I'm a lazy developer, right? We all should be, we should all be lazy developers. And the difference too is this observer reference frame and this is not a physics thing. This is about like, as you're doing something with your application, you wanna feel like you're the only one there. This is what you wanna feel like. And this is you. I'm the only one using the database, right? Even though there could be thousands and thousands of processes using the database. You don't wanna have to think. I mean, if anyone's had to think through a race condition, yeah, yeah, I see the faces. Thinking through a race conditions are hard because you just, I mean, they're kind of amorphous and weird and they usually aren't firmed up.  So let's just avoid that completely. You just wanna look like you're the only person working on a database. All right, liven up everyone, we're almost done. All right, so I talk about this a lot with this, but it is a thing. Pat Heland, I love this article. This uncoordinated business is like, the more we have to think about coordination, the worse off we are because it is a hard problem. It requires a lot of thinking. So just start working on uncoordinated as possible because coordination is expensive. It is the most expensive operation you do on a database. That's why whenever you write data into Cassandra at a consistency level of one, it's super cheap, right? What's the fastest way? Well, any, don't use any. But one is fast, right? And why? Because it just yolos the data right into the database and just drops it in and doesn't do anything to check it. It really comes right back. Great, and that's very cheap operation because it's a single node operation mostly. And when you start thinking about all the coordination that used to happen, it gets really expensive. So we don't want that. So that we need to have a single system experience with a distributed system. And I'm not saying it's the holy grail, but I'm saying it's pretty tough.  Yeah, that's right. Top movie in 1989 was Lethal Weapon 2 and behold, Paxos. I saw Lethal Weapon, I didn't know about Paxos in 89. But Paxos is actually, if I look at it now after years of looking at it, it's actually not too hard. It's easy to reason through, it's impossible to implement. I think we just nailed it in the Cassandra project this week, last week. It's been a process, right? But it's just kind of the headwaters of all consensus protocols, Paxos back in the day. And it's just saying like, if one system in the distributed system says, hey, I wanna make a change, it proposes that to everyone else. All the other nodes are like, cool. And then if it gets a cool back from everybody, it does it. And if one says, no, then it starts again. So, but it's a consensus protocol, meaning it has to get consensus. You can't have naysayers, right? And Blake, remember that time we argued about E-Paxos? Oh yeah, that's where I get my Paxos knowledge. Back in the day, we had a great time arguing about it. You won, by the way. But Paxos is, it's not an overly complicated thing, but it's when you look at it, you're like, oh, there could be a lot going on there. Yes, that's actually true. It can go back and forth. You can have like under high contention, like there's one thing that everybody's trying to change, all the processes are trying to change. You can get really noisy, right? Because everyone's like, I want to change it, I want to change it, I want to change it. And they overlap and they're like, no, yes, no. It's like Congress. Anyway, Spanner saved us all. Just kidding. Spanner was a good idea. 2012, when that came out, a little later than Paxos. But Spanner is really just multi-Paxos. And it still, the Paxos still applies, but it uses some method to make sure that from one Paxos domain to another, it maintains that sequencing, that serialization. The Spanner, like the Google Spanner, they have their own true time, some atomic clock sitting in a dark room somewhere. But there are other databases that use the Spanner protocol or Spanner paper, their derivative like Cockroach is a good example where they said, hey, we don't have atomic clocks, right? So they implemented their own way to keep things synchronized. I believe they use vector clocks. And then, Yugabyte is also a Spanner, but they used another thing as well. So it's all kind of based on the same things. You have these multi-Paxos and then you have this coordination layer. What that means is inserts can be really expensive. And I think that is the downside of Spanner. Reads are not that hard because you turn into read replicas. But that's really bad for Cassandra because, and this is why I'm gonna point that out, is because it creates a natural situation for Cassandra. Now we have to do all this massive coordination between data centers, which it's too much. We wanna think about in terms of, we wanna scale the way we wanna scale, like add a node. We wanna do five data centers, not just two.  Like you can't change that partition key because it's in a different data center. Those are weird things that we'll start throwing at users. Remember, developer experience is a good thing. The easier it is to use, the less mistakes you'll make. So a chord, and I know there's probably something wrong on here yet, but keep it really high level. It really was designed for Cassandra, the way Cassandra works.  And that's one of the things with consensus protocols which are really hard. Like what happens when you have a failure? A node goes offline. You don't wanna have to like stop everything. Hold on and reelect the leader and come back online. That is not a Cassandra experience. We want it so that y'all love to talk about it, but it's a thing and I'm gonna bring it back with a chord, I'm gonna start destroying Raspberry Pi's with a hammer. Because that's the experience you want, right? You wanna have lightning strike your data center, and not have any downtime, right? That's the dream we should all have and Cassandra can do that. But we shouldn't say oh, but if you want acid transactions then all that's out the door. That's super lame, let's not do that. So what about usage? Let's get into using it. Look at my clock, we're doing good. All right, how do we use, what is it about a chord and what we do with acid transaction with Cassandra? There is some syntax, stand by. And I think that this is still pretty firm. If not the case, I don't know Blake, Ariel, somebody tell me I'm wrong. Caleb, I think you're in here too. But anyway, this is the current version and what's new is adding this begin transaction, commit transaction. That's your block, right? That's your thing that says inside of here, acid do occur. And inside of it, I'm gonna break that down a bit too. First things first, there's a way that we can collect like this current state of the data before we do a mutation and that's like this let command and you can put it into a tuple and basically do a pre-select of like what am I gonna change? And this comes in handy in a minute. You can also do a select that will show you the change after you run if this was successful. So this is like a before and after setup. This is where all the magic occurs and it's really cool. We have this if statement that checks that tuple condition so that's why we grabbed that tuple. So we can look at what was the state of that data and then make a decision. Now I will walk you through some examples that will bring this home but like I said, this is where the magic is because when you have this conditional and then inside of that you can have updates, inserts, deletes. That conditional is where you make some really interesting decisions around thing. This is gonna come in super handy for a lot of things like inventory control. So I'm gonna walk you through a couple use cases here. The bank transaction, right? Here we go. Alice is gonna give Bob some money. So here's my setup. Here's my table. I have an account table and just real simple. I have who has the money and how much money do they have and I give, I'm giving Alice and Bob 100 bucks. 100 decimals, the real money that you can use. Probably Bitcoin at this point, right? Crypto. So if they both have 100 I'm gonna walk through the transaction. So the first thing I'm gonna do is I'm gonna grab Alice's because I'm moving money from Alice to Bob. I'm gonna grab Alice's bank balance. Like how much does Alice have an account? I'm also gonna emit how much after it's done how much Alice has after the transaction. Like I said, this is where the magic is. What I'm gonna do is because I'm gonna move $20 from Alice to Bob, right? I wanna make sure that Alice has that money in there. I do not want to overdraw. I know this is not a really good bank thing. Of course banks wanna overdraw you because that's how they make money, right? But anyway, let's just imagine that we're a good bank. We don't wanna overdraw, have our people overdraw. So we don't wanna overdraw the account. So what we do is we check to see if that account balance is greater than or equal to 20. If it is, Alice has enough money to give Bob and it happens. So if you look over here, you see the update? There's two updates that happen. There's another syntax that I absolutely love. Now the update can do a plus equals, minus equals, like smiling because he knows I love this so much. I wish we just had this in the regular syntax by the way and so does Aaron. But if we just do able to increment, we can increment this in place. So we'd say update. So take 20 bucks from Alice, give 20 bucks Bob. That all happens wrapped up in a transaction. I commit to transaction, we're done. Now, Bob, before you ask, no, there's no rollback. I know. You wanna leave? All right, I'll keep going. Rollback's a different problem. Inventory management. This one is also super cool because this is one I've never been able to solve well with Cassandra. It just is a super hard problem. It's an intractable problem for many cases. So I have some products in a product table. I have my shopping cart. Probably all of you have created this at one point in your life. So I'm going to insert that PlayStation 5. I'm gonna put 100 PlayStation 5s into the product because probably that's not even how many were there back in the day. It was weird, like Best Buy would get 20, Walmart would get 20. Like what? What do they need somewhere? But anyway, limited inventory. There's only 100. Now, what I'm gonna do, same type of thing set up. I'm gonna look to see what the current inventory is and this is all locked. When I start this transaction, this is all locked now. You don't look at the current inventory for PlayStation 5s. I'm gonna emit the inventory after I'm done. But then, again, this is where I make sure that I don't go past zero. So if the inventory is greater than zero, then I'm gonna update, I'm gonna change the inventory, decrement it down one. So there's one less PlayStation in the world and I'm gonna insert it into my shopping cart. Yes, I got a PlayStation. But yeah, I know, thanks, Max. But that's all happening in a transaction and locked under a highly concurrent workload.  It's gonna be okay. Relax, because the database got you and that's impossible to do without it being in the database. I'm just gonna say that, it's impossible. It needs to be closer to the wire, where the data exists. And what this does, so under a highly-continued load, if I had, here's where the order and the linearity comes in, if I have two people that click really close to each other, they're still milliseconds apart. So, because Max was really excited too and he was just a millisecond late, I got the PlayStation, sorry, Max. Sorry, last one. But you know, you don't wanna send your customer an email saying, sorry, we totally blew past the inventory. Here's a coupon. Is that what you guys do at Walmart? Yeah, pretty much, yeah. So, but think about, this isn't just shopping cart or inventory, think about other things where this applies. Again, these are general patterns, but a good example of how this works. I built this thing as funny as like, yeah, I wanna make this to sell my book. But, yeah, I can't even get them away, so there's still 10 in inventory. So, but this is like the thing that I think about.  Like people are like, get it now, click. This used to be scary, now it's not. Now, I don't have a really good distributed ledger one. I actually was trying to come up with a really good one. Yes, that's an interesting problem. Yes, that's the one we can't do with Cassandra, but I actually wanna go after something that has been impossible to do well, that I think has more applicability for the Cassandra community, which is this real atomic batch. Now, when I say real, some of you may realize that there was a controversy, or know about this controversy, they're at one point, somewhere in the docks, somewhere, the batch in Cassandra was called atomic.  Oh, people start throwing out definitions. That's not atomic, and so, and of course, they weren't really, I just got named that and unfortunate naming, but I'm here to save the day. I'm gonna be a peacemaker. You can actually do it now. So think of this, and this is a very common pattern in Cassandra where you have a base table like user, but then you create lookup tables, user by email, user by location. These are index tables. Now, if I was to change something in my user record, like their city or by their email address or something like that, I need to update the index tables as well. Now, you can do that with a batch, but the batch is non-deterministic, right? It will eventually happen. It's eventually consistent, but it isn't a asset transaction. I'm not changing all my tables at the same time. And what this is the same thing I'm gonna check, I'm gonna say, does this person even exist? So I'm gonna make sure and not do anything that doesn't exist. And this is that example of that, if the tuple is null, right? That is an interesting problem, right? So what I'm doing is I'm actually creating a situation where if this person exists, I'm not gonna stomp on them, but if the account doesn't exist, then I'm gonna create a brand new one. Now, I can also do updates, like if I wanted to change my account, and that would be a different conditional. But in this case, what I'm doing is making sure that lightweight transactions, let me quickly stop here. Lightweight transactions do this for one partition. If you need to do more than one, wah-wah. So this is how you do that multi-partition change. And it's just built into the database. So, cool. Okay, doing great on time. So when can I get it? Ariel, thank you. CP-15 Accord, there's a branch right now. You can go download it and build it yourself. If you need help with that, hit me up. I was gonna build a Docker image, but I didn't get time because I was hanging out with you guys, which was worth it. It's all good. But I think I'm gonna still do that. Maybe this weekend, if I have time. But now I wanna create a Docker image around this because it's not a part of any official release right now, so I have to do it as a individual, not as official project thing. But the target release is 5.1. As you heard me maybe say this in the keynote yesterday, it was originally slated for 5.0, after some discussion in the mailing list, some light banter back and forth. Some easy discussion about differences between one version or another because we just love each other in the mailing list and this is what we do. We decided that we're gonna decouple the Accord and transactional cluster metadata, TCM from 5.0 just to let 5.0 ship, it's got everything. So it's in beta right now, go play with it. But 5.1 will have, there'll be a fast follow and we'll have the Accord and that. But I mean it's just a matter of, I think the important thing is that we all realize that this is a major change to Cassandra. Was like 88,000 lines of code got touched or does that seem like a number? Anybody wanna say yes or no? No, that was just TCM. Just TCM was AT, so yeah, it's a big one. But when you touch that much code in any consensus protocol, we wanna really make sure we test it a lot and make sure, you know, cause we as a project, we hold dear quality, right? And that's important. That's what we all agreed to in the mailing list. It's a matter of just making sure to give it enough room and I think that's fine. But I do think it was important for everyone who's interested in using transactions with their next application to get out there and start getting used to the syntax because it is different. You're gonna have to learn about it. You're gonna have to figure out how it fits in your application and just, you know, it's just knowing how it works. Now, understanding that, you know, trusting it beyond the way, there's a lot of testing going on, that sort of thing, but just get the syntax right. I think that's what I wanna recommend. This QR code goes directly to that branch if you wanna go to there. And then finally, thank you very much. I think I nailed the timing. Max, questions? Transaction template. What I would really, really love to see is find its way into some frameworks. Like, you know, there's a lot of frameworks now. You know, Aaron's talked about Mongoose, for instance. Mongoose is a JavaScript framework for Cassandra. I just think that would be cool to see that just magically get awesomer. But under the covers, it's using transactions. So, no particular template's right in Cassandra, but I think I would like to see this go out into the ecosystem and just become more of that. Spring is another one. Spring Data has some hooks in it that I would love to now be able to use. That's a good example, yeah. Second question? Oh yeah. Yeah, thank you for Mike. Second question. I trust you created a lot of different ways to check the condition, but these are very chance, but at some point of time, we are going to be able to upload our jar to Cassandra and do very complicated checks for the condition before we enter the locked state. A very complicated check. Like, what would be an example of a complicated check? Like a subselect maybe? Or, no, you already do a select off your data. So, anything that's supported in a select statement is available, you can create a tuple with. What if we have some, you know, complicated math around with math functions which are not supported by the tuple sender. I don't know if that's really, does anyone know? I mean, like if you wanted to do like a max or a min or something like that, is that what you're talking about? Like math functions. Yeah, math functions, but maybe more complicated than just maxed, I mean. Or a count is another one that could be done. Like how many of these things? Yeah, I know. I got everyone laughing and I was like, oh God, here it comes. See, you should never release code because not everyone wants more, right? There's no plans right now, but this is where I encourage you as a user of the system to join us in the Apache Software Foundation Slack. There is one called Cassandra Accord. Right now it's just a bunch of people trying to figure out how to compile it and make it work and there's a lot of stuff that's going in there about the details. But I would love to see that transition more to hey, I'm using it and here's my experience. Yeah. Yeah, JIRAs are awesome because, and whenever you create a JIRA, and I'll say this because the camera's on, when you create a JIRA, you can say what subsystem it is and you can say, yeah, this is for Accord. And yes, those are very valuable because first of all, it's official, it's in the system and it can be followed up on it, it can be routed, signed, all these things. So JIRA system is very good for, this is what we use in our Cassandra project, yeah. I think we're kind of, wait, do you have one more question over here? Yeah. So I noticed all of your examples had a single let. Yes. Is it possible to have more than one? Yes, you can have more than one let. Awesome, so is there, what's the limit? You know, I don't think we have one. Ah, nice. Yeah, this is, welcome to the world of guardrails. We have not defined any for Accord yet. Yeah, guardrails is a five or a four, four-dotto concept, but yeah, I think that part of this is we're gonna find our guardrails right now, it's a little go for it and let's see where it breaks. So yeah, I expect we're gonna find somebody. What do you mean I can't do 10,000 let's? Well, that's unusable. All right, thank you very much, we'll be outside, but thank you. Thank you.