Hello, everyone. Welcome to yet another session of our NPTEL on nonlinear and adaptive control. I am Srikanth Sukumar from Systems and Control IIT, Bombay. So in this week number eight, we have been looking at adaptive integrator back stepping in more details in the last few lectures. And so we essentially saw the unmatched design and how to generalize it to the vector case. And we also saw how to do an extended matching design, which allows us to prevent over parameterization. We are well into the design and development of algorithms that help drive systems such as the SpaceX satellite orbiting the earth that we see in the background. Now, we've already looked at several methods now. And what I wanted to do was today in the session was to look at an example that is a vector example for both the matched and the unmatched case. And look at both the conventional design and also the extended matching design. Yeah, so let's see how we can do. So this is, I mean, there was also an example that I asked all of you to a problem that I asked all of you to sort of try to solve, which is also has vector parameters. So of course, I wanted all of you to try this. But what I want to do is to look at a complete vector example with the states and control everything being vectors, right? So, and so that's what this is. So this is, sorry, just allow me a moment, right? So this is where we start. This is lecture 8.6. So I think this was 8.5, right? So we are at lecture 8.6. And this is the sort of system. This is a concocted sort of system. So I wouldn't worry so much about what is the real relevance. But the aim here is to design a stabilizing adaptive controller with sort of parameters p and theta. We start with the matched case, where we assume that theta is the unknown, right? And theta in this case is a 3 by 3 vector. X1 and X2 and the control are vectors in R3. p is also in R3. So therefore, you have a cross product here. And theta is actually, sorry, I apologize. Theta is actually a 3 by 3 matrix. Yeah, I'm sorry. So theta is actually a 3 by 3 matrix. So let me just give it a thought first that if this is the example that I want to consider, right? Or, yeah, let's sort of look at this example, okay? Let's sort of look at this example and see how things go. Okay, right, right. So let me try to do the matched case. In the matched case, p is assumed to be known, theta is assumed to be unknown, all right? So let's see how the design goes. So I'll start with the first stage. And I want to prescribe X2d. But before I prescribe X2d, I want to prescribe a V1 as half X1 transpose X1 or the norm. This is the standard choice whenever vector states are involved. And we can also try a weighted version of this. But for us, this is okay. And I take V1 dot. And this I used to actually obtain my X2 design, right? Because I assume my X2 to be the control, right? So V1 dot comes out to be X1 transpose X1 dot, which is p cross X1 plus X2. Now the interesting thing is that so I'm going to say note X1 transpose p cross X1 is actually zero. Okay, why? Because p cross X1 is orthogonal to X1 and dot product of orthogonal quantities is zero. Okay, or you can also think of this as a scalar triple product, right? So this also can be thought of as a dot b cross c. And I can rearrange it to obtain again X1 cross X1, which will give me zero. Okay, so this quantity is zero. So this product does nothing. So I'm left with X1 transpose X2. So a good choice of X2 desired is still my usual nice choice, which is some minus K1 X1, where K1 is some like for now I just take it as a positive scalar, just a scalar quantity. Right? Great. Now what do I do? I define my backstipping variable as Z as being equal to what? My backstipping error, because X2 is my true state and I wanted to follow X2 desired. So this just becomes X2 plus K1 X1. Right? And now what do I do? I define my V as V1, which is, I'm going to say this V1 for now, V1 X1 plus half the norm of the backstipping error square X2 plus K1 X1 norm square, apologize. And then of course, because it is the unknown parameter case, right? I will always deal with the unknown parameter. So I have to add some term corresponding to that. Okay, I'm going to add some time corresponding to that.  Okay. And I will explain what is mu tilde, so why do I need mu tilde? Let's look at this. So here, the parameter is actually a matrix, right? And I don't, we don't like to deal with matrix parameters. So what do we say? We say that theta X2 is equal to something like a W times mu. You know that this left hand side is linear in the elements of the matrices of the matrix theta. Therefore, I rearrange it, right? So what is mu? Mu is actually equal to theta 11, theta 12, theta 13. So this is basically just the columns stacked theta 21, theta 22, theta 23, theta 31, theta 32, theta 33. Yeah, so that is what is your mu. Okay, so this is very simple. I've just, in fact, I can be careful and say that this is actually just W of X2 times my new parameter mu, which is nothing but the theta, which was a matrix stacked in a vector, okay, column wise. And then mu tilde is just mu minus its estimated mu cap. Yeah. So this is just because I have a matrix parameter theta, and I don't like to deal with matrix parameters. Yes, I did it in the, you know, model reference adaptive control case, but I don't want to do it. So I'm going to deal with the vector parameter mu. Okay, so this is what is now my, you know, candidate Lyapunov function for the entire system. Okay, this is what is my candidate Lyapunov function for the entire system. Right. Great. So now what do I do? I take derivatives and try to find the controller, right? So let's do that. Let's do that. So I'm going to, let's say, let's see if I can copy this whole thing. Yeah, I believe I can copy and remove to the next page and simply paste it. Okay, I don't know what I copied. Somehow copying the whole thing. Okay, maybe I can still paste and delete it. Okay, that's fine. This is okay. So what I do is I just erase this. Yeah, great. So now if I take my v dot here, what do I get? I will get v dot as v1 dot, which is a one half x1 transpose x1. So I'll get x1 transpose x1 dot, which is again p cross x1 plus x2 plus this guy one half x2 plus k1 x1. What I'm going to just write this as z, z transpose z dot, which is x2 dot, which is w times mu plus u, which is x2 dot, plus k1 x1 dot, which is k1 p cross x1 plus x2. Right, plus just one over gamma mu tilde transpose mu, mu hat dot with the negative sign. Right, because mu tilde dot is just mu hat dot. Okay, great.  Right, so I'm going to write this as x1 transpose times x2 plus half z transpose this whole mess. Well, actually, you know what, I'm going to make my life simpler. And I'm going to write x1 transpose x2 in terms of z. So this is actually z minus k1 x1 plus half z transpose. This whole thing gets here and minus one over gamma mu tilde transpose mu cap dot. Okay, now you can see that I have a minus k1 norm x1 squared from here. And sorry, I don't have a half here and that's a mistake.  Okay, again, just copying terms and moving this z x1 to this term, I get this. Now I'm in a good position to design my control. Right, this is an unknown. So I'll just replace it with the estimate. So my control will be just minus x1 minus k1 p cross x1 plus x2 minus a good term, which is k2 z minus w mu hat. And here k2 is of course some positive quantity. Right, so what I have done, what have I done? I have canceled this, I've canceled this, introduced a nice negative term and tried to cancel it with my estimate. Right, so with this, my v will be minus k1 norm x1 squared minus k2 norm z squared because of this guy. Right, and I will be left with plus z transpose w w mu tilde because I have a w mu here minus w mu hat from here. So I have a w mu tilde and a minus one over gamma mu tilde transpose mu hat dot. Now if you look at these two terms together, I can take transpose here. Right, so this is equal to mu tilde transpose w transpose z because these are all scalar quantities, I can take as many transpose as I wish. Right, no problem. Right, so using that, I choose mu hat dot to be so that I cancel this guy. So this would be gamma w transpose z. Yeah, so if I do that, I end up with v as minus k1 norm x1 squared minus k2 norm z squared which is less than or equal to 0. And from here, I can prove that x1 goes to 0, z equal to x2 plus a1 x1 goes to 0, and this implies that x2 goes to 0. Okay, so this is what we want. We want, well, I mean we did the stabilization problem. Yeah, but again, the tracking problem is exactly the same, no problem. Yeah, so this is what we want. This is what we get. We get a nice update law here. Right, we get this nice update law here. Right, and similarly, we get our control law here. So we get an update law and the control law just like we want. And this is our standard adaptive control. And you can see that dealing with the vector case did not significantly complicate things or anything. Yeah, it was quite okay. Yeah, it was quite okay. So anyway, so let's, so this is how you do the design for the matched case. Right, that is where the unknown is theta and p is in fact, no. All right. And p is in fact, no. Great. Now let's look at an example for an unmatched case. Right, so I will try to construct an example. So let's look at the unmatched case and see what happens. So what I want to do is to have a similar system. So here I will have not p cross x1 because that will not be interesting enough.  And x2 dot is omega cross x2 plus a control, right, where again x1, x2, u, omega are in r3. f of x1 belongs to r3 by 3. It's a 3 by 3 matrix. And p of course belongs to r3. p is unknown. Yeah, omega is known. Okay, so this is the system. So now this becomes an unmatched case, right, because I now have unknowns here. Right, so let's try to do this with the standard integrator back stepping type design. Right, so what would I do? I'm directly dealing with the unknown case, of course. So we'll see what we will do. Right, so I will take my, so I will first take my first set of dynamics. I will want to do v1 as one half norm x1 squared plus 1 over 2 gamma p tilde squared. Right, well p tilde is p minus p cap. And x2 is assumed to be the control. So x2 desired is of course minus f x1 p cap minus k1 x1 for some positive k1. Right, so with this, what will I get? I will get v1 dot as x1 transpose x1 dot. Right, I mean this is again as you, this v1 dot is assuming x2 is x2 desired.  And so this will be minus 1 over gamma p tilde transpose p cap dot.  I am simply reproducing this step here. Right, just combining terms carefully. So now if I choose p cap dot as f x1 transpose x1 times gamma, then I have v1 dot is minus k1 norm x1 squared, which is negative semi-definite. And I am good. This is essentially what I want. Right, in our standard adaptive integrator back stepping design. So I have a first estimate, first Lyapunov candidate. Right, I have a first estimate, I have a firstly Lyapunov candidate. Right, I have the first estimate and a firstly Lyapunov candidate. And we are good. Right, and we also have an x2 desired, of course. Right, we also have our x2 desired right here. We also have an x2 desired right here. Okay, great. So now what do we want to do? We want to, of course, create our back stepping variable. Right, so we want to create a back stepping variable. And how do we do that? It's pretty straightforward. Right, we design a z, which is equal to x2 minus x2 desired. I am going to explicitly write this up. And what is x2 desired? x2 desired is this guy, minus f x1 p cap minus k1 x1. So this is plus f x1 p cap plus k1 x1. This is what is my z. And so, right, so what happens? Now, if I actually compute my z dot, which is what I'll do, if I compute my z dot, I get x2 dot, which is omega cross x2 plus u plus this, which is partial of f with respect to x1 plus k1 times x1 dot.   Okay, p cap dot is already specified, right? So p cap dot is this gamma f x1. So this is actually equal to f x1 times gamma f x1 transpose x1. Okay, so this is what is this term. And now, what do we do? We sort of try to, of course, we want to try to specify the control. We want to try to specify the control. But now we are in a little bit of a soup. Why? This is what happens in this adaptive integrated term. There is another unknown appearing here. And because we've already come up with the p hat dot, we cannot replace use p hat again in the control. So what do we do? We use a new estimate p bar. So we design the control as minus, but anyway, we, of course, I'll just, I'll just not design the control right now. Now, design new estimate p bar for this term. Yeah, because we already have a p hat, and we already have an update law for p hat. So we cannot use this earlier update, earlier estimate p hat. So we need to create a new estimate. And that's what we call p bar. Okay, great. Now, once we know this, we define our completely apunov function as v1, right, which is a function of your x1 and p hat and add to it our backstipping error terms, right, which is standard. And then a term in the new parameter error. And then a term in the new parameter error, that is p minus p bar squared. Okay, so this is what we have been doing, right? I mean, if you look at this, how we did not the extended design, but this guy, right? So if you look at this, what was it? It was the original v, then the term in the square term in the backstipping error, then a quadratic in the new parameter error. That's exactly what I did. I just instead of having a matrix, instead of having a matrix S inverse, I've taken just a delta and just some delta positive, right? And with this, my plan is to design a p bar dot, right? So that's what we do. Great. So what I'll do is I'll continue with this in the subsequent lecture. So we look at it very carefully. All right. So what did we do today was we have already seen all the methods for design of parameter update loss or matched and unmatched control via you know, adaptive integrated backstipping. And of course, the extended matching design, what I wanted to do was to take up an example. So that's what we did for the matched design. We took a vector example, and we showed how to design a control and an estimation law or an update law for the parameter. And similarly, we are now doing the same for a vector example for the unmatched case. And we are first trying to do the design using the adaptive integrator backstipping. And subsequently, we will use the extended matching. Yeah, so this is so that we get some exposure to vector system adaptive control design. Yeah, so that's the idea here. Okay. Excellent. So this is where we will stop and we'll continue with this example in the next session. Thank you.


And we're live. Hello, I'm Danny O'Brien. I'm the International Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And you join us here in San Francisco, where we're conducting another one of our little experiments into Facebook Live, doing a live stream question and answer session. We've had a lot of questions coming in, and this is our attempt to allow everybody to hear our answers about what to do with the incoming Trump administration. A lot of people are worrying that some of the warnings that we've given out about the nature of government surveillance may shift from being something that they've considered, perhaps as a theory, to actual day-to-day practice. Now, we've written a couple of pieces on this, and I've been thinking about it quite deeply within the organization. I'm joined today by Jacob Hoffman-Andries.  That's right, Danny. OK, good. And you've been working with Erica Portnoy and a few others to sort of try and plot out what people can do in the, is it, 59 days until they're presidential? I think that's right. OK, so we had a blog post about this going through a few points. And I thought we'd spend this time talking a little about what those individual steps can be. And if you do have any questions, just type them into the comment bar underneath. And my colleague Dave Mass, who is over there, an investigative activist, will be investigating your questions and then handing them to me very subtly. So I'll ask them at the end, probably. So I think you gave five points in the post. And each of them are things that we've talked about companies doing in the past. But I think really what we're trying to convey is the threat model has slightly changed. And so there may be stronger reasons for you to do that. Just starting with the first one, pseudonymity. What does that mean, and what would companies have to do to change what they're doing now? Yeah, so the idea is that pseudonymous speech is actually a really important factor to be able to speak against government power when the government is trying to restrict First Amendment rights. And this isn't a new idea. It has a long history in the US going back to the Federalist Papers, one of our founding documents as the Constitution was being adopted. The idea being that it's easier to speak your mind when there's lower risk of retaliation by the government or by third parties who might try to intimidate you out of speech. The problem is on a lot of digital platforms where people are expressing their points of view, pseudonymous access is officially not allowed by policy. So including Facebook, where we're giving this presentation, Google+, and unfortunately more platforms are considering this type of policy. So in this sort of situation, what we're sort of arguing for is there should be at least some room for pseudonymous conversation. In fact, I mean, people implement this themselves. My background is sort of dealing with the internet internationally. And we've seen that whole communities will adopt pseudonyms even on a service that ostensibly blocks them. But the way that somewhere like Facebook will enforce this is by, if somebody complains that somebody's pseudonymous, they'll take down their account or they'll require government ID. So what changes if you're in a political environment where you're either concerned that the government may target somebody because of what they're saying, either for defamation lawsuits or something like that, or other users kind of harassing people because of what they say. What should you change? Yeah, so we're requesting that companies that provide a communication platform make allowances for their users to be pseudonymous because we think that is a very important value in free speech. Platforms that kind of make a best effort take down of people whose names they don't feel are real mean that the people who do adopt pseudonyms in violation of that policy are at risk of having their expression taken down, having their posts and their account disabled. So I think one of the things that we've been thinking about because it's been quite hard to get an organization like Facebook to kind of rewrite what is like one of the basis of their business model right now.  I think my experience is in countries where the government is trying to chill speech or in fact just organize political groups. What they'll do is find a group that is run by somebody using a pseudonym and then target that person and complain. So are we saying that there should be more room in that for someone who's using a pseudonym to kind of argue in favor of using a pseudonym? Yeah, absolutely. And you also mentioned the threats don't just come from the government. What we see especially in repressive regimes is there are often groups, sometimes violent groups that consider themselves aligned with the government and will seek out people whose viewpoints they disagree with and will try to intimidate them online and sometimes escalate to in-person intimidation. There's a tactic called swatting where people will try to get the police called somebody's house in the hopes of killing or injuring them in a miscommunication. So there are a lot of reasons why people who are at risk of intimidation need to use pseudonyms. I think one of the interesting things of a platform like Facebook which sort of encourages engagement and has real names is people don't necessarily know when they're publicly revealing their choices. So one thing that I know that we've been looking at is that again, taking the analogy from other countries, people have got into trouble in Thailand and other places for clicking like because you use Facebook a lot, you realize that when you click like that's a public signal, that's something that everybody else sees. Do you think it makes sense for a company like Facebook to think more carefully about how they're revealing that real name information? Yeah, absolutely. I think Facebook has a pretty comprehensive set of privacy controls, but there are some things that you're just not allowed to keep private. Can I ask you something that's sort of a little separate from all of these questions? Now you've worked in the past in many of these companies. You worked at Google and you've worked in Twitter. How, if people are concerned within those companies about this kind of thing, how do you make change? How do you affect change? Yeah, so it's a great question. I actually did lead an internal group at Twitter to ask for change from management and it was remarkably successful. I think a lot of people working for these big companies don't realize just how much power they have. And I think, often it's not that hard to get the ear of your manager or even upper management. And often you don't need to. If you're designing a new product or a new feature, if you're an engineer, you have a lot of say over what gets logged and what gets retained and how that feature works, so. Yeah, so the other thing is that I think that's always been useful for us is trying to include a use case in this. So the traditional use cases are a college student who wants to communicate with their friends and just dropping in the use case of an activist here or abroad really helps sort of clarify, well, look, what are the things that are we gonna do that will enable engagement and what are the things that are gonna actually get people into trouble, right? And I would encourage people not to necessarily view it in a top-down way, sometimes one-to-one conversations with the person who's in charge of a given feature can be remarkably effective. And sometimes all that's needed is an ask or a request or sometimes you need to make the request and you need to follow it up and keep pushing a small handful of people or convince some of your colleagues to join with you and say, this is a thing that we think is important. We wanna protect our users. So moving down the list, and this one might be a little bit tricky because it gets kind of the business model of a lot of these companies. So in the blog post, we talked about a behavioral analysis, which is, excuse me, it's my alarm to remind me I should turn up and interview you. So in behavioral analysis, explain perhaps what that is for people who are. Yeah, so behavioral analysis is the practice of collecting navigation data from across the web. So when you browse a website, most websites have a lot of embedded tracking code from various sites, Twitter, Facebook, Google, dozens of ad companies. And so each of those organizations finds out that you visited the page that have that tracking code on it. And they collect that data and they try to figure out who you are and what you like. And there was, you know, behavioral analysis is maybe even an old fashioned term because it used to be more about what you liked with the idea of ad targeting. But now increasingly, this type of tracking is attempting to divine your real world identity by connecting your identity across multiple sites. And so you logged in over here and you gave them your address. We're gonna connect that through a data broker. And when you visit this other site, we know your real identity and your home address. So this is the idea of being able to extrapolate facts about you, not from information that you've given these companies, but by sort of divining what sort of person you might be from your online behavior. Yeah, that's, I think, the most important aspect of behavioral analysis is that it's generally not consensual. The user didn't give over this data. They're not necessarily receiving something that they value in return. So how does this change in an environment where you're more concerned about the government conducting surveillance or attempting to target people? Yeah, so one of the threats under a government that is seeking more data from private companies, which we think may happen, is that they may seek data that's been collected from people without their knowledge. And so the number of sites that have a log of all the websites that you visit is quite large. And so we're asking if you collect behavioral data to both collect less of it, really turn a hard eye towards what do we actually need, what actually improves the product for our users, and slice out whatever isn't absolutely necessary. I definitely can say firsthand that a lot of data gets collected purely out of inertia because somebody started collecting it and it didn't turn out to be useful, but nobody wants to be the one who flips the switch to turn it off. So we're asking people to be courageous and flip that switch. The other thing we're asking is to offer a real opt-out. So a lot of companies say, oh, you can opt out of our tracking, but often what they really mean is you can change it so ads won't be targeted on it. So you can't tell you're being tracked, but the data is still collected, it's still on the servers, and it's still subject to what I think would be an overbroad subpoena by the government. But you don't want to be in the situation of saying, well, we have all that data, but we're going to have to fight you in court to say we don't want to give it to you. Much better to say, sorry, we don't have the data. And that kind of user control is important generally because I think one of the things that we see is you're going to have a big spectrum of how concerned people are about their data. Besides what might happen in the next four years, you can definitely feel that there are vulnerable groups who are more cautious about what they're doing and for them to really enjoy and use your product, you have to sort of play to the fact that they may now trust you a little bit less and they want to have that kind of autonomy. So being able to go into a system and turn off some settings and say, okay, now I feel much more comfortable with the idea of sharing the information that I want to share rather than having you deduce what you want to deduce. So continuing in this line of thinking about what and why you're collecting, the next one we had is just delete those logs, right? So this isn't about extrapolating information, this is about the fire hose of data that many companies end up collecting on their users when they're using their service, right? Are there any constraints on what people collect these days? Not really, I mean, most companies take an attitude of collected all will figure it out later. Pokemon kind of a bit. Yeah, exactly. So, you know, and I think we're seeing that that's actually a harmful approach and that it's important to be much more thoughtful about data that you collect and how long you keep it and whether you really need it. And I think in a lot of places that log collection goes relatively unnoticed, you know, there's no one whose job it is to say, okay, here are the categories we collect, here's how long we retain them and here's our plan to cut that down. So I think for anyone working at a tech company, there's a lot of reward to just really drilling down and looking at, okay, what are these logs? What's actually in them? What do we use it for? Do we need it? Is it worth the risk to our users? And importantly, how long do we retain it? So everybody should have a log retention policy and it should be as short as you can make it. You know, 90 days is kind of a good baseline for data that's not too terribly sensitive. But if it has sensitive identifiers, and I think IP addresses are actually one of these, when the government comes knocking on your door for data, often what they want is a set of IP addresses to go further track down users and meet space. And so, you know, separating out IP addresses into different logs and rotating those on a much shorter basis like seven days, I think is an important safety measure for users. Right, and taking a sort of overall view of what you're collecting allows you to kind of parcel off some of this stuff. The way I've tried to argue, because my sensation is when you talk to people, is the instinctive thing to be is to be a pack wrap. Collect this, we don't know, we might have to debug something that happened six months ago and we have to, this information might come in useful, where's that business model pivots or something like that. But one of the ways I sort of argue about it is in the same way as you can build up technical debt by just slamming code in as fast as you can, I feel like you build up a sort of legal debt here. Because far and apart from sort of these models that we're describing of like mass government sort of access to data, it puts you into a very vulnerable position from subpoenas in civil cases as well. If you collect all of this data, you end up being a sort of legal honeypot because everybody wants access to it. Right, yeah, and so you potentially increase, not only the risks of being required to give data on your users that shouldn't be given, but also your legal expenses and getting tied up in court battles. And the one thing I wanna clarify too on the retention of IP data, one of the areas I've worked in is authentication and the user safety. And to some extent you do wanna retain a history of, okay, where has this user come from in the past? But that doesn't need to be at that high level of detail of IP address. You can say, okay, they logged in from this subnet or from this geographical region and we're gonna retain that rather than, here is how to find that exact user. So, we talk a lot about encryption at EFF practically every day before we have breakfast, but there were a couple of points that you made in the blog post, you and Erika, that were specifically about encryption. The first one was ensuring that there's encryption when your data moves, when it's in transit. I'm assuming that's TLS that says this out. Yeah, HTTPS is how I usually like to talk about it because that's what you usually see as the HTTPS. And also that hasn't changed in 15 years where all the TLS and SSL change every six weeks, right? So yeah, okay. Is that enough under these situations? You know, it's not enough, it's a layered defense because it's protecting against kind of a different type of attack. So what we've been talking about so far is government coming in with legal process and saying give us all your data. What HTTPS protects against is the government going around the law and using bulk, we think illegal surveillance, to collect that data off the wire. So if you as a user visit a page that doesn't have HTTPS, the NSA definitely has the ability to read that content. And this is an issue EFF has been advocating on for seven plus years now to get everybody, every website to adopt HTTPS. And there's a lot of progress. Most of the big social media companies have adopted HTTPS. Most of the email companies have adopted HTTPS, but it really needs to be everybody. And so this is a good ask for some of the smaller companies, some of the startups.  And one of the things that I sort of noticed is that, I mean, it's this argument of safety in numbers. So one of the members of the Trump administration has already gone on the record saying that they feel that the use of encryption is a red flag. And I think that it's useful for everybody to turn on encryption to remove that stigma as it were, right? I mean, encryption isn't a red flag. It's just a way of protecting your private data. Right. And it's a way of protecting everybody's not only private data, but a national infrastructure. One of the more interesting attacks we've seen based on not having HTTPS in place was China's Great Canon attack, which injected JavaScript code in a number of websites in order to create a massive DDoS attack against GitHub. And I think going back to what we were discussing about some behavioral analysis, I mean, people I also don't think I think of how the NSA can conduct that kind of thing en masse. I mean, they don't need tracking cookies, right? They can see everything that's unencrypted, including tracking cookies. And we saw evidence in the SODEN revelations that cookies were one of those signals that they could use both to kind of de-anonymize people or collect together their practices and extrapolate from that. So it's important to sort of use encryption to grant a sort of herd immunity to the whole of the internet ecosystem. Okay, and there's finally, there's enabling end-to-end encryption by default. Now, we were talking about this earlier, and you said this is specifically about messaging, right? Yeah, so if you're running a service where users are sending each other messages, you have the ability to take yourself out of the loop and say, even if somebody comes to us with an illegitimate request for our users' messages, we don't have it. That's end-to-end encryption. And so what that means is HTTPS is in transit encryption. So the data is encrypted between the individual's computer and the web server, but the web server decrypts that data, usually logs it and stores it, and so that's right for government access. But with end-to-end encryption, instead of encrypting the data to go to a server, you encrypt the data to go all the way to the other person you're talking to, or other people that you're talking to. So all the services is a bundle of encrypted text. Now, there's been some real progress in end-to-end encryption in the messaging world, and you see from Signal to WhatsApp to Google products to new products like WIRE, which I think is done by the old Skype team. Sometimes, we sit and review these products, and I know that sometimes we are a little down on just being able to turn that on or off, right? Can you explain why that is? Yeah, so end-to-end encryption has been around for a long time since the 90s with PGP. And even though PGP has been around for a long time, not many people use it. And a big part of the problem is it's really error-prone. You can think you're using PGP and forget to do the right actions to actually encrypt your message and accidentally send something really private and sensitive, totally unencrypted. So long-heart experience building these tools has shown that if it's something you have to remember to turn on or off, you're gonna mess it up and you're gonna forget to turn it on when you most need it. And the technology is good enough and easy enough that these days you mostly don't need to, you can just leave it on. There's definitely apps like Signal like what's app that default to encrypting all the time. And so we think it's great, companies are building strong end-to-end encryption apps, we absolutely need that. And those apps should default to encrypting all the time if they think that's important for their user's privacy. Right, right. I mean, I definitely see with some messaging apps, they also default to internally logging. So I've discovered that what I thought were relatively private conversations are actually now searchable in my Gmail. And it's disturbing for yourself but because you have, I think, a different idea of how ephemeral messages are compared to email. But I also feel like the group who should be most sensitive to the fact that collecting all of this data might have consequences is actually politicians at this point because we've seen so many sort of scandals attached to the dumping of emails or the legal subpoenaing of emails. I think part of what we're gonna do in the next few years is try and really convey not just to the general public but also to politicians and people in power that this isn't just about protecting civil liberties for everyone else, it's about protecting their ability to do their work in an often very oppositional environment. All right, so we've gone through the shortlist that we had. Dave Mass, who's just off screen here, has been very assiduously collecting all of your questions and I'm just gonna ask him to come through. It's like I should have a little envelope. So, okay, so he's a pretty good. So let's start with something that's about the last thing we talked about. We have a question here that says end-to-end encryption means companies cannot add very much value beyond being a pipe. Thoughts? So I think that depends on the notion that all the value has to come from them analyzing your data and analyzing your data on their servers. There's actually, the fact that there are so many different end-to-end encrypted apps being developed right now shows that people do believe there can be a lot of value built into the app and what the user sees without sharing that data with any servers. So you can make things easier to use, more user-friendly, you can add features like stickers and cool stuff. I think one of the examples we're really talking about is Google's Allo where they say we're gonna build an AI around your chat so we can save you some keystrokes and we can tell you what your reply is gonna be. And that's an interesting, neat idea but I think it has to be weighed against real risks to user's data and also it can be built more locally. AI based on what's just on your phone is not gonna learn as fast as if Google's trying to mash everybody's data into one big model but you can still build really compelling features locally. And there's this sort of interesting trend as well. I remember the day that Android announced that they were building speech recognition in locally so even when you were offline. And I know that Apple has been working on a lot of ideas where the processing goes on under your own control, on your own device and that gives you that kind of feeling of security that you're not just splurging data across the internet. And it seems to be still something that hasn't been fully explored. So I have another question on the end-to-end part of our selection of to-dos. Could you comment on the usability of end-to-end encryption apps? Yeah, so I think this is one of the reasons I'm really enthusiastic about end-to-end encryption these days is in the last few years we've seen a renaissance of usability of encryption. People have really given a lot of thought to what people want from chat and what keeps them away from awkward encryption tools like PGP and so things like Signal and WhatsApp have a lot of features that people want. They have multi-user chat. They have multi-device chat. You can get something on your tablet and on your phone but it's still end-to-end encrypted between everyone in that conversation. So I think it's getting a lot better. I think there's still a lot to be done but I think the technology is really ready and people should be using it. Yeah, and it's also, I find it sort of interesting now how some of the sort of side things that people don't consider that much about encryption usability, things like how do you convey keys? How do you convey fingerprints? And there's a lot of really active development in that. Really encouraging. So this is a question that I think I already know the answer to. Someone asks, is DRM the answer? If you ask that question, the answer is usually no. Own your data and revoke access from Facebook, Twitter, Google, et cetera. Yeah, I think this may be a different meaning of digital rights management that we usually interpret but getting kind of at what I think is the underlying question is, pulling your data away from these companies and saying, okay, I'm only gonna do stuff that's on my computer, I'm not gonna use any of these services that don't respect my privacy. I think that's definitely an option but I think increasingly it means opting out of civil society and choosing not to speak out and have your voice heard. And I think that's a bad trade-off and I think instead we need to use those voices to demand that the services we use respect our rights. And we've talked a lot about technology in this conversation but I think it's worth emphasizing that technology can't do it all. I mean, if you had, if you imagined a perfect way of locking down data so that you would give permission for someone to have, they could still copy it. They could still run off and do whatever they wanted with it unless there was a framework, a judicial framework or what have you to ensure that there were punishments in place for that kind of misuse. So even though we've sort of concentrated on the technology side here, this, a lot of what we're describing leads room for companies to also pursue legal defenses as well. And I think it's really important for companies if somebody does come knocking for your data and you think that's unlawful or unconstitutional, you have your day in court and your users don't necessarily have that because they don't know that this is going on. And you're prohibited from notifying them in some cases. So you have to represent the user, not only in the technology that you build but also in the courts. So. And I want to expand on that a little more. It was not in all cases that you're forbidden from telling users what's going on and actually that's one of our big requests for companies with our who has your back report is anytime somebody comes asking for your user's data to the full extent that you can notify those users and give them a chance to fight back on their own behalf. Right. I mean, well, a lot of what we're talking about here is stuff that we're giving in response to people's concerns. And I think those concerns are genuine but we really don't know what's going to happen in the next few months and years. One of the ways that we can tell whether people's fears are being executed upon or whether we're actually doing better than we thought is through transparency. If we know how many requests are going to companies, if we know what's happening behind the scenes, that gives everybody a chance to either feel more confident about using the services that they see or making their own preparations or behavioral changes to fill safer in their actions. Okay, we have one more question here and I think then we'll wrap up. Does EFF provide assistance to privacy advocate coders in need of business creation and regulatory advice? If not, where should they go? That's a good question. I think I actually don't have the answer to that. Do you have? I think you should contact us. If you need advice in this area, particularly if you're a small startup, but also if you're someone in these organizations, drop us a note at info at EFF.org. I mean, we're always happy to have conversations with people. And we also realize that there are details and complexities to implementing any of these ideas that it's not as straightforward as sometimes we make out because we have to sort of concentrate all of this together into a pithy phrase. But we're happy to help and we're happy to also to put people in touch with people who've gone through these experiences and want to do it at other companies too. So by all means get in touch or keep reading our blog, Deep Links, which you'll be able to see Erica Portnoy's and Jacob's blog post going into some of the details about this. And become a member. One of the great ways to find out everything we're doing in small reasonable ribs and drafts is becoming a member, donating, and signing up for all of our materials. So Dave, unless there's anything else to cover. Well, oh, okay. I'll do one more. This is our bonus one. Would export regulations on crypto force users to use weaker ciphers? So this is an interesting question. This is something that was the case in the late 90s and early aughts. And it was something that EFF very specifically fought against because we saw that it was weakening security for everybody both within the US and abroad. And fortunately we won that. And so currently there aren't significant export controls that restrict people to using weak ciphers. But what we've seen, even 16, 15 years on, is that those decisions made under the shadow of those export controls led to protocols that were weaker than they needed to be. And so we're still fixing those bugs and they're still causing serious problems that cost money to industry to fix and put people at risk and put infrastructure at risk. So we're hoping there's no push for more export controls and we'll definitely fight that if that's on the table. Yeah, we're definitely anticipating more pushback about crypto and backdoors. And we'll continue fighting against that and it would be great if you could join us in that fight. So to close, I just wanna say to anybody who's listening, never doubt that you can make a difference. You may feel alone, you may feel like it's too much work, but just start the work wherever you start it and keep at it. And I think you can really make things a lot better for the people who use your services. Yeah, and if nothing, start the conversation within your organization because you might be surprised by how many people are actually thinking along the same lines as you. All right, thanks very much and we'll see you next time on Facebook Live or maybe on another platform.


My name is Sam Bartley, and I'm the author of Malignan Selflab, Narcissism Revisited. Psychopathic bullies and abusers regard themselves as artists. Their bullying is a form of perfected art, an art form, and their abuse, the epitome of craftsmanship.  There is a glint in the psychopathic Narcissist's eye when he describes the helplessness of his targets, their doomed attempts to explicate themselves, the traps he sets at every turn, the fear that he inspires in his prey as his prey succumbs. In the psychopath's palette there are several primary colors. There is of course overt abuse, this is the open and explicit abuse of another person, threatening, coercing, beating, lying, berating, demeaning, chastising, insulting, humiliating, exploiting, ignoring, silent treatment, devaluing, unceremoniously discarding, verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, all these are forms of overt, open abuse. But there is of course covert abuse, controlling abuse. Abuse generally is almost entirely about control, it is often a primitive and immature reaction to life circumstances in which the abuser, usually in his childhood, was rendered helpless. Abuse is about re-exerting and re-asserting one's identity, re-establishing predictability, mastering the environment, human and physical. The bulk of abusive behaviors can be traced to this panicky reaction to the remote potential for loss of control. Many abusers are hypochondriacs and difficult patients, because they are afraid to lose control over the body, its looks and its proper functioning. They are obsessive compulsive in an effort to subdue their physical habitat and render it foreseeable. They stalk people and harass them as means of being in touch, another form of control. To their abuser, nothing exists outside himself. Meaningful others are mere extensions, internal, assimilated objects, not external ones. So losing control over a significant other is equivalent to losing control over a limb, or one's brain. It's terrifying. Independent or disobedient people evoke in the abuser the realization that something is wrong with his worldview, that he is not the center of the world or its cause, primary mover, and that he cannot control what to him are his mere internal representations. So he sees people as internal objects, as part of himself, and then when he cannot control them, he feels that he is losing self-control. To the abuser, losing control means going insane, because other people are mere elements in the abuser's mind. Being unable to manipulate him literally means losing his mind. Imagine if you suddenly were to find out that you cannot manipulate your memories or control your thoughts. It's like marriage, and that's how the abuser feels more so than time. In his frantic efforts to maintain control or reassert it, the abuser resorts to a myriad of fiendishly inventive strategies and mechanisms. And here is a partial list of what I call his primary colors. Start with intermittent reinforcement, unpredictability and uncertainty, ups and downs of adrenaline. The abuser acts unpredictably, capriciously, inconsistently, arbitrarily and irrationally. And this serves to render other people dependent upon the next twist and turn of the abuser, his next inexplicable whim, his next outburst, denial, smile, temper tantrum. The abuser makes sure that he is the only reliable element in the lives of his nearest and nearest by shattering the rest of the world through his seemingly insane behavior. He perpetuates his stable presence in their lives by destabilizing their own lives. He does that mainly by using disproportionate reactions. One of the favorite tools of manipulation in the abuser's arsenal is the disproportionality of his reaction. He reacts with supreme rage to the slightest slight, or he would punish severely for what he pursues to be an offense against him no matter how minor, or he would throw a temper tantrum over any discord or disagreement, however gently and considerably expressed, or he would act in ordinarily attentive, charming and tempting, even over-sexed if need be. This ever-shifting code of conduct, and the unusually harsh and arbitrarily applied penalties, these constant changes in the rules of the game that the victim thinks he's playing. All these are premeditated. The victims are kept in the dark. They are kept of balance, neediness and dependence on the source of justice, immediate and judgment-past, or the abuser are, this way, guaranteed. But the abuser doesn't treat his victims as full-fledged human beings. He dehumanizes them, the objectifies them. People have a need to believe in the empathic skills and basic good-heartedness of others. By dehumanizing and objectifying people, the abuser attacks the very foundations of human interaction. This is the alien aspect of abusers. They may be excellent limitations of fully-formed adults, but they are emotionally absent and immature, almost as infants. Abuse is so horrid, so repulsive, so phantasmagoric that people recoil in terror. It is then, when they take a step back, when they are horrified, that with their defenses absolutely down, it is then that they are at the most susceptible and vulnerable point. The abuser's control is at its maximum exactly when the victim's psychological state is at its worst. Psychological, verbal, and sexual abuse are all forms of dehumanization and objectification, treating other people as objects. Abuser's abuse information, from the first moments of an encounter with another person, the abuser is on the prowl, he spies, he collects information. The more he knows about his potential victim, the better able he is, the abuser, to coerce, manipulate, charm, extort, or convert the victim to the cause. The abuser does not hesitate to misuse the information that he gleaned, regardless of its intimate nature or the circumstances in which he had obtained it. This is a powerful tool in his armory, in an important color in his palace as an artist of pain. The abuser engineers impossible, dangerous, unpredictable, unprecedented, or highly specific situations in which he is solely needed. The abuser makes sure that his knowledge, his skills, his connections, or his traits are the only ones applicable and the most useful in the situations that he himself had wrote. The abuser generates his own indispensability in the victim's lives. If all else fates, the abuser recruits friends, colleagues, mates, family members, the authorities, institutions, neighbors, the media, teachers, in short, third parties to do his bidding, and this is called control and abuse by proxy. He uses these people to cajole, coerce, threaten, stalk, offer, retreat, tempt, convince, seduce, harass, communicate, and otherwise manipulate his target. He controls these unaware instruments exactly as he plans to control his ultimate prey. He employs the same mechanisms and devices, and he dumps his props unceremoniously when the job is done. Another form of control by proxy is to engineer situations in which abuse is inflicted upon another person. Such carefully orchestrated and crafted scenarios of embarrassment and humiliation provoke social sanctions, condemnation, problem, even physical punishment against the victim. Society or a social group become the instruments of the abuser against his prey. And then there is, of course, the famous gaslighting and the intermuse. This is the fostering, propagation, and enhancement of an atmosphere of fear, intimidation, instability, unpredictability, and irritation. There are no acts of traceable, explicit abuse. There are no wounds, marks on the body, something that can be used as evidence in the court of law. There are no manipulative settings of control. There's nothing there. Yet the irksome feeling remains kind of a disagreeable foreboding, premonition, a bed omen, an ill atmosphere, nearsome. And this is what is sometimes called gaslighting.  Self-confidence is shaken badly. Often the victim adopts a paranoid or schizoid stance, and thus renders herself exposed even more to criticism and judgment by society. The rules are thus reversed. The victim is considered mentally deranged, the abuser, the suffering soul. What did I tell you? Psychopaths are artists. Artists of pain.


to be or not to be. Those might be the most recognizable words in English literature. But it's certainly not a quotation we would have heard from Amleth, the Viking Prince in the history of the Danes by Saxo Grammaticus. And yet if you've read Saxo, you'll see clear parallels that tell us that Amleth was the forerunner of Shakespeare's Hamlet. He's a prince of Denmark. His father, the king, is killed by his brother, the uncle of Amleth. This uncle king marries Amleth's mother. In order to keep him being killed as a potential avenger, an enemy of the new king, Amleth has to pretend to be crazy in order to hide his revenge plot. There's a moment when one of the king's henchmen is spying on Amleth while he speaks with his mother, Garuda. And he's hidden and Amleth hears him and discovers that he's there and stabs through the straw and kills him. After this, the king sends him to England, hoping that his ally, the king of England, will kill him. On the way to England, he discovers a message that calls for his own death and he changes that message to ask for the death of the two men who were taking him to England. He eventually kills the king in a sword fight in which he starts off with a sword that's been rendered useless and he switched swords with his opponent before killing him. The major difference in the plot obviously is the fact that Amleth goes on to rule in his father's place, rule over Denmark. He then has this adventure in England where he marries the queen of Scotland and goes to war with the king of England before he's eventually killed in another battle. But all of these plot similarities tell us that this is more than coincidence. The specific scenes like killing the spy that's spying for the king while the prince is talking to his mother, or the king spies watching the hero as he interacts with a young female with whom he has a past relationship. The changing of the letter after being sent to England to call for his spy's death rather than his own, all of these things are too parallel to be just coincidence. But once we've established these parallels in this lineage of Shakespeare's Hamlet, then we can start to look at the differences and there are quite a few of them. But in a previous lecture when we talked about Saxo's Amleth and the history of the Danes, we also noted that there were other offshoots of this story which probably existed for a long time in oral tradition in Scandinavia. Ending up as far away as Iceland in Ambala Saga, showing up as a Kenning for the sand on the beach, being the flower of Amlothi's Mill. Amlothi's Mill being a poetical reference that someone named Amlothi presumably made at some point for the ocean as a mill that grinds up islands into flour, which is the sand. So there are many other versions of this story before Saxo's account and there are many other versions after Saxo's account. And it's probably Saxo's account that ended up influencing Shakespeare because his history of the Danes was written in Latin, it was something that could be read all over Europe. But that's not to say it directly influenced Shakespeare, that's not to say that Shakespeare himself actually read Saxo's account. There are other intervening versions of the history of the Danes and the story of Amloth. One of those shows up in a French work called The History of Tragedy by François de Belfort. And that was written in French in 1570, about 30 years before Shakespeare's play Hamlet was first performed. But we don't know that Shakespeare could read French and Belfort's account of Amloth wasn't translated into English until after Shakespeare's play was performed. So unless Shakespeare could read French, then it's unlikely he got it from this version. There was a play that seems to have been a version of Hamlet that was put on as early as 1589 in England. But we don't have any copies of that play left and we're not even really sure who wrote that play. All we know about the play is that apparently there was a ghost in it, which is significant because there was no ghost of the father in Saxo's account of Amloth. But in this play that was put on as early as 1589, there was a ghost and apparently the actor who played the ghost wasn't very good. He just screamed Hamlet Revenge over and over again. And another playwright who had seen the play complained about it and that's how we know about it. He complained about it in a piece of writing where he said that the ghost cried miserably like an oyster wife, Hamlet Revenge. In other words, someone who sells oysters by calling out oysters, oysters, it's that kind of delivery that this dramatist Thomas Lodge was complaining about. And we don't even know what the title of this is. Scholars suspect that this drama was written by the playwright Thomas Kidd because it closely resembles another work that we know was written by Thomas Kidd called the Spanish Tragedy. But we're not sure if Thomas Kidd wrote it. Some people have suggested that maybe Shakespeare wrote it. Maybe this was an early version. It just wasn't very good. But we also don't even know what the title was. So it's frequently called Ur, Hamlet. And you'll remember the word Ur means like an early version, like the primordial version of something, although we of course know that this isn't the first version of Hamlet. But we can at least say that because this play, this Ur, Hamlet was performed in Britain in the 1590s, it's likely that Shakespeare would have seen it. Whether or not he was involved with producing it, we don't know, but he's likely to have seen it. So the story of Hamlet was popular knowledge by 1600 when Shakespeare writes his play Hamlet, The Prince of Denmark. So whatever Shakespeare's source was, he had a source. Some people are sometimes disappointed by this when they find out that Hamlet, like almost all of Shakespeare's plays, is an adaptation of a story that came from somewhere else. It's just one iteration of a story that had past iterations at the time Shakespeare wrote it. For instance, Othello was modeled on the Italian writer Cynthia's story, The Moorish Captain. Shakespeare's history plays like Henry V and Richard III. What happens in them comes almost point by point from a book called Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland by Raphael Hohlenshed. King Lear, the general plot of King Lear can be read in Geoffrey of Monmouth's history of the kings of Britain, although it doesn't end quite so badly in the original version. But hopefully by now we're not so easily disappointed by this recognition. Every identifiable author we've read in this class, Estulus, Homer, Virgil, Chaucer, they've all adopted not only the stories from past sources, but elements of previous narratives, and Shakespeare's no different. And once we know what his sources are, then we can see what really is original. If we compare Saxo's account of Hamlet to Shakespeare's version of Hamlet, we see the similarities and we can put them aside and say, yes, he took this from another source. But look at what else he adds. Look at the interpretations he gives it. Look at the narrative choices that he made for this particular iteration of this story. Shakespeare is very familiar to us, his name, his face, and we may assume that we know a lot about him. But remember the illusion of knowledge that I discussed in one of the early lectures. When something is familiar to us, we tend to overestimate how much we actually know about that thing. And because Shakespeare's name and face and especially his works, the plays that he wrote, are very familiar to us, we tend to assume that there must be a lot more historical information about him. We know what he looks like through images like these, but the two images on the right are actually the only two paintings that could have been made of him during his lifetime. All other images including the engraving on the first folio, which was produced after his death, that engraving could not have been made while he was alive. It could have been made by someone who knew him. It could have been made based on the Chandos portrait, the one on the right. But that image was made in 1623 and Shakespeare died in 1616. The image on the bottom left is his funerary monument and obviously that would be made after his death. The two pictures on the right, however, seem to be the only ones that are made of him during his lifetime, but we're not actually sure that they represent him, especially the Cobb portrait, the one in the middle. That one was actually only discovered in the year 2006, so very recently. And we can see some resemblances to the more familiar Chandos portrait on the right, but we can also see a little bit of difference. All other images of Shakespeare are paintings and productions that were made after his death. So they, again, could have been made by somebody who remembered what he looked like, but we don't know for sure. We have his signature on legal documents and that sort of thing from the time, but his signature kind of changes over time, so they don't always look the same. In fact, the way he spells his name changes over time. Now this would have to be William Shakespeare that was there and recognizable and present to sign a document, otherwise that would be forgery, that would be illegal. But these signatures change and the spellings change. Sometimes he writes his name W-I-L-L-M as William and then Shakespeare is just S-H-A-K-P. Sometimes it's S-H-A-K-S-P-E-R-E. Sometimes there's no R-E on the bottom. The one way he never spells his name is the way we spell it. From these same legal documents, we know that he was born in 1564. We know that he died in 1616. He lived the first part of his life in Stratford-upon-Avon, a good distance away from London. But he made his way to London and joined several prominent theater troops, quickly became highly respected, especially for his writing. The people who write about him during his lifetime were very frequently prominent people, like the playwright Ben Johnson, playwright Christopher Marlowe, whose works and lives we know a lot more about. He came from humble beginnings. His father was a glove maker who made a good deal of money during his life, but then he also lost a good deal of money. His mother came from a prominent family, but her inheritance was lost by Shakespeare's father. And this has led a lot of people to say, well, he's too poor and too low class to have been the person who wrote all of these wonderful plays. And that's led to a lot of conspiracy theories that insist that somebody else must have written the plays that are attributed to William Shakespeare for one reason or another. People like Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, who was a very famous early scientist that was a near-contemporary of Shakespeare, and also the Earl of Oxford, Edward Devere, these are all people that have been put forward as possible authors of the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. But the underlying presumption there is that he had to be from the nobility in order to be educated and intelligent and to write these kinds of examinations of human character and the sort of vicissitudes of social life and life in the world. And that's just not true. Now, you know, we saw the same kind of prejudice in the song of the Sidd, where people dismissed the accomplishments on the battlefield of El Sidd because he came from a lower social class. But you could counter-argue almost that Shakespeare would have had to come from a lower class and had to be the kind of person who could work his way up, who could earn enough to enter the sort of lower nobility. He became officially a gentleman. He got a coat of arms, which is something that only ranking families are allowed to have. But he was able to purchase this during his lifetime because of his success on the stage in London. But in order to work his way up in this very difficult, very rigid social hierarchy, he would have to be very good at understanding human nature in ways that people who were already at the top would not have to be. If you're born wealthy and you're born with high status, you don't really have to learn much. There's always going to be people to do for you what other people would have to do for themselves. And Shakespeare's brilliance at theory of mind, at understanding the minds of other people, is something we see in his plays and it's something that he would have had to have to go from where he began to where he ended up. And despite all we don't know about Shakespeare, at least we have the texts of his plays. We know what the original plays were like. Well, no, I'm just kidding. If you've learned anything in his classes that we never have an Ur text. We never have the original version of something. And that's true even when it comes to Shakespeare's Hamlet, not just the Amleth story, but Shakespeare's specific play Hamlet. We don't have this genuine original against which we can judge all later versions. We don't have any versions of his plays that were written by Shakespeare himself and his own handwriting that he may have used when performing a play. All of his printed plays come from editions that were reconstructed either by actors familiar with the parts or possibly by notes from the producers. With Hamlet we have three early printed editions and none of them match any others. These are referred to either as quartos or folios according to how the book itself was constructed. The quarto would have been put together like this. The pages would be printed in a printing press on both sides of a large sheet of paper like the one you see on the top left. And that sheet of paper would be folded four ways. And then after it was bound the parts on the top that were still connected would be cut. And this form of book printing continued on into the early 20th century and sometimes today if you go check out a really old book from the library that hasn't been used much you can find the pages are still sort of folded together. They haven't been cut. But these books would have been much smaller than the folio which is the other style of construction. In a folio we have a sheet of paper about the same size again printing on both sides of it but it's just folded once before it's nestled into other folded pages and then bound together. Now there are two quartos that were made during Shakespeare's lifetime. The play Hamlet was first acted at the Globe Theater in London around the year 1600 but we don't have anything left over from those early performances. The earliest we have is the first quarto which was made in 1603. And we might like to assume that this earliest version is the most original because it doesn't match the printed version, the quarto, the second quarto that was made a year later in 1604. In fact the second quarto is almost twice as long as the first quarto. And we might like to assume that the earlier one is the original one. But there's a problem with that. The first quarto bears this description on the title page. This is the Tragical History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare as it has been diverse times, different times, acted by His Highness's servants in the city of London. In other words the Kingsman, the theater troop that Shakespeare was a part of. And it has also been acted this way according to this script in the universities of Cambridge and Oxford and elsewhere. Now this description differs a lot from the description of the second quarto which again is about twice as long. And its title page describes it as newly imprinted and enlarged to almost as much again as it was according to the true and perfect copy. And because so much is missing and so much is different, scholars tend to assume that the first quarto wasn't something that Shakespeare oversaw in the printing process. It was probably something that some of the other actors or people vaguely familiar with the play took it upon themselves to print and then distribute or sell. But something that was probably written and then put in typeface by memory that was a little bit imperfect. They didn't have direct access, they left a lot of things out rather than this being an original version that was later added to. And if we look at the first quarto and compare it to the second quarto we see that a lot of things are missing that make Hamlet Hamlet the famous to be or not to be speech. And the first quarto goes to be or not to be, I, there's the point as opposed to to be or not to be, that's the question, the version we're all more familiar with. It goes on to die to sleep, is that all? I, all. No, to sleep to dream. Mary, there it goes. For in the dream of death, when we awake and born before an everlasting judge, well, we've very quickly gone from familiar language to unfamiliar language. This description of after we die being, you know, going to judgment. This is something that's not directly referenced this way in the second quarto, the more famous version. We do see some of those same elements. We see that the to die, to sleep no more, to sleep per chance to dream. But then there's a lot more that happens in between those things. And rather than appearing before God as the judge after we die, it's a little more dream-like. For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause. In other words, we don't, if dying is going to sleep, then the dreams that come after that is something we have to stop and consider. This is a little more ambiguous, a little more artistic than just saying, you know, when I face judgment. Both versions describe death as that undiscovered country, and get to the point that when we stop and consider what's going to be after death, it makes us reconsider whether or not we want to remain in this world. If maybe we're in too big of a hurry to leave this world and go on to the next world before we make that decision, we should stop and consider the consequences. We don't know what we're getting into in the next world. The general point is the same, but there's a lot more going on in the second quarto description. And the second quarto gives us a lot of what we think is more of the Shakespearean Hamlet, the more complete version of Hamlet. But even in it, some things are missing. And for that reason, a lot of lines are incorporated from the first folio. Now, remember the first folio was printed in 1623, but it has a lot of additions that seem to come from Shakespeare himself, according to scholars. Now, the folio contains most of the works that Shakespeare produced. And when you pick up, say, the ardent Shakespeare that I recommended for this class, or if you read the Folger online Shakespeare, or any other version, you're almost never reading either the quarto or the folio. You're usually reading a combination of some things from the folio, some things from the quarto. And for that reason, a lot of times line numbers are going to differ from one addition to another. Sometimes even the act and scene numbers are going to differ, but usually the acts and scene numbers usually match up.  So when you read a modern addition, are you reading Shakespeare? Yes, but you're reading Shakespeare as it's been edited by someone between Shakespeare and us. We're not just reading Shakespeare's direct thoughts on paper. But we should also remember that the reason it wasn't written down, it wasn't printed first is because it was produced as a play. And Shakespeare was very successful as a playwright and an actor and director. So successful that he opened his own theater, the Globe Theater in 1599, and despite burning and then being rebuilt, it survived mostly until 1642 when all the theaters in England were shut down by religious reformers who thought it was sinful. It promoted sin and that sort of thing. But before that first quarto, the location of Hamlet, the place where you would go to see and receive the story, wouldn't be a text, it would be the theater. So every time a play is performed, it's a different iteration. And each iteration is going to make subtle differences, subtle changes according to how much time they have, what the weather's like, because as you see with the Globe Theater, it's an open air theater. Some nights you might have hostile audiences that can't keep quiet or interrupt the play. Shakespeare himself might be making decisions about what lines to add or subtract on any given night, during any given performance. But also each actor is going to decide how to deliver those lines, where or how those lines are going to be staged, what he's going to be doing at the time, what he's holding, how he's dressed. The director will have input into this, but the actor ultimately is standing on stage and makes a decision about how to read these lines. Any individual actor might emphasize some lines and de-emphasize other lines, might use different intonations. And so the impression we get, the story as we receive it, the narrative, for lack of a better word. A lot of people want to say, if it's acted, it's not narrative. But even your performance is a type of narration. It's taking a story that exists before that iteration, and it decides what to focus on and what to leave out. And so when Sir John Gilgood does the Yorick scene where he holds up the skull and says, the last poor Yorick, I knew him Horatio. When David Tennant did it in 2008 for the Royal Shakespeare Company, he made different decisions about how to deliver those lines. When Benedict Cumberpatch did the same thing, he made different decisions about what to enunciate, what to pass over, how theatrical to be, how to act out those lines as he was saying those lines. In other words, just like every other text we've read, the story is multi-formed. Each iteration makes decisions about how to narrate, how to present that story. And the same holds true for movie versions. There are a ton of movie versions of Hamlet. Some are just filmed on the stage. Some are acted out in a costume and setting that would be the original Amleth's sort of medieval Denmark. Some are acted out in the setting and the costumes of Shakespeare's time, like Lawrence Olivier's 1948 performance of Hamlet. Many versions of Hamlet are set in modern times, like the Even Hawk version. Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version of Hamlet is set in the 19th century, which is neither Shakespeare's time nor our time. It's the one I recommend because it's the most complete film version of Hamlet. It's four hours long almost because it has nearly every line. But the look of it is very original. It's very different. While you watch another performance, you might see that some passages are rearranged. Even Branagh's version, which is the most complete, takes one speech by Claudius and puts it at a different point in the film so that if you're following along, you may have no idea when you first hear these lines. It's clear that he's reading something from the text but it's not at the point that you are when you're following along. You just have to look around for those lines and in most cases, you get a lot of lines because this is one of Shakespeare's longest plays to act out the entire thing. It takes about four hours. So many people decide to omit quite a bit. But what you're doing while you watch a film version and read a text version, whether it's the Arden version or the Folger Shakespeare Library or any other edition, is you're having to mentally redact, just like you did all the way back in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis when you're looking at these broken tablets into one chronological whole. Well, that takes a lot of work on your part as the reader, you're also redacting the text in order to create a new iteration that's not exactly what's on the page and not exactly what's on the screen but something close.


Hello everyone this is Ahmed Don of AhmedDon.com. Today I'll have another episode of unboxing and brief review video and today I'll be opening the smart table cool portable humidifier. So you are looking at the humidifier right here and the reason I bought this I have a big humidifier but you know I feel lazy to just go back and forth to put water and you know it's so big that you know it doesn't make sense to carry from here to there so the benefit of this that you know it is rechargeable it has a 3000 mAh battery so you can just you know charge and take it to anywhere you can put it on your desk and when you sleep at night you can take it with you near the bed and it also has a built-in night lamp so you know it will give you some nightlight and some other features are this is very low noise below 28 dB which is almost like having no noise and the water tank capacity is 1000 mL and you know it can run wirelessly five to eight hours so which should be you know good enough for you know when you sleep or when you work. So for that reason I wanted to buy this and try and this is not expensive at all the regular price is approximately 30 dollars Canadian and this is not an affiliated or paid review all my reviews are non-affiliated unbiased and honest so that way you know that you know I'm not trying to convince you to click on the link to make money off you and this is you know these opinions and insights are totally honest. So let's open up the box and then we'll you know take a look at it how it looks and how it works. So the box has very minimal packaging or very minimal you know branding on top because if you look here you will not be able to see the word smart devil anywhere they even didn't put the name of the manufacturer and they didn't put even other information so it's even like you know hard to know what's in there unless like you know that this is a humidifier and on top here it just says excellent comfortable life and here just a little bit just a little word H2O humidifier so it looks like you know they didn't do much to appeal people to get this there's no branding or nothing so I'm going to start opening this up and see what's inside okay so it looks like I didn't need any knife or anything to open it and actually somehow the light got turned on once I took it out I'm not sure why is that maybe I clicked on something okay yes so accidentally I pressed the button so I'll just leave it there and then we have something like a straw or which goal should go inside the humidifier and then here's the cable this should be micro usb not usb-c and then we have here just a small you know instruction manual okay so I took out the cover and this is what we have here so you can see that you know this is a very tiny and portable and actually it's a very good looking too it's not heavy at all and we have some sort of meter here and most likely you're going to be able to see what's the percentage of battery left or water level we'll look at it very shortly and then here there's a clear like window round window so this could be for to see the water and then here we have the micro usb port and then here we have the power button and if I take out the whole thing then this looks like you know water tray or here you're gonna be keeping the water and then if you look at here and I have a feeling that you know this straw like thing goes somewhere here but you know I'm going to just show you how it goes inside very shortly so that's basically how it looks when you open the whole thing so I'll just you know try to put some water and see if there's charge so I can show you how the rest of the stuff works the straw like tube is actually a filter and looks like they gave one extra filter but they didn't mention it anywhere so I'm going to just leave that aside so the way it works here there's also a filter in here so you have to just like you know turn this out and the filter is right here so you're supposed to soak the filter before the first time use and then what you have to do you have to just insert it this way all the way and then you're going to just put it in here right there there's a filter hole so if you do that then if you push this all the way and just like you know gently tighten it then it's ready so now you're gonna have to just you know add some water in the tray so what I'll do let me just you know fill this up with water and there's actually a sign here for max so you're not supposed to put water above this level so I'm going to just kind of you know do it half of this container I just filled up the tank with water and you're supposed to use tap water or spring water you shouldn't be using distilled or purified water which will damage the device so now what you do you're going to just you know put it in here and then here through the hole you can you should be able to see the water level whether it's max or below and then once you have everything set up then to turn it off you can just you know press it once and then here you can see that you know the mist is coming out somehow the camera is not catching the mist so let me see if I can put some lights on and now you can see that you know the mist is coming out and if you want to turn the night light on then you have to just you know press it for two seconds and then you can see that you know the night light function is on so right here and then if you want to turn off the night light then you have to just you know press it for two second against and that will turn off the night light so pressing this once turns on the humidifier and pressing it for two seconds turns on or off the night light on top of the device you know it shows what is the battery level so for example right now let me just see if I can show it to you without them without okay so you can see that it's like 56% power remaining which is not bad at all and this has like you know other safety features for example this is going to turn off automatically if you know the water level drops and then if there's a power failure or water shortage then it just turns off but it looks like pretty simple to use and simple to set up and you know because this is rechargeable or portable you can just like you know put it at your desk when you're working so I'm going to just like you know use this for at work and at home at my work station and when I you know sleep at night then I don't mind taking it next to my bed because you know this can last about 14 hours when you charge the battery is fully charged it can last up to five to eight hours so that's not bad at all so overall looks like you know this is a very handy product to keep you healthy this is going to you know get rid of the dry air in your environment which can cause lots of you know health problems and it's really silent I cannot hear anything although it says below 28 dB but you know I think this is actually there's no virtually no noise so I'm not able to like you know hear anything at all overall I'm happy with the product this is comparatively not expensive at all if you buy the same thing with other manufacturers but not portable or rechargeable then you can grab it for around 1920 Canadian dollars but this is close to 30 dollars just for being rechargeable and I think it just gives you added convenience if it's rechargeable so thank you for watching this video and forget about subscribing this channel forget about liking this video there will be more non-affiliated reviews coming up so I'll see you shortly