Dyma ydych chi'n mynd i. Mae'n neud ffarnol ar gyfer Rotherham Ddech. Rwy'n gw�liannol gyda gwylliant o'r troi deoliadau a'u cherdd. Efallai byddwch adroddau Yfarrn Ffarnol Cymru a'r Ynwrddol Cymru. Dyma'r Yfarrn Ffarnol Cymru a'r Ynwrddol Cymru a'r Ynwrddol Cymru a'r Ynwrddol Cysybodaeth... Mae'n te du fynd i siom wneud yn dweud cryf yn y ddefnyddio i fod o fath oedd yn ffryd i'n cynnig o gydag i ddechrau'r fath o'r addwaith. a 21 yma'r model. Felly, mae'n gweithio'r panlwys, y pwyntau o gweithio'r pwyntau, yw'r hynny'n gweithio'r pwyntau, mae'n gweithio'r pwyntau i'r pwyntau, ac yn dweud o'r pwyntau, ac yn dweud o'r cyffredinol, mae'n gweithio'r pwyntau i'r cyffredinol o'r cyffredinol o'r IIEA. Yn ymgyrchau ymgyrch yn y record, gan dweud y cwanaethau'r ysgol siaradau, ydw i'r ddim yn cym...) sy'n ddweud o'r rhania behaviour o'r eu ddim yn dweud, a ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r llyfe cyffredinol, oherwydd o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r gweithio. Mae'n olygu rŷnodd gyda'r llwy, i weld yn eich gwaith, a dda онfyd. Yn y cwanaeth yma'r Run Llywodraeth yn gweithio'r un Uniom, Cynllunio a'r bwysig i'r gwirionedd iawn yn cael ei gweithio'r rhagleniaeth, iawn i'r rhagleniaeth hefyd o'u cyffredinol, i'r rhagleniaeth yn cyfrifiadau cyfrifiadau a'r rhagleniaeth yn unigol o'r gwaith. Mae'r llyfodol yn canolwyr o'r cyfrifiadau i'r ardal i'r llwyddoedd, ac yn gweithio'r environment cyfrifiadau, mae'r gweithio'r gweithio'r cyfrifiadau o'r cyfrifiadau i'r cyfrifiadau newid a'r cyfrifiadau newid. However, the concept of security has brought in considerably in the decades since the end of the Cold War, and a more diverse range of issues are now seen as recognized as posing security threats, including the pressure on the planet's resources arising from phenomena such as climate change, energy security. The physical security of citizens is threatened by new and more atavistic forms of international terrorism, and liberal democracies face other tests of their resilience, including from state actors, targeting the integrity and transparency of the functioning of fair political competition, a public discourse, and the technological infrastructure on which delivery of public services and a great deal of global economic activity relies. Our contributes today will focus on the revitalization of collective security and the use of modern deterrents involving the defence forces, the wider government, industry, and population. Our first speaker is Elizabeth Braugh, native of Sweden. She directs the modern deterrents programme at the Royal United Services Institute, which focuses on how government, businesses, and civil society can work together to strengthen countries' defence against existing and emerging threats. Previously, Elizabeth worked at control risks following a career as a journalist and was a visiting fellow at the University of Oxford. Perhaps Elizabeth, I could ask you to take the floor. Thank you, Barry. I will take the floor. I understand. Or even take the podium. So that I can see the screens as well. Thank you very much for inviting me. I'd like to start by showing you a video, and I hope it works. I was reminded of technology a few weeks ago in the perils of technology. Apparently Twitter went down for 15 minutes. I missed this monumental event, but Twitter did go down for 15 minutes. And the reason I found out was that when I went on Twitter, it had already come back up, and somebody tweeted this, chatted to my wife while Twitter was down. She seems nice. So, but I do chat to my husband even when Twitter is working. But so I will stop by showing you a video here. Let's see what this is. You all know what it is, right? So that's the Stenaeon Perot. And the reason I want to show this video is that Stenaeon Perot is part of a company, obviously a shipping company that operates in the straight of our moves and in fact around the world. And nobody really hates Stenaeon Perot, the 23 crew members of different nationalities that were on board at that time. But still the Stenaeon Perot was seized. And it was seized as part of a geopolitical game. So the fate of these 23 seamen and crew members on board is tied to the JCPOA. And in fact that is the reality that we are seeing today that companies are targets in geopolitical games. And of course we can say companies have always been targets and factories were bombed during World War II. Well today we are not at war, but companies are being targeted not because of anything they do but simply because they are convenient targets. And as a result of for example the seizure of ships in the straight of our moves insurance rates have gone up for companies operating ships in the straight of our moves. Now what does that lead you to? Which conclusion does that lead to? Companies will think twice about sailing through the straight of our moves. And that means that we, the end recipients of whatever it is they are shipping including oil and other necessities, we may feel the pain if they decide not to ship. Which they will if these acts of aggression continue. Now I want to show you a completely different video. Here is the gentleman. I don't know if you haven't heard of Jim Hageman-Snabir. Is anybody familiar with him? His title is after chairman of MASC, which is the world's largest shipping company. MASC ships 20% of all goods that travel around the world. And we should remember that 80% of the world's trade travels by sea. So MASC is a crucial part of our globalised economy. I'm not sure actually how much food is imported in Ireland. But I do know that 50% of food in the UK is imported. And of course a lot of other goods. And MASC transports a lot of those goods. So now we'll see, we'll let Jim Hageman-Snabir explain what happened to. But does anybody know what happened to MASC? I should ask you before, two summers ago. Does anybody remember? No, in that case I'll let you hear from the chairman himself. Never forget it was the 27th of June when I was woken up at 4 o'clock in the morning. A call came from the office that we had suffered a cyber attack. And then a process started, which I'll talk a little bit about. Now, before we go into the details of the attack itself, AP Milan MASC is the largest container shipping company in the world. We transport roughly 20% of world trade and containers. So we're a very significant part of the infrastructure of making the world actually run. And every 15 minutes, in average, a container ship will come to a port somewhere with between 10,000 and 20,000 containers. So now you understand the criticality of infrastructure. We were hit by the non-petsha virus. In fact, that meant that we were actually collateral damage of a probably a state attack situation. And the impact of that was that we basically found that we had to reinstall our entire infrastructure. So there you heard what happened to MASC. MASC was attacked by non-petsha, which was a virus that the Russian government had unleashed against Ukraine. You're smiling, you probably remember. So the Russian government unleashed against Ukraine to take down Ukrainian government institutions and companies, which it did. But then this virus travelled on and brought down MASC, which went essentially dark for six days. And a number of other companies as well. MASC lost $300 million in the process. Mandalay, which is the maker of Oreo cookies. For example, an American confectionary giant, enormous company, lost $188 million. Merck, which is an American pharmaceutical giant, lost $870 million. And it's not like anybody hates MASC. In fact, we all love MASC because they bring us our daily goods. And it's not like anybody hates Mandalay or Merck either. They were just convenient targets for this virus that had been unleashed as it turned out by Russia. Now, crucially, so there are viruses that go around all the time and most of the time they are not attributed to anybody in particular. But in this particular case, the UK government and the US government did attribute it to Russia. And what happened after that was that when Mandalay claimed on its insurance policy with Zurich, Zurich said, no, we are not paying because it was an act of war. It had been attributed to the government. So this is the situation we live in today where companies are targeted, or are, as Jim Snaven and Hager said, the Hadman Snager rather said, are the collateral damage of state attacks even though nobody really hates them. And then that is what one might call an act of war. Now, the question is, what constitutes war? Well, Mandalay, the maker of Oreo cookies, is currently fighting out the nature of warfare with Zurich. It's in short, they are doing that in the court in Illinois. That's the new nature of warfare where a confectionary giant and insurance company and a judge in Illinois are trying to decide what constitutes an act of war. And I'm mentioning that because it's something we have to get used to. Now, it's very common today to talk, as you all know, to talk about hybrid warfare. And I think the term is being thrown around a bit too lightly because what we really mean is sub-threshold aggression or what I call blended aggression where these sort of acts that are not kinetic in nature that don't involve any soldiers on the ground but simply sneaky attacks on civil society where they are proliferating simply because our civil societies are so vulnerable because we are so advanced and because we rely on the globalised economy that until now has been a very strong force for good. And because we are so ill-prepared for it, how could mask anticipate a government-sponsored or government-initiated virus hitting its IT system? IT system companies don't, until now, they haven't thought of themselves as being in the line of fire for foreign governments. Well, they are. And so are we if we think about this information. I don't know if anybody here feels qualified to identify what constitutes this information. I'm sure we have all consumed this information without knowing that that's what it was. And there was recently a survey among, I think, British 16 and 17-year-olds where 98% of them declared themselves able to identify this information. Well, then they were shown this information and real information and lo and behold, they couldn't identify this information. We have just been spoiled for, I would argue, 30 years since the end of the Cold War. We as citizens of Western democracies, of liberal democracies have been spoiled. We haven't really faced any acts of aggression other than terrorism, which is easy to define. But this information does it harm us, it harms us in the accumulation. So the challenge we face as liberal democracies, is whether or not we have a strong and aggressive country on any of our borders. And so, by the way, I think that changes the political calculation or the strategic calculations for countries like Ireland and the UK as well, because threats today don't know any geographical boundaries. Of course, conventional military threats do, but cyber threats don't. And if an adversary is intent on disrupting our supply chains, and thus forcing us to starve, it's very easy. You just attack a mask and all of a sudden, not all of a sudden, but after a while, we will find supermarket shelves emptying out. So the question is, and this is something that my, the program I lead at the Roosi deals with, that's called modern deterrence, how do we deter those sort of threats? We are very good at deterring traditional threats. We have our armed forces, we have the nuclear deterrent, the umbrella that protects American allies. And that has worked very well, clearly since there haven't been any attacks or conventional military attacks on NATO territory or the territory of NATO's friends and allies. But how do we deter threats that are not in that category? We are clearly not very good at it because otherwise they wouldn't be proliferating. And yet that is something we have to establish and we can't establish it with what we currently have available, which is really only the armed forces. So deterrence against seizure of ships, deterrence against cyber attacks, against companies with a realization that no company can defend itself against the hostile nation state and of course companies are at any rate not allowed to engage in offensive cyber against anybody. So unconventional attacks like seizure of ships, cyber attacks, disinformation, even hostile investments, I don't know if you have been following in Finland, some mysterious buyers have been buying islands. Well, why would anybody buy islands in strategic locations? Who are these buyers? Should the government prevent the purchase of property on strategically located islands? These are issues we should worry about in a national security context. While each issue may seem small, it doesn't really matter whether we have consumed a bit of disinformation because our democracy is strong, but in accumulation they form a very subversive threat to our societies that can result in citizens losing faith in our institutions, in crucial services going down, power, the internet, and in fact our way of life is easily disrupted by the accumulation of these threats. So the question then is how to build up deterrents and that's what I wanted to come to in my last five minutes or so. So our armed forces are very good, they do conventional deterrents, they do nuclear deterrents in the case of the UK and certain other countries, well, a very small number of other countries. But the rest of society I would submit has huge potential to add to the deterrents. In the UK a few weeks ago we had a power cut that was limited in nature even though the news coverage around it made it seem like it was a catastrophic power cut. It was in fact only 15 minutes long, but chaos ensued because nobody is used to power cuts. Well, that signals to our adversaries that attacking the power grid, hacking the power grid is a very good idea because we wouldn't know the first thing about what to do. We as civil society, as ordinary residents and citizens, we also don't know how to handle this information which is why in the UK for example there is a big and divisive debate about the influence of Russia on the Brexit debate. That invalidates, in essence, the result, can invalidate the result of democratic elections. If you can't be sure that the basis on which people voted was one of truth and straight facts, I would argue the first step is for business leaders to become educated about national security threats. I think that includes business leaders here in Ireland as well who may not have never thought about national security threats simply because it's not part of the daily considerations of running a company. School children, maybe they can be educated, taught about national security threats because they will feel, they will be among the first to notice that power goes down and the internet goes down. All of this should amount to a situation where disruption of daily life which is really the goal of our adversaries is not such a big deal. Obviously we should hope that it doesn't happen but if it does happen it shouldn't be a big deal and if we can show that sort of resilience, societal resilience as a backup to the armed forces then we become less attractive as a target. I'll leave it at that and welcome your questions later. I'll just give a couple of examples of countries or individual steps that individual countries are taking. Latvia has, I think, a pioneering and very interesting new secondary school curriculum that includes something called the National Defence Curriculum that is being rolled out in all secondary schools in the country where teenagers learn about national security threats to the country, how the country is about to defend itself and crucially what they can do in case of disruption so that when something happens, for example, an extended power cut or a disinformation campaign that they then know what to do instead of sitting back and hoping for somebody, for the government to come in and help them, the government ain't going to come and help them in every situation and I think it illustrates what a significant role the population can play if it's just educated and asked to contribute to society even if it's that small step of knowing what to do in case of an extended power cut or in case of a disinformation campaign and if we start with that, I think people will feel that they have a role to play in national security even if it's a small one. Some of us will play larger roles, some will have careers in the armed forces or blue light services, but everybody does have a role to play so I'll stop there and look forward to your questions later. First of all, thank you very much Elizabeth for that very thought provoking contribution with a particular focus on the impact of disruption on civil society and the contribution civil society can make to try and address it. I'd now like to introduce General Richard Barons who has a very distinguished military career serving as commander of the Joint Forces Command, one of the six Chiefs of Staff of the UK Armed Forces. He has extensive field experience, leading operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. He read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University. He's a distinguished fellow at the Royal, at the Royal United Services Institute and noted authority on digital transformation of armed forces and on senior leadership. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. I have essentially 20 minutes to change your lives. I'm going to go a bit of a clip. The first one I want to make to every single one of us in this room is obviously a prisoner of our education, our experience and our preferences. Our whole discussion about security is dominated by how the last 30, 40 years have played out slightly longer arguably in my case. The first thing I'm going to ask you to do in considering why European security has to change is to start to recognise most of that presumption is deeply unhelpful in the way that we need to think about the future because nothing lasts forever and our world is changing and will change profoundly. I'm going to give you three reasons why the world will feel very different. The first of these things, we all grew up in the comfortable US-led Western world and we now live in the foothills of what will become the Asian Century, a world dominated by China in ways that are really hard to articulate but will be unavoidable. That's going to raise massive questions across not just economy but also security and law. The second aspect is that we're going to have this discussion about how our world will be dominated by China and how this will play out in the context of the relative decline of the US and you may or may not subscribe to a Thucydides trap moment but this will play out as for the first time in the history of our world we bump into the limits of our planet's ability to meet our demands and expectations whether that's population growth or urbanisation or water scarcity or resource shortages or of course climate change and we are going to live in a world where ways of life will be in jeopardy and we're going to expand on this the popularity of quinoa eroded the livelihood of 40,000 people who depended on the lake in another country whose water disappeared to service our demand for this rather unpleasant stuff that appears with a salad. We saw this just in the last couple of weeks in the confrontation with Brazil about the burning of the rain forest where we're saying our oxygen comes from your forest you'll need to stop burning it down and Brazil says it's our forest we'll do with it as we wish. The third reason why our world is changing is we're in the foothills of the profoundly significant industrial revolution of the digital age powered by waves of artificial intelligence and I subscribe to the four waves of AI internet AI, business AI we've been out perception AI as machines see, hear, smell the world and then autonomous AI this will play out over decades it will disrupt entire industries countries, ways of life in ways that we can't break it is as fundamental as the development of electricity and it is the combination of these three things the Asian century, the limits on the planet and the AI fueled industrial revolution that's going to make our world feel so very different to the passage of the last 40, 50 years and when this happens there is no supranational authority that's going to define new rules of the road there is no reason that there will be a continuing consensus about what the rules of the roads are the so-called rules-based international desires it's not everybody's clearly the restraints of globalization on why people fight are not immutable I accept that they raise the bar to conflict but they are fraying and there is no script to this period there are no guarantees so your collective sense of entitlement about your security and your prosperity rooted in the comfortable passage of the post-Cold War era doesn't matter to many billions of people around the world who think it's now their time the second reason, big reason why European security has to change is I subscribe to the view that the nature of war never changes very clouds bits and we need to remember that brutal, furrow, disruptive normally disappointing, normally unsuccessful but look at what happened to Aleppo that's the true nature of war that doesn't change how war is fought changes all the time with thinking and technology and military technology has already changed in ways that the west has been slow to recognise now of course I could talk about nuclear proliferation that matters but set that aside we live once again in the era of the missile it is the precision conventional missile that dominates military conflict you can see this beginning to play out both in a defensive sense and let's be clear the US Navy will get no closer than a thousand miles to the Chinese coast and probably no closer than 300 miles to the Russian coast as we live in the era in which anti-access aerial denial technology developed over the last 20 years is designed to keep us at range and secondly much as we might worry about building fifth and sixth generation manned aircraft for some mad reason in order to bomb our opponent the fact is London is 90 minutes by cruise missile from Russia and that cruise missile will sortly come at hypersonic speeds and be accompanied by its ballistic counterparts with a 2 metre accuracy and a 400 kilogram payload so how do you keep that out and how do you do that we live in the era where the western investment in platform-centric capability ships, aircraft, bases headcourses above ground all of that is now hostage to an era which will be dominated by the precision conventional missile and of course the battle for space the cyber arena and the powerful maybe pivotal arena of how you can touch the population of your opponent at an individual level through social media in a way that can be highly manipulative and effective you bundle all that together our armed forces and indeed our security architectures are rooted in a 20th century security paradigm which technology has already washed away and there have been accompanying changes in method and Elizabeth very eloquently described some of the asymmetry that is playing out in the Gulf and elsewhere but we need to recognise that two powerful things have happened just in the last 10 years the first is the reinvention if that was necessary of proxy war where the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps sets the pace so war prosecuted in a way where not many uniforms involved but it's still really powerful and the west has had a go failed absolutely in the creation of proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan but has recently learnt to do a little better in Syria on the hybrid conflict or grace space or tolerance or whatever you want to call it that this fusion of all the levers of a nation's power set aside their military capability to disable, disrupt, discombobulate your opponent and we see that's what Russia has done to the US and to the UK and others none of it yet strategically successful but it is now a feature of the everyday landscape and if you combine those two things the missile age and the power of all other levers of power to shape and influence your opponent people like me will construct a 21st century military strategy so I'm going to call to you decisive influence from range so if I want to break France and it's an abiding thought as an Englishman then I believe I can do that without any form of 20th century physical intervention I will break a country like France through the application of precision missiles against critical national infrastructure I will bring their daily life to a halt I will magnify that by offensive cyber to the bits I can reach and I know that's really really difficult I will employ proxies to sow discord and sabotage and I will amplify all of that by the manipulation of social media so that every single French citizen thinks their life is about to go to Helena Handcart and I know how to do that and I don't have to put a boot on the ground and I'm not saying that's the only military strategy I'm not a silver bullet fanatic I'm saying it's a credible 21st century approach we do not know how to deal with people like me doing that other countries have thought it through more thoughtfully so why European security so what about Russia well if you're in NATO and in the British military Russia's a really big thing for all the reasons I've described to you we need to see Russia as just a little speed bump on the way to the problem of China Russia is what it is it's a declining, massive country driven by problems massively over talking its game and allowed to be successful because it's not encumbered by our laws and values but it's not going to invade Europe it may have localised territorial ambitions but frankly we need to ask begin to ask ourselves a much bigger question which is how is the US going to manage the dual challenge of Russia and China and it accepts it can't do with both and the answer to that question the only answer to that question is it will come to some form of accommodation with Russia on the way to China and we're probably all going to be in that space and wouldn't that be more sensible and where is Europe in this well as I've described comfortably gazing at our navels in my case obsessing over Brexit worrying about our social models fatigued by our discretionary interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and trying to persuade ourselves that all war is now discretionary and we can choose not to be touched by it if it doesn't bother us or it's very far away we want to be in a place where we can worry about the effects of austerity our social model our relationships with our neighbours in a trading sense and have no thought to our security we are running on the comfort zone of the post Cold War era and we are utterly incapable of breaking out of that no political dynamic no civil society pressure because nothing bad has happened yet and everything I'm talking about would require societies and governments to take really quite difficult decisions about investment and capability the reset of resilience and the way we approach our security in this much more demanding world at the expense of the things we're obsessing over now and want to spend our money on and believe in some entitled way and we didn't all go to eat and that's how the world is always going to be I don't think that holds water so the way forward well what do we need to do well the first thing is we have to refame the strategic discussion not about peace and war we have to call the Four Seas we compete with some we cooperate with some countries we compete with others we confront and we occasionally conflict and we move along a dynamic spectrum so the paradigm of peace and war except in a legal sense is I think very unhelpful in that dialogue we must throw away our touchstones and our preferences from the post Cold War era and think about the implications of this much more demanding world and that discussion frankly is nowhere the second thing we have to recognise is we will only secure ourselves through collective security we have demobilized our major military alliances in the case of NATO and the EU which has tremendous soft power potential remains stodgy to say the least so how do you mobilize the potential power of Europe to protect its security and advance its interest in this much more difficult world and the only way that's going to happen is by rethinking hard power I'll come back to that gathering together public sector soft power all the things the government does and crucially uniting it with private sector power if you're in the UK and you want to make an effect on the world it's not what the military do it's not even what the government does some impact there on what the US does or the Premier League does or our entertainment does or our tourism does and we have to express ourselves in the world by this thoughtful union of hard power, public sector soft power and private sector power if we are not to be done over the next thing we actually need to do is to understand that in the way we think about conflict we cover the whole game the asymmetry that Elizabeth Trive is here to say proxy war is here to say the battle for space is here to stay the battle for cyberspace is here to stay and then we need to think about and I'll go into more detail the reframing of military power for the digital age and that means we have to think about hybrid campaigning not event management in our relationship with Russia and China in the future and do that not as nations where we can picked off but as a collective spirit the discussion about how does Europe do hybrid campaigning is nowhere there is no academic leadership of this there is no political leadership of this and states are still trying to raise their own game the battle in Whitehall to organise for collective hybrid campaigning is stuck in a Whitehall preference for collegiate operations rather than a unity of purpose or even of command the next thing we must do is reframe national resilience Elizabeth has described this this is about the resilience of civil society of the role of the citizen it's not so much about the armed forces in the face of decisive influence from range if it comes to conflict but definitely hybrid tweaking and the bad things that may come with a world that's running out of energy and water and all those other things and the final thing and my core sport is the need to transform our militaries for the digital age by the application of combinations of digital age technology data, processing, connectivity AI, robotics nanoscience, gene engineering all of these things in combinations the UK the chief of the department last week has for the first time set out what this begins to look like and it is the most profound change of military organisation method and process for more than 150 years the reshaping of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance away from answering a question by writing an essay to making your intelligence organisation operate like a newsroom the reframing of commander control on AI and data we are all capable of halving the number of military headquarters we currently have and halving the size of those that remain and in there there's a phenomenal saving and a major effectiveness boost we will reframe combat power combat support and combat service support power away from a combination of very expensive people in uniform and platforms which we can barely afford in small numbers can't afford to replace definitely can't afford to lose to a thoughtful, manned, unmanned and autonomous mix we will break our people paradigm and we will break our equipment paradigm because we won't need to buy formula 1 cars in the shape of aircraft carriers or we'll do this in a much more thoughtful much more thoughtful with our allies and we will underpin all of that with a digital backbone of cloud AI connectivity and a single synthetic environment the application of gaming technology to government and defence from situational understanding decision support, conduct operations training in a way that frankly will actually pay for itself we need to do all of those things I would argue if we are to make our way in this more challenging world we are currently doing hardly any of those things and so I think you can you could judge Europe is going to right now is stuck in what I'll call strategic neuro syndrome and if we don't break out of it then we are going to feel in the coming decades like a snowflake in a dust storm thank you very much


The Rozo Rams entered with an 11-game winning streak tonight, going for the season sweep of Moorhead. Rozo on the power play in the first. Paul Hulgen, excuse me, Hugglin cuts the net and nails the one-timer. Rams take a one-to-nothing lead. They carry the momentum later on. Gavin Gunderson going through the neutral zone with speed. But Hudson Hodges denies him to keep the game one-nothing. In the second, the Spuds start to pick up their play. Michael Overbow sends a shot in. Trickles through, but not in. But Moorhead breaks through in the third four goals in that period. They win four to two. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


And human rights advocates have rallied in Brussels against Egyptian's president, Abdel Fattah El Sisi, who arrived in the Belgian capital for a summit between the European Union and the African Union. The protest was called by Amnesty International and was held outside the Royal Palace during Sisi's meeting with King Felipe. Among the protesters was Rami Shahath, the Egyptian-Palestinian political prisoner recently released in Cairo after 900 days in detention. EU and African leaders were meeting on Thursday for a two-day summit, seeking to reboot ties with pledges of major investment in face of competition from China and Russia. Like many political prisoners in Egypt with foreign passports, Shahath had his nationality stripped as a precondition for his release on 6th January. The measure that has been denounced by rights groups and human rights advocates, including Shahath's family.


Fire, fire, fire. You're in. Fire, fire, fire. Down a little bit, down a little bit, down a little bit. There. Fire, fire, fire.  Hey, three seconds. Second CBD dismounting in the city of Norwich Park. That first CBD has dismounts in the grass and they start to return fire on your position. It's not in the grass. Two seconds.


It was today at the United Nations a resolution calling for the immediate humanitarian truce between Israel and Hamas. The United Nations has not denounced what Hamas has done in any of its propositions, including here, but they demanded that aid be provided to Gaza and that Israel stop all aggression towards the Gaza Strip and Hamas. Canada tried to insert into a provision that condemned Hamas for its October 7 terrorist attacks, but that was voted down. So available to the United Nations was a resolution calling for immediate truce humanitarian truce. 120 countries voted in favor of the resolution, 14 countries voted against the resolution, and 45 countries abstained, no moral position on this. Now those numbers don't reflect the real horror of this, because you think 14 countries voted against this, that's pretty cool, I mean Israel is one of them, the United States is another, but if you actually look at the countries that voted against this, it includes countries like Nauru, I don't even know where Nauru is, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Paraguay is a real country, but Tonga, yeah, I mean those are the countries that voted, it's interesting to see who voted against it. The only kind of real countries, significant countries, Fiji voted against it, good for the Fijans, my next vacation, we're going to Fiji. But look at this, Austria voted against the proposition, Croatia voted against it, the Czech Republic voted against it, that was surprising. Guatemala voted against it, Hungary voted against it, trying to reduce the claims that they're anti-Semitic, but of course Hungary is very anti-Islam, so that's why I said, let's see who else, Marshall Islands, there's a Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, you know that's about it, Tonga I said in the United States. And I found it interesting to see who voted, who abstained, which countries don't have an opinion of this, but are not going to abstain about a ceasefire in a war of self-defense by Israel, countries that abstained, Albania, okay, Australia, thanks Australia, Australia, Canada, really Canada? I'm skipping Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, I'm just reading the Western countries, Iraq abstained, which is kind of weird, I don't know how Iraq abstained. Anyway, go figure why Iraq abstained, there must be something going on there, Iraq wanted a product that could condemn Israel, it was too soft on Israel. Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Northern Macedonia, Korea, South Korea, I wonder what will happen when North Korea invades and the UN demands a ceasefire, I mean this is a moral travesty, these are all Western countries, these are countries that did not have the guts to say no, Israel should finish this operation, Israel has every right to defend itself, but worse than that are the countries that voted for this, countries that voted for it, again non-Arab countries, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, well Brazil is run by the crazy leftists, China of course, you'd expect that, Chile again president is a rabid leftist, Colombia, Costa Rica, you'd expect it from Cuba, but would you really expect it from France, maybe I guess many of you are saying well of course France, France voted for Israel to stop, Ireland, I'm naming these because it's good to know, it's good to know who your friends and who your enemies are, Liechtenstein, what has Israel done to Liechtenstein, Mexico, Mongolia, very disappointed Mongolians, New Zealand, God, and they just have kind of a right wing government in New Zealand, what's the deal there, Portugal, I'm in Portugal right now, Ukraine, no Ukraine was part of the people who abstained as was the United Kingdom, they abstained, anyway just disgusting, I mean again Israel has every right to defend itself, ceasefire, ceasefire would be an abomination and it denies again Israel's absolute right to self-defense, yeah hard to beat it.


Mzansi A-listers joined that home Husgolf day with a purpose. Reality TV star and property mogul that OT team Husgolf day with a purpose is gaining momentum. Big shots allowed such as Andil Kup, Thomas Mlambo and TBO Touch have come on board to support the sporting event. It's set to take place on June 16 at the Sowido Country Club. Some of the proceeds will go towards buying non-perishable foods and winter blankets for the Sowido Club Town Youth Foundation. Radio personality TBO TV OT Touch, Molf said he'd take part to remember the youth of 1976. Let's be mindful of their struggle and ensure we live to be the manifestation of their dream and aspirations. TV personality Andil Kup said, On June 16, 1976, they died and laid a red carpet with their blood for you and me. On June 16, 2021, we honor them by being the long-awaited dream. In the words of Alice Walker, we're the ones we've been waiting for. TT has also partnered with the Gauteng government. Sports, arts, culture, and recreation Mechme Baili Lof encouraged the youth to participate on the day. Sport has helped this great nation forge unity across race, class, and gender lines during our most difficult time. We continue to use it as a critical tool for transformation as we build on our developing state. In this regard, the Sowido Youth Gold Day will enable many young kids from our township to gain access to golf, a sport commonly known to be reserved for the well-off. Through its introduction, the sport will enable the province to break the divide between haps and have-nots. Speaking to Daily Sun, TT said, On the day of the event, all the youth who'll participate will get an opportunity to interact with highly influential people from all industries who'll possibly inspire them to turn their lives around. He said the event is close to his heart. Growing up in Sowido, we never had the opportunity to play any other sport besides football, rugby, or boxing if we were lucky. Kids today have better opportunities and we'd like to support them to make sure their dreams are fulfilled.


Welcome to the Fossum 2020 Distributions Devereux. Our next talk is software distribution, new points of value in the censored world with Alexander Patrikov. Thank you. Let me start by talking a bit about myself. I am a freelancer. I work from home. Previously, I worked for a certain company as a software architect, and I'm giving this talk as a software architect. So the audience of this talk is people responsible for any kind of code ecosystems. It is not a secret anymore that programming language modules, operating system packages, and all other sorts of code are now distributed from the internet, not from the CD-ROM. And people create new such ecosystems, not every day, but close to it. And the purpose of this talk is to give some guidance to avoid a mistake that would result in this ecosystem eventually becoming only for US and Europe. So we also need to clear some legal stuff, technical opinions expressed in this talk on my own, political opinions are maybe, maybe not. And I don't represent any of the projects mentioned in this presentation. So let's start with a good interview question for a new developer. So what happens if you try to clone a Git repository or install an operating system package or something from NPM? What happens at the network level? The next question, what would go wrong? And finally, what actually went wrong during the recorded history? Let me also give the answer to the network part. So first, the client creates a DNS request to the ISPs DNS server. The DNS server does the name resolution magic by sending more packets to the authoritative name servers. Then once the client gets the reply, it initiates the TCP connection. Then more high-level protocols go on the wire, such as TLS or HTTP. And finally, the package is installed. You see lots of moving parts, so obviously lots of places that could go wrong. And let's first discuss why it is important. I'll bring an example from China. Five years ago, Xcode download, which is an Apple tool, that download was too slow or in some places even completely broken. And this forced developers in China to get Xcode from unofficial sources. And one of those unofficial sources replaced the original Xcode package with a modified one that injected malware into software that was built with that modified version of Xcode. So that's how a simple availability problem has evolved into a bigger security issue. Well, as I said, there are many moving parts. There are many trailer modes in the network, broken cables, overloaded networks, misconfigurations. The list is, of course, incomplete. But as we all know, internet usually works because resilience and redundancy are built into its infrastructure. And even more importantly, there are humans responsible for fixing whatever is broken. So now there is a new kind of network failure. Governments do not want their citizens to be able to see certain information. So they pass the laws that, say, this kind of information should not be accessible to citizens and access to websites containing that information. For example, information about drug abuse. So such sites should be blocked. So they create centralized lists of sites to be blocked. They distribute such lists to the internet service providers. The internet service providers block those sites. The problem is that governments want to restrict such information at all costs. So in Russia, it happens since 2012. Let's see which sites you will not be able to access. Or if you travel in the past, you will not be able to access. So you see, it's not only sites that contain information on drug abuse. It's also sites that distribute software. There are blogs. There are standards documents. There are bug trackers. There are no laws that prohibit citizens from seeing such information. Nevertheless, such sites are blocked. Well, on some ISPs, some of the sites are actually accessible. That's because different ISPs use different block technologies. So those sites on the previous slide are not the targets of their censorship. They are victims of, let me call that, technical overblocking. Let me explain this phenomenon. Why is this blocked? It is not technically possible to pass this through without also blocking that. So without also passing through that. And the government explicitly tells ISPs to block that. If you don't block that, you will get your ISP license revoked. So this is also unfortunately blocked. The problem is if this is part of your infrastructure. So how does this happen? ISPs typically block stuff by IP address because in our age when everything is encrypted, when with TLS 1.3, there is even encrypted SNI, they do not actually have much choice. So shared IP addresses, how does this happen? Mass hosting for static files. Some chips in a content delivery networks. The DOS protection services. There are many more examples where shared IP address is given to a customer. Finally, there is a telegram robot. Well, it's a subject for another talk, so I will not go into that. This is not specific to Russia and China. I can bring examples from Iran, from Egypt, and because how politicians work, this can only get worse. So how to deal with this breakage? Often an advice is given to use VPN, Tor or whatever other circumvention technology. However, I would not say that it is a politically acceptable answer because there are people who simply cannot be convinced to use any censorship circumvention technology. Maybe because of propaganda that only bad guys use such tools. Maybe because it is actually illegal in some places. I would also say that it is not a good, a technically good answer. If you have the situation when your servers are blocked, then you have a point of failure in your infrastructure. And in some cases, it is actually easy to fix. So for technical domains, mirrors help. Mirrors are used by many Linux distributions. They were not designed for dealing with censorship. They were created to distribute the load, to move the load away from the central server, to make sure that the user downloads packages from a mirror which is near him, which is usually faster. So they provide the needed redundancy and how does it look like? So in the installer of, for example, Debian, there are screens where you can choose the country where your mirror resides. Then you are presented with a list of mirrors in that country. There is also an option to enter the address of your own mirror, which can be unofficial. In Fedora, they went even further. They do auto-detection of the fastest mirror by default, which creates a really great user experience. So what could go wrong in this setup with mirrors? So remember the slides where I listed the moving parts. They are still there. Still everything can go wrong with any of those parts. But it only affects the selected mirror. This mirror is not the target for the sensor. So actually there is one official Debian mirror right now blocked in Russia, the Spanish mirror. So why, because I don't know, I can look it up. So still it is not a problem because there are more than 300 other mirrors, Debian is still installable in Russia, so there is no single point of failure in the whole ecosystem. That's good. That's, I would say, a perfect solution, a perfect situation. But recently another solution to the original task of the Debian mirror. Of making sure that the load is spread on multiple servers and the user downloads from a nearby server became popular. Content delivery networks. It's a network of mirrors run by someone else. So I will describe how this is different from the classical setup with mirrors. I will use NPM public registry as an example. So let me first describe the apparent CDN benefits. There is a single domain name behind the whole mirror network. So there is no need for the user to select the mirror manually, which is a great boost in usability. Also there is no need to design the security of your system with untrusted mirror operators in mind because all the mirror servers are operated by a single legal entity. They can even share the same SSL certificate, which is also great from the operational viewpoint. So let's see how it works. So if I try to install an NPM package, then NPM client resolves registry.npmjs.org, which is the default registry. Then it downloads the package metadata over HTTPS. Then it downloads the package and installs it, done. Let's see how it looks like in the network. So registry.npmjs.org has, last time I checked, there was 12 A records, which are for IPv4 addresses, and there are 12 AAA records, which are for IPv6. So the IP addresses belong to Cloudflare, which is a major CDN provider. Cloudflare uses anycast, so each of those 12 IP addresses actually are hosted on multiple servers, directly distributed. And normal internet routing, such as BGP mechanism, ensures that the user really gets to the nearest server and downloads the package from there. So how does this survive censorship? NPM is not blocked in Russia, so I had to simulate it by misconfiguring my router, to return TCP reset packets to half of those mirrors. And result, it was possible to install packages. It was slow because of their tries, because of the delay between their tries, but nothing broke. That's great, especially for a system that was not designed for this use case of circumventing censorship in mind. So why is it slow? Because, as I said, it was for a different use case. It was for a use case of overloaded server or overloaded network, where adding a delay between your tries does help. Also, it helps that I blocked the servers with a simple TCP reset. Not all censorship does that. There are also cases when they helpfully try to present a page which says this site is blocked, and they present it using an invalid as a self-tificate. So if I try to do that with an invalid as a self-tificate, then, of course, NPM will fail to download and install packages. This is, in theory, fixable by changing NPM code. I'm not asking the NPM maintainers to do that, because it is, well, for a different use case. Still, this example demonstrates that the client-side failover, as implemented in NPM, does a great job of circumventing censorship. But let's also highlight one more important difference between traditional mirror setup and the CDN. Let's go to China. Actually, the inaccessible registry is a common problem in China. If you go to ping.pe, you can ping the registry.npm.org server from many places, including China. And you will see that in many cases, there are many lost packets. TCP is not designed to deal with that, and so the download fails. So how do Chinese users use NPM? The answer is that they don't. There are alternative NPM registries in China. They claim to mirror the official one, so that two registers are on the slide. However, they are not exact mirrors. In particular, they strip the whole integrity checking JSON elements that are in the registry API. So packages installed from there cannot be trusted. Still, Chinese users use that, so it's an incident waiting to happen. I hope that somebody from Taobao, or people from CNPMJS, is listening to this talk over the internet. Could you please fix it? Thank you. Okay, so we have looked at NPM. There is another service that uses a content delivery network, and this is Flatpak. I will use that to demonstrate that not all content delivery networks are equal, and you should really evaluate the setup. So Flatpaks, I usually download it from FlatHub. FlatHub uses Fastly as a CDN, and Fastly operates as CDN using a CNAME, so dl.flathub.org is a CNAME for some shared DNS name in the Fastly.net namespace. And that long name results in one IPv4 and one IPv6 address. Those addresses are different for different clients, so that's how they do the geographical spreading thingy. So they are relying on DNS, not on any custom routing. So for the original purpose of spreading the load, that's a valid solution. But for the case when some of the infrastructure can fall victim of a sensor, there are simply too many single points of failure here. So there is no possibility for clients that failover. If the government by accident blocks dl.flathub.org or that long name in Fastly.net namespace, or that single IPv4 address that is returned to my client, then I can no longer download packages from FlatHub. So don't do that. It is too easy to block such setup by accident. And this also applies to failures not caused by the governments. So think about it too. So the takeaway from my talk would be, if you want to implement counter measures against accidental blocking in your software ecosystem, then please add proper redundancy. Please implement client-side failover because it is only the client who sees the ultimate truth whether the server works or not. Then it would be great if you allow unofficial mirrors in your ecosystem because well, that's what happened with NPM. CNPMJS is an unofficial mirror even though NPM does not want mirrors. And because you have to allow unofficial mirrors, you have to design the security model with them in mind. So that's all for me. Are there any questions? Pepe, please. As a service provider, how can one check if I am blocked elsewhere? There is no way to do that. You have to rely on reports from users. How can they talk to me? So they can still email you because for example, the servers distribution packages and the email servers are usually not the same. Other questions? Is there any difference in NPM packages served by the Chinese NPM and the main NPM? Has anybody checked that? So I haven't checked that. Chinese users use it. So I think it's a good idea to test that but because of the quite complex API where each package has its own API endpoint, it would be a quite difficult task. Well, my only point when I worked for a Chinese company, I told them explicitly not to do that and installed Tor on their server and told them to use Torsox NPM and install something. Other questions? No questions. So we finished five minutes earlier.


Hello, I'm Tyler, I am an electronics engineer and discovered when USB-C was first out, what's this interesting new port on my phone, let's fill it around and see what I can do and inadvertently I became kind of knowledgeable on USB-C, so I'll try and pass Sam that over to you. So for those that aren't super familiar with the USB-C connector, it actually does more than just USB, so that connector does your USB-A ports, your standard host ports you have had on your computers before, it handles your display output using the display port modes, it handles Thunderbolt, so you can talk to higher speed devices, it allows you to charge your devices at higher powers, it can be your audio interface, it can be the connector on your client devices and even be used to debug devices as well. Before looking into the USB-C connector itself, it's worth taking a look back at what is in the USB-A connector. So with USB-A, there was a distinct gender for the connectors, so you had the rectangular side on the host device and the square side on the client device. That way you always knew one end was a client, one end was a host. And within that, you've got two power pins and a pair of differential data pins which are used to communicate in both directions. For other devices, you'll have the micro connector. This is similar to the other client connector, but adds an additional ID pin. So that allows it to be both a host connector as well as a client connector and by in addition, later on, they added the ability to attach other resistors and other things that pin to put it into other modes including debug ports or audio adapters. And the other thing to note at this stage is USB-3 added an additional two differential data pairs that run at higher speed than the standard differential pairs. So in the A connector, they sort of added those on the front, so you just gained an additional five pins in addition to the four previously there. So let's introduce the USB-C connector itself. So it's a flippable connector, so you can plug it in either way up. In addition, there is no dedicated host end and client end, so the devices need to negotiate which one is which. So in order to get things going with the thing over, it's got four ground pins and four power pins. This allows it to be flipped up either way and the power pins connect to the same place and the ground pins connect to the same place. For the data pins, the solution is duplicate those as well. However, the slight difference with this one is the cable only uses one side, but the host uses both and connects them together. So that way, it doesn't matter which way you plug in the cable, it connects the pins on the host. For the super speed data pairs, we've got the four transmission pairs there, but also another four transmission pairs on the other side. These are used, like, usually you use one pair for USB 3, but for newer ones, you can use the other one. Exactly how they work, we'll get onto later in the talk. In addition, there are two new pins called CC, CC1 and CC2, again in a mirrored configuration, and just above them, two sideband use pins which use Pacific modes. So how does the device work out what's the host and what's the client? It does this using the CC pins, which are stand for the communications channel. So at the client side, it has two resistors to pull that down to ground and then it can monitor the CC pins itself to work out which way round is being connected, as a cable will contain one CC line from one side to the other, and the other one won't be connected. That way, whichever one gets pulled up by the host, which will use a pair of pull-up resistors, will let it work out the orientation. The host side is a little bit more complicated, so it uses two pull-up resistors, but notably, unlike the original A connectors, power is not connected by default because it might be connecting to another power source, so you don't want to connect two power sources together. Instead, the host has to monitor the CC pins to detect for the client being plugged in. What you end up with is a potential divider between the two, so they pull up on one end of one device and they pull down in another. At that point, you can monitor it and turn on the power. On the client side, you can actually get away without monitoring if you're using just simple modes, but many devices will need to monitor it. Probably the easiest way to go through that is to go through a walkthrough of a connection between two devices. We've got here our USB-C host device on one side and the client on the other. When we plug just a USB-C cable into one side, it connects to all the pins, but no actions will be triggered because the other side is floating, so it won't detect a pull-down from the other side. When we connect them together, you've now got a potential divider between the RP in the host and the RD in the client. However, it's worth noting that because the cable can be flipped at either end, you can actually end up with any of the CC pairs being connected together. In all these diagrams, I've always used CC1 to CC1 for convenience, but in reality, anyone could be connected to either of the others. So once it has connected across the thing, it detects the pull-down and it can then enable the power connection. So in terms of cabling, all of the USB-C cables will contain these five pins, more complicated ones capable of other modes, such as USB3, DisplayPort, or that contain additional wires. So you'll always have at least these pairs connected, which is why detection will work for all devices. However, the badge here doesn't have a cable. It does something a little different. Because it can only connect to one CC pair on one side, it can be flipped itself, but it only has one pin. It only needs a single pull-down and the other one needs to be left floating. So now you have to wonder, if you can connect things together, what happens if you connect two host devices together? What happens there? So both hosts have got their pull-up resistors and they both have a high voltage left at their CC pins. So nothing is detected, they don't turn on their power, and nothing happens. There's a sort of similar situation for client devices, except that notably, neither of them are providing power or have the capability to provide power, so just nothing really happens and nothing senses anything. To enable compatibility with the original A and B ports, there is a series of adapter legacy cables, as they refer to in the specification. So those work by just embedding the resistor inside the cable and similarly in the other method, it includes the pull-down resistor if you're connecting to a micro or a B client device. As well as just signaling the presence, the other major method the CC communication challenge uses to communicate is what the current level is available over the port. So in default USB power, there are various methods to try and say, ah, this charger can support more power there, usually involves adjusting the value of the data pins or similar. USB-C still has support for those older methods, but also adds two new modes, a 1.5 amp and a 3 amp mode. It does this by the host choosing the appropriate pull-up resistor relevant to its current capabilities. So a host with only able to default USB power has a 56K pull-up and a host able to do higher current will say have a 10K pull-up. There was once like catch with this early on in the USB-C days though, is that companies went, ah, I've built an old USB-A to see that to cable and they've gone, well, I made my cable do 3 amp, so they put a 3 amp resistor in it. The problem is that's not really telling the client the cable can do 3 amp, it's trying to tell them the charger can do it. So you ended up with devices drawing 3 amp from chargers that were not rated for it. This has largely been solved now, but did cause some problems in the early days of USB-C. So you may have noticed that some devices can be both host and client, such as your phones. This was done in the older methods with the ID pin on the micro mini connectors. But for USB-C, the solution is, well, have both a pull-up and a pull-down resistor and you switch between them. If you end up connecting two dual-roll devices together, eventually they'll end up with a state where one is host and the other is client, and then they'll form their pairs correctly. In addition to signifying host and client, you can do some other methods by adding different sets of pins onto those CC pins. The example here is an analog audio adapter, designed to let you have actual headphone line-level data coming out of your USB-C port. So it signifies that by pulling both of the CC pins down with RA resistors. This is also the first device that uses the side-band use pins with two of the headphone channels being mapped to the USB-2 data pins and the other two onto the side-band use pins on the connector. In addition, there are also debug adapters that use a similar method, except they use two RD resistors in their pull-down configuration. This is somewhat defined by the spec, but crucially, the debug adapter doesn't define what the port actually does in this mode. So you can just have it connect to it in a different way or reconfigure the chip for USB mode. Equally, you could run JTAG over it or spew out whatever other debug information you want. Now we get onto the USB superspeed. Because you can flip the connector, your pairs can map up in different ways. For the USB-2 pins, which are fairly high-speed data, but not too high-speed, connecting both pairs together at the host end with a little stub of unconnected copper for the bit that doesn't get connected in the cable, isn't too much of an issue. When you're dealing with the speeds in USB-3, you can't just map to both ends of the connector because you'll end up with a lot of signal problems. So the solution is you run to a pair of MUX chips. And based on the orientation of the cable, you'll then switch whether you connect to the TX-NRX-1 pairs or the TX-NRX-2 pairs. Notably, it's worth noting that newer USB 3.2 devices can use both pairs simultaneously, and that means they can only get that speed over the USB-C connector. So in all these things, you notice there's only one wire connecting both sides. So surely you can take a shortcut and only use one pull-down resistor. If any of you've heard the story about the issues with charging power supplies on the first generation of the Raspberry Pi 4, this is what they did. So if you're to connect with a standard USB-C to C cable, everything looks fairly good there. The other CC pins are unconnected and it would charge as normal. However, there are also cables that have internal pull-down resistors. This, as we'll get them to later, these cables are used that to signify these are smart cables that can state their capabilities. You need this if you're dealing with Thunderbolt, USB 3, or the other high-power protocols, because the host needs to go, not only does the device at the other end support it, but does the cable support it? So you have these pull-down resistors. So the host sees on its CC2 pin, ah, I have an RA pull-down. And on the other CC pin, it sees a combination of RD and RA. So for those not familiar with electronics and how you add resistors together, two resistors in parallel end up with a resistor less than the smallest of those resistors. So what it ends up actually seeing is two RA resistors. We've seen that before. So what it ends up being is the Raspberry Pi was telling chargers that I'm an audio adapter and you don't supply power to audio adapters. In fact, they can supply power to the device for charging. So the power supply just turns off. So now we sort of covered the basic communications channel which is an analog voltage line. As you want to start to go into the more advanced features, you need to use something called USB power delivery. So even though it's a power delivery in the title, it's also the method used to negotiate video methods, data methods, and similar. So on the screen, we've actually got the communications between my phone and my charger that I captured and effectively the charger says to the phone over the CC line, I can do five volt at three amp or nine volt at two amp. The phone then requests the higher power option. The charger accepts that, does the transition, and then confirms. So, Missy, how do you then pack all this data over the existing analog line? Thing is, as it's not directly tied to positive or negative voltage on each end, you can superimpose a digital signal on top of it and that's how you do these communications. I mentioned previously about the cables with RA in them. So, they contain a small chip that also communicates on that CC line. And the RA tells the host to power the cable. Thing is, you've already got power at the top of the cable so why do we need to supply power somewhere else? The catch is that if you're doing power delivery negotiations, the voltage on there can go up to 20 volts. And to save you trying to put all of the voltage conversion gear in the cable to convert down from that, instead, most cables will instead draw the power over the other CC pin, which gets powered by the host when they announce themselves that way. So, that was the cables that were causing these issues with the Pi 4 specifically. What we can do here is we now have digital marker in the cable. So, we can ask the cable, it's like, ah, are you capable of USB 3? Are you capable of higher current charging? All USB-C cables need to support 3 amp. However, 5 amp is optional, so you need a query for that. We now also get on to the alternate modes. So, with alternate mode, you do a USB power delivery negotiation and say, you query the other device and see what it can do. So, in the case of a laptop and a laptop dock, they would go, ah, can you do DisplayPort video? And the other side would confirm that it can. At that point, you then restart repurposing some of the pairs on the connector. So, as before, we've got the muxes to handle the rotation of the connector. But now, we can also use the pins in different ways. So, in the case of DisplayPort or Thunderbolt, you can use one pair and still have USB 3. Or you can use two pairs and just have a USB 2 connection. So, you end up with a somewhat complicated collection of muxes to do the switching. You then end up with, to control that, your standard CC control to detect which way up the cable is and control the first muxes. And then a power delivery control to actually deal with the negotiation and choose which mode that's in. Often, a lot of this can all end up being wrapped into a single IC on the board. But equally, you can also do it with separate chips much of the time. So, in terms of alternate modes, you've got the Thunderbolt, which will do PCI Express over those pins. There is DisplayPort, which even if you've got like USB-C to HDMI, it's probably using DisplayPort and then converting. Despite the fact there's another alternate mode for HDMI itself, but that's not been widely adopted. But equally, you can also just create your own custom docking protocol over it. So, some of the older laptop docks had the big connectors at the bottom. You can just use this and go, you know what, I need to repurpose those pins to be an Ethernet connector or normal Thunderbolt-based PCI Express or I'm gonna feed analog audio out of the super speeds pairs and still maintain my USB-2 connection. These are obviously not gonna work with all devices, but if you pair a device and they're docked together, it'll enable you to fit a lot of other things that would have required separate connectors into this one connector. So, some various final thoughts on USB-C. So, it has a lot of capabilities you've seen and most of them are relatively simple to implement at the basic end, which is actually quite useful because if you're building a cheap client device, you can just get away with two pull-down resistors. However, as you go up in device complexity, adding super speed, power delivery, alternate modes, the complexity will also increase, but that's not too bad because the cost of the devices that use those features are also increasing. Whereas in a device, if you'd had to go and pack all the features of a Thunderbolt interface into everything available, then we wouldn't be having a badge with the USB-C connector on it for this event. Also, it turns out that discovering bugs in USB-C things in various products is a great way to generate a really massive traffic spike on your website and end up in lots of newspapers. I'm going to sort of hang around outside the stage after this talk for if people have got any other questions or want to discuss other bits about USB type-C. So, I think that's all from the talk and yeah, if you want to come and have a chat with me afterwards, come and find me just outside.


Hello friends, so welcome again to this session on real numbers. We are dealing with Euclid's algorithm, Euclid's division algorithm. We have seen how to find out the GCT of two positive integers. We also understood the geometrical interpretation of Euclid's division algorithm. We understood the meaning of coprimes. We also learned the process of finding GCT using Euclid's division algorithm. In this session, we are going to prove a theorem and the theorem is that if A and B are positive integers such that A equals BQ plus R, which you would have seen that it is resembling our Euclid's division lemma, then every common divisor of A and B is a common divisor of B and R and vice versa. Little complicated, isn't it? But don't worry, we'll try and break this up into simpler terms and smaller parts so that we could understand it properly. So what does the theorem say? It says that if A and B are positive integers, so no problem in understanding that these are two positive integers such that A equals BQ plus R. So you have already seen that in our Euclid's division lemma, A is equal to BQ plus R where A and B are two positive integers and Q and R or rather A and B are integers also. That's not a problem but we are in this chapter, we are going to take into consideration only positive integers.  That's what we have learned so far. So this was our Euclid's division lemma. So hence, what does it say? So it says that A and B are positive integers such that A equals BQ plus R, if you have ascertained this, then every common divisor of A and B, that is some divisor which is dividing A as well as B will also be a common divisor of B and R. So let's say if just for an example, if 5 divides A as well as 5 divides B, that means 5 is a common divisor of A and B, if that is true and if this holds, then 5 will also divide B and R together. That means 5 will be common divisor of B and R as well. So let us take an example and understand what does it mean. So for example, it says that let us take our common example which we have been using so far, 42 and 30, that is 42 is A and 30 is B, then I can express 42S, 42 equals 30 into 1 plus 12. That's what we said. And then we know that if there is a common divisor of 42 and 30, for example, let's say 2 divides 42 as well as 2 divides 30. So 2 is a common divisor of 42 and 30. So if that is so, then 2 will also be a common divisor of 30 as well as 12. So clearly if you see 2 divides both 30 and 12. Another example, let's say 4. Now 4 is not 3, let's say 3. So 3 divides 42 as well as 3 divides 30. So 3 is a common divisor of 42 and 30. So if you see 3 also is a common divisor of 30 as well as 12. So remainder and the divisor will have the same common divisor which the divisor and the dividend are having. So that's what this particular theorem says. Let us take another example. Let me take 25 or rather 250 and let's say 60, 250 and 60. These are two integers. So this is example number 2. This was example number 1, isn't it? Now if you see 250 and 60. So what is a common divisor for both? Again, if 2 is a common divider clearly, so 2 divides 250 and 2 also divides 60. Now let us express in Euclid's division lemma form. So 250 is clearly 60 into 4 plus 10. So if 2 divides 250 and 2 divides 60, so 2 will divide 60 as well as 2 will divide 10. So this is holding true so far. Now another example, 5. 5 is a common divisor to both. So 5 divides 250. That is a. 5 divides 60 also. That is b. So you'll see 5 will divide 60 as well as the remainder which is true. So everywhere we are seeing that this particular theorem is holding true, right? Now the question arises, how do we prove it? So let's prove this theorem. Okay friends, so now let us try and prove this theorem. So we saw two examples and now it's time to prove this theorem. So how do we prove it? So it says that if a and b are positive integers such that a is equal to bq plus r and every common divisor of a and b is a common divisor of b and r and yc versus r. So we'll have to prove that. If let us say c divides a, c is an integer which divides a and c also divides b, then c will divide r as well. c will divide r as well. That's what we have to prove. Okay? So how do we prove? So this is how the proof should look like. So let us say, let us say since there's a common divisor, let's say c is a c is a common divisor, common, common divisor, divisor of a and b. So by divisibility's definition we know a will be equal to k1c and b will be equal to k2c where k1 and k2 are positive, positive integers. Yeah? If c divides a, then there must be integer k1 such that ck1 is a and if c divides b, then there must be another integer k2 such that ck2 is b. Now, so from here we see from and we also know that a is equal to bq plus r, isn't it? So this implies I can say r will be equal to a minus b times q. Now from these two expressions, I can write a as k1c and I can write b as k2c times q. This implies c, I can take common and this is k1 minus k2c, k2q. Sorry. Yeah? What do we see? We see that c, c times an integer. Is it an integer? Yes, this one is an integer. Why is it an integer? Because k1, k2q, all are integers. So you know that operations on integers will give you integers. So multiplication and subtraction operation will give you an integer. So we can say that c also divides r because r was c times integer. So c divides r. Hence, we could prove that yes, when c divides a and c divides b, then c will also divide r. That what did we prove? We proved that if c divides a and c divides b and a is equal to bq plus r, then c divides, then c also divides r. Now we will have to prove the vice versa part of it. Right? So what is it? Now we have to prove that if there is a common divisor of what? b and r, b and r, then it would be the common divisor of a and b as well if a can be expressed as bq plus r. So that's what it says now. So let us prove this. So what can we say again? So if let's say c divides b and c divides r. Let us say this is the given case. That means I can write by divisibility's definition. b is equal to again, let's say some k3 times c and r can be expressed as k4 times c where k3 and k4 are integers. It can or positive integers are positive integers. So that means in set theory notation I can say k3 belongs to z plus and k4 also belongs to z plus. Correct? Now this is given. Now also what is given is a equals bq plus r. Correct? So I can write from these two expressions. I can write b was k3cq plus k4c. That means I can take c common and I can write k3q plus k4. Again if you see, again if you see b is this part. This is an integer. Why? Because k3q and k4 are all integers and there is a multiplication and addition operation happening on integers. So hence it is an integer. So we can say c divides a. So c was already dividing b and c was dividing r. Now c is also dividing a. That means the vice versa of the converse or the real theorem, the original theorem is also true. This is what was the objective of this theorem. Now this particular theorem if you see becomes the premise of the Euclidean division algorithm to find GCD. So thanks for watching this video. Hope it was useful to you. We will be coming back with the next video soon. Thanks.


SQB. PENZIM TESAMARGI KONZAR congratulations, the prizes for me. To be honest, brother, this is my first proposal to attend. I'm so grateful. Niko, history. Hey, amazing couple. So Diana, how do you feel? What is the feeling? Well, I am speechless. I don't know what to say. I'm happy. I'm over the moon. It's, it's every girl's dream. It's every girl's dream to see this day. Yeah. I was like, oh! See, not all men are like this ever. So, Dana, today was just a normal day. I was going to go to Shugudizako. What was the plan? How did that happen? Hey, this guy's tricked me. A good one. Today was a resting day for me. Because the whole day I was shooting content on YouTube because I'm a YouTuber. So, I was like, let's go back home. I said, today I'm going to stay at home. So, I was going to go to Shugudizako. And I had a job. So, I went back home. Then, around the morning, I received a phone call. I went back home. In fact, I missed your call. I went back home. And then, I went to Treadmark Hotel. I'm like, what? I love the way I drink. I don't know what to do. Treadmark is what I call. I'm like, I'm a guest and I'm like, I'm calling.  And I'm like, what? I'm going to stay at the hotel. Then, the person who called me, I'm like, I'm the manager at Treadmark Hotel. And they'd like to have a business partnership with me as a brand influencer. I'm like, what? I'm like, what's your name? My name is Bacal. My name is Bacal. My name is Bacal. My name is Bacal. I live inikka. I came here to join you. There is a callback. So you spoke on a business partnership Treadmark Hotel. I was like, what? That was my decision to coin influencers, like, how is that contract. Before I wasn't there, I tried so I stayed in the hotel so I didn't steal, because we are going to record something for the hotel. And then I can say, the videographer we'll be using is Jobrizy. Jobrizy will shoot YouTube. I know Jobrizy from way back because we used to work with him. We have opted to use him as well. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something for the hotel. We are going to record something. We are going to record something. We are going to record something.


Hey everyone, Adam Shaw here from Brevere Media Company. Today we're going to be talking about the history of Guinness beer. We're doing this video in connection with our new YouTube video series on Irish history and culture in tribute to upcoming St. Patrick's Day. So far we've done a video on the history of St. Patrick. We've done videos on the history of the leprechaun. We've even done a video on the history of beer. So if you like that sort of thing, definitely check out the rest of those videos. Without further ado, let's get to it. Let's look at the history of Guinness beer. Guinness was originated by Arthur Guinness, who was an Irish brewer. At age 27, Arthur Guinness used a hundred pound inheritance he received from his Archbishop godfather, Arthur Price, and used it to invest in a brewery in Leek Slip, Ireland, about 17 kilometers from Dublin. Four years later, Arthur Guinness moved to Dublin and signed a 9,000 year lease on a four acre brewery at St. James' Gate. So 9,000 year lease, man, you really want to hold down the territory. That's unbelievable that those even existed back in the 1700s. Then on May, let's see, May 19, 1769, Guinness exported his first ale, which was a shipment of six and a half barrels to Great Britain. As you might know, Guinness traditionally is considered a dark-stout beer. The first Guinnesses to roll out were used the term single stout, double stout, porter, extra stout, foreign stout, very much terms that are used today, really. Throughout the latter 1800s, Guinness became one of the top three British and Irish brewers. Guinness sales soared from 350,000 barrels in 1868 to 779,000 barrels in 1876. So in a 10 year frame, give or take, they doubled, they doubled production. By 1886, Guinness became a public company, was averaging 1,138,000 barrels a year. And then another 10 years later, so we went from 779,000 barrels in 1876, and then about another 10 years later, it looks like they went up another 500,000. The company at the time was valued at about 6 million pounds, and then by 1914, Guinness was producing 2,652,000 barrels of beer a year, which was more than double its nearest competitor. By the 1930s, Guinness became the seventh largest company in the world, the seventh largest company in the world, that's wild. Guinness stout, if we look at the ingredients today, is made from water, barley, roast malt, extract, hops, and brewer's yeast. A portion of the barley is roasted to give Guinness its dark color and characteristic taste, which features really a nice burnt flavor. Also the beer has a thick, creamy head, which comes from mixing the beer with nitrogen and carbon dioxide when poured. Some modern day drinks made from Guinness include the Irish Carbomb, a pint of Guinness, with a shot of Baileys dropped into the glass and then drank. Then we also have the Guinness Black and Tan, you have half a pint of pale ale on the bottom with Guinness poured on top slowly. You could kind of pour it over the top of a spoon and then you get a dual layer of pale ale and then dark ale on top. Then we've got chocolate cake, which I actually have created myself. You do a pint of Guinness with a shot of vanilla vodka and man, it just tastes delicious. I just wanted to throw out a few historical facts about Guinness. I'm actually enjoying a Guinness right now. Happy St. Patrick's Day. Everyone have a nice, safe holiday and take care. All right, bye now.