Well, good morning ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us here. Welcome online to those of you watching on our Facebook channel and watching on weforum.org. Issue briefing is our third of the day, we have a hectic schedule today. The headline is digital wildfires in a hyper-connected world. I'm just going to start this session by reading a passage from our Global Risks Report in 2012. The Global Risk of Massive Digital Misinformation sits at the Centre of Constellation of Technological and Geopolitical Risks, Ranging from Terrorism, to Cyber attacks on the Failure of Global Governance. Hyperconductivity could enable digital wildfires to wreak havoc in the real world. It considers the challenge presented by the misuse of an open and easily accessible system and the greater danger of misguided attempts to prevent such outcomes.  Mae'r Cyforth Cenedrff Rhowf yn ymwneud, mae'r ddau hynny yn ymwneud. Mae'n ddau'r ddau'n myfyrdd. Rwy'n myfyrdd gwell i ddim yn ymwneud. Mae'r pannol am yma. Rebecca McKinnon yn ymddiadau i gydag o rangynghau digital ar y USA. Mae'r ddweud ffreswn. Mae'r ddweud o ddweud. Stephen Adler yn yr edrych of Thompson Reuters. Rebecca, let's turn to you. Digital wildfires. Are we living in an era of digital wildfires? Well certainly we're in an era where anybody can be a journalist, right? And so you have all kinds of people putting out information and gaining traction and you have these memes starting and let's not forget the Arab Spring was also a digital wildfire. So you have both positive and negative wildfires in the sense that sometimes somebody will report facts and they will get out there in a way that couldn't have gotten out before. Before Facebook the Arab Spring would not have happened because the outrage over a man emulating himself in a market and that information spreading through social media would not have happened and the organizing that happened around that would not have happened or the outrage of a young man being tortured in Egypt and the information about that spreading that certainly would not have gotten to mainstream media in the past. And so there's all kinds of ways in which people have been using digital media and the fact that anyone can be a reporter for good, to advocate for human rights, to advocate for social justice. So let's not forget that. And yes there are plenty of demagogues and racists and populists of different kinds who are also manipulating the media, putting out information and trying to gain traction. So there's all these kinds of things. I think the answer is not censorship or trying to decide what we need to anoint arbiters of what is true and what is false because frankly that's just going to, we're going to really be handing more power to dictators if we do that. We're opening ourselves up to greater abuse and censorship and surveillance if we do that. What we need to figure out is how to create a healthier information ecosystem whereby when something is true or something is false there are communities who can come together and place a check on it that there's more trust in different sources of information so that you don't have entire groups of people who distrust journalists so much that they're willing to believe anything that they would like to believe whether or not it's true because there are no other credible people in their community who they trust. They say, no, this is not true and here's why. So I think we need to come up, we need to innovate more, we need to innovate more with community journalism. I think the platform certainly can work with communities to figure out how you can strengthen people with counter arguments but censorship is not the answer. Community journalism sounds laudable and innovating also does it's hard to escape the feeling that fake news organisations, for example, hate sites are extremely well organized and they work together very well. I read an article from December in which you were quoted, I don't believe it's your quote, but the sense was that these sites are encircling conventional mainstream news media sites or mainstream websites and it's getting out of control. But what do you do about it exactly? Again, I don't think it's censorship. Part of the problem is that you get, and this happens throughout history, that people with a very pointed agenda with rich backers find a way to be very focused and very strategic and to get messages out and so you need to figure out how you counter that. Do you build a movement? Part of the problem is that people kind of on the human rights and free speech side have less of one message. But I think we've seen throughout history the ability to counter lies and demagoguery with checks and balances and ways of countering that and so I think we're in a moment right now where let's say the bad guys seem to be winning, again depending on your point of view. But I think it's just a moment and I think it's in part due to some specific outcomes of specific elections that a lot of people are very upset about. But again, I think that liberals in particular need to be very, very careful about reaching for essentially authoritarian solutions to a problem of authoritarianism. We've seen that road before around certain types of socialism and communism. It didn't end well. Let's not go there. Stephen talking of authoritarian solutions. As a media organisation you're much more highly regulated than a tech company for example.  I don't think we're highly regulated at all actually. I mean we operate largely and globally in a position where as long as we're producing accurate information by and large we're okay because we're operating in 200 different locations over 100 countries around the world. Obviously there are different regimes in some places there's more regulation than others but we try to operate fairly consistently around the world. I'm not a believer in government regulation of media. I am a strong believer in transparency and free flow of information. I think by and large ideas compete with each other as Rebecca said and that particularly the internet and social media are amazingly self-correcting. Again somebody raised the point yesterday at a session saying that if Hillary Clinton had won the election we wouldn't be talking so much about fake news and I think that's true. A lot of people didn't like that outcome and they're blaming it more on fake news than probably they should. Of course fake news is a very old issue back to ancient Rome back to almost any political campaign going back in history. People were saying bad things about their opponent and frankly the ability to challenge that wasn't even as great as it is now. I mean you have the example of Wikipedia where there's this constant conversation going on and challenge but also I mean I've just been struck as somebody who researches books as well as doing journalism over the last 10 years, 15 years. The amount of useful accurate information available to the world electronically has burgeoned in a way that has almost never been seen in history. I mean we're back to sort of Gutenberg days and it's an extraordinary blossoming of information and while certainly we've seen people making some stuff up I've also found that if people in the public want to check it and we'll get to that question of how do you help the public want to check it but if the public wants to check the information when I go on and I see something that looks suspicious you obviously go and look at other sources. You see what other people are saying, you do some independent research and you can pretty quickly sort out what's true and what isn't but I do want to emphasize the amount of accurate information out there is greater than ever in the history of the world and I shouldn't sort of get too depressed about that about some of the side effects or the challenges that we're facing. Government regulation is not the answer. I think greater public education, people learning news literacy, civics education, people understanding better how to sort between accurate and inaccurate information will certainly be useful. I would certainly advocate that media organizations like ourselves be self-reflective about how they behave because there's a question of how much do you proliferate the stuff that clearly is not accurate and we've seen some instances of that recently. I think news organizations that rely on a business model that essentially requires you to have absolutely massive scale are creating a problem and I think really need to think about whether that's an approach that's viable in the long run. If your job is to find clickbait and get the most possible readers then you are feeding into it. I think it's useful to look at those business models and it's useful for media organizations like ours to have standards. We have trust principles written into the charter of Reuters that requires us to be independent and free of bias and I actually have to go before the board of directors every year and a test that we are following them and I think news organizations that want to be responsible that put in some standards for themselves that that would be useful and I think civics education will have some usefulness and just a final point, I think if you want to be trusted and you want to differentiate yourself from fake news providers you probably have to provide more transparency than traditional news organizations have thought they needed to do in the past. When I was at the Wall Street Journal years ago it was kind of a mantra that you never talked about how you got the news.  Now I think you have to prove. You have to be trustworthy and then you have to prove it. You have to say how did you get the story, how did you source, how did you parse information and think about what was accurate and what wasn't and we're going to do more of that going forward and I think a lot of news organizations are thinking about doing that as well. That's a really interesting impact on journalism which I'd like to come to but I think what I want to go to next is what you said yourself about in fact you're obviously media-literary. You're able to go and check out the source and do a little bit of research about something but other people aren't and clickbait is very, very effective and if you're an organization which is not driven by a commercial interest but by an ideological interest you're in a natural advantage to a conventional media company. So I'm wondering whether this proliferation, I understand it could come from either political persuasion or any interest group but does it pose an existential threat to the media? As we see it today. I'll try that. I've been involved with conversations where people are like bloggers versus journalists, professionals versus amateurs and that it needs to be some kind of zero-sum game which is absolutely not true. I think the fact that citizens can report from their communities, they can push back. I've been involved with situations where I was misquoted and I could blog the fact that I was misquoted and taken out of context when the reporter did that or somebody in a community can write this story completely inaccurately. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it gets shared as much if not more. Again it depends on the conversation that takes place around it but I think the fact that media has been disintermediated is over time improving journalism. It's good for journalism. I think journalism still needs to evolve and as he says become more transparent, figure out how to have more of a conversation with the communities they're covering, the communities they're reporting to and how to involve the communities more in reporting on what's happening and involve them in the fact checking process and discussion about what is true and what is not. I think we're still in very early days. We're in a very bumpy period right now but we have to work through it. We can't go back. There's no turning back. Again censorship is not the answer. There are a lot of efforts right now, a lot of pressure being put on the social media platforms to crack down on extremism, to crack down on hate speech and what you're seeing is that in their efforts to keep certain types of speech off the platforms, they're making all kinds of mistakes and so journalists and activists are actually getting kicked off of Facebook or having journalistic reporting taken down because it mentions ISIS. Or some people just having a debate about religion will mistakenly get removed from social media because they mention some inflammatory terms or situations when they're not actually extremists and so the desire to kind of clean up the conversation, to clean up the public conversation, I think actually results in less trust and results in people being more inclined to believe fake things because they don't feel that they're really, that they're really able to participate fully. So I think that's or that they can be edgy or controversial without having to worry about getting censored themselves and to have a robust debate. So we need to be very, very careful about again how we go forward and it's again really about innovating and there are of course a lot of, there's a lot of hand wringing about business model for media, but I think we also want to think about, okay, if we want a media ecosystem that sustains a society that respects human rights, sustains a society where we can have democracy, where minority rights can be respected, what kind of media ecosystem is that and does some of it not need to be maximizing profit? Some of it just need to be community sustained or paid by taxpayers or supported by communities or just kind of run at cost as a social good. We need to think about that because everything's really hanging on it. I mean life and death ends up hanging on it when people are making decisions about who to vote for based on what they're reading. So there's a lot of soul searching. I think we're all kind of collectively responsible in the end for the solutions and I think as Steve was saying, there's a lot of people who are upset because they were losers in a particular phase of politics and they're blaming everyone except themselves. I think we can all contribute to solutions if we make an effort. Oliver, I can stick to your question about whether fake news in this whole ecosystem is strangling traditional news organizations. I think all of us have been struck with the extraordinary response that people have had post particularly the US election in subscribing to traditional publications, subscribing to publications that are trustworthy. There's been an enormous number of additional subscriptions to Vanity Fair to the New York Times to many other organizations and what I come back to is that I actually think people don't just want trusted news, they actually need it and if they don't need it, we're in big trouble but I think all the evidence suggests that they need it. News is a subset of information and people need information to make decisions and ultimately you use news to make decisions. You use it as a professional, as a business person to make decisions in your professional life. Traders and investors obviously use it. All business people, everybody at Davos is using news and needs to know that the news they're relying on to make decisions is accurate. Individuals make all sorts of personal decisions based on the accuracy of what they might read in a newspaper or online. They're making decisions about insurance, about what kind of house they're going to buy, what kind of car they're going to buy and ideally they're also making political decisions. What kind of policies are likely to help them? Would a tax increase help or hurt them? Would more or less regulation of business help or hurt them in the long run? What's going to help the middle class get jobs? Ideally you want in the political arena for them to care about, I mean it is in people's self-interest to need accurate information but I think ultimately it's a need for countries where there's a high level of censorship and there isn't information and people kind of know that. So North Korea is tremendously dangerous to do this but people smuggle in flash drives, they smuggle in DVDs, they listen to illegal radio at night because they want to know what's really going on outside North Korea. It's really important to them. In countries that have firewalls people find all sorts of technological solutions to get around the firewall because they want to get at the truth, they want to know what's really going on. I don't think there are any solutions that are out there proliferating fake news but I think there is a drive towards trusted information that's really kind of very deep in people's set of needs and that is going to be as strong or stronger going forward. I think somebody who loves the media, anyone who would love the media would take great heart from the fact that subscriptions are going up in the aftermath of the UAE selection but what I suppose I'm worried about is the digital underclass of those that are not even aware, you mentioned yourself, awareness and education, digital literacy, not even aware or unable to afford to pay for news and whether that is... they're left adrift, they're not able to... they've got no guidance whatsoever and there's a lot of news out there and if the fake news is getting better at proliferating then that's a pretty hopeless situation, Rebecca. I don't think that's going to be where we end up or it doesn't have to be. It's one possible reality but it's certainly not an inevitable reality. I think yes, there are some news organizations that are going to have a subscription model and there are people who can't afford that information but there are plenty of sources out there of public interest, public-minded organizations that are putting information out there that's freely accessible and we certainly need to continue those types of institutions and I think this is again where we need to think about do you just leave it all up to profit maximizing corporations and then politically motivated groups to create our information ecosystem or is there a public good that needs to be supported other ways to make sure that people even who are very low income have access to information and that's certainly been a part of civic life in many countries that there is a public service aspect of information and so we can't forget that we need to figure out how to bake it in going forward and there has been a big flow of private money into news in the last few years pro-publica, a martial project even Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post and putting a huge amount of money into it which I'm sure he'd like to make a profit but it also seems to be part of just a desire to build out a stronger news organization and that's gone way back there have been people who have bought political purpose but sometimes really philanthropic purpose so I think that becomes part of the ecosystem of how news organizations are funded you have some governments funding it and like the BBC trying to create something that's largely independent and you've got private enterprise and you have some very good business models out there that will continue to produce trusted news Do you see any questions from the floor? No, it was a nose scratch Rebecca, we don't have very long but I do want to find a little bit more about the work you do on a daily basis you advise businesses, what are there what's their biggest concern? What ranking digital rights does is we actually evaluate internet, telecommunications mobile companies the biggest large listed companies on their policies and practices that affect users freedom of expression and privacy and we have a whole set of indicators where we're asking questions we're evaluating how well they're doing and we're really looking at transparency so not only do the companies have commitments to respect their users' rights but what are the specific policies that they've got in place so are they informing users about what data is being collected about them with whom it's being shared are they informing users so if a user wanted to know if somebody took the information that Facebook has on me and created a dossier what would that look like Facebook ought to be disclosing enough information so that I can understand that similarly when companies all companies have terms and conditions where you're allowed to do this you're not allowed to do that how are they enforcing them what are they taking down under what conditions is there an appeals process so that if a user feels a woman named Isis have been kicked off of Facebook by mistake is there an appeals mechanism for them to get reinstated if they don't have friends in media the appeals mechanism right now doesn't work very well so how do you build a better redress mechanism are companies being transparent about the government requests they're receiving to remove content and the volume and nature of content they're removing under what conditions so that people can hold accountable who's responsible for this content being removed we need to see more accountability around algorithms again what is shaping what people see and what don't see who's making the decisions, who has the power over what I'm able to say what I'm not able to say and who's able to see what about me we need if we don't have clarity and transparency about that by companies then people are frankly going to feel even more manipulated and more mistrustful of the entire environment and I think that's going to cause people to latch even more on to demagogu but also people aren't going to be able to advocate for what they believe in or obtain information that might go against the mainstream somehow what is their concern and what is the area where you see most lacking by companies yes, most need to toughen up companies are very unclear right now even those that published a lot of policies when it comes to exactly what are you collecting about me what kind of profile could be created on me with the information you have they don't communicate clearly and so that's that's one very big issue another really big issue is again transparency around private rules that companies are at least the big US and European companies are starting to get more transparent about requests they're getting from governments but in terms of how they enforce their own terms and conditions it's a complete black box and this is a real problem because you're seeing people on a daily basis having accounts deactivated or content removed and they don't know why and they're not able to get redress on that so that's kind of the flip side of this whole fake news debate which is that already there's no accountability about the decisions that companies are making about the rules not clear redress and appeal it's very very arbitrary people are feeling tracked that they don't have control over who knows what about them and so we need to make sure going forward the connection between what I do and this debate is we don't want to get into a situation where companies are expected even more to be arbiters of speech and it becomes even less transparent and these people are not elected they're not public officials they're just random people that got hired through some process and who are they to decide what the public needs to know or not and so there's a need for accountability but also need to to be very careful about where the responsibility is placed and do you really want to put that responsibility on to companies when you mentioned accountability and transparency what is the single greatest intervention development that you would like to see to protect global commons from misinformation I think the trend towards fact checking is useful I don't know exactly how it should be done but the notion that when things are challenged or questions there's the ability to have some sort of fact checking consortium out there is probably helpful there's also algorithmic fact checking which some people are a little leery of but we at Reuters have developed our own algorithmic tool called news tracer essentially identifies events that are purported to have occurred looking at social media and then it puts it through a whole bunch of algorithmic tests to see if it's likely to be true and it gives it a star rating as to how likely it is to be true it's not your final it's your first step in looking at that information it's useful to us in the news room quickly to see did that earthquake occur did that terrorist attack occur so technology will help give people a better sense but I would really just go back I've heard some arguments in favor of censorship here at Davos this week and I would just be so cautious about going down that path it's so tempting people say well you just get the government to say you get rid of fake news you can't do it if it's a rumor you can't publish it and you see that in authoritarian regimes it's a very terrible idea and by and large and we say this all the time there's a cost to free speech a cost to free speech is sometimes people malign other people sometimes people say things falsely but if you don't have free speech you don't have free society so I would really push hard against the argument that fake news is an excuse for censorship that just should not happen Rebecca before we close just one last question what is your priority for the coming year and what do you do? Well the work my project is putting out its second corporate accountability index where we're going to be ranking 22 companies on their policies and practices and we're going to be really focusing this year on mobile ecosystems as we call them and you've probably seen in the news another choke point for speech is app stores and there was a lot of research recently about Apple removing the New York Times app from the Chinese Apple app store and so we're going to be looking at that we're going to be looking at our companies being transparent and accountable about how they manage content in app stores when increasingly this is a choke point for expression and for privacy and for people to be tracked and is there enough clarity and who's responsible for making decisions about what we can and cannot do with our apps or what apps we can use and who can make apps and who can distribute them to whom there's a real issue here in the public discourse about that that I think people aren't looking closely enough at Let's have events of this year unfold thank you both very much indeed for joining us I know you have to get onto your next schedule thank you very much for joining us here in the room for those of you watching us live online via Facebook and our website this session is now over


Uh, hey, can I have the window seat? No, it's my seat. You know that if we crash, you can get out plaster with this seat, right? Just saying, just saying. Look, look, look, look. What's the point of the window seat if you're not looking? No, but there's nothing to see where you're up in the air. The wing is beautiful.  You know you can get a sunburn, right? You know I heard that window seats can give you cancer. So why do you want it? So for your other cancer. Can I see your boarding pass in case you shouldn't be here? Okay. You got lucky here. You wanted the window seat, you take responsibility for it. I'm not looking, I'm not looking, I'm not looking. I don't care, I don't care, I don't care. Is this my password? Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be landing in Bangkok too. This is on the flight to Paris? Ladies and gentlemen, sorry. I meant we'll be landing in Paris. Wait, this is on the flight to Bangkok? Ladies and gentlemen, sorry. I meant it.


A novel polymer containing hydrophobic ferrocene units and thio-ketal bonds in the main chain is described that delivers a prodrug of oxalipitin and artesanate to cancer cells, generating abundant reactive oxygen species, ROS, to kill cancers as nanobomb for cancer therapy. The ROS-generated in situ triggered the breakdown of thio-ketal bonds in the polymer, resulting in biodegradation of the polymer. Furthermore, nanobomb facilitates the maturation of dendritic cells and promotes the activation of anti-tumor immunity by enhancing immunogenic cell death effect. Metabolomics analysis reveals a decrease in glutamine in nanobomb-treated cancer cells, resulting in upregulation of programmed death ligand 1, PDL1. Enhanced tumor inhibitory effects are demonstrated when using nanobombig combined with anti-PDL1 therapy. The nanosystem offers a rational design of an efficient chemoimmunotherapy regimen to promote anti-tumor immunity by improving tumor immunogenicity, addressing the key challenges cancer immunotherapy faced.


India and Africa are bonded together by the people-to-people civilizational and cultural contacts that go back many centuries. India's friendship and solidarity with Africa is very well documented. It's time-tested. It's a relationship which is based on trust, mutual respect and a spirit of friendship. The India Africa Forum Summit held on April 8 and 9, 2008, started at the initiative of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, was an attempt to deepen the engagement between India and the African continent. As one of the world's fastest growing economies with a GDP that has crossed a trillion US dollars, India seeks to forge closer economic partnership with its friends in Africa. This partnership is sustainable, dynamic, constantly evolving and moving forward. Multiferous investments are made in projects like railways in Angola, an IT center in Ghana, buses in Congo, power projects in Sudan and Gambia, a major irrigation project in Senegal, floriculture and sugarcane production in Ethiopia, pharmaceuticals and telecommunications in South Africa and much else. The partnership between India and Africa aims to address the concerns of the developing world in the areas of climate change, WTO negotiations and the global economic slowdown. Just as in the past, in the 21st century too, India has a vision for partnership with Africa. The Pan-African e-network project, which supports teleeducation, telemedicine, e-commerce and e-governance, is a vivid example of the possibilities. 47 African countries have already signed up for this ambitious project that places India's capabilities in medicine, education, IT and telecommunications in the hands of all African states. Propelled by a strong political will on both sides, the bonds are growing stronger. The relationship is acquiring new and fresh dimensions. The goal is common to light up the lives of 2 billion people that inhabit our lands.


It's pretty unbelievable that Blackstar's only been around for 10 years because I've had my Trio going for only three years, but it's been there since the beginning so it's gonna be funny to look back and say 10 years when everything that I know about touring and everything that I've done and 22 countries over the past year and there's always been a Blackstar there and it's pretty crazy.  It's exciting to see a company that cares as much as I do about music that, you know, really puts their name and puts their neck on the line to give everything they have just like I am as a musician.


from the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. It's theCUBE, covering DevNet Create 2018. Brought to you by Cisco. Okay, welcome back, everyone. We're here live at theCUBE, here in Mountain View, in the heart of California, Silicon Valley. I'm John Furrier, my co-host, Lauren Cooney. Our next guest is Riaz Rihan, who's the Global VP and General Manager of Cisco IoT, CUBE alumni back last on at Cisco Live in Barcelona. We got Cisco Live coming up, but we're here at DevNet Create developer ecosystem for Cisco and external cloud-native developers. Great to see you. Thank you, John, pleasure to be back. What's a Cisco guy like you doing at a hoodie show like this? IoT?  So IoT, last time, all joking aside, is really hot because you have now the cloud as a foundation, on-premise data, hybrid cloud going on, but the edge of the network is certainly very relevant. So you've got a lot of new things happening. So the question for you is, what industries are early adopting? What industries do you see that are adopting IoT in the programmable way? I'm not so much a sensor network, so they're out there. But as they bring them into the IoT, into the technology IT world, which industries are the most adoptive for you guys? So I talk about a handful of industries that are really leading the charge, right? Number one, I'd say, is manufacturing. We see a lot of activity out there, primarily because for the first time, manufacturers have an opportunity to really converge their data and put it on an IP network, which is exciting. The other big one is energy, both all in gas as well as utility. And then we are seeing huge amount of interest in transportation, both in actually the roadways, as well as the fleet that run on the roadways. In addition to those, I'd say retail and general public sector in cities are big adopters of IoT. So on the IOG side with, say, let's take transportation. So as we know, we know that Uber happened with Uber. They had a death. Now the sensor that could sit argued, latency matters, right? So you've got to have a network to support it. Is smart cities truly happening in a way that's, in your opinion, moving the ball down the field? Where is the smart cities with IOG respect to transportation? I mean, is it still early? And they moving the ball down the field? Your thoughts? You know, I'm asked this question pretty often. And I can tell you that moving a city towards the smart city is actually a massive endeavor. What we find is the cities that are doing this successfully, they kind of start small with a few use cases. Let's say parking, maybe lighting. And then they kind of expand out a number of use cases, but also a geographic spread of where they'll deploy. And specifically, you know, when they work with us, one of the big advances we are making is something called the fog appliance. So we're building this easy to install appliance that can be used in the sections and at various points to enable cities to go smart. So Lauren, you and I were talking the other day about this is that, you know, when the cloud, you bring cloud together with the developers, it's interesting because they have to actually figure out that software can be powering the edge. And, you know, Kubernetes is in one example. And when you start looking at what Kubernetes is doing to the network layer, you say, okay, I got to write software. But most of the edge applications, oil and gas, they're like facilities guys. These guys are hardware people. They're deploying cameras. Well, there has to be, there's software that actually runs on that as well to enable things for people, places and things at the edge. And I think you all have to look at the edge when you are talking about IoT especially. Software, that's the key. What do you say to all those guys that have to relearn software? Come to DevNet Create, I mean, this is a real issue. Yeah. You know, if you look at software in general, right? Software is playing a bigger and bigger role in these applications. Not to diminish the role of hardware or networking or any of the other elements, but software is certainly playing a bigger role. Like, let me give you an example. Let's talk about the fog appliance. You know, one of the things we've been working on quite diligently is building out a single software framework that can sit on a number of different hardware devices depending on what the use case is. And the use case is defined by the customer, it's defined by the industry, it's also defined by the price point. So, what we are seeing more and more job is having a single software framework but being able to deploy across different platforms if you will, and therefore building different appliances to solve different problems. Yeah, one of the things that I think is huge and I want to get your thoughts on this, I think we should do a deep dive on it. And that is that video is becoming much more of a bigger app. We use video a lot, I see with theCUBE, thank you for watching. But there's a lot of data in the video assets. It's not just do the video to communicate a message, there's a digital artifact that's beyond what it's for. There's a, it's now digitized. So, that's now data, your thoughts. You know, when we were talking before, you mentioned video is a data asset, completely agree. What we're finding is, video is now transitioning from just being something that we thought about for safety and security to becoming more of an intelligent asset. Video is also now getting integrated more with the business process. So, let me give you an example. We're working with a manufacturer of Nylon. And this is a process industry that works 24-7. And they're using video to actually monitor the output as it comes out of the machines. Because when the temperature rises above a certain limit, and this is obviously a manufacturing defect, it tends to blob up the nylon which then reduces the value of the nylon from something that's high grade and high margin to low grade and low margin. And video's helping solve the problem. So, the video creates an alert that's part now of the manufacturing process and manufacturing control, allowing management to intervene quickly to kind of at least cut their losses. So, that's an example of how video is now becoming very much a part of the business process, not just safety and security, but well beyond that. This is well beyond surveillance. Yeah. This is more than just normal use cases. So, new value activities are going on with video. Absolutely. The other big one is traffic. And I'm talking about road traffic. Whether you look at tunnels or you look at parkways and so on. We're now seeing video being used to monitor the flow patterns of cars on highways and on parkways. And then not just using that to predict traffic jams, but in some cases predict accidents. Because once you take these data labels and data assets through video and compute them, it's a stream of information that can be analyzed mathematically using an algorithm. And then fortunately, we're able to now use that to prevent accidents potentially, right? So, that's the kind of thing we see video in. And this is just the cost. You'll see a lot more of use cases where video and IoT get very integrated. And again, very happy that Cisco is leaving the charge for that. So, Lauren, I want to ask you a question because I know you and I have been talking about this. And that is that the developer role around this is not obvious. It's obvious to say, oh, we've got to write software. But now you've got to create ecosystems. So let's just say this is one integrated video. They have a by-build decision to make. Do they build it from scratch or they integrate it in? So if you take Riaz's next level of conversation is video is a service. It's a microservice. If it's a data asset, if you believe that, it's a microservice. So it's not trivial now. You've got to figure out how to codify it. What do you guys think about that? You guys are in the experts in the software area. What's your thoughts? So, you know, I can jump in. I think this is an important trend, especially if you look at three industries that I personally work with, manufacturing, you look at energy, and then you look at retail. These are three industries that I think are leading the charge on how they're using video in this context. And how the videos actually provide it, I think is less important. What's more important, as you said, is the microservice that has video as a component and then consuming that and integrating it with the whole value stream within that industry. The other important element, I believe, is the use of video in conjunction with other types of sensors. So let me give you an example. We're working with a large telco, and they have these cell towers placed all across the country. And they actually have video to monitor the cell towers. And that's great. But the problem is, it gives them a lot of false positives. So they solve the problem by using human form recognition. Still, I mean... What's a false positive?  Oh, okay. And that gives you a positive reading, right? Now, they've kind of used, they've used some technology and they've reduced that down, but they still have too many false positives. So they decided to combine the video feed with some of the sensors that they have. For example, when someone tries to pull a copper plate from the cell phone tower, there's a sensor that tracks that. So now combining the video input and the sensor input, they get much fewer false positives and are able to take action much more expeditiously. And co-occurring incidents are a huge, huge opportunity for the IP. So the thing I want to ask you, because I think this is much more business oriented, so I want to get your thoughts on it. Okay, video is a data asset. People say, I believe that. Now I want to operationalize that in my company. We're talking about a new process improvement. That's hard to do because they've never done it before. How are you guys engaging customers? And what are some best practices to get them to operationalize a new, not just new technology or service, but actually integrate into a pre-existing or changing value chain? One of the things we do, John, is we'll engage with customers to do what we call a value management analysis. So we actually sit down with them, work out what their existing process looks like, what an improved process might look like, and importantly what kind of cost they can take out of the process, out of the system, or what kind of new value they can drive for their customers. So it's either an increase in revenue, it's a decrease in cost, or an improvement in process efficiencies. Once we've done that, it really allows us to then pair up that new process with our technology and then actually track how much of the value they've received. We've found this approach kind of grounds everything in a very strong ROI. So instead of guessing as to what the output will be and does it actually move the needle on a value basis, you're actually able to document that up front and then actually track the results against what we thought would be. The other advantage of this process is it allows us to improve incrementally. So the first version of a video-enabled business process might give us a certain amount of value, but as we improve on that, we could see incremental values and other processes being added on. Very similar to starting small and then adding on creatively kind of a design way. But you've got to be open-minded. Let me throw a wrench into the equation here, which is, okay, new data source. You mentioned the co-occurring identity on the self-tower example. It could be like multiple data inputs that are new. How does the customer figure that out? Different customers are different. And again, as I mentioned. Very generally speaking. You've got to be prepared for the unknown. Yeah, some industries I think are more open to this because they've seen, they've felt this problem before. Going back to manufacturing as an example. Monitoring, visually monitoring, the output of a manufacturing process is a very labor-intensive proposition. Manufacturers have struggled doing that for a long time. Now, having used video and getting just a very high level of efficiency and combining different types of inputs is something they're very open to. So we see them very open to it. Other industries, I think, are coming along, but it all goes back to how important a problem are you solving and what's the payoff of solving the problem? The bigger the problem, the more the willingness. Great conversation.  You guys are going down a new road and we talked about this at Cisco Live in Barcelona. You got the tailwind for you guys. But you got a clean sheet of paper but you got some pre-existing stuff but it's not like baggage. It's just an opportunity, might be. So I got to ask you, how is the business going? What are you guys doing? What are some recent successes you've had? Share some insight into that. Yeah, and I think, just to add to that, I think, what are the revenue opportunities that you see that, you know, you're providing these services to these customers? They must see new revenue opportunities as well. Wondering what those are. So I'll kind of cover both sides of my business. I'll start with Jasper, Cisco Jasper. Our Cisco Jasper business is doing fabulously well. We added almost 10,000 devices last month along or last quarter and we're on track to keep adding devices at a very fast pace. So we're very excited about that. We've just crossed 75 million. So 75 million devices on Jasper. The last time we spoke, John, the number was 60 million. In addition, we've also seen many more enterprises adopting Jasper. The last time we spoke, it was 14,000. Now it's over 16,400. So that number just keeps growing. We'll see you next month, it'll be 20,000. So that number just keeps growing and that allows us to broaden our reach, get into different use cases and drive incremental value for our customers. On the Kinetic side, as I mentioned, we're seeing a lot of traction in the verticals that I laid out earlier. But specifically what we're finding now is customers are getting serious. Take a minute to explain Kinetic for a second. Just one minute and then get into it. So Kinetic is our data fabric. It's our platform that allows us to extract data from all kinds of IoT devices that are sitting on a corporate or a private network. It allows us to process that data at the edge and then it allows us to transport the data to wherever the customer wants it to be. So it's really our IoT platform, our data fabric at the core. The Kinetic business is doing great. We've had lots of uptake. There's actually a booth out here where they're demoing Kinetic. I see a lot of people coming in and trying to understand it. And we see people deploying Kinetic in more and more unique ways. We're working, for example, with a German manufacturer, a very prestigious German manufacturer that's now launching a pretty large project with Kinetic where they're using Kinetic to monitor the health of not just all their new machines, but also all the brownfield machines that they have installed over the past decade. So we're very excited about that and very excited about the future. Well, great job. Congratulations. Always great to talk with you. I think it's one of the exciting bright spots within Cisco with the IoT. Certainly the DevNet developer program has been a huge success and that's only going to help you guys and also the DevNet create. You want some more software developers working on Kinetic and also Meraki and all these cool tools. So congratulations. Thanks for coming on. More live coverage here. DevNet creates theCUBE in Silicon Valley in Mountain View, California. We'll be right back after this short break.


Today's lecture will be moving beyond classical material. I want to show first a somewhat straightforward application of Donaldson's theorem, which took quite a while to arrive. And then I'm going to discuss some enhancements to Donaldson's theorem, which come from Hagar fluorhomology, although I'm not going to really describe how that works. But I'm going to give a couple of applications of those enhancements. So the emphasis is going to be on applications today. And the protagonist in today's lecture is the class of lens spaces. And they're just a great class of examples for the different results I want to mention. But in every case, you can say more than, more beyond just the case of lens spaces. But somehow they're just perfect, perfect set of examples to run through this lecture. So by definition, if I have a pair of positive integers, p bigger than q greater than 0, or relatively prime, I can make a lens space. I'm going to denote it this way, lpq. And this is just going to be defined to be the result of doing p over q frame drain surgery, p over q slope drain surgery along the unknot. And if the denominator q is equal to 1, then this is the trace of surgery along a very simple four manifold, something with second Betty number 1. And I'm going to be interested in the class of fillings of this lens space when q is not necessarily equal to 1. So if you know your Kirby calculus, this space is homomorphic to surgery along this link that I'm writing down, the same link where I've been lazy about the crossings. This link is framed by integers. These are integers, and they're all greater than or equal to 2. And the relationship between these integers and pair pq is given by a continued fraction, the slightly unusual continued fraction, if you've not seen it before. This is the so-called Hertzberg Young Continued Fraction expansion. And what I do is I take p over q.  So any p over q can be uniquely expressed in this way. And I get this nice integer framed link presentation of my lens space. I'm going to, as a shorthand, well, I could call this link BlackboardLP comma q. So it's a framed link. It has n components, a1, up to an, or the labels. And continuing some abbreviations, four manifold, which this specifies the trace of surgery along this framed link. I'm just going to denote by this shorthand. And this has an intersection lattice, which also uses shorthand lambda pq to denote. So in the natural basis, the matrix which represents the gram matrix for the basis that you see described last time. It's just this matrix which records these coefficients on the diagonal. And it has minus ones along the sub-diagonal and minus ones along the super-diagonal and zeros elsewhere. And there's a shorthand for notating a form like this, which looks a lot like the link that I wrote down. I just write down a linear path and I put labels at the vertices in order. And that, to me, encodes a lattice which is freely generated by n classes whose self-pairings are given by the integers above them. And where two classes will pair 0 if they're not joined by an edge and will pair minus 1 if they are joined by an edge. So this is kind of a graphic representation. OK, so those are kind of lens-based basics. All right, so the application that I want to describe was theorem of Pala-Lisko. So if you go back to that list of problems from the course description, we knocked off the first two and we're going in order. The third was a question about two-bridge knots and being smoothly sliced. And I'm going to use this question I'm about to pose as a stand-in for that. The two are very, very closely related, but in the interest of time, I'm just going to pass over talking about two-bridge knots and vice-discs. So the reformulation of that question that I want to ask is simply, which lens space is bound rational homology balls? For which pairs PQ does a lens-based LPQ bound a rational homology ball, not notation I've used yet, but it's equivalent to asking that this is the boundary of a four-manifold W with vanishing second-bedding number. And I'm always going to ask these manifolds I'm considering to be smooth. W should be smooth. I do not care about the fundamental group. Well, if I have a four-manifold filling a lens space, I don't know anything about B1 necessarily. Well, OK, I'll confuse myself. But if I know that B2 of W is equal to 0, then some long exact sequence will tell me that B1 equals to 0 as well. So it's equivalent to being a rational homology ball. So it's the question implied by the answer. OK, absolutely. Sorry, I'm not thinking. So we'll just leave it at that then. This is not really a shorthand. OK, yeah, of course, yeah. So I made a mistake in asserting that this is the same thing as having vanishing second-bedding number, the rookie mistake. And the problem is, of course, if I have a lens space that bounds a rational ball, I can always just sum on S1 cross S3. And it'll continue to bound that space, but that thing's bedding number has gone up. First-bedding number is 1, but the second-bedding number is still 0. OK, this is the question I'm really interested in answering. So I'll give an example. So actually, on the homework, I saw a construction to show that the lens space L41 is the boundary of a rational homology ball. A somewhat more interesting example would be the lens space L95. This is also the boundary of a rational homology ball. In fact, it's the boundary of a four-manifold, which is built by taking a single 0 handle, a single 1 handle, and a single 2 handle. And I'll make it an exercise to work through a Kirby calculus description. I'll give for that later. But I wanted to point something interesting out, which is, let's call this four-manifold W. You see, given this, I can take that trace manifold whose boundary is L95. And I can glue it. I can close it up, like we did in that example at the end of last class. I can glue it up by plugging on this rational ball. But to actually close it up to something orientable, I'd better reverse the orientation on W. So I can glue the boundaries of these by an orientation reversing diphthalmorphism. And this four-manifold I've formed, which I'll denote x, is now closed, smooth. It has second-bedding number equal to the second-bedding number of that trace. And therefore, it inherits positive definiteness from the positive definiteness of this trace. Because as an exercise, you can prove that this lattice, this linear lattice, is definite. Lambda pq, positive definite. So as a sanity check, the lattice, L95, how do I sort out what that is? I take 9 fifths, and I have to write it as a continued fraction. So I think, how many times does 5 go into 9? It goes in once, but I have to overshoot. And I get 2 minus a fifth as my Heursebrook Young continued fraction. So my lattice graphically represented this way. And again, that means that I have a class x and a class y, whose self-pairings are given by the numbers above them, and whose pairing together is minus 1. So this steady number is 2. And now that I have a closed, smooth, positive definite four-manifold, I know what its intersection lattice is going to be. By Donaldson's theorem, it has to be isometric to this lattice we denoted I2 last time. This is just the standard Euclidean lattice, which I can emphasize by writing an orthonormal basis for it. Just like you usually write orthonormal basis vectors, E1 up to En. So what we'd be saying then is that the lattice on this guy must embed into this lattice. And we can check that that indeed is the case. So I could map x to, say, E1 plus E2. And I could map y to, well, does somebody want to help me? I need a class whose self-pairing is 5 and has pairing minus 1 with this class. I had to prepare this in advance, but I'll do it now. Oh, the question is, if I'm trying to embed this lattice as a sub-lattice of the standard Euclidean lattice, which I'm going to think of as the integer points in the process of trying to draw up. And so I know x has to map to an element in this lattice whose self-pairing is 2. And really up to change of basis, there's a single choice for what x could map to. The comment was that everybody failed and has to come back next year. Of course, the inner product of these two is plus 1, not minus 1. So you just wanted to negate that. That would be the embedding you really wanted. Hope I've given myself enough space. So the grid points are the points of I2. And I just embedded this lattice. This was my embedding of lambda 9, 5. So I have this vector E1 plus E2. And I have this vector E1 minus 2E2. And then the lattice that they generate. Did I get it? Oh, wait, E1 minus 2E2. So here? OK, thank you. So I get all multiples of this one, so the origin. So I'm getting all of these points. This is the sub lattice embedding. And I got that one. And I'm going to get everything on this diagonal line by adding that other vector to it. And then its negative is in here. So I get that right. Similarly, another night move takes me here. And a night move takes me here. So those would be the points that I get. OK, so that's a kind of a confirmation. Let's sanity check. This thing ought to embed. A non-example, though, would be the case of 2513. I'm going to argue that this is not the boundary of a rational homology ball. I haven't confirmed that this is the boundary of a rational homology ball. But I'm telling you that it is. And as a sanity check, I'm saying I could glue it on to this trace and get a closed, smooth, positive, definite four-manifold. I know what its intersection lattice is. So I know that the intersection lattice on this one has to embed. And I confirm that it doesn't, but feeling good. And I'm going to try to reverse that trick to show that this lens space is not the boundary of a rational homology ball. Just to move a little bit more quickly, you see if it did. So suppose, by way of contradiction, it did. OK, then I would make this gluing as before. I would take now the trace of 2513 and glue it on to minus W. And the same story would hold. I'd be getting a closed, smooth, positive, definite four-manifold. Well, let's check what the intersection lattice is on this. To do that, I have to write 2513 as an infraction. Fortunately, again, it's pretty short. If this is my closed, smooth, definite four-manifold, by Donaldson's theorem, this is isometric to I2. And so what I'm looking to do is to embed this lattice 213 into this Euclidean lattice. As before, there's really only one choice for where X could map. It has to map to E1 plus E2. But is there any place for Y to map? I'd like to say not to say that this thing does not embed. And that will contradict being the boundary of a W. I believe that's correct. The question is, isn't 139 plus 4? It might be a problem, yes. Which is, what could Y map to? So it's a morning of mistakes. That embedding would look like lambda 2513. I've got the same set of points embedding here. But now, 2E1 minus 3E2 is in my lattice. Similarly, minus 2E1 plus 3E2 is in my lattice. I'd be getting these circled points. Yes, a remark. Well, I know that X, the question is, why does X map to E1 plus E2? I know that X has to map to something in this lattice that has self-pairing 2. And so I'm trying to write 2 as a sum of squares. So it has to be plus minus 1 and plus minus 1. And after changing bases, I could just assume it's like that. That would appear to be a problem as far as ruling this thing out from bounding a rational ball. But if I take this lens space and I reverse its orientation, I've got another lens space. And all I do is I take the Q and I subtract it from P. And if this lens space bounds a rational ball W, then this lens space would have to bound the rational ball with reverse orientation. To show this statement, yes, there is the way to see this. Quickly, in general, I could add, well, I mean, it's a Kirby calculus exercise. Let me say that really quickly. I'll be in better shape to answer it more completely later. So the good news is that I can try to play this game again. So let's instead take this trace and glue on, I guess it's going to be plus W now. And I play the game I did before. I write out this continued fraction, 25-12ths. And what you find is that it's 3 minus 1 over 2, minus 1 over 2, minus et cetera, minus 1 over 2. And there are 11 of these 2s. The linear lattice would be of this form. And I'd be asking this to embed in the standard diagonal lattice of rank 12. And again, you can kind of argue where these classes must map. This element of self-pairing 2 would have to map to, say, e1 plus e2. And then the one before it would have to map to something like minus e2 plus e3, and so forth and so on. And by the time you get to here, you basically force how all of these two classes have to map in here. And what you'll discover is that there's just simply no element of self-pairing 3, which has pairing minus 1 with this guy, and 0 with all of its predecessors. So in fact, this embedding does not exist. Embedding does not exist. It's supposed to be i, standard diagonal lattice, rank 12. Yes? That shows it. This doesn't work, but. If this didn't work to rule out this thing from bounding a rational ball, this approach, but there was a trick to reverse orientation and get a lens-based of opposite orientation, which also bounds this nice positive definite trace manifold. By gluing the opposite rational ball onto it, we got a contradiction. So we concluded then that this does not indeed arise. We cannot, in fact, fill this lens-based 2513 by a rational ball. And the reason we know that it has to embed an i12 is, again, from Donaldson's theorem. And this is exactly what Liesch approved. He showed that the lens-based LPQ is the boundary of a rational homology ball, if and only if. The lattice lambda PQ embeds with full rank into the standard diagonal lattice and the linear lattice for the orientation reversal embeds with full rank into a Euclidean lattice, diagonal lattice. So if you have both of these embeddings, then it turns out that this lens-based does indeed bound a rational ball. And furthermore, although we're not really going to use it, but he works out the numerical criteria for this to occur. So this happens if and only if there are integers m and k, such that P is perfect square, m squared. And either q or P minus q is one of two forms. So it could look like mk plus 1, where the GCD of k and m is 1 or 2.  So like I said, it's not so important to know that. It's what comes out of the combinatorial analysis of analyzing which of these linear lattices embed. And so you can imagine how this goes is he checks for which pairs PQ we get these embeddings and then finds that the numbers have to be of this form. And then he has some recipe for given values of this form producing rational balls, which fill that lens space. Was that lens space LPQ bounds a positive definite negative definite. I mean, we took the orientation reversal of LPQ and said that bounds a positive definite for manifold. That's how we're using the second bit. And there are many corollaries to this, surprisingly. So a corollary, which I will put as an exercise, this was a result of a Chateau and Larson from a few years ago, is that if you have a lens space and it's rational homology co-bordant to an integer homology sphere, then in fact, it bounds a rational ball. So it's rational homology co-bordant to the three sphere. I didn't really expect it, but it really is the source of a lot of refinements and other applications. This one, I think, is an especially nice one that you can state quickly and actually figure out a proof of with a hint. Yes, Paola? Full rank meaning that, what does it mean that this embedding is full rank? It means that the sublattice that you have has rank equal to the rank of the lattice that it embeds inside of. OK, the remark was, N1 is just the rank of this lattice and N2 is just the rank of this lattice. Say it one more time. OK, the question is roughly what goes into the construction of this rational homology ball, right? And the answer is that they correspond to the branch double covers of two-bridge links, which bound Euler characteristic one surfaces in the four ball. So you take the branch double cover of this surface, which in the case of a knot is going to be a sliced disk. And that's going to be a rational homology ball by an argument of Casson and Gordon. That was the part that I was kind of skipping over. But it's a great point that the construction of these rational homology balls really ties in with a construction in knot theory. So there's an enhancement of this. I use this made-up word to describe cubicity. So here's a theorem. Let's suppose I have a free manifold, which bounds a rational homology ball. And in addition, it bounds a really nice four manifold. So it's the boundary of a four manifold x, which is not only positive definite like we've been doing in these examples, but is furthermore sharp. And I'm not going to say what that is. But this is a condition. I think I'll describe it in the next lecture. But this is a condition coming from Hagar flow homology. Example would be if x was one of these traces that we're talking about associated to a lens space. Those are examples of not just positive definite four manifolds, but sharp ones as well. Then the intersection lattice on x has to embed to the diagonal lattice of rank n, where n is the rank of lambda x. That's exactly the obstruction that we've been using coming from Donaldson's theorem. But something more is true. For any point that I choose, I'll call q. For any point I choose in this lattice, I n, I take the unit cube based at q. This cube will necessarily contain a point of the lattice. Well, I'll write it like lambda. And lambda is the image of the embedding. So not only does the lattice embed in this diagonal lattice, but it's relatively dense. It hits every single unit cube with integer coordinates, with integer vertices. So if I look back at these examples, this was the case of the lens space L95. It bounds a rational homology ball. And it's lattice embedded with these yellow points. I'll try to shade them in. And if you stare at this, you do notice that every single unit square in this case that you pick in this picture hits the lattice in at least one point. Sometimes more than one point. On the other hand, for this lattice 2513, there was really just this one embedding up to automorphism. And you notice there are empty squares. Here's an empty square. So it failed to hit that unit square. And so simply on the basis of this embedding, this unique embedding, failing this cubicity condition, we can rule this lens space out from bounding a rational ball without playing Liska's trick of looking at the mirror and looking at the orientation reversal. Repeat the argument is the question. I'm saying that I can use this theorem to rule out this lens space from bounding a rational homology ball. And my argument is I look at this sharp four-manifold, which fills my lens space. And I'm going to argue that it doesn't have an embedding. And if we go back to our previous analysis, we saw there was really just one embedding of this lattice into I2, up to automorphism. And it looks like this, but these are the points you want your eye to draw attention to. So there's really just this one embedding, but it fails this cube condition. Here's a cube that doesn't contain any point of that sublattice. So this lens space couldn't bound a rational ball. It's a bit of an odd condition. I don't know why you would ever come up with this condition before having this application for low-dimensional topology. It just comes out naturally from Donaldson's theorem in tandem with some more information coming from Hagar'd Fleur Homology. The next application I'll describe is to Dane Surgery. And again, I'll let lens spaces play a antagonist here. So the question I want to ask here is which knots in the three-sphere have a Dane Surgery to a lens space? Well, obviously, the unknot does, because that was how we generated the class of lens spaces. Any of these are lens spaces. A more interesting example some people might have looked at on the problem set yesterday was if I take the right-hand trefoil and do plus-5 surgery along it. This ends up being homeomorphic to the result of minus-5 surgery along the unknot, which, thinking of it as 5 over negative 1, and I can, by the thing I did that didn't really answer that one question, I can change this to 5 over 4. This is a Kirby calculus description of a lens space. So that's a bit of a surprise that some non-trivial knots do have lens space surgeries. And actually, all torus knots, torus knots have lens space surgeries, all torus knots do, and many more. And the production of examples culminated in a conjecture due to John Berge from about 1990. And if this is the question, then Berge gave a conjectural answer. And the answer is the Berge knots, which I have a more intrinsic description. Berge knots, by a little theorem, are the same thing as so-called doubly primitive knots. Suffice it to say, it's a pretty exceptional class of knots. So these are knots that you can draw on the boundary of a genus to Hagard splitting. The standardly embedded genus to handle body in the threesphere, they're knots that you can draw on that in a particular way so that they're not included into the handle body in the inside or the handle body on the outside. This knot represents a primitive element of the fundamental group. So it's a primitive element. Hence they're called doubly primitive inside and out. It's not so important you know what that is. But he made a very influential conjecture, which is still open.  But it's a major theorem that if k is a knot and it has a lens-based surgery and k is not equal to a torus knot, then the surgery that you do has to be an integer. So this is a consequence of the famous cyclic surgery theorem of color Gordon-Lucy and Shailen. Yes, it has to stay on. So these knots stay on the boundary of a genus to handle body. So well, all torus knots will have this property, in fact. Sorry, repeat. They're knots which can be drawn, the doubly primitive knots, burgy knots, are knots which can be drawn on this genus to Hagard surface. But there is an additional condition I haven't told you, or I did, but not well. Yes, Paul? Picture, please. So the idea is that I have a lens space now, and it's being expressed as surgery along a knot. So think of this as the boundary of the trace of surgery along this knot. So the picture that I would draw would be the trace of surgery along some putative knot whose boundary is this lens space LPQ. This is a four-manifold with second-beddy number one. It's just trace of surgery along a single knot. Ah, OK. The picture we want is a picture of a burgy knot. So burgy is from Wisconsin. Here's this genus to handle body, standardly embedded in the three-sphere amount of practice. But am I that out of practice, though? So imagine these strands run around here in kind of like a cable of a torus knot. And the other strands come over to this side like so. So I might have a knot which is drawn on this genus to Hagard surface in this way. And what's special is that there's a compressing disc for the outer handle body, sorry, which meets this curve in a single point. And there's also a compressing curve for the inner handle body, which meets this curve in a single point. And it seems as though I failed to do that. Yes, would anybody like to correct this picture? See? Not as easy as it looks. Not as easy as it looks. Any loop on this surface, which happens to cross a compressing disc for the outer handle body in a single point, and which happens to also cross some cutting disc for the inner handle body in a single point. One disc for the outside and some other disc for the inside. As long as you can find those special discs, that gives you doubly primitive knot. But where this is leading is I could actually draw an example. I could build the trace of surgery perhaps as well. Again, close this thing off with a piece that I know well, this trace, P, P minus Q. So what I'm writing here is I'm supposing that my lens space is a knot surgery. And I'm saying if I have that, then I can glue up and get this big four manifold, which for I think the third time now, this is a closed, smooth, positive definite four manifold. So the intersection lattice on X is going to be diagonal. And the rank of this lattice is now what I'll write as N plus 1, where N is the rank of this lattice. I have all of these classes in here. I have these N classes that I understand how they pair. And then there's this special surface over here generating the homology in this piece. And together those classes rationally span the homology of this four manifold. So what I learned then is that the lattice, lambda P, P minus Q, must embed to this diagonal lattice. And its orthogonal complement is one dimensional. So I'm conflating this lattice with its image under the embedding. But this is going to be spanned by a single element. I'm going to write as sigma, where sigma you should think of as being the homology class that capital sigma represents. So an example would be we saw that L5, 4, 5 surgery along this knot. And so it means that the lattice lambda 5, 1 is just represented by this picture, should embed into the standard diagonal lattice of rank one more. And if I write my orthonormal basis vector as E1 and the other one is E2, we have some practice with this already. This class X maps to, say, 2E1 minus E2. That's an embedding. And the orthogonal complement, I'm just finding a primitive vector orthogonal to this one. And E1 plus 2E2 works, which I'll just write as a vector 1, 2. Another example would be L33, 2. I'm going to ask whether this could be 33 surgery along some knot. Well, if so, let me change this to 31. If so, then lambda of 33, 2. I have to do my continued fraction expansion. Then I get this lattice, because it's 17 minus 1 half is 33 halves. But this would have to embed in the diagonal lattice of rank 3, which is spanned by some classes, say E1, E2, and E3. And now back to the audience. Is it possible for me to map in classes X and Y to this lattice, that those earrings could take, say, again, 4E1 minus E2. And this one could be E2 plus minus E3. And what's the orthogonal complement? E1 plus 4E2 plus 4E3, which in vector notation is 1, 4, 4. So this lattice embeds. So it stands a chance, then, of being a knot surgery. Except yet again, there is an improvement on what Donaldson's theorem tells you. So it's a theorem. The length space is a knot surgery. Then the lattice lambda p minus q has to embed with co-dimension 1 into the standard diagonal lattice. I record the co-dimension 1 property by saying that the orthogonal complement is spanned by a single class sigma. And up to change of basis, if I write sigma as a vector in terms of entries sigma 1 up to sigma n plus 1, this vector is a special kind of a vector called a change maker. And again, this is a condition that I don't know why you would have studied, apart from it popping out of some Donaldson-Hagard-Fluer magic. But what this means is you, since we're out of time, you could do a demonstration. But you have to imagine these as values of coins. So imagine these as values of coins. And you want to board a bus. And the bus demands you pay an exact change. And you have enough money, but you're wondering whether you have exact change in any amount up to the total value of your coins. So what we're asking is that for all values 1 up to the total sum of these values. These are all positive values. I can make exact change in that amount. There exists a subset such that if I just add up my coins indexed by the elements of that subset, I get that amount. That's the fee to board the bus. And so when we look back at this example, if you have a one cent coin and a two cent coin, you can make exact change in any amount up to three cents. But if you have a one cent, a four cent, and a four cent coin, you have nine cents. But it's impossible to make two cents as change or three cents as change. So this is not a change maker. So that forbids this lens space from being a not surgery. And since we're over time, I'll wrap up the conclusion next time. But long story short, this is a necessary and sufficient condition for lens spaces to arise by not surgery. So that gives some evidence for the Berge conjecture. I'll put some polish on it next time. Thank you. The question is whether there is an easy way to see that the Berge knots admit a lens space surgery. And I'd say it's a quite interesting exercise. The answer is yes. It's a very pleasant exercise. But it involves taking the stained surgery solid torus and the space that you're surgerying it into and cutting them up in a creative way and being able to decompose it into two solid tori, which tells you that you're in a lens space. So there are nice details to work through there. Another question. You should look for a paper I wrote with Slavin. Oh, I'm sorry. So the question had to do with where to learn about cubicity. So a little argument on top of what's in that paper gives this cubicity condition. And there should hopefully be a paper with cubicity explicitly in it possibly this very month on the archive. That is also the question is whether this change maker condition is anywhere. And yes, this is in a paper from 2012 or 13. I bet if you googled my name and change maker, you'd a different embedding. OK, so to answer the question, to repeat the question, that's what I was going to do, the question is how did we actually show that this lens space is not equal to 33 surgery along some knot? Because what we did was we wrote down one embedding and we checked that the orthogonal complement's not a change maker. But that doesn't say there couldn't have been some other embedding of this where the orthogonal complement actually is a change maker. And there are only so many possibilities you can really check. I mean, why? It has self-pairing too. So it really has to look like a vector like that. And I think you end up finding that that's really the only possibility for X can map. So no, we didn't complete the argument, but we just did. Question is whether there are non-trivial knots with different surgeries to lens spaces. And the short answer is yes. In fact, all torus knots have that property. The PQ torus knot has the property that P times Q plus or minus 1 gives a lens space. But there are also hyperbolic knots with that property, like the Fintechel's third minus 2, 3, 7 pretzel knot, or 18 and 19 surgery, 18 and 18 plus or minus 1 surgery along it to the job. So those are interesting examples. 0, 1, and 2, yes. OK, the question is about the complexity of the rational balls filling lens spaces in the case of Liska's work. And the answer is yes. With a careful reading, first done by Jake Rasmussen, you can confirm that all of his lens spaces bound a rational ball built from a single 0, 1, and 2 handle. I mean, it's really direct. It's in that paper. But to think of it that way, I learned from him. So that's an entry into a very fascinating question, which is complexity of rational ball fillings. And so anytime a lens space bounds a rational ball, it bounds this one with the simplest handle decomposition you could have. Draw the surface, but thank you, Jake. Thank you.


I'm here with my buddy, his name is Billy Bones and Billy Bones is kind of pissed off just like we are at the same things. Billy Bones is he he's from the island of Valley and he probably is probably a spirit inside of this thing because I have no idea who made it or what spell was cast but Billy Bones is pretty pissed. Okay, welcome, I am your host James P. Madonna of Megalife 21 hard-hitting podcast and this is progressive discussions after dark and I'm here with my very special guest for the very first time, I'm a virgin, be easy, the one and only and he is involved with some of my social media pages, the one and only from Chicago, Illinois, Mick Vaughn Raven, Mick glad to have you.  Thank you. Long time coming brother.  But when I said this show was after dark, I wasn't kidding. I'm gonna crack open my 8.5 Bruce G. percentage beer and cheers mate. I got the Yenling Porter.  Well I have some some island spice rum in the freezer but I don't want to I don't feel like this is the evening to be doing that. America's oldest brewery, Yenling Potstown, Pennsylvania, Yenling Porter. I usually drink the lager. I like Lord Chesterfield Ale and I like their India Pale Ale and so tell me about the beer you're drinking sir. Founder's Brewery, I don't know much about him but I went to Michigan with one of my exes and her brother a south head turned me on to 8.5% so when you're drinking one you're actually drinking two beers. Is it a Scotch Ale? It's darker. It's a dark ale you say? Scotch type ale so it's strong.  Well I like to speaking of our talking about beer, I mean I'm not an expert, expert enough for me. I'm not an expert in craft beer. I'm not as astute on the subject as my friend Mr. Dave Coulter. I just would like to say howdy hi to the true beer expert Dave Coulter from Ohio, not actually closer to the Cleveland area. And we're not gonna hold that against you Dave. Greetings to Dave Coulter and to from Louisiana another beer expert Mr. Jay Theriot. I'm sure I'm not pronouncing it right. Theriot? Me. I know I'm gonna get heat for it but hey it works better than none at all no matter what you're saying. Yeah, well he's a very nice Cajun gentleman from down there and he knows a lot about beer but Dave Coulter is a lot easier of a name for me to remember and I have done shows with Dave Coulter but this is not a beer show. This show is for my Facebook page. See Billy Bones is very excited. Look how he's bobbing around. It is for my Facebook page the International Brotherhood of Krampus and Festivus. Or was it Festivus and Krampus? Whatever and that's I am very proud of my new album called for the love of Gargoyles. You can check it out and of course it is loaded with Gargoyles, some of my favorite entities in the universe.


Former Governor of Imo State Senator Rocha Sokarcha has preferred solution to the crisis rocking the over-progressive Congress APC over repeatedly postponement of the National Convention. Sokarcha suggests that the founding leaders of the party across the original four blocks should be allowed to nominate interested party members for sensitive positions, such as national chairman, secretary, women leader, youth leader, organizing secretary. According to him, while President Mohamed Buhari asked the leader of the CPC block should be given the honor of deciding who becomes the next national chairman of the party, others like Senator Bola Akhmar Tinnabu of the defunct ACN block, Bonnayao Nuu of the defunct AN block, himself as the leader of the Abgar faction, then should also be honored of deciding the national secretary and other important positions. The wisest thing for all of us today will be to go back to those founding parties and disobey the political structure as we did then that granted us peace, with that they will be no anchor and it will be very peaceful and bearing in mind that the leader of the party and the father of the party now is President Mohamed Buhari and to ensure that the party continues on the right track because the moment Buhari was given that respect to at least let the party know the persons he think shall occupy the sensitive position, especially the chairman and secretary of the party and Asuadra Maitinnabu for the role he played for the party should also be made to produce some key positions in the party and other parties, Abgar and MPP and DPP will also be made to have some positions. Once this is done then there will be no problem in that case. Meanwhile, the ruling of Progressive Congress APC convention has been shifted to March the 26th.


So, hi everyone. My name is Mirek Mazul, I hope you can hear me okay. I'm doing a talk on starting the new score design team. It's more of a talk on what's to come than what has been because it's just starting out. So, what is new score? New score is the score writing program where you can write scores, edit scores, share scores. It has an online platform as well that you can share scores to and that you can download scores from. So, my goal wasn't just to start a design team for new score. It was also to figure out how to do user-centered design effectively in volunteer-based communities. I used to be a volunteer in the user experience design team for LibreOffice. So, I had some experience with that and I feel like consistently not just with LibreOffice but with various open-source design teams, one thing that felt like was missing was the user. There was not enough research being done. There often wasn't a solid basis for some decisions being made. A lot of designers were making decisions based on their own experience without doing research and I haven't really seen user research being done on a larger basis in open-source projects. I'm also working part-time as a user experience designer. I'm studying some subjects in human computer interactions so I was coming from that as well and this is a book that I was basing a lot of the processes that I tried to incorporate and then I'm gonna try to incorporate into the design team. It's designing for the digital age. It was written by Kim Goodwin who used to be vice president at Cooper. Cooper is one of the largest and most famous design consultancies and it's a really huge book and it's very detailed and it goes through the entire process of user experience design, user-centered user experience design. So when I say user-centered design, what do I mean? Well Wikipedia defines it as a framework of processes in which the needs, wants and limitations of end users are given extensive attention at each stage. That means that you do research at the beginning then that research, you usually have personas which are, you take the data from that research and make fictional, fictional people, fictional characters that exemplify the patterns that you found in that research that you did.  Why is this important? Well it lets everyone understand the needs, the workflows and the mental models of the people involved in whatever you're designing. So that basically makes you able to understand what different kinds of people are using your software. It's not just you, it's not just your surroundings, it makes you aware of who all is using your software and it also gives you a better perspective on what the needs are. You're not just copying competition. It gets the whole team thinking about the target users. It makes it clear who the target users are and aren't. You know who you're designing for. There's a concept called the elastic user which is basically sometimes you hear arguments from developers, oh we need, I don't know, we definitely need a wizard for this because it's just too hard but then at other times oh it's fine you know they'll figure it out because they're clever and then they can look through documentation right and so you have these opposing views on who the user is and it's the same user and you're designing, you know, you have a very schizophrenic interface if you're designing that way. The personas help you keep grounded on who the actual users are going to be and what their needs are and it resolves arguments. So if you have data to back up your arguments then it's much easier to resolve them. I'm not sure what I did there, sorry. And it also helps you keep a leg up on the competition because you actually know the needs you're not just copying blindly what the others are doing. So what I tried to do is get a local meetup running. First of all I wasn't really experienced with running something locally. I've only been a volunteer in web based design communities and there were a lot of inefficiencies in doing things on the web and communication and setting time so I was wondering what's it going to be like if you do it locally. So I started a meetup on meetup.com. The idea was to you know start with research, start doing research as a first step, get some personas as I mentioned and then once we have the personas ready the personas would be the basis of everything and inform all the design going forward. We just start solving user experience problems. You know we do some, the process was you do some testing at the beginning or you look for some hypotheses or you know people would have some ideas of what the bugs were. Maybe you have some bugs in the bug tracker. You do research and ideation for you know the bugs that you identified. Then you use your personas and put them in the sudden scenarios in which they're running into this bug and try to find solutions for personas in those scenarios. Then you do some wireframes. You test those. Maybe you go to mock-up phase and test on the mock-ups themselves because sometimes you don't need wireframing phases. It's easier sometimes to just do the mock-ups and then we do testing and once we figured out oh okay this works for people we move on to the next bug. So really a straightforward process that can be applied not just in U-Score but in other communities as well. So how did it go? So it didn't go that well and it was partly because I didn't really have that much time to devote to it. So this is the first meeting where we set up you know what it's going to be like or we talked about what our plans are with vision is and that was nice. But then the next meeting I had a set of four completely different people. So I didn't expect the base to be quite so changeable but it still kept going. You know we did the next time there were four of us some from the first meeting some from the second meeting and we did some stakeholder interviews to find out what the stakeholders were looking for who the users were etc. And then the next meeting we had six people that was the busiest one I think. I think this is it and we were still doing stakeholder interviews we were talking about the user experience design process in general. It seemed to be working relatively well. People seem to be motivated because these people they were coming into it because they wanted to learn the user experience design process. They didn't really have experience with it. So it was interesting to them but at the same time they didn't have that much time to devote which actually showed up afterwards. We were starting to do user research prep and there weren't that many people coming. First the next meeting one meeting had to be cancelled. The next meeting two people came and we just talked about user research and then the meeting afterwards we started preparing for user research you know who we could where we could find people what people are we looking for etc that kind of stuff. And that last meeting was kind of a bit disorganized so it might have discouraged people because nobody came the next time and then the next time again nobody came and I wasn't really willing to devote the time to to it I had school I had work so I put it on hiatus for a while and then started in January started up again in January and it was kind of lukewarm it started out a bit slow but at the same time we were able to have a meet-up we did do three interviews in January. There were some problems with the interviews so that makes me actually inspired to do more work in terms of teaching people how to do user interviews putting more effort into resources because the interviews that we had were more marketing driven and more focused on the current software rather than the users. So that's where you are now. Lessons learned. Well I learned that people really need resources then that it's there's a shortage of quickly digestible resources for people to use and people to get involved right away. If I show people designing for the digital age it's such a huge complex work that it discourages them from contributing so what I'd like to do now is put more time and effort into into the resources that there are and trying to find resources so if you have any tips let me know. So another thing volunteers come and go I can't count on those same people to keep contributing. I have to be prepared for new people coming in and how to integrate them as fast as possible. Maybe some easy hacks would be would be good to get people integrated. People sign these pressures so you really need to also focus on motivation and keeping them feeling like their time is being used as well as possible. And the people that are coming are generally inexperienced so you really do need to teach them how to do user experience design. These people that were coming to the need ups were also not experienced in music. Music theories so that's also something to keep in mind when you're working with a local group you're less likely to find if you have specialized software people who are interested in that specialized software so that's where online communities really have the upper hand because it's easier to find people. So going forward I'm going to be gathering resources making more resources. I'm going to be trying to build a stronger community something that I was missing was another person to help me keep the things going because I really was running out of time. I didn't really have the time to devote to this and it would be helpful to have someone else. So if there's anyone here who'd like to get involved let me know. Especially if you're more experienced but even if you're not there's lots of stuff to do. And I'd like to actually do a mix of offline and online communities because both are useful. I'd like to define the roles better something that as I've mentioned I don't really see user research being done often and researchers can actually have a different set of skills than your standard interaction designer and that's something that you could use different people for. If somebody isn't comfortable making wireframes, isn't comfortable going through layout and graphic theory, they can do this, they can ask questions, they can gather data, they can make personas. That's completely different and I think in the open source world relatively unexplored role that we could have. Also research participants, you don't have to know anything, you can just participate in interviews and we absolutely need those people so if you have no skills and can talk then you're perfect for open source volunteering. And there's different stuff, visual designers of course, field experts, people who know the domain, interaction designers, motion designers as well. And I'd like to reiterate on the process a bit more. I mentioned the process before.  So you start with the fictional characters but over time they get validated through actual research. The benefit of that is we can start working on the bugs right away with an idea of who the users are and then we'll refine the personas over time. And I want to aim for replicability because I'd really like other open source communities to also focus more on user research. And if that's something that you'd like to do in your community we could connect up and find ways to incorporate user research and testing basically user centered design into an existing design team or into a new design team if you'd like to start one. So let me know your thoughts. This is my email address and I'd like to take comments, questions, thoughts right now if you have any. Right, so the question was why a mix of offline and online communities. I think the advantage of offline communities can be, well you have stronger bonds it's easier to coordinate and it's also easier if you're going to be conducting user interviews then ideally you'd have two people at user interviews want to take notes, want to ask questions so that each person can focus a bit and the person taking notes can fill in if the other person doesn't know what to ask. And that's always easier to coordinate locally. Oh yeah, yeah. I think online only has certain advantages of its own. It's easier to find volunteers. The fall volunteers tend to be more motivated because they're coming online, they may be associated with the software itself so there are definite advantages to doing it online as well and you can still do local interviews but generally alone. Prague, this was in Prague. Czech Republic. So the frequency based on the first meetings that I had, how frequently others felt like they could devote time to this and it was also partly based on my schedule because I'm working, I have school, so I needed to coordinate these things and it turned out to be, the idea was to have it once a week but then sometimes it fell through because some people couldn't go, I sometimes couldn't go. So that's how we decided. So the question is with Lean UX, if there's a danger of just incorporating the stuff from the proto personas or just the proto personas being very much like influencing the course of the research and I agree with you. That's actually why I didn't do Lean UX at first because that's something that does concern me. If you do research afterwards and start with proto personas you're more likely to, your final personas are more likely to be like the original proto personas. That said it does have the advantage of you being able to start right away on fixing user experience bugs and not having to worry about that. So this is something that you need to keep in mind while doing the research. I'm not sure if there's an easy solution but really try to be objective when incorporating that research in. When you were looking for your volunteers did you look for people who were already familiar with Moonscore from the Moonscore community or were you looking for people who launched it in UX? So the question is when I was looking for volunteers was I looking for people interested in Moonscore or people interested in UX? Good question. So I just started Meetup and I was kind of free-balling it so it was more like people who are interested in open source or user experience design I tagged this event on Meetup.com using these various tags music as well and the people that came generally came from generally were interested in user experience design and weren't experienced in it and the thing that motivated them in coming to the Meetups was learning how to do user experience design. I'm not sure if that was because of the description of the project if people interested in music didn't feel like they could get involved. I'm not sure but it attracted the user experience newbie crowd. Any other thoughts, comments, questions? Any recommendations on how to do user-centered design or any knowledge about other projects that have incorporated this in a volunteer based way? If you design personas you have to make both of them. I'll just repeat that so the tip was to keep everything documented to have the personas and the user research findings on the wiki. So the tip was that to make videos as well because for some people more easy to digest. Either proto-personals, I guess proto-personals in particular but also error-personals how useful it is because a lot of people are uncomfortable with them but on the other hand like a lot of projects they always have this like the user they talk about they wouldn't use like the personas right but they're like oh the user would do this the user would do that so all projects always use them anyway just that they call the personas the user. Just to repeat that the comment was that he and Andreas and Garrett a colleague were debating whether personas make sense how useful they are and especially proto-personals if they're useful at all but at the same time we refer to persona whenever we're doing design even if we don't have personas we keep using the word the user you know the user would like this the user would like something so in our heads there is a persona we just don't get down and I agree with that and I think personas are useful I think they get a bad rap because oftentimes what you see are proto-personals that don't really have any bag that aren't bagged by research so it's yeah so you could have elastic the elastic user problems so because you don't really have a person to actually work from