So I have not been through this deck before, this is a brand new presentation just for you. I do have a presentation that's very similar to this called Building Better Products. It's mostly about extreme programming. And I touch on product management in it. I think you guys know about extreme programming already. So I figured it would be best to just do something that was more focused. So, extreme product management. Okay, that's me. You guys don't need to know more about me. Alright, these are two of my favorite quotes about that. First off from Eric Brees, the author of the lead startup. Thinking big is not at odds with starting small. This is one of those things that we have trouble communicating to our clients often, right? Because the clients walk in and they're like, No, no, no, not just this, but we have to coach them to get down to this, right? And build lots of little ones and things in order to get to the big thing. The other one that I really like and that I think is particularly applicable to labs is from my friend Dan Ward, who says the most successful project leaders from government and industry alike tend to deliver top shelf stuff with a skeleton crew, a shoestring budget, and a cannonball schedule. When you make everything small and you apply constraints to things, you deliver better products, and that's what we do here every single day, right? We're coaching our clients to make the smallest thing they can make in order to make the best thing they can make. If you like this book, the book Fire that Dan wrote is awesome. It stands for fast, inexpensive, restrained, and elegant. Dan was with the Air Force for 20, 25 years and he worked in procurement, and he did a study where he found that projects that had constrained budgets and constrained schedules and small teams were almost invariably more successful at delivering good outcomes than projects that had huge budgets, long schedules, and massive teams. And the book is all about that, so you should totally agree. All right, everybody here should be familiar with the Agilman Festo, right? This was written in February 2001 as a reflection of the current state of best principles in software development. And it still holds true today, both as a reflection of an influence on modern software development, but in the last five years or so, and really the last two and a half to three years at labs, the values of the Agilman Festo have transcended just the software development side and spread to design and product management as well. And I think this is due in large part to the advent of Bamal's team. As an idea, I'm going to talk about Bamal's team in a while. We can also start at the menu X, those of which were heavily influenced by XP. And as I talk through how product management works here, you'll see how each of these aspects of the Agilman Festo comes through. So I'm going to touch very briefly on this here, because it's at the center of everything we do. So, after the labs, we practice extreme programming. And as we saw in yesterday's lunchtime video, was anybody absent for yesterday's lunchtime video? Everybody was here? Is Ken Peck video endless yesterday? Damn. You got to go see it. So Ken Peck is awesome. Always good to see. So anyway, as we saw in the video yesterday, XP was pioneered by Ken Peck, one of the original signatories of the Agilman Festo. And XP asks, how little can we do process-wise and still build great software, right? We don't want to get bogged down in processes and documentation. So let's always work with the bare minimum that's necessary. Second, building software is hard and often runs into unpredictable difficulties. So how do we make a system that can recover quickly from these missteps and turn failure into something that is more successful? That's not what I wanted. I want to scroll my notes. We also need to be able to provide better options for making business decisions. We can only do that with a flexible system. This whole system is driven by a core set of values. Communication, simplicity, feedback, and courage. If you feel like you need to pressure on me this stuff, as Ken mentioned again yesterday, the second edition of XP Explained. Personally, I think the first seven chapters of the second edition of XP Explained are some of the best business advice that I've ever read anywhere. It's about the socio-emotionally requirements for being a good participant on a team and creating good products. So if you haven't read it, please do not. If you have read it, but it's been a long time, it might be worth revisiting. So with that preamble, let's look at what a pop measure actually does. I'm going to start by looking at a couple of job descriptions. Yes. This I was looking for. For people working, it ends up looking like Burger is mansplaining to Laura, which is not exactly what I wanted, but it was the best one. That seems far me. Far me versus construction. Burger is... Have you met Jonathan Burger? He's a very interesting man. Anyway, so we're going to look at some job descriptions of product managers. What do you guys think you're going to see? Anything in particular that you think you're going to see in these job descriptions? Massive confusion between product and project manager. Slave driver time. Okay. What else? Ridiculous little salaries. The job descriptions seldom include salaries because they wouldn't need to actually come in first and then they'll tell you. So, slave driver of time. Agile certifications. These are from the outside world. These are not our job descriptions. So, it's a good start. I think you're actually going to be a little surprised. These are from a relatively friendly organization though. So this is one of the fairly typical descriptions of a product manager. It has things like develop a product vision, discover a product market fit, know how your products are being used, use data to improve your product in the moment or somewhere. What is dual tracks from? What is what? User testing dual tracks from the second point of the talk on the end of the talk. Dual tracks from. Dual tracks from is probably too extreme. If I had to guess, you've got two work streams. They're managing the mobile back end. Yeah. So this one's actually, it's not so bad. They're looking for a few technical abilities you can see down here. But more importantly, they're asking for an ability to adapt agile methodologies. Just a good sign since we're talking about adaptation and not just adaptation. This is, I was going to say, this is more like growth hacking. And that's not outside the realm of what many product managers do at companies that are full time product companies. So we're a consulting company, we're a little bit different. Some of the things that you can see here are totally normal for product managers, but we just never get the opportunity to do them here to stay with the client long enough. Like finding a product market fit, we're almost never on a project long enough that we're able to guide that product to a product market fit. So for those of you who aren't familiar with the term product market fit, it's where basically demand for your product requires you to scale. So you've gotten to the point where your customers want your product so much that now it's time to scale your operations. We really never see that here. The products that we build are often so at the stage that we don't get to see whether or not there's enough demand for it to keep moving. Anyway, let's take a look at another one. This one's similar, but it has some slightly different words. One of the things I like here is it's asking for the ability to gather and synthesize feedback from customers and use it to define a product roadmap which is something that I agree with a little bit less and functional requirements. Let's say champion customers internally is a nice one and creating a tight feedback with engineering. Those are good. Some similar technical requirements, but it adds things like the ability to think about the vision and an entrepreneurial streak that I created about the Merrill Street, the strong business agreement. These are all good things. A few good things in this one too. It's looking for someone who is a people person who's able to drive large complex projects to completion, although I'd argue that a big part of our job is seeking simplicity in those large projects. I love that this one actually touches on metrics, actually defining metrics. That's a big part of what management should be doing and I'll talk a little bit about that in a while too. Finally, someone mentions collaboration here. I'm not sure where they have it, but I know it's on here. Collaboration is essential to everything we do as you guys should know. This one is a little scary and I put this one on here as a contrast. This one comes from a very large wealth, it says, that comes from city. It's asking for things like driving customer loyalty and driving business value and all those things that should be considered ancillary outcomes of driving customer value. That's not mentioned here anyway. Cities apparently doesn't care if they're providing value to you as long as you're providing value to them. That's not what we do. So here I repeat the last one. About who put the product manager before. You said that they must for somebody to drive. Right, so city groups post for a product manager is looking for someone who can drive customer loyalty. Oh, can you come back? Did you say the city group one? Oh, interesting. They've been looking for someone for three months. Probably a different post. They're looking for a VP of product management in the city board. But that's not the post that I chose for this one. Driving customer loyalty is something that is good for them, but there's no expression of value for the customer. I feel like that's the wrong direction and it's not the approach that labs product managers would typically take. They also talk about driving business value. Again, no mention of the value of the customer. As long as the customer is providing value to the city, they're cool. There are also product managers in the world who can have nothing to do with software. I just wanted to throw this up here for an example. There are products in the world that are not made out of ones and zeros. This is actually for a trade product. It's a trade-related thing. I can't remember what TTS stands for. Treasury and trade solutions. Is there even a situation in Puerto Rico right now that's hilarious? Some of the responsibilities of this person are similar to some of the responsibilities you would see in a software manager, but they are not the same. You guys don't Puerto Rico's bankrupt, right? Puerto Rico's bankrupt. What are the most important things to look for in a product? I already saw that one. What are the most important things to look for in a product manager? First off, she needs to be able to develop a product vision. Actually, seeing what this product could do for customers. Discover product market fit. Again, not a thing that we often get to do at labs, but it is important. And as consultants at labs, we do get to coach our customers to help them figure out what product market fit is going to look like for them. In some cases, not in any case. Understand and advocate for customer needs. So if this is the gathering and synthesizing feedback from customers and championing the customer internally, I think this is a huge responsibility of the product manager, as it is shared with the design team. Understanding product metrics and knowing where to look or go out and spacing on that kind of stuff. So what is it that makes this difference? It turns out, if these are things that product managers do everywhere, what makes this difference? Oh, we also work collaboratively. It's not just the costumes. What makes this difference? This is the PM team from San Francisco about a year and a half ago. Sadly, the only one who's still in San Francisco is Sitchell. He's in Ireland. She's in Sydney. She's in Tokyo. He left. And he left. But we have a new team there that is equally awesome. They just don't tend to wear as many costumes. So the thing that makes us different is we are extreme. That was the highlight of the whole thing. You guys can like focus on your lunches. So what does that mean to be an extreme product manager? First, let's take a look at what extreme programming looks like here. We'll see how this all transfers over. So first off, XP here is team focused. This goes back to the Agil Manifesto. Individuals and interactions over processes and tools. We have small teams. We prepare all the time. We care about each other. We treat each other well. Second, we are values driven. We believe deeply in communication, simplicity, courage, and feedback. There's four things that Kent Beck talks about in XP Explained. We have stand-ups, retros. We sit shoulder to shoulder with our team. All of these things that we do are reflections of our values and reinforcements to this model. So the values are important. We are predictive rather than prescriptive. We don't use velocity as a bludgeon to meet our engineers with. We use it as a predictive tool. At least ideally. We're test driven. TDD to the core. We write the test first. We learn from it. We write our code to pass. This was one of the things that Kent talked about yesterday as being absolutely fundamental to what XP is. And finally, we're iterative. We work in small increments. We deliver the smallest and verifiable units of customer value. So this is what makes our engineering organization extreme. But how do these things apply to product management? First off, we're team focused. And what does that mean here? So let's take a look at how a normal team works. Typical product managers, sometimes called product owners, sit in this awkward middle space between the business interests and the engineering team. You can have agile over here. All the agile in the moment. But your organization isn't really agile and you're not really getting the benefits out of this unless you change the structure of this event. This ends up being a very painful position, right? Because it turns out that you've got all these people who are giving them requirements. And it's your role to pass those requirements under these people who are pushing back on those requirements saying that that's a good way to do that. And so this person always ends up being very unhappy unless they're making a maniac, which some of them are. And then they're just impresant to work with. These people are required to create a long-term product roadmap that's always based on someone else's business vision and then ensure the engineers build that roadmap. So the model that we prefer to appear to here is called Balanced Team. Is anybody familiar with Balanced Team already? You are. Have you been to a Balanced Team meeting or a conference or anything? Balanced Team is a real thing. It's not just a couple of words that are jammed together. This group has been around since 2009, I would say. And they have conferences and they have regular meetings. And one of the things that they were trying to do back in 2010 was figure out how to make design work with agile because the design process has typically been a very waterfall process from ages on. And so this was a group of people who were agile practitioners and experienced designers getting together and talking about how do we actually change the design process to make it fit. And that was where Lean UX was born. So Janice, my wife, was a member of this group and she was going out there and talking to these people and figured out that Lean Startup could actually be the key to make design work better with agile. And so she brought that to them a very long time ago. But anyway, the idea behind Balanced Team is that instead of having one person who owns the product you can call for one second. Anybody here know Ian McFarland? Ian, old school, he probably is the one responsible for opening this office. He was then the one responsible for buying this office for me and Halloween when we started. Ian has this thing. Own. Stands for one. One. Ring of all. Neck. I love that. Instead of being a product owner, being that person who's stuck in the middle between the business and the engineering team, we can have business representation in the form of a product manager working together directly, side by side with engineering and design in order to steward the product to a successful outcome. So this is the product in the middle here. And instead of having one person who owns this thing and everybody else works for them in this command and control of a life relationship, everybody on the team is responsible for producing a successful outcome for the whole team, right? So in service to the team, the engineers get to say, you know what, I have a really interesting technical solution for that problem. I understand that problem because the design team was able to identify the problem with the customer and explore the problem deeply and communicate that well to the rest of the team. Given that information, I have a good solution for it. Product management then gets to say, you know what, the business interests that are involved here actually require this one little tweak and then we can make a solution that's good for everybody, right? We're looking at things that are not only feasible from a technical perspective and desirable from a customer perspective, but they also have to be reliable from a business perspective, right? So each one of these, you know, legs of the stool or blades of the propeller, I guess, is probably better for this illustration. Each one of these has their own area of responsibility that they get to contribute to bringing the product to a successful outcome. But like Kent said yesterday in his talk, no problem at Facebook is someone else's problem, right? This team works together and everyone on the team is responsible for making sure that we're successful. So if you see a problem, you have to speak up about it, even if it's not technically your area of expertise. So, let's see. I think it's really important that the last part is what you mentioned about the ability to speak up and to be able to do so without people feeling like you're stepping on their toes by suggesting something. Yeah. When it's the culture of the team that we're all working towards this one common goal and we're all willing and able to let go of our own goals and let go of our own need to be right all the time about things, then everybody's able to step in when something goes wrong and take care of it, right? But if the people on the team are proprietary, there's things, right? This is one of the things that pairing helps to overcome, right? So, pairing is there for a lot of reasons, but one of the reasons is to prevent coach hoarding, right?  You guys don't have to think about this anymore. Suddenly they've got this little thing that they own, right? And if you start to question it or poke at it, they're going to be all defensive of it. No, no, no, I solved that problem. Let's just move on to the next thing, right? And you don't want that on a team. It's like, it's... That's the one that I used to get a lot about and I used to get a lot in some of the larger organizations that I work with. Ownership. Ownership. Ownership. Yeah. So, the model here is stewardship, not ownership. And that actually comes from Tim McCoy where he was design director at Labs for a while and now he's working in the data group at Labs, but we're not at Labs at the moment. But he was one of the original founders of the balance team to the concept and product stewardship was his, like, one of the big things. So, Kent mentioned pairing in his talk yesterday, right?  So when PMs pair with designers or business partners or engineers, we get the same benefits, right? And those benefits are things like faster, more elegant solutions, reduced errors, better team continuity, and no hand ups. All that makes sense? So, next. So we talked about team focused. PMs here are values driven, right? We believe deeply... It's too bright in here. We believe deeply in communication, simplicity, courage, and feedback. So product managers are often in a position of helping our clients to understand and embody these values. And we're the ones who end up having a hard conversation with them about how their behavior affects the team and ultimately how that effect on the team and how that impact on the product. Right now, you're serving role product manager and you're having to have these hard conversations with your customer. And many of us, even as engineers or designers, we're going to have these conversations anyway or as we are. But it seems, what I've seen in lab's offices back home over the last two years is that somehow it often ends up falling on the PM's shoulders to have these conversations because they're typically the one... Since they're kind of abstracting the client from the anchor, they're the one who spends the most time like sitting shoulder to shoulder with the client and looking at the backlog of prioritizing. So we have to help them simplify. We have to help them give and receive honest feedback and have the courage themselves to tell their stakeholders the truth about the ongoing project. I don't know if any of you have seen clients hide things from their from their superiors. Is this the thing? A nod here or there? Yeah, it doesn't help the project for the long run, does it? So if you're sleeping problems under the rug, they're going to creep out at some point and cause problems later. So we have to help our clients understand and deal with that. Next, we're predictive rather than prescriptive. This is kind of really where the rubber means the road here for our PMs. We have the hardest conversations with our clients in this category. The biggest part of our job is helping the client understand how to manage and prioritize the backlog, right? And understanding that a backlog is a single track prioritized list is revolutionary for most of our clients. And for some of them it's uncomfortable. Like, what do you mean we're not going to parallelize and what do you mean I'm not going to get everything I want? So everybody wants to know that they're going to get all of the things in the amount of time that we have. And we know that promising scope and time is a recipe for disaster. So we say, yes, you will get everything you want in the amount of time we have. But in order to do that, we have to choose what we want. We have to limit what we want, right? And that can be a very challenging conversation. So we work with the client to refine the product vision and pare it down to the bare minimum. And this allows us some room to add in new features at any point in the process as long as we're willing to prioritize other things. And this way of working along with the automated iteration markers in is easy to see the cost either opportunity cost or costing time associated with adding scope. And it lets us incorporate the things that we're learning from our users while we're building the product, ultimately shaping the product into something that is small, simple, and hopefully maximum useful. Next, we're test driven. We do experience, didn't get my experience Yes, to the extent that our clients are ready for it, we work to validate our product vision and features by crafting small experiments. Not every client is going to let us do this, right? A lot of clients are going to come in and they're just going to say we need to build this thing, I don't care if you think it's the right solution or not, that's it. So, this is actually way before product market fit. This is the stage called problem solution fit typically. And there's a good book, if you want to know more about this stuff, called The Entrepreneur's Guide to Customer Development. It's by Grant Cooper and Patrick Blascovitz. It's like the Cliff's Notes and Steve Blank book, four steps to the company, which no one should ever read because it's so awful.


This research has developed a new type of flexible and lightweight electromagnetic wave absorbing material using cotton derived carbon fibers, reduced graphene oxide, and iron oxide nanowires. This hybrid paper is able to absorb microwave energy while maintaining flexibility and lightness. It has a maximum absorption intensity of minus 63 dB and a broadband absorption range of 5.8 GHz, covering the entire Ku band. This material could be used for applications such as portable electronic devices and wearables, where it would provide protection against unwanted electromagnetic interference. This article was authored by Yan Cheng, Justin Zhu, Yao, Xiao, Huanqin Zhao, and others.


Titans offset the eye to the right. Now going in motion, Tannehill directs snap Henry. He throws in the end zone. Man is wide open, caught. Touchdown Titans. Michael Pruitt. The Titans go to the king cat. And the king has thrown for a big six. Tannehill drops. Pressure coming. He fires down field. Touchdown Titans. Arthur won. Brown welcome home. They run Henry on the left side. He's got some room to the 45. He's outside of the 50. He's to the 40. He's to the 30. He's to the 20. He's to the 10. He's to the five. He's to the end zone. Yes. Touchdown Titans. Derek Henry just went 60. Play fake Tannehill looking, firing right side. There's Brown. Brown at the 40. Brakes a tackle 30, 20, 10, five. Touchdown Titans. There is Arthur won. Okay. There you go. Tannehill gives Henry on the right side. There he goes. 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, five. End zone. Ladies and gentlemen, 76 yards. Derek Henry, touchdown and something going.


Hello, and thank you for clicking on this video where I will be talking about the integer polynomial learning with errors problem Which we studied with Amin Saxad, Damien Stedé and Ron Steinfeld Before starting, I will give a brief overview of our results and to do so I need to introduce an informal definition of both such polynomial learning with errors and such integer polynomial learning with errors. In both cases You are given samples of the form AAS plus E and in both cases you must find S The main difference is that in SPLWE everything is a polynomial mod F and It's in SIPLWE What you do is you substitute Q to the unknown X so instead of having polynomials You now have integers mod F of Q because you also substituted Q to the unknown X in F So they are very similar and We actually proved that they are computationally equivalent for a large class of modules F Moreover on top of that we give a one-way CPA secure public encryption schemes And its security relies on the such IPLWE assumptions Indeed the security of PLWE is already well studied and well known But the integer variant of the problem is quite new actually It was only studied in the worst case for one modulus and there is some concrete security analysis, but Everything else is missing However, module extension of this problem was considered in one of the second round NIST candidates which is called Freebers for this polynomial which and As such interest it's interesting to to see if it's possible to get the reduction we found Notably because it's a way to prove the security of Freebers, but it's also A way to it's also yeah, we paved the way for new cryptosystems based on IPLWE instead of PLWE and It's interesting because you can take advantage of the security of PLWE and that's the same time You can use fast large integers arithmetic in the following 20 minutes. I will first Formally this time describe the problems then we'll see that the difference between them is the carries I will then state the reduction and Explain how the public encryption works Before stating the formal definition of the problems I need to give you two tools the first one is how to sample Gaussian distribution over polynomials It's actually done by identifying the polynomial with its coefficient vector k That's the only thing we have to do We first introduce the following notation for The following act of sampling first the coefficient vector and then turning it into a polynomial We then need a way to go from polynomials to integers and to do so we Introduce the polynomial evaluation by first stating that if I have polynomial with coefficients in minus q over 2 q over 2 I simply Substitute q to the unknown x and I get an integer in Z To extend it to zqx what we need to do is take representatives of the coefficients of The polynomial in minus q over 2 q over 2 and apply this recipe Then if I want to extend it to zqx over f I simply take a representative of the polynomial Which has degrees quickly less than f and Then I apply the previous recipes to compute its evaluation in Z Thanks to that we are not ready to describe the polynomial learning with our problem So in all of the following talk I will be taking q odd f will always be x to dm plus 1 but not not that q can be taken even it works also and Difference f are available to us too. This is all done in the full paper, but for simplicity I restrict myself to these two cases and We also need two Gaussian parameters Then the PLW e problem is given this kind of samples are compute the secret Where the secret follows a Gaussian distribution AI is uniformly sampled over polynomials mod f And e I follows also a Gaussian distribution It's important to note that Sigma prime is different from Sigma That's necessary for our our reduction However, the standard case is Sigma equal Sigma prime. So How do we go from there? Well, it's easy to actually reduce the standard case to ours by adding some noise to Get a different noise level and secret noise level to describe a first attempt at IPLW e at defining IPLW e we could do the following Before we take any polynomial we evaluate it before we compute the samples we evaluate each polynomial And we get something mod f of q by applying mod f of q at the end This is actually not the right way of doing things because we have more integers than polynomials and this creates a few problems one of them is for instance that the support of the uniform Distribution of the evaluation of the uniform distribution is not the full set is eq to the n plus one So it's quite problematic and The right way to do things It's actually to sample a I directly uniformly over the f of q and We actually compute we actually sample one more coefficient for the noise and for the secret until we are in This range which will be used as representative as the representatives range for Zfq So why do we and we want to do so for the noise because we want the domain of the noise to be bigger than Well the the integer ring However, we may have some big rejection probability so to reduce it It's actually possible to just sample the first and coefficients and then only add or subtract q to dm with some probability Because as soon as we add or subtract to q to dm, we will always be outside of this range and first rejected It's important to note that this is a different noise and secret distribution than the gene than the original Definition because as I said we want to get noise over We want the domain of the noise to be bigger than the whole set Zf of q So we've seen how to go from polynomials to integer But how do we go from integers to polynomial? The idea is to write the q-ary decomposition of integers But to center the coefficients instead of taking Coefficients in 0 q minus 1 we take them in minus q over 2 q over 2 With this definition we can also decompose negative Integers, which is something we want to do and Then the the map phi q is defined as the map which to an integer a Maps the polynomial which coefficients whose coefficients are the coefficients of the q-ary decomposition But then it has good properties because it's a good it's by ejection and its inverse is simply the polynomial evaluation So this is what we were looking for However, remember we are working from Zfq to Zqx over F So that we do not quite have the right domain But it's it will be easy to fix simply by applying mod f of q and mod f reduction wherever needed This is what we do and we actually set as I said This range as the representative range for the f of q so as long as we are able to turn Elements of this range into polynomials in Zqx over F We will consider that we can do it for the f of q And to do it. Yeah, as I said, we simply apply a mod f reduction This is still interesting Because if I take any polynomial first evaluated mod f of q and then apply phi qf I find P back. So this means that phi qf is subjective the evaluation mod f of q is injective But we cannot hope to have by ejections because phi qf has collisions Notably because we have more integers than polynomials so it is the right notion, but it's not ideal either and We will see that it's even less ideal because phi q is not morphism and phi qf will be even less morphism if I can say that Let's take an example if I compute phi 3 of 2 I get x minus 1. It's 3 minus 1 Phi 3 of 3 is x But if I add both polynomials I get minus x minus 1 because I'm working mod 3 but the sum of But the sum should be x square minus x minus 1 And what's the difference? It's because if I do the school book addition of 2 plus 3 I Get 0 minus 1. That's the minus 1 I get here. I get x plus x. I get 2x so I get minus x, but I have a carry and Reporting the carry I get the x square that I found here so actually The main difference between operations for polynomials and operations for integers with our way to view things it's the it's the presence or absence of carries as Such if we compute Phi q of a plus b minus phi q of a plus phi q of b This is exactly the carries that happened in the school book addition of a plus b in the basis q the same thing goes for multiplication and We are able to bound the size of the carries Okay, so it's at most one in the case of additions But in the case of multiplication, we are only able to bound it are using the size of a and b which Has some which brings some trouble But remember here we are working From z to zqx and we want to work but f of q and mod f so We define the same thing, but this time with mods wherever needed and We simply have to go from the following observation Every time I want to compute a mod be it's polynomial or integer I just need to add or subtract a Certain number of time a certain quantity so in the end I'm able to express the the carries mod f and mod f of q as functions of the previous carries that I had and All of that so yeah, for instance If I want to compute Phi q of a plus b mod q to the m plus 1 mod x to the m plus 1 then I have two addition carries because I have at most two additions two integer additions a plus b and then plus or minus q to the m plus 1 and Then I have a few addition subtraction or subtraction or of q to the m plus 1 in the end we found the following bounds on the carries and And yeah as before it's constant for additions and dependent on the size of a and b for multiplication and if I take a uniform which will be Happening in the s IPL w e problem then the second bound Can be expressed on Depending on the size of b sorely and that's why we need a small p l w e pro secret We want this bound to be useful With that said we are almost ready to state our reductions and before stating the reduction We need I need to give you the right tool for the job, which is the rainy divergence We won't be using the statistical distance, but rather the divergence Because we have a pretty nice lemma which tells us that if I have two Gaussian distributions with same standard deviation, but different center then I have this bound on the divergence between both of them Divergence Has some pretty nice properties and the most useful of them for our case is the data processing inequality Which lets us remove f in our bounds and the multiplicativity Bound which lets which lets us handle the case of Couples so When we have a sample we need to deal with a couple so that will be important And finally the most important one is the probability preservation because it states that if If e is an event for instance an adversary a wins a certain game Then I can lower bound the probability of it happening under Q With the probability of it happening under P and the rainy divergence So as long as divergence is polynomial, we have a security ready. We can have a security reduction And it's easier to have this quantity polynomial Than if we use the statistical distance So to give you the intuition of the reductions Let us first take a look at how we go from polynomials to integer We compute the evaluation in Q for each sample okay And we give it to the SIPLW e-solver and we get an answer that we hope is the right answer And to get from integer to polynomial as we said we write as polynomials are integer by applying Phi qf on both components of each sample To give you a rough and very high level reduction analysis We have the four following points the first one states that if I evaluate Let's us focus only on this part of the reduction If I evaluate my polynomials, it can be seen as Unevaluated polynomials time the evaluation of the over polynomial plus some noise where the noise is The noise we had at the beginning minus the carries that we did not have in the polynomial operations so We need to check that the divergence between the distribution of AI of Q and the uniform distribution over the whole set It it should be at most three This is the first part and then we want to apply the previous lemma about The divergence of Gaussian distributions with same Standard deviation and they should give us something like that and then using multiplicativity that are processing inequality we should be able to get ourselves out of trouble, but There are two main problems the first one is that the divergence is defined If on and only if we have some support inclusion as here and that's not the case in this That's not the case here So there is one problem first and the second problem is that the The offset is actually dependent on the noise we have sampled. So we cannot directly apply the previous lemma But these are these are all technical stuff that we took care of in the paper So it's just to show you that it's a bit more complicated than expected But in the end it all works and we get the following result If this quantity is satisfied Then SPLWE with parameters Q, sigma, sigma prime, T Renews to the integer version of it with Q, sigma, sigma prime and T as parameters So it's very interesting because there is no noise growth. No need for bigger noise This big equation might seem hard to Satisfy, but it's actually easy if you set the parameters in this order first the number of set poles T Then the degree of the polynomial M and from this point on you have to choose The first Gaussian parameter sigma prime such that M over sigma prime is small enough Then you can choose sigma to make this over sigma small enough and finally you choose Q big enough When compared to sigma sigma prime and Infinite norm of F depending on what kind of application you have in mind From that we also have the reverse Reverse reduction and this gives us that both problems are actually Equivalent and without any kind of noise grow So that's pretty interesting and from this we are able to To propose a public encryption based on the search version of integer polynomial learning with errors It's adapted from an already existing scheme but we use it with integer polynomial learning with errors and We must add some tweak to recover the randomness used in the encryption The key gen is pretty simple. We generate an SIPLW sample and use it as public key and keep the noise and the secret as secret key then to encrypt we Are compute the following quantity where the message is t e prime is second In the following we will need to assume for correctness that f of Q is prime and If that is the case when we have recovered t since a B and K are all public it then becomes easy to recover e prime and is second So the decryption algorithm focuses mainly on recovering t to do so we compute c2 minus c1s and We can see that it is e times t plus k times some stuff okay and What we do is we compute each come each coefficient of the decomposition of the Mod k and if k times tough is small enough Smaller than q for instance, then it will be erased By this operation and then the prime will only be it will only be equal to e times t hence to recover t we compute the prime times e to the minus one and Then as we said it's easy to recover e prime and is second So not only so yeah, the scheme is correct for f of q prime case small and for the following message space Where t e prime and is second are small too And it satisfies the one-way CPA security which states that If I am given a ciphertext for a plaintext, which I randomly sampled Following the following tail-cut tail-cut Gaussian distributions Then it's hard to compute the plaintext which was used for the encryption To give you an idea of the proof we first replace a and b with an evaluated plw e sample So these are no polynomial evaluated polynomials Are using the decision plw e assumption. It's indistinguishable from the uniform Distribution b is now is the indistinguishable from uniform But decision plw e is equivalent to search plw e which is equivalent to search I plw e Finally we notice that an encryption is almost a sample of the si plw e Distribution of two it's almost two samples of si plw e First it's hard to compute the plaintext back because it's hard to break si plw e by assumption the odd w cpa assumption is something which is Interesting because it can be turned into cca to key exchange mechanism in the random oracle model or quantum random oracle model using fujis fujis akiwaka moto transforms thank you for listening up until now and See you


Patriot Prime Reviews is a channel for adult collectors and may not be suitable for children under 13 years of age. Viewer discretion is advised. Hey, what's going on guys? Patriot Prime here once again with another video. But before I get started with the subject of this video, I want to give a huge shout out to my sponsor, toyhacks.com. Toyhacks is a company that provides upgrade decals for modern transformer figures along with reproduction decals for the vintage ones. While visiting Toyhacks, make sure and check out the Toyhacks Armory to see their line of Transformers weaponry in multiple collars. And toy stages for awesome display backdrops. Each purchase from Toyhacks earns you Robocents that you can use for future purchases. You can check your balance anytime in your cart. Toyhacks is a company run by collectors for collectors. So make sure and check out toyhacks.com and tell them Patriot Prime sent you. Now, on to the review. The featured button this video is the brand new Transformers Legacy Deluxe Class Drag Strip. Now, take a quick look at the packaging. You've got Drag Strip right here in Robot Mode within this wonderful windowless box that Hasbro has blessed us with recently.  They can be easily vandalized. But with this open box, there's no integrity with the box. So if something's stacked on top of it, it's going to crush. Not to mention, you mint in box guys really probably don't like this because of all the dust that can get inside there. So I understand why they did this, but it is still stupid. So going on over the packaging, we got Transformers right here. Transformers Legacy, some great looking artwork of Drag Strip here in Vehicle Mode. This side of the box, you got Drag Strip, a close-up of his face. And there he is, full body. On the back of the packaging, you got Drag Strip in Robot Mode and Vehicle Mode and Transforms in 17 steps. And it also shows that he is one of five for menasaur. You kind of got a menasaur helmet right there with the horns. And that's also, well, if that was on the front of the box, it is not. This side of the packaging, you got the Decepticon artwork with Megatron, Drag Strip, Iguanas and Skywarp. So now, without further ado, let's quit talking about the box and get the figure out of it. And welcome to Patriot Prime Reviews. And another thing regarding this windowless packaging here, I'm opening Drag Strip up and I notice the tag. The really thick plastic tag right there. So you have that going on. Then once you open the figure, you've got all the little plastic bands, which keeps him in place. But behind those plastic bands are all these little round, translucent plastic discs. So, hypocrisy at its finest. Now, once you get Drag Strip all free of all his plastic bindings, you'll see that he does come with a sheet of instructions that, as usual, is very well illustrated and easy to follow. And also something I neglected to tell you guys in the intro is on the back of these packages, you have this QR code that you can scan to pull up tech specs for the figure. Drag Strip also comes with these two pistols and I really like these. These are better looking than I was expecting because as you can see, they are painted. My one complaint is that you don't get a left and a right. You see how you have the pegs there on the same side. I wish one had pegs on the other. Reason being that those pegs are there, you can actually peg the weapons together to form a double barrel blaster. But like I said, you could easily do this with pegs on opposite sides. But oh well, I still really like the looks of those blasters. And then of course, we've got Drag Strip himself. And I love the looks of this guy. He is very true to his Generation 1 cartoon counterpart, aside from the shoulder pylons there. And what I really like is they brought back the double wheels there on the shoulders. Not a big fan of how they hang off. But as I said, he looks just like he did in the Generation 1 cartoon. Drag Strip here is my absolute favorite of the Stunnacons. I just loved his attitude in the show, especially when he told off Megatron. Stunnacons, report at once, Megatron commands. Sound Megatron to blow it out is exhaust. We are having a demolition curvy. Now taking a closer look at the figure, great head sculpt. Love the looks of that. Once again, very true to the Generation 1 cartoon. I like the engine block there in the chest. Also very Generation 1. He's got the red striping there on the sides of his arms and there on the legs. And that's about it. He really doesn't have a lot of paint applications. The head looks great. He's got the brownish-yellow there around the chest. And that's about it. He's a very plain looking bot, but very true to how he looked in Generation 1. I just cannot say that enough. I think this is so cool looking, especially compared to some of the Drag Strips we've got in the past. Now going on to articulation. The head is on a ball joint. Can look up and down and do a complete 360. Mine's a little tight. The arms out and in. Complete 360 as well. There's also a pretty nice angled of an elbow bend there. Excuse me, got tongue tied. No wrist rotation. And that's mainly due to this transformation gimmick right here. But there is a bicep swivel. There is waist rotation. Legs can go out. They can go in. They can go back. They can go forward. There is a knee bend. There is a thigh rotation. And there is an ankle tilt. So he does have lots of articulation except for the wrist. He doesn't like to stand too well though. He doesn't have any heel spur. So you've got to get him angled just right. Now of course you can take the weapons. Plug these in Drag Strips hands. And now you have Drag Strip all armed and ready for battle. And I just think he looks so cool. Now for those of you who are not a big fan of these shoulder pylons here, you can kind of angle them around to kind of flare them out a little bit. It doesn't hinder movement of the shoulders unless you go for that whole 360 that it's going to catch up there.  It's up to you how you want to display him. So now let's get Drag Strip transformed into vehicle mode. And the first thing we're going to do is remove the blasters. Go ahead and get those out of the way. Move the shoulder pylons back. And the first thing we're going to do is take the arms section right here and rotate this down. Do that on both sides. Now you're going to take the wheel and fold those down so they line up side by side. Now you're going to take this chest section and bring this completely down. Fold the head up like so. Go ahead and take these shoulder pylons, rotate those around. As you can see, that's going to be the front of the vehicle. And just pull this whole section up and bring it together. It's going to snap together here at the top. Just angle everything in. Right here on the back of the figure, make sure and line up the arms sections around those ports. So they go in there just like so. Everything snapped into place. And now you're going to take this section here and rotate it around. So it's going to line up a little brown section here. It's going to line up to that arch. There's a hint here. Straighten that out. Bring the whole cockpit section down and peg it into the arms. And that finishes up the front of the vehicle. Now for the back, go ahead and snap the legs together. Rotate there at the waist. Bring the feet up. Those are going to form the rear spoiler. And then back here, take these sections. Fold those up. Bring the legs in like so. They're going to lock in right here. Bring those flaps down. And there you have drag strip in vehicle mode. I like the transformation and I like how clean this is. That is just awesome. And I like, a lot of people complain about, I like how they're able to take the engine here, have it on the rear of the vehicle. It is actually behind the legs. And the foe engine kind of folds up there in the cockpit looking like a control panel. Now he does have a visible head syndrome. The back of the head is hollow. I guess to make that look like a seat. But you know, there's no human that's going to be driving drag strip. Maybe rumble. Now I do like once again that he has the two wheels there on the front. So he's the six wheel racer just like the generation one toy. Because I really don't think that we've seen that since generation one. Drag strip has always had four wheels. And now I love the fact that legacy has brought back the six wheeled look. And check that out. That is pretty much spot on to the generation one toy. I love it.  It doesn't look so bad here on the back because the black blends in. But other than that, I love the looks of this thing. And let's see. And yet rolls really, really good. Now you can take the blasters and attach the blasters right there on those ports or in those ports beside the engine, which kind of gave him a combat look. You know, the original generation one toy had the cannons that went over the top and they were purple cannons. I love how those blasters are a throwback to the G1 cannons. And that looks good. A lot of times the weapons do not look good on the vehicle. Doesn't look too bad with this guy right here. Now drag strip, of course, being a stunnicon is going to be part of the upcoming menaceur. And I'm going to show you how his arm transformation is. He is going to be a combiner limb. He is usually the right arm. And to turn him into the arm mode, there is this little slot right here that, let me see, you want to take this little thing, pop that in, press the button, pull that apart, worked earlier flawlessly. There you go. So there is drag strips combiner limb mode, his right arm. And a lot of folks, I've heard them complain about this, that they don't like how the upcoming menaceur is going to look using these arms. So right there, that is how drag strips going to look as an arm. I don't have a problem with it because it's actually, let me adjust my camera accordingly here. I think it's going to be done the same way Magic Square did their combiner. See how drag strip is actually split in half. He's attached to a section of motor masters trailer. The whole trailer is what becomes menaceur's body. So that just clips on, makes a lot more cartoon accurate. I think it's going to look really good. I'm excited for the upcoming menaceur. Now, of course, his combiner arm gimmick does add some playability to the figure because now he can do a great Darth Maul impersonation. And now for some quick size comparisons. Here is Transformers Legacy Drag Strip with Generation 1 Megatron, Generation 1 Drag Strip, and Combiner Wars Drag Strip. Transformers Legacy Deluxe Class Drag Strip is a great figure in my opinion. Of course, I'm a little biased. I've always been a drag strip fan, but I really like how Hasbro really added all of those nice Generation 1 nods to this figure. And I love it. I just think this guy looks so good. And some of the things I didn't really go over before in the review, there's not a lot of gaps or waffles with the figure other than, you know, a little bit there in the arms and here for the legs. But other than that, I mean, he looks great. One disappointment though is the weapons are not Blast Effect compatible. There's just no tip to put these on, which is kind of disappointing. I guess if you forced it on, it would work. But Kickback's gun, who is part of this same line, has the Blast Effect compatibility. So I don't know if they're slowly phasing this out or what. But I for one am going to miss that gimmick, especially when it comes for pictures, the outro of my reviews. So there you go guys, Transformers Legacy Deluxe Class Drag Strip. So does a Transformers Legacy Deluxe Class Drag Strip belong in your collection? Absolutely. I love this figure. As I said, I'm a huge drag strip fan. And I really think Hasbro did the character justice with this figure. Robot mode looks great. Vehicle mode looks great. He's got a fun transformation. The plastic quality actually feels really good on this figure. And I cannot wait to see what he looks like, combined with the other Legacy Stunnercons to form Hasbro's new menosaur. But that being said, how long is it going to be until we actually get our hands on menosaur? We got Drag Strip here in Wave 1. Are we going to get other deluxes in Wave 2, 3 and 4? And then of course we're going to have the new Commander Class Motor Master released. I have a feeling he's going to be released in December for the holiday. So we may not see menosaur until Christmas or early next year. But if he's going to be anything like the Magic Square version, I think it's going to be worth the wait. So yes, if you see Drag Strip on this shelf, do not hesitate picking him up. You are not going to be disappointed. Now guys, if you enjoyed the video, don't forget to like. Don't forget to subscribe. And don't forget to click that bell icon to get notified when I upload new reviews. Also, if you're in any position to help out the channel, I do offer channel memberships here on YouTube. And I got to give a huge shout out to all my current members because it's support like yours. That helps keep this channel growing. Once again guys, this is Patriot Prime, signing out. Hella!


The worst thing that ever happened to the game was Pym Supposed Down America Pym. I regret doing both of those movies because what they did, they gave niggas a pass to get on the internet and just talk about the game. So now, you know what I'm saying? When I was coming up, the catchy company for the hanging.   So she might be a square, you know what I'm saying? But I talked to her, you know, I take her out to eat, you know what I'm saying?  So I'm introducing her potential wife-in-laws, you know what I'm saying?  But you know, at this point, you know what I'm saying?  Yeah, we on boss talk one on one, one on one. Yeah, we gonna talk. I always tell guys, man, don't never let your intelligence, don't never let your emotions supersede your intelligence, right? You know, when you dealing with a woman, you know what I'm saying? You always got to remember the emotional factor, right? She's very emotional.  You know, so she can be real down and funky with you. So, you know, you gotta remember, your intelligence is here and your emotions is here. They're not in the same place. Anytime you do something emotionally, that's an impulse, you know what I'm saying? That's an impulse, you know, that's an emotional impulse. So, you don't never make the right decisions. Always good.  It's always good to sit back and just give yourself 10 seconds.  Think the situation out, because if you can reason, you know, God gave all of us ability to reason. I talk about, you know, an ox.  He's stronger than an ox. But you know what I'm saying?    He don't know that it's a cage. He goes in there, he smell the blood, he go and he attack the cow. He don't know if it'd be somebody zoo animal. You see what I'm saying? But we have intelligence, you know what I'm saying? So, that lion can be you in the penitentiary, you know what I'm saying? That ox can be you getting killed by her brother, you know what I'm saying? It might feel like you're violating the system. So, we got to use our intelligence. And I always thought about that. I always thought about Jill and I always thought about what if her daddy or her brother or somebody or her cousin, somebody, you know, got a problem with me.  Right. Sometimes, you know, you got to let a person go.  I say, you love me? You sure? You say, yeah, I love you. I say, you want to pay the love test? You say, yeah, I say, okay, come on. Let's go to the swimming pool. So, I go to the swimming pool and I say, you love me? You say, yeah, I say, come on. I put her head in the water. And I hold, you love me? Yeah, I love you. Put it back in there, you love me? No, I love here. You know what I'm saying? You know, people don't know what they love. They think they love something. They think you have said that they doing this, but you know, it might be something different.  And that's where you got to be wise. And that's one thing that I, you know, that's why I last so long. That's why I never call it a P-case, you know what I mean?  You know what I'm saying? Then I always thought, you know, I got some women that I deal with. I'm cool with their brothers to this day. Yeah. You know, I was with the female because I would always, you know, holler at them and reach out to them, make sure they was cool. You know what I mean? I check on the mama, you know what I'm saying? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's all science. It's all games. It's all about using your reasoning faculty. You got to be a thinking man. It's chess not chess. It's always, every move I make, I make 10 steps ahead. So if a bra mess with me on day one, by day 30, she's straight. Yeah. You know what I'm saying? It's going to be a sequential order. I'm going to build up in chronological order. You know what I'm saying?  You know what I'm saying? Get her nail done at a different person. At a different place. You know what I'm saying? If she got pay less shoes, you know what I'm going to elevate her. You know what I'm saying? And have her, you know, wearing the best shoes. And you know, you just got. As you should. Yeah. It's all about elevation. And that helps, that stops the fight too. Yes it does. It's something like, I remember you, and it's a little bit off subject, but it's still in context. Like the movies where it wasn't movies, it was play of balls or whatever. They bring the girls out. I remember them, she wouldn't look up. You know, you have three girls or whatever. They wouldn't look up at no other man and all kind of stuff, no other pill. You know, all this different things was going on back in the day. You, I don't think we'll ever see those times again where they have these, you know, all of the, all of the peace coming together. And really, you know what I'm saying? Really, really we're going down. It's over, man. The worst thing. Now the game is not dead. It's the players. Hold on, I just want to say this. I agree with you on this. The worst thing that ever happened to the game was Pym Supposed Down America Pym. I regret doing both of those movies because what that did, that gave niggas a pass to get on the internet and just talk about the game. So now, you know what I'm saying? When I was coming up, the catchy company for the hanging. So Tina seen me in a Rolls Royce and she said, I wonder who you play for. You know, or I wonder who is that? You know what I'm saying? So she might be a square. You know what I'm saying? But I talk to her, you know. You know, I take her out to eat. You know what I'm saying? I groom her. We'll get a conversation. We call her interview. I give her an interview and then next day I know I said, I want to take you. So when you go, I want to introduce you somebody. So I'm introducing her to her potential wife-in-laws. You know what I'm saying?  But you know, at this point, you know what I'm saying? She got a decision to make and she want to get turned out.  You know what I'm saying?  You try to talk to a young niggas, talk to a, gone boy, please, boy. I just bought Pippa Kenbook. You know what I'm saying? I listen to Don Juan. You know what I'm saying? I listen to Kenny Ray.  Phil Moslem. So they don't have to go through the rigorous process of getting to know a P like it was before. It was a secret society.  No, me and all of us, I was- You weren't the main contributors to it, everybody? No. I was the main contributor to it. Yeah, I was the main contributor to it. Yeah, I was the main contributor to it. You know what I'm saying? I was the contributor.  And then on another, it changed my life, you know? Like I said, the roles that you take to get to your destiny is not the ones that take you. It's going to your detour. So it changed my life, you know? And it gave me a chance to set my life on a different trajectory.  You know what I mean? Yeah, you're right. You know what I mean? Now they're giving our life. So maybe, you know what I'm saying? It's good that the bras is not as receptive to the game as they used to be. You know what I'm saying? Can I say something about that? Yes, can you? See, see, people get this game misconstrued. See, everything we do is by choice, not by force.  And they do have those out there. Yeah, we on Boss Talk 101. Yeah, we gon' talk.


One of the keys to being more joyfully productive throughout your work day is a concept that I call calm, joyful focus. And the idea here, there's a couple of parts of the idea. One part is to pay attention to your body posture as you work. A lot of us when we're working, especially on a challenging project, we don't even realize it, but our face is tense like this. It just doesn't look pleasant, and it doesn't create a positive internal state when your face is like this. So notice the next time you work on a challenging project, notice your face. Is it like this, or is it you can bring an alternative way to it, which is a calm, joyful focus like this? No matter what you're working on, no matter how hard or challenging the project is, your face doesn't have to be that way. And in fact, if you bring an internal state that you do want, which is a calm, joyful focus I imagine when you're working, if you want that internal state, make your external state that way as well. And besides the facial expression, notice your breathing, difficulty when we're working, our breathing is very shallow. And so when you do notice it next time, just take a deep breath, and again bring that gentle smile to your face again, calmly, joyfully. And also notice your shoulders. Is it tense, or is it relaxed, and is your neck soft rather than tense? Okay, so notice these things the next time you work. Remember my face and remember the versus the deep breathing whenever you do happen to notice it. Now I want to give you an example in martial arts. I'm going to show you a video right now that kind of illustrates what I'm talking about. Whereas typically when we're, well, let me just kind of show it to you on the screen and then you can, and then I'll debrief with you for a moment here. Here we go. Pushing back with force just turns into a contest of strength. With an expert, all the energy flows in the direction that will knock the opponent over right at the moment of impact. Let's watch that one more time. Right back with force. See what happens? Pushing back with force just turns into a contest of strength. With an expert, all the energy flows in the direction that will knock the opponent over right at the moment of impact. And I want you to also notice how calm the Aikido master, martial arts master is when he's doing that. He's not going, you know, like, ah, beat, beat. It's not a force to force, but it's a genuine inner power by dissolving the force or by turning it or by surprising it with a totally different take. It's not an anger and a hatred and, you know, and so when we're working on a project and it's challenging to us, we find it difficult, frustrating, confusing or whatever. Our natural, typical state is to meet it with anger or with frustration, right? With force. With force. So like that. But instead, if you bring a calm, joyful focus to it, you Aikido the situation, you completely change the state of the situation such that, oh, there is a totally different reality. It's almost like you step into a different universal timeline. You step into a different timeline in your life, your different universe where you literally are changing the situation so that you're bringing your calm, joyful focus to it instead of an anger. And here's the, here's the, here's the other really important point is that it doesn't matter what the result is. Now let me actually show you one more thing before I, before I go there. There's a, another quick video I want to show you as an example. Whoops. Let me just do this one more time here. Okay. Notice his facial expression. I'm not sure. Notice his facial expression when he, when he does this, and I'm going to show you one more time here. Okay. All right. Notice his facial expression here. Again, his facial expression is one of calm, joyful focus, right? It's focusing on the process itself and just doing the process, knowing that if you focus on the process, the results will take care of themselves. And so that's the other, the other piece that I want to give you is when you are so focused on the results of whatever project, the reason why we tense up and, and have this face and, and therefore we're not sustainable in our work, we don't, if we don't bring a calm, joyful focus to our work, it's hard to sustain the work and the practice which makes us truly excellent in the long-term and therefore creates great results, right? And so focus just on the process. Remember the facial expressions of these martial artists. They're not forced with force, but they're just very calmly doing the thing. And even you can bring a smile to your face and breathe deeply and focus on the process itself. So like if you're working for an hour on a project, don't say, well, by the end of the hour, I better have gotten someone to say yes, or I better have, you know, written 10 pages or whatever. Just focus on writing, right? If you're writing, just focus on the writing. Just focus on calm, joyful writing. Whatever happens at the end of the hour is just fine. Just focus on the action itself. And one more quick story I'll tell you is in the Olympic archery games, the U.S. team was so focused on the results of hitting the bullseye. They were just focused on the goal so much, just looking at the target. Whereas the Japanese team, they had grown up in an environment and been trained to focus on the process itself. And so when they were doing archery, they were just focused on drawing the bow, piecing it, focusing on the process of doing that, and almost not caring where the arrow went. Okay? They didn't have to like, oh, I got to hit the arrow. I got to hit the bullseye. I got to hit the target. I got to hit the goal. Just focus on the process itself and let the goal take care of itself magically. Because if you focus and keep tweaking the process so that the process is good, the result will take care of itself. Now, of course, you use the result as a way to help you design what a good process is. But then once you design a good process, you just keep focusing on the process itself with a calm, joyful focus. Remember your body postures and a loose upper body at the very least, taking a deep breath whenever you think of it. So try that the next time you work, especially on a challenging project, focus on the result itself no matter what happens at the end of the half hour or hour, perfectly fine. Just focus on doing the work with a calm, joyful focus and a body posture that will support your health.