Well, the world has gone through rather extraordinary times of the past few years, to say the least. So on the one hand, the report reflects that. The first thing is the recognition that some of these catastrophes were labeled low-probability events before. There is a recognition that there are no low-probability events anymore. They're much more likely to happen today than maybe 10 or 15 years ago. That said, we've interviewed close to 500 experts and leaders in many countries in the public, private sectors, NGO world, expert in academia. And clearly, we see a big difference in risk perception. In January 2007, we issued the Global Risk Report 2007, and I was discussed at the annual meeting in Davos. And at that time, one of the top risks we had highlighted was asset price collapse. But remember, that was a time of great exuberance, and only a few people pay attention to what we had to say. Obviously, after that, people tended to pay more attention to what the report had to say. And just looking back at what the report told us last year, well, two or three of the top risks of last year's report were, first, economic disparity and the impact that we'll have on the second one, which is geopolitical risk. The report can be used in different manners, but the first one is the identification of these risks. So I think it's important to know what could happen. It's not just to tell people that there are 50 global risks out there, but also how you can start thinking more strategically about how you, as a CEO of a large corporation, the head of a large NGO, as a head of government or ruler, can start approaching these risks. What we did, we've seen in Japan in March 2011, was not just a Japanese issue that has become a worldwide issue because of the ripple effect on global supply chain worldwide, on financial market worldwide. And Japan was one of the most, if not the most, prepared country in the world to face with, to be faced with earthquake. Maybe the key listen to you as a leader to take away from these initiatives is, well, it's not the risk you know most that's going to kill you. Without the risk, you select or choose to ignore, consciously or unconsciously. You have the risk you care most about, but look at the other risk when we're not going to have to affect you tomorrow. It's very hard to imagine what would happen if we fail to manage that interconnection. And just let me give you an example of, and that's a financial crisis really. You take a look at what we call the market valuation of all publicly trade companies around the world in September 2007 or October 2007. That was about $63 trillion of all publicly trade company worldwide. The stock value was about $6263 trillion. So that's $63 billion. It's a big number. 15 months later, after the crisis, that had dropped 50%. So these companies worldwide had literally lost $33 trillion of assets. Just to give you a reference point, that's about what all European countries, the United States of America and Japan combined, had produced the GDP gross domestic product during 2008. So hundreds of millions of workers going to work every day and producing that fantastic growth and economic value. All of that was destroyed in a matter of months, literally. Before that, everybody thought that will never happen. After that, I think we have to reconsider these extreme events in a very different manner. First, you have to know your risk. You have to assess your exposure, quantify these risks, try to better understand their interdependency. That's critical here. Ask yourself for your company or your country, what are my centers of gravity? Put these issues on the agenda of your board of directors. Ask for a very frank discussion about what our vulnerabilities really are today. Don't pretend they will not happen. Don't pretend everything is under control.  But at the same time, you need to think about the next five, ten years, and doing that type of exercise is really, really important. There are massive opportunities out there. If you're a CEO of a corporation, you can think about how do I apply my knowledge and expertise to a much more volatile and uncertain world? What type of new products? What type of new technologies? What type of services can we develop? What type of business opportunities are out there? There will be winners and losers. And the winners will be the one who not only understand the risk, protect their assets and human capital, but go one step further asking themselves what business opportunities are out there? What societal opportunities are out there? Do I want to be that country at the head of state that it's much more stable politically because I've handled this risk aspect? And by the way, when you stable politically what happened? Well, you have massive foreign investment flooding to your countries and you create jobs and that's a very positive circle where more jobs are created, more political stability, more economic growth. So that's really what we have been partnering the world economic front for the past seven years, trying to turn risk management into value creation.


Are you scared? Are you in a bad mood? Are you uncomfortable? Because I am Muslim? Or because I'm a Korean? Or because I am a Livert Muslim? I've been waiting I've been hurting Cause I've been falling I need your help Okay, so I don't want to mention who it is But I know some people attack me now Why? Because I'm Muslim?  Why are you on a first way? Why did you fall into Satan's temptation? And they said, why do you use Islam to get money and your fame?  But I just took this religion to get peace and happiness in my mind But I'm still mocked by people because of my choice For me, this is not a fun thing But why are you so angry? Did I scare you? Or did I threaten you?


Good afternoon everybody. My name is Barry Colfer and I'm the Director of Research here at the IIA. I'm delighted to welcome you all to this exciting event on Standard Bearers for Multilateralism Canada, Ireland and the UN. We're absolutely thrilled to be finally collaborating with our friends and colleagues at the Canadian Embassy. I'd like to especially thank David Kiffin and his team for David Kiffin and his team. We're just discussing her best pronouncing it. It's a Welsh name that travels to Canada so forgive me David. But it's a real pleasure sincerely to working with David and Jackie and colleagues from the Embassy. So Ambassador Ray is going to regalus in a few moments chair by the Great Mary Whelan. But before that it's my real and sincere pleasure to offer the floor to Ambassador Nancy Smyth to give some opening remarks. Thank you Ambassador. Thanks very much. Welcome Ambassador Ray. I feel like saying almost welcome home or to another home. Welcome to Arlene, to all the honorable guests that are here in person and also online. You're very welcome. I promise Mary and I will be very brief. She said I've heard that one before but I know our time is limited. I mean I think I'll just start by saying there really are few countries that are more like-minded and that share a stronger heritage, a common values and really a web of connections that are both historic and that are very current than Canada and Ireland. In early June I learned that Ambassador Ray was going to be in Ireland with Arlene on a private visit and perhaps rather unfairly but given the distinguished and long career that Ambassador Ray has in political life and in public service. I could not help myself but to say could be still you for an hour or two. And it's not only because Ambassador Ray brings such a unique perspective on multilateralism and on the global challenges so many of which he's worked on over his career but also because his personal connections Ireland that he understands better than many what that friendship looks like. I'll just give one example we were just speaking about which Ireland knows very well. This past June on June 23rd we had the 38th anniversary of the Air India bombing. It was Ambassador Ray who wrote government reports on the Air India bombing and who continues to speak about this atrocity and this unthinkable act of terrorism including where he sits now at the UN to the members of the General Assembly. He has continued to champion this. He's championed issues around Indigenous reconciliation in Canada. He's championed Ukraine, Haiti and the Rohingya Mayanmar context where I had the distinct pleasure of having a conversation with you. I think it was one of our more recent conversations when you were doing work in the context of the humanitarian and refugee issues work as Canada's special envoy and we had a discussion around the importance of refugee education. So I just want to say thank you again for being here. I want to say a real thanks to the IAE as Barry has suggested. We've had a few more than a few conversations about how we how we make sure that Canada becomes a part of the conversations here. Important work that you are doing.  We're very proud to be a member of. We appreciate the work that the staff does. Not only the visible public work that you do through your through your events such as this but also the important research that you do in the working groups that you lead around some of the issues of our time. So I do hope that we will do more and I know that we will do more with your terrific staff here. So thanks to to to Leanne thanks to you Barry and thanks Mary to the MC who's agreed to chair this event and I know that you'll enjoyed these comments to come. Ambassador Ray is really a public servant and a diplomat of the first order. He was given the companionship of the order of Canada. You'll see the distinctive pin that is on his lapel and he's really I think going to be fascinating to listen to and let me just say that I'm honored and humbled to call him a colleague. So thank you. Thank you very much for those introductory remarks and a few housekeeping issues. First of all the event will last about an hour. We'll have an introductory statement by Ambassador Ray that will be about 10 15 minutes and then it's over to you the audience both here in person and those of you who are joining us on zoom and the zoom people are also very welcome. We would hope that we'll have a very lively discussion. Please send in your questions if you are watching on zoom and we'll come to them in the course of the discussion phase. Please identify your name and any organization to which you are affiliated. Both the presentation and the Q&A or comments are on the record. Feel free to follow us using the handle at iiea if you're a Twitter person and a special welcome from those joining us on YouTube. Just a very, very brief introduction. Bob Ray is a very distinguished Canadian, not just a diplomat but also because of your role in national politics and also in provincial politics. You are I understand the premier of Ontario and you came to diplomacy long before you came to the UN. You were a special envoy of Canada for me and Mar in 2017 and also a special envoy of Canada for humanitarian and refugee affairs. So you have you're in the cockpit as it were in in New York and we very much look forward to listening to you about your current post and your current expectation of how Ireland and Canada can collaborate even more closely at the United Nations. Thank you very much Mary. It's great to be with all of you. I know some of you can't see me right. This is what I look like. So I'll say hello to the Zoom world. It's great to be to be here. I actually started in diplomacy as a child because my father was a diplomat and he was posted in Geneva as the permanent representative and also in New York as the as the ambassador. So I was eagerly following global of issues as a young person and have really in a sense come home in by coming to New York. It's really brought me full circle back to where I've been affected sort of I feel like I started. So it I think what has been said about Canada and Ireland is is very very true. My dad used to say that there was one individual in his life in the 50s and 60s who when he spoke really spoke for for him for the world. That was Conor Cruz O'Brien who he felt very very strongly was was such a powerful international representative not only for Ireland but also for a vision of what the United Nations was was was supposed to be all about and the challenges that it's faced. I mean there are differences between Canada and Ireland. I mean obviously I know these are sensitive topics. I mean Canada was a founding member of NATO. Canada has been Canada's course to its political independence was slow and thoroughly negotiated over over many many centuries and decades after the original fighting between the English and the French and so that that sense of our connection with the Commonwealth and our connection with with non-neutrality if you like in the first and second World Wars it's quite different from Ireland historically. We have to appreciate that and recognize it but I think that now today in the world your representatives at the UN and our delegation are the closest to friends and colleagues. Fergal in fact just sent me a good luck message a little while ago just saying hello and connecting with me so it's much appreciated. I think the the world we're in now is a high-risk world and we need to understand some of the stakes that are in play and the challenges that we face. If we only had to deal with security issues and the economic and social issues which were recognized in the UN charter by the formation of economic and social council and evolved substantially over many many many years with decolonization and the arrival in the center of the stage of countries from Africa and Asia that had had been sub you know colonial subjects for many centuries was it was it has been a great transformation of the world but if we only had to deal with those two key issues we would be working flat out full-time we'd have many challenges we'd have many many difficulties but we'd have things that we needed to do but as we know that's only the start of some of the challenges we're facing today in the world. I mentioned three or four only and and stress them as much as I can and the time available I don't want to dominate the proceedings. The first is is climate change and I think we're beginning to understand that all of the talk about 2050 and the targets we need to meet by then have really given the many a sense of false comfort to say oh we've got time sort of like I mean many of you might identify with this you know thinking I've got to get this assignment in by such and such a date and you say oh that's far off I don't I don't I don't have to do this right away the Connor's going to King's College don't take this as an example Connor but the fact is is that you got to start working on it now or because that's the deadline is the deadline but in the case of climate change I think we've underestimated the extent to which climate change is a today issue it's not a tomorrow issue not a future issue and the today issue is felt very strongly by developing countries in two ways the first is they feel that they have not substantially contributed to the cumulative impact of global emissions and therefore are being unfairly singled out as they just enter into the world of industrial productivity and of course industrial pollution which goes with that productivity and the second is that they feel very strongly they are bearing the brunt of the impact that rising sea levels more extreme weather are having a much a very dramatic impact on the developing world in terms of the impact of the crises that we see I mean if you read the and our sense of what's in the news is is a little artificial because we don't fully appreciate the extent to which as we speak today there are massive cyclones taking place in Pakistan following on from the previous years flooding which was like nothing that had ever been seen before and yet we have to understand that this is now these are now baked in if I can use that phrase to to the current reality you have glaciers that are melting you have flows of rivers that are changing you you just have a series of crises that are having a dramatic effect on the security of the world and also on the well-being of the world and there is this growing sense of grievance that there there there is insufficient attention being paid by countries that are better off to the challenges that are being faced by those that are that are poorer and that that is an underlying reality of the UN that's always been there as a as a as a tension but it's it's stronger and it's getting stronger all the time the the second is been the global response to the pandemic and that's another example where both in Geneva and in New York the sense and you get it very directly at the United Nations the sense is that western countries have taken care of themselves and other countries have been left to wait and hope that something would happen and there have been a lot of tensions in the world as a result of this and there are also tensions that have been taken advantage of by those countries that say oh well you know the western powers don't help them there to help you but we will help you so you will have noticed that China and Russia were and and India to an extent we're we're very determined to say we're ready to help and much more publicly than than many western countries although western countries did give net large amounts of money and of vaccines some of them were perceived to have come late they were perceived to have come on a second hand basis and the underlying health challenges facing the poorer countries and in terms of their capacity and ability to deal with the consequences of the pandemic have been perceived to be just their response has been seen as inadequate selfish and this created a lot of ill feeling that is quite apparent and certainly we I was first appointed in the in the early days of covid and arriving in new york you could feel it you could feel just from other delegates saying how are you how are how are you getting back and we all the all the I mean as as international diplomats we were all vaccinated in in new york but as as that happened people began to say well what are you doing for for our country we have many requests from individual countries so did ireland saying could you respond how can you help us and it's been a very very difficult situation it will growingly continue it will continue to grow as attention between us between countries because we haven't necessarily resolved some of the underlying governance and structural issues around dealing with pandemics and dealing with global health crises that are still being negotiated and debated again in Geneva as well as in new york and we're trying to coordinate those discussions with many countries obviously Canada and Ireland working very closely together on those the third one is the most serious conflict we're facing at the moment which is the war in Ukraine and I think we have to recognize that the Russian aggression met with immediate resistance and and response from the western countries initiating you know many resolutions at the United Nations and elsewhere and initially the the response from other countries was yes of course it's an act of aggression but you know we then have the what abouts what about Iraq what about Afghanistan what about other examples what and historically going back in time what about Suez what about you can you can claim that we don't look at them all and saying your standard of applying to this question to these questions is not the same that's the first point this and that was sort of the response at the beginning but the the serious response came when people began to really feel the impacts of the conflict and again how what seemed to be a could be described as a as a regional conflict between Russia and Ukraine with some very specific issues has now become a global conflict of much great much greater proportions we'll see very quickly three things one is we need to we need to understand as well the growth of authoritarian populism around the world and how this has influenced how governments act and react I should add the words nationalistic so you have authoritarian populist and nationalistic governments that are rapidly industrializing and becoming a much bigger force in the world the biggest of which of course is China but there are many others that are becoming increasingly significant as as as present modern presences in the world so the days in which Canada could could confidently say well we're a middle power in the context of all what's going on in the world is affected by and the same with Ireland you know the influence that we're we think we have or we like to think we have or we like to think we used to have we have to understand well that that has to be lived up to every day and facing a very very different world as we as we as we see it and I personally think the issue with China and the and the potential rivalry between China and the western powers particularly the United States is something that is extremely significant and and challenging but it has to be understood in this wider context of how other you know how these other political tendencies are at play about China I think it's very important for us to understand I think an underline that we cannot deal with the problems that I have described the global pandemic climate change how global issues require a global response they would they will not be settled by means of a of a purely national or western response the response has to be global it has to be effective globally we cannot treat with these issues without China being a full partner fully engaged fully fully involved and China understands that and China feels it and China wants to exercise greater influence in the world and we need we need to come to grips with what that means and make sure that that we we analyze it correctly and that we respond to it correctly as it as and how it occurs but we have to understand that in the UN system for example China plays a more important role than it has ever played and it will play next year a more important role than it's played this year because it's it's its power and influence is growing and and that's not something that any international institution can say well you you know you're not welcome to have your public servants involved in our in our business but at the same time we then have to say well that's understandable we know what's happening but we do require that this all of this influence needs to become more transparent and needs to be subjected subject to the same international norms and regulations that we insist be applied to ourselves Canadian public servants who work at the end are not working for Canada they're working for the United Nations I don't talk to them and say can you tell me what's you know what you're doing uh and they say ambassador I don't report to you I may not be able to tell you so that you just have to accept that's that should also apply to China not always sure it does but we need to make sure sure that it does Russia is a much more opportunistic and in in in many ways unpredictable or it's predictable but it's it's some of its behaviors of completely random uh that you just sort of shake your head but we do need to understand that there's something really incongruous in a country that is so uninterested in international law and international standards international regulations continuing to play such a powerful role at the United Nations particularly with respect to its its use of the veto power and there I will come full circle and say when the charter was written there was good news and bad news the good news was the charter was a much more fulsome embrace of the international order and of what that meant in terms of human rights commitment to social progress and and all of the elements that would be involved in that an institution building on a very broad scale that was built into the formation of the united nations building credible effective international institutions that could take away some of the great uncertainties that had led to two world wars and that sort of progress can be noted and and needs to be understood but then there comes the bad news the bad news was five big powers got together and said well we're going to create this international organization but basically we're going to run it and so you say well that's so there's an inborn inbred if you like tension between the five superpowers as they are in the un system and everybody else and there's lots of ways in which that tension plays its plays itself out and it's I must say it's one place where Canada and Ireland work instinctively very closely together I mean we competed yes you competed successfully we competed unsuccessfully for the seat on the security council but it's a seat for two years and it's a seat for a non-permanent status on a council which is whose work is dominated by the five permanent representatives five permanent powers and and we've seen with particularly with the with the Russian aggression in Ukraine how this has become much more problematic in terms of the functionality of the UN and so that's where I'll close and that's by saying that we were together at the creation and and we've fought hard to work to create this powerful institution which we think can play a positive role in global affairs but we still have a lot of work to do to strengthen multilateralism not only as it relates to some of the I've had all kinds of other things I've not discussed yet which I would love to we can talk about them I hope in question time but there are a lot of areas where we have we have much work to do together and we have to do it understanding that nothing stays the same from on a daily basis the world keeps changing keeps evolving who is which powers are are moving more seriously into into seeking that seeking to gain and and extend their influence and and we have to accept that that's part of part of the dynamism of the of the world strength we have I think is our values which I still think are our good ones the strength I think is in the quality of our diplomacy the the commitment of our foreign offices both in Ottawa and in Dublin to working well together and working well with others and you know consistently performing and the the strong commitment to multilateralism which even dare I say it in this part of the world has been tested by brexit um I mean to an outsider brexit is I mean the British phenomenon wanting to seek to leave the European Union is inexplicable and perhaps apply just diplomatic terms but it's nevertheless a something which has taken place and so now we're all trying to figure out well how do we how do we cope with that in a way that will allow us to continue to to to work well effectively together and I think that's something we're still striving to do so I'll leave it there very thank you so much


29 years ago, a young brave, I think it was an architecture student, Chinese student, stood in front of a tank and in a sense pleaded with the Chinese army not to crush the student rebellion that was happening in China. Chinese students, about a million students, went out into the streets primarily around Tiananmen Square demanding more political freedom. They were becoming wealthier economically. Things were looking up from an economic perspective. They had a sudden amount of freedoms but they wanted more and they wanted more fast. They went out willing to wait and they went under the streets in a peaceful protest and the protest lasted for weeks and the Chinese government under Deng Cha Peng was not willing to grant them those freedoms. Deng would say that our Chinese are not ready and indeed Deng would argue, argued that Chinese might never be ready that always they will need a communist party to rule over them. I said some positive things over the years about Deng Cha Peng because in the name of pragmatism, he liberalized the Chinese economy and I think tens, hundreds of millions of Chinese are thankful for that fact. But we can't forget that before he liberalized the economy, he was one of Mao's thugs who was responsible for the murder of millions of people and that after Mao's death and in spite of loosening the reins of the economy, he continued to be a brutal dictator. Not a totalitarian but an authoritarian nevertheless. The difference is totalitarians, it's total, total control over everything you do, total control and speech, total control in the economy, total control on your behavior. Authoritarians pick and choose where they're going to control. They don't have total control. China today is authoritarian, not totalitarian. On June 4th, 1989, 29 years ago, Deng Cha Peng in anticipation of a visit from Gorbachev to China wanted to clean up the mess and get it over with. He wanted Gorbachev to be able to come to Beijing without being hampered by demonstrations all over the city. He wanted to show the world that he was in control and more importantly, I think, most importantly, he wanted to show the Chinese people he was in control. And they took, the Chinese took the most brutal brigade that they could find. The brigade peasants, a brigade still committed to Mao's ideas, a brigade that they knew would do whatever the Communist Party told them to do. And they put them in Tiananmen Square and they put them on the roofs and they put them in the tanks and in the armored vehicles and they put them in the soldiers with the guns storming, storming the square. And the square is massive. Those of you who haven't been in Tiananmen Square, you don't really get a sense of how massive that square was, filled with hundreds of thousands of students. And 29 years ago, those soldiers opened fire and those tanks ran over students. They slaughtered them. According to official Chinese government numbers, 300 people were killed. According to Chinese Red Cross, the number was closer to 3,000. According to independent estimates, including coming out of the British Embassy at the time, the number exceeds 10,000 people, 10,000 people, 10,000 people protesting for their own freedom, 10,000 young people wanting a better life for themselves, wanting a future for themselves, 10,000 people standing up to a communist regime that seemed to be superficially, at least, freeing their world up. And in the naivete, they thought, oh, we'll just push them a little bit and they'll speed it up and make our lives better. Give us the rights that are ours as human beings. Now, most of those students probably had not read Locke or the founding fathers of America, but some of them had. Many of them, I would argue, had. Many of them had even read some of the great economists, and some had even read Einrend. But all of them united by the fact that they wanted to be free at whatever level they understood that concept. They wanted their own freedom, and the Chinese government took their lives for that. They shot them dead, 10,000 of them, in the streets. They slaughtered them.  So when Gorbachev came to Tiananmen Square a few days later, the place was sparkling clean. They took all the bodies. They literally used tractors to load the bodies up into trucks, and they dropped those bodies into mass graves. I think they burnt them. So many people don't even know if they loved ones died that day, because many people just disappeared and were never to be seen again. That man who stood in front of the tank, nobody really knows what happened to him. He could have been killed. He could have escaped. Ruma has it. He lives in Taiwan today that he managed to get out. I hope that rumor is correct. I hope that courageous man who was pleading for his life, who was pleading for freedom, who was pleading with his own army, the army that is there to protect him, that according to a proper understanding of the role of government, the army that is there to protect him from criminals, that is protect him from foreign invaders, to protect him from people who would slaughter him like the Japanese, for example, did in World War II. That army turned against him and against his friends and against his people and slaughtered them. 10,000 people 29 years ago today in Tiananmen Square, many of them, their families will never see the bodies, many of them, their families will never quite know because some just disappeared, some left and have stayed inside, stayed hiding, if you will, a fear of what the Chinese government would do to them to this day. And the thing is that the Chinese don't even know the new generation doesn't even know Tiananmen Square happened. Ben says he's married to a Chinese and she didn't even know Tiananmen Square happened because they don't teach it. They know nothing about it. You can whisper about it in Beijing. You can talk about it in silence. But it's one of those no-knows when you go to China that you're not supposed to talk about. So those of us who are still free, those of us who still have the ability to speak freely, I think it's incumbent on us to remember the 10,000 who died that day. It's incumbent to call out the Chinese government for what they did. We can do it from the safety of distance. We can do it from the safety of living in a country that is still barely holding on by its fingernails, still free.


Every decision, if you want it to be a good decision, needs a pause point. If you make a decision in your head, in your gut, and you immediately hit return, however your trade goes live, right, I hit return, you have not given yourself any space for reflection. Every single decision to be to improve the quality of your decisions, very simple thing, build a pause point in. And that may be something as simple as, I decide what I want to do, I make sure that I get up, I make myself a cup of coffee, and I sit down, and then if I still want to push return, I can push return.


Coming up on DTNS, the CIA has been spying on Americans and two US senators would like us to know why if you see only one movie this summer, it's probably because you didn't sign up for the return of movie pass and Nate Langston helps us understand the UK's fascination with age variation. This is the Daily Tech News for Friday, February 11th, 2022 in Los Angeles, I'm Tom Merritt. And from Studio Redwood, I'm Sarah Lane. I'm the show's producer Roger Chang. And joining us from Bloomberg, tech editor and host of text message, Nate Langston. Nate, welcome back. Hello. Thanks for having me. Always a pleasure. We were just talking about digitizing things on good day internet. That's the longer version of the show you can get at patreon.com slash DTNS. Speaking of big things to our top patrons today, they include Scott Hepburn, Bjorn Andre, and Jeff Wilkes. Let's start with a few tech things you should know. AMD has already confirmed the Ryzen 7000 desktop CPUs based on its brand new 5nm Zen 4 core architecture and the respective AM5 platform will be launching sometime in the second half of 2022. But Graymon 55 reports that launch may happen as early as Q3 of 2022 and perhaps even at Computex, which takes place in May, right around the corner. Graymon 55 also reports that AM5 motherboards are nearing production and early samples were expected to ship before the end of this month. The European Publishers Council has filed an antitrust complaint against Google with the European Commission alleging that the company quote achieved end to end control of the ad tech value chain. Not a real chain, but anyway, it does have Google with a market share of at least 90%. In June 2021, the European Commission launched an investigation into whether Google's ad business gives it an unfair advantage over rivals. Google announced it will begin shutting down Google Currents in 2023. Now, if you're saying, what was Currents? It doesn't rag a bell. It was the rebrand of Google Plus as an enterprise focused social network for paying G Suite subscribers. Remaining content and communities from Currents will be brought over to Google Chat Spaces Group chats with Google Promising Updates to spaces to better support larger communities and leadership communication that comes straight from Google. So, you know, that's what you should know before the shutdown. Yeah, Google Plus was kind of still around, but not anymore. Speaking of Google, Google also released the first developer preview of Android 13. This brings the Material U dynamic color feature to all app icons on pixel devices as well as a system-wide photo and video sharing tool for apps without having to give an app access to all your photos. A new Android 13 API supports settings, a per app language preference, different from the overall system language, and Google plans to release a second developer preview before a beta release in April. Android 13 codename, Tiramisu. Best Buy restocked NVIDIA RTX 3000 series GPUs, but don't go nuts yet. It has restricted those purchases to subscribers to its Total Tech perks program. Best Buy introduced Total Tech back in April as a beta program offering free shipping, unlimited geek squad tech support, extended warranties, and free installation for $199 per year. And the ability to actually possibly maybe be able to buy a GPU. Interesting. Alright, let's talk a little more about what's going on with the CIA thing I mentioned earlier. Let's do it. So the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is a US panel that reviews classified intelligence programs. We've talked about it in the past. From August 2015 to December 2016, it reviewed a CIA surveillance program, and in March 2021, it released its classified reports on that surveillance called Deep Dive 2. US Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich read the reports, and in April sent a letter to the CIA requesting expedited declassification. Among other things, they wanted the public to see how the records of US citizens were being handled in the surveillance program. They say in the letter that they believe the program is operating outside the statutory framework. On Thursday, the letter from the Senators and a set of recommendations from the Oversight Board were declassified. Both were heavily redacted, so we don't know when the surveillance occurred, or if it's still ongoing, or whether it was conducted by the CIA itself or some other organization for the CIA, or what kind of data was collected. A lot of questions remain. But this particular surveillance falls under a Reagan-era executive order and is not subject to FISA court review. It's different than the metadata surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden. He might say, yeah, I mean, doesn't it work the same way? It actually doesn't. It doesn't also work the same way as financial transactions or surveillance on those that were previously reported. Yeah, so this is news surveillance. We don't know anything about it. And the Senator's letter basically asked the CIA, can you make that information public? The public has a right to know. Congress has a right to be able to debate this publicly about whether you did this within statutory limitations. Like you said, it's a Reagan-era executive order that gives the authorization for this. So it's something different than the Patriot Act stuff. Nate, as someone outside of the United States and living close to the EU, where they're having a lot of debates about how to properly safeguard European data when it's sent to the US for processing, privacy shields, stuff like that. We talked about it earlier this week. Do you look at this and think, ah, this is of concern? Or do you think like, yeah, they're always surveilling me anyway? It doesn't really matter whether they had some Americans in there or not. I used to think that, and then I read several books that said that it was not a good way to think that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. I think I had that sort of pummeled out of me reading quite a lot of books around the Snowden revelations and things. I mean, no, I don't get worried any more than I already was because this is another example of something that we know is happening. It doesn't make me feel any worse, but at the same time, it does make me very interested to know what's in it and what the redactions are. But I think that's kind of part of the course for something like this.  Can we see behind those black marks, please? But there's nothing about this that makes me more concerned than I was. I don't think it necessarily impacts me. It certainly could impact you guys more. Yeah, because you're getting surveilled no matter what. The smoking gun here seems to be like, but Americans' data is in here. And if it is, we need to know what it is. Nate's data they don't care about, apparently, because that's the ideas. The CIA is only supposed to surveil targets outside of the United States. Yeah, I get it. And again, I think it goes back to the point that it doesn't make me any more concerned than I already was, but I was already pretty concerned. I don't believe that if you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, partly because I think it's the same thing. If you're happy leaving your passwords written out, or you just take your bank statements and just discard them in the trash and don't care if anyone else sees them, then fair enough, maybe you really have nothing to hide and you have nothing to fear. But we all have things that we want to protect, and that's why I think it's fine to be concerned about privacy on issues that don't necessarily directly relate to you as a law-abiding citizen. But this doesn't change that for me, at least. Yeah, I look at this, and I think if you are looking for a reason to be outraged, then this is all you need.  If you are concerned about privacy and surveillance and proper custodianship of data and understand that there is a need for foreign surveillance from time to time and we just need to strike a balance, I don't know that there's much in here for you to do other than say, well, Senator Wyden and Senator Heinrich think that I should know more about this. At this point, I'll wait and see if they prevail and I can find out more about it because otherwise it's not telling me something I didn't already know, which is that the CIA surveils things and sometimes the data from people within the United States ends up in that database. There's no other details here for me to evaluate or form an opinion on, honestly. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority has accepted Google's plan to phase out third-party cookies using the standards being developed as part of its privacy sandbox. The approval legally binds Google to transparent development of privacy sandbox protocols, publishing test results on cookie replacements and not removing third-party cookies until the Competition and Markets Authority determines that the replacement won't harm competition. That's something the advertisers wanted them to put in. Now, we don't know what Google is going to replace cookies with. It gave up on flocks and it's now experimenting with topics. If you want more on that, we discussed it on the January 25th episode of Daily Tech News Show. But the bottom line here is that whatever Google wants to replace cookies with, we'll need to get UK regulatory and third-party marketer approval. Google still plans to block cookies by default in Chrome by the end of next year, but they'll need to get sign off before they can legally do that, at least in the UK. Now, Nate, we could talk to you about how the UK is influencing global tracking standards here, or we could also talk about the return of age verification, which I know you have talked about on text message quite a bit. The UK once proposed age verification for certain adult sites as part of the Digital Economy Act of 2017. It then dropped that plan in 2019 only to bring them back in the forthcoming online safety bill. That bill will require any site publishing pornography to make sure users are 18 years or older before allowing them to access. According to the Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport, this could include adults using secure age verification technology to verify they possess a credit card and are over 18 or having a third-party service confirm their age against government data. This bill would give OFCOM the ability to find an entity up to 10% of annual worldwide turnover or order the site blocked in the UK. Executives might be held criminally liable. The government points to gambling sites and online alcohol sales as examples of sectors that have implemented age verification. Nate, do you have a preference which of these UK-related stories we talk about? I do, and I prefer the age verification one, but I will just very quickly mention that in terms of the UK's power to influence Google, it will be less than it was when we were part of the European Union and had the collective pressure and bargaining power of a 28-member block of over 400 million people. And that's why we had things like GDPR and that's why everyone in Europe has to accept every cookie on every website they ever visit ever. It's the most frustrating thing about living in Europe online at least at the moment. So I think our potential to power through this is less in the UK. But the age verification thing, this is something that keeps cropping up. Every year it seems we have a discussion, certainly on my podcast as you said, that it gets introduced and then it gets debated in Parliament and then it gets cut out or something about it gets changed. And the principle of what they want, and by they I mean conservative MPs, that's conservatives with both a capital C and a lower case C, they are saying, think of the children. We don't want children accidentally or deliberately accessing adult content, which is absolutely fair enough. I think most people would agree that that's a decent thing to assume. The problem is the heavy-handed approach that some MPs think they should propose and legislate for that leaves the policing powers. I mean, really, it leaves them in a very difficult position. For instance, they're very keen for this to apply to major sites. So these are your biggest, biggest pornography websites, but also sites that host a lot of adult content such as Reddit, such as Twitter. And it's like, where do you draw the line? And there's never been a good answer presented in Parliament or in any of the consultations that the members of Parliament have as to where do you draw that line? Because they are massive user bases, they are huge sites, they host it, and it's easy to accidentally stumble upon it. Therefore, do you block Reddit in the UK if it doesn't implement age verification? Because that's not going to go very well. The second way of doing it is, or rather, it's part of the first way, is who verifies the age. Like with tobacco sales and alcohol, for instance, it's easier because there is a physical product, whether that's an alcoholic drink or if it's gambling, then it's money, that has to come back to that person. Whereas adult content online, it's sort of a one-way street. You're just downloading something, you're not getting someone to deliver it to your door or buy it from a store. So they have to go to some sort of third party to handle the age verification against the credit card in which case who is it? Because it's not the same people who do the alcohol stuff. It has to be international, not for a local supermarket chain. And again, no good answer put forward for this. So these are the kind of questions that keep coming up by people who know better, and I'm including myself in this, but never seem to quite get through the heads of people in Parliament who just assume big tech companies have loads of money, they'll figure it out. And sometimes they do figure it out, but sometimes they just say, hell, this isn't worth our time, so bye-bye. We're out of here. And we've seen that usually by international sites. And still as a result of GDPR, there are some US-based publications, for instance, that you cannot access in Europe because they were like GDPR, and that's too expensive. It's not bothered. So it sounds to me like you're saying that age verification isn't the problem. You could do it. It's that the way they're legislating it leaves it done poorly or ill-defined. It's basically just, it's trying to screw in wires with giant, what are those big foam hands fingers that you have at sports games? Yeah, foam fingers. All right. It's like trying to do maintenance work with one of those other hands. Never screw in your wires with a foam finger. Come on. Don't do it, kids.  That's how people get electrocuted. You could screw in wires just fine. Just don't do it with foam fingers. That's what you're saying. It's pointless. It makes perfect sense to me. This is the foam finger of legislation. Don't share sports with screwdrivers. Don't do maintenance with foam fingers. Very, very simple. It's a cross-continental issue. It's fine. But yes, it's heavy-handed and it just leaves it open to interpretation. And frankly, it leaves the smallest providers of any of these content open to just being exploited because essentially they're always going to fall below that threshold of legislative care. And it means that they're just going to be able to carry on as they were. And it'll only apply to the big guys. And that's just not good for anybody. So hopefully they'll just pull it out again before it goes any further. And the queen gets asked to sign it, which is how the law works here. The queen has to say yes. That'll ruin her jubilee. Well, I think something that the queen and we all enjoy are watching movies. Right? Everybody likes good movies. She does, actually. I know her personally, so I know that that's true. Movie Pass got on the map back in 2011. Wow. Yeah, it's been a while because it offered unlimited movies at theaters for a low monthly price. At the time, it seemed like a really great idea if you go to the movies a lot. But in doing that, Movie Pass also upset theater chains who drove it out of business by imitating it with similar pricing models. Movie Pass paved the way for what AMC and Regal and other theater chains current subscription plans now offer folks. And of course, over the last couple of years, the movie theater experience in general has really had to reinvent itself and get people able to come back if and when that was possible. So if you're thinking, yeah, Movie Pass, whatever happened? What's going on with Movie Pass? Back in the day was created by Tony B. Cast, Hamlet Watts, and Stacey Spikes. Back in June of 2016, the company made former Netflix and Red Box exec, Mitch Lowe, CEO. Then in August of 2017, Movie Pass was sold to an analytics company called Helios and Matheson. Helios and Matheson fired Spikes in 2018, one of the co-founders. The company closed its doors for good in September of 2019, and we all said, well, that was fun, wasn't it? In November of last year, it was sold back to co-founder Stacey Spikes. So was it done so? Not, not, not apparently. Because on Thursday, Spikes announced Movie Pass is returning this summer. And there are a few details involved with the return and how it's going to work. Movie Pass will use credits, so credits can be traded. You can use it to bring a friend to a show. If you have extra credits, roll over month to month, that sort of thing. Movies might cost different amounts of credits based on peak times. You know, when you see in the movie, is it 9 p.m. on a Friday, that kind of thing. Would we run more like a co-op with users able to hold partial ownership, which is kind of interesting if you're into the co-op model. Lifetimes of subscription tier is also offered. So, you know, if you're in, you have the tier as long as it's still working. Also powered by Web3 technology, meaning in some way, Movie Pass is now working on a blockchain of some kind. Certainly helps the press release show up in search results to say it's got Web3 technology. What is true is that the original engineering team is returning. So, you know, it sounds like the Movie Pass folks, a lot of people, you know, there was quite a bit of scattering over the years. And some core folks are coming back. And if you liked the experience at the beginning and appreciate what the experience might be going forward, that could be good news for you. Also, it's going to incorporate technology from Spike's previous company, PreShow. PreShow has been used to let gamers view ads to get in-game currency. So, it might be a little gamification going on here, you know.  You don't have to. I mean, you can pay to not do that, but that would be an option. And loyal users will be contacted for a beta test and get a year of free use. So, if you were, if you're, you know, just kind of wondering if this was coming back. It certainly is. And that might be something that you can take advantage of. Movie Pass 2, this time, it's Web 3 somehow, maybe. This time, it's on the ledger. I was always bullish on Movie Pass' idea until they got crazy. Even then, I thought financially they could have possibly made it work. The problem was the theaters were never for it. Spike's was in a very uneasy relationship with them before he handed it over to Lowe. And when Lowe took it over, he just went rogue and was like, we're just going to slash the price and go ahead and force the theaters to come to the table because we'll just be sending so much business they won't be able to refuse us. And they went out of business. So what Spike's is doing is trying to cooperate with Movie Theaters again and say, and I think the theaters are in a more cooperative space, as you mentioned these days. So I think this is a better way and a way that Movie Pass might not have been able to do it had it not failed already and changed the industry and then gone through a pandemic. So the credits-based thing, forget the web three step, the credits-based thing makes sense to me, which is you get a certain amount of credits for movies per month. Some movies will be two credits. Some will be three. You decide how to spend them. You can earn more credits by watching ads maybe. I think, and if you don't use your credits, they roll over to the next month. That all makes perfect sense. And it's a great way to help the theaters understand exactly how much business you're sending their way. Yeah. What are your thoughts on this?  No, I'm really not. And I was going to say that I find the pandemic's impact on cinema in general to be absolutely fascinating because on the one hand, cinemas were so perfectly placed to be put out of business by the pandemic and the growth of streaming put together. And yet they are still in business and there are still interesting things happening in cinemas. And then when you look at what happened with, let's say, the recent Spider-Man and the sales, ticket sales for that in the cinemas and then you look at the recent Matrix and you look at Black Widow and the controversy that surrounded that because of the day-in-date release online, you think, wow, if you don't put something out to stream, people do seem to go to the cinema still and watch it. There's a huge draw for that. I don't know if we have an equivalent to MoviePass in Britain. I'm not best placed. Ian, my co-host on the show on text message would definitely have an opinion on something like this. But in general, I find the whole concept of movies in the pandemic to be one of the most interesting things. Yeah. It's not gone exactly as people expected. It's very interesting. Folks, we'd love to hear from you. So if you have some time, we have a survey out. It's real quick. It only takes you a few minutes. Let us know what about DTNS is working for you and what isn't. We've got some questions we'd like you to answer. Are you one of many people who are worried that 5G service is going to delay your next airplane flight? If so, this next interview might speak to you because Tom sat down with a working pilot to find out how the compromise between the FAA and 5G characters is working out in practice. If you've been following DTNS, you've heard us talk about the issues between the rollout of 5G phone service in the C-band and the US Federal Aviation Administration having some issues with how that rollout is going. We have an episode of Know a Little More digging into this, but the short version is cell phone companies in the US want to use C-band for 5G because it offers a nice balance of speed and coverage compared to other parts of the spectrum. And the problem is the FAA says the frequencies the US carriers are using might interfere with certain equipment, particularly radar altimeters that are used to detect where the ground is. A very important thing to know, especially in low visibility landings. Well, for the moment, there's an uneasy compromise happening. The carriers are leaving C-band 5G off around some, but not all airports and pilots have some new protocols to follow. Here to help us understand what's going on is airline captain and computer scientist Brian Hoffman. Brian, it was great talking to you. Know a little more. Welcome to DTNS. Thank you, sir. Thanks for having me back. Yeah, thanks for sharing your insights, your expertise, your experience with this. Since the new rules went into place, the alternate means of compliance. What have you experienced so far? Well, an AMOC, like I said, is an alternate means of compliance. And that is something that the FAA has to give the radar altimeter a blessing of to be able to allow my aircraft to use that radar altimeter in the environment that now has 5G C-band in the area. So what I've noticed is there's a lot of paperwork, a lot of things we've had to read. The FAA has put out guidance. Our company has to put out guidance. And then I have to know that that guidance is approved for the airport I'm going to go to. So I have to read all that. Then as I'm going to one of those airports, ATC or Air Traffic Control is going to ask me what visibility do I have to have to shoot that approach if there's low visibility in the area? My aircraft is certified to fly, so I'm all the way down to 3-3-3, which means I have to have 300 feet of visibility to be able to let the airplane auto land itself. They have to now ask me that question before I start down on the arrival. They have to ask everybody that too, so there's more radio traffic now as we're getting close. That's something we have to do to help mitigate before we ever start down. That's to make sure you've got equipment that can play nice. Is that right? Essentially, yes. It means basically whatever the weather is and whether I have, am I legal to shoot the approach? Because obviously I want to get there and I want to land. Given your experience in Europe where they've had the C-band, the mid-band accommodations and restrictions, what were you expecting to happen as a pilot once this new regime went into place? Well, in Europe, they do things differently. They don't use nearly as much power in their transmitters. Think of it like you're going into a bar and having a conversation. Well, if the band is a nice jazz guy playing, he's not going to be that loud. But if it's a rock band, you're going to get blown out. Well, here in the United States, they've given them rock band power. Yeah, it's jazz in France and rock in the US. That makes perfect sense. They also are aiming the antennas slightly down and the exclusionary zone is further away from the airport. In Europe, it's further away. And the funny thing is after we did the Know a Little More, my very next approach was a CAT 3 into Paris. And so basically the weather was down low and we had to let the airplane land itself using all the equipment and it worked great and there's no issues. I expect that model is probably going to carry over to the United States because it's known to work very well. Do you have any advice for passengers that are worried about this affecting their travel plans? There's been a lot of headlines talking about canceled flights and all of this. What do you think? Well, right now, greater than 70% of the radar altimeters in service in the United States are certified with an AMOC, Ultram-Insa compliance, to be allowed to fly in our airspace down to their scheduled minimums. So while there might be some small disruptions here and there, this is going to work out pretty well. We're going to give a little bit and we're going to get to a place where both are going to work together well. Helicopters, of course, are a different issue. They're going to have problems in the future. But the good news is there's a new radar altimeter spec that is in the works, it's in the pipeline. And when that shows up and the equipment is installed, this will be totally eliminated as an issue. Yeah. And I imagine fewer people take helicopters as often as people take regular airlines. So maybe they'll have less of an effect. Think about the helicopter that you might have. If you have a care flight issue, you need to get to a helicopter and it's bad weather because that's the time when you really need to get to the hospital. Something to that effect, you have to have those services. Whereas if you miss your connection, you don't get to your next thing on time. But probably not that level of... No, it's a good reminder that helicopters aren't just for rich people. They're also for life-saving. They're there for a lot of reasons. Well, Brian, thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking the time to help us understand this and for now over time keeping us up to date on it. Absolutely. It's been a lot of fun staying in the books on this. I'm just humbled and glad to be able to help the community out a little bit. Likewise, man. I'm humbled that you're willing to help us out here. If people need to find anything out about you, is there a place to go or something you want to tell them about? Not me particularly. I'm just a line pilot doing my service. But I will throw one little plug for your folding at home. A good day to interact, folding at home team. Perfect. Yeah, get on the team, people. Think about what's going on right now. It's getting better. But now that COVID is hopefully winding down, folding at home can be used for all kinds of good stuff. Excellent. And you can find out more about that in our Discord. We've got a whole channel devoted to it there. Thanks again, Brian. Really appreciate it. Absolutely, sir. Glad to be there. Yeah, thank you, Brian. That's good stuff. It's not every day that someone's like, I'm a pilot. And let me tell you what's actually going on. You might be reading and ingesting a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. And yeah, that was awesome. All right, let's check out the mailbag. Let's do it. This one comes from Daniel. Daniel says, I enjoyed your discussion of the Samsung product line. Thank you, Daniel. And how the new products fill the gap that the note left. The S22 Ultra is certainly an impressive phone with tons of features. And I think the true replacement for the note, though, is the Fold 3. The note's target market was the power user featuring multitasking and the largest possible screen at the time. The Fold does both of those better than any other phone. And anecdotally, I've seen the power users I know that would have gotten the note in the past years get the Fold 3. In fact, Darren Kitchen, a big note fan, Darren Kitchen from Hack 5, switched to the Fold and loves it. So there you go, Daniel. You're in good company. Good stuff. Thanks, Daniel. If anybody has suggestions on what we could talk about in the future, has anecdotes like Daniel does on anything we've talked about in the past, please do send those emails our way, feedback at dailytechnewshow.com. We also would like to thank our brand new boss, and that brand new boss is Ted Lee. Ted just started backing us on Patreon. Thank you, Ted. Thank you, Ted. Man, when you become a new boss, especially if you're the only one that day, you get all the attention. Thank you, Ted.  Thank you, Ted. Also, thanks to Nate Langston for being with us today. Nate, let folks know where they can keep up with your work. Yeah, thanks for having me. Well, if anyone listening likes this voice, or they like this voice, my podcast text message uktechshow.com, we were talking about why Britain's going to put QR codes on all of its postage stamps right next to the Queen's face. We had a very interesting discussion about that, which I'd love people to check out at uktechshow.com. Excellent. Well, folks, we are live on this show Monday through Friday at 4.30 p.m. Eastern. That's 2130 UTC. You can find out more at dailytechnewshow.com. We'd love to have you join us live. If you can, we will be back Monday, so have a great weekend, everyone. Talk to you soon. This week's episodes of Daily Tech News Show were created by the following people, host producer and writer Tom Merritt, host producer and writer Sarah Lane, executive producer and booker Roger Chang, producer, writer and host Rich Stravolino, video producer and Twitch producer Joe Kuntz, associate producer Anthony Lemos, Spanish language host writer and producer Dan Campos, news host writer and producer Jen Cutter, science correspondent Dr. Nicky Ackermans, social media producer and moderator Zoe Detterding. Our mods! Beatmaster W. Scottis 1, bio-cow, Captain Kipper, Jack Shid, Steve Guadirama, Paul Rees, Matthew J. Stevens and J.D. Galloway, mod and video hosting by Dan Christensen, video feed by Sean Wei, music and art provided by Martin Bell, Dan Looters, Mustafa A., A-Cast and Len Peralta, live art performed by Len Peralta, A-Cast ad support from Trace Gaynor, Patreon support from Dylan Harari, contributors for this week's shows included Rob Dunwood, Scott Johnson and Justin Robert Young, and our guest this week was Nate Langson and Captain Brian Hoffman, thanks to all the patrons who make the show possible. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at frogpants.com. Bob hopes you have enjoyed this program.


So today I'll be talking on a topic of the day who requested. So I need to tell you that I'm currently an U.S. student interning at KIPAP. So before I jump to the main topic, I would like to give a short overview of the normal gift workflow. So what we normally do is we'll create a branch and after we add all the comments, then we'll submit a pull request. So we'll submit a pull request and somebody will review your code and they'll actually merge it and deploy it to life. So this is a typical workflow but under a specific scenario such as when we have no access to the server that you're currently working with or maybe your gift server is behind a firewall and without a VPN you couldn't access it. So we can do it with this special command and we can generate patches using this command called gift format patch. So as anybody use this command before, as I figured because this command is pretty... it don't need this under a normal scenario because it's actually a bad workflow if you think about it because what this command does is actually it will create a patch and you are supposed to email it to the person, the maintainer of the repo and he'll apply the patches on top of it. And this is under normal circumstances, it's actually not recommended but sometimes it may come handy if you know it. So now I'm going to give you a short demo on how to use this command. So in my demo folder, I actually have two repo. So I have two repo in my folder. So one is mine and the other one is John repo. So I'll start off in my repo. So as you can see I have a basic structure of a gift folder and I have two branches. One is a master, one is the new feature branch that I have extra comments on it. So let's go to this. So as you can see, my comments on this feature branch is actually much ahead of my master branch and now I'll show you how to create a patch on this. So the basic command is a gift format patch. So master is actually referring to the master branch so you'll compare the extra comments that you have on this branch against your master branch and by calling this sddout command you can actually redirect them to a new file that you want it to be. So I'll call it a newfeature.patch. Without the sddout and the redirection behind you actually generate numerous patches. So for example I have two comments ahead so I'll generate two files and to apply it is actually much more troublesome and to email it to. So by doing this you can combine you can squash two comments into one patch file. So as you can see, this is actually a new file called newfeature.patch. So if you take a closer look of the patch file it's actually just a gif that you normally see in your normal gif workflow for an entire gif. So it's actually just put into a text file. So what you can do with this this new patch file is you can just email it or copy it or use the git send email command which I will not cover in this thing. So what I'll do now is I'll just move it to our repo so you can see the patch file actually end up in this repo. So yeah. Then what you can do is before you apply the changes what you should normally do is you should create a new branch and do it like a normal workflow. You shouldn't apply these patches directly on your master branch. So what I'll do now is create a new branch called so what I'll do is I'll just apply it. So this git email will actually take in this newfeature.patch and apply it on top of my current common issue. So as you can see, now the two changes that I made change the color of haters and add new section haters and just apply it on top of it. Do note that by using this method the chart of the common issue is actually different from what you do on a normal workflow. So this chart is actually different from the chart of the original repo. So that's another reason why we have to we have to create another branch and merge it in so that there'll be a consistent seed so I think that's all from me. Any question? What do I have using like leaving patch and then putting everything? First, is that for that controller? Yeah, yeah. It just it just everyone has the same person in mind and I was about to ask Yeah, I'm just asking you. Is that that's it? That's all Yeah Any other questions? No, so this still means as in I mean this changes original repo and after I email so it's just it's essentially a github github actually reflects so you'll use the same order Yes It's just an accent as well No, as I said it's a github Yeah This is a bit of a second question But given this workflow what happens if there is a conflict when you apply the patch conflict On the other side as applied on the patch how do I tell the guy who sent me the pattern to do the conflict so when there's a conflict you actually something like something like rebase they'll ask you whether you want to continue or fix it or you want to abort so it's like similar control Any more questions? How is this different from if the guy just check out the branch from the original branch Sorry, what do you mean? So like as you know the other rappel they are the same they are from the same are they of the same? Okay, so before I make any changes both of the rappels are actually the same tracking the remote rappel so after I made some changes on my own rappel instead of submitting a pull request I'll send the patches file and I'll send this patches file to another collaborator and they'll use this command to apply as I see it's not a recommended way of doing it but under some circumstances you actually need it and yeah Just one question Sorry, what's your question? So at the end just a short question So at the end Yeah So on GitHub you actually show not sure if you see this committed by this person but it's authored by someone So you can see the same thing So So this workflow is more for when I don't have right access to the other rappel, right? Yeah, that's one of possible scenarios Yeah, but it's quite rare that this will be used I think it's still used by the Linux gun Okay Shouldn't you tell the guy send the patch that if he if he pushes those changes to the repo after he has access again that he's going to be expelled from the touch he has to do something about it, right? He cannot push it when you give it to the owner of the repo and he merges it in and he pushes it that would be a bad conflict for everyone, right? The moment that you pull Bang Yeah But there is it's essentially the same So to be John actually applies his patches on this branch you can submit a true request but this is useful when you work for a company like base data, for example when you have a firewall and you're on location and someone needs to pass on you so you just generate your commits and then format then send it to someone inside the company so you can submit a request on your own But do you keep it? No, you shouldn't So you should have RDSM Yeah One last question Just how they say for one branch we have 100 commits and then is there any way that we can after you punch in you find out that's not what you need or some errors then you undo that own batch So I think you have to do the revert like normal normal workflows revert the changes and you can't selectively apply unless you break it into smaller chunks as in what I said just now instead of you use an STD out you just use git patch command to master and without the parameters you just generate multiple patch files so you can patch whichever you want and you selectively patch it yeah so the thank you thank you


Do you long to feel a deeper connection with Jesus? Jesus is a symbol of eternal love and a guide to remember our perfect oneness with God. Open yourself to experience the timeless wisdom of the Gospels in a whole new light and feel a joy that goes beyond the laws of this world. It is an honor to invite you to our next Easter online retreat, Jesus A Gospel of Love, from March 29th to the 31st. This online retreat will be broadcasted live on Easter weekend from our center La Casa de Milagros. Immerse yourself in an incredible and transformative inner journey through sessions, Q&As, movies and music to inspire you to reflect deeply and to have an intimate encounter with God. We'll be happy to welcome you into a space of communion and love.