Good morning and welcome to this week's edition of Encompass Live. I am your host, Krista Burns, here at the Nebraska Library Commission. Encompass Live is the Library Commission's weekly online event. Yes, we are a webinar. You can call us that. We won't be too offended by it. I know some people have issues with that terminology. We got an overview. Yeah, we got an overview. We cover a variety of things of interest to librarians. The show is free and open to anyone to watch, as are our recordings of our shows as well. We do sessions for an hour live every Wednesday morning at 10 a.m. Central Time. But if you're unable to join us on Wednesdays, that's fine. You can go to our website and watch all of our recordings from previous shows. We have recordings up there if there are any presentations involved. Links to various sites that might be mentioned in your shows. All that information is available in the show notes afterwards. We do a mixture of things here, presentations, many training sessions, interviews. As I said, anything library-related, we are happy to have on the show. We have Nebraska Library Commission staff that do presentations. And we do have bringing guest speakers sometimes. And this morning, we have a combination of that, actually. Usually the last Wednesday of every month is our monthly tech talk with Michael Sowers, who's sitting next to me. Good morning, Krista. Good morning. Michael is the Technology Innovation Librarian here at the Nebraska Library Commission. And once a month, he comes to the show to share any tech news of the month. And, pretty much every time, almost, has a guest speaker on to talk about something they're involved with. Generally, oh, library-related, but a techy slant to it. So that's what we have this morning with us, Michael. And I'm just going to hand it over to you, Michael, to take it away and tell us if you've got on the show with us this morning. Good. Thank you, Krista. As she said, I'm Michael Sowers on the Technology Innovation Librarian here at the Nebraska Library Commission. And I always like it when I'm able to kind of start out the episodes that I do with a little bit of a story. So I'm going to do that just to tell everybody how this came about. I am a user or a wearer, depending on how you put it, of something called a Fitbit. It's a step-tracking tool, and it tracks how well I sleep and how many steps and things like that. And then it uploads all that data to a website, and I share that data publicly. And some people ask, why do you do that? And I'm like, you know, I just do it because it's kind of fun. And sometimes some things come out of it. And this is one of the things that have come out of it. Because one of the things Fitbit will do at the end of the year is give me kind of a report for the year. What was the day with the most number of steps? And what was my average number of steps and things like that? And I blogged that and tweeted that information out. And then that information was retweeted by an account. And about two weeks later I got an email. And I'll just read some of this email. And it says, hi, my name is Gary Wolff. I run a community of users and makers of self-tracking tools called the Quantified Self. I saw your Fitbit stats, which made it to the QS Twitter feed. And I thought I'd reach out because a friend of mine got me thinking a few years ago about the intersection of QS and libraries. Our mission is to help people get more personal meaning out of their personal data. And this involves regularly sharing knowledge and tools in a way that is analogous, excuse me, for my voice, to a literary campaign. So he said he'd been holding on to this idea of maybe partnering with libraries and starting to talk to libraries about how maybe libraries as custodians of public knowledge, I like how he said that, might be able to get in on this conversation.  And in fact, not only would I love to talk to you personally, we've got this show. And I thought, how convenient, this would be a great guest to not only talk to Gary and learn about the Quantified Self and what that is and what that means, what the possibilities are and maybe some of the problems with it, but also open that conversation to other librarians too who might be interested in this topic. So we have Gary on the line. Gary, can you say hello? Hi. I'm going to read his quick bio here before I hand it over to him because I got this email and he pointed me to some links and I'm like, Gary Wolf, that name sounds familiar to me. And as a longtime reader and subscriber to Wired Magazine, I quickly realized how I know his name. This is Gary Wolf as the co-founder of Quantified Self, excuse me, and a contributing editor to Wired Magazine. His New York Times Magazine cover about the Quantified Self remains the definitive description of the movement. He contributes to the emerging practice of self-tracking and has been covered in publications like Fantasy Fair, The Economist, The Financial Times, and many others. Gary's 2010-10 talk on the Quantified Self has been watched by more than 350,000 people and we'll have a link to that presentation in the show notes. He's also a founding executive editor of HotWired, Wired Digital, where he launched one of the first daily technology news titles, Wired News, which continues in publication today. So I've been reading a lot of what Gary's been doing for years with Amy, not even realizing it. And Gary, I am so happy to have you on the show today. Why don't you go ahead and tell us a little bit about what the Quantified Self is and how you're involved with that? Michael, thank you very much. And I really appreciate that nice introduction. And I think what I'll do is just give you a very short presentation about why I contacted Michael and some background on the Quantified Self. I've had to keep it to under 20 minutes. And then open it up and hopefully you can help me a little bit and I'm happy to help you if I can in exchange some knowledge. So Michael, if it's okay, you just say yes and I'll go ahead. Go right ahead. Okay, great. So in 2007, my friend and colleague from Wired Magazine and I, Kevin Kelly, got together and did something that we've done many times over the past years. We had a two-person editorial meeting. And Kevin and I had been part of Wired Magazine when it launched and HotWired and Wired Digital, which was one of the first commercial web publications in the early 90s. Kevin's history of working at the intersection of technology and culture was back much further than that. He was the editor of the Holder's Review and he worked with Stuart Grant on the Holder of Patalog and he was one of the founders of The Well, which is one of the early online bulletin board systems where I was a member and got to know him there. So this is really a multi-decade, even multi-generational research project that we've been involved with trying to understand what are we doing to ourselves and for ourselves with technology. And in 2007, we got together and we're thinking about what should we work on next. Neither of us were particularly interested in the social media trends that were going on at that time. And we thought there may be something important and interesting happening in the world of technology and culture that we could describe and beyond kind of friending everybody and expanding your blast radius of weak personal influence through posting on social media. And we put some things up on a whiteboard that I think anybody would recognize at that time as being interesting technologically, small computing, mobile computing, computing in phones, sensors on the body, storage of data in the cloud, and ability to do some more complex analytics that you had access to then remotely. And we put a circle around it and we said, what is this called? Editors and writers like to put titles on things. It's a way to sort of focus the story. And I proposed the name Quantified Self because it was the story of computing. Quantified is sort of a synonym for computing, coming all the way in very, very close to ourselves. Now, one of the ways I like to explain it is I like to ask, what would you have thought 40 years ago if someone asked you what is computing for? I think you would have had an easy answer, say in 1960, you would have said computing is so that scientists and managers and administrators can do calculations so they can better understand and make decisions about the world. But now we think about, and that's kind of the end of that era of computing in what was then a mini-computer. Now we think of computing differently. We think of it as being for communication, for education, for self-advancement, self-expression. We think of computing as being for many, many personal reasons. You could call it personal computing. And personal computing isn't the whole story of computing. Computing is still very important for scientific and managerial and administrative purposes. But the personal side of computing is not really a sideshow. And it's a very important part of the story of what we do with ourselves with technology. In fact, you might say, I would say it's sort of the main story. We started blogging and writing about this phenomenon of computing coming all the way in. And in 2008, we decided to have a meeting. We used Meetup and just gathered some people who were also interested in it. We were inspired by what we had seen in the technology world in the form of users groups. Both of us had been at the Berkeley Macintosh users group meetings in the 80s, which helped introduce computing, personal computing. And Kevin was involved with the Hackers Conference, which had many of the people who were involved in the Homebrew Computer Club, out of which personal computing emerged in Silicon Valley. So we started pulling people together, sort of users. And that spread. And by 2009, we had a Wikipedia entry, which was not our... We did not write, so it's always interesting for me to watch and see what Wikipedia has to say about us that described quantified self as a users group. What was around then? Well, Fitbit had already come out by 2009. There was Nike Plus. At that time, it was a foot pad and a running shoe. People were starting to work with galvanic skin response, which is a measure of arousal and stress. There were many, many kind of running watches, which were a core technology for introducing self-tracking onto the body. There was some avant-garde stuff. This is a body bug from Body Media, which had a bunch of sensors, multi-sensor inputs in it. There was even a wrist-based sleep tracker. There was a headband sleep tracker. And this was very interesting for us. We were thinking, okay, here's the old version of tracking your sleep. And here's the new version. Well, that's very different, and that's probably going to have some interesting effects.  And then there was lots and lots of hype beginning with stories in the tech press about smart underwear that would have circuits sewn into it, printed on it. Now let me just jump very quickly to today. Our Wikipedia entry now describes this as a movement. I think that's very interesting. I'm not sure exactly what kind of movement we are. We're certainly not a political movement, and that's something maybe I'll just open up for discussion with you later when I say something about why I'm so interested in libraries. The use of the tools has spread extremely widely. Just one category, a very big category in the space running apps on mobile phones, has more than 50 million downloads just with the top three applications. So you do have to discount that number, of course, because many things are downloaded and not used. But there are at least tens of millions of people engaged in what I would call quantified self-practices. Our users group has grown quite a bit, although we don't really call it a users group anymore, and I'll explain that in a minute. There are 117 groups with more than 22,000 members all over the world. And we even have smart underwear, although really it's in the form of a smart feature. But this is a shirt from Home Signal, and they take sensors in fabric, and you can wear them out in the world or at the gym. I'm going to try that again. So what does this all mean? I'm going to show you a little video from Nike, which is trying to explain to the world what it means to get numbers about yourself. That looks pretty good, right?  But I want to give you another version that I also notice is present in our culture around the topic of keeping track of yourself with numbers that is referenced almost in passing or in a kind of anxious way, but I think is also very relevant. That's a passage from a book that you might recognize. I'll just read it to you. Smith, 6079 Smith, WSU. Ben, lower please. You can do better than that. You're not trying. And maybe I'll leave the attribution of this quote as homework for our discussion, but I think many of you will recognize it. And one of the things that I think is interesting about that quote is that it's very close to the Nike vision of what the quantified self means. It's just the negative version in the Nike vision that you're being observed as you perform fitness and athletic activities in order to inspire you and reach your goals. And in this quote, which is about being watched and being told to do better, you're being counted and observed by a malevolent force that has you pinned in a sort of terrifying way on your own numbers. So in that time that the quantified self has grown, there's been a lot of discussion about big data and what we can do with data that will change our world. When I hear the talk about big data, I hear the managerial and administrative voice, whereas the quantified self is really about the personal voice. It's not about big data or small data, but about our data. It's about the nearness of the data to us. So I said I was going to explain why we don't really call ourselves a users group anymore. The reason is that users imply sort of consumers. It implies a state of passivity. And in our program work now, we try to just really talk about us. We speak in the first person about we, about I, about me. We share information about what we're doing with these technologies and try to advance our technique so that other people can help us and we can help them. We do it using a very simple protocol at all the meetings. We have people get up and say, what did you do? How did you do it? And what did you learn? We notice that there is a huge range of technique in the community from very advanced technique, people who can do sophisticated statistical analysis on their data and then cover subtle changes that would otherwise be invisible if they weren't doing, they weren't transforming the data and plotting the data and really carefully working it to people who are simply glancing back at the data and getting a general impression of what it means to them, which is also useful. But by putting everybody at whatever level of technique they have in the same conversation, we hope to evolve new techniques and to support the work that people are doing with their own data. That's a type of learning. You might call it a type of literacy. Now, I'm inspired by a quote from Richard Feynman. Some of you may recognize this quote. There's plenty of room at the bottom. It's the title of a paper that he wrote in 1959 describing the future world of nanotechnology. It's a very interesting paper because what he points out there is not just that there's room at the bottom, that there's a world of things that are smaller and they take up less space. Well, that's obvious. But there's plenty of room at the bottom. And what he meant by that is the forces that operate at the micro scale are different forces than forces that operate at the macro scale. You need a different frame of mind, a different frame of reference to understand the world at the bottom. Now, he was talking about engineering. He was talking about how at the macro scale, you care a lot about gravity, for instance. But at the micro scale, you might care a lot about surface tension. But I think there's an analogous kind of plenty of room at the bottom in the world of the quantified self. In the macro world of big data, administrative and scientific data, you care a lot about sampling. And controls and validity in the sense of making prescriptions and descriptions that apply across a large population. At the bottom, i.e. at the very close level where the data comes into our lives, you care a lot about relevance, about personal context. And you're looking to see what you can do just for yourself with that data. When you take your own conclusions about your own data and bring them into a context where you share them with other people, where you question data with other people, you question how you can get it, how you can access it, how you can analyze it, and how you can learn from it, you're creating a new kind of public knowledge. This is different than the kind of public knowledge that you might get from, say, the CDC, the Center for Disease Control, where they publish a report and you ask yourself, hey, what is the effect of toxic contamination in my community or something like this? The public knowledge that you get from sharing what you're doing with your own data is analogous to the kind of knowledge that was created 500 years ago when people began to read together and reading was a public activity. People learn to read from other people reading. In fact, there are compelling accounts from the dawn of public conversation about books and the dawn of literacy of people sitting in workshops, for instance, and having one person assigned as the reader in a context where some people knew how to read more literate and other people weren't. Now, I think you may understand why I contacted Michael because today, this slide just says, today, our meetings occur mainly in the tech community. So startups and companies who have an interest in sensors and in apps will host a quantified self-meeting and people will come together and use their office. But this holds us very close to kind of today's tech culture. It's a geek culture that I'm part of and I appreciate and I value, but I also understand that it's not everything. It's not even most things. And there is creativity and knowledge, even genius, available to us outside that culture. And so I've been asking this question, where does public knowledge live? What are the appropriate institutions to gather people together to share technique and explore a new kind of literacy? Before I just open it up, because I think that's a nice pregnant question to talk with you about, I want to thank somebody, Joshua Kaufman, and there's his Twitter ID. He wrote a paper, actually, it was his master's thesis at the Harvard Design School called Adapting to Abundance the Public Library as an Infrastructure for Knowledge as a Dynamic Process. And Joshua turned me on to this idea that if I see the quantified self as a new form of public knowledge making, I ought to get it out of the tech company context as a physical place for the meetings. And I ought to look to the guardians of today's public knowledge to give it a new cast, a new character that's more popular and more public. So thank you, and let's talk about that if you can help me. Joshua Kaufman, right? Yeah, we're finding a link or a citation to that paper as we speak here. Thanks, Gary. That's kind of a great overview and gives us an idea of where you're coming from. And I have some questions, and some questions came into my mind as you were talking, but I'll remind the audience that we will happily take any questions from you that you have about quantified self, how this may affect libraries or how libraries can get involved or how you can get involved in it, either through the questions area in the GoToWebinar interface or if you have a microphone, just say, you know, I have a mic, unmute me and Krista will unmute you and we'll happily take your question via audio. So, Gary, let me just start here. What do you do for QS? I mentioned I wear a Fitbit. What technology and or quantifying of yourself do you do? Well, I actually use a very simple tool for collecting data about my call. I just use a spreadsheet, and I actually set the spreadsheet up using Google Docs so that you can make a web form, and then you can put a link to that web form on your phone. So that allows you to make sort of a self-created app. It's very simple, but it's just, you know, a little tracker. And I keep track on my phone and I'll open it up right now and just say, okay, what's on here right now, because it allows me to change what I'm tracking and sort of keep track of whatever is relevant to me at a particular moment. Right now the fields on my tracker are, well, I kind of have some hypertension, so I keep track of my systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, I keep track of what monitor I use because you want to have a sense of whether your monitor, heart rate, I mean, your blood pressure monitor is drifting. I keep track of my exercise, my sleep, my weight, some supplements that I take, fish oil and flaxseed oil. I keep track of how rested I am at wake-up. And I also, after a long time trying to figure out what's a good way to track mood and emotion, I have my own method of doing that because it's very hard. I digress for a second. It's sort of a topic that comes up a lot in quantified self. How do you track subjective factors in your life if you're interested in that? I find tracking mood in a way that the most obvious way is just to give yourself a score for your mood. I find that sort of frustrating because I wonder if the score is the three I might give myself today, the same three as I might give myself yesterday. You don't really know if the scale is right. Of course, you then track your mood when you're in the mood to track your mood. So you have a question that is hard to figure out about that. So some years ago, I began tracking episodes of anger or irritation. I think we've all had those where you're maybe in the car, you're on the phone, and you get disconnected after waiting for 20 minutes.  That doesn't happen to me too often. And when it does, it's a very good sign that my overall mental emotional state is sort of weak. And it's also very easy to notice. So I keep track of episodes of anger and irritation on a 24-hour basis. If I have one, I just go in and press the button. I'm like, oh, I had one of those yesterday. That's interesting. I keep track of my meditation time because I'm a meditator and I've done some talks about that in our local QS Meetup. And I keep track of my concentration. OK. So I'm going to ask you one of those. It's a generally difficult question to answer because it gets personal very quickly. But I get this question when people see that I post my steps on Twitter and that. And in your case, tracking your blood pressure, you can kind of easily answer the question, why do you do that? I mean, it's a health thing. But you track lots of other things that don't necessarily have a direct immediate benefit to say, hey, my blood pressure is really high today. I need to do something or a diabetic tracking their blood sugar. So my larger question is, why? Why are you tracking this stuff? Why would anybody want to track this stuff? What are you going to do with it? Tracking is really just a subset of observing. And observing yourself is a tool of self-reflection. And I think that while there's a lot of emphasis in the commercial quantified self-space on self-optimization, you saw it in that Nike advertisement. Like if you keep track of yourself, you're going to have a better chance of becoming a superhero. I think for most of us, just having a sense of ourselves and how we're doing it in a sense who we are is really useful. Now, for many years, I've kept a journal. So some people are like that. They like to reflect. And so I'm a journal keeper. And I think there are many people who use a discursive form of self-reflection, as I do. But keeping track of yourself with some numbers is very different and offers some different vantage points and different perspectives on yourself. For instance, it's much easier to quickly look back in time and notice periods where you're doing better or you're doing worse and think about what happens during those periods. So I don't see the purpose of doing the self-tracking as being tied to some specific benefit of... I mean, it can be like if you want to manage your hypertension, which I do, but it can also be tied to just a general practice of self-reflection, which I think is very useful. Yeah, I think that's... I'll admit with my step tracking, it's health insurance. I get a discount by tracking my steps and hitting a minimum. But tracking my sleep, it is interesting just sometimes to kind of go back and look and be aware of what was going on and how well I was sleeping or not. I had another question there, and I just lost my track of time. Well, maybe Michael, I'll say something else if you want to collect your question, which is I also think that there is inherent interest in learning this new language of numerical or quantitative or analytical self-reflection and that we are building a new aspect to our culture so that as I become more confident looking at numbers about myself, I also become more confident in talking to other people about their numbers, and together, our skill, our technique that we build in using our data for purposes that satisfy our own goals gives us a handle even on our communities. So rather than data being gathered from the top down and being used as a kind of club to say, oh, you know, you don't have a right to speak at this public meeting because you don't really understand the data, which is something that happens every day in this country, we will have culture that is more confident and composed and ready to have conversations based on the data that is being generated in our daily lives and in our communities. And I think that's also a great benefit and also just very interesting to people. Okay, so yeah, great. I remembered kind of my next question slash story which leads into a question we just got from the audience so I'll kind of give my part and then I'll have Chris to read the audience's question. And that's kind of the once you have that data and in combination with making that data public, if at all, you kind of mentioned early on in your presentation that the social media aspect end of this. A lot of the times when I get the question of why do you do this, because of the fact that I share some of this data that I have out there. And in fact, the quick story with that was, I've been sick or was very sick last week and somebody who I'm friends with, both on Fitbit and outside of that, noticed that suddenly my step count like took a nosedive. And so I got this message saying, hey, are you feeling okay?  So I kind of got a little personal connection out of that. But the side note in the possibility of making data you're quantifying about yourself public, we have a question from the audience there that Chris is going to bring up. Okay, yeah. Brian, where's Brian at? I can't remember where Brian is. Brian is on the line with this. He's been on the show before. Hi, Brian. He wants to know how you can see this with how healthcare is turning. Specifically, let's say you aren't as active as you claim to be, could healthcare companies or insurance companies mind that data to decide on premiums? Like what just happened to you? Someone saw that yours changed, would healthcare or insurance companies do the same thing? I think that that's already going on and I think that it's frightening. The data that's being generated in our normal course of life is voluminous and we often, as individuals or family, in our families, don't even know what data is being collected about us. Never mind having the technique or the access to the data or the technique to really think about it. I think that that's already happening and I think this is, in a way, a frightening development because it gets to our agency, it gets to where the locus of control is in our own lives. More and more that control is shifted towards the institutions, administrators and technocrats that have access to our personal data and I think we would be well served to think about what data we have about ourselves and what it means to ourselves so that we can participate in making that future. Yeah, I kind of follow up on that. I do share a lot of just what I do, where I am, things like that and the people who sometimes question me on that sometimes don't realize the amount of data I don't necessarily share and so I'm pretty cognizant of what data I'm putting out there but then you just look at smart phones today and they're pretty much tracking your every move and somebody has access to that data at a minimum of your carrier if nothing else. So I think a lot of this comes down to an awareness of the issues allowing you to have what control you can have over it as opposed to just kind of blindly going in and letting this data be collected without your knowledge. I'm rambling here just a little bit. No, but I agree with that. I noticed that in the world of the quantified self kind of community there's much more awareness of the risks and also the means of control and limit that exist in the world of personal data than there is outside it. So there's a cultural lag and I think that lag is being exploited and will be exploited. Just as Facebook originally existed in a world where there were sort of no antibodies to Facebook and people found themselves with hundreds or in some cases thousands of friends that weren't really their friends and suffered all kinds of negative consequences from that time lag. I think people are starting to understand Facebook better so there are some cultural antibodies that are forming and the faster the better. So are there any... Let's swing back towards the technology for just a minute. Are there any devices, sensors coming out that you know of that either or both you're really excited about or kind of maybe back towards the smart underwear which I'm not sure we want to go there kind of creep you out. Well, maybe I'll just answer that by saying... Hang on one second. The world of sensors is pretty stunning. The progress that's being made and the sort of new avant-garde sensors that we see in our quantified self-meetings and conferences. For instance, there's a lot of focus now on blood work on being able to sense what's in your blood using very, very small samples. So just a pinprick size samples and getting really kind of molecular level detail on for instance hormones. And when you think about that you could see that our sense of ourselves as being composed of biochemical processes in part is going to change a lot. Cholesterol, cortisol, testosterone, estrogen. These are all things that we do get tested sometimes but it's more maybe once a year whereas we could end up with minute by minute data on these blood metrics. Yeah, I think I saw a headline just earlier this morning that somebody has come up with a... Being able to run 30 different tests on a single drop of blood or something like this for identifying some of the things you were talking about. Oh yeah, the woman scientist who figured out how to do it. Yes. I couldn't last few days as well. I hadn't had a chance to read the articles yet but I did see that headline come across this morning. Pretty amazing. And then another one just at our recent conference we had a woman, Erica Porzani. She is testing breath and air so they use a micro sensor. You can do things, for instance, wear it around your neck or put it on your bicycle and get a sense of the air quality block by block which I think will change our picture of our communities a lot and you can use the sensor in a breath sensor so that you can get metabolism from the oxygen and carbon dioxide ratio in your breath. That's also pretty interesting. We just got another comment from Brian. If you had heard of... and it's something in the back of my mind is poking me on this one of a pill that you can kind of swallow and it will detect things as it's going through. There's a company called Proteus and one of the engineers at Proteus has been an all-time participant and quantified self and she did a fantastic quantified self-talk if you guys want to look it up. Her name is... well, I should get the exact spelling but if you give me a second I will but she... give me a second and I'll find it for you. Doherty, D-O-U-G-H-E-R-T-Y Nancy's talk, Nancy Doherty Nancy's talk was about using tic-tacs as placebos and the way she tracked when she was taking the placebos which were associated with certain conditions was she put her Proteus chip on top of them and the Proteus chip is very tiny so you can swallow it and it doesn't contain a battery or power source it uses a chemical process to send an electrical signal to a patch on your skin and it's pretty science fiction like and it's a great talk so just if you look at Nancy Doherty and quantified self you'll see it. I think Krista has found that and we'll definitely put it into the show notes. One of the thoughts that's kind of come across my thought process here is it sounds like a lot of this is just kind of an evolution of the ability I guess when you said things we used to get tested maybe once a year and we'd have to go to a medical office to do we now have possibly the devices processors getting faster and smaller it's not necessarily these tests are new it's just something that we can now personally do instead of somebody doing it for us. Wait say that again Michael. The ability to do some of these things that we're doing for ourselves now are not necessarily new from the perspective of you were mentioning maybe we would go to a doctor's office to get a cholesterol test but now that the technology has just gotten to a point of smaller cheaper faster that we can do it for ourselves by ourselves on a more regular basis. Yes I think that that's true but also these are technologies that are being used across a whole range of industries and you know kind of imagined futures I might say so you do have people who have for instance public health responsibilities or marketing interests looking at new technologies like let's say I can really figure out if somebody's hungry or not that's a perfect time to show them an ad or put a picture of McDonald's french fries in front of them because they're not going to be able to forget that for days it's just so vivid and delicious looking and if we're trying to drive people to eat more french fries then we're going to have a big advantage if we can understand more from people's personal data about when they're feeling very hungry or when they're feeling stressed or you know alone which is also a good time to kind of get people going on junk food. Meanwhile you may have a goal for yourself which is to eat less junk food and you may be asking well I now live in a world of where my personal data is accessible to all kinds of parties out there who may have goals for me but do they meet my own goals and how can I use these tools to help me understand how I can do what I want to do so I think yes there is a way in which the tools are coming closer to us but there also is a way in which these are new tools that are being used across a big range of interests and so there is also a benefit in bringing them closer to us. Sure yeah I didn't mean to imply that they were all coming for you know just down and closer to us and closer to us is a great way to put it but maybe a certain proportion of them and yeah there's always going to be kind of the new technologies and new ways of looking at things. So we got another audience question? Yeah we have a question related to what you guys have been talking about and also consider it related to our show last week. Jesse Murray who is from our Omaha Public Library here in Nebraska wants to know what kind of data can Google Glass provide to quantify this self? Our show last week was about Google Glass the demonstration of it. Not a lot of things I remember seeing it could gather but there are questions that were asked about if it could help for people with seeing visual issues, reading and helping with that but that would be more of a... Yes I mean I think the answer is yes and I think one way to think about that that's useful is just look at Google Glass as being a scaffolding like a little frame, a little wire frame which in fact it basically is on which you can hang any sensors that is interesting and so for instance Google Glass has a camera and there are also other people who have very small cameras that you can wear and we've seen some great talks in our QS conferences from people who have taken photos from a wearable camera that they've had for years and taken photos for instance every minute and have done some really neat sort of computer science on that image collection asking you know how many of them are interpretable by the human eye how many of them are interpretable but only by a machine how many of them are indoors, how many are outdoors et cetera, et cetera, et cetera so the Google Glass is one of the things that is just a little scaffolding but a camera but also there's a microphone and microphones tell you a lot about what's going on in the world any sensor that is available to us and that is small enough can go on Google Glass or any other part of your body so that's I think the direction that that whole world of quote-unquote wearables is going you know Krista and Michael since we only have 10 minutes if I could ask you all something very straightforward which is as people who are interested in libraries and some of you are librarians and have responsibility for public programs in libraries do you think that our mission at QS which is to share knowledge and give people access to technique kind of numeracy in a way has enough is close enough to the mission of your libraries that we could do something together not I'm not trying to do a practical like let's do something on next Wednesday but just conceptually could you imagine quantified self-users groups in libraries or as part of a library mission to see data in some way as parallel to words yeah and thank you for bringing that up because it's exactly where I was going to go next was to bring this back to libraries ever since you contacted me I've kind of had that question in the back of my mind and I do want to open this up definitely to anybody in the audience who has opinions because this is just my opinion off the top of my head and I mean the simple answer being at a minimum yes if nothing else because libraries in general have always been kind of a fourth place meeting space and for anybody and everybody in any sort of topic and then more specifically to QS kind of being a helping people to learn about how to use and interpret and process data whether that be from books or from databases or from data that you've gathered for yourself so I think there is kind of an inherent underlying connection between what you guys are doing and what libraries do in general another way that's this kind of come to me is a lot of libraries and getting back to our Google Glass presentation last week with Hastings Public Library the library has a pair of glass and it's not that the library is trying to figure out what the library can do with glass but it's to act as a platform so other people so the public can come into the library and learn about Google Glass and because not everybody especially with that particular example not everybody's got $1,500 even if they get on the invite list so I mean I would love to see QS meetups in libraries for nothing else then we're a great space to host those sorts of things excuse me and I think you're early mentioned that a lot of the folks that seem to be attending your meetings are very tech oriented and tech focused and so I don't know what sort of institutions or places you're using to host those meetings but if it's at kind of a maker space you're going to get a certain type of person to show up if it's at a tech company you're going to get a certain type of person to show up whereas hosting in a library kind of just implies that anybody and everybody who could possibly be interested is invited and welcome exactly so say you know one of the things people are using QS tools in their family context for is caregiving and it's really nice when you have caregiving responsibilities to have a sense that you are in touch with the physical and emotional state of the person you're caregiving for even if there are a lot of other responsibilities you have so you can't necessarily be with them all the time and that's such an interesting area of exploration and I've had this idea that you know if I were to do something to try to help caregivers understand what's available to them from the soft tracking tools it would be great to do it at a library instead of for instance a tech design company because you're just going to have a different feeling about an event like that it is more accessible the library is in a sense a public place in the way that a tech company even if they open their doors for a couple of hours it's not a public place and that's what I would love to try that if there is somebody out there in your community who wants to try some QS events in the library maybe connect with some of the tool makers get some tools on their shelves if they want some tools connect with the local stats or computer science or data visualization community to provide some help with technique I'm you know I've been really eager to help yeah is there a where would somebody go to find out where meetups are already being held so if you go to our website you'll see a list of all the meetups and one of the great things that right on the front page one of the great things about meetup is that it's really easy to know what's going on so you can just look down that list or you can search on meetup itself but it's best to do it from the website probably because we track we vet those a little bit more and you can see if there's a local meetup I believe there are some in your area but I should I should have checked but I didn't check before this and that also be the place to go to if you wanted to create a meetup there isn't already one like in Lincoln go there connect with you guys at Quantified Self Website and then organize and coordinate one yes exactly exactly and we are super happy to help there's all kinds of stuff we can do to help I'm just going to change my my thing and just look and see if I see a Quantified Self meetup near you here oh try try Omaha or broaden out to like a hundred miles because Omaha is just a little further than 50 miles from us a little bigger I think meetups not giving me the right info though actually because sometimes it doesn't really like let's just look here see if we have I guess what one of the other things I was thinking of that libraries thinking we all there is one in Lincoln the Quantified Self sometimes search is not good but there we go so just they had six meetups wow so there's only seven of them it always starts small it always starts small exactly I'm definitely going to check this out what one of the other kind of ways a library could potentially get involved and now I'm really thinking big and I'm really thinking you know you're going to need some definite like coders or whatever involved is maybe starting to collect data from the local population and make it presentable back kind of in a larger aggregated format and I keep going back to steps because that's just the simplest thing I keep track of but you know collecting everybody's who's doing step counting in town and then analyzing that data and presenting it back or presenting the raw data and kind of the library being the hub of the information and the collector of the information and the provider of the information in a larger aggregate sense I love that and I think that we should do it we're trying to organize right now a quantified self festival for the Bay Area where we get all of our kind of network involved in proposing self tracking projects that we do collectively and then we share what we learn and I think that our key role is helping people build a context where they can ask their own questions of the data so my sense of what would make it a really quantified self event is not where somebody you know in the mayor's office or whatever just said let's all answer this question but instead there was an actual process by which we in our communities whether it be you know in a seventh grade science class or whether it be in a patient group at a hospital or whether it be in a fitness club where we said let's what's our question that we have that we can ask as part of this you know period of time or project and I I think libraries would be a tremendously great place to experiment with that idea of can we ask our own questions individually and in communities about our own data I think with the right libraries involved and the right leaders in a library system it's very fundable there are institutions national and even international as well as probably local that would say yeah you know this is something that's going to take some coders it's going to take some staffing some organizers but it has a real public purpose there's real public interest in it and we will fund it and what we're really missing is we're missing the leadership in the library community and that's in a sense gives me back to the beginning which is why I contacted you in the first place I thought to myself here is a librarian who tracks and you know whenever your community is ready or wants to try something we're ready to help because I doing quantified self organizing in the context of libraries makes it something different and really important really public in a way that doing quantified self organizing in the context of the tech industry keeps it almost you know in a more commercial space and I'm very interested in that yeah well like I said you got me thinking when you approached me and I really appreciate that I love it when somebody just it's also dangerous when somebody just plants an idea in the back of my brain that just has to stew for a while and I'm glad we could use we have this platform to kind of get this conversation started with a larger audience and not just a couple of us through some email and I've definitely subscribed to the QS feed and we'll be paying attention to that I think we had one other comment coming from the audience yeah we're just talking in general about all this sharing of the personal data one of our mission staff people listening in another room but they said for perspective on how our society might evolve in the area of sharing personal data you should could read the circle by Dave Eggers yes yes that's a very frightening account it's on my radio yes I heard a lot about it yeah and before we wrap up I had one other question for you and I'm going to maybe put you on the spot here just a little bit we have a an online learning program that we do here called Nebraskalers 2.0 and we have them learn a new thing each month usually some online tool or service we also pick a book each month that we try to get people to read and they get continuing education credit for it you know on the QS website you do or someone post on a regular basis say what we are reading if I was to ask you to name kind of a book that if somebody was interested in QS would be a good place to get them started is that something you name off the top of your head or would you need to get back to me on that? I think I have to get back to you I mean a book is a hard one because a book I mean are you guys reading like big substantive academic books or are you reading not usually two to three hundred pages long tail data points new book is going to come up soon I mean not too too heavy but enough to get started so let me think about that then I will get back to you I should have emailed you that one in advance that's a good one but I have to think about it okay all right fair enough so we are pretty much at our hour Chris has been busy tapping away getting URLs and everything that we'll get into our show notes I think I've caught everything we've been talking about and Michael I have just one more thing I want to say which is that everybody who's been listening I really invite you if you're interested in the intersection of libraries and public knowledge and quantified self to be in touch either with Michael or with me or both I hope that this goes somewhere I'm not impatient if it takes a year if it takes two years or more that's you know okay but I just want to make it clear that I think that the library is so important for for building a culture of of kind of individual and community efficacy in relation to our personal data and I'm ready to help as soon as we find the right allies in the library community and if somebody wanted to get a hold of you what would be the best way to do that Gary at quantifiedself.com alright well Gary I really appreciate this this was wonderful it kind of filled in some of the gaps that I had in my knowledge and yep and so thanks once again and we've been recording this so we'll get that out we'll share the links back with you once that's all processed and we'll get that out as we do every week so we're gonna switch back here real quick whoop go sec here okay and so I don't have any particular extra news this month sometimes I have some things I want to share oh I will share one thing excuse me those of you running office 2013 service pack one for that came out yesterday should start showing up automatically in your updates or if you're impatient you can go download that directly for you but that's about the only real news item of the last week or so that I wanted to share so I'm gonna thank Gary once again for participating and I hand it back to Krista okay great thank you thank you very much Gary and Michael that will wrap it up for this morning as Michael said we've been recording so we all set with recording and all the links that I grabbed throughout the show and I hope to join us next week when our topic is migrating to new ILS Andrew Sherman shirm to us here in Nebraska from some more alive rip and Pavilion will be joining us to tell us how they went through migrating their whole system to a new sounds like oodles of fun it's a thing lots of libraries are going through oh yeah so he's gonna be on the line with us to share how they did it so hopefully you'll join us for that and any of our future shows that you can see the topics here also if you are a Facebook user and Compass Live is on Facebook please do like us there you'll see notifications of when new things are coming up when recordings are available always the reminder each week doing it with the current topic is fun and join us on the fly so if you are on Facebook and use it like us there that will wrap it up for us this morning thank you very much and we'll see you next week bye bye


In this video, I want to talk about the ideal gas law and how we can use this law in specific calculations that deal with gases. First of all, let's talk about the definition of the ideal gas law. And basically the ideal gas law simply relates the four variables that we use to describe a gas. Those four variables being pressure, volume, temperature, and the amount of gas. And it relates these variables in a closed system. So the ideal gas law works a little bit differently than the combined gas law, Boyle's law, Charles law, and Galusex law. All of those laws deal with an open system where a variable changes or you have multiple conditions that these gases are under. The difference with the ideal gas law is it's a closed system. So the ideal gas law is useful when you're given three of the four variables and you're just asked to solve for that fourth and last variable. So the ideal gas law formula is pv is equal to nrt. So the p is the pressure of the gas, v is equal to the volume, n, or the lowercase n, refers to the amount of gas present, r is a constant value. This is known as our ideal gas constant. The r value can have two different numbers. Alright, let's look at these numbers. First of all, we've got 0.0821 liters times atmospheres over moles per Kelvin. Or we have 62.4 liters times millimeters of mercury over moles per Kelvin. We have to choose the correct ideal gas constant depending on the pressure value that we're given in the problem. We'll go over that a little bit in just a second. The fourth variable is T which stands for temperature. Now let's look at an example of how we're going to use the ideal gas law in order to solve a problem. So here we have 0.250 moles of a gas. We place this gas into a container and it's at room temperature, or 25 degrees Celsius. This gas inside of this container exerts a pressure of 726 millimeters of mercury. What we want to know is how big the container is or the volume of the container that this gas is residing in. We can solve this problem using the ideal gas law. Look at the variables that are given to us in the problem. First of all, it tells us the amount of gas present. So N is equal to 0.250 moles. Then it tells us that we put this gas in a container at 25 degrees Celsius. So that's the second variable that we're given is temperature. However, the temperature is measured in Celsius. And we should know that anytime we're using any type of gas law to solve an equation, our temperature value must be converted to Kelvin first. So in order to convert Celsius value to Kelvin, we simply add 273. So that makes our temperature 298 Kelvin. The problem tells us that the pressure of this container is 726 millimeters of mercury. And it wants us to solve for volume. So here we've got four variables. Well, we're given three of the four and asked to solve for volume. Now we come to the R value. Which R value do we pick to solve this problem? We've got two R constant values. How do we pick the correct one? In this problem, our pressure is measured in millimeters of mercury. So therefore we're going to choose the R value that includes that unit in its unit. This R value uses atmospheres as its measure of pressure. Where the 62.4 liters per or multiplied by millimeters of mercury is the R value that we want to use because it contains the correct unit. Now that we have four of the five variables in the ideal gas law, we can solve for that last variable. So let's input the variables into the formula. Pressure times volume is equal to amount times our R value multiplied by our temperature. We said our temperature was 25. We converted that to Kelvin to give us 298 Kelvin. So we've inputted all of our variables. We want to solve for volume. In order to solve for volume, we've got to get all of the variables on the same side of the equal sign as the variable that we want to solve for, in this case volume, over to the other side. So we need to get this 726 millimeters of mercury over to the right side of the equation. In order to do that, we are going to multiply by the inverse. Here 726 is in the numerator. It's on top. So the inverse is putting 726 millimeters of mercury on the bottom. What we do to one side, we have to do the other side. On the left side of the equation, our 726 will cancel out. So now we know that volume is equal to 0.250 multiplied by 62.4 multiplied by 298. Then we're going to divide that by 726. When we solve for volume, we find that it is equal to 6.40 liters. Whenever we put this gas into a container and it exerts its pressure of 726 millimeters of mercury, it's at room temperature or 25 degrees Celsius and it contains 0.250 moles of gas. The volume of that container that that gas is in must be 6.40 liters.


Okay, I've been talking about creating launchers on Linux desktops that launch web applications or websites as if they're native applications. And although I haven't used Windows regularly since 2006, I do try to keep up on Windows things. And the only really Windows machines I have access to are at work, which are running Windows 7, which are way out of date. And yes, our IT department should all be fired for allowing these machines to be continued to be used like that. But I'm going to show you a quick way to create a icon on your desktop that will launch a website as if it was a native application, looking like a native application with the proper border and toolbar. And yeah, so this will work on Windows 7, probably I think Vista through 7. I don't know about newer versions, because I think the way it's going to end up be used is with Internet Explorer. And I don't think newer versions of Windows have Internet Explorer. I don't even know. So let's go ahead and just have a look at this. I've recorded this and I'm just going to do a voiceover now on what I previously recorded. So yeah, so you can right click on the desktop. You can say new and you can create a shortcut. And in that you can just type in the URL for a website or a web application Httpsfilmsrightchrist.com, give it a name, click finish, and it will create a browser link that opens it up. But we don't want this. We don't want to just open up in the browser. So forget about that. What we're going to use is a program called MSHAT. Now what is MSHAT? What is HAT? HAT is basically a HTML application for Windows. So on Windows, they kind of tried for a while, I think it's kind of an abandoned. You can create these files instead of HTML files, you create HAT files, which basically contain HTML, but can interact with the system as if they're an application. And when you click on them, they're actually being run by this program, MSHAT. So if we go to our shell and we just type in MSHAT and give it a URL, it will open up that URL kind of like a native app, right? It doesn't have the toolbar and stuff at the top with the address bar. So what you can do is go back to your desktop, right click, say new, do a shortcut. And this time type in MSHAT and the URL for the application, the website that you want to run, click next, give it a name, I'll just do FBK. And there we go. We click on that and it runs it as if it's a native app, at least in that style. The icon default is just an extra little icon, but you can right click it, say change icon, and then you can browse through different applications and probably DLL files and icon files, pick an icon, I'm just going to pick one at random here. So it's a little like server and keys or something like that, something with locking keys. Just to show you that you can change it, click OK. And now you have a link file for Windows, which is an ugly binary file, but on Windows machines it will work. And again, I don't know. I don't think this will work on things XP and before, haven't tested it, but and I don't know about newer versions of Windows. I have only tested this on Windows 7, but I would think Vista 7, maybe Windows 8. That was the thing, right? There was no 9 and 10. I think on Windows 11, right? They don't have Internet Explorer and I'm pretty sure that HTA files, least in the past, have used Internet Explorer as a back end for that. So if anyone has a newer Windows machine and wants to give this a try for me, let me know if it works. But I just thought I'd give you this little tip in case you wanted to create a link to a website, but make it look like a native application. Thanks for watching. I don't normally do Windows videos, but if you enjoyed this and you're interested in free and open source tutorials, that's what I normally do. Films by chris.com. That's Chris of the K. There's a link in the description. Check it out. You can also check out my Patreon page down there if you'd like to support me. Thanks for watching and I hope that you have a great day.


The adult state governor, Godwin Obaseki, has charged the new chief judge of the state, Justice Okungua, to fast-track the setting up of mobile courts and back and visits to correctional centres in a B2 expedite trials so as to decongest the correctional facilities and provide justice for those awaiting trials for years. The governor made a recommendation at the swearing in of the new chief judge of the state at the government house in Benin City, the state capital. I would like you to provide pressure for us in the development of correctional facilities in the new state. To leave, I have located upon their behalf a valid input room for the new state correctional facilities. I would like to encourage you to fast-track the setting up of mobile courts to visit correctional centres and conduct an easy trial to decongest the correctional facilities and provide justice for those awaiting trials for years. I would like to share with you that I am just a spectator. I am not really a judge with any particular problem. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


We, I think, are all aware that this is the largest refugee crisis in the 21st century. We have 18 million people in Ukraine that are in need of humanitarian support. Six million people are internally displaced. There are repeated attacks throughout the country that have left millions of people without electricity, water supply, or heating. With temperatures now below zero, more and more people need help with basic needs. And in September last year, you launched the Olenna Zelenska Foundation, which is really looking at how you can, of course, respond to this emergency, but also restore a human capital of Ukraine. So we're here to talk about that a little in more detail. The structure of the discussion will be that I'll ask a few questions myself to get us started. And then, of course, we would love to also get some questions from our colleagues here in the audience. Just to say that it is really focusing on the topics that I just mentioned. We recognize that there may be, of course, curiosity around some military and political issues, but of course, Madam First Lady, this is her specific focus, so hopefully we can mainly focus on that. So let me start with the foundation. The foundation works across the areas of healthcare, education, and humanitarian aid. So if you could tell us a little more about the latest humanitarian situation and what is the foundation doing to address some of those needs on the ground. Thank you. I will speak Ukrainian, but we have our interpreter. She'll help you tell us a little bit about that. I'll start with the humanitarian situation in Ukraine right now. Apart from the overall problems that we have in the country, which is a country at war, such as IDPs, we have a lot of problems in Ukraine. We have a lot of problems in Ukraine. We have a lot of problems in Ukraine. We have a lot of problems in Ukraine. There are some overall problems that we have in a country which is a country at war, such as IDPs, destruction of housing, infrastructure, and ruination of people's lives. Russia is adding more and more trials for our country. At the start of the winter, they started ruining our infrastructure to make sure that the country descends into darkness and war. When I talk about the humanitarian dimension, this is what I call humanitarian assistance. It's a human dimension. From the bottom, the overall problems that we are experiencing, now there is a problem with heating and electricity. In many regions of our country, people are getting electricity only a few hours a day, and in those regions that are close to the front lines, they are completely out of the control of the infrastructure whatsoever. The foundation is helping to meet the needs of these people who are still in the deoccupied territories. These people are often living in half destroyed homes, and we are doing everything we can to provide warmth and light for them.  This can be anything. It can be diesel generators, heaters of any kind, blind and sleeping bags. And self-made iron stoves where people can work themselves, even firewood and food. But we don't just get things together. We make sure that the things we have got these people actually reach those who need it most. So that's part of the humanitarian assistance. What's more for life to come back to our communities? We need to provide people with adequate healthcare. Unfortunately, since the start of the war, our enemy have been destroying our healthcare infrastructure and facilities. And what the Foundation does is to rebuild those medical facilities that are desperately needed by the people in these communities. I will give you an example. The town hospital of Izhum. In Izhum, around 100,000 people lived before the war. It was then occupied, unfortunately, most of the buildings, most of the infrastructure in the town was destroyed. When the enemy was retreating, the Russians looted the hospital, although nothing much is left. However, the doctors of the hospital stayed, and even these conditions, they continued to work. I can tell you a number of different personal stories. Unfortunately, we don't have time for them today. But what I wanted to say is for life to return to this town and to these people, we need hospitals. Unfortunately, we are already finding and have found partners who have joined us in their efforts to restore these medical facilities. And we hope that this year, this project will be implemented. Because of the fact that we are constantly under missile strikes, there are no schools that do not have the necessary equipment. Therefore, two or three of our children start online, as it was in both countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. But unfortunately, due to the aggressive neighbors, this quarantine will continue. Another important component of any normal life in any community is education. Unfortunately, the system, the education system in our country is not currently working as it really should, because the schools are constantly being shelled, and those schools that are not equipped with bomb shelters cannot function. So two parts of our children are currently studying online. As I'm sure you remember during the COVID lockdowns, this happened everywhere. But our children, unfortunately, because of our aggressive neighbor, have to continue to remain in this lockdown. So this is why the foundation is providing laptops for our teachers who continue to teach. I already mentioned this example. I really like it. And maybe you have seen this as well, that went viral all over the Ukrainian social networks. It's a video of a teacher in the middle of a street, angle deep in snow with a laptop, continuing to teach a lesson, because this is where she was able to find a wifi near a supermarket. So this is what we need to do. We need to help people like that, and the foundation is doing everything towards that end. Unfortunately, thank you. You've described very well now some of the things that are needed. How can people that are watching us now around the world, how can they get involved with your foundation? I think this is an interesting and useful option. I really believe in people-to-people. So those people who really want to know who they are trying to help, we can also help them with that. If you want to become a dinator for a separate school, or a separate hospital, or help a separate region, you can even physically get involved. You can do it on a monthly basis if you are brave enough to be a part of the region. So I think this is a very simple way. Learn. There will be some help. By the way, I will repeat once again that we don't just collect money, we also have our partners who sell their products to us. For example, we get gas suppliers from the companies that are doing the same business with the suppliers. We also collect money from the suppliers. All the things that are given are needed now. That's actually very easy. You can find the areas that we work with on our website. I think it's very easy to help when you want to help. We don't just collect money. We actually are accountable to report about how we use many that we receive. There's actually a very interesting option. It's called People to People. If you're interested in helping any particular school, if you're interested in so-to-speak adopting a particular school or a region, we can do that for you. We can even organize a physical visit for you if you're brave enough to visit Ukraine at the moment. I think it's very easy to just join us. Any kind of help is useful. Like I said, it's not just our goal to collect money. We receive help and kind. For example, our partners provide us with the products they generate themselves. We have a partner in Portugal who provides us with gas heaters. Once again, it's not our goal to just collect money. Every help is useful. Thank you. Madam First Lady, I was fortunate enough to be with you in one of the proceedings this morning where we met with CEOs that are either already supporting Ukraine or are ready to support Ukraine in the future. I think there was a resounding consensus that we can't wait to not only start talking about reconstruction, but actually investing in reconstruction until sometime in the future we need to do it now. We've had other engagements, very busy agenda. So how would you describe your experience at the annual meeting? Has it in what way or has it contributed to your efforts at the end of your foundation and then I'll go to our audience.  We feel very guilty about the meeting. Today's meeting with CEOs and large international organizations has been confirmed once again. We see the interest in supporting Ukraine and it's still an interest. Already today, at the beginning of the meeting there was a conversation on the level of humanitarian aid and the level of international aid and the level of support for the entire Ukrainian economy. I'm happy that the projects are not only planned but already a lot of projects are being implemented. And especially the clear messages that we've heard today that we don't have to talk about the fact that we're going to renew now without waiting for the war to end. Everyone understands that if we don't start today, tomorrow it will be too late. And the reconstruction of Ukraine is not just a reconstruction of what was destroyed. It's a reconstruction of what was destroyed in a more global scale. We should renew ourselves better than before. And for us, now, there are all possibilities. I feel a lot of inspiration from today's meetings because I see a lot of potential partners and already the things that are being implemented today. I would like to share my impressions of the summit and of the conference. With the CEOs and the international organization, this meeting is testament to that. We see an interest in helping Ukraine and, in fact, this interest is very sincere. At the meeting this morning, of course, we were not talking about humanitarian assistance. We were talking about things on a different level. It was more about intergovernmental support and about helping whole sectors of the Ukrainian economy. And I'm very happy to see that there's a number of projects already being implemented. A very clear message that we heard is that we shouldn't be talking about what we will do when the war ends. We're actually, everyone already understands that we need to start talking about it today because tomorrow will be too late. Reconstruction in Ukraine is not just going back to how it was before. We hear it all the time. We need to rebuild better than in the past. Build back better. And, in fact, this renewal will mean a more profound change in a more profound sense. And I'm really inspired by what I see here today because I can see a lot of potential partners who are helping us, planning to help us already implementing important projects. Thank you so much. Now the floor is open for a few questions. So I see the lady there and then the lady there. Thank you so much for coming all the way to meet us. My name is Wang Xin, reporter from China. And yesterday at a special address you mentioned that you would deliver a letter to the Chinese delegation. Can you tell us a little bit more about the letter? Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't read other people's letters, actually. It was a journalist from Ukraine to the head of the Chinese Republic, Mr. Xi Jinping. And he conducted the Ukrainian Formula of Peace. These are 10 points that Ukraine sees in order to get the peace and fix it in the international space. I think it was a gesture of invitation to dialogue in the first place. And I hope very much that this gesture will help you. Thank you very much for your question. In fact, I don't read other people's letters. But what I can tell you is that it was a letter that we addressed, the president of Ukraine addressed to the Chinese leader, Mr. Xi Jinping. It followed the 10 point peace formula which was introduced by the president of Ukraine in which he talks about how to win peace and how to maintain how to sustain this peace in the international space. I think it was a gesture of an invitation to dialogue. And I hope very much that there will be a response to this invitation. Thank you. I think it's the madam over there and then a gentleman here. Mr. Zelenska, you told us yesterday that there were... Can you introduce yourself, please? Okay. I'm from the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation. Mariann Flatzmeiser is my name. Children who were brought to Russia and adopted by force. Is there any chance to get them back and what could be done? To be honest, this is one of the worst. This is one of the most horrific things in this brutal war because we have absolutely no dialogue on this matter with the Russians. We really can't understand how to find information about them. Fortunately, I know that just yesterday our... what's next? Yes, the president and the children told us that there were dozens of children who were brought back to Ukraine yesterday. But this is a constant special operation. There is no open dialogue, open action and the way to solve this situation. We knock on all doors. I had a personal conversation with the general secretary Mr. Gutierrez. To be honest, I can't be sure that there are enough information on the state aggressor to force them to destroy this city. They use our children as terrorists. We take it as kidnapping. Because it's really scary when you don't know where these children are, who are responsible for them. We only hear stories about their sons and not about the Ukrainian legislation without special procedures to go through. The situation is terrible and we don't know where we can solve it. Any request that we send through any channels does not come back with an answer. Our approximate estimation is that several thousand children are currently being held in Russia. But I don't want to tell you any numbers because I am not sure that they are exact. We don't really know where and how to look for information. Fortunately, the presidential representative on the rights of child informed us that several dozen children were returned from Russia to Ukraine. But every time this kind of thing happens it requires special efforts. It's a special operation basically. There is no open dialogue and no action on that side. We have tried knocking on every door but unfortunately we haven't had much result. I have spoken personally to the general secretary and to be completely honest with you I don't think that even the UN has enough influence over the aggressor country to change the situation. It seems that the Russians are using our children as hostages. It's kidnapping. We can't really call it anything else. It's horrific not to know where these children are and who is looking after them. They are being put up for adoption but this is not in accordance with any Ukrainian laws. It's a horrific situation and we don't know how to find a solution to it. Thank you. I think we're coming close to an end so this gentleman here and then the lady there and there will finish. So over to you. Thank you very much. Stefan Lanz 20 Minutes Switzerland. We have learned about this helicopter crash this morning near Kiev. I wanted to know what are your thoughts on the crash and the victims and if you have more information already on the cause of the crash. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, today is one of the worst days that we have all the time. Maybe it may seem that we can get used to it but we don't get used to it and every time for us it's a tragedy. Today this plane crash took place only on this plane. This is the leadership of our Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister himself of his deputy. Unfortunately, the helicopter crashed on the door of the children's room and several children died there. To be honest, I don't have enough strength to express my emotions. Today the crash is very important and I can't tell you any more information because I don't own it and I know that there will be investigation into why this tragedy happened. This tragedy took away the lives of the people and not only the people who were in the helicopter which is the leadership of the Ministry of the Interior including the Minister and his deputies. The helicopter crashed into the kindergarten just outside the kindergarten and unfortunately killed several kids. Honestly, I don't have the strength to express my emotions right now. I don't think I can put some words together to talk about it and if I can't give you any more additional information it's because I don't have it. An investigation will be held and we will find out the reasons for this tragedy. On a personal level the only thing I can say is that the Minister is very well and for me this is particularly hard because it's a personal blow as well. Thank you and the last question from the lady there and I will conclude. Thank you Ms. Sonska for your time. My name is Yasmin Serhen I'm a staff writer at Time Magazine. In a tweet I think sometime this week you mentioned how you were getting a lot of questions about Ukraine fatigue and you've touched a lot of interest in Ukraine but I wanted to ask you how concerned are you by the possibility of Ukraine fatigue and is it something that you've seen in this forum compared to last year? I often ask about Ukraine fatigue and I often answer that I already have a lot of questions about Ukraine fatigue and to be completely honest with you I already have the fatigue of the questions about the fatigue of the people who may be fatigue from the Ukraine fatigue. But I'm talking about this summit I don't feel that I can say that for sure but during the last summit we already talked about it and it's just about the possibility of this question about NATO it's an exaggeration maybe it's part of some information propaganda about the aggressor because they really wanted the whole world to be aware of us but to be honest at this summit I do not see the signs of fatigue although even at the previous summit we were already talking about the possibility of the Ukraine fatigue to me it seems like an exaggeration but I think this may be a part of the warfare information warfare because I think our enemy would be very happy of the people who are fatigued from the Ukraine And on a personal level I always answer that show how the Ukrainians were not just talking about it but living in it and really what will be when we will finally I think no one in the world will see this day but can you just imagine then how Ukrainians are tired how they are fatigued but we don't only talk about it we have to live this situation imagine what this day will be like when the Ukrainians are fatigued I wouldn't want to see it I don't think it would be good for Ukraine or the world so this session and thank you so much for joining us at the annual meeting thank you for your moderation


A similar model for charging requirement can be thought of for Internet of Things and Web of Things. So we look at the small but emerging ecosystem for Internet and Web of Things. Once you export IoT or sensor networks onto Web, so completely unprecedented business models can be generated. Involving purely private networks, purely public networks or public-private partnership, leading to certain interesting applications like smart city, smart buildings, e-health, etc. The services are provided to the end users. For instance, in the case of smart home, smart building by the network provider, involving certain custom devices. So the network and the device are sometimes the responsibility of the network provider as such or the device provider has to be a different entity. So it means that we can think about the variants of provisioning methods in the form of some models. Let's start with a single business player that provides the network, operates the devices, has the platform, even provides the content that is the application on the application servers to the end users. So this is where there's a monopoly of one operator over everything. Then we can think about another model where we have one player, one entity operating the devices, network and platform for the IoT devices. However, the application or the content is coming from another provider. So this could be considered as a second variant. As a third variant, we can think about one operator that's now performing the network provisioning and platform provisioning. What I'm suggesting is it could be different kinds of recipes for different environments. So in this case, the network and platform are provided by a certain operator. Then the other one could be responsible for devices and the applications themselves. And then we could make it slightly more interesting once we have the network alone provided. The other is a device provider and platform and application provider. And then we could have three players altogether different. We have the network provider. We have the platform provider. We have the device provider. And sometimes we have a separate application provider as well. So this all can be summarized from this table. I'm referring to the book engine architecture by Tony Jenevsky. It was published by John Wiley. So you can see here that we have in the first column, five different models that we've just seen and we have separate providers. Depending upon the regulatory regime of a certain country and the business opportunities, different players can jump into all or some of these sectors.


Ieithat. Mor rall o genedlaeth cilio gyda'r c名u Cullman a'n rhaid i meddwl i'r IMA sydd nesaf at eich mynd i'r hyn. IMA e� y bachwyr yw'n gweithio ar gyfer cy diagonale, ar ddiolcholiaeth ffaith ar gyfer y cordu anゴfnod erdog diolchol, ac yn adrwyddiant i ymgyrch, a'r tynnu o'r ysgolig yng Nghymru yn osir yn y dyfodol eich cyfnod sjagwyd, ac mae'r cyfnod o bwysig o'r megfath o'r 100 digyles ddweithogau hynny o rhan o aelod 11. change is the new normal over to Ena. I really have to change that biogathe beginning to sound not so good when it's 2011, right? So thank you very much for inviting me to speak today. And I'm sure you've had an interesting day with lots of challenges and lots of PowerPoint. So I thought given that I was the last speaker I would not do a PowerPoint presentation and just share some observations with you on technology and change and skills that are required to meet the challenges of the future and future organisations, so what I want to talk about is the fact that change is the new normal. When I was thinking about speaking today, I was remembering a conversation I had probably about 20 years ago with a friend of mine one evening and I remember saying to him that I thought you were supposed to get to a point in your career when you had things figured out kind of new what you were doing You were doing and things got easier. And he said to me, well, probably because he was a philosophy student. He said, why in earth do you think it's supposed to get easier? Life is hard. Right? That's the steady state. And once you've accepted life is hard, every day that you can deal with something and get on with it, makes it a little bit easier. And the same I think is true of change. We have become used to the comforting myth that for most of us in our working lives, there is a steady state. Rwy'n meddwl y gwasanaeth ffyrdd y gallwn yn fawr, er mwyaf arbennig hi'n gweld y cystraffod. Rwy'n meddwl ei fod yn meddwl am y raddiadau i'r gweithio gynnig, y fwrdd y byd.  Mae rhaid yn galwserau, ond y gweithio cyflawni a dweud o fod wedi'i sêch yn dod gweithio. Ond, os y gallwn weithgwch, iawn яr yng Nghymru, sydd yn yenghwyl fynd i ddechrau, maen nhw, yn dansu'r hynny'n ymhwyell o'r llythdoedd, eu rhain o'r wakrannu. Dwi'n golygu am ychydig, sydd wedi bod y cyfeisig ringy, a bydd o'n golygu'n aghaelio'r cyfrannu amgylch am yr unrhyw. Felly気 feddwyd wedi'u cyfnodd cyfnodd, dylai'r ysgrif iawn yn bryhau hyn ynglyn, a nhw'n ffordd cyflwyno i'r llwyddiad ym hyd yn ei gwrs, a'r gwaith yn ysgrif iawn ymddangos, yma yn y tŷmgyrch gwrs stymg, ond mae'n gydag y byd yn bryhau. Ac mae'r bwysig wneud, yn y gallu fwyaf maes y zidio croes ychydig yn yr ysgrif iawn, ac ydw i'r ffwyaf, yardsen gyhoful as a wast of navigating the future. I create the kind of individuals yw brif, where we're pretty much all familiar with. Those who not wisely and say of any new challenger or threat. That'll never catch on. That's a research issue. M Behind supper, that in fact change is the constant steady state and not the aberrations. Our professional lives churn with change, yn gŷch mewn gwerthu, cyflwyno, dweudau, gymeranfa wedi lleol gwerthu, byddai gyda'rolig yn bwysig, ond ond iawn yn gyfartyr. Ond wrth gwrs, dyna'r eraill mae'n bwysig. Bydd ni'n bwysig fel ddweud yn gwaith erbyn ar y cyfnod y bydd hynny'n gyfair, ale Chyflwyno'r Llywodraeth yn ymhyfrif yn ni. Nid i dweud i'r lleol yma, ac mae'n gwybod ymannu gwirionedd yn ymddangos gan gweithio'n gwybod hynny a gwroedd â'r hyn. o'r tyfnod i ddefnyddio'r gwahagwyr yn ymdyn nhw'n ddweud, i'n ddweud ar gyfer y dyfodol. Felly, y gwaith bwysig yw'r hyn o'r gweithio'r gweithio'r cymdeithasol yn gweithio'n dynai. A'r eistedd, mae'n cael ei wneud'n meddwl i'r gwasanaeth gwyrdd. Yn ystod, mae'r ffordd yn fwy o'r cyffwysgol, ac yw'r gweithio'r cyffwysgol yn yw 2006. Felly, mae'n cael ei ddechrau, ond yw'r parwysgau a'r gwelwch, ac rwy'n dechrau i'r gael ystod. Ond rydych chi'n ddim yn gallu'n rhaid oherwydd, ac mae'r ddechrau i'r gael ystod yn dweud. Ond rydyn ni wedi ddim yn gael'u. Yn ystod, rwy'n yn fyddiadau'r gael. Ac mae'n gwybod i gael ystod yn bwysig at y Llywodraeth ond mae'n gweithio gyd yn dda'r dwy o'r gael o'r gael o'r hwn. Ond rwy'n ddweud o'r cyfrifau ac yn dweud ond byddwch, Teimlo'n Llyfrgellun yn gwyst i chi gynnwys i ddeithaswyd â'r Llyfrgell yn hynny'n gwneud. Felly mae am ychydig yn ein lleol yn y gritig. Er mwyaf, mae'n ddweud mewn gwaith. Ond o'r Llyfrgell yn fwyaf, roedd esbu'r cywgir o'r wahanol munaf, oherwydd mae'n tyst yn fenywod, os nid yn ymdweud hynny, gyd-nid i mi yn gwirionedd. A'r ffynontin o'r gyrwm yw ysgrifennu chi'n g sexau'i gweithio, The evidence pretending that you were a supporting from the start and like, I was so all over that in 2006. So accept by the time you actually get to that stage, when you do get to that stage, others, your employees, your competitors, your children have already figured out exactly what the benefits of the new technology are and they've become versed in using it and they have changed their behaviour as a result of understanding what the technology can do and they're simply less inclined to respect your authority on the matter. So byt by bit, I think there is a chance that we can make ourselves irrelevant if we're now prepared to keep up with the challenges of that new world. So you have suddenly perhaps less standing in the conversation or suddenly your authority or the experience you've brought with you from the past doesn't quite count as much as it did before. And I think that's a deeply challenging thing for any professional to suddenly feel that in some way they're being left behind. And I remember very vividly when email came out, I had a colleague who used to use his computer to put his posted notes on it, right, because he thought, well, that email will never catch on. And he sort of surrounded himself with a bunch of other senior people in the organization who shared that same opinion, while everybody else, not necessarily younger, but perhaps a little bit more curious, simply got on with the business of getting to use email and actually find out what it was worth. So we need to understand that in a year over and change is the steady state. We need to be much more open and more curious and less dismissive and more reflective. And we have to accept what it's very difficult for any professional to accept when they've built their whole career on knowing what's best or knowing what's right, that we simply don't know what we don't know. And saying I don't know is the hardest thing for any leader to say because they're taught that knowing best is what gives us a competitive advantage. Whereas, in fact, being able to say I don't know, but I'm willing to listen and learn, is probably a far more useful leadership skill. So technology teaches us that if it teaches us nothing else. So products and services are developed at the speed of life. They provide solutions to problems we don't even know existed yet. So you think about the evolution of the disk drive or the floppy disk before laptops were invented when industry and governments were developing mainframes and servers with the capacity to store gigabytes of information. Who was going to use a little floppy disk that couldn't even store a megabyte? So this is what the writer Clay Christiansen calls the innovators dilemma. I'm sure you're all familiar with the book. So a disruptive force emerges in the market, but it doesn't seem like a threat because it doesn't look anything like you've seen before. So like that will never catch on. And by the time it gathers momentum and really does catch on, you don't have the skills or knowledge to turn the juggernaut that is your organization around quickly enough to adopt the new normal. So we do this not only in our professional lives, but I would argue in our personal lives. And I'm sure many of you who are parents will have experienced the confusion of understanding how children and young people actually acquire knowledge today. So I was certainly beaten down trying to say to my teenage son, you need to put together information as building blocks. You need to understand the basics because my learning was always about trying to digest facts and figures, whether that was in maths or science or history.  So he doesn't need to contain the same knowledge in his head as we had to carry around with this because it's just a click of a button away. And so the value that he will bring in the future to his organization is not that he can recite those facts and figures on the spot because like I said, they're a click away. But what interpretive skills he will bring to his organization or indeed to his own life in using that information. So the generation born after 1985 are a very different generation and a very different challenge for the organizations of tomorrow. I would point you to a piece of work you'll find online called We the Web Kids, which is written by the Polish author Peter Cerski. And he describes how those generation values differ. He says our view of the social structure is different from yours. Our society is a network, not a hierarchy. We are used to being able to start a dialogue with anyone, be it a professor or a pop star and we do not need any special qualifications related to social status. The success of the interaction depends solely on whether the content of the message would be regarded as important and worthy of reply. And if, thanks to cooperation, continuous dispute, defending our arguments against critique, we have a feeling that our opinions and matters are simply better, why wouldn't we expect to have a serious dialogue with government? So my point is, when change is the new norm, I'll beware, the organization who thinks that the old models of leadership of command and control will hold much sway with that generation. When we talk about new ways of working and new skills, we're not really talking about technology, you know, bring your own device, the cloud, mobile, because in the end technology is only technology. We're talking about a whole range of other skills that we need to develop. So if you're a leader in an organization, you need to become comfortable with uncertainty. You need to become really engaged with your workforce. And you probably need to accept the fact that leadership doesn't necessarily reside in the places it used to. It can be distributed all through levels of an organization at the outer reaches and on the front line. Successful leaders of the future, in my view, will understand that it is not sufficient with this new generation workforce to set out your strategy in the corporate boardroom and expect it to be delivered by slave deterrence just because you say so. Because this generation will expect you to explain it and defend it and discuss it in the open on blogs, to social media, and you will need to be prepared to change your strategy if they can demonstrate a better way. So Daniel Pink, who's the author of the book A Whole New Mind, talks about the most important degree for the corporate world in the future. He says it's not going to be the MBA. It's going to be the MAFA, which is a master of fine arts. And he talks about six senses that leaders need to be attuned to and to understand. It goes back a little to what Steph was talking about in terms of humour. But the six things he says are important are design, story, symphony, empathy, meaning and play. So that element of humour and fun and design is important. And these are the senses that we, the web generation value most highly and the lens to which they will examine their future employment paths. But there are rewards in adopting these types of approaches. And I think I'd look no further than the approach that has been taken by GDS where I worked under recently. So a lot of their output and approach and engagement is based around those principles of design and story and empathy with users. And if there was ever a more compelling argument for me or example that changes the new normal, it was recently reading a headline in the Financial Times that said government website wins design museum award. So I thought when is the last time we heard design and government and award in the same sentence. So that pretty much sums up the new normal for me. And so I just finished by saying we need to embrace change as a steady state and learn to be more comfortable about what we don't know. Because I think then we can face the future in the right frame of mind, ready to collaborate to meet the challenges ahead. Thank you. Thanks very much to Emma. Any questions? I just wondered if change is the new normal, is progress the new normal? Are they the same thing? Yeah, well perhaps. But I'm really just trying to make that point is I think most people think of change as aberration rather than a steady state. So yeah, but progress is the same thing. More questions? It's been quite a long day. It's on down here. Just remind people to say their name. Hi, I'm Charlotte G. I'm a reporter for Government Computing. I thought the generational thing you touched on was really interesting. And I was just wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on what differences you fundamentally see between how to manage different generations. I don't know that. Do you think there's a real difference? And if so, what are those key identifiers? Yeah, well I suppose it's because that generation have grown up off the web. So they don't see that as something distinct that they had to learn. I had to learn what was this internet thing and how did it work and how did it operate. And so they've lived most of their lives online. So all the meaningful things like meeting people, breaking up with people, all of that stuff. They're understanding of the acquisition of knowledge. For us, the opportunity to go to university or to access things that were locked inside a wall garden, there was a privilege that was attached to that. MIT now have their courses for free online. So ease of access of opportunities. So social status flattens down as well I think in terms of that, in terms of universities. So I think their expectation will be that they will search to find the answer that resonates with them and resonates with their community and their network, not necessarily the dictat that's handed to them. And so they will be much more free about contacting the chief executive if the chief executive is on Twitter. So they don't see that kind of barrier, that notion of worth and hierarchy and structure. So I think there will be challenges to bureaucracies and we're going to have to look at much more flat kind of working worlds. We have lived in a world where knowledge is power. Where there was that expectation that the senior manager, the CEO, had gone to Harvard, had gone to an elite university, had the right to be at that table because of that. Now when excellence is at a click away, average isn't going to color anymore. So I think people, there will be people who will rise and succeed in their careers because they are knowledgeable and they are networked more than because they feel they have a God given right to be there. So I think there's a huge challenge to just the notion that they will accept authority. So I'm not trying to suggest that all our future workplaces will be more like children, but you know what I'm saying? They won't just accept things because you say so. I think you're going to have to become much more robust and articulating why. With the increase in change and therefore the increase in transition from one technology to another, do you think we're going to come to a point where we're going to start to measure the cost of obsolescence? Yeah, I mean you wonder don't you? You wonder whether things will just become more interoperable. You know when the frictions that currently happen between not being able to access one technology on another, you know you suddenly become annoyed when you're on your iPad and you can't access flash or whatever because you know Adobe is having some sort of war with Apple. You think sort it out folks because this is affecting me. So I wonder you know will the cost be less if systems become much more interoperable? And I guess the cost of production of technology reducing all the time. So you know who knows you know there may be a sort of a natural exhaustion point. We might end up throwing all the kid out completely and saying go back to pen and paper. Okay, can we say thank you very much to Emma?