I think I'm going to start, I think I'm going to start because we want to give these gentlemen the full time. So today we have Radesh Balakrishnan, our general manager of OpenStack from Red Hat, and Dwayne Decapiti, Director of OpenStack Product Management at Cisco, and these gentlemen are here to tell us a little bit about how they're working together to deliver OpenStack solutions for next generation IT. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. So in this session we'll be discussing Cisco and Red Hat OpenStack solutions. We're very fortunate, Radesh, the general manager for OpenStack at Red Hat. We've done a lot of work with your team, you know, Mark and Perry and others, and we were briefly discussing yesterday, and we talked a lot about, you know, I really like the, in the Red Hat earnings calls, you know, Jim Whitehurst and the team, they go into a lot of detail on customer wins with OpenStack.  So, like, what are you seeing from your customers in terms of some of the challenges that they're seeing that are causing them to embrace OpenStack at such a high rate? First of all, thank you for having me here, and those of you who chose wisely not to have a beer and come here to appreciate that. So, you know, we're all in from a Red Hat perspective on OpenStack, like you said, we're betting the farm. We're not seeing OpenStack as just a destination in itself, but rather the fabric for everything we do moving forward. So we'll talk a little bit about our portfolio, et cetera, later. Back to the core question here, what are we seeing from customers, you know, day in and day out, I'm spending my time, my teams are spending time talking to customers across the globe. We are paying subscription customers of OpenStack across the globe as well. Probably the first thing that I realized, you know, and I get goosebumps around is the pace at which things are happening in customers' environment, right?  I've never seen a time where the mandate from top down to move a million miles an hour has been this prevalent, right? So that's the first kind of characteristic that I see, which is very different from what we've seen in the last decade or so. It's very true.  And I believe you were the product manager for Windows 2000. So you've pretty much seen almost all the trends, you know. Yeah, that's true, you know, and I'm not, you know, ashamed of admitting my past, right? But, you know, the reality is even Microsoft was woken up to the reality which is in front of us, which is open source is not an if, but for what workloads and what use cases are you bringing in, right? So just like I as an individual have made the transition, a lot of organizations are also making the transition. The sort of the second aspect that I'm hearing from customers is this whole notion of choice of deployment footprint, right? Just five or six, you know, I used to be a Hyper-V guy. Six or seven years ago, it was a, hey, we have to move everything into virtualization and that's it. Everything physical is dead or whatever is the next thing we should move cloud, move it all over there. I think in the last, you know, 18 to 24 months a lot of pragmatism has set in in that customers clearly recognize that there's going to be physical footprint, there's going to be virtual footprint, there's going to be private cloud footprint, and there's going to be public cloud footprint. Now, the million or multi-billion dollar question is what workload is going to be in which footprint and how can a vendor such as Red Hat as well as Cisco provide a solution that they can sleep at night, right, with across these four footprint. So that's another kind of theme that I'm hearing from customers, too. And just to round out my observations in terms of customers, the third one, you know, the slide is also prompting me to talk about bi-modal IT as a construct. I know this is one analyst view, which is Gartner's view, it could be called third platform in IDC's terminology, but the long and short of it is that if you look in terms of the nature of the applications, the set of people, how they behave in building that application. Or, for that matter, what goes into that application, all these three things have changed fundamentally between the old traditional way and the new way, right? So if you look at the nature of the applications in the mode two, as Gartner calls it, or agile mode, if you will, they are stateless VMs, you know, as at OpenStack Summit, you guys all know that, you know, like the palm of your hand. So that's by default the construct that's in the eyes of the CIOs, if you will. The second is in terms of what goes behind in, if you look at a software factory that's making these applications, earlier if IT shops were running a marathon, now they're running sprints, right? So that's the other dimension of change that I see. And the third dimension is, like I earlier said, OpenSource used to be, you know, somebody called it Kansas, somebody called it, I don't know whether I can bet my business on, et cetera, too. OpenSource is driving the innovation containers to any of the new buzzwords that you talk about, is all driven by OpenSource. So I think we are in an amazing paradigm shift moment, all the things that the customers want between Red Hat and Cisco are in a position to deliver, which hopefully we can cover more of. What are you seeing from customers, from your vantage point? So I'm seeing very similar things. I mean, you're right, it's good to be agile. It's an exciting time in the industry. We talked a little bit about you were a product manager in the past. So I've been in this industry for over a quarter century now. And I was a software developer, as well as a product manager for software products. And I was that person before you're building an application, you want to get it into a customer's hands. And the way it used to be was you had to have someone put a server in, then you had someone cable up the server, then you had someone have to put the access list on. And that whole process could literally take months or even more sometimes. So the power of the cloud and DevOps, the self-serve portal idea, is extremely powerful. And we see lots of interest and lots of adoption with that as well. You mentioned some of the new applications, too, like containers and big data. Another thing that really resonates with customers is things are moving so fast. They want to make a bet on something that they know is going to be protected. And they see OpenStack getting support with containers, with Magnum that we're working on, big data with Hadoop, for example. They see OpenStack as a platform for that as well. So they're extremely excited. Some challenges, too, with the cloud, as we see some things with security and compliance and just visibility in the cloud. But the previous session for APIC with Mike Cohen and Clayton, anyone here stay for the previous session by any chance? So Joe did. They talked a lot about how APIC provides visibility into the cloud and some of the things that we're working on together. So we're seeing absolutely some of the same things. And it's an extremely exciting time in the industry. That's great. So Cisco and Red Hat, it's a great partnership. I mean, from our perspective, we're working with Mark McLaughlin a lot, Perry, Joe, and others, really doing a great job. You should give them a raise, by the way, I think. Look at that. Is that what they told you? I don't think they have to pay for that. So I'm assuming that's a tier for the question. So we're working with Red Hat on a daily, weekly basis. We're building a lot of great stuff together. So I mean, we see the synergies firsthand. And we see it from the Cisco side through the sales force also. But with some of your perspective about why Cisco and Red Hat and how they're helping to solve customer problems in open stacks. Look, this partnership is something that I'm very, very personally involved in and personally very, very excited about. For the simple reason that here we have the number one provider of infrastructure for cloud environments today, that Cisco, getting together with the number one provider of open source solutions for enterprises. And then saying, hey, look, how do we make the lives of our customers easier, faster in terms of their ability to consume the innovation that's happening out there, and at the same time bring all the abilities that old world demanded security and enterprise qualities that you expect off, right? So at that level, it's an amazing opportunity that we both are rallying around. We referenced the teams working together. And hopefully we can do justice to some of the output of the teams as well as we talk through this. So very, very excited about the promise of it as well as the fact that we are aligned in terms of the vision that we want to enable in the eyes of the customer. Now, it's one thing to have a higher level alignment. Of course, at the end of the day, we need to make sure that we are landing solutions that you all can consume as well. And that's the hard work that we are going through. Hopefully we'll touch upon some of the ones that are already available and signal some of the areas that we are working on. But the very fact that both of us are aligned to making sure that OpenStack is production ready makes the partnership very exciting from my lens. What's your perspective on anything to add there? Oh yeah, so absolutely. Red Hat has been a strong contributor to Open Source as is Cisco. So for example, the Neutron database. We at Cisco provided the ability in a team collaborative effort. So you can actually do an upgrade of OpenStack Neutron for the first time. So it's the combination of the leader in the cloud infrastructure market. So Synergy Research Group, a report I believe Jeremy Duke is the author, does a great report details how Cisco is the leader in cloud infrastructure for public and private clouds, compute, storage, networking, as well as security. So you combine that leader in cloud infrastructure market with the leader in cloud and Open Source. It's an extremely powerful combination. And a lot of the components we're talking about, like Cisco UCS servers, Cisco Nexus switches. These are data center staples. People are using them today, the blocks, flex pods, and the ability to leverage that investment and bring it into OpenStack is a huge win. So who here is using UCS or Nexus today? Awesome. Who here is using REL OSP or REL today? Excellent. Good. We have 2 thirds of the audience to convert as we go along. You know, a couple of data points from a Red Hat perspective that I'll touch upon as well. Probably have heard about the fact that we've been associated with OpenStack for quite a significant number of years. And earlier we talked about it's a Pet the Farm initiative from our perspective. We look at stats in terms of how are we doing around community contribution as a metric, not because we want to walk around wearing a t-shirt saying we're number one, but rather, for us, our business model is subscription based. And so if somebody were to call for support, knowing every single p-spot that goes into the product that we make available is like a mandatory requirement. That's the right to swipe the card and get into the building kind of capability. So showing up with code is something that we fundamentally believe in. A related reality also is that we, by default, do not write any piece of code that is a forked version or it's a shadow code tree, et cetera. So the exciting aspect of OpenStack ecosystem is that a lot of organizations are rallying around OpenStack, but one of the potential pitfalls is that some of the players could hijack it for their personal beliefs and or ends that they want to accomplish, if you will. So from that perspective, we are very, very clear that just like what we did with Linux, which is upstream first, anything that we do around OpenStack is upstream first. So there is the guaranteed ability to walk away from ours if you have not done a great job of earning your respect as a customer. So that's one thing I want to highlight. I think if you look at our portfolio in general, OpenStack, I made the earlier statement that OpenStack is not the destination itself for us. It's just the foundation for a portfolio of solutions that we believe customers will start adopting in their environment. So this slide essentially captures, for those of you who don't know Red Hat as much, we have, you know, there's an alternate science to being an open source company and probably, you know, the most successful on planet Earth. We break down our DNA into three steps, right? So the first step in the process is show up with code upstream. Make sure that you're contributing to appropriate community projects. That's step one. Step two is that have a conduit for getting feedback from the early adopters, the mavericks, the ones that are willing to spend their energy, not just play with the product, but also give feedback. What we will call as a community distribution. So, you know, the logos in the middle are all community distribution of the different offerings that we have. And then the last third stage is where we have enterprise ready solution backed by n number of years of life cycle support. In the case of rally can go all the way up to 10 years, if you will, in terms of support. Open stack is quite not there, but, you know, we hope to get there if you will. So as you can see, we have offerings from storage to middleware platform, to management, et cetera. So as we're talking about the mode to deployment, all the P spots that you would need from a technology organization are available from Red Hat in a truly open way so that you can stand up a truly open cloud and be without, you know, sort of the gun cocking moment of a proprietary player, if you will. Well, and it's nice too, because, you know, with that pure open source and unsupported, if you will option, people can get started right away with RDO, for example, where they can go with rail OSP, and I believe this is the same slide that Mark showed earlier today, which is another reason why I should give more raise. No, thank you. I know, so the theme of the day is give Mark a raise. Okay, got it. Subliminal messaging going on. That's right. And also, so Gluster, for example, I think there's been a few very nice press releases done this week. I believe there was one around Gluster and Manila, I believe. Yeah, so if you look at our storage portfolio, we have SAF as well as Gluster, so SAF is for block and Gluster is for file. So there's this, I mean, interesting project called Manila, those of you who are not familiar, which essentially abstracts, you know, multiple, it could even be a NetApp filer, if you will, and services that as a file as a service for OpenStack to consume. So that was the announcement this week. The direction we headed is, we're already seeing every other opportunity of OpenStack and associated with SAF, right? So because customers are saying, look, I'm looking at a new kind of infrastructure. Should I look at storage along with that? Should I be stuck to a three-letter name company for storage or could I be, you know, just like I'm linearly scaling my compute, can I look at commodity hardware-based storage as well or software-defined storage, if you will? So we're seeing a lot of demand there with the addition of Gluster file as a service, we can be offering, you know, all kinds of workload support from a storage perspective. So I could, you know, go on and on all day long about all the offerings in here. So great announcements, it's a great point about storage. I mean, some of the newer technologies like OpenStack Swift, you know, for example, is gonna make three copies. Big Data Hadoop, we talked about, makes multiple copies. But when you combine kind of software-defined storage, if you will, like Gluster and stuff, you combine it with, say, like Cisco UCS. So UCS-C240, up to 12 large form factor drive, 60 terabytes, the UCS-C3160, large form factor drives up to 360 terabytes. But you see, I mean, it's very much a complete compute storage networking solution between Red Hat and Cisco. Yeah, absolutely. So Cisco's strategy with OpenStack, similar to Red Hat as well, you know, big believer in contributing to open source, you know, we mentioned the neutron database being committed upstream. SR, single root IO virtualization, right? That was another big one because we contributed that upstream. So now we can start talking about one mission-critical workloads like even high-performance computing, for example, or even NFV network function virtualization that needs SRIOV as well. So lots of upstream contributions. Top reviewer, certainly for the last release, according to Stack Analytics. We also give our customer choices. We talked about some of the press releases this week. You also had a great quote in a press release for the Tech Validate, the report, I believe 310 Red Hat customers were surveyed, 75% are planning on supporting. Not even Red Hat customers, you know, 310 decision makers across the globe surveyed by Tech Validate, like you said, 73% are saying they have OpenStack and they have plans in the next 18-month time frame. 82% of them are saying the number one need that they have is enterprise class support, which by the way we offer, so it's music to my ears for sure. So yeah, pretty exciting times for sure. Awesome. And then even in the report, I believe the majority, like 75%, roughly we're planning on deploying OpenStack on KVM. I believe roughly 18% on Hyper-V and ESXi as well as Zen server. But it's Cisco because we support multiple distributions, multiple hypervisors, we give customers choices. And we've also innovated a lot around OpenStack, like one example. So the Ceph EWS, the early warning system. We have that in the Cisco GitHub repo. It's a nice way where you can get visualization into the Ceph storage, get notification before a Ceph OSD drive fails. So lots of innovation around OpenStack in addition to upstream contributions. You know, very dedicated to customer success, however people want to use OpenStack, you know, the global intercloud of which Red Hat is a big partner of ours. You know, Cisco's invested, pledged to invest a billion dollars in the intercloud. So however people want to consume OpenStack, they can start putting an application right away on the intercloud which is based on OpenStack. They can deploy on-prem as a managed service behind a firewall. I mean, this is through the MetaCloud acquisition. Phenomenal success with MetaCloud. The acquisition was actually just done in September of last year and already the number of managed CPUs has doubled in that timeframe. Or, you know, deploying an unmanaged on-prem OpenStack cloud, Cisco, UCS, Nexus, and Red Hat, you know, with Cisco-validated designs. So however people want to consume OpenStack, you know, we have a solution. That's great. Just back to the survey that you were talking about. Another data point also is that 59% of those surveyed say that they're gonna use it for new workloads and 52% are saying for existing workloads. So that's another area, you know, because I'm sure you all have heard about pets versus cattle argument. I personally don't like it.  You can call it a pet or a cattle, depending on your taste or where you're from. The reality is that OpenStack is becoming more capable of handling so-called old workloads or legacy workloads as well, right? And in fact, we are personally pushing the envelope on a couple of fronts as well. High availability, for example, right? You know, using pacemaker as the open technology at all levels from Hypervisor OS to OpenStack services. So that both on the admin side as well as the tenant side, you can get to high availability solution, right? So I think a lot of work to be done but we are excited about the kind of the start that we've had in this space, if you will. Definitely. Another thing about that report that came out this week, I believe it indicated that 40% of those 310 IT buyer survey plan on deploying containers in an OpenStack environment. I mean, that's a huge number, 40%. So absolutely. New workloads as well as mission critical workloads as well as future workloads. Absolutely, and you know, from our vantage point, unlike some of the other virtualization providers, we don't have an axe to grind, right? So whether you go for container as a format or VM as a format, depending on your workload, we are absolutely fine. So what we are working toward is making sure that from a tenant's side on OpenStack, you could be having a bare metal physical footprint or a VM footprint or a container footprint and still be able to manage that with similar level of processes and maturity. It's an excellent point. I mean, we've been collaborating on the Magnum project for containers. There's an ironic plug-in for Cisco UCS for bare metal as a service. Even the next version of Rail OSP7 will have, I believe, the group-based policy plug-in as well. Support for group-based policy for sure. So lots of innovation. Right. So in terms of the things that we're building now, right? So we talked a lot about the OpenStack customers and the adoption and the traction and some of the drivers behind OpenStack. What is your take in terms of the state of the stack, if you will? I mean, with your history, you've seen lots of different themes and flows and changes in the industries. What kind of proof points are you seeing from your customer in terms of where OpenStack is and whether it's ready for production? I think we kind of let the cat out of the bag. You used some of the survey results earlier. You know, we're seeing amazing level of interest from both the enterprise customers that we spend our time, day in and day out, as well as on the telco side, given the network function virtualization has become a key driver. Both are happening at the same time except that in telco space, this calendar year is where all the proof of concepts are happening and next calendar year is when the initial deployments will be happening and we are working really hard to make sure that carrier grade features make its way to our OpenStack offering. So we're fundamentally taking the approach that rather than get a carrier grade version of OpenStack, let's make OpenStack carrier grade as the approach, right? So which is very different from some forked approach that some of the other players are taking. The catch with that is that clearly we need to make sure that it's upstream aligned, blueprints are approved, et cetera, so there might be some slight delays, but I think eventually the community as well as the world at large will benefit if you did that. Back to some of the other momentum points, this I believe came from the last OpenStack Summit survey, essentially calls out three key points. One is that it's not a toy that people are playing with anymore. 46% is saying they are using it in production. Secondly, in terms of workloads, we are seeing maturation of the type of workloads. It's not some, you know, the CIO's, you know, pet projects kind of thing, but rather we're talking about from web services too, even, you know, database apps, et cetera, being onboarded into an OpenStack environment, right? So I think the work around database as a service, et cetera as that's maturing will help fuel this even further, right? So that's the other data point. From our own lens as read at, a data point that we look at very carefully is how many partners do we have, you know, think of ISVs, SIs, you know, other providers of technologies around OpenStack itself. In the last 18 months we've had from zero to 275 partners with certified solutions around our commercial OpenStack offering. So that's another sign of maturity that there's choice across computer storage, networking management and applications that's available on this platform of the future. And the good news is the future is not tomorrow, it's today, right? So that's a great place to be in. Absolutely. Yeah, so, and we're seeing very similar things on the Cisco side. Like so one joint customer we have, you know, the Eli and Edith Broad Institute of MIT in Harvard or as Joe likes to call it, the Broad.  And some great quotes, you know, from Chris and James about how Cisco and Red Hat together, you know, the leader in cloud infrastructure and the leader in open source software are getting together to solve their customer problems.  But I, you know, we're definitely at Cisco, we're seeing the same thing. Conversations are kind of, you know, transitioning, you know, from how to do a pilot to how to do production. So it's very exciting. That's great. So I think I'm supposed to ask you the next question, which is, you know, how do you see our combined vision coming together and how are we working towards delivering on that promise?  You know, it kind of starts with the plug-ins, right? So, you know, rail OSP and stuff on UCS, networking plug-ins, right? So there's the Nexus 1000B plug-in. You know, there's, say, you know, a Nexus 9000 or hardware based Nexus Switch plug-in for VLAN provisioning. There's the APIC plug-in, you know, that Mike Cohen and Clayton talked about earlier with key info systems for, you know, a nice spine and leaf fabric, you know, which is very powerful. And then the ACI policies as well, right? So I mean, and group-based policies. This is a fundamental change, right, in terms of how applications kind of configure the infrastructure, right? This is a way the application actually configures the entire leaf and spine infrastructure. And the application intent, you know, it's no longer defining IP addresses and punching holes, if you will, in a network. The application configuration stays with the components. You know, whether it's the load balancer or the firewall or the databases, the VMs kind of move without the network. So it's extremely powerful, right? So it's an example of how, you know, ACI kind of drives policies across the infrastructure. You know, you talked before about how it could take months before an application could go on to, you know, a physical server in kind of the old world. This is an example too, where something, that configuration and that operations, that monitoring that used to take a very long time, I can now take just a few hours to design and then it's up and running in the fabric. So one example of what Cisco and Red Hat are doing, you know, Chris from Red Hat's been very involved in the standard. Yeah, just to add one perspective here, right? So when you look at OpenStack, one of the areas that I get the most feedback on is around networking, right? So in terms of maturity of features, functionality, et cetera. Now with the combination of ACI, where you're actually moving up the complexity and over to a policy-driven infrastructure and support for things like group-based policy, we can bring in the agility that's needed for networking, it doesn't have to be a silo. And more importantly, solving the problem that customers are facing with networking around OpenStack itself, right? So I'm doubly excited about the potential here. Excellent. And the inner cloud that we mentioned as well, you know, so global inner cloud is production, you know, infrastructure is a service, platform is a service, you know, OpenShift is certainly part of the conversation. We have a great demo of Red Hat OpenShift in the Cisco booth downstairs. Also we talked about big data. There's CloudDera as well as Hortonworks and MapR, I believe demo downstairs in the Cisco booth. These are all kind of things that are part of the conversation of the inner cloud. And the inner cloud Fabric221 was recently released also, which is, you know, a hybrid cloud architecture, which is really exciting because, and that is currently in beta. But what that allows is say you have a workload that was on say ESXi, for example, it can now be bursted in a hybrid cloud, you know, to the inner cloud, or even architecturally speaking, right? Say a workload was on EC2, and now maybe that can come to a private cloud, you know, on-prem deployment with RELL OSP and KVM. So it's another area of collaboration with a hybrid cloud that we're extremely excited about. Right, right. So Peter, just to summarize from the join partnership, clearly if you look at from a hybrid cloud perspective, you need to have a private cloud and a public cloud. The public cloud offering is into cloud, that's based on our OpenStack and our join efforts there. From a private cloud perspective, you have clearly the UCS offering as a starting point, and if you're into SDN and you want to solve the networking challenges also in the same vein, ACI is an amazing offering that's certified with RELL OSP as well. So with the combination of these three, best of, you know, across physical virtual private cloud and public cloud, you can stitch together a cloud infrastructure powered by Cisco and Red Hat. Absolutely, yep. And other areas of collaboration also. So, you know, we talked a lot about OpenStack. We're also doing a lot of innovations around open daylight as well, and even in Mike's previous conversation on ACI, extremely powerful. So the OpFlex agent where there's actually an open daylight, open flow-based controller through ACI pushing policy now down all the way to the KVM hypervisor through that OpFlex agent. So it's extremely powerful. There's also a great demo of open daylight a little bit earlier. OpenStack Neutronite can plug right into an open daylight controller or as well, you know, in other traditional network controllers as well. So you clearly have this kind of complete open cloud solution, you know, between Cisco and Red Hat with the APIC controller for, you know, bare metal through Ironic through VMs as well as containers through Magnum. Yeah. So we're quite a bit on what is already available, the areas that we are working together, et cetera. Do you want to venture to, do you want to guess where the future is headed? Sure. So lots of things that we're working on for the future. One thing is we've started the process and we're going to do more of it in the future. It's just the CVDs, the Cisco Validated Designs.  Kind of the Cisco Validated Design, you know, de-risk that proposition shows kind of the step-by-step provides, you know, all the blueprints, if you will, and the best practices. So we continue to do that. You know, infrastructure is a service platform, as a service, it's a great area of collaboration. You know, the OpFlex agent, you know, some of the newer releases of ACI with floating IP support. These are something that we're extremely excited about, you know, with more tighter integration, you know, with KVM and the Hypervisor. And from my perspective, clearly, continue to get excited about Cef, as in, you know, in many ways I see Cef and OpenStack as chips and salsa of the today, tomorrow, if you will. So working with Cisco and making sure that the consumption experience of Cef plus OpenStack with UCS is meeting the high bar that Cisco has already set from enterprise consumption is a key priority moving forward.  I'm assuming most of you are in the same category as well. We clearly have work to be done to make sure that the experience, ongoing administrative experience, as well as ongoing living with containers is reaching the same level of maturation as virtualization as a technology. So that's another opportunity area that we are working toward. Definitely, definitely. Well, we've got the countdown sign from the back.  We have a few moments left for Q&A before we close. If there's any questions from the audience. No prices for the first one. No prices for the first one. Just a moment, please. Hi, just a quick question. So quite understandable why Cisco is so motivated to provide plug-in, neutral plug-ins to OpenStack Neutral. Obviously a lot of, you know, switches and then obviously API, sorry, EPIC and the ACI infrastructures. It's quite understandable. But I'm wondering how much Cisco's committed to the open-delight control SD and control side. So, yeah, that's my question. How much committed is it to open-delight control? So, you know, we at Cisco, you know, very committed to open-source standards, like open-stack and open-delight. David Ward was here today. And in fact, Cisco has, you know, open-delight controllers as well. And there's some new releases with open-delight that we're extremely excited about. So we're actually kind of, if you will, just getting started with open-delight, right?  I think you're also gonna see open-delight actually kind of embedded in other kind of products, if you will, as well, because, you know, it's a great orchestration technology, you know, for network function virtualizations. So committed to open-stack and open-delight. And it's not even an either or.  And, you know, the off-flex agent is a great example of how we're actually using open-flow, open-delight, kind of to make ACI and open-stack better, if you will. So there's, you know, at Cisco, you know, we're a big believer in giving choices to the customer. And, you know, there's more than one really good open-source networking choice. But open-stack and open-delight, we're very excited about. Question to Cisco and Red Hat. So what's the percentage you moved towards open-stack for your internal environment? It's an excellent question. That's why you should answer that first. Sure. Well, it's funny because someone just came up to me and told me about a new application on Red Hat Open-Stack platform in Cisco. So we at Cisco, I mean, we're completely bought in, if you will, to open-stack. We're getting, you know, applications on open-stack, you know, as quickly as possible. Huge Red Hat customer. Lots of rail, lots of rail, OSP as well. For new initiatives, I mean, it's almost becoming the standard, if you will. In fact, there's gonna be a presentation from Cisco IT tomorrow about some of the stuff that we're doing on open-stack platform. And even, you know, the inner cloud, you know, we use that a lot internally to kind of spin up new applications as well. But your comment earlier, I thought was spot-on about how, like, you've almost never seen this much excitement and momentum before, and we're seeing it within Cisco IT also. So from our perspective, you know, if you look at Open-Stack Dev Team, we have an internal cloud. I always say that, hey, this is the largest cloud that we are ever gonna be building because we're not in the public cloud business. A lot of dev tests for several projects, heat, for example, is all dependent on what we call as the OS1 infrastructure, which is an internally running plain vanilla, what we sell to customers with no mods being managed internally, right? We are also actively looking at our net new applications that we are bringing in and then saying, how do we make sure that by default, we are using Open-Stack as the preferred target destination. So we already have Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization, which is KBM-based footprint already. We're not kind of disrupting that, but landing more workloads, both from engineering perspective, internal pre-sales usage perspective, and in some select cases, we even provide sandboxes to select few customers based on this infrastructure, right? So clearly, I worry a lot about making sure that that's pervasive internally, it again fits in the same category when we look at the contribution to upstream. It's not about bragging rights, it's about gaining the knowledge, right? Until you cut code and until you deploy and live with it, you're not gonna be able to understand it, right? So it builds that confidence in us that we can actually help our customers go through the same journey as well. Very true. Okay, excellent. On behalf of Cisco and Red Hat, we thank you so much for hanging out with us a little bit. We know the agenda and the events are packed in this afternoon, but thank you so much for spending some time with us today, and we hope you enjoy the rest of the summit. Thank you very much.


Hey guys, it's Kevin. Today we're going to go over how to replace the scanner unit for Epson Expression Premium XP 7100. If you have a scanner here and you don't want to spend all those time to disassemble and troubleshooting it, you can just get the whole unit and replace it. You can go to bchtechnologies.com and go to printer parts and scanner and ADF feeder. Today I'm going to show you how to install this XP 7100. I like to tape the top cover into one piece and then if you notice there's a button here. The bottom part of the scanner cannot be lift up until the button is pressed. So what I would like to do is just tape the top and the bottom scanner together so they'll become one piece. Now we turn to the back of the printer and remove this screw on the side. Pull the cover towards the back and then the cover will come out. Let me show you this cover. On the bottom it's kind of a hook. So you should hook the bottom and on the top it's kind of horizontal sliding so you will hook the bottom, press it in and then slide towards the front. That's how you install it. Almost all the wires are connected to this piece of circuit board. Let's remove those two ground wires first. You may want to use your cell phone to take a picture of the wire so you don't forget.  On the top there are four wire connection and there are two wire connection so those you cannot miss them up. Now you can push the wires away. Remember you got two ground wires so when you install make sure you screw both of them into the same slot. The scanner also has two FFSE cables. The smaller one and the bigger one goes to the scanner and the medium one goes to the circuit board that we just showed you. So keep the medium one there and pull down the bigger ones and the smaller one. They're going to have a lot of glue on the top so you need to pull them off the glue. Okay now we have all the wires attached so right now we need a Philip screwdriver, Philip number two, and remove those two screws from the top. Open and close the scanner unit a few times and you're going to see the scanner unit are going to come off. Now you can pull the wires out and now you can take out the whole unit. To put it back remember the hinge has a 45 degree angle so pay attention to the slot on the right and on the left. So you're going to put a hinge inside those two slots at 45 degree angle and push it in and then close it. I hope you enjoyed this video. Visit us at www.bchtechnology.com or locally Greensboro, North Carolina. Cheers!


We're playing Old MacDonald's Switcheroo. We're playing Old MacDonald's Switcheroo. Here's how you play.  You can draw pictures or cut them out for magazines or even use stickers. The pictures can mean anything. Like a wild animal or food or something you play with. Just tape or glue the picture onto a card. And then put the cards into a bowl. Let me take one out. I got a bowl. Now we need to think of a sound that a bowl makes and replace it from an animal for Old MacDonald's. Bounce. I like that. Okay. A robot. A robot. With a eh eh tear. There and a ee ee. I like that. Every once.


Last time we started the study of zero sum games and these were games involving two players with finitely many strategies for each player and we said that they can be represented in this sort of form. Now, zero sum game had the property that the payoffs of the players sum to 0. So, as a result you could represent the game using only one set of payoffs and that was represented in a matrix form. So, a zero sum game was represented using a matrix A where the rows of the matrix were the strategies of player 1 and the columns of the matrix were the strategies of player 2. And player 1 seek to find the least value in the matrix, he wanted the least value. So, he was the minimizing player, minimizing player and player 2 was the maximizing player. And what did we, we introduced something called as a security strategy for the players. So, the security strategy is the strategy, security strategy for the row player, for the row player is a was a row i star such that should take the maximum damage that he could have, he could get under i when he plays i star, this was better than what he could get from any other row. So, i star was a row that satisfied this. Similarly, for the column player we had a security strategy j star which was defined with the property that the minimum, again the maximum damage that he could get which is the minimum over i of i j star. This was greater than equal to the minimum over i a i j for all j. And the significance that I said of security strategies was that the security strategies basically bounded the payoff that a player, bounded the loss that a player could incur. In other words, that if the player, if the row player played i star then the worst case payoff that he could get is this, was this number there and this was called to recall this was called the security level. The worst case payoff that he could get was this security level and the reason for that was because if the worst case payoff that he would get is would be if the column player played the j that maximized a i j star and but if the column player played any other j then the row player would always be better off because this was the maximum and he was looking for the row player is looking for the least possible value in the matrix. Any other strategy j that the column player played was always beneficial for the row player. So, in particular, so the security strategies satisfy this particular property that if you take look at the max over j of a i star j, this is always greater than equal to a i star j for all j. So, what is this here? This term is what the what the row player is objective and the column player plays j. So, when the column player plays any j, what the row player can get is only better than the left hand side here, which is his security level. So, the security strategy basically guarantees him a certain level of his objective that he can he can always get a number lower than this particular number. So, that is why we denoted this by a notation called the upper bar, the upper bar of a was the min over i max over j of a i j. And similarly, there was a analogous one for the column player also that was the column for the column player we had that the min over min over i i j star, this was always less than equal this was always less than equal to a i j star for all i, which means if the row player played any strategy, he was guaranteed the column player was guaranteed to get a payoff greater than equal to this the left hand side security level prior. So, in other words, if these if the row player and column player play i star and j star, then they are guaranteed to receive a payoff better than that defined through these security levels. So, that was what we discussed last time. And then we discussed something about saddle points which I will come to in a moment. But what I want to do now for the for a little while is to also give you another interpretation of the significance of security strategies and security levels. So, presently, we have been assuming that the players are playing simultaneously. So, there is no communication between the players and that is the other player is not aware of the that what the what a player what his opponent has played. But now suppose there is a definite order of play, suppose there is a definite order of play. Suppose player 1 plays first and then player 2 observes his action, observes player 1's action and then responds to that. So, player 1 plays chooses a row, player 2 gets to see what that row is and then decide what column he should be playing. If there is such a definite order of play, then what should the players play? Why is that? Why would the first one play? Why would the row player play his security strategy? So, notice this, see basically now suppose the row player plays suppose so suppose E1 plays first and he picks say a row i. Now, this row i is played by player 1, player 2 can now observe that row i has been played. So, what are the choices for player 2? He has to pick a column, but his payoff is now very well defined because he knows that it is going to be E1 of i, a ij where i is already been declared to him. So, i is known, so he has to look over the columns and says which is the column that gives me the best payoff. So, that column player will, player 2 will respond with, will respond with j such that, so j, the j that maximizes basically with j that maximizes a ij with i known remember with i known ok. So, player 2 will now pick the j that maximizes a ij with i known alright. So, in other words player 2 is going to just maximize a ij. Now, this is what happens when player 1 plays a row i, but player 1 knows that this is how what is going to happen because player 2 is going to be maximizing a ij. So, he can now choose his row i, so that in anticipation of what happened, what is going to happen right in anticipation of how player 2 is going to respond. So, if he plays then what row should he be playing in that case? He should be playing the row i which minimizes this particular term, which minimizes this term right. So, he should choose the row i star such that it minimizes the max over j of a ij. So, in other words, this another interpretation for the security strategy is that the, it is the strategy that the player would have played if he was playing first ok. If the row player was playing first, it would he would have played i star, if the column player was playing first he would have played his corresponding security strategy j star ok. Now, yeah no, so player 1 is going to play first ok. So, he declares his i, player 2 responds to that with a j right. Now, knowing that this is going to be the response he can choose the i. So, he minimizes the prospective response that will come up after he chooses the i ok. Now, if you, if this was in fact the game right, if this was in fact the game that player 1 was supposed to play first follow and then player 2 was going to has to follow, then this is in fact the solution there is there is not much else left to do as far as solving the game is concerned. So, in fact the security strategy is the strategy to play if there was a definite order of play ok. The solution of the game would be that the player playing first plays a security strategy and the other player just responds to that, yes, no, yeah, player even if whatever player 2 already knows that player 1 is rational ok, so that or ok, when if you assume that it makes no difference because eventually player 2 has this is what is called a faith accompli basically his options are locked once player 1 has already declared his strategy. Player 2 has to basically pick the column that gives him the best payoff in that row. That is it, yeah ok. So, the security strategy therefore can be interpreted as the right solution for a game where the play was sequential ok. We will talk more about sequential play much later in the game, but as you right now we are this is just more as an artifact for interpreting security strategies that security strategy is the right strategy you would have played if the game was sequential ok and with and if there was a predefined definite order of play. What this also means is that it is a strategy in which if the player played in a in why am I saying that this is in fact the right solution for this problem is you can think of it this way that if player 1 plays i star ok, then he is guaranteed that he will not come back with any regret. He plays i star he is player 2 will then respond with a column that maximizes this box term here. Player 2 will respond with a column that maximizes this term with i equal to i star and therefore then in the you know given that that is how player 2 was going to respond it makes sense that player 1 just picks the i star that minimizes this. If he had picked any other i not i star then he would have in could have in hindsight regretted that I could have actually knowing that this is what player 2 was going to respond with I could have played it played differently right. So, in other words the this is the right solution concept because there is exposed after the game after play has played out there is nothing for the player 2 there is no nothing for the player to say that he could have done better right now if there is no definite order of play right this this situation changes. So, let us let us do an example. So, so let us say for example, consider this so this is player 2 this is player 1 it is this is 4 0 minus 1 0 minus 1 3 1 2 1 can you find the upper and lower security levels what is V upper bar and what are the security strategies for the 2 players what is V upper bar here. So, how do I how do you find V upper bar you have to max look for the maximum over the column in every row and look for the row that gives you the least value of this maximum ok. So, let us just do that look at the maximum over over the columns in this row what is that that is here that in this case it is 4 I will just write it here. So, what I am writing here is the max the max over this over the columns in each row ok max over columns. So, this is 4 what about the second row what is the maximum over the columns it is 3 what about the third row the max over the columns is 2 and now you look for the minimum of these green numbers. So, this is going to be equal to ok what is V under bar V under bar what I need to do is take the minimum over the rows in each column ok. So, in this column now what is the minimum over these over the rows here first column 0 second column minus 1 third column minus 1 and then look at the maximum out of these which then gives me 0 and what are the security strategies it is easy to see actually what the security strategies are the what is the security strategy for the for the row player what should be what is the strategy that gives him this security level third row row 3 and what about column what about for the column player column 1 right suppose now there is no definite order of play and the players play actually these two strategies I star and J star ok. Now, what would happen if player player let us say let us take it from the player 1's point of view what happens if player 1 chooses I star a that means row 3 what what does the column what does the column player play column player would play 2 would play column 2 right, but if column player was playing column 2 what would what would the row player have played row 2 right not row 3 right. So, likewise let us think of it think about it from the column player's point of view column player J the security strategy is suggesting him to play J star equal to 1 which is column 1 ok. If he plays column 1 player 1 would have would respond with with row 2 which is 0 you would get 0 right with row 2, but if player 1 was indeed playing row 2 if player 1 was indeed playing row 2 what would what would the column player respond with column player would respond with column 3 right. So, another way to think about it is suppose the row player plays a row I star thinking that the column player is going to do the worst column player is think plays rows J star thinking that the row player is going to do the worst worst possible damage right, but the worst possible damage to I star is not J star right. So, what is the worst possible damage to I star it is column 2 right. If column so if player 1 had chosen if these 2 players had chosen I star and J star and played this way each has a reason to regret that they would each think that if I knew that this guy was going to play J star I would have played differently. So, if column 1 if player 1 would have if the if the column player had played J star player 2 would not have played I star right player 2 would have played row 2 sorry player 1 would have played row 2 not not row 3 right if likewise if player player 1 is playing row I star which is row 3 column player would not have played could not have played column 1 he would have played column 2 right. So, in other words if this if you think of this as I star J star comprising of security strategies just a pair of security strategies as a solution it is not satisfactory simply because there is a reason to for to regret after the game right which means that there is somewhere you feel that the reasoning process that the players have put in has not given you an you know a satisfactory conclusion there is something for each player to get could that they each thing could have they could have done better given you know given the circumstances. So, which means that there is now the reason this has happened in this particular example is because your V upper bar is not equal to V lower bar. Now, that brings me to the other theorem that we proved last time what will be what did we conclude last time we conclude that concluded that if V upper bar is equal to V lower bar then there exists a saddle point. What is a saddle point? A saddle point is so what is the saddle point is a saddle point is a pair of strategies I star J star such that A I J star. So, A I star if you look at it from the point of view of player I so from the point of view of player the row player the row player is better of playing I star in response to J star and the column player is better of playing J star in response to I star. So, if V upper bar is equal to V lower bar then there exists a saddle point in and in that once there exists a saddle point the kind of regret that we just saw about does not exist. Now, moreover so but there is a slight catch here which is for all I and for all J. So, there is a slight catch I said I star J star is a saddle point but what is the guarantee that this saddle point is in fact the same as the same I star J star that we wrote about for security strategies because I was talking of regret in terms of security strategies but actually what is very nice is actually that the saddle point in fact comprises of security strategies. So, and in fact the converse is so this is what we showed and actually if you see the proof that we discussed last time you will see that the converse is also true. That means if there is a saddle point then V upper bar and V lower bar become equal. So, if we so here what the way I have written it is that if V upper bar is equal to V lower bar then there exists a saddle point and it comprises and the saddle point comprises of security strategies and the opposite result is that if there exists a saddle point then V upper bar is equal to V lower bar and that is actually equal to a I star J star. If there exists a saddle point I star J star then these are equal. Okay, any questions about this? Yes, yes, yes. So, a saddle point is actually the same as the Nash equilibrium when applied to zero sum games. You can see in fact you can see it from the from this inequality here each player the way you can think of it as a Nash equilibrium as you can say that assuming the other players plays his start strategy each player would want to play his own starts would not want to deviate from his start strategy. So, I will write this here. So, a saddle point is a Nash equilibrium is basically is equivalent to Nash equilibrium for zero sum games. Now here is something to just take again sort of take note here. See if the saddle the way the saddle point is defined is that it requires you to define that pair okay and in fact this definition of saddle point is exactly what you encounter when you do calculus multivariable calculus you know optimization saddle points and so on okay. So, this is the saddle point requires you to define the pair I star J star security strategies could need not require you to concern yourself with what the other player is going to play. Security strategy was just defined as in this in this way they mean over that the I star that minimizes the max over J a i j and the J star that maximizes the mean over i of a i j. So, I do not really need to know what the other component of the component is if I want to find the security strategy all I have to do is this I do not need the J star to find the I star and likewise I do not need the I star to find the J star. Whereas in a saddle point a saddle point always is defined with I star J star as a pair together the pair is called a saddle point if this inequality they together need to satisfy these two inequalities. So, a saddle point in some sense is a more demanding concept but a security strategy is something that each player can compute on its own does not need the you know I do not need to even take the view of an observer it is just a each player has to just compute a security strategy by you know by its own calculation okay. So, that is one thing. So, the security strategies can be computed by players independently a saddle point is something that is a joint definition okay but when V upper bar is equal to V lower bar the two coincide okay saddle point comprises of security strategies and vice versa the this is what happens when V upper bar is equal to V lower bar which means if the game satisfies V upper bar equals V lower bar then in that case players can basically reason about the game sort of in some way in some sense independently each player basically just thinks of the worst that could happen and plays and that that that turns out to be you know zero regret or satisfactory at the end of it all okay. Unlike in the so since the reason I brought this up is because the comparison with the Nash equilibrium game. The Nash equilibrium remember is something that is defined as a profile. So, profile of strategies for the player such that no player has an incentive to do so for that the entire profile has to be defined together you cannot define each players action independently. If you go if you go back and think about the dear rabbit game for example I cannot think of only one player's strategy as dear and another player's strategy as rabbit and think of those two as separate because then that will not you know I cannot come dear dear is a Nash equilibrium there rabbit rabbit is a Nash equilibrium but dear rabbit and rabbit dear are not okay. So, so this is again a peculiar structure of the zero sum game the zero sum game has all these nice properties that you know it is essentially because players are this kind of in are into mortal combat here is that that is the reason why this is happening because they are basically just out to kill each other any gain to one is the is lost to the other okay. So, that is why there is this particular all this structure prevails here is another corollary of all this. Now, since a saddle point must always comprise of security strategies whenever V upper bar is equal to V lower bar saddle point must comprise of security strategy but as I said security strategies can be computed by each player separately which means these two quantities V upper bar and V lower bar can be computed by the players separately in other words they are properties of the matrix itself right they are not properties of the specific saddle point necessarily because the saddle point is just a pair that satisfies this whereas these two quantities whenever a saddle point exists its value actually ends up being equal to the V upper bar and V lower bar and these two are actually functions of the matrix which means what does this mean which means all saddle points must have the same value because they are they end up being equal to V upper bar and lower V lower bar right. So, corollary here is all saddle points have the same value now this is in itself significant because what it is saying is that even if there are multiple saddle points to the game it does not matter which one you pick the value that each player gets is the same regardless of what that saddle point is ok. Again contrast with the deer rabbit game deer deer gave you a different payoff rabbit rabbit gave you a different payoff there are two different Nash equilibria which gave two different payoffs to both players right. On the other hand in a zero sum game once there is a saddle point there is one saddle point regardless of what the what the structure of the matrix is once there is a saddle point it has to be that all saddle points will give you the same value provided there exists a saddle point ok. So, this again simplifies for us you know is as observers of the game this tells us this is very useful because it tells us that there is you know I may not be able to predict the saddle point, but I can certainly predict what the value each player is going to get yeah I can say something very very definite about what value each player is going to get ok alright. So, that is that so all saddle points have the same value there is another corollary of the again of what I just wrote on the previous on the previous page. Now suppose there are two saddle points let us say I1 J1 is a saddle point and I2J2 is another saddle point and J1 and I2J2 are saddle points. So, these are saddle points now therefore what does this mean every saddle point must comprise of security strategies which means I1 is a security strategy for player 1 I2 is also security strategy for player 1, J1 is a security strategy for player 2 and J2 is also a security strategy for player 2. But, then what will we also say that if there is a saddle point then every pair of security strategies is also a saddle point point, which means I1J2 is also a saddle point and I2J1 is also a saddle point. So that is, so if there, so actually you will have to go back to the previous, the proof that we showed at the end of the last class, essentially if there is, if V1 equals V2 there is a saddle point and saddle point comprises of security strategy. Conversely, if a saddle point exists, then V1 equals V2 and then once V1 equals V2, the saddle point becomes, is comprised of security strategy. So every, and you put together any pair of security strategies, they have to be a saddle point because security strategies give you V1, V upper bar and, not V1, V2 what am I saying, V upper bar and V lower bar. So, if I1J1 and I2J2 are saddle points, then so are I2J1 and I1J2. What this means is, this is what is called the interchangeability of saddle points. What this again means is, if, see again remember in the dear rabbit game, dear, dear was an ash equilibrium, rabbit, rabbit was an ash equilibrium, but dear rabbit is not. But in a zero sum game, you see what has happened, you can take one player's security, one player's strategy from a saddle point, combine it with the other player's strategy from another saddle point and put those together that still remains a saddle point. This kind of mix and match that you can do here with, you know, with player strategies is essentially because the way a saddle point is arrived at is because, is by both players kind of independently reasoning. You do not have to define the pair together if the saddle point exists because it comes out from security strategies. Yes, I think that generically should be possible, I do not know if I have a numerical example.  So I can just create one more row, copy paste this last row here, it should be, no, it would be either row 3 or row 4. Yeah, well, you should be saying, I mean, but here, this is a bad example because there is no saddle point to here to begin with, here we did not have via per bar and below. But nonetheless, I mean, just imagine a game where you had a saddle point and you just duplicated the row that had the saddle point, right, you will get the column that had the saddle point, you will get, you will get this particular property. So mathematically, I mean, that is of course, a very kind of contrived, contrived example, but mathematically, there could very well be multiple rows that give you the same worst case payoff or multiple, likewise, multiple columns that give the same worst case payoff. So if there is this, because of this interchangeability property, essentially how to play in a zero sum game has a very simple answer, just if there is via per bar is equal to will or what you need to do is just play your security strategy, that is it, and it does not matter whether which security strategy other guy is going to play, you would get the same payoff regardless. So this is basically the, let us say where this is essentially what you can say is how you would reason if v upper bar is equal to v lower bar for a zero sum game.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jasper's casebreak.com. You can see the pink X's right there on the boxes. Nick's gonna start popping those open right now Remember six filled before five. So we did six. That's already uploaded and now we're doing pick your team five big Thanks to all of these folks for getting to the action triple last spot mojo for Zagsworn's and giving away the pelicans So let's erase that pelican spot right there Everyone has a shot at it. Good luck after five times four and a one Pels one two Three four and I want the final time and after five. It's David David Cazaris Congrats to you. He had the rockets and She just bought a few team rockets Raptors jazz and ended up with the pelicans as well. So congrats to you Let's print. Let's rip Good luck Retail seven is happening a little bit later tonight All right, so here's the final Print out right here. Thanks everyone for getting in on a Friday. It looks like it's a busy one folks Everyone see the lighthouse. We were talking about that before we started Derek E likes it. He says it's got a lot of Greek mythology stuff in it like what? like like a tree nymphs and gods and Sisyphus and Herculean tasks and maybe I watched it too late. I don't know it does look spooky That's a lot by myself movie that see that's a little spooky Watching movies is a lot better watching it with other people wood nymphs Say goodbye emergent silver Jared Culver green They're not numbered Kevin loves silver that will ship I Didn't but I screw that up all the time George cruise pistons They should flip them not they should be this way right John Moran emergent Yeah Sean Kurt and and F the people who will steal the code That's just scumbag just absolute scum Yes, you We're talking to you.   Oh, I kind of saw that but maybe blue. I thought Now this is Jared culver because the top ten pick Zach Sorenson last spot mojo T Wolves silver RJ Barrett instant impact Dominance Dame Well, who else should be in hobby jail Brandon Cook the 99 guy show me hobby bit shill bitters hobby jail Carson Edwards That's true. If you get caught I guess Carson Edwards Karen with the seas the Celtics Card trimmer's hobby jail. They went to prison some guy in Chicago. I think and here's Kurt Thomas Penmanship on it. Wait, did we get point? No, that's for stuff I thought the box made it up to us, but this is the second box Kurt Thomas Nick's autograph going to Adam Kelly Red wave TJ Warren drew holiday silver And the last one boys and girls is right here. Thank you, Nick and I'll randomize the points to somebody too Silver Harry Giles Jared culver again Darius basely green Emergent silver Nikhil Alexander Walker green Luca Donchich Silver Kobe white Dan Tyson with the Chicago Bulls. I Feel like Kobe white before the season was put on pause Was averaging like 30 points a night or something like that for like three or four nights in a row and then Pause button. Thanks, Kobe Rob with the Mavs and David with the Pells John Moran base for Sean and the Gris Grant Williams Mark is smart. Both of those will go to Karen and the Celtics Dennis Smith Jr. Red Wave. He was hobby hot for a second Lauren Powell silver Julia local for Giannis Terry Rosier Charlotte. There's a Zion instant impact Matisse Tybal and Justin James King's silver and another Luca Donchich The Luca will go to Rob. Well, second year Luca. It's been doing okay if it was silver It'd be it'd be pretty big but Justin James Kings Luis the Zion instant impact Will go to the Pells that'll be for David who won that spot. There's another Giannis for the Bucks That'll be for Phillip and the last little bit. Oh Quinn Buckner for the Bucks. It's another one for Phil Penbenship autograph Old school Milwaukee Derrick Rose red wave Zion base. There you go. David nice For your winning spot right there Grant Williams Nicola Yolkich silver Jason Kidd Danilo Galanari ad Grant Williams and Laurie marketing There you go, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks very much for getting in I think break seven of this will be coming up a little bit later tonight. I'll pop the schedule if you're watching live And I'll put the schedule in the chat in just a little bit. All right, let's give the points to somebody Everyone's got a shot at the hundred and fifty Let's roll it. Let's randomize it three and a five eight times name on top after eight That's the one fifty two and eighth and final time. But boom after a Chris Hale there you go little consolation prize for mr. Mike's daddy. There you have it. Thanks for watching everybody I'm Joe. I'll see you next time. Jaspy's case breaks


Hi everyone Sean with jaspyscasebreaks.com here doing 2018 tops update hangar one-pack break random team number 14 where we're chasing Otani Soto and Okunya on top of that We're also giving away the last four spots in our baseball mixer, which is coming up next So 30 spots everyone gets a random team at MLB no vet common ship at the end of the break We'll take all 30 customers names randomize them top four names each win a spot in the mixer for $340 spots. So good luck. Here is the list of customers Matthew Shira down to Don McCrae last spot mojo and the teams from the Diamondbacks down to the Nationals Dice world randomized both lists and pair them up four and three seven times Seventh and final time from DJ Mendenhall down to Don McCrae and seven times on the teams Seventh and final time from the Dodgers down to the Rays Seven times there seven times there seven times on the dice And there you go. I'm not gonna read through every single one of these since it is a filler and no trade window but let's make it a little bit larger so we can see everything and Highlights angels Otani Don McCrae Braves Okunya Jonathan Lang and where was Washington Washington Matthew Shira chances at Soto there for you There you go So print rip separate nice roll separate randomizer at the end to give away those spots There is the finalists Paul George feeling confident like it show here Otani angels John McCrae Labor Torez for the Yankees Jonathan Liang Golda Kunya coming up. Let's see Hmm Paul George This seems pretty good Mike Soroka who said he wasn't good for the Braves Jonathan Liang You did Reese Hoskins for the Phillies Andrew Schmidt labor One Soto nice little insert there nationals Matthew Shira another labor for the Yankees Jonathan Liang and Jesus Aguilar all-star game relic for the Brewers Don McCrae Steve Ballmer seems like a pretty cool owner Labor Torez I mean, how could you not like that? Microsoft I think it's Microsoft. Yeah, that's right. Oh Tani insert super cool with trout and Justin Upton Nice little box there So now let's give away those spots and start this mixer. Do we have rondo is like pretty ripped He's on like the LeBron James fitness program where like he actually looks better as like he's gotten older, you know So here's the original list again from Matthew Shira back down to Don McCrae dice roll and it's the top four names after two Snake eyes like we said top four names snake eyes Good luck. I'm right. One Two Okay, so spots five down to 30, thank you guys very much for getting in on the break and hopefully I can do better for you on the follow and future randomizer but Thank you very much and congratulations to Don McCrae last spot mojo Don McCrae last spot mojo Matt Arnold and Michael Everly You four are now in on the mixer Which is coming up right now two times on the randomizer two times on the dice and that wraps it up That was 2018 tops update hangar one pack break random team number 14 from jasky's case breaks calm I'm Sean jasky's case breaks calm. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you next time


What's up and welcome to One Take. I'm Gil and today we're talking about some more Marvel-related news but we're not talking about the Marvel Cinematic Universe. We're talking about Sony's Marvel Spider-Man supporting characters slash villain universe. That's right. We're talking about Venom. We've known for a while now there was a sequel on the way but just the other day news broke that there were three directors that were in contention for the role and that was Rupert Wyatt who was known mostly for Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Travis Knight who's known for Bumblebee and Andy Circus who's not really known for directing. He's more known for all this motion capture work, Smeagol, Planet of the Ape and other motion capture produced characters. So that to me was always the more interesting choice and then we found out today that officially Andy Circus will be directing Venom 2. Now before we talk about whether or not that's good news let's talk about Venom 1 for a second. Before that movie came out I was actually kind of excited for it. I remember early on when it was just going into production we heard some interesting things about what it could be. Things like it's going to be a sci-fi horror R-rated take on the material and when you say Spider-Man's not going to be involved in it really the only way to make it interesting is to say you're going to do something unusual for a comic book movie and that would be an interesting take on the material but as we got closer to Venom's actual release they started to do a little bit of a 180 on that. So I remember early on hearing it's going to be R-rated and then closer to the release it might have been Ruben Fleischer the director who said it but he was like R-rated no no we never said that and it ended up being a sort of exactly what you'd expect cheesy over the top but not really that funny just not a great movie and I have to confess I never actually saw the movie but my brother saw it and we have the exact same opinion and taste in everything so I feel confident in saying I wouldn't have been a fan of the first one. Now is it good news that Andy Serkis is directing Venom 2? He's pretty untested he's directed a couple of things the biggest thing he's directed was the Straight to Netflix jungle book movie Mowgli Legend of the Jungle this was kind of a weird release it came out right after John Favreau's much more popular live action remake of the jungle book titled The Jungle Book. Apparently Andy Serkis's Mowgli was a little bit of a darker take on the material it didn't have music in it it tried to be a little bit more grounded but it wasn't received very well. On Rotten Tomatoes it scored about a 52% and some of the criticisms towards it were about Andy Serkis's difficulty in landing the right tone for that movie. Now if I wanted to be optimistic about this I'd say at least he tried to do something different with the material and with one of my biggest complaints for Venom is that they went too light and they should have gone darker. We have one example where Andy Serkis has made a large feature film and what he did is take material that was traditionally lighter in tone and tried to make it darker. So why did Sony select Andy Serkis to direct this movie? There's a few possibilities I can think of one of them is that they are trying to go for a little bit of a darker tone they saw him do it with Mowgli maybe they were happy with the results if that's the case that gives me a little bit of hope maybe something different will happen with Venom 2 that gives us a reason to look forward to it. Another possibility is Sony knows that Andy Serkis has a ton of experience with motion capture he's basically considered the best in the business when it comes to that and maybe they want to up their game on the effects in this movie but at the same time Andy Serkis has landed his motion capture expertise to plenty of movies that he didn't direct so it would feel a little silly to put him in the director's chair for just that reason. The third reason I can think of and this is the more cynical side of me talking is that Sony just wants to turn out a studio approved sequel to Venom 1 Andy Serkis is a new director doesn't have a lot of experience here so he'll probably be pretty easy to control and they'll get the corporate approved movie that they want. So you can probably tell I feel pretty cynical about this sequel the one thing that really bothers me about it is that Sony has proven that they can take these superhero properties and do something really interesting with them in fact they've proven it with Spider-Man. I was annoyed for a little while now that Sony had control over some of these characters but that changed with the release of Spider-Man into the spider-verse because one of my biggest complaints about the Marvel Cinematic Universe and I love the MCU I've seen every movie I loved Endgame but there is a feeling that a lot of them are pretty similar they all go for the sort of action comedy tone and Spider-Man into the spider-verse was one of the first superhero movies I've seen in a while besides maybe Logan and Deadpool that really did something unique and different so Sony proved they can do it but I wish they would apply the same principles outside of animation for example we really haven't seen a sci-fi horror superhero movie and that's what they originally talked up Venom 1 to be so if Sony were willing to take a chance and do something really different with that sort of a dark tone I would be a lot more interested in this movie so overall I clearly wasn't really excited for Venom 2 when we knew it was coming the fact that Andy Serkis is directing it's sort of a curiosity I'm interested to see what he does with it considering he doesn't have a lot of directing experience but for this one for me to get interested I really need to hear that they're going to do something totally different from the first one either go for a darker tone or just find some creative take that says this is going to be something more than just a cheesy action retread of the first one anyway I think that wraps it up leave a comment on this video let us know what you thought of Venom 1 how do you feel about this news and are you looking forward to Venom 2 and if you enjoyed this video make sure to like it subscribe to our channel and hit the little bell icon so you get notifications whenever we release more videos like this one thanks for watching


Pull-in officials at Pull-in Unit 084 in Roushary-Rabu-ku in Joss-not-Local-Government-Area-Plateau-State were held hostage until Sunday morning of a 40-by-model-volta accreditation system, Beaver's Machines. The presidential and National Assembly elections were suspended at the Pull-in Unit on Saturday night when voting could not continue due to hitches with the Beaver's. However, the INEC officials were released with the intervention of the electoral officer of Joss-not-Fred Oboji, who came in to attend to the malfunctioning Beaver's. Addressing the voters, Oboji urged them to remain peaceful and not take laws into their hands. He also said the resident electoral commissioner in the state has directed a vote in continue in the area. Back to him now and with the head of one of the south of the ICT here, go back to the office to feed it back. This is the situation. We're back to you very soon. Meanwhile, the ad hoc are here. So as soon as possible, I want to urge you to be peaceful. 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.


Hey there, folks. Rob here. Welcome back to the show. So in the last episode, we were talking a little bit about tab index and how you can add focusability to some of the custom controls that you're working on. I promised in this episode that we would be talking more about tab index, and I'd show you how to build some custom components. But before I get into that, I realized I was getting a little ahead of myself. And I should actually spend a bit more time singing the praises of native HTML. In particular, the humble button element. It's one of those things that I see a lot of developers actually not using in their projects, using alternatives like divs, or maybe even abusing the anchor tag. And so today, what I wanted to do was to show off why, instead of building your own custom button, you should always just use a button. Now, follow me over here to my code editor. And I'm going to walk you through the process of building like a fake button, and then demonstrate why we should stick with the native button. So here, I've got just a div tag. And I'm going to turn this into a sign up button. And one of the things I think a lot of developers feel is that maybe the button element is not super stylable. So they'll drop in their own styles for this div button. We'll give it a class button or something like that. Actually, I'm going to call this fancy, because this is a really fancy looking button. So we'll give this class fancy. So now I've got this very fancy looking sign up button that I've created here. If you remember from the previous episodes, though, one of the most important things for our users to make sure that our controls, our interactive controls at least, are focusable. And as you know, this div, if we go and we try it with our keyboard and we press the Tab key, we're not going to see any sort of focus indicator actually on this element. And again, that's because to the browser, a div semantically is just sort of like a grouping element. There's nothing implicitly interactive about it. And so there's no reason why it should be in a tab order. So if you're creating a fancy div button, you might realize that and say, ah, OK. Well, I saw that last episode that Rob did. So I know that I should maybe add a tab index to this thing. So ah, OK. I'll give it a tab index of 0. Now I can go and I can tab to this button. And sure enough, it is in the focus order. But remember, keyboard focus is not the total story. We've also got our screen reader users out there. So let's see what happens when we try and interact with this control using something like voiceover. Sign up, group. So you saw there that instead of saying sign up button, it said sign up group. Again, because semantically to the browser a div is just sort of like a generic, containing, grouping element type thing. Now we haven't really talked about aria much. But to fix this, we need to add our own role. And now we're starting to kind of get to a point where creating our own custom button has diminishing returns. Let's instead look at what we get when we just use a native button tag. So I'll drop another button in here, just a regular old button element. I'll also write sign up next to this one. I'll say sign up for real, OK. And right away, you can see that we don't have that really cool, beautiful styling that we had on our custom button. But a native button element is totally styleable. So I'm just going to give it that same class of fancy. And then boom, now we have two buttons that look pretty much identical. We can see that they are both in the tab order, which is cool. I didn't have to add anything to my button element. It just sort of like gets that for free. And now let's try this out with a screen reader and see what we get. VoiceOver on Chrome, JS bin, sign up, group, sign up for real button. So you can see there with that second button, it actually announced the proper role to our user. So had they previously just been working with that first thing, they wouldn't really know that it was an interactive control. They might think it's maybe just some text on the page that tells them to sign up. Whereas now we've kind of explicitly told them, hey, this is an action that you can take to sign up for our application. But there are some more reasons why the humble button is pretty awesome. Another one is that we can add our own click handlers to this element. And I want to show you kind of an important distinction that happens here. So I'm going to just drop in a little bit of JavaScript into my page. And what this JavaScript is doing, I'll hide the CSS there, what this JavaScript is doing is it's selecting everything that has the class of fancy. So we have this array of buttons now that have that fancy class. For each of those, we're adding a click event listener. And when we click on the element, it should alert this little message that says, I was clicked. OK, so I'll go click on the first button. You can see it says, I was clicked. Let's go click on the second one. We can see it also says, I was clicked. Well, that makes sense. Now let's try this with our keyboard, though. So typically on a keyboard, pressing the space bar or maybe the inner key in some situations will interact with the control. So let's see what we get here. We will focus the first button and hit space bar. Nothing's happening. Hit Enter. Nothing's happening. Let's go over to that actual, the native button element. We hit space bar. Ah, now we get our alert message. We hit Enter. We get our alert message as well. So this little trick that I'm showing off here in the HTML spec, I believe it's referred to as synthetic click activation. And basically it's a little bit of black magic that the browser does that says, hey, if you have a button element and you add a click handler, I'm just going to assume that you would also like that to run when someone presses the space bar or the inner key. So again, you're not going to get that with a div button. To add that kind of keyboard support, now you're going to have to add key down handlers. You're going to have to look at the key codes and differentiate was that a space bar or an inner key. If so, run my click handler. OK, so now we're really, really getting diminishing returns with that div button. The last thing that I want to show off is the disabled attribute. So it can be really, really handy to just turn a control off sometimes based on the state of your application. So I'll write a little bit of CSS here just so we can see what's going on. So I'll say, hey, anytime anything that is fancy is disabled, then we're just going to set its background to gray. And I'll add that disabled attribute to both of these controls. So we'll say 1, 2. All right, now they both look disabled. But let's see here now. When I go and I click on the sign up button, it's not actually disabled. I'm still seeing that click message running.  And again, as we saw here, we can see the focus ring is on this control because we added tab index to it. But we really don't want it to be focused right now because it should be disabled. And so you can see I cannot tab to that sign up for real button. The native button has been removed from the focus order because of that attribute. So again, I just wanted to highlight, there's a lot of reasons why you want to use the native controls whenever possible. You're getting a ton of built-in behavior. And you might not realize it until you actually go to use one of these attributes and one of these features. And then notice, oh, shoot, this is not implemented in my button.  So you see this button. You see this with other controls, like select and input. There's a lot of reasons why whenever possible, you want to stick to the native elements. So that's it for today. If you have any questions, please leave them for me down below in the comments. Or you can always hit me up on a social network of your choosing. As always, thank you so much for watching. And I'll see you next time.