I'm Dave the Cyber Guy, thanks for joining us again. I will be here for one more episode next week, and then after that I'm going to have to take a break because I'm going out to Las Vegas to attend B-Sides, Black Hat, and the DEF CON Cyber Security Conference is all in the first week of August in Las Vegas. That's right, if it gets thermonuclear hot in Vegas, you have to have a cybersecurity conference. That's just the way it has to be every year.  Okay, but forget the beer, will you? No beer. Because the end of the day at the conference is the perfect time for you to report back here. Yes. Think Tech. I will do that, and then I'll start drinking. I guess, J-Fight L, founder of Think Tech Hawaii, welcome, and I am so happy that you get to be here. Our original co-host slash guest got sick, so he couldn't be here. But great to have you aboard because you're a database programmer, former attorney, founder of this wonderful organization that we broadcast on every week, and thank you so much for having our show. And I am fascinated with what you were going to discuss, so I want to discuss that very subject, which I think about all the time. Well, let's set up the foundation of the topic, actually, the separation of families. It was a policy that it's been there, actually, for many years, but it's never truly been universally enforced with such black and white indiscriminate execution as it is now. This policy actually, as my research has led me to believe that this was brought to the forefront by Stephen Miller, who works for the president, who, in my opinion, is an absolute Nazi and doesn't care about human people, must have been picked on ruthlessly as a young man. And now he's taking his vengeance. And unfortunately, the law enforcement agency at the border that's responsible for executing the orders of the president and our border security, they didn't really think this went out. And many people that I discuss with, they tell me, we don't think it's their fault. The president didn't think this out, or the administration didn't think it out. True. However, as we'll discuss in a few minutes, other law enforcement agencies have the same kind of policies and don't fall into this trap, which is, once we separate children from their parents, how do we put them back together again when all is well? They didn't think about that. So now we've got this enormous crisis where many children have actually been lost. And the big fear, I guess, is that some of those children might fall into the hands of sexual predators or human track-fickers. This is a terrible situation. It's like slavery. So how could we have solved this problem? And you brought this up. How hard would it be to make a database of people being separated from their children? So once the criminal prosecution was over, once their applicants for asylum had been processed, that they and their children could be reunited. And really making that kind of a database wouldn't be much of a challenge, now would it? I think you start out with zero, because I think the immigration service had no system in place. Right. And it would surprise me if they even wrote the names down on a yellow pad. They had no idea who was on this side of the equation in terms of family and children on that side. No idea what they were going to do if and when somebody asked them to reunite, which is incredibly blind to the realities of our time, I mean, to rationality. It was irrational. This whole agency must have been under some kind of pressure from Washington to act now, separate them, and be damned, we'll worry about it later. That sort of mentality comes from Washington on this. So they went through that. I mean, I don't know if they all were mean spirited, but their leadership was mean spirited to do this, to violently separate parents and children, even young children. So we start out with a carte blanche. They had no system. They had no system. And they have no system today. I mean, every time they do reunite somebody, it's like a miracle. How can they find them? They don't know who's related to who. And it's interesting that now, weeks after, they're using DNA not to reunite them, but to verify that they're really related. It's a verification. It's a police technique rather than an attempt to unite families in the family sense. And a lengthy one, and one that can't be used if the parents have already been deported and the child's still stuck in here in the US, which I believe is tantamount to kidnapping. We're taking your child and we're throwing you out of the country, but we're keeping your kid. I'm sorry. That's kidnapping. I mean, that would be cross-the-border international kidnapping, and we're doing it. Indefensible. I don't think that's... Yeah, it's indefensible. I mean, Hedge should roll on this. Anyway, so if we roll it back to the time when they should've been thinking about this, Dave, let's together, let's design a database system. How would we do that? First of all... Well, let's talk about federal government. You can't do a thing in federal government without a policy. You don't write it down on paper. You don't put that in black and white and put that in front of somebody's with a stamp and a signature. How long does that take? It takes forever. Then you got to hand it over to the next guy who says, oh, yeah, we don't have the budget for this till next year, right? And then you got to go through appropriations. That's the federal government. It's just the slow, slogging bureaucratic nightmare. But if you could get through that fast, which would be a miracle, yeah, let's talk about that. There's dozens of ways we could do this, and you know this, for small and medium business owners like law offices and medical practitioners and even veterinarians, they start with something like Microsoft Access. It comes with Office 365 Professional. It's available everywhere. Everywhere. It's ubiquitous. It works on all the technologies. It works on a server that can be addressed from all places in the country. Including over the Internet. And it can be secured over the Internet. It's not the most stable thing, and it can go up to about 10 million rows before breaking. But 10 million rows would have been just fine for only 2500 kids here. But it would have taken some kid, first year in high school, probably could have done this and designed a single table database to say this child belongs to that parent. We could design the fields right now. We could. You want to know everything you can find out about the parents, both of them, or however many they are, and then other members of the family. You probably want to do a DNA test and put the results of that test or the location of the results of that test in that database in the field. You're talking about another expense here. Sorry. Got to be another policy. I don't know why. I'm going to put it in appropriations. Sorry. Accountants have said, yeah, we'll pay the money for it. The worst part about the administration in general right now, as I call Trump, the orange-feathered marmot, he implements things without thinking about them. There's no foresight.  He doesn't correctly forecast his business. For instance, he did all these trade wars. China fought back and said, we're going to hit you in the soybean, right in the middle of the country, in Trump's base. Soybean farmers are feeling the heat from this trade war, so what do we do? We pay them $12 billion. Which they don't want. Called the golden crutch. They're implementing it with a rule that was created during the Great Depression. That is throwing the money. He's just throwing the money away. I think that the tax breaks that he said were going to save us all this money. Now he's just spent all the money. We saved you tax dollars, and now we're going to use your tax dollars to make up for something that I did that was wrong. Additionally, at the border, when we do DNA tests, those are not cheap. That's not cheap, especially when the federal government's doing it, and there's 15 people in the process and all these mailings back and forth, and then you have to have some kind of a database. You're talking about on a lot of expense. But you do need to do it. Why? You need to do it. Many of whom don't speak English, if they speak, can't tell you their names. They can't tell you their parents' names. They can't tell you where they're from, and they certainly can't tell you where their parents are going now, because nobody knows where their parents are going now. You brought to light a bigger problem. One of the problems, I think, with the border patrol in general right now, is not enough for those officers actually are fluent Spanish speakers. And they really need to be fluent Spanish speakers, or something at least conversational Spanish. And a large portion of them are not, and they're hired without that in mind. That is not a large priority, and that their ongoing training doesn't include this, I believe. So we're bringing people in that we can't understand. We're not documenting who they are. We're simply charging them with a crime and throwing them in front of a judge, and they only have 48 hours to consult with an attorney. If one is available, and in many cases it's not, including children who are as young as one year old standing in front of a judge that's just barely standing age, and the judge has to talk to a one or two year old infant who barely knows their own language. And sometimes they go up without an attorney. They have no idea what's going on, and the judge has actually fought back in a couple of these cases. I do remember that. I can't do this.  You know, back a few years ago it dawned on me, and maybe others, that the immigration service could not tell you, I mean, ever, in all of the history of the immigration service, it could not tell you who was in the country, who was in the country, you know, who had what kind of visa, who was here legally or illegally. They had no idea, and they couldn't produce a list. So they were way behind, as of a couple of months ago, they were way behind on computer technology. Right. I mean, they may have a lot of trucks on the border, and maybe we're going to build billion-dollar walls, but they didn't have any computer technology to know who was in the country. We have an upgraded system now. There are many government organizations. If you wanted to solve immigration crises, you know, 10 or 20 years ago, buy a computer, use Microsoft Access then, and know who's in the country. Right. It's incredible that we have never gotten up on that. You know, the state of Hawaii is not much better off, but immigration services, it's unforgivable that they never developed a technology. What was their mindset? They think you can get along this way with all these border issues and not have a database technology. But it gets worse with the children, because now the stakes are higher. You want to separate children.  The purple eater? Purple? Purple. They have orange and eater. You know, you really have to have a database. So you make fields. You make fields to record everything you can. You're right. Have to speak in Spanish. From people who are not going to be literate about computers, you have to enter that data. That's right. You have to have somebody interpreting what they're saying in Spanish into an English-speaking program. You know, you've hit it up on something else, right? This takes something that I don't think the government's willing to put forward right now, which is effort. Moral effort. For something morally righteous to do something that is right just because it's the right thing to do, our current government does not want to do that. No. They're bankrupt. They're bankrupt. Morally bankrupt. And they represent us. This is the most incredible thing. Nobody I know would do these things or fail to do these things. It should be not. Anyway, so now you have a database on one side and you know who you have, who all these are illegal, and you know the status of the proceedings against them, and you know where they are. We don't have that information. You know, we hand to mouth on everything. Then you have the children who are forcibly separated from their parents and put in these cell blocks, you know, at one or two or three or four years of age. Incredible trauma, right? And we don't have any data on them either. We don't know where they are and we can't put the two together even if we want to. So a federal judge comes around and he says, you guys got to reunite now. The immigration service, no wonder the immigration service hasn't reunited. It can't. Why has it? Because it doesn't know who's where. It doesn't know who's who. This is an incredible failure. Seds should roll. But they won't. No. And this is the new normal with the country.  Someone's got to use it. Yeah. And that takes effort. It takes immorality. The concern of government workers, I think in general, in the United States has declined. They're not concerned with doing the job and excelling at their job. What they're more concerned with was when they get that rating at the end of the year a one to five, they need that three. They're good with three. That gets them promoted. That gets them seniority. That gets them a raise. They don't need to do four or five, which is exceptional and extraordinary. They have no concern. There is no incentive for anybody in the government to say, oh, well, here's my list of job duties. But you know, I really should add one here. And they'll never do that. Well, that's an entirely appropriate analysis. Because nobody in all of the immigration service said, wait a minute, don't you think we need a database? Don't you think we need to know who the parents are, who the children is, what the relationship is, and where they are so we can put them back together, put Humpty back together? Nobody said that. Like other law enforcement agencies do today, you look at the city and county governments, the police officers who have to separate families. They know exactly where they went. They have child support services. They have some care for the children. And they're linked in a computer system. So when the criminal part is over and the parents are released, there's your child. And if it's safe, they get released. You're excluding the murderer. We're going to come right back right after we pay bills or would you just have public service announcements? We're going to breathe freely, breathe, breathe. Teaming masses, yearning to be free. We'll take a breath. We'll come back. Okay. Until then, stay safe. Hi. I'm Pete McGinnis-Marc. And every Monday at one o'clock, I'm the host of Think Tech Hawaii's Research in Munara. And at that program, we bring to you a whole range of new scientific results from the university, ranging from everything from exploring the solar system to looking at the earth from space, going underwater, talking about earthquakes and volcanoes, and other things which have a direct relevance not only to Hawaii, but also to our economy. So please try and join me one o'clock on a Monday afternoon to Think Tech Hawaii's Research in Munara. And see you then. Welcome back to the Cyber Underground. I'm the other cyber guy. It came on a little bit fast. Let's do a quick tech minute right now before we get back into our topic and destroy the federal government for its incompetence. I just can't believe it. Let's talk about something called sex torsion. It's new and shiny on the cybersecurity scene. And Jay, this is a horrible thing. This plays upon the fears of people that have gone to adult websites and have made accounts and used the password. And so if you go to a site called haveibinpwn.com, I think it's .com, maybe it's .org. Just look up haveibinpwn. It's P-W-N-E-D, pwned. It means have you been hacked. So if you go to this website, you can search email addresses that you formerly use or currently use. And it will tell you this email was included in this breach and that breach at this year. If you were part of the Sony hack in 2013, if you were part of an Xbox hack, if you were part of the OPM hack. And it'll tell you email's been hacked, so change your password. At the very least, go change your password. To what? Something strong. What account are you changing the password? What it doesn't tell you. All it tells you was Sony got hacked if you were using something by Sony. Oh, your Sony password. Sony PlayStation, Sony website, Sony headphones, whatever you were doing on the Sony website, they've been hacked so that that email and password has been compromised, so at least change your password. Most people should change their email address. Now, this sextortion is a phishing scam and what they do is they send you an email saying, I know your password was, and they put that password in there that was previously compromised. And you recognize it because you actually did use that password at one time. And they say, I've got this password, now I've got all your information. I want $300 in Bitcoin, send it to this Bitcoin address. Or else what? Or else they release whatever information they say they have.  So many of these adult websites, sorry, use the P word, but the adult websites get hacked constantly. I mean, their budget is putting naked women and men online, not securing the website most of the time. They're a great target, aren't they? They are a super target. They really are. They're almost as good as the government.  And here's your password.  And you pay the ransom. It doesn't matter. Usually this password is long since gone and you've changed it. But they got your attention by putting something in there that you know about. You got to watch out for these scams. They're getting better and better and better. They're operating on guilt and a desire to not be embarrassed. Yeah. Guys, this is absolutely 100% for you. Don't do this. Don't fall victim to this. I can't see any women falling victim to this. But this is along the Ashley Madison lines. We should just throttle back on the adult websites and not do this so much. Don't make accounts there. It's not safe. OK. But you know there's another point inherent in all of that is that phishing is everywhere now. Every mail you get, that's M-A-I-L, every mail you get, you have got to evaluate to see if you're being phished because there's a chance on every single one that you are being phished. Now Google has a good solution to this. They implemented a universal secure key, I think they call it. It's a hardware token that you can plug in your computer, your USB port, or use RFID on your phone. Just hold it next to your phone. If you've got NFC chips on your phone, most androids and iPhones do. What that does is it authenticates you. It signs your email and authorizes you to log into that device. So instead of a login? Including the login. You've got to have a login also. You'll put that in and you'll do a username and password or some other kind of biometric. So what this has done for 85,000 employees at Google and their parent company, Alphabet, is if somebody receives an email that's supposed to be from an employee at Google, it's now verified because that person also has a hardware token with their digital signature on it. So now the chances that someone can imitate the CEO and get someone to do something like a wire transfer in the name of the CEO, they're nil. So they have not been phished in two years now. Using this token. Using this token. But let me take it further. Just to sort of expand the possibility here. I didn't think about this for a long time.  I mean they're a pain in every part of your anatomy, actually. I spent so much time trying to remember. In fact, David Ige is under attack now because he couldn't remember his Twitter password. At the moment of truth. Yes. At the moment of truth in January. Yeah. I mean it happens to everybody. We can't blame him for that. Can you tell me your Twitter password right now? Tell him on the air. Tell him. Why would I say that? Why would you say it on the air? I can't remember. You can't remember. Okay. Our audience should know that David Ige is our governor here in Hawaii and we had the missile alert. There was a false alarm in January of this year and he, Governor Ige, forgot his password at the moment of truth. When he needed to get out the word that it was a false alarm, thank goodness Tulsi Gabbard was right on them. Yeah, she was. Representative Tulsi Gabbard put out the word. Yeah. I remember getting something from him. But here's the thing. I mean if we can have these tokens worked the way you say, I haven't used them or seen them, why can't we have something in lieu of a password? Something in science fiction and maybe reality in some places, it would be your retina, retinal scan or your password that I use on my phone or who knows what, something really personal, unique. Why can't I use that instead of all the passwords? Once it recognizes my biometrics, you called it, then it knows I'm okay and then it doesn't have to ask me for a password. I don't have to forget it and research it and get it wrong 27 times and get locked out if I get it wrong.  Well I can give you two reasons why we shouldn't substitute. We should use them in conjunction with. It always should be something you have and something you know. Biometrics have two problems. One, your body changes. So it's high failure rate.  And you and I know as we get older our eyes change. And that's just one. Even our voices change after a while. So the voice analysis won't work. But it's also quite expensive still. Biometrics are quite expensive. I'd pay. I'd pay. Furthermore I can tell you that in the U.S. we have 50 million cameras with some modicum of AI that can actually recognize your face. In China there's 400 million cameras and the AI is pretty good. Can recognize your face. Even to the point of going to your socially acceptable quotient and identifying it bad enough to punish you. So what I'm thinking is that if you had really good AI then you wouldn't need biometrics in the classical sense. You wouldn't care about the eyes. You wouldn't care about the fingerprints.  And the item, the phone or the computer would look at this gestalt picture and recognize you by virtue of your bone structure. The whole episode everything would be sort of conglomerated into a real identity thing. I'd pay for that because it would avoid this problem about getting old. And it would avoid the password issue. Isn't this coming Dave? Not in our lifetime. It's not going to be reliable. Let me give you an example. Google is right up there with China and their AI official recognition and they actually have an application. You can go online and take your picture and say who do I look like. And if you remember the actor Robert Mitchum, apparently he can unlock my phone. No. You and Robert Mitchum? Yes. I'm impressed. I don't know who I'm impressed for you or Robert Mitchum. He looks like me. But that's the extent of our AI right now for that gestalt image you're talking about. It really doesn't get to the level that you could seriously trust right now. I'll give you one more. Okay, go ahead. Right now, years ago you had to go through a whole process to get DNA. It was a hassle. Yeah. Okay, now... 23 and me. Spin to tube. Mail it away. Yeah. Right. You can't spin to tube every time you want to log on. No. That would be too problematic.   You know, instead of reading your fingerprint, it would look at the cells on the tip of your finger or some other place. Now, you're not concerned your DNA pattern could be used for a cloning experiment later on? Well, I'm concerned that anybody shakes hands with me. It gets a couple of shells.  He's going to be all right. The problems of AI and taking my DNA, and my God, there's been so many dystopian futures that have been thrown out there. 1984 on steroids. Oh, we're living 1984 currently with our new administration. I have hope though that the United States will survive just like we did in the Nixon era and several other eras way back when. We have been through, I think President Obama, former President Obama said this just recently, we've been through worse times. And we have.  It's never been as bad as it is now, Dave. And the thing we were going to talk about here, we have a few minutes left, okay, was whether the Russians are going to do it again in November. Okay, let's talk about that. I think the Russians in the Chinese, we talked about this in my last episode, right, there's different hackers have different outcomes that they want. I believe the Russian government wants to sow discontent and create chaos in our government, that makes us a weaker foe. If we were to have election interference, which I think we'll have because they succeeded last time, went at this time, they will want to sow chaos. Now, if they did a Republican victory again, a clean sweep, that's smooth sailing. That's not going to be bad. What would really be bad for the country is if we had only one of the houses flipped to Democrats. So if we flipped to say the House of Representatives was Democratic, now they're against the Republican Senate and we've got this tumultuous, that's what they want, they want the chaos. So I think if we have interference, it'll be a blue wave. Okay, but can we stop them? Can we know that they are doing it? I mean, just because Putin said this and because a number of people were indicted, forget that conversation, just operate on the assumption that they have demonstrated they can and they do do it. How will we be able to tell? How will we be able to stop them? What is our move here as a country and as individuals? You know what, it always comes back to training, Jay. Training. Everybody's got to be involved in this fight. It is a hive mentality. You have to put the boots soldiers in charge. It is a tactical, not strategic battle. You have to make everybody on the front line aware that every single link they click on an email could open up a command line, a reverse shell on somebody else's computer in Russia and open up a door to lose all your data or be completely controlled and nobody would know. What about the tech industry? What about Facebook? I remember Facebook. I know it. It's ancient history already. So we can do a whole show on Facebook. The data collection right now is being abused and we have about 30 seconds now but I'll outline one of the abuses. The data being collected by, say, Amazon and Facebook in several other places is being absorbed by medical insurance companies who will say, oh, look, it looks like your entire company, First Only Bank, I'm just going to pick on them. Say 25% of your employees bought plus size clothing last year. So we think you're at risk for diabetes. Wow. So we're going to remove diabetes from our offering. Wow. No more diabetes. To prove my point, my medical insurance at UH this year, the state funded one, several of the offerings of the medical insurance included no diabetes treatment or medication. It's all data driven decisions to save money for big businesses. How did they get that data? Well, the Republicans are actually supporting this, that you can use data to drive up medical insurance costs if someone's a higher risk. That's scary. And we can go, well, let's do another show on that. We got to go, everybody. I'm so sad we got to go. So am I. Back for the, thank you for joining us this week and I will join you next week. And then after that, we'll be at Black Hat Def Con and hopefully have some content from those conferences and some new scary stuff that will knock your socks off. So join us again until then. Stay safe. Thank you, Dave.


So what do you come? Coming to you today from Thailand. I want to talk to you real quick about data and anecdotes, so if you've been in rational circles for a while, you know that data is king and anecdotes are supposed to be essentially irrelevant. Anecdotes aren't data and there's something to be kind of despised that those dumb lay people talk about anecdotes and they don't have real data. I think this is a mistake. I think anecdotes are one type of data. They are somewhat lesser quality than regular scientific data, but in some circumstances they are higher quality and more reliable. Data is simply reporting of something happened. So when I took this pill, this happened, when I said this thing, this happened, when I put these two elements together, this happened, it's just reporting experiences. Anecdotes are people reporting their experiences just in a non-quantified, non-scientific way and I think in many cases it's dogmatic to dismiss anecdotes and wholeheartedly embrace scientific data just because it appears more scientific. Let me give you a couple of examples. First, let's talk about a hypothetical drug. Let's say there's a drug out there. Let's say it's an antibiotic drug and it's been approved by the mainstream FDA organizations and has a very low rate of side effects. Some of the side effects are fairly severe but it's approved for mainstream use. But after the drug's approval, something happens. You start to get a lot of anecdotal stories. People start saying, hey, I took this drug and something really powerful happened to me. My tendons started to degrade and I popped a tendon. I've had healthy ligaments my whole life, but my knee tendon popped, my ankle tendon popped.  And these anecdotes, they're data, they're just anecdotes, keep piling up, keep piling up, and then communities emerge around these anecdotes saying, oh, that happened to you too? Yes, that happened to me too. From somebody trying to evaluate what's going on from a scientific rational standpoint, what do you do? Do you look at the scientific data that says, well, in the randomized controlled study, there was only 3% of people had severe side effects or 1% of people or a fraction of a percent, whatever, and yet in the real world, when people are taking this drug, lots of them are reporting very severe side effects. So are they just making it up? Is it placebo? Do they not do, do the anecdotes not trump the data? Well, this isn't just a hypothetical. I urge everybody to Google the drug Levequin, L-E-V-A-Q-U-I-N. This is a antibiotic drug in the quinolone variety. I'll give you a few anecdotes. In my life, I have met four people ever who have taken Levequin, and I'll tell you how I know about this drug in a second. I've met four from four different blood lines, each of which who have had significant joint pain as a function of them right after taking the drug. Maybe it's not connected, but maybe it is. My wife, my father, my sister-in-law, and a completely unrelated doctor in Atlanta. Four different blood lines, only four people I have ever met who had taken Levequin, and each one of them had significant joint pain. My wife only took, I think, one or two pills, and she almost had to wheel her around because she was in so much pain. My father was in the same circumstance. He took pills for sinus infection and was practically crippled for some period of time. I don't know as much about what happened to my sister-in-law, but I know she had joint pain, and my doctor from Atlanta literally had to get foot surgery because, and it just so happened that just prior to him getting foot surgery, because the tendon snapped, he had taken Levequin for an infection. Isn't that interesting? Now, according to the data, the scientific data, it's a very, very low percentage of people report these side effects, and yet if you Google Levequin joint pain, you will find an insane amount of anecdotal stories from people online telling exactly what happened after they took the drug with really tragic circumstances, everything varying from their joints being ruined or losing their eyesight and all kinds of crazy shit. I don't think this is coincidental. I think it is dogmatic. It is like religious dogma to say, all these people are just making it up because they didn't make it into the randomized controlled study. Like a far more plausible explanation is the actual official data that came out was wrong. It's far more dangerous drug than it should be. And go figure, just in the past few years, now the FDA in the United States is issuing a black box label or whatever saying, oh, by the way, some of the side effects of these could be very severe. And hopefully this drug will be taken off the market at some point because just from the research that I've done, it looks that it's causing more harm than good. Don't take my word for it. The point is to say, if it turns out that Levequin causes catastrophic joint problems, then it is the case then that somebody would be more justified in believing stories like I've just told you about the four people I've met in my own personal life that have had joint problems after taking Levequin, then dogmatically believing the official scientific study that came out, which was wrong. So that is not to say, of course, that all anecdote versus data situations are like this, but I do think it illustrates something which I believe to be far, far, far, far, far more common than most rational people think, which is that the data is probably wrong either because it's done incompetently or because it's done, it's biased that the drug companies that are financing this research and they have an incentive to bury the results that they find. Or like I said, it's from sheer incompetence or a relatively small dataset. Unfortunately, I think you can take this example and apply it to all sorts of circumstances, especially in the field of nutrition and the side effects of drugs. One of the things I'll talk a lot more about in the future is there's an epistemological problem here. There's a methodological epistemological problem where the data that comes from the real world, the actual ingestion of antibiotics by people who are being prescribed them from their doctors, doesn't go upwards. That information about, oh, by the way, this causes joint pain, doesn't go back to the doctors, doesn't go back to the drug companies, doesn't go back to the people producing the studies most of the time. Most of the time, if you have any interaction with the medical establishment whatsoever, if you say to your doctor, oh, I took this drug, I had this reaction, they're not going to record it, they're going to say, oh, okay, well, sometimes that happens. Or they're going to say, oh, it's totally unrelated and you're just making it up, don't worry about it. There's not this reverse flow of information from the real world to the people who are publishing the studies. It happens all the time. Before we talk about the next circumstance of anecdotes, I do want to mention just how poor the actual theories from the professional intellectuals in when we're talking about nutrition or human health, in terms of the crappy theories that we've had for the last several decades about the lipid hypothesis, about eating saturated fat makes you fat and clogs your arteries.  Well, it turns out, most likely, this is a completely bunk theory and the opposite is the case.  So they literally got the truth 180 degrees and this was the expert opinion being recommended by doctors and so on for decades. I suggest a great deal of skepticism when these people come out with their official data, especially if there's fundamental flaws in their theory or how they gather the data. I think to have faith in the scientific establishment is not much more respectable than having faith.  Now, to avoid the inevitable criticism about my skepticism towards science in practice and data gathering in practice, let me give you another case of anecdotes which I think illustrate the problem with how most people conceive of anecdotal evidence. And that's ghosts. Lots of people in my life who will argue that they have seen ghosts. They believe in ghosts. They think they've seen ghosts in a graveyard. And I'm very, very skeptical of this notion, even though there's tons of anecdotal evidence. Well, we have to be very careful with anecdotal evidence and we have to do the following thing. When somebody reports data that they've received, either I took this pill and this happened or I was in the graveyard and I saw this, we don't have to throw out the data just because it's anecdotal. What we need to do is challenge the theoretical interpretation of the data.  They haven't seen anything. They're just making it up or they're just hallucinating. No, I don't think that's the correct way to approach any kind of data. Say this. I have a positive belief based on anecdotal evidence that when people are in graveyards late in the evening that they see things that they think they can best explain by positing the existence of ghosts. Now, they might even agree that with that. And I think most people would agree with what I've just said. I've not dismissed the data. I've not dismissed the facts as they've reported them. What I've said is there's a difference between somebody saying, oh, I saw this light in a graveyard moving in a funny way and oh, I saw a ghost in a graveyard. So I have a theoretical explanation for what people see in the graveyard at 2 o'clock in the morning that doesn't include ghosts and yet still gives you explanatory power. Maybe that theoretical interpretation of the data is superior. Let me give you my attempt at explaining what people see in graveyards in the evening. I, for one, have been in graveyards late at night at 2 in the morning and I report seeing lots of lights and shapes and movements that I never see in my everyday life. Now, if I had a belief system which was casual about what types of things I think existed and I thought ghosts existed, I'd say, yeah, I've probably seen some ghosts out the corner of my eye in a graveyard. But I think that's actually really, that complicates our theories greatly if we posited the existence of ghosts because then we have to say, well, there are such things as these souls that are not physical and yet we can see them and they only inhabit the graveyards at night and nobody can ever take a picture of them. That isn't blurry, but that's just because of their nature. You have all kinds of really difficult explaining to do, if you were to say, that you think ghosts exist. But I can attest to the fact that spooky and confusing things happen at 2 o'clock in the morning in graveyards. But here's my explanation. Why? In graveyards there are objects which you really don't encounter anywhere else. That's gravestones, lots and lots of different sizes of gravestones.  There's all kinds of weird shapes in the graveyards that you don't encounter anywhere else and they're all packed together in this way that you wouldn't encounter anywhere else. In addition to the funky shapes that are in graveyards, you also have the natural result of being in this place with a bunch of funky shapes. Light does really weird things.  The little bits of light bounce off this and they just barely make it through that and you have this kind of dome shaped thing that's being projected over there and it kind of looks like it's walking and moving and then it goes away really quickly. It's just because you're in that circumstance where you're in a weird circumstance at night so you can't really see very well, so you can't make out what the motion is coming from. The light off in the distance and then maybe you have animals there that you can't see because it's dark. So you have sounds that you're unfamiliar with and motion that you're unfamiliar with and light that you're unfamiliar with and it's all kind of moving quickly and you can't really pin it down. Now that explanation explains the data. The data being I saw a bunch of things I can't easily explain and I don't know what they are in graveyards at two o'clock in the morning and it doesn't posit the existence of objects that are ghosts which are really hard to explain in any kind of rational sense how ghosts work. And this is the point. Whenever you're encountering data, anecdotal data, scientific data, you don't have to believe the communicator's theoretical attempt at explaining the data. You can accept the existence of the raw data without accepting the theoretical explanation. The same thing is true of Bigfoot. Do I think Bigfoot exists? No. Do I think lots of people have seen lots of really big moving furry things in the forest that they don't exactly know what they are? Yeah, of course. This is also true with religious experiences. Do I think that people have all kinds of remarkable experiences in their sleep communicating with what they think are beings from another dimension? Yeah, I think that happens. Do I think that in reality there are these interdimensional beings that are communicating with earthlings? I'm a little bit more skeptical of that. I don't want to take away from the data of the experience. It's just I'm skeptical of people's theoretical interpretation of that data. Now, this video would not be complete if I didn't, of course, bring it back to mathematics. A similar phenomenon is happening in mathematics, especially with calculus. People try to argue that the theory of calculus, let's say, must be correct because in practice calculus works. We have lots and lots and lots of data of the calculations in calculus giving us practical solutions to problems that work in the real world. Then people turn around and say, ah, therefore the theory must be correct. This is no different than somebody seeing apparitions and graveyards, seeing lights and graveyards and saying, and the reason they're there is because there are ghosts. And that fully explains all of these experiences. No. In mathematics, if you guys are unfamiliar with my position by the way, I claim that there are subtle yet fundamental errors in the theory of modern mathematics and has to do with this idea of a completed infinity, which I don't think exists. You can see some of my other videos on the topic if you're interested. But I would say I have an explanation for the data of why calculus works and it's not because the orthodox theoretical interpretation is correct. The reason calculus works is because reality is finite. The reason calculus solves Zeno's paradoxes is because there's a fundamental base unit of space. Reality is not infinitely divisible. So this relationship between theory and data and accepting the raw data but not necessarily accepting the theory is not just applicable to areas when we're talking about antibiotics or ghosts or any of those things. It's also applicable to what people think is a purely deductive field of thought, which is mathematics. It applies to anywhere where there is data to be gathered, which is pretty much everywhere. My suspicion is that 50 years from now, we're going to have a much different perspective about the value of anecdotes, anecdotal evidence. And some of the dogmatism that has plagued the past 150 years in regards to what people think of as scientific data and what I think is really a false dichotomy between the two. The difference between anecdotal data and scientific data is really one on a spectrum and I think it's dogmatic to either dismiss or accept one type of data over the other just because it fits that particular taxonomic distinction. Plus, we use anecdotal data all the time in our everyday life for constructing our beliefs about the world. There's some product or service I'm thinking about using and I know somebody personally who I respect their opinion. They've used that particular product, good or service or if I'm trying to get information about a person, their opinion, their experience, though it's not formally quantified in any kind of white paper, I listen to them and think it's important. I think you can learn probably more about other people telling you about their experience than you can about reading some formalized white paper by people you have no idea who produced it. I at least know if the people around me are trustworthy and competent. I don't know if the people in the scientific establishment or the people in the business, I don't know if they're competent. I have lots and lots and lots of data of the established experts being fundamentally wrong and mistaken and not worthy of trust. So for those few people in my life that I do actually trust, I put a lot more weight in their anecdotal evidence than I would in the official orthodox evidence.


Welcome, and stay with us to the end of this video, and be amazingly surprised as we journey through the other side of Gambia. Taboos, sandy beaches, lifestyle, tribes, culture, and history. The Gambia, a small West African country has a rich cultural heritage, stunning natural beauty, a number of enchanting tribes, a unique lifestyle, and strings of taboos that will be surprising to you. Before we continue, we would like to say, welcome to the new rake Ghana, where we now upload videos that showcase African people, African tribes, African countries, and African history in a positive light. We kindly ask you to show your appreciation for our hard work by liking and sharing this video. Your comments and suggestions are also welcomed and please don't forget to subscribe and hit the bell notification icon, so you are the first to receive our videos when we upload. The Gambia is a small country, located on the west coast of Africa, with a population of around 2.3 million people. Despite its small size, the Gambia is a country rich in culture, history, and natural beauty. The Gambia is surrounded on three sides by Senegal, with the Atlantic Ocean to the west. The country is situated at the mouth of the Gambia River, which flows through the country and provides an important source of freshwater and fertile soil for agriculture. The Gambia is a country with a rich cultural heritage and traditions, and like many cultures around the world, it has a number of taboos that are considered to be social or cultural prohibitions. In Gambian culture, touching or pointing at a person's head is considered disrespectful, as the head is believed to be the most sacred part of the body. Public displays of affection such as kissing or hugging are not typically seen in Gambian culture and are considered taboo. Speaking ill of the dead is also considered disrespectful and can bring bad luck. Refusing food or drink that has been offered as a sign of hospitality is also considered rude and disrespectful in Gambian culture. Overall, taboos in the Gambia can vary depending on the region, religion, and social context, but they reflect the values and traditions of a culture that has endured for centuries. The population of the Gambia is predominantly made up of various ethnic groups, including the Mandinka, Fula, Wolof, Jola, and Sarahul. The Mandinka are the largest ethnic group and are known for their rich cultural heritage and traditions. The Gambia's main economic activities include agriculture, tourism, and fishing. The country is known for its production of peanuts, which are a major export crop. The tourism industry is also an important source of income for the country, with visitors drawn to the country's beautiful beaches, wildlife, and cultural heritage. The official currency of the Gambia is the Gambian Dalasi, and the official language is English. However, many Gambians also speak local languages such as Mandinka, Wolof, and Fula. The Gambia is known for its stunning beaches, which attract visitors from around the world. The most famous of these is the Bijilo Beach, which is located just a short drive from the capital city, Banjul. The beach is lined with palm trees and offers stunning views of the Atlantic Ocean. In addition to its beaches, the Gambia is also home to a diverse array of wildlife, including monkeys, baboons, crocodiles, and a variety of bird species. The country's landscape is characterized by lush forests, savanna grasslands, and riverine ecosystems. Religion plays an important role in Gambian society, with the majority of the population practicing Islam. However, there is also a significant Christian population and traditional African religions are also practiced. The Gambia is a republic with a presidential system of government. The current president, Adama Baro, was elected in 2016 after defeating longtime ruler, Yakyajama, who had held power since a military coup in 1994. The Gambia has a rich cultural heritage, with traditional music, dance, and crafts still widely practiced throughout the country. Historical figures such as Kunta Kint, the protagonist of the book and TV series Roots and Musa Ay of Mali, one of the richest people in history, have deep connections to the country. The Gambia also has a rich history, with its location at the mouth of the Gambia River, making it a hub for trade and commerce in West Africa. The country was ruled by various empires and kingdoms over the centuries, including the Meili Empire, the Songhai Empire, and the Kingdom of Campo. The Gambia also played a role in the transatlantic slave trade, with many enslaved Africans passing through the country's shores before being transported to the Americas. Overall, the Gambia is a country with a fascinating history, rich cultural heritage, and stunning natural beauty. From its beautiful beaches and diverse wildlife, to its vibrant cultural traditions, and unique history, the Gambia is a country that truly has something for everyone.


This is Mises weekends with your host Jeff Deist Ladies and gentlemen welcome back once again. It's Mises weekends. We're joined by someone I'm sure many of you know our friend dr. Pear Bieland. He teaches at Oklahoma State University He specializes in obviously as a professor of economics, but also specializes in entrepreneurship In is a protege of sorts of our own Peter Klein He has written a couple of articles for mises.org of late about both AI and big data And with Mark Zuckerberg in Washington this week talking or testifying before Congress on on Data collection among other things. We thought it'd be a great time to bring him in so Pear. It's good to see you. How are you? Doing great. Thanks for having me on again. Well, it was a little disingenuous this week Don't you think to see members of Congress grilling? Mark Zuckerberg about data collection and privacy when these guys are supposedly in charge of oversight of things like NSA Mm-hmm. Yeah, the great irony that apparently the NSA is okay But if a private company wallet collects information that we give them then it's a big problem They don't want competition I guess right, but I noticed one thing you point out is that in the wake of some of these revelations about Perhaps Facebook's lenient leniency with your data Their share price has suffered as a result. There's a market mechanism a market correction at work Yeah, I mean there's there's nothing that punishes us harshly as the market the market is merciless if you make a mistake Then you you can be completely wiped out and that doesn't affect the government of course, but it affects all businesses well, there's a lot of discussion about Big data generally and whether supercomputers and algorithms and the emergence of AI can somehow change What what Hayek would call the knowledge problem in economics and allow us to plan things in a centralized fashion better Then we could before in in effect overcome Hayek's objection. So give us your thoughts about this Well, I mean that what I put in my means is the org article before was this being has this prediction engine for sports results Where they tried to predict the result of all these football games and ice hockey games and so forth and They run all the statistics available Everything they can they run it through very very powerful computers and they do machine learning and all this stuff and they get it right about maybe two-thirds of the time and And of course with all that data you should do better than just a coin toss And they do but they don't actually get closer than two-thirds And that makes sense because The past does not decide the future and doesn't matter how much statistics you have you still cannot tell exactly What's going to happen in the future? We're talking about people here. We're not talking about dead mass. I Just wonder if if the data revolution the digital age is going to intensify This kind of thought though among some of our friends in economics in other words You have this this great quote here you say there are no constants in human action I'm not sure that Keynesians believe that I'm not so sure that they don't think on some level that this stuff can't be modeled To the nth degree Yeah, I'm not sure about Keynes is I'm not sure what they believe actually but I mean for us It's pretty obvious that everything starts with Value and valuation and that is something that we experience directly through consumption and anyone who misses that Tiny little points which is still the sort of very fundamental if they miss that then they're gonna go wrong And they're they're doing that over and over and over again It seems like the the cult of the modern age is economic illiteracy Well, so you mentioned the the Bing experiment like predicting football NFL results If they're getting two-thirds don't the sports books in Las Vegas do that well or better I mean they have skin in the game in the sense that they're handicapping against their with their own money Yeah, they probably do a better job, but I mean what they're doing is not just run the data I mean the data the data are important, of course I mean you can't just neglect all the data and I mean a team that is better on paper Seems more likely to win over a team that is a lot worse But then there is there are a lot of other things involved as well I mean the weather do the do the psychology of the players Maybe one of the star players have had Personally shoes lately and stuff like that so they don't really play out there. They're at their best things like that But and those things are involved as well when when these bookies put the odds on games and stuff like that But that's not part of the Bing engine and the machine can't understand that But it's this human element That Mises stressed Going on almost a hundred years ago now and it seems like it's missing in Amongst futurists, they think that they're going to engineer some better future Using using models using algorithms using data Yeah, absolutely, and I mean what they do when they talk about AI and robots building robots It's very fashionable right now to talk about how that suddenly means that we don't have to work Which is I think it's a glorious thing. It's not it's not actually a problem But somehow they get from robots making robots to There's no scarcity And we don't need to prioritize anymore for some reason but machines they can produce stuff But they also need to know what we want and what we value because otherwise they're gonna produce the wrong stuff We're gonna end up with a lot of resources in the wrong places that that could be a disaster rather than What they what they predict that it's gonna be marvelous When Austrians of course talk a lot more than other Schools about the structure of production about the temporal element in all of this So we generally tend to think in terms of time, but then capital and labor and land From your perspective is AI Different is it a different from existing capital only in degree or is it actually some sort of qualitative? Different thing that that's going to need a new category and economics Well, it's not a new economic category. That's just ridiculous It's capital like any other capital. I mean might be Intelligent capital, but I mean our machines today compared to machines before are more intelligent in a sense as well I mean unless they become human sort of and they have a consciousness and they understand subjective value and things like that There's still machines and people will still need to direct them You need to produce this but not that because this is what we value without that I mean that they're just gonna guess and using big data and big data is Can get sort of close, but it's still it's not gonna be get as close as entrepreneurs with skins in the game skin in the game Well, we but we still have this fetish about unemployment Jobs rather than productivity of the economy. We've had periods of automation and mechanization in history Certainly in agriculture very few Americans today work in egg We've had this in factories assembly lines all of these shifts in the past haven't rendered us all Completely without work and and watching Oprah on the couch all day So do you think again? Do you think these these fears about AI and robots are overblown? Amongst among economists Yeah, definitely. I mean it's I don't see it as a big problem in transition is always a problem Because people are used to certain things and they have certain expertise and before they get are able to take on new types of jobs They can hurt On the other hand, I mean we're gonna end up with in the world with so such high standard of living because of this development That we don't have to work as much at all when people now are talking about it. Oh my goodness in the future We don't need people to drive Drive trucks across the country for 40 hours every week. Well Okay, but why would they first of all drive 40 hours a week? Why do they need full time in the sort of sense from the 1940s because that's what we're talking about, right? It's not even Necessary to work 40 hours a day. That's that's necessary because it's it's in in legal statutes that that's full time But nothing else. I mean imagine if if in the future We would become so much more productive and that's what we're really talking about here That because capital only makes labor more productive and with AI and robots making robots and so forth All we need to do as work is really to direct them to the right places We don't need to work more than maybe 30 minutes or an hour a week And that's not a lot but but we can still support a great Luxurious lifestyle working that little and I don't see that as a problem at all the the problem is the transition but somehow Keynesian thinking and the whole in the long term We're all dead sort of thing that we shouldn't what we shouldn't look further than the short term Means they're completely missing the point that after the transition. That's the real result and that's glorious. I Mean imagine how much more physical labor our great great great grandparents did in Agricultural societies back breaking physical work preparing meals cooking cleaning all day long Yeah, we surely we work far less than they did Yeah, no kidding. And I mean children as well children in coal mines were working 80 90 hours a week To help sustain the family Today what did what did children do? I mean they're they're out there with their iPhones trying to find these These Whatever they're called these Pokemon goes Yes, exactly those things and try to throw balls at them or or whatever in this virtual world That's what they're doing and they're going to school and being fed knowledge I don't I don't see that as a big problem really that that they don't have to go to the coal mines And what we're gonna see is the same sort of development into the future.  We talk about higher and and lower orders of goods Do you think AI or machine learning will will compress? The temporal structure of all this and in certain industries will it expand it How should we look at it in terms of where it fits? Also, that's a very good question. I'm not sure. I mean the introducing it to begin with is extending it pretty obviously Then I mean how to actually talk about different stages of production that sort of depends on what AI will take over and It might become very problematic if if we start to integrate production processes from the very start to the very end Which I'm guessing that these these people would prefer having an AI basically be be a In charge of Smashing rock to producing cars the same AI and then then sort of maximize that process Then we're gonna have a big problem because then we're not gonna use resources in the in the economic way at all We're gonna be economizing on the resources Well, there's this endless Debate in economics labor versus capital we might be capital is accumulated labor But nonetheless there are there are a lot of a lot of economists obsess about labor and what it's doing and the value It's creating and and this is actually of course one of the big criticisms of capitalism is that it supposedly Steals this surplus labor value. Do you think? AI is going to change the labor versus capital Debate do you think it's gonna play a role in it other than where there are you know always is concerned about jobs Yeah, I I don't know how it's gonna affect the debate because the bait is so confused so It might be confused in a different way. I suppose I mean people seem to believe sort of intuitively that Capital provides you with power and power over labor and power over Everything basically because you can buy the government and whatnot And I mean that's completely wrong So unless people start thinking about it the right way that capital is not power It is just a way of making labor more productive and producing value I mean if you own meger told us this already in 1871, I mean if you have a machine that can only produce Tobacco and people stop smoking that machine is worthless and it's the same with any capital So if you own a lot of capital the only reason That will will make you wealthy is that it benefits consumers So there's really no conflict here There's no conflict at all between between capital and labor capital really liberates labor That's what it does because it makes labor more productive Well, that said Dr. Beeland has a couple of articles on mises.org of late dealing with these very topics We will link to those and I think the takeaway pair is Maybe that there really is nothing new under the Sun and a lot of the things that manger and bombard virk and mises Explains still apply. There's no such thing as new economics over that pair. Thank you so much for your time ladies and gentlemen Have a great weekend Subscribe to mises weekends via iTunes you stitcher and SoundCloud or listen on mises.org and YouTube


My name is Gift Maxwell. I work for the Public and Private Development Centre based in Abuja, Nigeria. Over the years we have monitored public procurement in Nigeria thanks to technology. We've been able to build a civic tech tool based on the open contracting data standards and it's called Budeshi. So I'm program director. We use Budeshi to, you know, to put up, to link budget and procurement data and we put it out there in a way that procurement data begins to make sense to citizens and citizens get involved in the process of monitoring public procurement. Civic tech in Nigeria is maturing. It's catching on really fast. So it's thanks to technology, we're all in one space doing the same thing, using technology for civic goods. Nigeria is huge, we're over 180 million and the youth population is about 70%. So we need to find creative ways, you know, to get youths and citizens involved and we're doing, we think we're doing a good job out of it, yes.


Oh, God, I love it. I'm Paul of Struths and I'm a collector. I have my collection in my tattoo studio for a few reasons. One is it's at home, my fiancee, she collects Wonder Woman stuff.  Secondly, I like to bring it all in here because I like my clients who are major, the majority of them are geeks. So I like them to feel like they're at home. And that's one of the major comments that I get from them is like, I walk in and I feel like I'm at home in my lounge room. And that's what I love to hear. So some of my favorite pieces that I've got in my collection, a leg from the factory scene in Terminator Salvation, got a rubber pipe from Deadpool. I've got a stunt sword from the League of Shadows from Batman Begins. And of course we've got the Back to the Future Fox towel. Got the test helmets for Chris Evans from the original Captain America movie. Also in my collection I have a stunt double tie for Agent Smith from The Matrix and then Ron Perlman's teeth for the original Hellboy. This is the actual bullet hole from the scene in Terminator 2. It's actually made from lightweight foam and he would have opened or had a hole in his shirt and then sort of slipped it in like that. And it would have looked really cool. And we screen matched it and it was perfect. And so it's actually made really, really well considering it's like 20 years old and hasn't cracked much or anything like that at all. So I was very, very happy with that. Why do I collect? Why does any get collect? You have a childhood, right?   And so what you do is you start collecting all these bits and pieces from your childhood and then you start being nostalgic and you hold onto it. You're like, oh, they were good days. You didn't have to pay tax. So yeah, I think for a lot of geeks, that's, it takes them back to a really nice time in their childhood. And it does for me as well. Hey nerds, I'm Ryan. I'm Drey. And we are traveling all across Australia checking out some of the biggest and best collections for our new series, The Collectors. So if you have a collection big or small that you think should be featured, make sure you get in touch with us by email or comment below. So you can have your collection on the next episode of The Collectors.


I'm 16. Recently I went with my team, Dalton, who's 13 and Ding Wen. He was once the world's youngest programmer at one point in time. So we've seen an angelic scene before, which was just about a week ago, and we created this app called Chain. So let's give you a quick demo about it. Let me just see if I can... Okay, now I need the blocks to view. This is how Chain looks like. Basically, it utilizes Bluetooth technology using iBeacons, and it automatically displays regular shopping options based on your location in the store. So what we did was we took the case study of Ikea. So how Ikea is divided into many sections, such as mainly to furnish the store, but there's mainly many more smaller sections in it, like what's known as showrooms. So I'll just give you a demo of how it looks like. So when you enter each iBeacons to board a section, it will give you a specific area that will be located on your screen that's available to purchase. And if you click on the desired items, you can add the quantity to your shopping cart, and then it automatically wants to reach at the exit of your store. It will give you a notification saying that you're at your left store. I would like to make you check out using PayPal. So this is how it looks like. Actually, some buttons are in the way. I'll just push it up. So you have some buttons here at the side where you can view your cart. The first one is actually a map, and the next one is a cart, and after that, when you go here, if you require assistance, usually it's better that instead of going around and trying to hail a guy inside the store for help, actually what you can do is you can call for assistance, and someone will be on the way. So you can just ask a guy for help and send me your question. So after that, this is how it looks like on the checkout page. So when you leave the store, you'll probably check out using PayPal. And you add in your own address, and then there's no additional payment required, so it'll give you a final payment price at the bottom. And after that, if I proceed from here. So this is how it looks like. I'll just push that down. So this is how it looks like actually. And so let's say for each different piece of furniture. So I have a piece of furniture here called Jervis. I have another piece of furniture here called Relius and Exiles. So I'll give you the description. So we took the case of IKEA, so this is YC furniture here. So let's say if I just tap on, let's say Relius, I want to buy one piece of Relius. So I choose the quantity. So that apps a bit buggy. That's why you can't see really well that there. But this is the quantity. You can choose the quantity right here.  And it only changes the quantity of beacons, so where your location is in the store. And so, like I said, it divides it into different sections. So you have electronics, lamps, beds, tables and furniture. So you might be wondering how these benefits stores, how benefits stores mainly is that it allows them to have lesser quantity inside the store so it saves space. And rental costs in Singapore for stores is really high if you didn't know that. So by saving space and quantity, it actually saves money for the stores. Because all you need to do is just look it up with your iBeacons. And all you just need to do is just add it to the cart and then check it out. So if I were to go back, I'll just sort of stop air playing now. Because there's something more that I want to show you. So from here, what we did was that one of my friends who's not here is on our Medium page. So I'll just briefly go through. So the main tagline was you shop, you drop. Whatever you shop, the other is a shopping cart after that. We'll just deliver it for you. So this table is not only an IK of other business as well. All you do is set up the iBeacons in your store. And everything else from there will be easy for you because you just need to deliver it off to your customer. So this is how our UI looks like. The app isn't complete yet because we only have 24 hours to do an angel act. So it was programmed within 24 hours to do an angel act. And this was our main issue. So you can just read off the slide, read off the page. So one of the main problems is that they face a lack of interaction and you don't want to improve the experience of brick-and-mortar stores in Singapore. So not only in Singapore but you can use worldwide as well in Singapore. So when it comes to brick-and-mortar stores, long queues can be really demoralizing for customers. And this saves time for everyone. So actually, I would just like to say more about the main technologies behind what we use in this app. Do you want to implement it? So over here, you can see the storyboard. So basically, it's quite a simple story, obviously. So we have a tutorial view controller, which is at first when it clicks through the images, this is what does it. So basically, the UI is pretty simple. We just have a container view controller over here and the table. So what happens is that inside this view controller over here, we have an iBeacon updating code. So this is the iBeacon protocol. And whenever it detects a new iBeacon in medium proximity, it will reload some data from past. So after it reloads the data from past, it will update the table view controller here and then the table view controller will do all its quantity stuff. So here with the map, with the checkout. And if there's no Bluetooth, this navigation controller will be shown. So basically, that's how the UI is made. Are you using that view controller for it? That view controller. No, this is just a normal view controller with a container view and buttons at the bottom. And you loop it back from the checkout view controller back to the container. No, as in, you could... I mean, as the checkout view controller, so it looks back to the container view controller. Yeah. It's the back button so that it can set way to go back. So basically, so yes, let me show you the passcode. So this is the pass. Yeah, so we decided to use pass because then it will be more... It will be better for retailers so that it will be easier to change the information, the information will be more up to date. So yeah, that's about it. Basically, then it gets up, it's about questions. Yeah. Is there any questions or any feedback? So I can improve my answer. There's a really nice app called Hackathon when you build it in 24 hours. Yeah, 24 hours.  There were three developers, two designers. I'm part of the design team. These guys are part of the design team. Are you planning to launch this app? Yeah, we plan to actually. Currently, we're in the midst of our exams. After that, maybe during June holidays, we definitely want to improve and work it on right now. Are you planning to talk to any stores or just want to... We're planning to actually talk if you can get investors or anyone who can talk to that would be great. That's why we're all here, if you're a network and find people interested in that area. I think just one feedback on the map is good, right? Yeah. Because for the Hackathon, obviously, you do the static map. Yeah. Yeah, it's static. I mean, you can go and think about how to... It's very important to different stores. Yeah. The layout of these stores will be different. Yeah, so... So, again, we are using parts. You can normally think about a model where you can create this layout in the back end. Okay. And then, you can load the map in the front end. Just an idea. Yeah, you might want to think about that. Yeah, actually, we already do implement images loading from past. In fact, you see in the app just now, we have the three different furniture. And then, actually, each of the icons was loaded from past. It's not stored on the device. It's stored in the past server. Yeah, so basically, the code... Here. That's it. That's it. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good idea. Okay. Any more questions or comments or... Maybe just to take back for the story. Because I saw a look there. I don't think you should do that. You should use the dismiss view controller. Yeah. Because this was most probably in our app crash. Yeah, it's a bit of a mistake. Yeah, it's a bit of a mistake. We just... Yeah. Because we want to do it quickly. Okay. Okay. Cool. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I just saw the look first. Yeah. You're using this model view controller, right? Yeah, if you have the model, this comes in a model or equals... It's a model. A model. A model. And you don't need to need a app. But in the case, it has to cancel. It should have a navigation controller. Model. Yeah. Model will control the price, and then action. So there's no preference. Model, if you have... If you create a model, you can control it with a navigation bar, right? Oh, yeah. If you have a navigation bar, it can operate the app as much as it wants. Oh, yeah. You can do that too. But I think they don't want to use a gesture, so it's swiping. We focused on the last part and then we were left with like 10 minutes left. So we didn't have time to implement a gesture. So we just put in one record. I think it's quite impressive. I think you guys should have joined the battlehead. You guys implemented data stuff and I think it was what happened better than everyone. I think there is a company that's also doing something similar in Singapore. I'm not sure because I've heard about it. Shop Guru. But they are not within the shop itself but around the shopping centre itself. So if you see those tall billboards saying Shop Guru. I don't think you'll see them anymore right now. But those would have become whereby when the person actually walks around the shopping mall, they would be notified of discount or special deals in the shop itself. So if you can find someone from Shop Guru, you can give a shout out to them and then ask them if they can talk with them. Shop Guru. I think at your age to be able to do something like that is quite impressive. So don't give up man. There will be some failures along the way but you'll make it. Yeah this was our first time. It's quite impressive. Sure thank you.