When you apply for membership in the Temple of Ascending Flame, you will be asked to perform the Ascending Flame project and submit a report showing results of your work. In this video, we will take a look at the project, explaining how it is done, and how to proceed with your membership application. To receive the project, contact us at infoascendingflame.com. You don't need any special experience to attempt the workings, and we don't charge anything for the materials. The Ascending Flame project consists of seven workings, which have to be done individually on seven days in a row, at any chosen hour of the day or night. Each working adjusts your consciousness to the current of the Temple, and prepares it for communion with Lucifer, who is the patron god of the Temple, and the initiator of the Ascending Flame. All of them are designed according to the same pattern, except for the last working, which you have to design yourself. The workings are not supposed to be changed. They are designed this way for a reason, and you should perform them as they are described. After each ritual, write down your experiences, visions, and everything else you think is relevant, and when the whole project is finished, prepare a report and send it to us. When you receive the project, take your time and perform it when you are ready. There is no required spend of time to do the workings, and you can submit your report after a week, month, or even a year. Once you send your report, you will receive a confirmation from us that we have received your report, and it is now being reviewed. This confirmation should arrive within seven days. If you don't hear from us, it probably means we haven't received your email, so contact us again. All reports are reviewed by a team of experienced temple initiates, and you can be sure that you will receive a thorough assessment of your work. If your report is accepted, we will send you a welcome message with information on how to proceed with the membership. You will then have access to most of our inner projects, our forum, and you will be asked to start an 11-week program that leads to initiation into the draconian current. Each daily set of workings contains the following elements, concentration on the key schedule, invocation of the ascending flame of Lucifer, and meditation. While the first two elements are the same all the time, the successive meditations will take you further and deeper into communion with Lucifer, and new elements will be added each day. For example, on the first day you open the gates to the current of Lucifer, and make initial contact with the patron god of the temple. On the following day you invoke him into your consciousness. Then you travel to his throne, and so on. Each meditation is different, and takes you to where you left on the day before. There is no invocation or meditation for the last day. On the seventh day you have to write your own invocation, and perform it in the same way as it was done on the previous six days. Use the same schedule, but speak your own words, and let the meditation take you to the most personal areas of your subconscious mind. Then let your consciousness match with Lucifer's, and rise with his ascending flame. Lucifer is the light bearer, the symbol and the patron of the age of reawakening. He stands as the gate and the guide to the path of self-deification, illumination and awakening from the slumber of ignorance. He is the initiator of the ascending flame and the patron god of the temple, which was founded to bring forth the noses of the light bearer and the primal draconial gods. This is the nose of the dragon of the void, that over the ages has been forgotten, lost, misinterpreted and distorted, and now it is being brought back to the world in the form of the draconian current, that is being earthed through individuals capable of receiving and channeling this knowledge. The purpose of the project is to open the consciousness of the practitioner for a glimpse of this draconian noses through communion with Lucifer, which occurs both on the mundane plane and in stellar dimensions, at his throne among the stars. To perform the workings, you will only need the key schedule, which is provided in the project materials. Print it or draw it. Ideally, it should be gold on a black background, and you can paint it on paper, wood or any other chosen material. Another option is to use black and red colors. The size is up to you.  Most practitioners use a razor or lenset, but the choice of a tool that you use to draw the blood is up to you as well. You can repeat the blood offering each day, or you can just do it on the first day, if you feel that this is enough to activate the schedule. In the work of the temple, blood is the substance that opens the door to the other side, and the gateway of the inner mind. If the idea of offering a few drops of your own blood puts you off, perhaps this work is not for you. Think about it before starting the project. Other tools that you can use for the workings are candles, statues of pictures of Lucifer, incense and any other items that you normally use in your ritual magic. But all of this is optional, and the only tool that is necessary in the project is the key schedule. To prepare yourself for the workings, you don't have to memorize the invocation that is used in the project, but you should memorize the meditations, so you don't have to look at the text when you're in the ritual. When the project is finished and you are ready to continue the work, you're welcome to submit your results and apply for membership. In this case, make sure your report contains the following information. Personal introduction and explanation why you want to join the temple. It doesn't have to be your whole life story, but we want to know who you are, what you expect from working with us, and what you can contribute to our work. Description of each day's working. At least two free sentences about each day's results, but the more you put into it, the better. And your personal invocation, written for day 7. What happens next? If your application is accepted, before you are introduced to our inner work, you will be asked for a meeting in person, usually through Skype or another online communicator. This only takes 10 to 30 minutes and the chat is in English, so make sure you're ready for it. This is not a test or anything like that. It's just a way of getting to know you a little better before you start working with us. If you are not fluent in English, you are allowed to bring someone who will help with translation. I wish everyone good luck with the project, and I invite you to contact us and apply for membership at infoascendingflame.com.


Until the summer of three years ago my life was going perfect, I have three beautiful children, amazing husband, great job, we just bought our dream house and the last thing I needed was my dream car. Of course I've gotten this too. I remember driving this new car and just got overcome with emotions. Here I come from you know poor family from communist Poland and here I am I never thought I would have it all. Week later I found out that I have a cancer. It was quite an experience to say at least I was not truly not that surprised the cancer around my family. My father died at 40 at brain cancer, my brother got a cancer 40 and I figure here it is, it's time for me. Was I scared not really? I'm not sure if I fully you know really accepted what was happening at the time. I just knew I had to take my surgery and see what's going to happen next. Surgery follow-up two weeks later went pretty good. The doctor, my surgeon came and I thought so are we done? And he just looked at me, now you have to go to your cancer doctor because of course there it was some other issues and said I will give you a phone call two weeks later and I will tell you you know what kind was and what's happening. So he did call me home and he said I have stage three four and I asked him how my stages are they. He told me four so I knew I was in trouble. Having three small children, five-year-old and nine-year-old and 12-year-old that was the hardest part. But after the surgery they told us to wait several months and see how the disease would develop and see what's going to happen next. So we did wait. In the meantime since I did not have family over here and that except of course my husband and the children when I did call my family in Poland they told me please don't tell our mother she will not be able to handle the news.  It was incredibly hard. My sister Margaret encouraged me not to do it.  So even though it was hard for me to deal being sick myself the most important and the hardest things were my children my sister. The only thing I could do not to panic and you know obviously follow what the doctor says is to turn to God and that's what I did and truly that saved me. I had an amazing episode one time when I was basically helping poor people I written the check to help children the poor children to support them. The woman on the Bible study came to me and she said I have to tell you something.  So from this point on I knew I'm going to be fine I wasn't scared anymore and whatever's going to happen it's going to be okay. On March I had my auto treatment in my cancer shock about 60%. Actually I was so ignorant I thought it didn't work because I suppose I thought it's going to be gone first time and then I had to repeat the treatment one more time and my cancer was gone. I felt incredibly lucky and blessed that I have an amazing care amazing doctors amazing nurses and a muffin and tempa and I'm very grateful for what has happened to me certainly life-changing experience. The only thing I would tell anyone who is actually diagnosed right now yes you can listen other people's stories but at the same time you have to believe in yourself if some people did not succeed doesn't mean it will not happen to you we're all unique individuals with all our weaknesses and weaknesses and strength and anything can happen and everyone can hope for a miracle that's it. To speak in the same Polish. I'm not to say nothing is separate my husband like to say something. My name is James Starner and I'm about this husband and I guess caregiver you'd call it and my advice would be to not despair and inform yourself of all the treatment options but don't over inform yourself if that makes any sense sometimes when you dig for too much minutiae and small information you can get sidetracked and panicked and start applying cases to your spouse that doesn't apply she may be 40 years old and suffering from a disease that she can handle better than perhaps the case study of an 80 year old showed and it can send you into unnecessary despair so I would just say stay abreast of all the what's going on but don't overdo it because information overload is not the best thing during treatments.


Ciao a tutti, io sono Federico Pintore e sono andato a presentare un lavoro joint con Ali Alcaffarani e Shuichi Katsumata, dove proposiamo lo C.C. Fisch e un schimbio di segnazione efficace con una reduzione tiepida al C.C. 512. Il titolo del talk illustra la nostra contribuzione. Introduziamo un nuovo schimbio di segnazione di segnazione lo C.C. Fisch che è sicuro sotto l'assumptione di un problema decisivo del C.C. 512. Il schimbio è sicuro in il modello classico e il modello di Oracola Quantum Ranu, ma il feature più relevante è che lo C.C. Fisch attiene queste proprietà, mentre essere quasi efficienti come il C.C. Fisch. Il sito di segnazione è semplicemente the same, i pubblici sono sempre più grandi come i posti del C.C. Fisch e anche il signo e il verifico sono la più soltanto lo C.C. Fisch. In tutto il resto del talk, cercherò di dare un'overview di come lo C.C. Fisch attiene le proprietà che sono abbiate. Spoiler, introduzionando un nuovo protocolo di segnazione lo C.C. Fisch. Allora iniziamo con una breve overview su la relazione tra la criptografia isogini e i signatori digitali. Questa relazione è stata scoperta recentemente, perché i problemi di problemi isogini sono quasi illusivi ad usare per costruire i signatori digitali. Il paper del 2011 con Giao e Defeo, che ha introdotto il protocolo di segnazione lo C.C. Fisch e coincide con il burro della criptografia isogini, contiene un protocolo di segnazione, ma non ha un mentiono di segnature digitali. I signatori isogini i primi erano proposti 6 anni più tardi nel 2017, ma anche la migliore variante optimista produza segnature di strumenti a meno di 12 kilobyte. Poi nel 2019 il C.C. Fisch era proposto e un po' più tardi, Defeo e Galbraith pubblicano il C.C. Fisch basato su un paradigma del C.C. Fisch. Proprio le segnature di strumenti a meno di 12 kilobyte, segnature generazioni e verificazioni sono abbastanza lenti. Finalmente, l'ultimo anno, un progetto del C.C. Fisch chiamato C. Fisch era proposto. C. Fisch piacerebbe l'efficienza pratica in qualsiasi segnamento e verificazione, mentre mantenendo le strumenti segnature offerte da C.C. Fisch. Nel luogo di above, possiamo sicuramente affermare che C. Fisch è la prima segnature di strumenti pratici isogini, ma questa vita recentemente ideale tra iisogini e le segnature è fragile. Inoltre, C. Fisch è specifica a un set di parametri C.C., ovviamente i parametri C.C. 512. Perciò, C. Fisch può affermare la stessa sicurità provvedente da problemi di problemi di hard matematica, G.I.P, su i parametri C.C. 512. G.I.P è considerato a avere 128 biti di sicurità classica e a più di 64 biti di sicurità quanti. Tuttavia, C. Fisch è basato sulla paradigma di Fiat Shamir e, come ogni signature di Fiat Shamir, C. Fisch ha una reduzione molto lossa både nel modello random oracle e nel 1 quantum. Per essere più precise, se Lambda rappresenta i biti di sicurità di problemi di hard matematica, poi la signature digitale non può affermare più biti di sicurità che Lambda minus il log 2 di il numero di strumenti al modello random oracle, tutto diventato da 2. Tuttavia, un problemi di hard offering 128 biti di sicurità classica assumendo un modello di 2 a 40 strumenti non può affermare più di 44 biti di sicurità per la signature digitale. In un modello random oracle quantico, la situazione è più forte. Normalmente, la lossa di reduzione è assorbita dal problema hard incrementando i parametri, ma in questo caso la situazione è diversa, perché C. Fisch risponde a un problemi di hard su un specifico set di parametri, C. 512. Per risolvere questo issue, una reduzione tight è necessaria. Il progetto per il quale viene la prossima è l'ultimo. Iniziarò a ricordare cosa il protocollo di lossa di identificazione è, poi scriverò il nostro protocollo di lossa di identificazione e mi raccomando perché una reduzione tight può essere derivata da un protocollo di lossa di identificazione. Finalmente, concluderò di discutere la sicurità concreta e l'efficienza di Fisch di lossa di identificazione. Il protocollo di lossa di identificazione è primariamente un protocollo di identificazione. Let R be a polynomial computable binary relation on the Cartesian product of two finite sets X and Y. Then an identification protocol ID for R is an interactive protocol between a prover and a verifier composed by four probabilistic polynomial time algorithms. I gen to generate statement witness pairs, P1 and P2 run by the prover and V run by the verifier. Informally the goal is that of making the prover prove to the verifier that given a statement X in X they possess a valid witness W without revealing anything more than the fact they know W. Here we specify that W is a valid witness if the pair XW belongs to R. The protocol is free move so we have a prover and a verifier. The prover produces a commitment running P1. The verifier uniformly samples a challenge. The prover runs P2 obtaining a response. The verifier then runs the algorithm V which is deterministic and the output is either accept one or reject zero. The properties usually required to an identification protocol are correctness, honest verifier zero knowledge, high mean entropy, perfect unique response which is not a standard property but it's useful in our contest and our protocol enjoys that property which states that we've overwhelming probability over the statement witness pair output by I gen for any commitment and challenge there exists a unique response such that the commitment, the challenge and the response form a valid transcript for the statement output by I gen. Finally, we have two special soundness which informally states that a cheating prover can cheat in at most one challenge. Now, the question is what makes an identification protocol a lossy protocol. Firstly, the protocol has another algorithm called lossy I gen which produces lossy statements so they are in the set X but not necessarily in the language of R. These lossy statements must be indistinguishable from statements in the language. Then in terms of properties instead of two special soundness we require the statistical lossy soundness which is formalized by means of an interactive game between an adversary A and the challenger. The adversary is given a lossy statement, chooses a commitment, receives a uniform challenge from the challenger and has to output a response that together with the commitment and the challenge must form a valid transcript for the lossy statement. We want the probability of A winning the game epsilon LS to be negligible. As we already said, the lossy I gen must produce lossy statements and the advantage of an adversary indistinguishing a valid statement and the lossy one must be negligible. This completes the definition of lossy identification protocol. Now let's jump to our seaside based lossy identification protocol. Let's start by fixing the notation using the bare minimum amount of maths. We start from a finite abilient group G and the finite set X. We assume that the group G acts freely and transitively on X hence there is a map star which satisfies the first two properties on the right. For the freedom and transitivity of the action we want that if we fix an element in G, the map from X to X it induces is a bijection. On top of that, for cryptographic purposes, we want the action to be able to be efficiently computed but on the other hand, given G star X, it must be hard to recover G. Questo problema è chiamato group action inverse probleme. Let me just note that in seaside the group G is the ideal glass group of an order O while X is the set of super singular ellipt curves of a prime field F for which the endomorphisms of a Fp form a ring is homomorphic to the order O. Anyway, we can safely skip these details and just bear in mind that elements of X are ellipt curves. Now we restrict to the case where the structure of G is known and it is cyclic of order N with G as a generator. This is the case for the group G obtained from the seaside 512 parameters hence the case of sea fish. Now that we have fixed the notation, we can state the hard problem on which we rely. We named it the seasonal seaside, this seaside in short. The problem consists in distinguishing between the two following distributions. The first one has two uniformly random curves E and H and then G to A star E and G to A star H where A is uniformly random in ZN and so G to A is uniformly random in G. The second distribution is composed by four uniformly random curves. In order to present our loss identification scheme I'll start with that of sea fish. There the public parameters correspond to a prime P, a generator G of the group G, the order N of G and a fixed ellipt curve E0 in X. The binary relation R sea fish is composed by pairs EA where E is an ellipt curve in X and A is such that G to A star E0 is equal to E. Hence we have a prover and a verifier and the prover has a pair EA where A is the secret witness while E is the public statement. Then the interaction between the prover and the verifier goes as follows. The prover uniformly samples R in ZN and computes the commitment G to R star E0. The verifier uniformly samples a challenge bit. The prover responds with R if the challenge is 0, hence the blue path with A minus R in the case the challenge is 1, hence the green path. The algorithm V checks if the challenge is 0 that G to the response star E0 is equal to the commitment otherwise that G to the response star the commitment is equal to E which is the public statement. Now the key point is that this identification scheme does not admit lossy keys since each statement in X has a corresponding witness. This is due to the fact that the action star is free and transitive. So in order to obtain a lossy scheme we have to change something and our modification is pretty clean. Instead of considering one starting curve E0 as part of the public parameters we split it into two starting curves E01 and E02 which are now part of the statement. Then the same element A of ZN is used to compute two other curves E11 and E12. These four curves form the statement A is the witness. So in picture we split E0 into two curves. The action of the random element G2B sends E0 in E01, the action of the random element G2C sends E0 in E02. Now it's as if the previous graph was mirrored. Consequently the commitment is now composed by two parts COM1 and COM2. The challenge and the response remain the same but now also the workload for the verifier is doubled. Since if the challenge is 0 it has to verify that COM i is equal to G2 the response star E0i for i equal to 1 and 2. If the challenge is 1 it has to verify that E1i is equal to G2 the response star COM i for i equal to 1 and 2 as well. It's easy to prove that the described scheme satisfies correctness, honest verifier zero knowledge, high mean entropy and perfect unique response. Furthermore it has statistical lossy soundness. More precisely the advantage epsilon Ls of an adversary A in the lossy impersonation game is equal to one half plus one over two times n. I will go back to statistical lossy soundness in the following slides but before that it's important to observe that the protocol has indistinguishability of lossy statements. Indeed a real statement is composed by E01 and E02 that by construction are uniformly random and then G2A star E01 and G2A star E02. On the other hand a lossy statement is just a tuple of four uniformly random ellipt curves and these two tuples coincide with those of the two distributions in the DC side problem which we assumed to be hard. So this completes the description of our lossy identification scheme. We still have to address why so important to have a lossy identification protocol to obtain a Fiat-Shamir signature scheme with tight security. We recall that the Fiat-Shamir transform turns an identification protocol into an un interactive one and in turn into a digital signature. The trick is pretty simple. Instead of obtaining the challenge from the verifier the prover computes it as the digest of a hash function H on input the commitment and the message. The hash function in this model has a random oracle in the security proof of the digital signature which satisfies existential affordability thanks to the properties satisfied by the underlying identification protocol. Under some hypothesis the security proof can also be given in the quantum random oracle model. The reason why lossy identification protocols are important for having a tight security proof is the following theorem by Kielz, Lubaszewski and Schaffner. Let ID be a lossy identification protocol satisfying all the properties we have introduced so far. Correctness, Honest verified zero knowledge, it has alphabets of mean entropy, perfect unique response and epsilon LS statistical lossy soundness. Then the advantage of an adversary A against the stronger forgeability game is bounded by the advantage of an adversary B against the distinguishing of lossy statements. Plus epsilon LS times 1 plus the number of queries to the random oracle made by A plus 2 to minus alpha plus 1 where alpha is the mean entropy plus the advantage of an adversary D against the pseudorandom function used to derandomize the Fiat-Shamir signature. Note that the only difference between the case where H is modeled as a classical random oracle e the case where H is modeled as a quantum random oracle is in the factor containing QH. In the classical setting this term is linear, in the quantum setting it is quadratic and it is multiplied by a factor equal to 8. Now what's the moral of this result? Well if epsilon LS true to minus alpha plus 1 and the advantage against the PRF are small enough the security of the signature scheme tightly adheres to that of the hard problem on which the statistical indistinguishability relies. In our case the decisional seaside problem. At this stage a natural observation would be well the epsilon LS of your scheme is not really small since it is equal to one half plus one over two times n. This is true but it is typical to make the lossy soundness epsilon LS negligibly small by standard parallel repetitions of the identification protocol. Specifically on input a per statement witness the proofer runs parallel executions of the protocol. T parallel rounds make epsilon LS equal to one over two to t plus one over n. However standard parallel repetitions may be problematic for the efficiency of the digital signature scheme. So we have another option to make epsilon LS small which is decreased true. Indeed VET2 derives from the cardinality of the challenge space which contains 0 and 1. We adapted the tricks introduced in C-Sine and C-Fish to enlarge the challenge space of our lossy identification protocol. The result is a new binary relation and a new hard problem with a reduction from the seasonal seaside. In our original relation the statement contains a couple of starting curves E01 and E02 and then a couple of arriving ellipt curves E11 and E12 obtained with the same witness A. In the variant that enlarges the challenge space a statement still contains a couple of starting curves E01 and E02 but then it is composed by S pairs of arriving ellipt curves E11 and E12 till ES1 and ES2. The witness is now composed by S elements in Zn A1 A2 until AS. Under this modification the lossy soundness epsilon LS is given by the following expression where the 2 times S plus 1 at the denominator of the first term is the cardinality of the new challenge space considering also the use of quadratic twist as suggested in the C-Fish paper. This ends the focus on the importance of having a lossy identification protocol. To conclude we put everything together to discuss security and efficiency of the lossy C-Fish digital signature scheme. We use the result by Kils, Lubaszewski and Schaffner to estimate the security of lossy C-Fish that is the digital signature obtained applying the Fiat-Shammin transform to our lossy identification protocol with enlarged challenge space. For the classical security the following inequality holds. We are interested in the bits of security of our scheme. So we have gamma bits of security if where does not exist an adversary that breaks the scheme with success ratio bigger than 2 to minus gamma, where the success ratio is the quotient between the adversary's success probability and its running time. The enlargement of the challenge space changes the hardness assumption for the lossy indistinguishability. In particular the first term in the right side becomes s times the advantage in solving the DC side problem. So we obtain v's. Since the best known algorithm for solving the decisional C side is the one solving type, assuming a running time for the adversary b equal to 2 to 128, its advantage is one. Since the statement of the theorem holds for the running times of adversaries a, b, d, being equal, we divide each term by 2 to 128. For the second term on the right side we grant the adversary a at most 2 to 128 queries to the random oracle. And as done for C-Fish we consider a hash function which is a factor 2 to u slower than a standard hash function, as for example Shafri. By plugging in the value of epsilon ls and doing some approximations that's what we obtain. Now the idea is to consider distinct possible values for s and u and for each of them determine the value of t giving the biggest security level. This table contains the results and also a comparison with C-Fish in terms of public his sides. We note that s is always of the form 2 to minus w, hence by biggest security level we mean 128 minus w minus 1. This means that the bigger the value of s, the smaller the security level obtained, but we note that for s equal to 1 for example we only lose one bit of the security provided by the Gaip problem over seaside 512 parameters. For the quantum security the computations are pretty much the same. The best known quantum algorithm for the Gaip problem is Cooper-Berger's algorithm for the hidden shift problem, which has a subesponential complicity. However the concrete security estimates are still an active area of research. So we considered 56 bits of quantum security as a conservative choice and 64 bits as a more optimistic choice. We bounded the number of queries to the random oracle accordingly and the results are contained in this table. Finally for the computational costs we observe that they are dominated by the computation of class group actions. For the key generation we need 2 times s plus 2 of m, while for signing and verifying we need 2 times s of m. The comparison with those required by sea fish shows that we can safely deduce that our scheme is at most twice as low as sea fish. For concrete estimates of the running time we considered two tuples of values of s, t and u respectively. These two tuples offer a small signature size and a small sum of signature and public size respectively. The numbers reported for these tuples suggest that with sea fish and low sea fish isogenic-based signatures have entered the realm of practicality, but they still need to gain efficiency. That's all from me, thanks for your attention.


So, I would like to thank Sameer first, he touched upon two things, user research and the importance of a minimal viable feature, kind of a prototype. In this particular project presentation, I am going to talk about my learnings and how I have always tried ethnography and see how it feeds up to the data that we obtained from our different product. I am an HCI researcher and a designer working with Zerox and I have worked on domains in health care, education and I am going to take you through my presentation and learnings using a case study which we recently concluded in which we actually did user research with caregivers and patients with chronic chronic illness for a long time and on the way during the user research we actually build a minimal viable prototype so to say which was purely meant as a technical probe during the research process and it actually led to all the ethnography insights feeding it into design of our data analytics framework. So, looking at the typical human centered design process, our project actually began with going to fields, doing some observations, maybe doing secondary research, reading blogs, reading research papers in the same domain, then collecting stories in the field, trying to derive some themes out of it and what could be converted into some kind of a product implication or opportunity areas that we could actually propose to different product managers. Then prototype some solutions that could be actually presented in a product showcase workshop kind of thing, test them and implement them and during this process actually you start building with a concrete focus during the research somewhere in between it becomes abstract and you try to find out abstract themes around it and once you have identified certain themes it again becomes concrete. So, our ethnography study was close to around 6 to 7 months and somewhere between we actually thought that the insights that we are getting from the field we should actually build an evidential proof for that and that is when we actually build the data ecosystem. Now, I will actually go to the details of it but this is something that I try in other projects as well and I will give you an example around that but during the end when the research was still in progress we started getting this ontological understanding. So, people who are here from information science or computer science would understand ontology it is nothing but a thing in universe and its relationship with other things and the title of my presentation talks about user knowledge generation and that is not user data what I really mean is having an ontological understanding of the user. If you speak about one user how do you identify different things, different other users in the ecosystem, different type of product and how the user actually interacts with them and gets affected by them that is that is user knowledge generation and I am going to talk about how an ontological understanding was built based on the data analytics framework. So, briefly touching about ethnography what we do these are the two different type of ethnography processes followed across globally one is participant observation in which researchers actually go to the field very unstructured approach they end up taking hours and hours of collecting hours of video data, audio data, transcripts they speak with users again very unstructured, build journey map, space diagrams and then bring back to their labs and analyze them. The second is key informant interviews in which you actually identify a purpose sample they may be experts of your user or potential users of your product and you actually do interview conduct interviews with them. This is more of a structured approach and sometime you miss out on some of the context so there are like other terms other researchers do they call it contextual inquiry and then there is third which is focus group study which brings in good elements of both the approaches in which you have a more snowball kind of a sample coming together and you try to build a context which is similar to the context you want to do your participant observation you give them certain task may be have them run through an exercise or a competition and during the process you actually talk with them and collect data. So, ethnography is actually like writing about people and when your researchers go into the field do all of these things they collect a lot of subjective data, subjective in terms of interpretation because every user is different. Whereas when we talk about data analytics now this particular term thick data was actually first mentioned by Tricia Wong an ex frog researcher and she actually told that big data which is really the archive this hard coded objective data about the user they talk they give quantitative numbers they actually rely on machine learning because you have to actually run through them analyze it for a long hour and they talk about distribution like how the 20 percentiles of the users are using 80 percent of the features or maybe what is the dropout rate and what are the features they are not using whereas when we talk about thick data which really comes from field studies or user research this brings in a lot of qualitative data to the table a deliver stories. So, when we have done ethnography and talk with product managers so and we have always felt this unease when we present these stories during the initial phases of research because they cannot connect with that. So, really the thick data talks about these stories it relies on human learning the more you do research the more you become observant you learn the art of looking and not seeing and it actually tells about arch type when you do ethnography you actually learn about your supermans or batmans or black widows who are going to use their product but when you do actually the actually just the big data rely on just the big data you only get going to get like information about the user. With arch types I mean when we do research when we talk with these different users we always keep this thing back in our mind that all the statements that they are telling we need to build an arch type persona so that we can actually think of all the exhaustive features when we are back in the analysis board. So, in this particular work we were doing ethnography of chronic care ecosystem and we started with secondary research we started looking at the research papers around that to the left like all these papers they actually talk come from social science some from user research actual ethnography conference and they talk about different aspects of how it's not just about patients there is three lines of work involved there are three different type of users when I talk about a patient as a thing in the ecosystem all of these actually talk about that kind of work the kind of different partners involved and when we actually like during the middle phase of this research when we are actually reading about this one of our colleague actually told use the term that it's spaghetti bowl of data now this guy was a principal is a principal interaction designer and he was looking at this particular study that how the insights could be converted into some kind of a available design or a physiological sensor that could feed in to the product suits that we have when we looked at product design and computer human interaction literature they talk about a lot of approaches in which designers have gone into field studied build certain element build certain product and like data usability study build that have that pilot have have users use them and they have reported about different kind of finding but we found one clear pattern that they didn't look at all the aspects that they could gather from the field and more it was like a technologically deterministic point of view somewhere in between they were actually trying to oversimplify so oversimplify in terms the kind of spaghetti bowl of data that was coming from the field real field when we actually talk about just one product it's it kind of depends on the technology that we are selecting while designing the product and kind of simplifies the problem so going back again where to actually where to start all these literatures we have helped us to identify two major basis since we were focusing on building a variable or a physiological sensor kind of product we looked at what are the different self-care behaviors these self-care behaviors are important because end of the day patient is going to wear the design and and it talks about a lot of things these actually come from healthcare research healthy eating being physically active and so on and so forth and we also looked at what the social science research brings in brings into the table that is three lines of work because we wanted our product solution to be really effective so these three lines of work actually talk about the three different categories of users involved in the ecosystem not only just the patient and the kind of professional training required for specific kind of work as compared to a lot of work which doesn't require that kind of professional training so this was our sample we were doing chronic disease management studying chronic disease management in India and particularly talking about India and since we were looking at the ecosystem so the social construct itself is comes into picture because we are mostly joint families we interact with neighbors a lot we have close-knit families we looked at 18 families on three different tier two cities majorly these chronic diseases which are also more over in series in nature because when diabetes come it also brings along hypertension and arthritis and similarly brings along renal discoloration problem brings along brings along hypertension so in all our samples all the 18 families we found that these patients have one or multiple of such symptoms and when we were looking at this since we were looking at the families we were also looking at the kind of caregivers involved staying with the patient or staying away from patient situated so I'm going to use further further use this these term situated caregivers in person caregivers or remote caregivers and what are the different kind of activities and responsibilities exchanges that happen among the caregivers so talking about the interviews this was actually informant interview process that we need to and we identified these 18 families we had to interview the patient as well as the key primary caregiver in the family there were 36 interviews the key theme that we used these and each team would have multiple questions we would go them one and after another or maybe based on the conversation we will switch so this was a more structured questionnaire but as in the previous talk so we told that you keep asking wise so we were making sure that to actually get the new stories we'll keep asking these why be it five times to one statement we'll keep asking these why so that we actually the kind of findings that we get are more contextual in particular to that user so lot of data we got we converted all the audio transcripts audio recordings into these sort of spreadsheet which would mention about the maybe first statement would be just the introduction about the user but following statements will be different responses we got and if responses are related we'll keep right next to each other and that way we had actually for 36 users we had these kind of data now I'm actually going to talk about how we derived themes from that because that's the process part of it and pretty important we coded the data as device techniques so for example then a caregiver mentioned that his father had renal disorder and not allowed to have more than two liters of water a day he was actually giving a two-third of ice with water every time so that was a devised technique that caregiver had built on his own so every statement we obtained when it indicated towards some kind of a workaround users have created on their own to solve some problem we tagged that particular statement as device technique similarly breakdowns breakdown indicated about the failure of the system starting from mild breakdowns which could be just the pain points and the pressure points as the users mentioned but breakdowns are like the major big major failures of the system we tagged certain sentences as contextual interpretations these are the interpretations we as designers were gathering while we are talking and certain design ideas that would come during the affinity analysis we came up with bunch of themes I'm going to talk about just a few briefly but we were actually we took all these sentences mixed them up and then during the analysis we were finding sentences based on similarities so what are these user statements indicating towards the similar context relationship what are these what all of these user statements are indicating were indicating towards the similar outcomes and proximity are there one reason leading to another outcome and vice versa that so that way we were actually tagging and identifying these user statement and that helped us build certain themes so I'm only going to touch upon some of the themes and quickly moving to further details so one theme that came from actual field study is the level of trust and assurance we found out levels of levels in trust and assurance is quite different when the caregiver is actually filial as compared to caregiver who is actually conjugal as in marital partner or filial as in son or daughter taking care of the patient so so so these filial caregivers were seeking continuous assurance as compared to as compared to the partners who were aware of the general general general ecosystem or behavior of the patient because of the sense of that growing old together we found out that filials especially those who were in person staying with staying with patients they had their own way of motivating and persuading the caregiver but that was totally absent when uh when when these caregivers were remote and interesting uh an intriguing fire finding that we had was uh there was these relationship friction because of role reversal so so these patients they had been taking care of the family for a very long time and suddenly the roles have reversed so that has again brought down certain reasons for friction certain reasons for not not feeling self-reliant and the kind of data that that came to us and when we actually put went back to all the data and tried to put it based on the kind of emerging teams we found we came up with this quadrant where we were the filial caregivers and the trust and assurance level were pretty high in this case but they were also a lot of deceiving happening and this was actually again going back to that statement of my colleague that it this was actually a speculative whole update and when we when we intend to show this to somebody who comes with hardcore computer science background uh will not be able to make a sense of it and uh we know that we knew that where there is a interplay of trust and relationship that we have studied uh maybe that is correct or maybe more insights that we have to do but there is also a health data ecosystem that we can capture and get evidences from from the data that we have and the data that we got from ethnography that's when we built this prototype it's a classical example of you are building a technical probe uh that's not going to sell this was just built for the study uh we we had uh some six families volunteer so so this this had simple physiological sensors that would identify certain activities such as uh walking such as eating if you have a tilt action for a repeated number of time RFID readers would actually tell tell about medicine intake followed by a tilt action and and real-time clock will will basically tell about the kind of time of rest the total time of rest for the patient and we had this particular armband uh uh had had had the patients to use this for a period of 10 minutes uh 10 days the department during this time the the the the the the variable was actually gathering data and sending notifications to the caregiver and uh as the data that we were receiving was the call logs from the caregivers what are the kind of activities which had happened at patient end and what are the kind of sms's that were sent to the caregiver are the caregivers responding to these kind of sms's uh if let's say there is a intervention requirement do they actually call back and remind their parents uh they were implicit was it explicit actions that would just happen just because of a message being sent or implicit as a general behavior uh and and we were trying to identify are there any corresponding pattern hidden between the kind of interactions caregiver do when kind of data being sent to them so we had this data ecosystem work with all of these families and we did semi-structured interviews post pilot uh what is interesting is there are certain findings but i'm going to talk about these findings when i talk about challenges uh this kind of a data ecosystem that we had built and the understanding from the ethnography that we need to actually identify all of those things in the ecosystem had led us to build uh build an ontological framework now this particular thing is a screenshot of a ontology uh web ontology language in which uh these five information which is essentially the information about the patient i s d a r whenever a doctor communicates with a nurse certified nursing assistant they they actually tell about the patient in these five and five data point which is identify about the patient age sex uh uh situate about the patient what is the current situation background what was the medicine given to the patient assessment what's the current assessment what is the medicine required and uh response so what the like what is the nurse supposed to do and this is way uh uh in these five term terminologies all the healthcare communication happens so we picked up this healthcare web ontological language and we found out that till this date uh the patient thing information had only these things there will be uh owl files for diabetes there will be owl files for other other diseases other medical complications but they they had never had a caregiver as a part of it this is a simple simplistic screenshot there in which there is only one caregiver and and and this is this is just the wrapper of the database but uh i suggest that yeah it's it's difficult to show the what's going on and what are the different kind of data that could go if we have multiple type of caregiver and if it's uh healthcare service provider location where are where there are multiple caregivers taking care of inpatient as well as outpatients uh this is a very complex data so we we were able to have capture these different users ecosystem and that's where the ethnography finding kind of led us to have uh not only just the patient but uh but but actually a 360 degree feedback working between the data ecosystem as well as the trust and relationship the the findings from the ethnography so i'll give you a certain examples for example uh when when these messages were sent to the caregivers the kind of evening discussions the coffee discussion used to happen the the total period of time actually elongated to almost three times uh this came out from the post pilot interview uh at times so so we had taken care of when the patients don't use the device during the pilot so at times patients were not using it and we we actually sent the message to the caregiver so so that led to some kind of a discussion and uh possibly it was an argument actually so so so so this kind of a technical probe that we had sent to the field had also brought certain behavioral changes uh or or determinant shift to the user behavior so to say so so based on this framework that we have designed probably uh in future we can have data coming in from multiple variables we will have data about knowledge of or experience of caregiving about the caregivers different things in the ecosystem and uh possible medical technologies can actually be uh able to identify the best interventions best communication corresponding to different responsible caregivers in the ecosystem and use that kind of a framework uh as a system in action we were able to uh increase caregivers contextual information to the system so for example one of the findings from ethnography that we had the both are passed from doctor to nurse and let's say a conjugal caregiver if the conjugal caregiver is not an expert and most of the cases she was not an expert she had a lot of misunderstanding she felt more comfortable with the nurse as compared to the doctor because she could talk in the same language with the nurse uh it's just the difference in the experience and the knowledge uh whereas this this was never find uh this was never found with failures as a given when always go back and google if they are not confident about certain things we were able to recommend uh personalized intervention reporting uh so this is just that we are not only talking about the patient but if we have three or multiple caregivers involved in the system uh we could easily identify what kind of activity can be done by a cake and and we eventually also enabled a many too many patient caregivers intention intervention now the most important part in all of this journey where we actually did uh ethnography and somewhere in between we implemented a data ecosystem and how things got came in together is uh you need to you need to actually identify the right sample during your entire study uh we were fortunate enough that actually these six families got agreed for the 10 day long pilot uh but many attempts uh that will not be the case so so so so as researchers we need to actually be careful about that and uh keep persuading and have have have these participants become the important part of the study have them feel that they are the contributor during the study so they can actually be along with you and uh continue helping you as as data point the probe can bring in determinant shift in user behavior now this particular example is just in the caregiving ecosystem for example research uh let's say for e-commerce shopping behavior and we we build a beta prototype and uh and and send it across to certain percentage of you to identify what they are doing with the prototype now sell on its quality or based on the kind of features that we have built can bring in a lot of deterministic behavior so that should not bias the findings that we have and there's always there should be always a very incremental uh shift when we are actually trying to implement any such technical throat in the field uh an important thing during such study is identifying what we are trying to assess from the study now in this particular case all the families found the particular device and the communication mechanism happening pretty useful but we could not report effectiveness of such a system so so so so there are definitely these three triangles when we are trying to study and identify effectiveness of a system is are we going to study the perceived usefulness of a product or a service or are we going to study the adoption of a product or a service or just the effectiveness uh that will actually help us design our research in a much better manner in this particular case we were actually just looking at uh the perceived usefulness and if in future this kind of a data ecosystem exists how it's going to help or or play out in the overall caregiving and fourth and the most important thing is uh most of the time participants will not use your technical probe so so you will have to have ways to identify when it is being not used or when it is being abused so actually you can that also feeds in as a form of data in your research yep thank you this was the team who worked with us any questions hi so uh mostly the ethnography more about uh qualitative research right so uh so i i just want to know like uh how do you so the sample size which you take is very small to do a qualitative research so we started with 18 families generally you can start with uh 7 to 9 yeah and you should always look back and do this affinity analysis till the time you get a theoretical saturation uh oftentimes timeline of the project itself uh works as a constraint but uh i think starting with the reasonable sample size of 9 so how do you uh like how do you manage not to fall under so because most of your results are based on the users right so how do you manage not to fall your results to be more biased toward the sample size that you have taken uh so mostly in these kind of study uh i'll just talk about the study we did a purpose if sampling uh there was strict questionnaire in which we were actually trying to screen these families uh only the families which had more like any one member or more than one member had had these chronic conditions uh had caregivers who have been taking care of the patients for more than five years or so uh so so so we yeah and and as i mentioned in the previous uh when when i was explaining about thick data uh a lot of times some of the interviews we will we will be having these supermans and batman's r-style personas arriving but they could also be outliers in the system so so some of the outliers are easily recognizable when you are doing analysis uh yeah so you should actually not consider it as a part of the user statements while analyzing and another question is uh so ethnography is generally like a long term process like like some people do for like years so how how do you you know how do you keep track on your initial objective and like if like in time it might change like how do you decide okay this is the changing point and have to change my track and then again do how does that happen that's a very good question and mostly uh so so i come from a background of a design research and uh i try to find a middle ground by doing contextual inquiry and because ethnography actually comes from anthropological science in which we had these renowned ethnographers staying with these societies for a very long time they used to write about uh attic perspective like an outsider perspective of the society and then amic as an insider perspective of the society and it's a long very long process but uh in the in the first times that we live now we need to identify and maybe focus on so so some people try to uh try to focus on the kind of problems that they are going to focus on so so yeah there is always a middle ground that you'll have to identify but you can always go for a long term ethnography. Did you have did you have any uh experience in changing your objective and what are you your project towards like was there any uh could you repeat the question? Like before starting that a study you might have a you know a problem statement to solve to solve yes did it change eventually when you are doing your study? Yeah most of the time problem statements change when you do these periodic affinity analysis but you kind of report the holistic findings insights that you have uh and and they should actually change the kind of questionnaires you build after these every periodic analysis the question questionnaire should also evolve because you will every time find a new insight or new new new fruit for thought actually. Hello nice talk so uh the research that you talked about so is it only after the probe the MVP has been made or does it apply even before you know what we want to do say uh in startups right so you can't make the whole thing and then show then the whole if it doesn't if the perceived usefulness is not there then the whole work has been wasted so uh are the techniques that you talked about uh apply even before the product conceptualization? Yeah so I think uh when you are like building a variable you will also have to go through building these kind of MVP uh this particular MVP or was only used for a pilot or a technical probe during interviews but even for product design you will have in not only just one but multiple versions and they will improve during the study okay I'll say your question I mean generally we show designs and they say yeah it's it it would help us but later when the product is rolled out uh it turns out that adoption wasn't good so how do you mean the MVP ultimately turns out to be the product itself so how do you get the right balance between uh the pilot project and not becoming an exhaustive this was just a probe we only had one version but uh let me talk like let's just talk about a website or a web product uh we will have multiple versions they will not be as expensive to build or we we can actually easily get users have them use and get feedback from them so so there is also difference in uh trade off that we have to do the kind of product that we are building sometimes the mobile app could be very easy but let's say we have to build a for example a automobile so it will have an incremental we will have incremental mbt is being built for that and not multiple ones


Today, every bounce, every bounce shorts were dying. Longs were dying to get out because they were stuck from yesterday too. So we have one major push, which is the zombie rule. 1030, it started zombie at 1030. So I waited, I covered all the way down here, a lot I saw refreshing, I hit it. You can use the zombie rule with a couple of things to get the hell out of a short position or use that to make money. So what I did was I waited. And I was like, okay, please zombie.


Felly rwy'n golygu? Mae ni dwy. Rwy'n golygu. Rwy'n golygu. Rwy'n golygu. Fel wnaeth Ion. Mae'n gynghorf yma yn ymarfer o gyllid yn gyfethogol infflio PXGA, fe fyddwn yn wneud. Rwy'n golygu. Felly, rydyn ni'n olygu. Felly, rydyn ni'n golygu. Roedd y gallu gwylwg yn ein doleddol Gelfa? Yr Gelfa yw Bob Parsons? Yr Gelfa? Mae! Mae'n dweud i'r Gelfa yma. Ychydig! Yr Ychydig. Mae Ysgol iawn i'n gweithio'r hanes. Mae'r Yngexfwyr yn ym 13 oes. Mae'r ddechrau i'w gwneud i'r ddechrau a gweithio. Mae'n ddim eich 11 o'r dweud. Rwy'n fyddwch chi. Mae yna'r llawd. Rwy'n ddim yn y rhaid. Rwy'n ddiwethaf cyfnod bob Parsons. Roedd yna'r dweud? Mae yw'r fagrwysgaf yma'r bod yn fagrwysgaf? Yw. Mae'n wneud fawr i'w wneud. Mae yw'r gweithio'r gwneud y cwestiynau. Mae yw'r gwneud yno. Mae'r fagrwysgaf yw'r wneud yn fagrwysgaf, mae'n fagrwysgaf mewn gwaith o'r bod yma yw'r Gweithlun. Oni'n fagrwysgaf, ond mae'n fagrwysgaf. Mae'n gwneud. Mae'n angen. Mae'n angen. Mae'n angen. Mae'n angen. Mae'n angen. ac i odd i'w naddwyd. Felly, nid yma, nid yw ddwyddoedd yma. I wneud ond o'r ysgrifennig ac mae nhw'n meddwl. Yn ddiwedd yn awr, mae wedi dod i'r ysgrifennig yn Ybidoedd, yn fyrdio'r wrth. Rwy'n oed o thyniad gyda'r unrhyw o'rЧyn sydd i'w ddech chi. 100%. ac mae dyn ar ymlaen, mae maeth amlu yn ymlaen, mae wedi'ch gwaith mwyn o'i rhai arall, a wedi'ch gwaith bach i'r ffion, mae'n gweithio i'r ffordd, mae'n gweithio i'n fynd yn'r hwn yn amlwg, i ddweud a'i ddweud o'r fath efo'n syniadau yn ymddangos, mae'n gweithio i'r ffordd fel oaf. Rhaid i'n dweud y gallwn yn rhaglen, mae mae'n ddweud i'n ddweud y hyn yn ddweud i'r mae'n gwir.uche? Bring it out as well, yeah. Is a fun thing coming out, yeah, yeah. And it taught me to be proud of myself, it taught me that I can do things and they taught me pretty clean and sturdy. Fantastic. And leap forward quite a few years and you'll make your millions successful in many ways there's not so varally difficult golf club market, why do you do that? Felly, mae'n mynd i ddim yn dweud i ddim yn y ddiweddol rydyn ni'n gwneud. Felly, rydyn ni'n gwneud hynny'n dwy'r busysau a'r busysau teulu, ond hefyd, yn y gweinio sefydliadau a'r busysau. Felly, mae'n ddim yn y same o'r gwyllt. Mae rydyn ni'n oed i'n ddweud i'r 30s. ond diwylliannol. Ond yr unig iawn iawn a nesaf amser ymdderei dim yn rhanau i'w les. Rydyn ni'n gallu hynny'n holl. Rydyn ni'n gallu fod yn ein bod gylir yn ymddiol. Rydyn ni'n gallu bod amser yn gymhiliu. Mae chyfodd eholwch mewn hwnnw, rydyn ni'n gallu yn ymddiol. Felly drwy'n bod rydyn ni'n gallu effaith am ar gyfer his. Rydyn ni'n gallu fyddfa'n effeithio'n gallu fyddfa'n holeadydd. Rydyn ni'n gallu allaethu maen nhw'n ddechrau'n unig.上面 mae yw ddigon i'ch gwybod oherwydd dychydig sy'n rhoi unrhyw, ond sus tu'n amser, ond mae'n cael ei wneud, aliad yw mynd i chi'n arferwyr a'r gweithio os yw unfold i'r mewn cyff yr un o'r cyffredin, y gallwn i'r gweithio i'r hoffio ac yn cael ei bwysig. Felly'r lleiwyr yw, byddai ei wneud o'r gweithio sydd i'n cyffredin, a'r gweithio i'r cyffredin yw i'r dryn, a'r ffordd gweithio i'r bwrth o'r gweithio, neu'r ynghylch maen nhw'n gallu bwysig pwysig sydd y mae'r rhan o'r pryd. Yn gwrs, tu ond yw'r bydd hyn, rydyn ni wedi caelgo mae'r bach o safon a bach o'r rhan i amlant, rydyn ni'n bwysig o'r brif funpas a'i ei wneud i'r adgeinio'r pwysig. Yn gwrs, dwi'n gallu wneud i sicr sylgrin i'u cyhoeddu, na'r wyf yn rhoi ffordd i'w Majesty. Yn gyfrifio. Yn amlant mynd i chingo, yma rydym wedi rhaid i'u prydau fel y gallwn gyda'r hyn yn ymlog yn ymdweithio.  Ac mae'n meddwl yma mae'n rhaid i'r hyn. Mae'r clwp yn ymdweithio y G3, mae'n rhan i'r XP We were able to make some changes. Make some changes. To get at a part of those. And so we're releasing that.  First of all if you look at the workmanship that's exceptional. We have our perimeter waiting if people call them screws but the black wings. All those have to be a certain way, a certain how they're done. yw i'w ddweud sydd eich ddwyllio'r llwysgrifennu i wneud yw i'w neud ar y hunain hwnnw. Ych yn fawrledig, ac yn gael'i gael popeth yn gwnddoch yn ei hunain, a mae'u ddim yn meddwl yn iawn ac yn ddweud â'r llwysgrifennu i'w ddweud os yna'r rhai hwnnw'n i gael y cwmfwyr, tech受u'r gwagodau'u bobl ar gyrfa'r llwysgrifennu. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'r llwysgrifennu yn eu lofiadau. yw'r hynny'n arwad o'r bussus... yr hynny'n arwad o llawer o hollwyddo bwysig, ar wych yn ni'n amgylcheddo. Ar hollwyddo bwysig er oed, mae'n höllwyddo, i felr hollwyddo, a mae yw cael ei gafod ar beth, mae'r hollwyddo, ar gyfer cymdeithas, ac mae'n ei coel ei fyddir. Gyda i'r lleol. Rydyn ni'n meddwl. Cymdeithasau i'r hollwyddo. Was there a barometer? Did you have any of the targets in mind at that point? Here is the deal, one of the things I believe in and all my businesses and my business career, I don't have goals. Okay. I never knew where it would be and I never did in any of my other businesses, I would have someone come up to me and said we like a five year plan. I would say good luck. You don't get my words. I'm here and now to date man, but when you're on the battlefield you gotta deal with what's coming out of the climate. That's how I run our businesses. So what I work on is rather than a goal, see in my mind if you have a goal and you get to where the goal is. What do you do now? I'm working on the process instead of a goal. Making the process better and better. Better development, better manufacturing, better delivery, better customer relations, that sort of thing. As you do that you continue to work better and better and better. I got one more example. In professional football you have out on the 32 teams in the NFL. All of them want to win the Super Bowl. That's their goal, right? Except one of them. One of them just works on the process and that's the Patriots. I'm not a Patriot. I'm a Ravens fan, but it's hard to argue with it. No, that's fantastic. In an hour from now I'm going to talk back on to Gen 3. I get to try these clubs very, very shortly, just a quick look at them. What can I expect? What am I going to notice? You are going to find that if you hit the extreme performance XB iron it is exceptionally long and it feels softer than our Gen 1 iron. It is the most wonderful feeling to feel that thing launch and go like crazy. Felly, here the other day he was hitting our Gen 2 7 iron and our Gen 2 irons. I mean he was blown away with them. He hit the Gen 3 7 iron. He was hitting the Gen 2 180, the Gen 3 210. That's a bit of a leap, isn't it? That's a bit of a leap. I'm looking forward to that. In terms of how do you measure the success? Would you like to see more products in the pro game? Would you like to see a pro winner major with some PXG clubs in the back? Is it about sales profit? How do you measure success Bob of PXG? The success of PXG is that our customers are happy. That's the number one metric. Would I like to see one of the pros in a major? I would. I mean we've come very close on both tours. Not there yet. We have a number of wins on all tours. That's nice to see. I would rather see a customer hit one of our irons for the first time and turn to me and go wow, that means more to me. PXG, a brand to be shot at, like you said, a kamikaze attack at one point. When I release a video a PXG product it generates a huge split in opinion and many of those will be in relation to cost. What's your response to the kind of cost criticism? My response to that is, I understand, I wish it could be different, but if it costs me 300 dollars to deliver a golf club, I can't sell it for less than that. I have to sell it for more than that so I can continue to make payroll and run the business and there you have it. What I could do is compromise that and go back a little, but that's not what they want in my clubs. It's just not our niche. I understand and I will say this here that even though the clubs are a little expensive, well, a lot expensive, if you kind of want to you can afford them. No, I just spoke to Brad and Mike and they were really similar questions to them and I always try and the big thing for me is, like I said in these videos, I've made it no secret that I really fell in love with the product and when the criticisms come my only thing is for people to encourage them to give it a go because it's a bit of a, it's a real eye-opener the first time you try it. I think that's one of the things that you say isn't it, the first time you try it and it's a bit of a, the first time you hit a PXG club is pretty special. Oh, it is and I mean if somebody hits these gen 3s for the first time, it's going to be that well moment that we just share it. I'm looking forward to that in the next hour or so. Youself and René, founders of the Bob and René Parsons foundation, the charity foundation. Can I just speak about who are the main benefactors of those kind of charities? First and foremost is the Marine Corps. There's a charity that I believe in called the Semper Fi Fund for Wounded Injured Marines and it's now been expanded to assist all members of the armed forces. I realize that I would not be here today sitting here talking with you of what I learned in the Marine Corps and what they taught me. So I'm always on the mind that as long as I got a dime they got a nickel. So our foundation, we give that 10 million a year and we do a fundraiser that raises another 10 or more and it goes into suicide prevention, it goes into mitigating PTSD, making homes more accessible for vets that are wearing prosthetics and all that sort of thing. So we do that. We also do a lot of services here in the valley where we help people that are mostly people that are here, depending upon your term, how you think about it, whether they're here illegally or they are here undocumented. We believe in things like if a child's here and the child is sick, this is America, the child needs to be taken care of and we do such things like for example there's a charity called Crisis Center Nurseries. When there's somebody here illegally and they get a job you can imagine they make nothing. And to boot there's a whole society, I mean that society economy that preys on them. And so if you pay $3 for something you and I, even though they make nothing they pay $5. I mean, and there you have it. Well, the question is when they get a job, who watches the kids? Can't leave them home, right? Or hopefully you don't. So the answer is we do. Crisis Center Nurseries, so they drop their kids off, the kids get a good breakfast, they get a good lunch, they get education in English and in Spanish in a fun way, a little history, and hopefully one day they'll be better Americans because that's what they want to be. I think that's fantastic because I mean again, I don't know how much that is publicized in the US but back in the UK I think that's a great thing that a message to get across is just how much you do. And I was going to ask how much money in terms of it's donated annually but it literally is tens of millions isn't it? It's a lot, a lot of money. Well, you know, we have it and we're glad we're able to help. And of everything we do that is the most fulfilling. Yeah, yeah, that's fantastic. Just on to social media, the bit that I do, what are your thoughts in general? I mean the main thing I do is obviously by YouTube, what are your thoughts on social media in general and how it's impacted on the golf game, the golf industry? Social media sure has changed everything.  There's no hiding places. You know, we went from before social media where sometimes you might want to know someone's opinion. Now in social media you get everybody's opinion, whether you want it or not. And you know, we see everybody thinks a little differently. I don't care who you are. You're going to have fans and you're going to have detractions. There was an article published not long ago about our blades and a lot of the comments were that I single-handedly ruined the golf industry because I hit it to clubs across the board, prices are moving up and that sort of thing. And in a way I said, I guess you got a point but you know, it is what it is. And obviously you've been very successful in everything you've done. So what advice have you got for me as a YouTuber to get from where I am now to move things on a level? Wow, you're going to put that on me. That's the main man. Well, I'd say number one, you're doing the right thing because you obviously love what you do. Yeah, well of course that's what you said earlier. And I would say think big and spend no time looking about what you've done, spend more time thinking about what you're going to do. Fantastic, I will bear that in mind. Just on your own achievements again, are you proud of what you've achieved at PXG and also this golf facility that we're at at Scottsdale Nationally? Are you proud of that? Am I proud of it? In some ways I would say I am but I rarely think about that. I spend almost no time thinking about what I've done and I always worry about what I'm going to do because Andy Alligator is always at it. That's a fair comment but you still get excited about the new product. Just on we've got a part of this, we've got a new PXG apparel which we're going to look at. Can I just ask any plans to enter the golf ball market? Absolutely, we won't enter the golf ball market when we're ready to take it enormous beating and today's not the day for it. I'm going to draw things to a close and I've got one final question and I appreciate all the answers you've given so far. In many years from now, times up for Bob Parsons, are we all going to remember Bob Parsons? Are we all going to remember Bob Parsons? Well many years from now the way the world turns you probably won't. I'd like to think that if I'm remembered at all it will be at the golf business and it will be from people that say, all this sad kind of really good golf equipment started with Bob. Brilliant. I'd like that. I hope so, I hope so. It's an absolute pleasure and I really appreciate the opportunity to sit down and see you today and I appreciate your time. Well, pleasure's all mine Andy. It was so good. Right, thank you all for watching as ever. Comments down below and I'm going to move from here and I get now the chance to hit some of these gentry irons. I can't wait.


Good afternoon everybody and welcome to Unfiltered. Pastor, it's always good to have you here. Join us. Thank you, John. You're so kind. You know, Pastor, when people talk about the hippie movement and the Jesus revolution and talk about the time when somebody hears of the name or the word hippie, they think of peace and love and you see those things. But the reality is, is that a lot of these people that came out of that and came into the Jesus movement were dealing with some really crazy stuff. And I wanted to ask you about that side that's not really spoken about a whole lot when people like yourself are coming out of the hippie movement and gave your life to Christ and the transformation that gospel had in your life and other hippies life. But I don't hear too much about some of the things that the hippies were going through at that time. You know, during the day that that I got saved in late 60s, early 70s is when the what we're called the hippies actually came into being. And I don't remember. I don't remember it being something that was necessarily contrived. It wasn't something that somebody was standing up and saying, we need to be hippies. So as movements go, it was something that was basically done or occurred, I'd say in a real organic way. There were so many different things that were contributing to the attitudes of those who were called hippies at that time. We as a nation and even into the world, we're dealing with a number of things that are in many ways very similar to what we're dealing with now. We had a war that was going on, you know, and not not everybody was very supportive of that. We were pouring millions into the billions of dollars of American resources into trying to prop up what became South Vietnam. American treasure and blood was being spilled on foreign soil. And we didn't see many of us didn't see the reasonableness of that when you have so many things that you need to be dealing with here in the United States. Why are we pouring billions of dollars into into another country that ultimately in our case we saw ultimately did no good. It fell. And we wondered about that.  And we wondered about the climate. You know, at that time we were concerned about the fact that our scientists, we call them scientist priests, they all thought that we were going to freeze. There were riots in the streets that began to happen. There was a music revolution where politics became something you made as a lyric in a song of protest. And so there was all that kind of stuff. And in the midst of that, people will sometimes look at it and they'll say, well, you know, there are so many similarities to then and now. And the fact is the now is only the fruit of what was the then. Because what was then was experiment. What is now has become fabric. And so not everybody did drugs. It wasn't that all people were tuning in and dropping out. It was a small segment. And the ones who were doing that were not considered to be a reflection of the best of American society. Somehow it seems that that kind of mentality is now developed so that people are marching for the right to destroy their brains with with with LSD or with magic mushroom or or let's legalize pot. And you know, we we through the hippie movement, we destroyed the the pillar of marriage and we brought in a nihilism. We became callous and corrupt. And that's what we see today, you know, politicians who are are making millions of dollars by being politicians and nobody questioning it anymore. It's just an amazing thing. So getting back to the question, the hippies, we were really more into peace love, but we did that through free sex and drugs. And there was an awful lot of drug use, the introduction of a variety of things at that time that ultimately, I think have contributed to the destruction of the family and the nation that we live in. People who got caught up with that. Many of them became addicted. Many of them dropped out. And what we're seeing today is the fruit of that. So, John, I still believe to this day that the only message that changes a life is the gospel message. And when we were told about love, which we were actually protesting for and marching for somewhere I didn't or partying for, we found that in the ultimate hippie Jesus Christ, that's what we used to refer to him as and consider him in the sense that he was the perfect man who was a man of peace and man's love, a man of joy, a man of purpose, a man of sacrifice, one who really truly cared about humanity, who really did make his brothers and brothers and sisters. And I think that the thing that people talk about very much that I don't mention in this whole hippie revolution kind of thing, was the continual use of drugs and the destruction that it brought upon our lives and families and relationships. And we haven't learned. This nation hasn't learned. What we want to do is we want to legalize them so we can tax them because we have a government that is bent on spending money it didn't earn, taking money and using it in ways that none of us would really vote for. They just do it. And so a lot of what we see take place now is just the fruit of the rebellion of the hippie revolution and the people who at one time were the hippies became the lawyers and then the politicians and ultimately many of them became the corrupt leaders of this nation. So we need a revival once again. We need to awaken to these things. And if we don't, this nation can't survive the way it is. And that comes through the gospel. It's the only way, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the only way that's what changed my life. That's what changed your life and so many people in this church. It's the gospel. We need to preach that and keep that the center of everything we do. Amen. Well, thank you pastor for sharing that with us. And with that, we want to invite you guys to our Sunday morning services at 830 and 1045. And are you in Acts chapter 11? Still in chapter 11? I'll be concluding chapter 11 on Sunday. It's been a very fruitful study. It's for you. It gives you a good nap time. I want to invite you guys to come out and join us. It's been really good. If you haven't seen our services, you can go to our Facebook page or to our YouTube page at Calvary Chapel Chino Valley. And you can look up all pastor David sermons there and catch up. But we do look forward to seeing you come join us in person. Invite your friends and family to join us. Thank you again for tuning in and God bless you.


I just wanted to jump on to say hi. Tomorrow I'm going to see my psychiatrist, which is what this video is about. The video that he works out to watch is about me going to see my psychiatrist. And afterwards we're going to talk about what seeing a psychiatrist doesn't really like. I don't know what my psychiatrist is going to say tomorrow because I got admitted to hospital not long after seeing him. So you'll see. So today I've got an appointment with my psychiatrist. I don't know what he's going to say because I've been impatient that I saw him. So I don't know how this is going to go. Nearly an hour. Wish me luck. I was only waiting for the bus. I left a bit later than I was planning on moving. So I'm praying and making it on time. Where's the 295 when you're at? I've talked to my team to see if I can ask for someone to be allocated to work with you. And to see if we can help move things on for you a bit. Yeah. So like it, I don't know if it will be a community nurse or a support worker. But I'll let you sort of see about that. When do you go back to university? September. So I had a good appointment. I was juicing my hardware along to 2.5 in the morning. And it's still 5.5 hours at night. It's ordered me to have a lithium level good task. If I haven't had one in nearly a year. I was going to talk a little bit about what it's like seeing a psychiatrist. But I know people when they go for their first appointment see they get a little anxious. And they kind of want to know what to expect. So here's what to expect from a psychiatrist appointment. So I go and see a psychiatrist once every three months. I go and see a psychiatrist. We talk about my medication. We talk about some kind of support I could have. We talk about how I've been doing. We talk about general things that have always been going on in my life. And we have a chit chat about other stuff like slavery was talking about my YouTube channel, which was a fun conversation. He tried to get my URL out of me, which I didn't give. It's not a system anyway that my channel is called. From when I was in Lancashire. I could just chat. But, you know. Anyway, I decided to appoint him. My first appointment was a psychiatrist appointment. I was really anxious about it. But it really doesn't have anything to be anxious about. Because they work with you. They're not just going to stick you on medication. They ask you if you're willing to try medication. Because in the community you can't be forced medication. And I should recommend treating an order. In which case then you have to take meds. But if you're not on a CDM, you have the freedom to choose whether you take medication or not. The psychiatrist wants me to come on Hella Paradol. But I don't feel comfortable doing that. Because when I was on the lower dose, I started hearing voices. I don't think taking me off at the anti-psychotics is a good idea. But, hey. Where are we going to get together? We're lower in the dose. Over my head, I don't know. It doesn't come from my nose. He wants me to come off it because apparently you can see that I'm stiff. I don't feel stiff. I don't think I'm stiff. But apparently I look it. So there's that. And really they're decent people. They're not all about medication. My psychiatrist always talking about me doing therapy again. But statistically trauma therapy. Which I'm bad about. So psychiatrists don't discourage straight to medication. They do also consider whether therapy is an option or not. It really is a shared situation. You have a say in your care. That's all I want to say. So that's a bit about what my psychiatrist's point of view isn't like. I hope it helps. If it did, let me know in the comments down below. If you have any questions, ask me in the comments down below. As I said at the beginning of the video, I don't know if I said I'm not. Subscribe, turn the notifications on, hit the thumbs up button. So it really does help me out. And with that, I will see you guys in my next video. Peace.