Of course, our first speaker I don't think really needs much of an introduction, and I can't think of anything clever to say about him anyway. What else can you say about Roy Childs? He's a well-known Libertarian speaker and speaker in Jennifer, I guess. And he's here and graciously consented to give a keynote address, as well as to participate later on. And he's pouring positive today with Gary Greenberg. So I'll give you Roy Childs. Getting on the plane this morning in beautiful Washington, D.C., where I have been hijacked after living in San Francisco for three years, I tend to myself I don't want to come. And I've changed my mind seeing a lot of my old friends and hopefully making some new ones. I'm rather cheered by being here. And I'm definitely looking forward to the debate later on with Gary Greenberg because I intend to smash him. You'll hear me. This is going to be a rather odd keynote in certain ways because what I want to do is reflect on the meaning of the Reagan victory and the Reagan administration to date and talk about what we have accomplished over the last few years and what we can accomplish even more in the future. I think that the meaning of the so-called Reagan landslide was very clear. It was, according to all the polls that we saw, very simply a repudiation of President Carter's economic policies. This is very clear from every exit poll, every post-election poll that was made. Only 11 percent of the American people in 1980 voted for Ronald Reagan because, quote, he's a real conservative. That amounts to 4,750,000 votes or roughly five times the number of votes received by Ed Park in his much less valued but perhaps more important long-run campaign for the presidency as a Libertarian Party candidate. It was a referendum then on a failed economic policies that were themselves a retreat from traditional New Deal liberalisms. The philosophy of tax and spend, spend and elect. For about 40 years, almost 50 years since 1932, the governing coalitions in this country have been based essentially on New Deal philosophy. Reagan's victory has been widely counted as a move in a new direction, a new beginning. And indeed he has made some significant steps in that direction. His budget cuts, while actually merely cuts in the rate of increases of the budget, nevertheless when you take inflation into account, amount to about a two or three percent real cut in government spending. His civil liberties policy so far have not been unveiled. There's an attempt to revive UAC and other internal security committees, but so far no major moves have been made on the abortion front by Reagan or on any other major civil liberties front. In the area of foreign policy, of course, there's quite a force of a different color with the revving up of the situation in El Salvador. I will talk about that in a moment, but what I want to reflect on is the meaning of that landslide, that repudiation of Carter. Reagan ran flamboyantly because he is a good actor, despite what the liberal commentators like to say about him. I think he's the greatest actor in American politics today. He ran as the candidate opposed to the government. Not too much so, but just enough so that people would hear him out. In fact, that is what the American people were voting for. What do I take as my evidence? I take as my evidence the political trends which we see developing in this country, which we as libertarians must learn to grasp and to capitalize on. Among these are a very primary fact about foreign policy, which is while the American people, by and large, are in favor of a strong defense, they do not have any conception of what that strong defense ought to consist of. A second point is that while they are in favor of a strong defense, they are not supporters of interventionism. I take as an example of this the White House mail in the polls after the press campaign about El Salvador, which began on February 21st when Alexander Haig released a sheet of documents allegedly captured from Salvadorian guerrillas in San Salvador, which supposedly documented massive communist and particularly Russian support for the so-called Marxist guerrillas in El Salvador. Now this was kicked off at a press conference on February 21st with about as much sophistication as any media campaign for any foreign policy move that we have seen in our lifetime. Nevertheless, what has been the result? According to the polls, public opinion running against the Reagan policy in El Salvador are 6 to 1 against it. According to the White House's own accounts, the mail against the Reagan foreign policies is running 10 to 1 against Reagan's policies. This, after the most skillful political actor in the American political scene, were the most tough-minded generals, a press campaign even including alleged captured documents documenting communist subversion in El Salvador. They could not, and they weren't incapable of, getting the American people to wrap up in support, intervention in another country far away of little strategic importance in the United States. Now I'm not going to pretend that the American people at large are supporters of the libertarian foreign policy of non-interventionism. And in my debate with Gary Greenberg, I hope to demonstrate that non-interventionism is the only libertarian foreign policy. But let us make the general point that the American people are very skeptical of that aspect of Reagan's philosophy. They have been so from the beginning. Reagan left the Republican Party Convention with an enormous 40 percentile lead over President Carter. That dropped so that within two weeks before election they were within a hair's breadth of each other. Why? Because Carter successfully hammered again and again and again against the Reagan foreign policy rhetoric and rhetoric. And you mentioned dozens of times over the years that Ronald Reagan has advocated invading or otherwise slashing into some foreign country for one purpose or another. This hurt Reagan badly in the campaign. It hurt him so badly that he had to spend the last month of his campaign painting himself as a man of peace. He's a skillful actor and he pulled it off. And people who would not have voted for him out of fear that he might start another war decided that they could risk the possibility of a minor war with Reagan. They could not risk four more years of Jimmy Carter. And when they voted and voted in overwhelming numbers for Ronald Reagan, this is what they were voting for. They were voting for a candidate who was an opponent of the big government who said little about civil liberties issues in the campaign and who tried to paint himself as a man of peace. There was such a candidate in the race, of course, who fit these qualifications. And that was Ed Clark, the libertarian candidate. I want to talk a little bit about the civil liberties issues here because I think it has a strong bearing on what we are going to face in the next few years in trying to build up our own constituency. The free libertarian party is not alone in seeing enormous growth over the last few years. I remember when I first moved to New York City in 1975, I thought of the New York City FLP at that point as being rather pathetic. It was pathetic not marrying numbers, but in the lack of any interest in issues, constituencies and politics that they simply didn't have much interest in it. This has changed, I think, because I think we've begun to find out that addressing issues that are pressing concern to the American people can be fun, it can be exciting, and we can stir up some enthusiasm. And indeed, we have done this. Now, I want to quote, this is a quote taken from my own article on the Reagan landslide in the January issue of libertarian review, but it's an interesting quote because it has to do with our finding our own constituency. And it's a quote from a fascinating article entitled, Is This The End of an Era? In the October-November 1980 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, which of course is one of the leading right-wing think tanks in Washington, from which Reagan has drawn many advisors, and no doubt will continue to draw many more. In this Richard Scammon and Ben Wattenberg, he was the star of that TV series like Freedmen's Free to Choose, it was called, In Search of the Real America, a very prescient and intelligent man. They argue that something very important has happened in American politics. People have changed their minds. Now, something very important might be happening right now, people changing their politics. The political tide has turned, but will the Republicans be able to ride the realignment wave? Now, they say the authors of this article wrote in 1970 of the social issue, quote unquote, as a time bomb ticking in the Democratic tent. Traditional values were being eroded by those perceived to be linked to the Democratic Party. Now the Republicans face the danger, the flip side of the social issue. It is still true as a 1970 that Americans approve of traditional values, but it is also increasingly true that garbo-like, they want to be left alone. The tacit toleration, for others at least, of drug use, abortion, pornography, illegitimacy, homosexuality, and premarital living together represents a title and liberating change in American attitudes and culture. Surely these changes have engendered hostility and often repugnance, but most Americans seem to be willing now to live and let live. The Republican Party, having brought its traditional conservatives to the modern mainstream of economics and politics, a mainstream with deep, cool waters and good fishing, can risk the whole catch by heading off into the shallow, rocky, swirling tides of right-wing social issues. Emphasis on prayer in the school, anti-sex education, anti-gay rights, anti-pornography, anti-ARA, anti-abortion amendments, and anti-evolution is a one-way ticket to the swamp of no return. Among other things, it should be noted that some of those good old boys in church on Sunday morning had their pickup trucks at the triple X-rated drive-in movies Saturday night. Now, what is happening here? What is happening is very important for us to think about. Political changes occur in the course of generations. Why? That's how long it takes for older generations to die off, and for younger generations to become influential, which is to say, no country has ever led by people in their 20s. It generally tends to be led by people in their 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. Now, what we are witnessing as a result of the post-World War II baby boom, which is very important to us as libertarians, is a whole liberalization of social attitudes toward a whole mess of things, such as the ones that Scammon and Wattenberg discussed in their article. It's simply a fact that you look at public opinion charts and you look at such things as gay rights or drug use or anything else, that the tolerance level increases drastically as the age gets younger. And for those of the baby boom generation, those who now are just becoming a voting age, reaching up to the upper end of about 34 or 35, these are about 77 million people, incidentally, while a third of the country's population are within this age group, they are beginning to reach positions of social and political influence. And some of the things that they are influencing is general public attitudes toward these social questions. And their attitude may be described probably as slightly permissive or at least tolerant. When after the election campaign, people were asked in the country at large if they saw the growing permissiveness in the United States as an example of moral decay or greater social tolerance, people in older age groups answered about evenly to vote, about 50-50. Once you've got below the 35-year-old age group, 35 and younger, it was three to one who saw these changes as representing greater social tolerance rather than moral decay. This ratio is going to continue to increase simply because as standards of living rise and people's income increases, they have increasing ways of spending it and of spending their time that look to their elders and elder generations as being sort of permissive. That is, they're doing things that older generations wouldn't have dreamed of doing. This has always happened across the course of generations. I recently debated a man who was the chief legislative aide of Senator Jake Garn of Utah before a conservative club in Alexandria, Virginia on the issue of victimless crime laws, and I was trying to make several points to no avail. I think the average or median age in the audience was something above 70. And I had a difficult time persuading people of virtually any of my social attitudes, more of the libertarian political attitudes which lie beneath me. However, I did make a point because as the debate was coming to a close, the moderator announced that afterwards the bar would be opened downstairs and we could go down and have drinks and continue talking with the two debaters. I made the point to some of these older women the very thought to their grandmothers of them going downstairs to drink in public with men, let alone wearing skirts that didn't even cover their ankles. Well, the point was made and I think we have to look long run over a period of 20 years or so to make the movement. We've got to look at what we can accomplish as we move into leadership positions in the future. What we accomplished in 1980 was an enormously successful campaign by any objective criteria. I am not here going to answer all the little charges and complaints and bickerings that people had. We all have our own ideas about how campaigns should be run. It's in the nature of the beast. I ran a campaign for US Congress in San Francisco. I received about five and a half percent of votes, almost 7,000. You might think I'm a terrific campaigner. I didn't do anything. What they were responding to in effect was Ed Clark and the Libertarian Party's generalized message which began in 1980 to reach the mass numbers of the American people for the first time in our history. We increased our vote total over 1976 by a factor of five. We received just under 950,000 votes for a man who a few months earlier was completely unknown in this country completely unknown. Nicholas von Hoppen was quite right when he said, we are making leaders. We're not just finding John Anderson's or people already well known. We are making leaders. All of us in this room are becoming leaders, becoming people to whom other people look for at least stimulating discussion if not guidance and political matters. Sometimes the discussions are so stimulating that they don't attend a second meeting. But that's partly why it's fun. Let's admit it. Let's admit it. So by any objective standard we accomplished an amazing number of things in 1980. Not only did a completely unknown man before the election began receive almost a million votes. Not only did we get on the ballot in every state in the Union plus the District of Columbia plus I think Guam or something just flaunted it. We ran a whole lot of congressional candidates, senatorial candidates, gubernatorial, state legislator. And we did quite well considering almost no one who ran had ever run for political office before. Most of them were taking off afternoons and evenings from real jobs that had to go through five or six days in order to campaign and to receive an average of four or five percent of the vote with pathetically little money. God, we know that. But it's an amazing accomplishment. Certainly we can criticize certain things about the Clark campaign or as we could about the Greenberg campaign and New York running for governor in 78. As God knows we could have about the Tuchile campaign in 1974. But ask yourself a question. Is there progress? I think there is. Is there a chance that we may be successful? I think also that there is. And I think one of the things we have to look at is that we are in a period of a new deal of coalition. A coalition of all those minority groups of blacks and unionists and all these other people who look to welfare state as their salvation. We now know that the majority of the American people are sick with this.  They are sick of the crime in the cities.  Budget Cutter Ronald Reagan may leave office if he retires signing the first $1 trillion budget. Budget Cutter Ronald Reagan is increasing the defense budget now at a faster pace than any time since World War II. He is going to double the defense budget in real terms over a five year period. We are going to be spending over a five year period $1.5 trillion on defense. I used the word defense in quotes because we all know that in the campaign for the presidency some 60 to 70% of the defense budget is oriented toward the defense of other countries. Japan and Western Europe. We are subsidizing Volkswagen, Doxson, Toyota and all the other companies that compete with us in the international marketplace. It's a mistake. And I think increasingly as we make out our case and make it out with force a degree of true national security in this country at a much less cost. Simply by getting rid of those tripwires to involvement which are alliances and endless series of commitments to defend other countries. Commitments that would see us getting involved in everywhere from South Africa to Cambodia and Vietnam to El Salvador. Now many people don't remember the reason given for fighting the Vietnam War was to stop China so that they can oppose Russia. Sooner or later this kind of real politic is going to come straight against reality and hit it like a brick wall. I only hope that the American people survive this so that they can do the rethinking they need to do. But I think that what we represent is an ideology in search of a constituency which is there or is growing the growth of government has gotten so out of hand the number of regulations not just of the economy but the very structuring of our economic and personal lives the very interventions on our personal level the arrest last year of still more than 650,000 people on various drug related charges has been estimated that some 40% of the violent crimes in inner cities are drug related that is that they are crimes committed for me what the cost of morphing tablets is to a pharmacist the cost of maintaining a heroin habit today in inner cities is between 125 and 150 dollars a day if you get 20% of what you fence this means they have to steal if they're stealing five times that to support a daily habit you know what the cost is of morphing tablets of giving the same thing between I think I figured out between 45 and 60 cents a day and 15 cents now is anyone going to live a life of crime for this no I don't see too many people living a life of crime to be able to have a cigarette today the fact of the matter is that these social attitudes are attitudes which have to be rethought because the problems that are being caused by our policies and all these areas are increasing the problems and making the reality worse they are making life harder for us and I think that just as this younger generation in which I count myself at the age of 32 is going to do the rethinking on this area necessary to have new policies new attitudes toward life I'd like to end by quoting Samuel Britton and British man he is an editor of the Financial Times of London which is there equivalent to the World Street Journal he's written an extraordinary book published a few years back called Capitalism and Improvisative Society and it's interesting in that it's about permissiveness but she sees as nothing but another word for individual liberty and homage to Richard Cobden the great classical liberal who advocated laissez-faire and opposed British imperialism Samuel Britton put it best the need for a modern Cobdenite movement which would combine a belief in both personal freedom and economic freedom with non-interventionism overseas has still to be met it might attract much more general support or liberal liberal or conservative might ever imagine I think that as we go out into the world as we wage our campaigns as we become more professional as we become more knowledgeable as we speak out as we defend our views to all people that we can reach of every race, creed and ethnic background as we reach out and begin to impress upon people that we have some solutions the problems that we see in this country we will move into the positions of leadership and we will start winning significant campaigns beyond just the level of state legislatures and mayor's races I think that this is a great challenge for us and offers a great hope and there's nothing to do but to do it and get it done and so let's go to work thank you


Hi everyone, Joe for Jasper's Case Breaks.com coming out to you with 2022 Panini Spectra Football. Four box, half case, pick your team number eight. Half of the case, the second half of the case, we just popped open not too long ago. Remember I marked all of those with eight so we know they're from the same case. Big thanks to this group right here for getting in on it. Thanks for hanging with me on a Sunday, thanks for spending a bit of your Sunday with us. Tristan with that last spot, Mojo Bears. Thanks everybody for getting in right here. And I think our division round matchups are pretty much set. Best case scenario with the Bears, a one of one something, one of one somebody. Let's see if people have any early thoughts on these matchups here. The first, so two games on Saturday, two games on Sunday. The first one is Jaguars at Chiefs, no line yet according to ESPN, but yeah, Tristan's Jaguars got to play the Chiefs in Kansas City, yeah that's a tough matchup. Gilo's watching the tape, Gilo's watching the tape on the Jaguars, he's got to be prepared. Oh Tristan has a line for his Chiefs minus 10, interesting. I might be tempted to go Jaguars plus 10. I do like the underdog. Here's Shaq Leonard, 66 out of 99 for the Colts. Robert with that one. Dak Prescott, we'll see him in action tomorrow night, 24 out of 30, and whoever wins that Buccaneers Tampa Bay, the Dallas Buccaneers game, they'll be facing the Niners. There's Snoop Conner to 60, the Jags, and Derek Stingley Jr. to 75 for the Texans. All right, behind Jalen Tolbert is Tua Tungovalo, a brilliant relic, 18 out of 75. The Dolphins had Tua, I think they could have upset the bills, the way they played today. That'll be for Ed P. and the Dolphins. Jalen Tolbert is a one-of-one Christian Watson, aspiring relic and autograph, and he really had some chemistry with Aaron Rodgers going down the stretch. That's for Matt and the Packers. It's a late pickup, too. Thanks, Matt. And all aboard, the Big Hit Express. Tristan almost pulled the trigger on Green Bay. Next time, trust your gut. Make it happen. Rookie aura George Pickens reveals a Jonathan Taylor, 76 out of 99. The Mechs Impact Relic for Robert and the Colts. Behind George Pickens is a full-spectrum autograph, Jaguars Jaguars, James Robinson, 2 out of 50. No randomizer. Usually they're two different teams. That goes to Daniel and the Jags. There he is. There's Matt. Yeah, you're not dreaming, Matt. One-of-one Christian Watson, RPA, aspiring RPA. Matt. And there's George Pickens, 52 out of 99 for the Steelers, Alifonzo with the Steelers. All right. Two more here. Two more packs. AJ Brown to 99. High-voltage relic. That's for Anhel and the Eagles. And we've got Alec Pierce, radiant rookie, jersey and autograph, Green Ink for the Blue Horse Shoes. That'll be for Robert and the Colts. 9 out of 35. This Nick Chubb. Sauce Gardner reveals a Austin Eckler Catalyst Relic, 23 out of 75. That'll be for Anhel and the Chargers. And then we've got Hassan Haskins, 24 out of 60. Nice three-color patch and autograph. Nice RPA for Adam Cupperman and the Tennessee Titans. There's Sauce Gardner right there, which is also for Adam and his Jets. Ooh, nice. And that's going to go, Matt's a Packers fan. So it's going to be hard to let that one go. Tristan's saying, come on, bears. We're only one box in. Play to the whistle, Tristan. I wouldn't start worrying about that until, like, we're at the last box. Got a long ways to go.  What's the latest on Aaron Rodgers? What's happening there? He's got a wavelength insert right up there, too. What's the story there? Is it over? Are they going to try to make it work? There's Sauce Gardner.  Five out of 30. It's for Adam and his Jets. We got Cooper Cupp, Aaron and the Rams. It's just 25. Got Heinz Ward for the Steelers. It's for Ali Fonzo. That's to 75. Then we've got a Trayvon Walker for the Jags. That's going to go to Daniel. 43 out of 99. All right, your hits. Behind Marquis, round Zach Wilson. 10 out of 99. Jets quarterback situation also not settled. It's going to go to Adam and the Jets. Buffalo. Radiant. Rookie Patch Auto, James Cook. Ed P for the Buffalo Bills. Four out of 60 on that one. Cortland Sutton, 85 out of 99. Brilliance, really. I like that pattern. I like that design. Robert and the Denver Broncos. For a new coach. Velas Jones Jr. Aspiring Patch and Autograph. Three color patch and auto. Tristan and the Bears. Last spot mojo strikes again. 30 out of 99. See Tristan? I didn't worry about it. Valiant effort by the Ravens right there. That's Tyler Lombone. We got Trevor Lawrence. 52 out of 60. Brilliance, Relic. That will be for Daniel and the Jags. And got Malik Willis. Three color patch. Pink ink. Aspiring. Rookie Patch and Autograph. For Adam Cupperman and the Titans. Eight out of 25. Wavelength Aaron Rodgers reveals a Bo Jackson. 52 out of 99. Ethic Legends. Relic. For Robert and the Raiders. And behind Rodgers is Brent Selick. 28 out of 30. That's Anhel and the Eagles. And there's the Wavelength Aaron Rodgers. Two out of five. That's another train whistle for Matt and the Packers. Nice. Out of fives and under, get the train whistle, Matt. All aboard. Box two. Box three, that is. That was box two. So yeah, Jaguars at Chiefs. That's the early game on NBC on next Saturday. Then you got then the late game on that Saturday. Giants at Philadelphia. That should be a good game too. Divisional Rivals. And then Sunday, your early game is Cincinnati at Buffalo. That should be a really good game. And then the winner of the Dallas Tampa Bay game will go to San Francisco. Yeah, for the late game on Sunday. All right, we've got Aaron Jones to 75. We've got Tyler Lindbaum for the Ravens for Aaron. Nice to 99. Got the Tyler Lockett to 15. It's for Matt and the Seahawks.  And another bird team to Sean Jackson to 25. That'll be for Anhel and the Eagles. Your hits behind Kieran Williams, Trey McBride. Building blocks, Triple Relic, Robert and the Cardinals. 47 out of 60. And then we got Tyrian Davis Price, aspiring two-color jersey, Green Inc. Going to Alifonzo and the Niners. That is 16 out of 35. No, not John, not Antonio Gibson, that is. Catalysts, Relic. Nice low number, 5 out of 10 for Matt Johnson. Isaiah likely reveals a Roger McGeary, 61 out of 75. Rookie Otto for Adam and the Titans. Tighten up. I don't think Titan's getting a new stadium. They're talking about Isaiah likely. And got Malik Willis. Building blocks, Triple Relic. Another one for Adam Cupperman. 40 out of 75. I'm a man, I'm 40. And for the Jets, Garrett Wilson, three-color patch, Orange Inc. Radiant Rookie, RPA. Jets, that's for Adam, Adam and his Jets. Garrett Wilson should get some offensive Rookie of the Year consideration. Three out of 15, nice. James Winston. Rookie Spectress, Desmond Ritter. Reveals a one-of-one Kyler Murray. Robert Runkle, Cardinals. Little NFL Shield there too. Like a laundry tag NFL Shield, still cool. One-of-one, nice. Robert, all aboard the Big Head Express. Woo-hoo! Kyler to get well soon. And we got Kyle Van Hoyt, Champion Signatures Autograph. And that will be for Jason K. and the Patriots. 42 out of 149. Neata 99, Desmond Ritter for Jason K. and the Falcons as well. Final locks coming up. Pick your team eight. We do have another case of this in the store right now, jaskyscasebreaks.com.  And it'll be from a fresh case. Hard time opening this. All right, good luck, gang. Here we go. All right, Antonio Gibson, 29 out of 40. For Matt and the Commanders. We got Chris Godwin, Pulsar, 20 out of 99 for the Buccaneers, Jason K. We got Bangles Dicud, it's Chad Johnson, two out of 30. And then Aaron Rodgers, 58 out of 60. For Matt and Green Bay. Tony has the Bangles. Beyond Michael Thomas is Christian Caffrey. Sunday Spectacle Relic. Panthers edition going to Victor Ramos. We got David Ojabbo, 21 out of 60. Rookie autograph for Aaron and the Ravens. Great effort by the Ravens. Today's playoff game. Got George Kittle, four out of 99. Sunday Spectacle Relic. That will be for Alifonzo and the Niners. Matt Corral, three out of 60. Rookie, Jersey and autograph for Victor and Carolina. Carolina, they're on a head coaching search too, right? And a QB search? A lot of searching. Rookie or Desmond Ritter reveals a out of 60 high-voltage Derek Henry for Adam and the Titans. Behind Desmond Ritter is Josh Jacobs. Full spectrum, on-card autograph. Love Josh Jacobs, hopefully the Raiders can re-sign him. They might actually franchise tag him. Robert Runkle, Raiders. 60 out of now, although I don't know if Josh Jacobs would be happy with a tag. All right, there's Desmond Ritter to 50 and your final two hits. Good luck everybody. Behind Jaylen Waddle is Aidan Hutchinson, building blocks, triple relic for Detroit. Daniel with Detroit. He's one of their big building blocks. Blocks on which to build. 24 us, maybe a playoff team next year. And the last one behind Jaylen Waddle, there he is, Aidan Hutchinson, 10 out of 99. Jersey and autograph. 1099, it's like tax season. Make sure you get your 1099 squared away if you're, what is that for? For independent contractors, I guess. So gather up your 1099s, make sure all that's squared away. That's gonna go to Detroit. That will be for Daniel Lewis DeLo with that one. The Jaylen Waddle will go to the Dolphins. That's for Ed P. And that's that. I'm Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com. More spectra football in the store. Check it out and we'll break some more of you next time. Bye-bye.


So next up on our list here is Nareef Patel and Schubert Karr from the LF. It's talking about auto-generating S-bombs for open source project written in any language written on any platform. So please take it away. All right. Hey, everyone. All right. We'll try to keep the slides at minimum and show you some actual code. So, you know, most of you I'm assuming are familiar with the SBBX format and as the language or kind of the protocol of defining, you know, software packages. What we have done is we have essentially created an automated tool. It's called the S-bomb generator. It essentially generates you a software build-off materials for your open source project. So if you move on to the next slide. Yeah. So what does it actually do? Right? So, you know, we'll go into details of SBBX. I'll put in some links in the presentation as well. But net-net, right? Currently we support SBBX format 2.2 and, you know, we'll wait for the next version of SBBX that comes out. So the tooling will support that format. The key focus here was productivity. You know, generally the spec is great, but how do I actually generate a consumable SBBX document, which adheres to and, you know, validates and processes all the parameters. Most of them which are required and some parameters might be like mandatory fields that are, you know, defined by the spec itself. So that's what the tool delivers for you. We created a simple, you know, CLI-based interface. This tool is very early so that, you know, just wanted to make sure this is like just a better stage. And we got this tool written in time where there was the Biden executive order coming in.  And like, even if there is a spec, how is there an implementation of that? So we put this tool together pretty quickly and now the community is growing. We wrote the tool in Golang. You know, we're going to show you how that it's structured. It's portable in the sense of, you know, we tested it to run on, you know, Mac, Linux, Windows, different versions of it. It has, you know, we had two options, right? We could write like S-bomb generators in a particular language, let's say Python or like, you know, write the same implementation in Go or write the same implementation in Node versus what we took as a generator approach. So, you know, the CLI itself is written in Golang and it's portable, but more than that, it's really the generators that do the magic. And so these are the ones that we currently support. Now, a nuance here, you need to be watchful of is it's not just the language, it's the language and package manager combination, right? So as an example, we started with Java, but out of the box, the first one we worked was Maven Central or essentially, you know, that's the language package manager combo. We did not support out of the box Java Gradle. However, once we put the first release out, we started getting full requests from people in the community to support, you know, Java Gradle combo as well, right? So this is the current stage that we have. We also built in a, you know, a GitHub action, you know, developer tooling is great, but like, unless you actually integrate it with your CI pipeline, it's not very efficient. So we put out some examples with GitHub actions, you know, you can write other, if you're not using GitHub as an, for example, you are other tooling, you know, there are different ways you can write like pipelines for Jenkins and whatnot to integrate it into the CI stream, right? It's open source, obviously, you know, at the LF. License Apache 2.0, there is no CLA, you know, we distribute this under a DCO. It's better and it's growing, right? So that's kind of at the very top level snapshot. What it really does it, it does not go, you know, like, if you look at SVDX, you know, there are three primary, you know, I would say use cases, right? One is more about licensing. There's a license list about, I think roughly like 200 to 300, you know, licenses and like exceptions are documented there. This does not do that, right? What it does, it leverages that core information. But that being said, this tool is totally focused on generation of docs, right? So what does a SVDX doc contain as of today? So if you move to the next slide, yeah, so it's a very high level description, you know, we can send you more information about this or you can read up on the SVDX website. It's a standard format, you know, you're communicating the components, the licenses, copyrights that are associated within a software package. But when you talk about a software package, software is written in a sandwich. You have n number of packages and dependencies, you know, transitive dependencies. And I say like, you know, you compile from a source code, but there could be like runtime dependencies. So how do you, you know, make sure that those relationships are also part of your description, right? So, you know, we look at this into a seven layer format, right? So obviously you have fields which just describe what is used for documentation creation, versioning and all that. But when you run this tool against a particular open source project, you could be using 90% of your code base might be using third party packages, right? So how do you define those packages? What are the individual file level information, right? So if I look at file information, it could contain copyrights, it could be a license of the file, it could be checksum for the file. If you look at snippet, you know, how do you define licensing within, for ranges within those files, right? Obviously, you know, there are other licensing information, which is, you know, it describes licenses, those are not on the standard SPDX list, right? Those, I think they were probably, if I have to get that number right, I think they are like probably around 300. Those are predefined in those license lists, right? So this is like anything that's missing from that. And obviously annotations, right? So these are essentially comments that people made on various entities or elements within the document, right? So you might be reviewing it and, you know, you might make an annotation about a file or its particular license, right? So, and again, these comments or annotations might be to convey specific info, right? Like about creation dates or additional attached files or packages and things like that. Okay. So today, you know, like by default, SPDX, you know, if you look at the format, you know, there is a tag value format for input output, there is a RDF format. Today we, the tool supports the default dot SPDX. JSON and RDF, it's still in progress. We would love to have like more community contribution around that. So that's what the tool generates today. If you move on, next slide please. So I'm not going to bore you folks with all these different fields. But again, if you look at these, these are essentially what the tool is consuming in terms of required fields. Most of the fields are required, probably with a couple that are optional. And again, these are information around document creation. If you go to the next page, these are ones around package info, right? And then, obviously, there are other information around licensing and, you know, file information. And if you look at the file, that's where we go into the individual file breakdown. And go to the next slide, please. And these are ones again, around additional licensing info, which are not out-of-box covered by the default SPDX license list. So you can read that at your pleasure. But let's move on to the next slide. Yeah, this is about like how the tool actually works, right? So those 16, 17 parameters I listed, you know, those are the parameters that we validate and process in order for us to generate your SBOM document, which confirms through the SPDX format, right? But how does the tool work internally? So I have neither one on my team, if you can go neither into deep dive into this piece. Yeah, yeah, thank you, Shubhara. Hello, everyone. So yeah, this is the overall architecture of how this tooling is working. So I will go with the developer workflow. And then I will also show the end user, how it's going to download from the GitHub, and then how you're actually going to run it. So you always start as a developer from your, let's say, your developer, you're working on one of the repositories where you want to generate a SPOM for that project. So you basically download the URL on your terminal. And let's say you want to run it for express.js. It's a Node.js project and you want to run it. What it does internally, it runs the CLI, it validates the package, package or outside manifest file. So for example, if you're working on Node.js project, let's say the tool chain it's using is NPM or YAN. So if it is using NPM, then it will look for the package.json file. So it does the validation and all that stuff at the validation stage. Once it find it, there is a generator. What generator does it, it automatically looks up. So if the project is a Node.js, it recognizes that it's using NPM as a tool, it automatically does the dynamic lookup from the list of available plugins. So like Shubhra has explained, we have a bunch of plugins that we are supporting for this SPOM. So for example, on this one, it knows that it's using NPM, then it will take it from the NPM and it will run against it. So it will do the lookup, run it against NPM. It will use NPM APIs using the local machine terminals and it will return the results. So the results would be document package and the dependency of the package and dependency of the dependency. So that will return back to the generator. Generator pushed that data in order to build the data set for the SVDX compatibility. So once it generates that SVDX, based on the user requirements. So in this case, we are only supporting dot SVDX, but you can have like multiple file format. Once it's available, you can export it in multiple file format and it will generate that one file. So you can do that for each project or each language that you are supporting. We are supporting like these, we are supporting more language than this, but this is just an overview of it. However, there is another thing that we are working on it is sometimes what happens is developer may not want to use the direct APIs. They might want to say, okay, I want to work on something that I want to provide a data and you generate SVDX accordingly. So current version, what we are doing it is we are getting the data, which is the dependency of the dependency, everything using these APIs. But there is also use case, especially in Java Maven, where end user may be interested is like, okay, I'm going to provide you this file and you generate for us. So that is the part of the one you see in this color that's in the roadmap that we want to support it. So let's say this is the Maven file or Maven plugin, which has all the data. So it's going to recognize automatically during the runtime and it's going to get the data. So I'm going to show demo now. Yeah, before you go there, I think there's a quick question. Don't see. Yeah, I can read it out. Can you clarify how you build a dependency graph? Do you execute the build tool itself or some kind of static analysis? Yes, yes. So what we're doing it is we are actually, so for example, Golang, we are Golang has that go more has an option where we can see the graph. So we are using those API in order to get the dependency of the dependency, basically the graph. So we are doing that for each CLI or I would say each package manager CLI. That's how we have been doing it. Go over the code. Okay, so here's the public repository. And I've already downloaded the latest release, which is what we have released like a couple of days ago, which is 0.013. I'm going to download this CLI, which I've already done, and I'm going to run against the tool itself. So let's suppose that I'm a someone who is using the CLI and I want to run against this project. So I have this project locally clone. It's already over there. Now, I want to generate a SBOM for it. So what I'll do it is do that. And I have this is my CLI binary that I've downloaded. I'm going to run it. It's going to detect is okay, what what's like package management system it is. So in this case, it's a go more. And it also going to tell like what language wasn't it using. So if I look at four version, it's going to tell me go worse than 1.7. So CLI also tells you that, okay, you're using go more. It is a go project and the version is this. And it's also going to after that, once it generated, it returns the successful message and it returns the output. So let's see if I look at it. So as you can see that we have generated this. So let me open this. So if I open this, okay, so it's going back to the that the table that she was explaining like document package relationship and the relationship of relationship, which in this case, the dependency of dependency. So the first block, which is the document where of course we're saying it's supporting version 2.0 data license, some sort of ID created namespace and all that. So this is the document. And then we have a package information. So which is the package itself. So here, interesting thing is if I look at here, and again, this may be a familiarity if you are like having like a goal and background, but the idea here is that this is the name of the package, which using these are the, you know, dependency. So if I go to this, spdx, you can see the package information. So in this case, it's spdx. And it has all the information. I'm not going to go in the detail. But if you look at this part relationship, we can see that spdx depends on cobra depends on these are the dependency, which are coming nothing but the score more file. And this, this file has their own dependency, which is what listed at the bottom. So it's, that's why you see the document is so huge. So that's how we're doing it. But like say the current approach using the existing package management system. So in this case, go more for the go project for Node.js, it's npm and yarn and many others. So this is a one demo for the go project. Let's say I have a situation when I have a multiple package management system part of the same project. So in this case, if I do that, this is my another Node.js project where I'm using a multiple package management system. So as you can see, I'm using a yarn and there should be one more for the yeah, right here for the npm. So these both are the lock file, which are generated when I've actually built the project. So if I run it again for the tool, by the way, like I have kind of copied the binary here already. So if I run it again, again, it says, I'm gonna run, I recognize that you have a npm. So it's based on this file. It, it's telling me that you're using 6.2.0 npm version. It generated now it's going to the yarn because it also recognize that you're using yarn and you're using 1.15.2 for the yarn project or yarn build. And then, okay, it successfully generated that as well. And it also telling me that we have created two files underneath. These are the names. So if I go there and if I just, okay, we can see that it's a similar structure like you won't see any difference between whether you generate for Node.js or you generate for Golang. SVDX is the same for everyone. The only difference would be some of the naming part of it. But yeah, it's again document what's the package and the relationship of it. So that's kind of high level on like how to use the tool and we kind of seen for the go and node as well. Now I'm going to look before I go to GitHub actions. Yes, yes, we are using go more to get those information. Yeah, that's right. All right. So now I'm going to show you a couple of other things what we're doing it is we have added a GitHub action as well as a part of a workflow. This is something still it's under my profile, but I can go over what it does it is actually building the binary of it and then it executing that binary against the project itself. So in this case, against the SVDX and we have returned the one test and what it does it basically the step generates the SVDX file or a small file, and then it validates whether it generated successfully or not. So that's what this action is doing it and have one example of each thing I did last night. You can see there's a two step one is a generated a small file, we can see all the steps. And here's where it's generating it. It got the binary or I would say action and here was the step. It ran and it was success. So this is one of the like a GitHub action that we have written. It's also part of it. So we're working to move it from my profile to this one, but yeah, this is very good. So yeah, that's the overall demo I had. Shubra. Yeah, thank you, Nira. If you can go back to our slides. Yeah, so brand new project, right? Both Nira when I work in Linux Foundation Engineering and we did this to solve quickly for the community. We are looking for more contributors, maintainers as well. So and we are getting quite a few in the recently. There are links to understand the architecture. There's a contribution guide. It's under DCO. So don't need to worry about CLA's or whatnot. We'll be publishing on that page. We are standing up a discourse and a link and we'll set up a governance structure more like a technical steering committee as any other Linux Foundation open source project and go from there. So we're really looking for help and adoption and around other combinations of package managers, languages, build systems and whatnot. But this is one initiative we are doing which can actually move the needle in terms of defining the entire software buildup materials. So that's it. I think we have a few more minutes for any questions if there are any. I believe there are. So why don't you take a peek and leave them. Can we go through this list? I think we have answered a few. A number in the Q&A are actually for the previous speakers I think. But the chat had some questions or discussions. Yeah, I can go over with that package.json and yarn. Yeah, that's completely right. That log file may get out of date. That's right. But the idea here is that you will not be doing this automatically. Sorry, you will not be doing this every time manually. We're hoping that you'll be doing some, like you'll be running the CLI from the CI and hoping that you will always have an up to date log file even in the CI as well. And if you're happy with your log file then that is what you're pushing out. So the idea here is that it's more around the CI automation and it's really based on what dependency going into the production. So if your log file is let's say in x state that will be go to the production. So I think I would say on that one. And that one I already answered. Why did you build a new tool not reuse existing? Yes, yes. So the reason we had to build this tool was more around we wanted to get like the one thing mentioned like having a single language that we wanted to add a support around it. We didn't want to create multiple modules. I know OSS review toolkit does the same thing. But it's very similar to that. But what we wanted to do it was more aligned with having a more like a goal lang and that's where our expertise where. And we wanted to utilize some of the built-in package management APIs. That was one of the reasons we have taken this route. But that was one thought we recognized that, okay, how about if we can integrate with the OSS review toolkit. So yeah, that's a good feedback. Commercial availability date. Subra, you want to take this? Yeah, yeah. So Linux Foundation doesn't sell any products commercially. I think the more question is when is like a production or a GA date. I would say right now this is 2.2. We I think 3.0 will be a big change for us. So we will keep this in beta and we are growing a list of contributors and maintainers, right? But we'll probably like to call it a GA once we support 3.0, which might be a few months out, right? But that being said, today we already have users were using this very successfully against the 2.2 version of SPDX. Okay. If that answers your question. But yeah, like we don't sell it. We don't license it. It's all open source. We do license it. It's under an open. It's not a commercial license. It's let me not a closed source license. Yeah. So Gary, I wanted to, yes, definitely we do support default values for SPDX properties. So yeah, like propose something that we want. But yeah, we'll definitely support it right now. We are doing it only for package and the document. We are not doing it for the dependency, but definitely we already have it in place. I think the accuracy one is an important one. I think that raises some broader questions. I think it's important. Yeah. So yeah, accuracy. I kind of agree on it as well. Right now we, there is a one effort that we were thinking to start on it is you generate the SPD like SBOM file and then what are the acceptance criteria, right? Like because this is a subjective, right? Like each product project has a different environment. There are n number of cases that we could be missing it. So there is a, there was a plan where we will do like some sort of a field level validation based on the dependency we have on the project itself. But yeah, there is in the roadmap where we want to automate that process that, okay, you generated the SB like SBOM file. Now, how about like, let's do the validation of it. Does it work? Like, does it exact? Like without any human validation? I think that's in the horizon on it.  You know, this particular one supports a number of package managers. If you don't use a package manager or your language ecosystem doesn't typically use a package manager, then it's not going to be able to use that data. So for example, a number of embedded environments, you know, if you, for most of your codes written in C and C++, well, you know, that's not supported in terms of package manager data inputs and such. So, you know, it doesn't mean you can't use an SBOM. It just means this may not be the right tool for your situation. And about overriding and unused. Yeah, sorry, we don't have it right now, but it's a good feature to add a kind of exclude type of thing. But right now, it's going to take it, whatever you have, part of your manifest file, it's going to take it as this. But yeah, that's a good feature to include it. Will that really, you know, like yards are moved and will come. Yeah. Yeah. Will that small generate generator produce SBDK small with a dock fast? Not so as long as that that project is returning our one of our supported language, then yeah, it will generate. I'm not sure what language it uses dock fast. But as long as it's, it's a part of a supported language, then yeah, it should be put in those. Okay. Yeah. Sounds good. Yeah, it looks like somebody already is using the SBDK small generator for the dock fast. All right. I think that was it from our side. Thank you. Okay. All right. Does anyone else any parting shots, by the way, overall? Okay. Thank you very, very much for that.


So, Moto, you wrote, if I'm not mistaken, back in 2017, the most worrying aspect of the Trump administration is its protectionist stance. Is that still the case? Do you still feel that way? And what about his criticism of the car companies in Japan invading the United States and the threat to implode tariffs on the car companies and that sort of thing?  One thing is the result of the Mr. Trump's action, we are just observing what we are doing now here. But at the same time, there must be a reason why Mr. Trump was elected as president. So we have to thinking about why he was elected and he is doing this kind of business. And that is very much related to what I talked, the dilemma among three things, one is globalization and national sovereignty and democracy. Now when we have more globalization, probably we were in what we call the hyper-globalization in the last 20 years, and there's a lot of pressure for democracy to change. And that is what often people call the populism. So actually Japan was very much used to very severe trade negotiations with the United States for many years. So we know how we should just respond to this. You've adapted to Trump? You've adopted Donald? No, no, just the United States in general. My point is, so Mr. Trump may be populism stage one. And there must be maybe populism in stage two. As long as just globalization is continuing, there's always pressure for democracy to be eroded by populism. So we have already just heard the name of the Elizabeth Warren. I don't know whether she's going to be the next president or not. But the important thing is whether Mr. Trump is continuing or maybe we have some other very leftist, maybe Democrat or whatever. And then we still have to just prepare for the, we have to work on the populism. And another thing I want to emphasize is when you are facing that kind of protectionism, the negotiation is often not just go ahead rather than defending your previous position. Now when Mr. Trump became president, Japan and other Asian Pacific countries were already almost finishing the negotiation, TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. They are fortunate Mr. Trump just decided or mentioned the United States is getting out of the TPP. So our purpose is very obvious. One is how we can survive the TPP. And second, how can we deal with the United States? That is exactly the reason why Japan had a bilateral negotiation with the United States. And in order to just have a... You would prefer to have a bilateral conversation than a multilateral conversation with the framework of the TPP? Well, it is necessary, a bilateral conversation is necessary to survive. I mean, like the TPP for us to just finish even without the United States, we need some kind of implicit agreement of the United States for us to continue the negotiation. And the TPP result is actually giving some kind of discriminatory treatment against the United States because other TPP members enjoy declining telephone beef. But that may be a very good weapon for us to just have a deal with the United States that giving us a very similar type of telephone reduction may just have incentive for the United States not to raise the telephone in the car. So it is not just for looking, it's more the defending. But that is a very important part of the United Nations when you're facing protectionism. But it has to be a bilateral... I mean, you're working bilaterally rather than through any kind of an international organization. So it's a little bit difficult for other countries to have the same kind of bilateral relationship as that.


In the National Assembly, joint committees in upstream and gas have summoned the Ministers of State for Petroleum Resources, Henneken, Lopberbury, and the Minister of Petroleum Resources, Berwick Bay Echo, to appear before Eden on Monday, the 18th of December, 2023, or face the wrath of the law. Chairman of both committees, Senator Aetang William and Honorable Al-Hassan Dogua, gave this ruling in Abuja during a budget defence session organised by the joint committee in Abuja on Thursday. My little colleagues, I feel so disappointed. The same reasons yesterday we shifted this meeting. Today again, we've not seen them. And I don't think it's good for our democracy. And I don't think it's good for us. We cannot keep shifting. Maybe they are not ready. Maybe, but nobody will undermine the powers of the National Assembly. And for me, at least one minister is supposed to be here. So explain to us what is their intention for 2024. Of this important ministry.  We are disappointed because this is one ministry where the success, survival of the economy of the Federation lies in the oil and gas sector. And also, this is a ministry that we presumed based on tradition and precedence that the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Commander-in-Chief is the supervising minister. And because of the importance of this ministry, he has also taken by way of wisdom the grace to appoint two ministers of state in this ministry. And here we are, engaging this very only important ministry for a constitutional exercise where we represent the interests of our people, the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, but we don't have any of the ministers here in attendance. It is to say the least very, very disappointing.


Greetings members of the Central and North Texas conferences. May God's peace be with your spirit today. During my Episcopal address at last month's annual conferences, I shared that work toward unifying the Central, North, and possibly Northwest Texas conferences would begin mid-June. Well, that process is underway and is preparing us to move forward as a unified conference immediately after the South Central Jurisdictional Conference adopts new conference boundaries in 2024. Our region is the fastest growing in the country. We're well positioned to design a unified conference that supports and equips our congregations in their disciple making mission that will in turn invite all people to journey toward the loving, just, and free world God imagines. Our 21st century organizational design will provide the destruction foundation of the Church of Tomorrow that the next generation will receive in value. The goal is not just to reorganize. Our goal is to build a new, more adaptive, agile, faithful, and fruitful way to do ministry that will accelerate our growth and collective missional impact. As I shared in the Episcopal address, we've hired a consultant with deep experience in helping United Methodist conferences work through a unification process and design new support structures that are more aligned, efficient, and effective. Dr. John Wimberley was a congregational pastor for 40 years and has been consulting for the past 11. He began his work with us by conducting 60 hours of one-on-one interviews, personally listening to every staff member of the Central and North Texas conferences. John reports that he was inspired by the skill sets and the passion for ministry our team members bring to their work. Our conferences have also contracted with Caitlin Cognon, a consultant with the General Conference of Finance and Administration of the United Methodist Church, to help us unify our financial and property assets as well. The next step in the process will be for John to hold focus groups in which clergy and lady alike can suggest how a new conference structure could be designed to best disciple existing members and reach new people for Christ. So please join the focus group conversations and add your input and perspective to this important and exciting work. John will synthesize all he learns from his fact-finding discussions and will deliver a report for our consideration by October 1st. From there, a team of clergy and lady from both conferences will review the options in the report, consider the financial projections from GCFA, and make the recommendations to the prospective conferences in early 2024. The team's final report will provide plenty of time for us to consider, discuss, and pray about the proposals before voting for unification at annual conference 2024. So please watch the conference websites for unification updates as they are available. And thank you. Thank you for embarking on this new thing God Spirit is doing through the United Methodist Church in Texas. Be strong, take heart, hope in the Lord is this year's missional rallying cry. Together, we will live into that hope, create new things, and journey toward a good future God imagines, laying the foundations for a relevant church the next generation will receive in value and calling a peace of heaven down today. God's grace and peace be with you.


Why don't you begin to take small steps even to do that at the outset of this year because there's no more purpose, there's no more health and help in those relationships. I hope you guys have courage this year to do those things.


Hi everyone, I'm Erin with the Hypothesis Customer Success Team and today I wanted to talk about how to add a hypothesis-enabled reading and assign it to small groups in a Blackboard Ultra Learn or Learn Ultra course. Before we kind of hop into the logistics of how to do that, let's do a quick just review. Hypothesis is a social annotation tool. It allows you and your students to annotate a text together and to really come together and share that text and I think that's important to remember as we talk about using hypothesis in small groups. Today we are going to walk through how you would add that hypothesis-enabled reading and assign it to small groups in your course. Before we do that, I want you to think about why you might want to assign a hypothesis enabled reading to small groups. Sometimes you might want groups of four to read the article or the text together and to come together as a small group and only see each other's responses. It might be that you want to split the class in half and have half of the class complete one task within that group and the other half completes another task within their group. You might want one student to annotate directly to you the instructor. Thinking about that, let's hop in to how you do this. If I'm in my Blackboard Learn Ultra course, before I can create my hypothesis-enabled reading and assign it to small groups, I have to make sure that my group set is created. What I'm going to do is go ahead and move over to the left side menu bar and navigate to the Users and Groups option. Now your Blackboard Learn Ultra page may look slightly different, but know that you want to navigate to wherever the groups live. You're going to go ahead and choose Groups and then up at the top you're going to choose Create. Now this is the key piece here. You don't want to create a single group. You want to create a group set. That's what's really important. You must create a group set. You can create this group set however you like. Is it self-enroll? Is it manual enroll? Is it random enroll? But it has to be a group set. In this case I'm going to choose Random Enroll because honestly I don't remember who's in my course. I'm going to name my group set Hypothesis Read Groups. There we go. You can of course give your group set a description and do any of these options down here that you choose. I'm going to go ahead and hit submit. Oops, I need to decide how many students are in each group. So let me get to there. We're going to put two students in each group for this exercise. So I'm going to hit submit and you'll see now my group set has been created. Now that I have this group set, I can go ahead and assign my Hypothesis Enabled Reading to small groups. So I'm going to go ahead and move to the Content tab or section on my left side menu. I'm going to choose Build Contents and go down the list and choose Hypothesis. I'm going to be very meta here and name this assignment Annotation. Put detailed instructions here. I'm going to decide to enable evaluation and give this 10 points and scroll down and hit submit. We're not yet done. We now need to launch the assignment and make sure we assign it to the groups. So I'm going to launch it and now I'm going to choose where I'm going to get the reading. In this case I'm going to choose a PDF from Blackboard. I have previously stored a file in my Blackboard course content area. Choose my content or my reading. Go ahead and hit select. Now you'll notice the next screen automatically says or should say, choose if this is a group assignment or not. There's this check box here. So if indeed I want to assign this to small groups, I'm going to say yes, this is a group assignment and I can select whichever group set I've already created. So I'm going to choose Hypothesis Reading Groups and then hit continue. You'll notice it'll launch immediately with the reading and the Hypothesis Annotation Bar on the right side. Now as the instructor I'll be able to go between my different groups by selecting this option at the top of the annotation bar. Because there are not enough people in this class, honestly because this is our test class, I only have one group. I don't have more than two students in this whole class. But if I had let's say 20 students and I had made groups of four, I could choose from the correct group to see that those students work up here in the menu bar at the top of the annotation bar. That's how you would assign a Hypothesis Enabled Reading to small groups within your course. One thing to keep in mind is that students will not see annotations from other students who are not in their group. They will only see annotations from students that are in their small group within that group set. If you have questions, make sure to reach out to the Hypothesis customer success team. We are always happy to help.


You can build a large RGB LED matrix display to keep track of your favorite sports teams. A Matrix Portal S3 running circuit Python fetches data from the ESPN API. Four 64 by 32 matrices are tiled together to form a 128 by 64 pixel display that is approximately 20 inches wide by 10 and a half inches high. You'll run a Python script to gather and prep the team logos for the project. The script downloads the logos, resizes them, and applies GAN the correction so that they'll look crisp and bright on the matrices. When the Matrix Portal S3 boots up, you'll see all five of your team logos displayed. If a game is scheduled for your team, the date and time are shown alongside your team and the opposing team's logos. During gameplay, the current score and game details are shown. This updates as new data is available from the API. When a game finishes, the final score is shown. See how you can build your own scoreboard by checking out the Learn Guide at learn.adafruit.com. Go Pats!


Simone Halib vs. Elena Rabacchina is the second semi-final for the ladies at Wimbledon for 2022, and both ladies have had different roads to get to the semi-finals. In her quarter-final, Rabacchina would take on the unseated Tom Adovich, and after dropping the first set, she fought back to win 4-6, 6-2, 6-3 to advance to her first semi-final at a slam. Simone Halib would take on the number 20 seed Anissa Mova in the quarter-final stage, and just like her previous round against Podasa, it proved no problem for Halib winning in straight sets 6-2, 6-4 to advance to the semi-finals once again. These two have played three times or four with their last two matches going the distance deep into a third set, and they haven't played for a year, but this matchup seems to bring out the best in both of these players. If Rabacchina is going to win, she's going to have to serve well, and she's going to have to hit well. What Podasa and Anissa Mova couldn't do against Halib was hit Halib off the court, and also serve her off the court, so the serve has to be firing if Rabacchina is going to get any win today. If Halib's going to win, she's going to have to do what she did against both Anissa Mova and Podasa, and that is make Rabacchina move. Make her move off the court, push her side to side, don't allow her to stand in the middle of the baseline, and dominate because that's where the tall players like Rabacchina love to be. This is a really tough one because their last couple of matches have gone very, very close, and it could have gone either way, but I'm going to go with Halib. In three sets, I think Simone Halib's going to get this one based on her experience at this level, and it is Rabacchina's first semi-final of a slam, so there will be some nerves, but let me know down in the comments below. Who do you think is going to win this semi-final?