Now, we would like to explore in detail what are the problems of ethical naturalism. Let us have a quick recapitulation of what we have talked about. We have talked about ethical naturalism which meant that ethical facts or moral claims can be reduced or understood wholly without any loss of meaning in terms of natural or empirical or non-moral facts. Now, let us take a look at it. Why is this a problem? Why is this such a deep profound metaethical claim? Now, it is a metaethical claim because it is a metaethical foundation because it is very implicit in our thinking, in our thought and yet it is a very crucial assumption determining the direction which are thinking on moral claims takes. Now, let us take an example. Let us take an example that well, war is evil or there is something wrong with war, right? Why would we say such a thing? Now, let us try to threadbare analyze. Why would we say something like that war is evil? Now, let us take a look at the template to see why to jot down the points that we are saying. Well, our claim is that war is bad or evil. Now, a perfectly innocent question that can be asked is why? Why do we make such a claim? Now, what could various answers to this claim be? Well, first is that say it causes a lot of suffering. It causes suffering, death, loss of property. It causes a lot of suffering, death, loss of property and etcetera. Now, what kind of claims are these? Now, well, let us take a look. Now, if it causes a lot of loss, monetary loss, loss of property, loss of lives, disease, death, relative stagnation of growth and development in the coming years, why I can still innocently ask or naively ask that why does that make it evil? Is that sufficient enough to make it evil? Well, the answer is determines which direction our thought is going to take. If now, if I am an ethical naturalist and I believe that the metaethical claim that moral facts can be understood in terms of natural facts. So, loss of property, disease, ill health, death, these are all natural facts, right? Now, these are all examples of natural facts. Natural, as we talked, can also be understood as empirical facts. Now, the question is, what makes these natural facts get a moral or an ethical color? That is the crucial question that is raised, that what makes these natural facts get a moral or an ethical color? Why is suffering bad? So, when the fundamental question we ask is, why is suffering bad or wrong? Now, this is a question that is talking about ethical naturalism, that what makes suffering bad? What is wrong with suffering? Now, to most of us, perhaps the answer would be immediate, that well, in fact, we would perhaps be taken aback when such a question is asked and we would perhaps be disgusted or disappointed with the naivety or even the insensitivity of the questioner. But let us bear with it and ask, why can the questioner ask this question? What is wrong with suffering? Why? What makes suffering bad? What makes death bad? And consequently, what makes war bad? Now, that we do not dispute, that war brings about death and suffering, those are empirical or natural facts. But what makes war having these facts or these properties, the same thing as having a moral property or natural property is the same as moral properties. We need to pay attention to comprehend, what is the moot question here? If x has y property, which is a natural property and it is also the e property, let me write the conventional alphabet of e, e property, which is a say an ethical property. Now, does having y property make this question have the e property too? That is the question that we need to tackle.  The same question which I could ask or one could ask is that what makes happiness have a moral color, that happiness is something good and suffering is something bad. Now, these are two very obvious assumptions that we have and through which we go through life. But still, nevertheless we ask the question, we can ask the question that what is it that makes suffering bad and what is it that makes happiness good? Now, this is this exposes are the are meta ethical foundation for somebody who does not find this question meaningful also or finds this question irrelevant, not even trivial or finds this question as something incorrect, then it betrays a very strong foundation meta ethical foundation of ethical naturalism. So, for them if we take a look suffering turns out to be bad and happiness turns out to be good. Now, suffering and happiness are natural facts, good and bad are moral claims, suffering bad and happiness good. Now, these are moral claims and these are natural claims. Ethical naturalism is the relation between these two domains, how are these two domains linked? Now, ethical naturalism claims that well these two domains are linked, in fact that they have the same property. Now, let us look at what could be the problems here. Now, if we are clear about what is the question, mood question over here, which is how are natural facts related or made equivalent to non-natural facts or which are moral facts. Now, this goes into the very assumption of our and the way we or assumption or our framework in the way we approach the world. Now, if we have a very strong ethical naturalistic assumption, then we go ahead and find these two domains of suffering and suffering happiness and bad and good as equivalent, that is they are connected with each other. But if we question this, is this so, then we are questioning the metaethics of ethical naturalism. How can this question, how can we question such a claim? Now, coming to understanding the very the basic problem of what ethical naturalism is all about, perhaps the utilitarians as we talked about assumed that suffering was equated with happiness. Now, let us come to these are the claims of ethical naturalism. Let us try to assess it. Let us see what kind of a problems do the ethical naturalists land up into. Now, there are mainly two philosophers who have objected or found folly with the ethical naturalist claim, and the first one is Hume, and the second one is G.E. Moore. These are mainly the two philosophers who are credited with critiquing ethical naturalism. Let us go step by step and find out how do they do such a thing. Now, let us take an example. X is killing Y. This is an act in progress. X ought not to, ought not harm Y. This is a value claim. This value claim comes from the general principle killing or harming is wrong. Now, in Hume's parlance, this is example of an is claim. This is an example of an ought claim, and so is this an example of an ought or a should claim that well, these two claims are ought claims, and this is a fact, and this is a moral judgment. Now, can we, Hume's fundamental question was this philosopher called David Hume, who has made many fundamental counter commonsensical questions, which question our fundamental assumptions, questioning causation was one. But what we are concerned now with is David Hume's is ought problem. Now, is for Hume statement of fact or what according to ethical naturalists is natural facts. Now, ought on the other hand is a value claim, and it is not empirically observable. That is, it is not natural. Hume says that well, one cannot infer or arrive at an ought claim from an is claim. Now, that is the fundamental point of Hume, that one cannot arrive at an ought claim from one, from an is claim. Now, let us look at it that what is Hume trying to say? Well, let us say you step into your friends room, and you find that well, somebody who is not your friend, not that particular friend or not the owner of that room is in that room, and is opening your friends cupboard, and has put something in your pocket, and is about to go away. What is your immediate reaction?  Now, you catch hold of this thief, summon your friend, call your other friends, and now you sit or you corner this thief in the room, and try a limb that well, stealing is wrong. Then, let us say you have a philosopher friend, who points out or who starts up and questions that my dear friend, how do you say that stealing is wrong? What this, let us call this thief as X? What X was doing is taking something that does not belong to him, but where did you make a charge, where did you make a jump, a leap from inferring that he was X is a thief, to X is doing something wrong? That is the jump that Hume talks about, that well there is, there are the domain of acts and facts and actions, and there is the domain of value judgments, and one cannot logically arrive from the domain of facts to the domain of judgments. Now, that is the claim that Hume has talked about, that we have the world of facts, and we cannot arrive at the judgment from the world of facts. Now, does this seem sensible? Let us take a look. So, the claim is that well, X is a thief or X is stealing, this is the fact, and the judgment is X ought not to steal or X is doing something wrong, X is wrong in stealing. Now, this is fact, and this is judgment or value, so what we are talking about is that X is a thief or X is stealing, X is wrong in stealing. Now, how do we make this claim that X is wrong in stealing? X is wrong in stealing because of our general value claim, stealing is wrong, and this value claim does not come from, this is not an inference, from any established facts. It is just our value judgment. Now, before we go on to talk about the consequences of this kind of a revision in our metaethics, I would like to sound you out a little bit on what are the likely problems with ethical naturalism. Now, ethical naturalism, well, first it is the perhaps more desirable side of it is that it is more objective, because well, the standard utilitarian claim that well, we have an indicator, an objective real indicator. When we talked about moral realism as an ethical naturalism is a form of moral realism. So, there is an objective indicator that well, to know whether something is right or wrong, we need to look into the world out there. If it is causing, for instance, if it is causing suffering, then it is wrong. If it is causing happiness, then it is right. Now, we therefore, have a parameter or an indicator. Now, number two, if we deny the ethical naturalist claim that well, there is no connection, as Hume is trying to deny, there is no connection between is a not, then our question is that well, how does we arrive at what is right and wrong, then right and wrong perhaps, or all our moral judgments become subjective, or where are, or where else are they grounded on. Now, they could be, as we saw examples of objectiveism, moral objectiveism, or realism, not subscribing to ethical naturalism as Ross, Deontological Rules, or Kant's universalizability, that we know something is right and wrong, not from facts out there, but from understanding that well, where are, that if the act is universalizable, then it comes out to be wrong. Then it does not. So, ethical, leaving the umbrella of ethical naturalism does not mean that we are leaving moral realism or ethical objectivism. So, these are terms and its uses that you must be aware of to make sense of the ethical engagement. So, all ethical naturalists are moral realists, or ethical objectivists, but all ethical objectivists or moral realists need not be ethical naturalists. Examples of moral realists who are not ethical naturalists, well, are, for example, are Kant's universalizable theory, that well, there is a criteria of objectivity, but it is not grounded on natural facts. It is on the structure of the moral claim. So, the humane claim is that well, ought cannot be derived from is. So, that means, what humane is simply saying that well, ethical naturalism is false. That is, ethical claims categorically separate from natural or empirical claims, and more importantly, there cannot be a logical connection between logical or more accurately a deductive connection between the two. So, this is briefly what is Hume's claims. So, Hume is prominent critic of ethical naturalism, separating moral facts or moral claims from value claims from natural facts. Hume goes on to give his own ethical theory, that how, what is the justification of moral claims, and where do, where can they find their justification, but that is not our field of enquiry for the time being. Now, we need note a second objection, or a problem with ethical naturalism, and that is of put off by a philosopher called G. E. Moore. It is called, he used something called the open question argument, and he is talked about open question argument, and is called, his fallacy is called as the naturalistic fallacy. Now, let us briefly, before we note down what Hume means by the naturalistic philosophy, let us briefly look at what Hume is trying, or what Moore is trying to point out. Now, Moore's claim is that well, we have moral properties, we have natural properties. The two can be correlated, but cannot be made equivalent, but more simply it would mean that well, let us say an object has a property x, and a property y, but having two properties cannot be the same thing as having one property. Let us make it simpler. Let us say this particular writing instrument is black in color, property 1, and is 6, says 10 centimeters in length, property 2. So, it has a length, and it has a color. Now, if we keep on seeing in this world, that all objects which are 10 centimeters in length, and have the same color, we tend to equate the two qualities. Now, imagine we always find that this pen comes out to be, or this pen is always in black color. Now, if this writing instrument is always in black color, are we bound to think that well, perhaps being black and being 10 centimeters long are joint, inseparably joint, and perhaps definition of a single entity. Let us take a frequently referred example by philosophers. This has been pointed out in the problem of induction. Now, most of us would have seen crows. Crows are quite prevalent in most parts of the world, and they have survived the human, the massive changes caused by human beings in the planet, in the planet's environment. Now, we have seen black crows. We have seen crows which are black in color forever. Since we are born, we have been seeing crows which are black in color.  Are all crows black? That is the question that Hume asks, and even to a certain extent Moore reformulates it, and that is what is the problem of induction that was also the metaethics of the metaethical problem that is ground, which requires the grounding of ethics. Now, we have seen that all crows are black, but can we infer deductively that all crows are black? Now, if this is the case, why am I talking about this example? Because when we say that well, when we are inferring that all cases of suffering are bad, are we also making a certain kind of inductive claim, not a deductive claim? Let us take a look at the board. If I say that crow 1 is black, crow 2 is black, and we go ahead to is black, which you can put to your heart's delight. Now, if there are so many crows that are black, can we infer all crows are black? Inductively yes, deductively no, definitely no.  All of them call it bad, so can we then infer that suffering is bad? Because please understand, we are making a crucial difference, we are making something natural or empirical and something ethical or a value claim.  Well, it may be inductively valid, but it is not deductively valid. So, as we see the question is that well, most of the people and most of the societies, if not all, would regard suffering as bad or evil, but does that give justification enough to call suffering as something bad or evil in general? Now, that is the question that we would like to address, that well, suffering as bad or evil. Now, let us go ahead with the Moore's questions. Now Moore asks a question that well, let us say it is called the open question X is right, if this is a claim, in the question form it is X right. Now, what could this mean? X is in accordance with nature or X is universalizable or X makes us happy or X is pink in color or brings about more pink things than orange or that X is prescribed in the law books or religious books or the mood point is by authority. Now, when we say that well, let us quickly number them too. Now, we let us call this 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 property 1, property 2, property 4, property 5. Now, X is an act, now the act X has 5 properties and let us call X being right as the 0th property. So, X is right, this is the 0th property, let us call it P 0. Now, the 0th X has 6 properties and these 6 properties accompany X and from that an ethical naturalist or any ethical claim infers that P 0 that what makes X right. Now, having these properties, is it the same thing as being right? If let us take a look, if the 1st property reads that X is in accordance with nature, so if it is in accordance with nature does that make it right, X is universalizable, X is right. Now, when we say these are 5 people who have different reasons for calling, for arriving at the same conclusion, the same conclusion being that X is right. Well, the 1st person says that well, X is in accordance with nature, so I think it is right. The 2nd one says well, X is universalizable that is, I would like to do X and I would like others to do X unto me, so X is universalizable and therefore, it is right. The 3rd person would say X makes me happy and the 4th person would say that well, X brings about more pink things than orange or any other color. The 5th person say that well, X is prescribed in the law books, so religious books by authority. Now, these are various reasons for calling X right, now more genius is in asking or in reversing the question that well, is P 1 the same thing as P 0 that is, X is being in accordance with nature makes X good. Now, what is the question that is being asked here that well, X is being in accordance with nature makes X good that means, being in accordance with nature is good or in other words defines or we use the term right. So, let us use the term right to avoid any confusion, now this is where Moore puts the question that well, is this claim correct being in accordance with nature defines right and therefore, not being in accordance with nature makes something wrong or unright. Now, this is the catch that if you would carefully look at the screen that this is the catch that Moore wants you to comprehend that well, being in accordance with nature is right, but going one step ahead what we mean is that being in accordance with nature defines what is right. Now, therefore, not being in accordance with nature makes something not right therefore, being in accordance with nature is the definition of being right. Now, are properties which are correlated definitions are properties which are correlated definitions of being right. Now, let us look at the earlier screen that what are the various properties mentioned the first property mentioned is that well, X is in accordance with nature or X is universalizable. Now, is this second property is universalizability third, fourth, fifth now are these properties or any one of these definitional do any of these define what is right well, if they define what is right then the inverse of the question would be meaning less. Suppose looking at the next slide that well, being natural defines for brevity we make it precise that being in accordance with nature to be understood as being natural. So, being natural is being right now, being natural is being right is definitional so that means, what is not natural or can we ask the question that is it really so is it so that being natural is being right that if we can ask this question that being natural means if we can ask this question that well is being natural really being right then we can take a look if being natural means being right then is this definition of being right. If we can ask the question the other way round that well if being natural means being right or if being right is being defined as being natural and we can again ask the question that is being natural same thing as being right and yet this question makes sense because there can be people or there are people who would disagree that well being natural and being right may be correlated but are not definitional. So, the crucial thing to be remembered here is that that this is a relation of correlation and not definition so what mood tries to point out that P 0 correlates with P 1 or P 2 or P 3 or P 4 or P 5 or a combination of these but does not define it and that is the crucial claim that mood is trying to bring with the open question arguments when we inverse the question that well P 0 because P 1 but R is does P 1 define P 0 no we can it is always a meaningful question when we in inverse the definition question but by very logical understanding of format of logic that when we inverse the definition or we cannot question a definition for example let us take a look at the board let us say bachelor is an unmarried man now let us say this is a definition so bachelor is defined as an unmarried man now can we ask this question is an unmarried man a bachelor well this is not a meaningful question in the sense that well we have already defined that a bachelor is an unmarried man so when I talk about reversing the or inversing the question that is an unmarried man a bachelor it is a meaningless question given the definition now if this is to the case now Moores genius is in pointing out that well if I say that X is right because it brings about happiness this is a claim and if this is a definition that right is defined as anything that brings about happiness and now we invert the question to ask that is it the case that all happiness inducing acts are right and if you want to be careful about the details happiness for everyone because that is what we have sent as a that is what we have written as a definition so is this question meaningful or meaningless now this is where briefly the four questions that bring about the genius of Moores open question argument that well first we talked about we define that a bachelor is an unmarried man and then if we ask the question that is an unmarried man a bachelor it seems to be a meaningless trivial question because having given the definition this does not make sense however when we do the same exercise in the moral domain that X is right because it brings about everybody's happiness and then we ask the question that is anything or is it the case that all acts that bring about happiness for everyone are right well this does not seem to be a meaningless question because this is questioning the Metaethical Foundation of Metaethical Foundation of ethics now for somebody who is an ethical naturalist this could be definitional but everybody need not be an ethical naturalist so the binding power of this definition is not there in this definition so for Hume for Hume and further for Moore perhaps these are instances of correlation and not definition and if they are not definition then they are not complete so now Moore comes with this claim that well if you look at this that P0 or what we understood as a moral property good or right correlates with natural properties but does not define it because inverting the question we find that well it is not a definition but just an instance of correlation


It's not normal that you try and create a high-technology company that's farming millions of insects right in the heart of London. But insects are just nature's perfect upcycling machines that create organic natural protein that we can feed to animals and eventually make humans. What people don't realise is there's a huge disconnect between what we eat and how we feed what we eat. People farm fish that we create are dependent upon wild caught fish to feed them. We feed fish to chickens. All animals need to eat fats and proteins to grow, just like we do. These proteins come from two sources traditionally, that's fish meal and soy protein. Soy protein is one of the biggest causes of deforestation in the rainforest. And fish meal means that we are dredging our oceans empty of small, pelagic fish which are the base of the global food web. There's only so much rainforest we can cut down, there's only so much oceans that we can actually deplete until we get to a really dangerous pinch point. We have the dual forces of a growing population with an increase in demand for protein. There's a moment in your life where you just think enough is enough and you have to do something about it. So I started EnterCycle. We're using black soldier flies. Each female lays a thousand eggs and in nature 99.9% of them will be eaten. However, we are able to conserve them and then utilize them into a full closed looped system. We feed the larvae on food waste such as brewery grains and coffee waste and they consume that and convert it into both protein to feed animals and fertilizers to grow more plants out of the same system. So actually to tackle not only the problem of deforestation and kind of emptying the oceans, we can also tackle food waste. The farmers of tomorrow are the engineers of today. We've created specialist chambers to look after the insects in their different life cycles. We can stack this four metres high in as many kilometres as long as you like. We have automation systems that are modulated and run by themselves 24 hours a day, 365 days a year in any environmental condition and that's vitally important to feeding a growing population. Insects are becoming a trend. The western diet has to kind of shift and change. But most importantly it's natural, it's normal and it's the way that we have to feed the future. We're facing big global challenges. People don't believe that they can make a change but you really, really can because you making a change is the only change you can really make. When it times is by nine billion people it makes a fundamental difference the way that we live in this planet.


It's Tilly and today I am here with another unboxing of the YA Chronicles. Chronicles is an Australian based book box that ships worldwide. It is filled with amazing goodies and a recently released YA book and so I want to get straight into it and tear into this. I think that like the cutest thing about this box so far and I've literally just opened the lid is that in the cusp of notes I wrote remember that I love you and they put not as much as we love you and I just love them so much so so much love so exciting already there's so many cute things that I can already see so I'm gonna put this down here first up we have a pucker pop key chain of John Snow from Game of Thrones and he is so cute like my key ring is already like overflowing with a bunch of stuff but you know what I'm gonna put it on there as well you know nothing John Snow oh my god I already smell so damn amazing so these are natural soy wax candles I need to I need to burn them I need to smell these for my life these are by the book hangover from Etsy you guys should take these out this actually smells so amazing right now I'll see how Shazie who smells like sand wood lalik and spices Aileen who smells like lemon verben jasmine and embers cinder who smells like white tea peony and smoke and mirror who is cold rain and cherries I wish that I could send smells through this camera because this is amazing oh my god oh my god okay this next thing is so so cute and it's tiny so I'm gonna have to chuck on the zoom so this took a long time to focus and it won't focus if I get any closer but this is an adorable little ring with a little crown on it and I am going to be wearing this for the rest of my life it is actually so adorable and I'm sorry I can't really show it any better because my camera just flips out when I get things too close but it is so cute so we have the YA bookmark which is also black and so it says volume 13 you win or you die oh we have some actual amazing little artwork cards so you've got this one here and then you've also got this game of thrones one which says when you play the game of thrones you win or you die and now for the book which I am so excited for I have been like dying to read this book and it is here it is in my hands and that is Three Dark Crowns by Kendare Blake I am so happy right now three sisters three queens one queen crowns three dark crowns by Kendare Blake tells the story of triplet sisters one elemental one poison and one naturalist at age 16 the battle begins only one queen can be left standing a fight to the death the winner may not be the strongest but she may be the darkest so there you guys have an actual amazing box in the YA Chronicles it was so good and I'm so excited for next month's one as well because somehow you guys just keep on getting better and better and I don't know how you do it I will leave a link to their website below don't forget to check them out and totally subscribe to their box it is amazing and fun every month is so good I will also be doing two more YA Chronicles unboxing videos this month one is for their October box and the other one is for their Gemina box which is the second book in the Illuminate series and I am so excited I got an email this morning saying it is like being shipped and I can't I just can't thank you guys for watching and I hope you guys have a lovely bookish day and that great things happen to you bye so I only read two books this month which is not as many as I normally read but I'm still totally okay there's not only am I in a reading spot but I've always had a pretty rough end of b-


On November 6th, the token's value began to fall, losing more than 80% of its worth in the span of 72 hours. Looks like we got a situation on our hands. Regulators! Mound up. It was a clear black night. He was sitting at home looking at a JPEG on his trusty iPhone. It was a rare NFT of a hipster mouse, so he did what you do. He mortgaged his house and he put in a bid. He was getting the itch. He couldn't sit there while he saw those other people get rich. But then the market crashed. The value deflated. This shouldn't be allowed. They should regulate it. He saw a JPEG and looked in demand, so he mortgaged his house. Spent 400 grand. We need to pass new laws to prevent this fake.  That's not 100% what I was talking about. I mean the first part was okay, but it's more like... It was a cool crisp day. He was watching the game. That's when he saw a commercial with folks of acclaim. Crypto returns it'll never default. So he thought what you'd think. That sounds too good to be false. Mortgaged his house, researched the rate, checked out the CEO. Nothing seemed out of place. But when he checked one morning, the value was gone. We should make fraud illegal. This is all just wrong. He did his research and he studied up, then bought invisible tokens. This guy just made up. It was a harsh consequence for an honest mistake. His IQ wouldn't be 5 if we regulate. You know I'm the message boards for the NFTs. I'm one of the smarter people. So... you do the math. It was a lukewarm noon. He's on Capitol Hill. Cause he got margin called and was facing a bill. I don't understand. I've lost all that I had. You need to pass more laws. This is terribly bad. Excuse me. Thanks for letting me join. But isn't part of the issue him? There's a new dog coin? Maybe the underlying tech is one we shouldn't firstall. It's possible one day. If he hadn't been allowed to be a hodler, he wouldn't have the impulse control of a toddler. We could end human nature with a pencil today. Why do I have a feeling that they're gonna regulate? Pray on folks with financial illiteracy. By the way, have you seen the state lottery? The power bar's one billion. You better not wait. He's gonna make good decisions when we regulate.


All right, so I think I think it's 315 we'll get started. Hi everyone. My name is Michael Edenson Co-founder and CEO fianna labs. I know Some of you probably came here to see Anders Vega. He unfortunately he was unable to make it at the last minute So so I'll be sharing some of his thoughts as well Andres is with control plane, which is a professional services firm that's doing a lot of solutioning around automated governance And if you know we would build products to solution automated governance as well So Andres and I have been working pretty closely over the last two years Developing some solutions in this area and we wanted to share with you Some of the things that we found some of the things that we're working on and some of the lessons learned So my agenda for today I'm gonna give a little bit of background and context what we're talking about with automated governance a few definitions We're gonna talk about attestations then open source tools example architecture and demo some art of the possible before Talking about where to go from here So for a little bit of background a lot of this conversation around automated governance began with a white paper that was written in 2019 Which was the DevOps automated governance reference architecture that was developed by a group of individuals as part of the it revolution think tank From the banking industry heavily heavily represented and that architecture was taken and put into practice as some of the nation's largest banks The result of those implementations led to the book automated sorry investments unlimited Which details fictional banks journey toward automated governance and how to how to resolve some of the issues that can arise like MRI a's And the nature of this is that building software is complex We all know that and at a regulated institution that's amplified You have a bunch of different run times a bunch of different build platforms tool chains Release environments and being able to capture all the requisite metadata Sufficient for for a software change can be can be pretty tricky And so when we talk about automated governance in this presentation, I'm going to talk about this specific part the path to release And for those of you that are that are at financial institutions This may look familiar to you in everything from creating a user story to writing the code to executing your tool chain And then creating your change requests doing your validation C tasks after And then providing the traceability of all of those events when the auditors come calling So what is automated governance and the definition that we'll be working off of today is that automated governance is the machine orchestrated capture and verification of SDLC event metadata immutable storage of evidence and automation An automation of the authorization of the release based on predefined policy definitions So we talked about predefined policy talking about transparent policy that's evident Evident to the developer. They can see what's required of them and what they need to do to meet it It's contractual, which means that it's been agreed upon that if you meet these certain policy requirements Then you can go release the software It's version controlled so its history can be can be shown retroactively And then you get bonus points if you store it in source code depends on how you want to implement it The second piece is telemetry So the machine led capture of all the event metadata around your SDLC meaning that there's no human reporting You have a software that's able to capture and independently verify the authenticity of events happening And the definition of an event not occurring is that the machine couldn't capture it. We can talk more about that in a little bit Also having clear definitions of the system of record and resource URIs So although your automated governance software may not be the system of record for a lot of the evidence it has Resource URIs that can point to them at the time of audit And then the ability to reproduce that that chain of events at any given time to show the results The last piece is the tamper evident data stores. So digitally signing your attestation so they can immutably be stored in a database and that come time of deployment when it's time to Access these attestations if the signatures don't match, you know that it's untrusted and that that protects against tampering with the evidence and Then the last piece is the automated enforcement, which is taking the subjective Portion of authorization at the time of release and making that completely objective So a lot of what we're going to be talking about today were revolves around attestations And so I thought I'd dive in a little bit as to the anatomy of the attestations that we're talking about So the the attestation declares what event occurred identifies the asset in question at time stamps with context, so you know what happened in when so that could be that an event, you know that a Code scan began a code scan completed all of those different types of context around the event And then describing the conditions surrounding the event. So how did that happen? How did that come to be? What were the environment variables when that that event occurred? Details of the output of the event. So if you're running a SAS scan, it would be it would be the vulnerability report Comparing the results to the policy. So determining pass or fail or whatever the compliance state is and then enough information to Reproduce that event. So all of those different pieces being stored in each attestation It is sort of the threshold that we're talking about for automated governance in order to to get to that point of confidence Where you can make these automated decisions And so there are a lot of open source tools that can help you in this process and some of them What we'll show what you can make with them in a little bit But but some of the most important ones are sick store Which is a digital signing tool and we'll show you a little bit how we're using it Also in Tota and salsa the ability to prove the authenticity of the artifacts that you're capturing As well as the the environment that they were captured in and then open policy agent for being able to write your rule sets To determine what the definition of passing and failing are So in an example architecture throughout the build and release process You run all your different pipeline steps in your build pipeline and you have your dev release pipeline where you you deploy the code And you do some other types of testing and then finally your prod release pipeline all of the raw event data being captured throughout that process being stored with context Enrichment so if you don't have all the information that you need from the raw event data having the capability to go back and enrich it It's very important Then determining pass or fail from the policy engine And then producing a signature and storing that in the immutable ledger before storing the attestation in its own database So with an attestation API using this framework for this architecture you can build some cool stuff And that's really the next piece of this which is continuous feedback So automated governance has a lot of really granular data and that's sort of by you know by design Right, we're trying to to take humans out of the governance of software development And so naturally we're gonna have to provide a lot of evidence to suffice that and so how do we make that and design that in a Way that's user-friendly that encourages developers to want to participate in this automated governance process And as we say make the right thing the easy thing so We're kind of building up here to what to what we're going to show but an attestation example would be a combination of a few pieces so I'm left-hand side you see the control and we're going to use an example to say unit test coverage, right? And then on the right-hand side is the result so for for this attestation this code base has 91% code coverage with unit tests So the the policy piece is that predefined policy that we that we agreed upon this as you need to have 80% for this example Then the raw event data which captures the results of the unit tests being executed in the pipeline as well as all of the context around that The rule that's written in opens policy agent That says if your your coverage is greater than or equal to the minimum and then finally the digital signature of the result of all Those pieces so that when we come time to to deploy we can then look and say all right this matches the signature We can trust that this data is authentic and it's of the highest integrity And then that data can also be produced for auditors at the end So our approach at fianna was is to this is a simple shared language So taking all of the governance and all of the compliance and breaking it down to two five pieces. So that's pass warn fail in progress and not found And all these are pretty straightforward except the one I want to talk You know a little bit about is the not founds a state and that's really important in your automated governance journey So as you as you build these controls out and you provide this feedback to your developers Not founds going to be very useful to you because a lot of times and I've seen this in practice Some of the bigger challenges for automated governance or the developers are doing things. They're doing Code scans. They're doing testing, but they're not doing it in a way that's traceable And so being able to show them that that this is not found that we don't have any evidence of it But it is required is important because it'll help them Triage some of those issues of configuration, right? But adopting that posture of saying It's not it's it's considered not found if the machine can't observe it independently It's a really important step to to getting everything in order And so the demo that I want to show you real quick is the art of the possible So if you know we've been working on as I mentioned on a product for for automated governance And we want to show you what we're working on hopefully to give you ideas of what you can be working on With some of these pieces that are out there in the open source community. So with all of these tools, what can we build? And so here you we have a visualization of one service, right? So one code repository in an organization and you can see all of the past Versions of that code all the past commits The environments that this version of the code is currently running in as well as all of the controls and its current state of compliance So for this example this repository on this commit produce two artifacts two Docker containers user interface and an API Which means there are two attestations for container scan here And we can click into each one of them and see okay the API is failing container scan So we can go and look at the chain of events that led to that We can look at the pipeline conditions that that were set at the time that the container scan was kicked off This tells us that the container scan was provisioned from an authorized build server and not someone's local machine Then we have the enrichment callback that identifies the assets in question And normalizes them on the repository identifier And then finally the attestation that produces pass or fail and for each of these we have the Recourse six-door recor ledger entry that we can compare those signatures and improve that this data is authentic So for a developer they can go in here and say okay here are my vulnerabilities that I need to remediate And then it takes them to to the system of record So that they can they can do so and then it's all event driven So as a developer builds their code they rebuild their code this updates in real time And this is just you know a granular view of how a developer would interact on a day-to-day basis But I think you can all probably extrapolate that you know this kind of data being captured on every single commit of the code base For all of the different control sets in your organization Over time provides some some pretty big insights as to how how your applications are performing So the question is where to go from here So assembling these open-source tools and using these capabilities to build something that can provide traceability and to end from from code to production You know I'm gonna tell you a few stories from the trenches in my past role I actually did a lot of work in this area at one of the one of the top ten largest banks in the country So some of these stories are from there and some of them are from from others that I've talked to in the time Sense, but a lot of it really revolves around now We have all these details and what does that mean and so what you do with all these details is kind of Depending on your organization, but some of the things that we've observed to have worked and not worked there are the following And the following is not to just dump the the the details over to your regulators, right? Obviously, they can be taken out of context. These are a lot of it has a lot of granular information and it can be misused if it's not fully understood We know of an organization at one time that had a policy that said you must do unit tests And so the risk department was looking through and saw that One build didn't have unit tests because the developer commented it out and they were actually prepared to terminate that developer for Turning off the unit test. So that they didn't fortunately, but it tells you that you know This this information is pretty powerful and sometimes if it's not fully understood it can be used to create a culture That's not desirable And so the alternative is to then abstract that data and create somewhat of a scorecard, right? So, you know, you've really good you're passing everything a bcd all the way to f And there are challenges to that as well Because one of the things that you want to achieve with automated governance is the federation of responsibility of compliance back to the developers You want the developers to own their own compliance? And so we found in practice that if you abstract that evidence too much to the point where it becomes a simple ABCD representation of their compliance, then it tends to go back to The administrators who are then top-down trying to obtain compliance and that doesn't seem to be very effective in practice Well, we found to be most effective in practice is automated enforcement And so what that what that means here in this example is so you you write your code You build you test you deploy to dev and if at any point in time So you know saying for example during your during your code like if you open a feature branch Well, we'll preview to you your current compliance right then during build and test will alert you again to your your given compliance Then during your dev deploy and your promotion of the artifacts will warn you and say hey Not compliant on these need to remediate And then if you still go and attempt to deploy to deploy to production that deployment will be blocked And so being able to do this in a fully automated fashion without any human intervention I can tell you that when put into practice, it doesn't make everyone very happy but I've seen that it has been very effective And when rolling this out in an implementation Beginning with the easy controls moving to the harder controls over time The biggest challenge that you'll see is that it's a it requires a huge change in behavior for developers They're having to use new muscles that they haven't before And that is to really start to think about Compliance is every piece of their software development, right? But but also not Suffocating them to the point where you're breaking all of their CI builds if they're not compliant, right? You want developers to have that freedom to be able to build and test And get things up there plus and you know and in a break the glass emergency You don't want to to be blocking them at the point where they need to be writing those new features and getting them out So this is just an example model of how something like this can be rolled out So Breaking it down when we talk about this enforcement and some of the reasons why it works Actually game theory helps to explain it and that is that the optimal situation for a developer Is that they can develop features in the Wild Wild West and the optimal feature for governance? Sorry the optimal environment for governance risk and compliance is that they have that 12-week evidence review before the change, right? Then the not optimal situation is vice versa, right? So developers the the 12-week review is not optimal and then for the For the risk and compliance group the Wild Wild West is obviously that the least optimal situation so the subjective change process is that the way that things are currently being done and that's optimal for Both parties, but it's not really achieving the objective of being able to to do continuous release and so The not optimal situation for both groups is automated governance And that's that automated enforcement of all these policies, right? The developers don't love it because it is a pretty hard and fast Requirement if you're not compliant your code won't deploy And then for the governance and risk and compliance They don't get to have their hands on this They have to pre agree ahead of time to all of the different evidence thresholds But this does provide the organization with with the capability to to to improve the integrity of their compliance and deliver features faster So some opportunities that this provides The ability to do different control templates, right? So being able to say based on the product type or the risk posture if it's internet facing If it's higher risk if it affects the movement of funds, right? You have different sets of control requirements that can be applied And then you can you can even provide more context and say for a specific type of release There's another set of controls that need to be applied. So you could say for example, if you're only updating the base image You may not need to do accessibility testing Whereas if you are doing a change to business logic on the front end Then maybe you do, right? So you can provide these different types of releases in different contexts For each of your applications to say these are the controls that need to be met. Here's what you can do For this type of change It also gives the the executive is the ability for knobs and dials So being able to turn up certain values in certain places So you say I want, you know, maybe 85 test coverage here on all new code, right? And then legacy code maybe 55 percent code coverage But then also being able to say all right, you know for a period of time if you if you have a legacy code base You have, you know, six months to remediate your higher critical vulnerabilities at which point automatically now you'll be blocked For any new new higher critical vulnerabilities. So it gives you that that granular level of control And it also allows you to shape developer behavior. So in one example in past practice, we've observed A large bank that wanted to upgrade their cd pipeline libraries, right? And so in the past that typically would have been a process that would require a project manager a budget And probably a year's worth of time to go in and help each development team migrate over to the new versions of the libraries But with this automated enforcement, they they were able to start marking builds as unstable They gave, you know, four or five months notice to say all right at this point in time You won't be able to deploy if you're using those pipeline libraries But they were able to provide the visibility along the way as the developers are being warned About this and they were able to migrate over themselves. So as we said, you know back to federating the responsibility of compliance back to the developers It also gives you a path toward fully automated releases. So When you get to the point where you can be fully compliant with all the policies and procedures You should be able to release without any human intervention. That means No change boards. No manual risk review being able to go straight to production So that's really what what What the end goal is here for automated governance and the outcomes being that your release cycle times go down Compliance goes up and most importantly developer happiness and productivity increases as well So that's what I have You know, as I mentioned before Andris is is with control plane doing a lot of Consulting on this area and providing solutions and then we at fianna were providing products in this space So if any of this, you know, you found interesting or applicable to your company, please reach out to us and we'd be happy to talk Thank you So I think I think we have some time But i'm happy to answer some questions if anyone has them. Yes Yes Right, so it's actually taking in this example It's actually taking the byte array signing it and then storing it in the database so that when you pull that that the data from the database and you Really when you marshal it back into a byte array Compare it against the signature, then you'll determine if it's if it's matching Yeah That's yeah, that's the sig store tool. It's an open source component Signing tool that that you can use I believe it was developed by by a lot of the folks at chain guard Chain guard, so Any other questions? All right. Well, thank you guys appreciate it


Welcome to Interest Agent Training. We're gonna talk about how can you avoid chargebacks? Okay, this is a topic that isn't fun to talk about. It is, it's negative, right? That word is negative, but how to avoid them is positive, right? So that's why today we're gonna talk about how to help you avoid them all together. Typically, typically persistency, about 14 month persistency is typically around 80%, right? Can be higher, can be lower. If it's phone cells, it can be higher, can be lower, depending on the agent, and if they're rookie, if they're new, if they're experienced, if they're great with people, everything in between. But I want, agents should know that chargebacks are going to happen 100%. It's not, it's inevitable, right? It isn't unavoidable, but there are some things that you can do to help your overall persistency and avoid some chargebacks. And the first thing, because I got several tips I wanna run through today, the first thing is you need to always be interested in doing what's in the best interest of the client, right? I think a lot of times, clients can feel where you're at, right?  Where's your heart at? Are you doing the right thing for them? Or are you just trying to grab a quick buck and run because they can feel that too, right? So, at the end of the day, I've always been good at not only physically selling like this, but training like this, that you should always be doing what's in the best interest of the client. Do whatever it takes to make them feel that you are doing what is best for them, right? And as long as you go into it like that, then it'll help the rest of these steps.  So that's the first thing. I wanna jump into the appointment process because there's a couple of key pieces that can help avoid some charge backs, okay? There's really three key pieces inside of an appointment. The first one is you wanna warm up. You wanna make sure that you are building rapport and warming someone up. When I just jump into a cell, it almost feels like I'm just there to make a cell, right, or to grab a cell. And they know that's the case.  But it doesn't mean that you can't also warm them up immediately early in the appointment process and also throughout the call, right? Or throughout the appointment, okay? So making sure you're warming them up.  And they're like, hey, let's get to the point, right? Then that's fine.  And I'm like, all right, I gotta transition, okay, that's when I'll jump into the question. Hey, what, you know, hey, thank you again for your time today. What got you thinking about all this, right? So you can transition to the fact-finding portion. Warm-up's really important. The second thing, inside of an appointment to help with avoiding charge backs is to not oversell, okay? Now that doesn't mean, that doesn't mean that you wanna sell small policies. That also doesn't mean that you wanna sell with your own wallet, because that's not the case either.  You want to show them, I'm not saying you show them what they can afford because that is incorrect as well. It doesn't matter, right? If you're asking what can you afford monthly to pay for something like this, you're making them think small and you're gonna end up definitely underselling big time, and that's not the point either, right? Because you wanna maximize what you're able to sell without actually overselling. And the way I avoid overselling is I figure out what they need, right? If you're doing what's in the best interest and you're giving them what they need, then you're not underselling and you're not overselling. But if you give them a lot more covers than they need, or a lot less covers than they need, then you are overselling or underselling.  Because they'll be like, dude, why do you have 1.6 million dollars in life insurance and you have zero debt, you're not married, you have half a million dollars in the bank, and you simply wanna cover burial and final expenses, right? You see where I'm going with the logic? Okay, now there's a lot of reasons why you need 1.6 million or more, okay? But in this scenario, what we're talking about, this is why we're explaining this, okay? So selling what they need, focused on them, focused on them, right? They can fill that. The third part in the appointment to help avoid charge backs is the cooldown. That's my fourth step of my fourth step of the process. Most people forget about the cooldown when they are making a sale or they're in an appointment. A lot of agents will fill out the application, okay? What's your social security number, your beneficiary, et cetera, and then they'll fill out the application, they'll do the phone interview, they'll get them approved, and then they'll run, hey, we'll get you a policy, thanks for your time, have a great day, right? Instead, I like to take a good five or 10 minutes and cool down off of business after the appointment. And there's several reasons why I do that. Big reason is because their mind is off of sales, right? When I leave, they're not thinking about the sale or the business or the purchase. They're thinking about what an amazing do that is, right? But we're also, they're realizing, hey, he's not just here to grab a sale and run, he's here because he really cares and he's gotten to know me, he's a good person and I got along with him really well, or her, right, et cetera, okay? Because most people forget about the cool down because you're able to use those little things in some of the later stuff I'm gonna talk about to really help avoid some charge backs along the way, okay? Cool down is always a good thing. The next thing that I would encourage, and these are all just random like off the dome things that I've done over the last several years is I like to leave some type, I like to leave a business card magnet. For instance, there's agents in our local office here and one of them came to me last week and said, hey, I was with a Miss Mabel and I was trying to help her with her insurance and then I saw your business card magnet on the fridge. So what's the deal there? I don't wanna steal your business, what's the deal there? What do you have, how long has it been, what did you do, et cetera? And for that reason it's good, but also because if they're never gonna forget my name, they're never gonna forget my number. If someone else is trying to come in and lie and replace my business, which is a potential chargeback by knowing that they can call me, it can help avoid that, right? So by having something that is always on their fridge that they can't lose, I loved doing business card magnets, especially if you're doing face-to-face sales, I'm a big part of it, you can still do it over phone sales too, right? You easily could, but with face-to-face, especially business card magnet is huge because it's gonna keep your name top of mind, okay? The next thing after a business card magnet, okay, would be a thank you card. I think that you should send out a thank you card to every single prospect that you help after you're able to help them. Something I always did, something that, and I didn't have a lot of problems with chargebacks, I really didn't. It's because I did all these things I'm talking about, okay, business card magnets, a thank you card, and not thank you for your business, you know, signed Cody.  Betty, because I always use Betty, I absolutely loved visiting with you. I can tell you have a big heart. Thanks for sharing the story about your daughter, Susie. I look forward to continuing to get to know you for many years to come. Thank you for your trust, right? In no way did I ever mention business at all because they know who you are, right? And then I'll throw in other business, or business card, business card magnet or whatever in there. But the point isn't to, the point is to thank them for their business in a less businessy way, if that makes sense, okay? So start to think about that, all right? Thank you card is another good one. Next thing is that I used to do a lot of is a monthly newsletter. So I would send out a monthly newsletter to all my clients every single month, a physical newsletter by mail. And this newsletter would have a recipe, you would have maybe a trivia, maybe an update, always a picture of me or a picture of me and my wife, a picture of me and my wife, my dog, something, right? So there's emotional human connection. It not only helps avoid charge backs, that helps you get referrals because once someone has that emotional connection with you, they don't wanna let you down. So in that instance, they're less likely to get rid of you and push you to the curb and replace you because they have an emotional connection with you, right? That's why I love pictures on cards, pictures on envelopes, pictures on letters, pictures on everything, because it's a facial recognition, emotional connection to you. So not only are you building that, it'll help avoid charge backs, it'll help you stay top of mind so that you get referrals all the time, which is why I love the monthly newsletter. And there's been several good pieces in this Dylan and Keith that you guys can reuse for future videos. The other thing outside of even referrals is that it's actually gonna earn you business too. I had someone that I wasn't able to help sell years ago and I added them to my newsletter and then I think three or four years later they reached out and said, hey, you've been sending us something and you've stayed in front of us for the last three or four years, we feel like if we're gonna buy insurance we should probably just buy it from you because you've done the best job and we've never even bought from you, right? You see the point behind that.  You're always reminding them of you and some agents are gonna hear this, all of this and think, well, I don't want them to remember me because then they're more likely to, it's almost like I'm gonna run out of the home after I make the sale because I don't want you to change your mind or as soon as I set the appointment I'm hanging up because I don't want you to cancel, right? If they're gonna cancel the appointment, if you're worried about them cancel the last 30 seconds of the call, then they're probably gonna cancel anyway. If you're worried about them, change of their mind while you're still in the home after you made the sale then they're gonna cancel later. I'd rather them cancel while I'm talking to them, right? Or tell me why they can't do something or show a lack of confidence in what we're doing. I'm not worried about losing the appointment, losing the sale or losing them as a client later. I'm just gonna do what I know is right and what's best to do and the rest will take care of itself and that's what always happens with this kind of stuff. It really does. Next thing is you need to constantly, especially if they're thinking about canceling a policy, you need to remind them why they did this, why they chose to do this with you to solve this problem. And if we do something, then it may not help solve that problem, right? When you're selling life insurance, there's several places that when someone's trying to cancel, they'll talk about the two year contestability period and how you don't wanna lose the time that you've invested. And they'll also mention cash value and how you've invested money, but you haven't got to that point yet and how you don't wanna cancel because you're gonna lose all the money you put in. And you know what I mean? So there's sales tricks for keeping people, like call centers are great at that stuff. So remind them of their why. And then, you know what? If they're gonna not keep me and it's in a really important client or you don't like charge backs, you don't wanna avoid it, then go see them. Make time to go see them. I'm not saying you wanna fill your week with that type of activity every week, but if it saves business, then it keeps money in your pocket. And it's harder to say no in person than it is over the phone. You can't let them cancel through text. You can't let them cancel through email. You need to talk to them, okay? Just show up with their door, right? Something may be going. And also, another big thing is don't assume anything. Most agents say, well, they're thinking about canceling. I guess they don't like me anymore. Well, maybe they changed banks and they didn't let you know. Maybe another agent lied to them.   So just be proactive about keeping them, okay? So that's a ton of ideas on how to help avoid charge backs. They're inevitable, they're gonna happen, but there are things that you can do along the way to try to keep them. Hey, you love this and you're like, dude, what are the mistakes that I don't wanna make and how do I avoid them, right? I'm gonna go over this top six mistakes agents make and how you can avoid making them right here. Click on that video, see you over there. Hey, six mistakes, six mistakes that a lot of agents make. I wonder if you're making them and how to avoid them. So I'm gonna start out by letting you.