ic factors, we need to have sufficient economic levers. That is questionable. The evidence is there. It comes into political will and political powers. It was just really to follow up on David, in terms of the role of Public Health Scotland, and they were set up at the start of the pandemic. I have been at the forefront of dealing with the pandemic, but I do not think that they have had the opportunity yet to do what they were set up to do in terms of that whole system approach to Public Health. It would be good to see what they can achieve once they are able to do what they were set up to do. I also want to comment on the wider approach that Judith Proctor talked about in the previous session. As I said, integration authorities were set up to try and move the funding into the community to more preventative care, but there are a number of areas that we identified in our integration report on how that could be achieved. That is around—again, some of that has already been talked about—the need for collaborative leadership, systems leadership, rather than thinking about the aims of a single organisation and thinking more about the outcomes that you are trying to achieve for your community. I think that some of that is around the effective strategic planning as well, linking your resources to the priorities and then being able to link those to the outcomes that you are achieving. However, as has also been mentioned, data is the need to have access to good data. Again, we reported on a number of occasions that there is still a lack of data in terms of what is happening in communities, in primary care, in social care, and being able to show the outcomes of those preventative approaches is important. How best do we determine the level of funding that NHS and social care need after Covid? I know that the BMA has said that short-term boosts will not be enough to deliver the full recovery that services need and that what is needed is a full review of health and social care spending in the context of a national conversation about our expectations. Would the panel support that approach? Who would you like to go to first? Sorry, it is difficult to tell. As David said, health funding was already a huge proportion of the Scottish Government budget, and that has increased through further spending throughout Covid. We have said on a number of occasions that the NHS was not sustainable before the pandemic, and costs have continued to increase throughout the pandemic. However, there is continued uncertainty about how it will be funded going forward. Obviously, the Scottish Government has made a number of spending commitments in the recovery plan and in the programme for government. It talks about a 20 per cent increase over the Parliament, but what we need to see is a refreshed medium-term financial framework for health and social care. It is also important that we bring the public along with them, because in terms of recovery and sustainability, things will have to be delivered differently. Of course, that needs a culture change among the public, so it is important that we engage with the public and bring the public and staff along with us in delivering services differently going forward to ensure the sustainability of the NHS going forward. Siva wants to come in. Thank you, convener. There needs to be a refresh of the UK's medium-term forecast for health and care spending. I completely understand the criticism that people have made about tactical short-term booster funding. One finance director said, because of this, that my financial plan moves from a cliff edge to a cliff face, because money comes at short notice that I suddenly have to spend in a value-for-money way. I can emphasise enough how hard it is to develop a medium-term financial forecast that you can plan a lot with this level of uncertainty over demand, not just because we still do not know what the path of the disease will be, but also because we do not know when demand for routine services will come back, and what complexity that demand will present and how it will spread over time. There is a question over when is the best moment to have that medium-term plan, and I would suggest that you are looking at the start of the next financial year at the absolute earliest. The second bit beyond timing is what you want to plan for. For me, increasingly, I am starting to segment it into—there are still direct costs of dealing with the pandemic—things such as test-and-trace systems, PPEs, and that is the first bit. The second bit is tackling the backlogs, and I mean that broader than just standard active care—things such as mental health services, child and adolescent mental health community care, you name it. The fourth thing is resilience. What would a resilient health service or a health and care service have like? Not just resilience to a pandemic, but resilience to other threats such as cybersecurity. That is a pet concern of mine, that, as you see the shift to more digital and virtual consultation as the default mode, what redundancy are you building in and what does that cost? The fourth and final one is the business-as-usual growth and healthcare spending, which tends to go up by 3 to 4 per cent due to a combination of factors and so you almost have to bake that in before you air in these other cost pressures. Thank you. Thank you. Can I come to David Bell? I'm going to agree with Lee and Siva. You've got this 3 to 4 per cent growth annually. In our earlier session, I alluded to what the part of the problem there is, the ageing of the population and the concomitant largely chronic diseases associated with that. We really don't know at what rate the unmet need, which was clearly there during the pandemic for non-pandemic-related healthcare, is going to be unwound and that will have an important effect on funding requirements. Currently, the budget for 2021-22 is for £17 billion to be spent on health and sport and our income tax receipts, which are our largest tax, are for £12 and a quarter billion. The funding is an important issue for the Scottish Government to address the danger that—well, how to engage with the public and staff around this inevitable growth in demand against the needs of other parts of the Scottish Government, such as education and local government and so on. I'm going to bring in Emma Harper for a very quick supplementary before I move on. Thanks, Gillian. I don't have a stop. That was just a correction of a spelling mistake in the chat function. I'll bring in Paul O'Kane. That discussion really begins to help us to think about the context of coming out of the pandemic and what's going to happen moving forward. I'm quite interested in the service redesign. We touched on that in the previous answers, but I think it's about what can we learn from the pandemic, but doing things differently will have a saving attached to it, particularly around digital. In the context of social care as well, technology-enabled care is quite interesting as well. I really just get a sense of where we think the opportunities are for some of that. I think that there are opportunities. Obviously, there has been some advances during the pandemic, as you said, in terms of digital, in terms of redesign of how people access urgent care, such as the A&E system. We have to balance that. There are opportunities there, but there are also huge increases in costs. It's just how many of those costs will become recurring, as some of the panellists have already talked about—the vaccination programme, test and protect, the increased infection prevention and control measures, PPE cleaning, social distancing have hugely increased costs that will be offset of any potential savings that are to be made. We have also talked about the huge backlog of patients that still need to be seen. The investment that is required to progress digital technology will lead to increased costs and investment. It is important that we properly evaluate some of the innovations that have happened during the pandemic to make sure—obviously, it wants everyone to make sure that they are meeting the needs of the population, but that they are sustainable in the longer term as well. I think that an overarching point that has indicated that this is largely an evidence-free zone. There are a few real-time studies that are collecting real-world evidence, but I would rely on nothing to be honest on before planning massive service changes. There are three buckets in England that people are looking at for productivity improvements that were spurred by the pandemic. The first is, as Paul mentioned, digital and particularly virtual appointments for primary care and outpatient care. It is certainly not finished, but the early evidence that I've seen suggests that there is clearly a wider societal benefit to reduced travel time, reduced emissions, needing to take less time off work. The impact on NHS productivity is much more equivocal, including whether you can reduce the number of dropped appointments or appointments where the patient did not attend. I think that it is—and clinical productivity as well. I think that the real questions around that need to be answered. The second area is about more operational changes. In this country, we have seen a lot more of things like sharing a single clinical rotor or sharing equipment, particularly larger equipment like CTI MRI scanners across a wider pool of organisations. It is not much talked about, but it has seen a reduced downtime for those assets, which has led to some productivity improvements. The third area is service reconfiguration on a broader sense of what services are delivered where. Because of the pandemic, many countries separated out band routine services, particularly in hospital, from what we call hot services, where it is an emergency harder to predict their patient coming in for trauma through an A&E department. There are productivity benefits to separating those out. The pandemic has made that possible, but I think that those are the three train tracks that we are trying to build more evidence around. Finally, Lee's point about infection control is the rate-limiting factor. Infection control guidance, at least for the next six months, will be the rate-limiting factor on how much productivity a health system can deliver. Just checking with Paul, because he is remote. Paul, do you want to come back on any of that? No, I think that's helpful. I've got some questions on just sustainability, but we can move on to that. That's fine. We're going to talk about the financial sustainability aspect of all of this. And we've got, kicking that off, Sue Webber. Yes, thank you very much. It's just to ask the panel for their thoughts on causeless comments that the consultation cuts through the heart of governance in Scotland and will have serious implications for local government. I know that maybe the first person can be Lee from Audit Scotland because they've been quite… Talking about the consultation, are you talking about the social care? I'm just aware of time that I was just talking about the finance in general. In terms of their thoughts on the consultation. Which consultation? For the national care service? Right, okay. If you don't want to ask, I can… No, that's fine. It's just that I thought it was more general points, but if anybody wants to come in on that, please let me know. I did ask Lee, but I don't know if she wants to… Lee, did you want to come in on that? I know that it's not really the theme that we were on, because that was the last panel, but if Lee wants to come in on that, that's fine. Yes, I think I've been unmuted. Just to say, obviously, I have to be cautious about what I comment on at this stage. We are in the process of drafting a response to the NCS consultation. You know that we've said that changes in how social care are provided in Scotland are needed, but the solutions are far from simple. But I think that the other thing is that the new models of care that are required will cost more money, and it's not clear how they'll be funded, but around the governance arrangements, I'll not comment at this stage. David Bell wants to come in. Just to say, I suppose that I'm less constrained than Lee. I listened to Derek Feeley in the earlier session making a very good case for the national care service, but I do worry a little bit about what that leads for local government, because their functions will be further depleted as a result of the establishment of the national care service. Having already lost police and fire services, it seems to me that there is an issue around attracting people into local government, both in terms of professionals and elected members. As functions are drawn away, the attractiveness of that route seems to me to be potentially declining and we would need some further investigation, because we are a relatively centralised country. Further centralisation always seems to be an issue that ought to be considered very carefully on democratic grounds. Bring it back to the financial sustainability of NHS boards. You want to come back on that? If we could focus on that, that would be helpful for this session. Thank you very much. We spoke about centralisation in Scotland, but it is also very diverse. In terms of trying to identify how we might want to change how NHS boards are allocated their money, because that is one of the issues with integration right now, that the money goes from the acute service to the primary care and social. What other models are you looking at in terms of what might be considered as best practice across other areas? Why do not we ask the King's Fund? Sorry, my lenses have gone, and I cannot see any of the faces at the moment. Thank you, convener. I am really sorry, but I have asked half of the question. I have got as far as allocation to acute services that then get devolved to primary care. What other models of funding might be appropriate for us to look at this national care service? Great. Thanks for that. I have never seen a model that is demonstrably better than the other. I think that other models include that. In this country, we are broadly looking at three different models. One is a contractual model that binds together health and care organisations broadly for the totality of their services. Take a patch like Greater Manchester, let a contract that basically says that all of you organisations have to work together to improve the health and wellbeing of the population of Manchester, and you get a single lump sum allocation that you decide, as a local system, how you want to divvy up to best meet that goal of improving the health and wellbeing of the population. The second model that we are looking at is more structural, so merging organisations together so that a single budget is used, but it is not a contract binding different parts of the system together. The different parts of the system are now one organisation. If you look at parts of Birmingham, you have primary care services working as part of the acute hostel together with community services, which is basically an integrated provider. The third model is much more disease specific or patient cohort specific, which is, for example, there was a contract in Staffordshire for cancer services, where, again, rather than binding everything together, it was come together to plan how you would improve the health and wellbeing and essentially mortality and morbidity of patients with cancer. If I am being honest of all of those, I have not seen any evidence that one is better than the other, partly because I say two reasons. First of all, you can do whatever you want, but if you have not got the wider conditions for success, which are enough staff, long-term planning and clarity of the strategic direction of travel, then the contract cannot overcome all of those. The second element is much less technical, purely down to leadership. If I look at parts of Tameside and Gossip and I see how they have come together across the council and the NHS to tackle rough sleeping, the contract and the structure came years after leaders coming together to say that our current model was broken because people who were sleeping rough are ending up in hospital because we are cutting services like bed and breakfast provision. What if we were to say that there is one Manchester pound and the best way to invest that is to have those preventative services and they sorted out the contract afterwards, so it was culture before form? I think that it is worth looking at a menu of options, but, with the recognition, it can get you so far. Can I pick this up? Obviously, the system that is used at the moment in Scotland is the NRAC formula. I wonder if any of our panellists would like to highlight some of the issues that there are with that, because that is the crux of the matter. That is the formula that has been used right now, but what else is out there that might address some of the concerns that has been around that formula? I am looking for anybody who wants to come in first on that. Can I come to David Bell? This is the allocation to health boards, which is basically driven by the kind of formula that also drives allocations to local government, which is essentially around estimates of need, principally driven by population, but then by demographic structure, levels of deprivation and so on. I have had a lot of experience with those kinds of formulae, whether you can fine-tune them to improve their performance. Clearly, there are areas that feel they are hard done to in relation to that. There was a long period, I think, where Grampian felt that it was getting insufficient money, given the issues that it faced. Part of the problem is that a lot of this is hidden. People do not understand how those determinations are made. Bringing that out into the general public discourse so that there was some understanding would be useful, but I would hesitate to say, oh yes, I have a better formula that will result in reduction in Scotland's health inequalities in the near future. It is, I think, a wider problem than that. It goes back to our earlier discussion about social and economic circumstances, which will not be resolved simply by allocations to health boards. Just to agree with Professor Bell and to try and provide a shorter but better answer to the question than I did before, which is that we use a very similar resource allocation formulae in England, which is broadly weighted capitation. You can tweak the parameters and inputs how much weighting is given to deprivation. I have not seen a fundamentally better way of allocating healthcare resources than by weighting capitation with the usual components of deprivation in age. If you want to fundamentally change things, there is as much to be done in how that money is used once it has been allocated to a health board, then changing how the money is centrifugally flung across the country. Thank you. David Walsh wants to come in. I was just a very brief follow-on from what David Bell said. I agree with what he said in terms of the complexity of how things are measured, but one of the things that he does is try to take into account deprivation. I would add on to that that deprivation is not measured terribly well in some respects. I think that what has happened in the last 10 years, in terms of, as I mentioned before, the impact of austerity, is that we are not capturing some of those additional levels of poverty, which also interact with some really pertinent issues at the moment in terms of the really high rates of drug deaths, for example, that we are seeing in particular areas such as Dundee, which have measures of deprivation that are similar to other places that do not have those issues. I am not suggesting a better formula, as it has been hinted. It is very complicated, but I think that there are some potential tweaks around understanding aspects of deprivation that the current formula maybe is not quite picking up. Thank you, and I certainly hear that around rural poverty as well in my area. I am going to come to Sandesh Gohani, who has got some questions about financial sustainability. I wanted to just ask about the way that the money will be used and is used. So my understanding is that a board gets its money through its funding. This is then divided up into its allocations, into its divisions and allocated. With the person, with the money, the thing that I always hear is clinicians saying that they are not able to use that money. So my question really is about who is the determinant of how that money is spent, is it clinicians or is it managers and who do you feel it should be? Who would you like to direct that to, first of all, Sandesh? Can I start with David, please? David Bell or Walsh? Sorry, David Walsh. I think that the correct answer was Bell, because I do not do any research into aspects of health funding within the NHS board, so the other David may be a better bet for us. It may not be my first choice subject, but clearly there has to be clinical input around the decisions that are made by health boards, but there also has to be an overall strategic view and it has to reflect the challenges within the area that are faced. I would suggest that it is not always the case that clinicians have the strategic picture of what is happening so that there has to be somewhere where those views are all brought together and decisions are made. Obviously, I think that clinicians have to be involved, but it is not entirely clear to me that it should be clinician driven. We are going to go on to our final questions. Stephanie Callann has some more questions on the integration of health and social care. I will direct that to Lee and Siva. I think that they are probably trying to get me to come in and suggest something else. I will also mention that I am an elected councillor at South Lanarkshire as well. Earlier on, we had Lee speaking about the systems management approach. Currently, certainly we have IJBEs and we have health and social care partnership directors who have got quite a difficult role there as well working between chief executives in health and also in local councils too there. Certainly, pre-COVID, there has been some success in freeing up hospital beds through preventative care in upskilling staff, preventing admissions, quicker hospital discharges and shifting funding into care and treatments that are delivered in patients' homes. I wonder how, moving forward with the NCS and the much bigger scope that we are looking at there, how do we achieve that much bigger shift from hospital to community care and how is it that we make that funding work and get the right culture and the thoughts in place for that to happen? I recognise what you are talking about, as you know, South Lanarkshire was one of our case studies in our integration report and the moving of money and reducing hospital beds. As I said again, I can only refer to our previous report on integration. I think that it is important that we learn the lessons from what has been difficult through health and social care integration. The collaboration and agreement that is needed for the reforms going forward has been difficult to achieve elsewhere. I think that the six key areas—again, I am going back to those that we identified—still have much relevance for the proposed reforms. As I was saying, the collaborative leadership is trying to encourage people to think about the outcomes of their community rather than what they are trying to achieve for a single organisation around good financial planning—longer-term financial planning—so that you can, as we have already talked about, plan some of that disinvestment and reinvestment that is required to shift resources from the acute hospital into community, effective strategic planning, making sure that your priorities are linked to your resources and that you are clear about the outcomes that you are trying to achieve, and the other area that we identified was around the grade governance and accountability, particularly around clinical governance, for example, being clear about where the decisions lie and when someone is no longer responsible for something. The issues around data are still key. How can we appropriately share data across the system so that people do not have to repeat their story? Of course, the other issue is that a lack of data to understand what is going on in community care, social care and primary care makes it difficult to understand activity and plan for what needs to change and the outcomes that you are trying to achieve. The other thing that we have already talked about is the on-going, meaningful and sustained engagement with the community, with the public and with the service users. As I have said, we need to take them along with us in terms of the way that we reshape services because it needs a culture change in the public as well as staff. Stephanie, you wanted to address Siva as well. Thank you. I will say four things very quickly. One, as you said, is to be absolutely crystal clear on accountability. Are you now, as a board, jointly accountable for the entire pathway because the default otherwise will be once the patient has been medically fit for discharge and has left the organisation, my accountability as a condition ends? The second thing would be that there is a strong argument for building outwards globally from particular services or opportunities where there is better evidence that joint working works. Safe discharge into a new setting is one, a second would be around end-of-life care and a third would be around rough sleeping. I say that just because I have seen too many instances where the health and care organisations come together to try and either boil the ocean or focus on things that are really an NHS-specific issue. I vividly remember a councillor saying, why am I sitting in meetings for three hours talking about a joint venture on pathology? This has got nothing to do with me. End-of-life care, I can absolutely see why we need to all be in this room. The third one, speaking to the point that I have been doing, has been any big strategic change programme. It includes just making sure that you spend time together. There is one group of chief execs in the south-west of England that every Friday afternoon they carve out and spend time together to understand each other's needs. All we need is to trust each other. We do not have to get along or even like each other, but we do need to trust and understand each other. There have been quite tactical tasks that have been set for organisations such as going away. Everyone in this health board, health and care board, go away and make one decision by the next meeting that is to the detriment of your organisation but the benefit of the system. The third thing tactically is that I have seen time and time again that people who train together and learn together in some way work better together, so opportunities for joint training and working. The fourth and final thing is about almost a reality check. Almost every piece of evidence that I have seen is quite clear that integrated care can deliver better value and a better value outcome for the inputs that we give a health and care system. It is very ropey evidence that it saves money. If the task for setting people is to improve value, great. If it is to take loads of cash out of a system, I think that that is going to create the wrong dynamic and the wrong tension setting them up to fail. Thank you. We have come to the end of our time today. I want to thank all of our panellists from this panel and the one before for the time that they have spent with us. It has been very valuable as we think about our work programme and our financial scrutiny of the upcoming budgets. So our next meeting on 5 October, the committee will consider a legislative consent memorandum, and we will discuss that future work programme. That concludes the public part of our meeting today. Thank you all.


Hi, I'm Zor. Welcome to Unisor Education. Today is a little bit unusual lecture. Usually it's all abstract mathematics, etc. Today's lecture is about physics, more precisely about theory of relativity, special theory of relativity. Einstein, many, many years ago, wrote an article called Electrodynamics, where he basically derived the formulas of special theory of relativity, how coordinates are changing from one system to another, moving relative to the first one. Quite frankly, I didn't understand many of the physical aspects of what he was writing about, and I kind of didn't like the fact that he used a lot of intuitive physical thinking in derivation of his formulas. So, as a mathematician, I was thinking about maybe it can be done truly mathematically. Whatever the formulas of special relativity, of transformation of coordinates he could come up with, can it be really just derived very simply? I'm sure many other people did something like this before me, so I would not pretend to be like an inventor, discoverer of anything new. But for me, for myself personally, that was something which was new, and I didn't read about this before, I just did it myself, and I was quite satisfied with the results. Now, why am I basically including this in this particular course? Well, because it's about systems of linear equations. It's a practical implementation of the systems of linear equations to a purely physical problem. So, my task was, from certain physical aspects, derive system of linear equations, and then basically solve this system to derive the formula of transformation of coordinates. And that's exactly what I'm going to do right now. I will try to be as mathematical as possible. However, there are certain physical aspects, but quite elementary actually, which you would agree with me that even a mathematician can actually accept without any kind of a problem. All right, so, let me go, and I would like to start from certain principles, certain axioms, if you wish, on which the whole system of equations is built. So, the first thing is, what are we talking about? We are talking about the following. Consider we have two systems of coordinates, one and another. So, these are upper cases, X and T, and these are lower cases. Now, X represents a space dimension, and T represents time dimension. So, as we know, our physical dimension is basically 3D, we have X, Y and Z, and we can add the time parameter, like a force dimension. Now, I would like to concentrate on the movements within one particular coordinate, X, it's much easier. To extend it to three-dimensional case is basically truly a technical aspect, which I don't want to deal with right now. So, let's consider we have a one-dimensional space and a dimension, one extra dimension, which is the time. So, this is one system of coordinates. Another system of coordinates is moving relative to the first one with a constant speed of 3, as measured in this particular coordinate system. So, if you are an observer sitting here, this particular coordinate is moving with the constant speed V. Okay. So, that's something which we can consider as given. Now, next thing is, let's consider there is certain process which we observe in this particular system, and this process is changing basically. It's object, if you wish. It's changing its coordinate, which is X, and obviously the time also is changing. So, it produces certain trajectory in this particular system. Now, coordinates which we mark capital X and capital G in this particular coordinate system are describing position at time of this particular object in this system. Now, how about an observer which is sitting in this particular system, which is moving, and observes exactly the same process? Well, obviously whatever coordinate X and T where in this coordinate, in this coordinate system will be different in this, because this system is moving. So, the question is how based on just this information that this system is moving relatively to this system with a constant speed V, how the coordinates will look in this system if you know coordinates in this system? Classical Newtonian mechanics actually says very simple. Time is exactly the same, and as for space coordinate, so if this thing has coordinate X, then this system, the coordinates of the same point in this system would be minus VT, right? Because this system is moving, so at time T it will move by this particular distance. So, if you take this particular point, at time T coordinate X in this particular system, in this it will be X minus VT because the whole coordinate will move relative to this one by the amount of VT. So, this is a simple Newtonian approach. Well, great, but now we had a very interesting observation, which was physical observation, the experiment of Michelson, which actually says that measured in both systems, moving and standing still, speed of light is exactly the same. Now, it's impossible in the Newtonian sense, because in this particular case speed, which is actually the ratio between the increment of the distance divided by the increment of time, obviously the speed would be different in this particular case, and the difference would be V. However, if you measure the speed of light in both systems, according to the experiment of Michelson, speed moves with exactly the same speed, light moves with exactly the same speed in both systems. And somehow, it means that these equations, well, either they do not reflect the way how light is actually moving, they are not universal, or we have to, you know, change equations to make them universal. And that's exactly what Einstein did. He came up with a different transformation formula, not this one, but different one, which if used, it will actually show that really speed of light moves with exactly the same, is exactly the same in both systems, standing still and moving. And that's what I would like actually to derive using the systems of linear equation. So, I don't have this, but what I do have is that there is certain object which is light in this case, but it doesn't really matter from the mathematical standpoint. There is certain object, speed of which is exactly the same as measured in both systems. This is another, like an axiom, which I would like to add. So, one axiom is that the system, lowercase xt is moving with a constant speed relative to this one. And the second axiom which I would like to add is the speed of some object is constant, it's c, and yes, physical essence of this object is light, but it's irrelevant. So, there is an object which has a constant speed as measured in this and in this coordinate system. Alright, so that's given. Now let's talk about mathematics. First of all, we obviously assume that at moment g, which is equal to zero, both coordinates are at the same place at the same time. So, in the beginning of the time, we have both coordinates at the same place, which means that if g equals to zero, then x equals to zero, which is the coordinate system. At this moment, lowercase g and x both are equal to zero. That's what it means that both systems coincide at moment g. So, this is also a given thing. It just makes our life easier. What else I'm looking for? Well, I'm looking for transformation of coordinates, not the ones which I have just written, which are Newtonian transformation, which we know are not true for life, but some other transformation. So, basically, from purely mathematical standpoint, I would like to write a transformation of this kind, a linear transformation from capital X, capital T coordinates to lowercase x and t coordinates. So, from constantly positioned, from a standing still coordinate system, transformation into the coordinates of the moving system. And that's what, basically, we are looking for. Now, in the elementary case of Newtonian mechanics, as I was saying before, t is equal to capital T, and lower x is equal to capital X minus dT. But in, in, in spinon, in spinon mechanics, in the theory of relativity, where the light has constant speed c, we are looking for something else. And now, our problem, actually, our task is to find these coefficients. Well, first of all, because of this condition, if T is equal, if capital T is equal to zero and capital X is equal to zero, then the lower capital, lower t and x are equal to zero. So, the systems coincide at the very beginning. What follows is that these are equal to zero. So, we don't have these three constants. That makes our life easier. So, we are looking for this particular system. Now, let's think about what kind of conditions on P, Q, R and S we can impose to basically find these values and that what actually will constitute the transformation of co-ordinate. So, we are dealing with a problem of finding one, two, three, four, four unknown variables. And for these four unknown variables, I would like to put together a system of linear equations. The result of solving which would give me these coefficients. And that's what actually is needed. And that's where the mathematics of it will take. All right. So, we know what we want to find. We don't need these pictures anymore. And if we will, I will draw it again. So, let's think about what kind of equations we need. Now, there is some piece of knowledge which you might not actually be familiar with. It's very simple one. And it's very simple to formulate. It's a little bit more involved to basically explain and maybe in some further lectures I will dedicate certain amount of attention to this particular principle. The principle is as follows. You see, we are transforming co-originates from one system to another. But we don't want something like, let's say, the distance between two different points to be different if I measure it in this system rather than in that system. Now, as a consequence of this, we will probably don't have, we would say, angles to measure differently in one system versus another. Because these linear transformations of co-ordinates can be stretching, can be changing the position, et cetera. So, I don't mind to change the co-ordinates in some way except I don't want the distance between the points to be measured differently. So, if I will measure the distance between two points, let's say, capital X1 and the capital T1 and capital X2 and capital T2, and then I measure based on this transformation the corresponding co-ordinates in the moving system, lower case, X and T. I would like to have the same results. How can I achieve this? Well, there is a very simple rule which is called orthogonality of the transformation. So, transformation should be not deforming and the criteria if you have an equation, system of equations like this to transform co-ordinates from one to another is very, very simple. It's P times S minus Q times R is equal to 1. I don't want to get into why I know about this. There is a whole theory of this. It's known, it's established, well-established in mathematics and I realize that you might not know it. However, just take it as a phase, basically. This criteria is the one and only criteria which is needed for this transformation to be non-deforming. And this actually constitutes my first equation. I have to say this is not a linear equation, but nevertheless the others will be a little bit better, but we are looking for linear transformation of the co-ordinates. Now, we've got this particular equation. That's one. We have four different variables in four equations. All right, let's continue. Okay. Now, let's think about this. Since one co-ordinate system is moving relatively to another co-ordinate system at constant speed V, then let's think about what happens at moment t. So this is our first equation, second equation. Let's talk about moment t and x is our co-ordinate and I'm looking only about point which has a co-ordinate x is equal to 0. So what happens with this particular point, what exactly are co-ordinates of this particular point in the moving system? Well, if moving system is moving at the constant speed V, it means that this point which is the beginning of co-ordinates at moment t would have co-ordinates like this. This is one. This is another. So these are x and t. These are x and t. So what is co-ordinate of this system? Well, at any moment t, at any moment t, its co-ordinate along the x is 0 because it's the beginning of the co-ordinate at any moment t. Now, what is this particular co-ordinate relatively, this particular point has co-ordinate in this particular system? Well, since this is moving with a constant speed V, at the time t, it will be on the distance V t from the beginning, speed multiplied by time. So what I would like to say that this particular point has co-ordinates t 0 in this co-ordinate and capital T V t in this co-ordinate. So what does it mean? It means that our transformation and let me write down again our transformation here. So we were talking about x is equal to px plus qt and t is equal to rx plus st. So if I substitute instead of t and x, I will substitute these which are the time and co-ordinate of the 0 point of the moving system. In the moving system, I will get t and 0. So let's just substitute it and what we will have. Instead of x, I will put V t. Instead of t, it will be t. Instead of this x, it will be 0 and instead of tt. So my system would look like this. z is equal to p V t plus qt and t is equal to r V t plus st. This is something which I don't really need right now but I do need this. So I just factored out t. But now let's think about this way. This is supposed to be true for any time moment t. How can it be done only by having this equals to 0? Since t can be innocent. And this constitutes my second equation. So p V plus q is equal to 0. This is my second equation. p V plus q is equal to 0. This is my second equation. And again, this equation I basically derived based on the fact that the moving system of co-ordinate has a beginning with lower case x co-ordinate is 0. And the same point in the non-moving system has x co-ordinate as V t. Because V is a constant speed at which it's moving. And from this I have derived this particular equation. Now, next. Now let's remember this speed of light being the same in both systems. It's very interesting consideration. What is the speed of light in the moving system? If I have an object which is moving in the space relatively to the moving system, its co-ordinate will be t and c t. Always. So at any moment t, if this particular object, a ray of light, started from the beginning of the co-ordinate, then at time t it will be on this distance from the beginning of the co-ordinate. Now, what will be its co-ordinates in the system which is not moving? Well, that will be its co-ordinates. Because it's exactly the same thing, exactly the same speed, the time would be capital T. And the distance it will travel be c times t. So what's interesting is that this particular and this particular co-ordinates, one in the moving system, another in the system which then still are supposed to be related by the same original equation. So that's basically what I wanted to say. So if x is equal to capital X t, lowercase x is equal to this. So now let's go back to our original system of equations which is x is equal to p x plus q t and t is equal to r x plus s t. Instead of x we will substitute c t with a capital T and we have to get c t with a lower t because this is lowercase x. So we will have c t equals t instead of x c t, capital C t plus q t and t is equal to r c t plus s t. That's what we get. Now I need the relationship between p, q, r and s, right? So what I will do, I will substitute this t instead of this. And what I will get? I will get c times this thing which is r c square t plus s c t equals p c t plus q t. That's what I will get. And obviously t can be factored out and reduced so I will have r c square plus c s is equal to p c plus q plus q. That's right? r c square, yes. So this is my third equation which connects p and q and r and s. We need four, right? We have four independent variables. Now the fourth equation is exactly similar to the third one but instead of light going from the beginning of the coordinates towards this direction, send the ray of light to the opposite direction. Now no matter which direction I will send the ray of light, its speed is exactly the same and its c no matter what. But now the equation would look just very, very slightly different because at the moment capital C, the position relative to this system would be minus c t. The position relative to this system would be t minus c t. So this coordinates are transformed into these coordinates. And we will use exactly the same approach as before. Lower case x which is minus c t is equal to p capital X which is minus c t plus q t. And t is still r minus c t plus s. Now substitute this t into this. What do I get? I get minus c times this. So it would be minus c times this. It would be minus r c square t. Then minus s c t equals minus p c t plus q t. That's what I will get. Now again reducing by t, I will get r c square minus s c equals minus p c plus q. This is my fourth and the last needed equation. Now c is a constant. So I have everything here which is needed to find p, q, r and s because everything else c and v are constants. So all I need is to solve this system of equations which by the way is relatively easy and I will show you how. These are linear, these are linear and these are linear. So three linear equations except one has the power of two basically. So the way how I will solve it is for instance I can express this q as a function of d. q is equal to minus p v and substitute it into this and this. Well before doing that I can actually eliminate something. So let me add and subtract these two together. If I will add my s c would disappear and my p c and minus p c would disappear. So I will have r c square equals q. Well actually two r c square equals two q but I will reduce by two. Now if I will subtract from this I will subtract this. Now my r c square and q would disappear but what is left would be s c and p c. So s c equals to p c which basically means s is equal to p. Now I can use this, substitute it into this and I will get minus p v and what do I have now? I have q, r and s all expressed in terms of p and I can substitute it into the first equation q, r and s and I will get basically a second degree quadratic equation for p. Okay let me try. I hope I will not get lost in these calculations. So instead of s we can put p so it's p square minus q, r, q and r. So q is minus p v, r is minus p v divided by c square and that's equal to one. So this is a quadratic equation which gives me the value of p. Alright let's try to solve it. So we have p square minus minus and minus so it will be still minus. p square v square divided by c square equals to 1 am I right? Looks fine. From which p square equals to 1 over 1 minus v square c square. So I factored out p square. I have 1 minus v square over c square and then I divided 1 over. So p is actually a square root of this. Now if I know p I can basically find all the rest of these. So I don't need this anymore I hope and I'm basically ready to write down the transformation. x is equal to p capital x. So instead of p I will put this. So it's p divided by plus q, plus q t. Now instead of q I will put minus p v, oh this is x obviously and this is t minus p v divided by same, no I'm sorry. Instead of p I have to, instead of q I have to put this. So instead of q I have to put this. Now so it's v over this. Right so I can put minus here and I think this is the formula. Or I can factor out, I don't need this p. This is 1. That's what it is. So p is 1 over this x plus q which is v over this with a minus sign and t. That's the right way. So what I will do here I will do it this way. It's a common denominator so I will put it here. x minus v, x minus v t on the top and I will have this. That's my transformation of x. Now transformation of time. By the way speaking about transformation of x, if you remember Newtonian mechanics had only x minus v t. Now the Einstein's relativity theory adds this particular multiplier and that's what actually makes the whole thing different. This is, this quotient, this factor multiplier is a hallmark of a special theory of relativity. That's what makes speed of light the constant. Now about transformation of time. Well in Newtonian mechanics time is absolute. It's not changing from one system to another. In this case it does change. So it's r x plus s t. So instead of r and s we will substitute its values. So r e is minus p v over c square p is this. So it would be minus v over c square and this multiplier. That's r which is v over c square minus and over this. Right. Plus s t plus s which is p which is the same thing. So it's t. And here we can say that it's t minus v over c square. So it's t minus v over c square times this same famous factor. So this is the answer to our problem. This is how time and space coordinates are transformed in theory of relativity. Again in the Newtonian mechanics we have only t. Lowercase t and capital T are the same because the same absolute. In Einstein's relativity theory this is a shortening of time. So the system is moving and the time is shortening. If you read some popular things about relativity theory you would notice something like paradox of twins etc. And that's actually what explains it. This is the reason, mathematical reason. So this lecture is basically an exercise in how pure mathematics can solve physical problem using a relatively robust and rigorous approach. I basically assumed certain things about coordinate system moving relative to another coordinate system with a constant speed. And what's very important, the result of experiment made by Michael Sun that the speed of light is exactly the same whether it's measured in a constantly positioned system versus moving relative to this coordinate system. Now out of these two, well you can call it axioms if you wish or prepositions, everything else is derived purely mathematical, purely logical without any kind of intuition, physical consideration, thinking, etc. And these are the equations which exactly correspond to what Einstein derived in his famous article about electrodynamics more than a hundred years ago, which was the beginning of the theory of relativity. Okay, so just an exercise in systems of equations. As you saw my system of equations for P, Q, R and S was almost linear, I mean three linear equations in one quadratic. And that gives me a linear transformation of coordinate from one system into another relatively according to the relativity theory. There are notes to this particular lecture. They are at unison.com as usually where all these prerequisites and calculations are listed. I do recommend you to go through these notes again. It would be just a nice exercise and again it's something which is a rare in this particular course, a rare connection to some real life. It's not just abstract math, it's an application of abstract math to a physical problem. That's it. Thank you very much.


So, the other talk is basically because of your interest in knowing what we are doing in the first year undergraduate lab. So, basically the lecture what I was giving I was instructor earlier, but now I am not. But whatever lecture I used to give to the first year students I have kind of edited and I thought I will show you so that you get I mean I am sure most of the things will be repetition for you, but since you wanted I thought I will show you. Okay, this as I mentioned they do it in the first year, first semester and second semester. So, the contact details some of you wanted so I have written all the details either through mostly you can actually write to us through email. Mr. Anand Raoth was there the other than that day. He was instrumental in setting up the lab not only here in some other places also. Mr. Wag is a actual lab in charge. We can always contact him. He is very helpful anytime you have any difficulty you can always contact us. So, the suppliers you were asking about the suppliers our experiments mostly I mean earlier and some of them now there is this company called Ossova in Ambala. I am sure even if you do a Google you cannot get all the things and as you have seen the other things if you have money if you are rich enough or if you are patient enough to age 50 years like what we did you can try this thing. KTV is a very reputed company global market they have very highly reputed they have an interagent I am not doing an advertisement for them this that I called Alcat they are based in Delhi. So, they do all the things and the advantage is that they can actually get lot of components fabricated locally so that the price actually comes down. So, whatever is possible they will make and they will produce a size accordingly. So, the objectives of this lab are to demonstrate the theoretical concepts of some of the experiments not all 8 experiments right now we are managing. As I mentioned again training for a planning of an experiment and try to get reliable results with the kind of accuracies or error that are there always is the main training that is there. They are also trained to have a training on I mean on this meticulous data collection and that is a thing. The experiments what you have seen I have listed here again we have single slit diffraction basically to verify the uncertainty principle strictly speaking this can be made double slit also and also if you in principle we can use it as an electron thing also if you have an electron source one can do that the usual quantum mechanics double slit experiment to prove the uncertainty principle the idea is this one grating spectrometer of course we do dispersive power LCR circuit we have resonance frequency and Q factor centrifugal force again you have seen basically as a function of mass frequency of rotation and the distance Fresnel bipresum they used to find out the wavelength least diskies to find out the thermal conductivity of a power conductor Helmholtz coil and torque Helmholtz coil is very standard torque is to get the to measure the torque of the on the current loop which acts as a magnetic dipole E by M essentially uses Lorentz force ok. So what I this I do not know whether you are doing it or what we are actually giving them is a very introductory training on error analysis I am let me tell you that this is not a rigorous error analysis if you look at a text when a standard book you will see that we have diluted it but this is a basic training that is given. So suppose they have a graph where it is linear something like this so what they do is they have to plot this so the graph will be something like this and they do what is known as a best fit line and they get the slope for example and they do this is what they were doing earlier before they came to IIT they are done what now they are asked to do is they have to find out associated with the slope what is the error that is there because there is a fluctuation in the data the fluctuation comes because of the random errors and you know the problem of significant digits and accuracy this I am sure you know for example if you find out want to find out the length of this rod using this scale I can only tell that it is between 4 and 5 centimeters anything more if I make a statement it is going to be observed similarly here it is definitely I can tell it is ok it can be 4.6 to 4.7 if I tell that it is because like calculated gives you anything if I tell that the length is 4 point something something something it is it is just ridiculous it does not mean anything. So that is the thing so of course for that one should know this thing this anyway you know the significant digits which are very important in determining the error and the analysis. So the what we are actually asking you to do is only the various errors but we ask them to do only the random error random error means error that is coming and which can be kind of taken care when you do it in repeated times. So basically the random fluctuations of this data that is what is being addressed when they are asked to find out the random error. So I will give you a specific example this one suppose there was a really an offset like this one this is a systematic error we do not ask them to do anything assume that there is no systematic error but even then if I do many measurements like in the case of simple pendulum if I try to find out the time period if I do n number of times I will get different values. So that is the thing that is asked to worry about. Now what we know is we have this things all of you know the average which they have done earlier now this is the standard deviation they we have to define basically we find out with respect to the average what is a deviation the square the mean square that is what is taken here this is taken as the least count if there are only two measurements this becomes the least count if I mean in the random error if there is nothing given the least count divided by 2 is taken as the least the error. This is a main issue the suppose a formula involves of this this kind of expressions the corresponding error the absolute errors f corresponding to this one is delta f they are the ones like this one this is a very simple differential calculus we use this this is not rigorously correct but we just take it as in the first case. So what we do is these are all the fractional errors this is the absolute error what I have to do is they from the mean value what they have been doing earlier also we have this f average assume that we are looking at f quantity f so they know the f average using the formula from the formula of this kind they can find out what is delta f by f by calculation. So if I multiply the 2 I will get delta f so that will allow me to write the result as f plus or minus delta f then but delta f also the calculator will give you a number of digits where do I do that so that is what is done the position of the most significant digit in the error the absolute error that is taken and only up to that limit the main result also will be quoted like for example suppose you are trying to find out the measurement and the lambda measurement the lambda average you got it as 5885 using sodium lamp suppose your calculation you have some formula you do did that differential thing you got delta lambda by lambda as this one your calculator gave me I gave this one. So the delta lambda will be the product of these two again I will get so many digits you see the digits we are getting. So what is done is we take the most significant digit here that is 2 and it is in the 10th position it becomes 20 so the error associated with this is written as 20 and correspondingly by this fellow will also be taken the 10th position it is 8 but the next one is 5 5 or more I take it as the next one I will write as 5890 so it becomes 5890 plus or minus 20 so this is the way we do it for almost all the things just to give an idea where the blunder can happen is this one you are measuring the g the last slide you are measuring the g assume that my measurement due to whatever calculation I got this one suppose these are the delta g values I am getting the absolute error for g after doing this calculation multiplication suppose I am getting this one that means the estimation is very good so that means I can write most significant digit is actually the fourth decimal it is very very high accurate the accurate so I can write my value as 9 again there also the main result also I can go up to fourth decimal so I write it as 9.8326 plus or minus again the fourth decimal suppose it was not that good I will get only this my most significant digit is third decimal correspondingly this also will be truncated to third decimal here it is truncated to second decimal and so on so this is what is told them this is really for this mistake we really penalize them if there is no mercy on it even if they do some other mistake but this part they have to really really do without anything this much they should understand this is something which generally they have been appreciating over generations they have been appreciating as a main training they are getting from this lab I mean I am talking about these things were implemented earlier when we had very crude experiments not these fancy experiments what you have seen now when we had a very old experiments we were implementing it this you can also do that I mean not a difficult thing at all ok so this they should know that if I write 9.8 and 9.80 there is a difference there is a big difference that they should know I think engineering students definitely should know this different the references of course I am here I should acknowledge the first year lab team consists of various many many people over many I should sell generations people have contributed especially professor major who had a big contribution in the development of this manual and so on so after that any anything I mean can write and these all these things I will put in the your movie thank you.


Good morning. Thank you for joining us this morning. My name is Jonathan Regear, and this is James Stueve, Stuvy? Stevie, sorry. We both work for Garmin, a little about the company. We were founded in 1989. Our revenues this year are targeting around three billion dollars. We're on the on the scale of a Fortune 100 company, although because our official base is Switzerland, we don't actually show up on the Fortune list. And we make GPS products. You may know us for the Nuvi, which is the car navigation product. However, our first product is actually in an airplane. We build really amazing glass cockpit systems for companies like Cessna, Beechcraft, and Lear. We're also huge in fitness. We make some really awesome watches. We do marine and outdoors as well. We also just released a product called Verb 360. Think something like a GoPro, except you've got two cameras and they're shooting a 360 degree field at all times and you can, if you load the video footage on your phone and you start turning the footage turns with you. So that's a pretty amazing product, your Move GoPro. A little history on our our cloud native journey. So we started our first introduction to Cloud Foundry was in December of 2013 at one of our company Hackathons. We started deploying to Pivotal Web Services and had had a great time there and learned a lot. Knew we needed to, we needed to move down this path. At that point we didn't have any Cloud Foundry foundations. All of our deployments were manual. We were deploying about two times a month. Emergency releases as necessary, but those were kind of... There was a big deal and nobody wanted to do them. So we didn't do a lot of those. Our dev culture was done, man, hey, I got something in the code review and done to our customers, of course, was 60 days later by the time that that software actually made it to production. All our production at that point was VMs and our VMs were vastly over provisioned. We'll talk more about that a little bit later. So here's a little overview of our journey. We've had a couple of Pivotal Dojos. We've made significant time and money investments in automation. We've got production applications now running in Cloud Foundry. We're shooting for Cloud Native and everything we do. Later on we'll talk a little bit about where we are now and Garmin Labs. So I'm gonna start with our first Pivotal Dojo in February 2015. I call this Dojo Lite. We saw Cloud Foundry and we knew we needed to have Cloud Foundry running locally and so we were going to install it very quickly. Thanks in large part to our Pivotal Rep. He rounded up a band of Pivotal Gunslingers and brought them in to help us get that done. And the reason I call this Dojo Lite is because we didn't really do a lot of the prep work that we needed to do. And the slide here with Neo, I chose this picture because yeah, we had a Dojo and if you think about Neo at this point in the movie, he goes, I know Kung Fu.  And that's really what happened to us. A lot of times doing software or doing the hardware we do, building GPS's for aviation, building car GPS's, we're really good at building hardware. We build some really amazing stuff. Our autopilots are second to none and that's a whole other topic. So we have this thing called the Garmin Way which is basically, hey, this is how we do things and it's worked really well for us. Well, when you come to something like Cloud Foundry where you have a team of 600 people building this amazing platform it's a dumb idea not to listen to what they say. So take it from us, if they tell you this is a bad idea, you should install your platform this way. That's a great thing to listen to. So our first platform that we stood up, it was a success. It was certainly not production grade and that is nothing on the platform that was on us on how we employed it. And we learned it was a good time to move ahead down the road from there. So then for real, we started a true dojo with all of the planning that comes with that process in May of 2016. It was an eight week process. The first four weeks we took and we built a production grade Cloud Foundry. That Cloud Foundry is still running today and it runs production applications. The next four weeks of the dojo, we brought four different teams in and the goal was to take their applications and make them cloud native one week at a time and run production. That was a little bit optimistic. We did take production traffic on one of those applications but the other ones weren't quite ready. They are mostly running on production now or running on Cloud Foundry in production now. But again, that was one of those things where Pivotal said you should take a little bit longer when you bring a product or bring a group in. And we were like, no, no, no, we want to expose as many people as we can. So Garmin away again, our bad. So obviously doing Cloud Foundry, you must do automation from my perspective. Yes. It's my joy at Garmin to be kind of responsible from an IT perspective to get us into CI CD and make sure we're doing automation as much as possible. So obviously we want to automate all the things. Jonathan started out in automation with Jenkins jobs that were several Jenkins jobs linked together, which was extremely brittle, kind of hard to maintain, copy, paste reuse. It was kind of a pain. So I said, no, don't do that. It was great. It was a good place to start, but it wasn't a good place to stay. And so I looked at concourse, to be honest with you. And at that time, that was a while ago. Concourse has made leaps and bounds since then, but you needed to install it in Bosch back then. And I did not have anybody who could do that for me. They were all busy doing other things. And so because of that, we really went with Jenkins. It had developer familiarity. People were comfortable with it. And I can reuse existing infrastructure. So we did it down the Jenkins pipeline path with pipeline as code using Jenkins files. I think that was probably the right approach for us at the time. I'm not saying that Jenkins is always going to be the be all end all. But what it did lead us to was what I would call the pipeline Wild Wild West. Everybody was doing their pipeline their way. And people were copying code. There was, we weren't doing dry at all. There was no reuse at all. And there was one project that had five separate Jenkins files that are essentially identical. And then they needed to make a change. Well, good luck because that's five different changes you're going to have to make and affect five different applications from a deployment perspective. So we have instituted what I would call, go ahead and go to the next slide. What I would call pipelines that are opinionated and it's a shared library pipeline. And I can get somebody up and running with that pipeline in maybe five minutes now. So they copy and paste a Jenkins file and make minor JSON config file change and they're deploying to Cloud Foundry in minutes. So that's kind of a big win for us. The developer doesn't have to know Jenkins. He doesn't have to really understand a lot about how to get his app deployed to Cloud Foundry. He just checks in code and it deploys. But one thing automation we've kind of failed at from my perspective is the feedback loop. Garmin has historically had a QA department that did all of our QA testing for us. And as a developer, you threw it over the wall and hey, test this for me. That culture, which is a change that we're working on making, still exists. And so the developers are not used to actually being responsible for their code all the way through to production. So we really, really need to implement automated acceptance testing. It's something that's on our roadmap. We'll be working on it the rest of the summer probably. Get that going. Then we also need automated security analysis because from our perspective, you never know what the volans are and the dependencies you've got. So we'll be doing static analysis on a lot of our stuff and some real-time analysis on things that are key. For us, automation is about failing fast. So I want to talk through a couple of apps that we have in production today. On the left where it says help starts here, that is our support portal. If you have questions or issues with your Garmin products and you are in either the US or the UK, you're going to interact with something that looks a lot like this and you will be interacting with Cloud Foundry. And the interesting thing about that app is that's kind of one of our biggest wins to date. The business was highly involved in the development of the application. We started in August of 2016 with kind of a concept approach and by November we had working code in production. It wasn't live to the end users yet, but it was live to our business and they were loving it. And the true, I would call it the true success story is right before we were going... Don't spill the beans yet. Don't spill the beans yet. Right before we were going to go live, there was a bug. And the director of the support group said, hey, we can't go live with this. He sat down with the developer. Literally five minutes later the developer fixed the code, checked it into the repo and it was deployed to Prod within 15 minutes. So he didn't care. Great, we fixed it. Now he trusted us even more. So I think that was the true success story of the... And we live in December or November or something like that. It's going well. Yeah, we have a great product evangelist for Cloud Foundry and that guy now. Yeah, he loves Cloud Foundry. Yeah. Oops, I didn't talk about the other one here. So the other... On the right side, you're looking at our e-commerce platform. And today, if you look at any product detail pages, like for instance, this watch, or if you look at a category of all our wearables or all our automotive or anything like that, you are also dealing with a group of Cloud Foundry web apps and microservices. This app doesn't look like much, but that's our SSO or single sign-on application. And I don't mean single sign-on for our internal domain. This is single sign-on for all of our customers. I don't remember how many millions of customers we have between Kinect and Fly Garmin and some of our other products, but we have, I think we're 20, 50 million somewhere there. We have a ton of customers. And this application is how every single one of them signs on to Kinect, to buy, to what used to be My Garmin, Garmin Express, Fly Garmin. They all sign into this application. Not only that, but every single time they make a request, that request on the backside, their token is validated against SSO to make sure their token is still valid. So this app takes a ton of traffic. We are also hosting a lot of HTML applications, some of our marketing apps, including Garmin Turning Points and probably Wear This. Probably Wear This is kind of a, it's a cheeky little app that gives you kind of a quick interview and then tells you, hey, this is the Garmin product you might want to put on your wrist. It's kind of a fun one. SSO was one of our first applications to take production traffic. And it was also, they still do VMs and the only reason they do is because we don't have Cloud Foundry in China yet. One thing we learned with SSO was how incredibly over-provisioned we were on the VM side. So we have SSO running in two data centers, we have, I think at the moment, we had at the time this went live approximately 12 VMs per data center running SSO. And the two major reasons for that were Christmas Day and the end of the weekend when everyone uploads their run data. And I think at some point we had a production issue and so they scaled up again to make sure that we'd never have that production issue again. But the problem with doing that on VMs is you just stay that way forever. So Christmas comes once a year. We all know that. We're scaled for that. But hey, we're going to just keep all those VMs around all year long. SSO is running on two Cloud Foundry instances in two data centers in production. I think one might be able to handle the load, but it's a terrible idea to run one instance of anything in Cloud Foundry for the reasons that we're spoken about earlier, the previous presentation. You have instances that drop and come back up, all those sorts of things. And the last two releases, that's how many we have sitting around in Cloud Foundry. We have the current running instance that we have, the previous one in case we need to roll back. Those two instances have autoscalar hooked up to them, but they have never recorded a scaling event. So two instances in two data centers are running, our entire production SSO load. Another huge success story for Cloud Foundry is ERP. You want to talk to that? Yeah, so we have a group of developers that are fairly new Java developers and really don't understand how to get things to production. And literally, we stood them up with probably about 10 ERP services that are actually directly accessing our ERP system, and they were able to take those 10 services and probably from inception to working in Cloud Foundry maybe a week. And these are what I would call junior Java developers. I mean, they're pretty experienced developers from a perspective of ERP, but from a Java perspective, they're all newbies and they don't know really what they're doing. So we hook them up with a Spring Boot app and give them this pipeline and they deployed 10 ERP services that are accessing our ERP system in seven days. I mean, that's pretty impressive for people who don't really know what they're doing. So I think it's a huge success story from that perspective. We would never have been able to do that with VMs. No, not a chance. They would have had to understand how to configure Tomcat or something. They would never have figured that out. You can provision the VMs that fast, I don't think. So think Sesame Street for a minute. Your presentation today is brought to you by the number 1100. We have a lot of other numbers, whether we like, but this is the number for today. I like 42. 42 is a good number. 3.14 is a good number. But this is our number today. Why is this our number? This is the number of deployments we made to production in one month in December of 2016. That's about 50 times a day. Just let that sink in a minute. That would not have been possible without Cloud Foundry, without deployment pipelines, and without Spring. On their own, those three things are amazing, but when you put them together, do you get this kind of magic? I should say that kind of magic. So where are we now? We are definitely here. We built it, and they're coming. People are interested in our platform, and they're constantly asking us for access to the platform. I used this slide in 2015 when we were here presenting, and I followed it up with a joke about cat herding, and that is definitely still true. As it turns out, interest has been amazing. We've got it from inside IT and from outside IT. Many groups are now treating Cloud Foundry as their default deployment destination. I heard the other day, I don't know how many people in the room are familiar with GDPR. Not very many. So quick explanation. The EU has come up with a number of what they call general data protection requirements, and the fines for not being compliant with those requirements are huge, like 4% of your revenue. Not $500 a day or anything like that, but huge revenue percentages. For all of the apps that need to be built inside Garmin to comply with GDPR, they're looking at the standard being you have to have a pipeline, you have to have a Spring Boot App, and you have to deploy it to Cloud Foundry. Did you notice the email that Bobby sent this morning? I didn't. So this morning, as of this morning, I got some statistics from essentially what we are lead architect. He says we now have, as of yesterday, I guess, 400 AIs running in production for Cloud Foundry, which is pretty good from our perspective. We added over a 25% increase in AIs from last month to this month, and we anticipate that growth to just continue moving forward. So the developers have bought in, and we're just getting bigger by then all the time. It's good to stick it for him to send me that this morning. So on the joke of cat herding, to prevent those kinds of issues, we definitely have a you have to be this tall to ride this ride mentality on our team, and as we're onboarding people into Cloud Foundry, we are doing 12-factor. That's really important for us. And configuration has been a really interesting thing for us. So when we started down the Cloud Native path, we started to use config server, and we still do. And the original goal was, hey, all your config is going to be in config server, and you're going to consume all your configuration that way. That has come, and it is gone, and we're now looking at config server being kind of a generic place of, hey, where do our services live? And while that seems like it's kind of backward, if you think about a pipeline deployment, sometimes it's faster to just check code in and let the pipeline run and get your app back to production than it is to go change what's in the config server and let that reload the application. So all of our apps are doing zero downtime deployment, so as we make those config changes and we push, we're not taking outages, and config server is still valuable to us. We still use it a lot, but we've ended up configuring our applications pretty much using properties built into our jars. Logging has been a real fun thing for us. With VM development, we were heavy Splunk users, and all of the logging was dropping to file on our VM systems, and then from there we were pushing into Splunk or Elk or other tools like that. Obviously with Cloud Foundry, you don't have files, so that's a bit of a challenge. We also had to turn all of our logging from line-based logging to JSON-based logging, because when you have a log aggregator that's taking multiple instances of your application, and one of them drops a stack trace that interleaves with other logs, and it's almost impossible to tell what's what. So JSON for logging has been a big deal. If we have time at the end, ask us about the stream data platform. We'll tell you a lot more about how we're logging, because we've got some really cool stuff there that will save that for the end and make sure we have enough time. So from a developer education perspective, though, the problem is, is most of our developers don't really understand what a 12-factor app is. They don't really understand how to do the configuration, and they don't really understand logging, so we're still fighting that on a day-to-day basis, and we're continuing looking for better ways to educate our developers, and part of that is something we will talk about briefly in a minute. So where are we going? So from a build pipeline perspective, what I'll follow in the model of Spring anyway is having an opinionated build pipeline. You get a pipeline out of the box, and it's going to make you have it deployed in non-prod and prod, and if you need something else, then that's up to you to figure it out. But that way, I can get people up to speed really, really quickly. We have automated routing with HA proxy, which sits in front of our cloud foundry. We need to be much more highly automated from a pipeline perspective. We need to add automated acceptance tests and add automated rollbacks today. We don't have any automated rollbacks. It's all manual. And we're in the process of transitioning all our release engineers that used to do all our deploys to us, and they're actually getting to do real work now. So versus pushing buttons. And then last, but not least, we built a lab. We call it Garmin Labs. I would like to think that we got to spend time with our Garmin Labs, but it's not really puppies that we're spending time with. We're spending time building out what I would call our approach for how we're going to do development. And Jonathan, you could probably talk a little bit about that, too. Yeah, so we started out with our first lab. It was BYO. As far as the computing in the lab went, you brought your own machine. Pairing that way didn't work out real well. You know, I have my own set of keyboard shortcuts. I like Adam. He likes VS Code. We debate about that all the time. And that didn't work out so well because, you know, just, hey, this is my machine and you don't feel totally comfortable using the machine if it's not yours, etc. So we have moved on to something much closer to a pivotal lab style where we have single machines with two keyboards, monitors, and mice hooked up. And we have them set so that on Friday afternoon when a team rolls out of the lab, we reimage all those machines, then we grant access to the folks that need it, and then we script loading everything back up. So when Team B walks in Monday morning, they get a machine that looks just like we want it to look. And they can customize it if they want or install whatever they need. But I don't have to worry about any baggage that another team has left on a machine. So our goal with labs is to have teams in for four to six weeks at a time. We are going to be extremely opinionated about what we do with them while they are there and how they work. And then it's up to them when they go back to their regular work areas to take what they want to take. We are going to introduce a bunch of concepts to them and we are not going to tell them what they have to do. But we are hoping that a lot of it will stick to the wall. So we are going to take a throw it out the wall and hope it sticks approach. Kind of like when you are cooking spaghetti, you might want to throw that wall and hope it sticks and then you know it's done. But we are going to be extremely opinionated in the lab so they don't get to do what they want to do in the lab. They have to do it our way in the lab and that's going to allow us to try new things and to experiment in the lab with real world problems and real world applications. So this is kind of, we are a little bit excited about this because this is our culture and our development education approach. We are going to be taking our developers down a path that allows them to see how to do development a different way. So I think that is kind of the key to our success moving forward. If the lab doesn't work, then I guess we will try something else. We also have, we are transforming our physical space as well. Opal this morning mentioned the idea of the cube farm that you kind of smack run into when you walk into most corporations today. I wouldn't call ours dark or dank but I would say there are still way too many walls and we have taken a couple of areas of our IT shop and we have ripped out a lot of walls. We put people in a fairly lab-ish like environment and we are kind of experimenting with which one works the best. So I think in the future you are going to see Garmin having a labs type look throughout our whole floor. And no more gophers popping up. That is right. He is over the wall for me so I am always like trying to chat with him. So I think that covers everything that we had planned to say. We wanted to finish in time for questions. I kind of left some time for that so if you guys have anything you want to ask us, feel free. Of course you can find us later as well. Yeah. Yes we are. Yes. The question is whether we are going to end up using public cloud for these applications. Right now we are on-prem. Our boss would love us to be able to essentially burst to the cloud whenever we need to but obviously that is still something we have to figure out. We will be looking forward to that. And really I think the main challenge we have had there is it is easy to push an app to the public cloud. That is not a hard concept. The trouble is getting the data where it needs to be. We are using gemfire and that has made certain parts of our infrastructure such as SSO very, very HA and we have that running in two data centers. We have other things that are on our DBMS and when you start talking about data centers it is hard. I think there is another question in the front. Yes. Oh that was it. Well we have it. That is what we want to do. We will be automating scanning of all the applications prior to go live so that we won't be pushing products to production that have security vulnerabilities. That is the plan at least. Right now the current solution we are using takes too long to do that as a real-time pipeline so it is a static analysis that we are going to do. The plan is to have something automated soon probably before the end of the year. Interestingly enough the tool that we are using like he mentioned I think it is a good tool but we never heard of sneak before until yesterday so we talked to the sneak guys and that is definitely something we are going to take back to our security team. Hey look we heard of this. Take a look at it and so you may see sneak at Garmin at some time. That is not something I call but it might be there. Any other questions? Well thank you for your time everyone. Thank you guys.