So today, we are going to be proclaiming May 12th as Animal Protection Day in British Columbia. We've partnered with the SPC on this in the last balanced budget. We provided them with $5 million to work on a capital plan throughout the province and we will continue to partner with them on these kinds of initiatives. We made a lot of strides over recent years. We have the toughest penalties in the country if anyone puts an animal in distress. And today is part of that commitment to safeguard our animals. We want to make sure that the awareness in the public is clear that you shouldn't leave your dog in a hot car. We're going to help people who are passers-by learn how to spot animals that might be in a car that are in distress because it's too hot. We've been protecting the most vulnerable animals in this province for 121 years. Last year at Constables, they conducted more than 10,000 new animal cruelty investigations. Volunteering for the SPCA for the past five years has been an incredibly fulfilling experience. I personally witnessed a tragedy turned to triumph when abused animals have been rehabilitated by staff and volunteers. We're really pleased that the government has moving forward with plans to regulate and license dog and cat breeders in the province of British Columbia. We think this is something that really needs to happen. Unfortunately, there are puppy moles around the province and we're very pleased that the government is committed to cracking down on puppy moles. I just think this should be more public awareness which is what we're doing right now and maybe a little bit tighter regulations coming on and I think we'll get there. Tara and Catherine, it's my pleasure to present you a proclamation from the province of British Columbia on behalf of all British Columbians to say thank you for all your volunteer service. These two British Columbians each volunteer their time about three days a week and have made a difference in the lives of many animals, many people in our community. Thank you to the SPCA in particular for the work that you do every day in making sure that animals in British Columbia who are truly voiceless have a voice. Thank you.


Work is uncomfortable. Painful. It's awkward. It makes us do things that we don't want to do. We could be enjoying ourselves, pursuing pleasure, and just enjoying life. But instead, we're working. Why? Well, there could be many answers to that question, but to me it seems like there are some very basic reasons why we should be working. And somehow working, even though it sucks, makes life better. Because one way to look at it is everything is decaying. Everything is declining. It's falling apart. It's disintegrating. Things are always getting worse. They're crumbling. And so we need to do something about that. You know, pleasure comes from a change of state, and so we change things to feel better. But the overall trend is down.  So, you know, we're hungry, we're eat, that feels good, especially if the food is tasty. You know, we're tired, we sleep, and then that sleep is pleasant to be able to lie down to sleep when you're tired. And we feel good when we fix something. But the general trend, like throughout the day, we're getting hungrier. The trend is, well, more and more hunger, more and more thirst. We're getting sleepier. And that's just for our basic needs. Then we think of all the tools we have around us in order to have those basic comforts. We have, everything that's built is in a process of decay and crumbling. Food is rotting, and everything's falling apart. Even the systems that we use to get along with each other, our social systems and our cultural systems, and the way we make our cities the way our cities and our countries are held together. All those things are eroding over time. They have to be renewed. So, one way I like to look at work is it's simply fixing problems. It's simply repairing things that are falling apart, no matter what job you're doing. I mean, if you need to make some money, let's say you're doing some job that you don't care anything about the job you're doing and the actual content of the job. It's purely for money. That money can be used to repair problems. If you were hungry at this very moment and you were working to make money to then buy food, if you were actually eating in that moment, you would be feeling good. It's like, wow, I'm hungry and now I'm eating. This is great. When we're working to make money, everything is projected into the future. So it's like, well, we work now. I don't even see the money. I might not see it for weeks. And that money is going to be used to solve a future problem, the future problem of me being hungry later. But if we were solving it in that moment, it would be pleasurable. But instead, we're always delaying. Instead of feeling good now, we're saying, okay, I'm going to work in order to feel good later. And we're just, we're laying the foundation for the future. So we have to not, we have to step away from feeling good right now. We have to accept that we're going to do things that are uncomfortable and unpleasant, painful, boring. We do those things to set a foundation, to repair the ship, to repair future leaks and build up a food supply and repair our house and set up the conditions so that we can actually enjoy our lives. Work is maintenance on our lives that we are, we're ensuring the conditions can continue so that we can actually enjoy life.    So maybe not the most positive sounding message, but I kind of like it because I like this idea of when I'm working, I am keeping things in good order. I'm repairing the ship and I am setting the foundation for happiness. Because then I really, I think that we don't actually have to do much to actually be happy. We just have to make sure things are in order that we don't have horrible problems surprising us in our face that distract all our attention. And then we can simply enjoy the simple things in life and maybe that's all there is to it. And of course this is only one side of what work is about. Hopefully work can also be itself fulfilling and meaningful in itself. But I think at the very least, even if we have the worst and most empty feeling kind of work, we can still see it as building a foundation for our life. So as always, I'd be curious to hear what you think of this idea.


Live from San Francisco, extracting the signal from the noise, it's theCUBE covering Oracle Open World 2015. Brought to you by Oracle. Now your hosts, John Furrier and Dave Vellante. Okay, welcome back everyone. We are here live on Howard Street for theCUBE. Day four of Oracle, day three, if you count Monday, but Sunday was day zero. This is theCUBE, so look at Angel's flagship program. We go out to the events and extract the signal from the noise. I'm John Furrier, the founder of Silicon Am, Joe McCos, Dave Vellante, founder of wikibon.com. Our next guest is Praveen Afana. They get there right? Astana. Astana, I got that right. And Mohammed Afshar, welcome back to theCUBE. Praveen, first question. You run the portfolio of the private public cloud. Larry announced a special announcement yesterday about the private cloud, big long name, but you also have a private cloud solution. Can you just break down the nuance there? I want to dig into that, because it's been getting a lot of buzz. One, the name, Larry named it, that was key, but also specifically nuanced around the cloud and you already have a private cloud. So can you take us through that? So here's the way it works. Larry called it the private cloud appliance for PAS and IAS. And it's a very accurate and specific name. That's the one thing, you know exactly what you're getting with that name. So we already have a private cloud appliance that also it's been having for a number of years. And the difference is this. Our private cloud appliance is a general purpose appliance that anybody can use. It has Linux, OpenStack, can run Windows, run multiple workloads. And you can expand it and run your private cloud. The fully elastic, fully elastic, yeah. Now the private cloud appliance for PAS and IAS just does just that. It's actually, Larry described it very well and I'll just repeat it because I can't do better than that. Which is, we took a slice of our public cloud and just put it inside a machine. That's what this appliance is. So around the PAS and IAS services that the public cloud doesn't look the same. And let me have Muhammad elaborate on exactly what this machine does. Because the PAS is a critical component of that. Absolutely, absolutely. I mean with the private cloud machine for PAS and IAS, what we've done as Praveen said is really to package up what we have in the Oracle cloud. First of all, the infrastructure as a service which is compute and storage. And then also the PAS services. We have a very, very rich layer of PAS services, 40 plus PAS services that we announced at Open World. And actually previously we've been working on them. There are updates to them, et cetera. So we've taken both of those solutions which is the IAS and the PAS from the public cloud and package them up for consumption on premise. And that's pretty revolutionary thing.  Absolutely, that's the goal as well as the infrastructure as a service. So you get access to cloud innovation directly from Oracle cloud into your data center. But I'm not buying a box. I'm renting. We can talk a little bit about that. So obviously one of the things customers have asked us and we can talk a little bit about the use cases and why people have actually been asking for this because they have. But one of the things that customers like is the cloud-like experience. So every customer I've talked to in the open world whether it's a bank, whether it's a telco, whether it's a government office, they like the idea of getting access to cloud innovation. They see a lot of innovation in the cloud, but they would like that packaged up on their premises because of geographical restrictions, because of compliance reasons, because of control. A lot of the banks are not comfortable yet with putting everything certainly in the public cloud and for some things they really want to keep them on premises. So for that reason we really launched this product and of course people ask well how you're going to offer it and we're going to give people the option, but you can have it operated by Oracle as a service. The same way you have with the cloud. You go in through a web page and you get cloud. It just reminds me of the old extra net days. I mean it's how you slice things. It's all on the semantics. I mean if a customer wants to have cloud, it's all about the consumer. It has nothing to do about the box. Exactly. It's all about the consumption. In fact there's a saying, right? What is cloud? It's running it on someone else's server. I mean it's not some magical thing. It's the server, someone else's server. All we are saying is hey, where should it matter where that server sits as long as you have a cloud like experience? So the business model of cloud, the how the consumption is obviously defines cloud, but also interesting about the stack. So one of the things we love about cloud is self-service integrated stack and a lot of magic happens. So scaling, talk about that because Amazon has shown that integrated stacks work. People like to use some building blocks and then build on it. You mentioned open stack. Node.js was mentioned in the keynote. Very popular. Docker containers. This is the cloud native culture. So as long as you offer that and you have the consumption of cloud that takes away the whole, what is it, sit equation? Precisely. If it's some geopolitical or some compliance thing, that's a different factor. But to be cloud native, that's got to be very, very flexible. So that's a real developer centric piece on the tech side. So we've talked about consumption. What is the developer angle on this? That's really big. Yeah, absolutely. It's huge. I mean, we actually do both audiences. Remember, a lot of customers have significant investments in things like WebLogic. I mean, it's predominantly used around the world, number one app server. So we've provided Java cloud service on-premise that gives you all the automation around installation, configuration, scaling, backup, patching, et cetera, as well as the brand new multi-tenancy capability we announced in WebLogic. So we have that within Java cloud service and we bring that on-premise. Now, people want to develop cloud native infrastructure. So we have something called the application container cloud service. And I think you saw it yesterday, which has Node, we have Python and Java SC and various other runtimes. And that gives people the ability to develop cloud native apps. You can define auto scaling rules. You can define a number of policies and you drop your app in and it gets distributed and scaled out to all of the infrastructure. And it's exactly the same whether it's in your data center or whether it's in the public cloud. And I have the choice, you said, of doing it as a service or on-premise. So if a flash drive fries, I have the option of saying, you guys fix it. Yeah, exactly. Absolutely. Just like the cloud. And I can pay you to do that or I can do it myself. Absolutely, yeah. So one of the important things about what we're doing, and this is really important when you're talking about production, is to have the same operational model between the public cloud and the on-premises cloud. That's very important because what I've found in talking to customers is the operational model is where things break. If I have to do a certain way on-premises, then I got to change and learn something new to do it in the public cloud. It's very difficult. Either I need two different people or I got to learn a whole new way of doing things. You know, it's like learning two languages. You don't do it. So we maintain the same operational model on-premises as well as in the public cloud. That's a key important. So let's talk about why that's so important and why it's different. So when Amazon came out with the first cloud, everybody noted, wow, it's homogeneous. So if we could get homogeneity throughout, we could have this notion of hybrid, on, off, whatever. And nobody ever got there. You're there, you're finally. Exactly. So Amazon actually never got there. They never got there. Amazon has no interest in getting there. They want everything swept into the public cloud. We have definitely done that because we have, as Mohammed said, listen to our customers and we provide a variety of options to our customers. That's the key thing here is for those customers who want just that private cloud experience, we have the private cloud appliance, PCA, where they can run open stack, windows, all that stuff, multiple workloads. For those customers who want to do, you know, extend their middleware into Paz and have it integrated with IaaS. That's an important point. We call ourselves the integrated cloud. The Paz and IaaS integrate together. That's what we offer this private cloud appliance where IaaS and Paz. And, you know, the same operational model up and down. So you think about all the things that Oracle does.  And the strategy is N on-prem will be the same N in the cloud. That's the strategy, correct? That's the strategy, yeah. What percent of N is available in the cloud today? Is it 50% of N, 40% of N? So we're actually, so if I can paraphrase your question, right, obviously packaging up all the goodies and all the innovations in public cloud and putting them into this private cloud machine is multi-year exercise. It's a continuous exercise, remember, because there are regular updates that go to the public cloud. There are new solutions that get rolled out. So we have a pretty phased approach. So what we're doing is we're gonna launch the actual service offering, which is infrastructure as a service offering, Java cloud service, which everybody uses with goodies like WebLogic, multi-tenancy, as well as our integration cloud service because everybody needs integration because they have lots of different things. And then we're gonna onboard, for example, the application container cloud service, which we've had a lot of requests from customers for and a number of other cloud services as well. So there's a very regular cadence to onboard all of these things very rapidly. At some point, it's like everybody says mobile first. Are you at the cloud first? Development stage, your mentality. What's the internal DNA like? I think that's what we knew. Cloud native is the way we think about it, not location. So cloud native means I'm developing for an elastic infrastructure. That's really what cloud native ultimately is. And so you can develop it for the cloud. Many customers actually would have run it on premises after they've developed it in the cloud. And so we offer that. I think one of the key differences we have compared to all the other players in the industry is, A, the breadth of our portfolio, B, the real understanding of being cloud native everywhere, and having consistency between the on-premises and off-premises stuff. So it's the same thing. There's no one else I know that can provide all of that. Now, some companies have tried to put appliances on-premises that are similar to what they have in the public cloud. They quickly go out of date. They don't have the same code. Our appliances maintain the same code. How big is the appliance? So the appliance will range. You can start it with, I think... You start it with fixed configurations, right? But it's basically rack-based. So you can start with... It could be a super cluster. I mean, depending on what the needs are, right? It has a specific hardware profile. Because remember, what we're trying to do is make sure we give you exactly the same thing. That's our commitment. It kind of depends per customer. No, it doesn't depend per customer. From a software perspective, which is IaaS and PAS, as public cloud. Our commitment is to stay as true to what we do in the public cloud as possible. And there, we're using x86 servers. So we're using x86 servers here within... I was just thinking from a footprint standpoint, I'm like, this is pretty cool. If I put it in a telephone closet, the smallest of telephone closets, or is it going to be any of them on a negative side? Grow as you grow. So you can start with a quarter rack or half rack and then just keep trying to plan my facilities based upon what I'm doing with it. So it's like you said for me. So it's the diversity of offerings. It's the homogeneity, the exact... And it's not a financial gimmick. Not if you guys do financial gimmick. Put a box in and we'll put extra capacity in there and whatever. But it's financial engineering. This is true radical service. Here's the thing. You saw, at a very important point here I want to make actually, is you saw the demo that Larry did about portability of workloads from on-premises to off-premises with a single click. That is critical. So because we have the same software and hardware on-premises and in our public cloud, you can easily move workloads, some of them while they're even running. So what does that mean? That means that we can offer true bursting compared to a lot of people who bursting is a PowerPoint, a word in a PowerPoint slide. So hard to do. They can technically burst, but they have to have someone on the other side to burst too. That has to be configured. They can technically burst. The bursting didn't know where. Except it may burst. The bursting didn't know where. So talk more about, give us an example of how somebody would use that in a real world. So there's a couple of examples.  Well, I can now move it to the Oracle Public Cloud while it's running without buying a box and have it scale as much as I need to handle that unexpected load. Or disaster recovery. Or I really want to be able to connect with other applications I have in the cloud. In this world of ours where you have mobile, social, everything, you may want to connect with something in the cloud to make a new campaign or CRM thing happen. So you can just move it up there and do that connection and bring it back. Ravine and Muhammad, I want to ask you a question on this particular point. We're a big, we're an Amazon customer. Maybe we should look at Oracle. Now that you have the cloud, there's a lot of SMBs like the cloud. Oracle, in fact, Amazon's customer base, majority of, you know, some mid-sized companies and a couple of big whales in there, Netflix and whatnot. But the issue is I need to have elasticity. So I mean, so I'd have elastic means to me is, okay, I'm running my crowd chat service. We have EC2, we got S3, we got auto-scaling, elastic means talk, red is all this stuff, cool stuff in the great stack. But if I have a, all of a sudden, 100,000 people hit my site, I got auto-scaling built in. So I know, because they get a lot of servers, they can spin up and manage that load. How you address that concern on the deployment side of the box? Are there the cores inside of the engineered system? I mean, you have to have some horsepower to meet a minimum kind of like threshold of what auto-scaling means. There's a couple of things. Firstly, in our public cloud, we have that capability, by the way. So we have that all built in, it's tremendous. I can see that. Petrogenous infrastructure, you can run our solutions, you can run open source solutions, you can run kind of basically anything you want. On the private side, so that's really around a, offering a service and then giving you capacity that you can burst through internally within the frame itself, right? That's really the notion. Now, if I, at the moment, I need like, maybe half a frame and then I need 47 frames, then clearly there's some limitations because you never told us you might need to burst to 47 frames. But you could burst to the public side. So I had to basically do some capacity planning on that. A little bit of capacity planning with your file. How many cores are in that? Just the box, the M7's got. How many cores in it?  A resilient core. But you didn't tell box. But you know, actually, so there's a couple of things here. First of all, most customers I've spoken with, you know, they don't have 500% like spikes. You know, there may be like 50% or 100% spike and then you can do some planning. You can do our portability for that sort of thing, right? But one of the big differences between, because you brought up Amazon, and one of the big differences between what we are doing at Oracle and what Amazon has been doing is, we are really gearing towards mission critical. Yeah. Right? Everything runs on Oracle. You know, landing gear is always 100% of the time you have to be deployed. You know, ambulances always have to be dispatched. Mission critical runs on Oracle. Oh, okay. And that's what we want to do now. Okay, so I've been on this for a while. So, I'll ask you. I won't tell you, I'll ask you. Can you run mission critical Oracle in Amazon? If you do all the work necessary to do it, because they don't give you the SLA, right? So you've got to build a high availability in there. You've got to build the storage. The science project. You can be done. It's a science project. That's why we believe that our cloud provides the exactly right. So it is possible. It is possible. It's just hard. Yes. Okay. Very hard. I've been saying you can't do it. Nobody's doing it. You can do it, but nobody's doing it. Absolutely can do it. Yeah. And Amazon is a partner of Oracle. Yes, but you need specialized hardware to do it. Yeah. Right? So... Yeah, it's... A lot of elbow grease and knowledge. That's exactly right. Okay. So anything's technically possible. Yes. But... Remember, even like the showcase, which is people like Netflix, right? Yeah. Well, guess what? They've had outages, right? And they've architected things beautifully, which means if you're anybody else, you're going to have even more problems. So we really designed our cloud for that, for many of the customers out there who are Oracle customers, as well as non-Oracle customers who demand a certain level of SLA, business critical applications, they run their business. And they say, hey, I want to have access to all this innovation in the cloud, but I'm running my core banking. And I'd like IAS, and I like the abstraction provided, but I like it on-premise. Can you do something for me? And that's really where we come in. It makes total sense for Oracle. It's peaceful. I got to ask the cloud-native question. You mentioned mission-critical. Obviously, Oracle, they run some critical infrastructure and critical apps as well, so I get that. So now for the DevOps equation. Back to you know, you look at some of the machines you're offering here. I mean, it makes DevOps easier, infrastructure as code, which is something that we always talk about. That is more of a free-form developer. You talk about Docker, rather. That's the developer environment. So there's some experimentation going on in the cloud. So as you move into mission-critical, what does DevOps mean for mission-critical? Because it's an operational staple. No one's going to let the devs get access to it. Maybe they will. So how do you define cloud-native with mission-critical, with the need to program infrastructure as code? So look, I think the biggest point about this is that I think it's a good thing moving from to a continuous delivery, continuous integration mentality, right? Because A makes sense because your whole organization gets used to this concept of delivering things. And of course, what you mentioned, which is hey, infrastructure code because the data center is becoming programmable. So that code that is the programs can then be part of this continuous delivery, continuous integration architecture. Our goal is very simple. We want to give you cloud-native infrastructure so you can have your choice of CI or CD infrastructure. We have that built in. We have something called the developer cloud service that does actually do it for you. And it's programmable. Yeah, it's programmable. And you actually put your assets in there. You have the integration and the delivery. So it gives you a great mechanism by which you can actually manage that. But hey, if you've got your own CI infrastructure, you can use that on our cloud. You can use it on the private cloud machine for Paz and IS. All right, guys, we've got to get the rabbit. I want to get your final word. What's your thoughts on Oracle Open World this year? Obviously, this is a hot area. You're in the lion's den, if you will. Very competitive, pass space, middleware, database, all in the center of the action. So I'm new at Oracle. I've been here two months. Welcome to the lion's den. I can tell you something. I mean, it's stunning. As someone who just come in, the stunning how much technology we have and how we listen to the customers and take care of their business needs. And everything we're doing is just doing stuff. Awesome. Mohamed, final thoughts? I think on this particular topic of the private cloud machine for Paz and IS, every customer meeting I've been with, whether it's a bank or a telco or a smaller customer, they love getting innovation from cloud, from premise. So from my perspective, it's great. Remember, I'm always locked up downstairs in customer meetings. So that's about as much as I can tell you. Praveen, you're new. So I'm going to ask you a question.  That's kind of their culture. What's the Oracle culture like? When you come in, you got fresh eyes here. What's the cadence? What's that unique thing, an Oracle, that makes it a unique culture? I mean, for me, just what I've learned, it's really solving the business needs for the customer. I mean, I don't see any company that does it as well as Oracle does. And that's what drives everyone. It isn't about, hey, we have some cool technology, now how should we use it? It's, here's a customer problem, how do we go fix it? All right. Praveen Mohan, thanks for conjoining us. We're at the Cube. We're breaking down the events here. We're on the last final leg of the three and a half days of Cube coverage. Four days, we'll be right back after this short break. It's the Silicon Angles at the Cube, we'll be right back after this short break.


Hey everyone, welcome back to the Trade Hacker Mindset. In this episode, we're gonna continue with our discussion on topics from the book, Trading in the Zone, by Mark Douglas. In this episode, we're gonna talk about consistent winners, consistent losers, and the boomers and busters. Trading the markets can be difficult to master and seemingly just out of reach. Professional traders have a secret.  It requires the Trade Hacker Mindset. All right, so let's jump into our discussion of winners, losers, boomers, and busters. For most successful traders, it really takes a lot of time, sometimes more than others, before traders either throw in the towel or find out their true source of success. And depending on where you are in your trading journey, maybe you're at a point where you've managed to get just enough right about trading in to become commonly what's known as the boom and bust cycle. You know how to make money sometimes, but you're still subject to that euphoria and the self-sabotage that can really make you incur large losses from time to time. You know, we talked about it in our last episode about having a positive versus a negative attitude, and there are certainly traders who just right out of the gate start losing consistently. But there are a lot of people, a lot of students, a lot of new traders who are really tenacious about learning. They're tenacious students. They have a passion to learn about the markets. And in turn, this does create kind of a winning attitude about the markets. So in spite of a lot of difficulties that you can incur when you're trading, you eventually learn how to make money. But I wanna emphasize, this is on a limited basis. You haven't learned how to counteract this euphoria when you get on a winning streak or you haven't learned how to get out of this cycle of taking these large losses that just set you back in your trading. You know, I know I can remember when I was a new trader, there were a lot of times where I would have significant win streaks, where I would have multiple days in a row that were winning days. I would have multiple weeks, multiple months, but then eventually the self-sabotage would kick in and I might have a situation where within a period of a day or a week or a month, I would wipe out all the gains that I had built up to that point. In his book, Trading in the Zone, Mark Douglas says euphoria and self-sabotage are two powerful psychological forces that will have an extremely negative effect on your bottom line. Basically saying it's not uncommon for you to experience a boom in your trading followed by the inevitable bust. The thing to remember is that you don't typically experience this, until you've actually started winning. Because at this point, you're really unlikely to concern yourself with anything that might be a potential problem if you're winning, especially if you're experienced a sense of euphoria when you're on a real hot streak. You know, euphoria creates this sense of confidence that anything going wrong is almost inconceivable. It's actually when you're winning, it's when you're on these hot streaks, when you're in this state of euphoria that you're actually the most susceptible to making a mistake. And mistakes can come in a lot of different forms. They can come in over-trading, trading too much. And probably the most common is putting on positions that are too large for your account, too large for your personal risk tolerance level. Another mistake might be that it violates your rules.  And that's the issue. Once you veer out of your rules and you make a winning trade in your mind whether it's subconscious or consciously, you start getting into this rut of taking trades outside of your rules. And that's inevitably when you hit that situation where you incur large losses. You may even get to a situation in the state of euphoria where you actually think you're so in flow with the market that you are actually kind of in the market. You are the market. You are pushing the market. The problem is the market doesn't always agree with that. In fact, it doesn't agree at all. And when it decides to disagree, that's when you experience the real pain. And that's what I mean by experiencing boom followed by a bust. So Mark Douglas, he consulted and coached hedge funds, retail traders, institutional traders, individual traders, all across, I mean, thousands and thousands. And he put traders into really three classifications. One are the consistent winners that you have a steadily rising equity curve with relatively minor drawdowns. And this makes up about 10% of traders overall. The next group of traders are these consistent losers. And this is about 30 to 40% of active traders. They have illusions about the nature of trading. They're addicted to it kind of like in a gambling sense. It almost makes it virtually impossible for them to be winners. They have negative attitudes and everything that we've talked about in the last episode. And then the largest group of active traders fall into this boom and bust category that they've learned to make money, but you haven't really learned the trading skills and the mindset skills that have to be mastered in order to keep the money that you make. These are the traders where if they are actually even tracking their trades, well, their P&L equity curve looks like a roller coaster. So think back when you had your last major loss or if you haven't had one yet, pay attention to this if you incur a major loss. Did it come right after a state of euphoria or was it related to a situation of just self-sabotage? Because what you'll find is that major losses are usually a result of one or the other, euphoria or self-sabotage. Now, of course, every trader's different. Every trader has a different threshold for when this overconfidence or euphoria may start. For some traders, this streak is just a few trades in a row. It's looking at a very steadily rising equity curve or in some cases, even just one winning trade. But be aware, when euphoria takes hold, you're in deep trouble. And this is where self-awareness comes in and plays a huge role. Because when you're in a state of euphoria, you can't perceive the risk. In your mind, nothing can go wrong at this point. And if nothing can go wrong, then there's no need for rules. There's no need for boundaries. And so what happens many times is this is the point where you start putting on larger than normal trades. And inevitably, that's when the market slaps you the worst. As soon as you put on that position that's larger than normal, you're in big, big trouble.  The biggest loss that I ever took as a trader, and this was years ago, this was probably about seven or eight years ago, I was trading oil futures. The CL contract, which is a pretty sizable contract.  And I had been on a significant win streak. And I became very, very confident that oil was going to continue higher. And because of the state of euphoria that I was in, I loaded up on the number of contracts. And right at that point is when the market in oil turned to the downside. And everything in the news and everything that I was digesting and reading about the oil market was that oil was going up. And so I was not only from that, I was taking that information and it was fueling my confidence of my own personal perception of what was gonna happen in the market. And as the oil market started going down, not only did I start with a position that was larger than normal and really too large for my account, but as it went down, I continued to add more and more contracts. And what happened is within a matter of weeks, my account that was at $130,000 when I started that position, when I finally called uncle, when I finally closed out my oil position, my account was $15,000. I had lost $115,000 in a matter of weeks on one trade because of that state of euphoria because I got my position size too large. And I literally quit trading for six months after that because I was in this state of shock of, how did this happen? Playing the blame game on the market, on everything but myself. And actually that's one of the situations that actually got me started on the path of the trade hacker mindset, of mindset trading. And this was, like I said, seven or eight years ago. So it was a long time ago, but that's when I really started to realize that this was an internal issue. This was not the market's fault. This was not the, well, I mean, it was just a terrible strategy. I didn't have a strategy. I had no rules on that trade. But the only thing that caused that to happen was me. It was in my mind and the decisions that I made on that trade. I remember thinking, I'm never gonna trade oil again. It's oil's fault. Oil's to blame for this. It's definitely not me. This is, it's just the fact that I was trading oil, that was the problem. So now let's talk about self-sabotage because losses from self-sabotage can be just as bad, but they're typically a little bit more subtle in nature.  You know, self-sabotage is an interesting one because I think a lot of times this comes from something that happened potentially in your past, your upbringing, your work ethic, something that happened in your childhood, some type of trauma potentially.  Obviously, if you get into this cycle of self-sabotage, you know, if you lose more money than you make, you're eventually going to fail. I can remember talking to a group of, they were a broker, futures broker, as well as they sold automated futures trading systems. And I remember specifically, one time they commented that when it comes to their customers, they kind of lived by the motto that all these, all their customers are temporary, they're terminal. And it's their job just to keep them happy until they're gone.  They're just churning customers over and over and over. It pissed me off, it made me mad, but the reality is, they, you know, they're right. I mean, there were so many traders that have that self-sabotage or that mentality, and they know that they're just eventually gonna blow their account out. All they're there to do is collect fees from them until they do. And it's pretty obvious that if you lose more money than you make, you're eventually gonna fail. But what's not as obvious is that even if you win, you still may be in a cycle of eventually blowing out or eventually failing. Because if you haven't created that healthy mental framework, if you don't have that balance between confidence and restraint, confidence and following your rules, then you haven't learned how to recognize and compensate for the potential that you have this ability to self-destruct and you will do it sooner or later. And that's why it's so important to have this trade hacker mindset that we keep talking about what this whole podcast is about. So think about this, and we're still on topic of the boom and the bust type cycle. Trader, ask yourself this, if you could redo every losing trade that was the result of recklessness, how much money would you have today? I mean, for me, it's a massive, massive number. I mean, when I was a new trader, I had a between the two emotional decision-making things that we talk about with trading, fear and greed. Greed has always been my Achilles heel. I really haven't had that issue of fear necessary. I mean, everybody has fear to some degree, but my issue was more of a greed and I was always of the mindset of I'm learning, I don't care, I'm just gonna put on trades. This is part of the learning process. I don't care if I make money. And I was completely reckless when I was a young trader. And if I look back to see how much money I would have based on the result of losing trades because I was reckless, it's an astronomical number for me. But the thing a lot of traders don't realize is that the market is not responsible for your recklessness, it's you. The market does not have anything to do with the errors that you make as a result of some internal conflict about deserving that money. Going back to my oil example, it had nothing to do with the fact that I was trading oil. It had to do with the decision-making, the trading decisions that I was making while trading that specific symbol. So while I wanted to swear off trading oil like oil was the reason why, once I realized that it was me, it opened up a whole new light in the world of trading. Because the market, it doesn't create your attitude. It doesn't create your state of mind. The market simply acts as a mirror and it reflects what's inside of you.  And it works both ways. If you change your attitude to negative, it's gonna negatively affect your profits. If you change to have a winning attitude, your profits are gonna be positive. So what's the definition of a winning attitude? Mark Douglas says, the definition of a winning attitude is a positive expectation of your efforts with an acceptance that whatever result you get are a perfect reflection of your level of development and what you need to learn to do better. Let me repeat that because it's extremely important. The definition of a winning attitude is a positive expectation of your efforts with an acceptance that whatever results you get are a perfect reflection of your level of development and what you need to learn to do better. I hope you write that down. I hope you internalize that. Write it down on a sticky note, post it on your computer because that is such a huge deal and it'll be a continual reminder as you're in the flow of trading. Think about this. Have you ever missed out on a trade? Either you didn't get filled and then price ran in the direction you thought it was going. Have you ever wondered why missing out on profits is often more painful than taking a loss? Part of the reason is because when you take a loss, there are a lot of ways in which you can shift that blame to the market and not accept any responsibility. But if you miss out on a trade, there's no one else to blame. It did what you knew it would do. You just didn't execute it. So there's no one else to blame except for you. You see, you're not responsible for what the market does or doesn't do, but you're responsible for everything else that results from your trading activities. And you're responsible for what you've learned as well as for everything you haven't learned yet that's waiting to be discovered by you. So I'm gonna continue to beat this dead horse that what it takes to be successful is a winning attitude. This is the key to your trading success. The problem that I see a lot with interacting with so many traders is that they think they already have a winning attitude when they actually don't. Or they kind of expect the market to develop this attitude for them by giving them winning trades. Once the market reacts and gives me my winning trades, then I'll have a winning attitude. But you and you alone are responsible for developing this winning attitude yourself. And I wanna emphasize over and over and over that understanding the markets, more market analysis is not the answer. Understanding the markets will give you potentially an edge to create some winning trades, but your edge won't make you a consistent winner if you don't have this winning attitude, period. Now you might be saying, yeah, but you can't be a successful trader unless you understand enough about the markets. So there's some truth to that. But once you understand a basics of the market, basics of a strategy, that's all you need. The rest is the winning attitude that makes the biggest difference.  People who know the most about the markets are still some of the worst traders. So if you wanna change your experience with the market, if you wanna change from fearful to confident, if you wanna change the results of your equity curve from a roller coaster to a steadily rising one, the first step is to embrace the responsibility. Stop expecting the market to give you anything or to do anything for you.  And taking a quote from Mark Douglas' book, taking responsibility is the cornerstone of a winning attitude. I hope this episode was helpful. If you want to join a group of like-minded traders, just go to community.navigationtrading.com. You can join the trade hacker community where you can meet and interact with like-minded traders. There's hundreds of traders in there sharing trade ideas, helping each other out with the main goal of helping each other become successful traders. We hope to see you on the inside. Take care.


So, that is what I was saying that this result is very powerful, because it really gives a easy check. If I have k vector fields in the distribution, I just have to check their combinations, yeah. So, k c 2, when you are done, ok, check that their combinations belong to the distribution and you are good to go, ok, proof, of course, whenever we do something we have to prove. It is an if and only if, so you have to prove both sides. But suppose if you that you have involutivity, if you have involutivity, then this is obvious, right. Because involutivity means that if f 1 to f k belong to delta, then their lee bracket have to be in delta. So, this is obvious by in you know that if you are starting with involutivity, obviously this will happen, no problem. The bigger question is if you start with this that only their combinations are in delta, then can you claim that the distribution is involutive as per this definition, ok. How do we go about it? We take some two vector fields, ok, g 1 and g 2 in delta.  And of course, these f phi ij's are smooth functions, yeah. Smoothness is coming out of the fact that f i fj's are also smooth, yeah, and g 1 g 1 g 2 are also smooth, ok. Therefore, this coefficients have to be smooth, ok, so it is everything is smooth, so coefficients also have to be smooth, ok. For simplicity, if you assume k equal to 2 that is you have only two vector fields here f 1 and f 2 forming the distribution just for so that the proof looks easy, yeah. Then what do you have?  Now, I want to compute this lee bracket, ok. Now, there is a problem with this computation, ok.  This is computation is pretty straight forward, it is just doing this with some coefficients phi 1 i f i plus phi 2 j f j, remember phi 1 i and phi 2 j are depending on x and they are just their functions, they are not just, yeah, they are not just constants or anything, ok, alright. So, I want you to prove this computation anyway, but let us look at the lee bracket of g 1 and g 2 as per this expression, ok. It is known that the lee brackets are distributed, I have not talked about this, yeah, but it is easy to prove that they distribute that is I can break this open. How? In all these four terms, yeah, this works like a nice distributive bracket, ok.  Now, it should be obvious to you that the lee bracket of a vector field with itself is 0, just, yeah, 0, ok. So, these two are gone, ok, these two are gone. So, what am I left with? I am left with these two, ok. And these are actually the same term, I can actually flip the sign. So, also this is another thing that is true, lee bracket is anti-symmetric.  So, I can flip the sign. So, what am I left with? I am left with something rather simple, right? It is, yeah, this is my g 1 g 2, ok, ok. Now, whatever I assumed that f 1 f 2 belongs to delta, yes, yes, which means what? g 1 g 2 also belongs to delta. Why? Because it is just a scalar multiple of f 1 f 2, yeah, no. What do I have to prove for invulnerability? Take arbitrary two vectors, vector fields in the distribution and prove that the lee bracket is in the distribution, yes. What does it mean to be in the distribution? They are their linear combinations of the forming vector fields, ok. I have assumed that there are only two vector fields, forming vector fields, yeah, or generator vector fields, which is f 1 and f 2.  Notice phi 1 phi 1 1 phi 1 2 phi 2 2 are functions of x, but scalars, they are not changing the vector direction. This is in the direction of f 1, this is in the direction of f 2. It is like multiplying a scalar and a vector. And just that here, it is not just scalars, it is a scalar function. Similarly, it is not just vectors, it is a vector field, that is it, ok. So, phi 1 1 f 1 is in the direction of f 1, phi 1 2 f 2 is in the direction of f 2. Similarly, phi 2 1 f 1 is in the direction of f 1 and phi 2 2 f 2 is in the direction of f 2, ok. The important thing to remember about lee bracket is that they distribute nicely, that is what I have used. I have just broken open the bracket just like you break open any product, works exactly like this, yeah. So, I get 4 terms.  Just because the lee bracket is anti-symmetric, this structure, this is 0. If you put, if g and f are the same, this is actually the 0, then, you know, becomes a 0 vector field. So, this guy is 0, this guy is 0.  And so, that is negative.  So, all I have left is this entire guy, ok. And this is just a scalar, yeah. I mean scalar function, but still a scalar, not changing the direction of the vector, yeah. And I have already assumed that f 1 f 2 belongs to the distribution. So, I am done, g 1 g 2 belongs to the distribution now. Now, if I had assumed instead of 2 f, there were many more k generating f's. Yeah, I will say 3. What would happen? I will get 3, 5 1 1, 5 1 2, 5 1 3, 5 2 1, 5 2 2, 5 3 3. But I will still get combinations of these and repetitions, combinations, repetitions. And the combinations are already assumed to be in the distribution. Repetitions are dying. So, therefore, I will always remain in that, ok. So, straightforward actually, yeah, you do not have to worry too much. Yes, good point. I was also wondering, one should always ask oneself, are we using all the assumptions? A non-singular distribution, if delta is a non-singular distribution, then involutivity, if and only if, ok, ok, ok, ok. You know what, so what you are asking is that where do we use the non-singularity of the distribution, all right. Now, you know, this is where I think the problem will happen, this place. I think this equality is no longer writable, is what I am wondering or am I wrong. I think this, this equality is where I will have, start having trouble. Yeah, I have to think about it more carefully, but I believe this equality you will not be able to write anymore. Because if your distribution is changing rank, the span is changing rank. Now, the span definitely has to hold the vector, because we are assuming that g i is in delta. Obviously, the span has to hold the vector, but my feeling is you will not be able to do it with smooth functions here, yeah. If you suddenly want to jump from one point p to another point p prime, you go from a three-dimensional distribution to a two-dimensional distribution, all right, because it is singular, then this phi will undergo a rather drastic change. I do not think you will be able to retain smooth phi's anymore. Again, I have to think about this more carefully, but this is where I think things will go wrong. This assignment will not lead to smooth functions phi, but that is a good point. I will try to hunt it up. That is also the next question I was asking myself, all right. Where are we using the smoothness of the functions phi? See, when I look at this without a smooth phi, this is poorly defined. Fine, I wrote this as this split and all this, all right. But if I try to actually compute this guy by this formula, you can see I am starting to take partials of the phi's and here. So, this is poorly defined. So, even writing like this is not okay.  So, I am frequently taking derivatives. I will definitely mess up. I mean, this is not a good, I mean not a well-defined object anymore. So, it almost certainly, I believe what I am saying is right that non-singularity will result in these phi's becoming non-smooth. Because, you cannot just jump rank and expect that everything will turn out to remain smooth. This will definitely create some trouble. You are suddenly projecting to a plane. Say you are in three-dimension, suddenly you are projecting to a plane. Or in five dimensions to a four-dimensional hyperplane or a three-dimensional hyperplane that will not retain good values of the phi. I mean, yeah, I mean, as of now whatever I am saying is imagination. It is nicer to if we can construct, if we can construct and sort of evaluate. But I believe that is what we will go down. I will check anyway, if I can find some fun examples. So, here I am just giving some example of this normal form business. This is again going back to the previous topic. But anyway, let us look at this. So, this is sort of the system. And I want to put this in normal form. You can see it is already non-linear and messy. I am using y as x2. I am using y output as x2. I want to get this to normal form. How do I do this? I simply start taking derivatives, first to get the relative degree. Because anyway, the y and its derivatives become my states, my linear states. So, the first state is x2 itself. Then I take a derivative and I get to x2 dot, which is x3. And then I take another derivative y double dot, which is x3 dot, which gives me the control. So, this is a relative degree what system? What is the relative degree of the system? 2. Yeah, it is 2. I have also written it here. I took two derivatives of the output. Whatever output I was given, I took two derivatives, I reached the control. So, obviously, my first two states become this guy. Yeah, that is y and its derivative. Those become my first two states or the last two states. Then I need to find the phi state, which will make it a diffeomorphism. Suppose I choose this guy, x1. This is a problem because the derivative of x1 contains the control. So, I do not like it so much because it is not going to give me the normal form. Now, what do I need for the normal form? If you remember, I need l, yeah, I have actually written it here. I need l, g, phi equal to 0. So, that there is no control term appearing. So, what is l, g, phi? l, g, phi is basically partial of phi with multiplied by g. What is g? g is basically whatever is multiplying the control. So, that is 2 plus x3, 1 plus x3 is whatever 2 plus x3 square, 1 plus x3 square is 0 and 1, this guy. So, if I compute this product, I get this. I can actually break this open to get 1 plus x3 square this del phi del x1 del phi del x3. Now, I want this to be 0 and I want to use this to motivate my new state. So, I have of course, chosen it like this. Pretty scary looking actually. How do you think I came with this? So, this is my phi. This is what I chose as phi. How do you think I came up with this? I did some guess work. So, if you look at this guy, this looks like tan inverse derivative of tan inverse x3. This looks like derivative of tan inverse x3. So, if I keep x1 as linear, I get del phi del x1 as 1 and then I get del phi del x3 as 1 over 1 plus x3 square. Yeah, 1 over 1 plus x3 square and then this guy is again just multiplying del phi del x1, which is 1. So, these two will cancel out and I am left with my apologies. Did I get this right? Yeah, yeah and this and part of this will cancel out. This is basically del phi del x3 is going to give me minus 1 minus 1 over 1 plus x3 square. So, I did a little bit of guess work. How would you do it? If I wanted to guess a phi starting from this equation, is there any other smarter way? I did just bunch of guess work. I just looked at what I can cancel. Is there any nicer way if can that you can think of to sort of arrive at this? No, because individually I cannot say that individually these are 0 or something like that. It is not a quadratic or anything. So, I cannot say that individually these are 0 or some such. Right? One thing that is obvious to me is that I do not have the this entire equation as only x1 and x3. So, I do not need the phi to depend on x2. That much is obvious to me. My phi does not have to depend on x2 because it is playing no role in this entire equation. So, phi is only a function of x1 and x3 is all I know. Yeah, I think to me it seems this is what works fine. Okay. And anyway, if I choose this funny looking coordinate, I get z1 dot as this, z2 dot as z3 and z3 dot as this z1 z3 plus u. Oh no, it would not work. x1 minus tan inverse x3 is it? So, so del phi del x1 will be 1 and del phi del x3 will be minus 1 over 1 plus x3 squared. So, this will be 1, 1 over 1 plus x3 squared and this will be 1 over 1 plus x3 squared. So, 1 remains no. So, I am trying to cancel the 1 also. That is why I put the minus x3 here. I must have tried with that only, but then I added the minus x3 because I have to cancel the 1 also. Okay. That is it. It is just a little bit of hit and trial. Okay. But this is what you get as the dynamics.  Yeah, because if the linear part goes to zero, this guy is zero and this is again an exponentially stable system. Okay. So, again started with something complicated and very non-linear, not evident how I would design a control based on any method that I know. Yeah, but I still end up with something rather nice. Okay. Oh, this one. I guess it is already in your notes. Why is this exercise then? Well, I see. Apparently, it is not exercise. I have already solved it. So, it is already in your notes that I have uploaded. So, I should probably just not say this is an exercise and solve it. Yeah, because you can see that it is here. I mean, I have actually done it. Anyway, you can take a look at this. Yeah. You can take a look at this in your leisure time. This whatever expression you get here. Yeah. I believe this expression has a problem. This expression has a problem. So, anyway, so I got to this expression. I am not sure why I am saying this is specialized to k equal to 2. It does not seem like this is k equal to 2 is necessary here. Yeah, it seems it is specialized to k equal to 2. Yeah, because otherwise there will be summations and stuff. That is all. Alright. Okay. Anyway, this is something you can just look at it on your own. Alright. So, anyway, next time we will continue with our discussion on Frobenius theorem. Alright. Okay. Alright. We will stop there. Thank you.


Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE. Covering Adobe Summit 2019, brought to you by Accenture Interactive. Hello everyone, welcome back to theCUBE's live coverage here in Las Vegas for Adobe Summit 2019. I'm John Furrier with Jeff Frick, our next guest touch wars, who's the global delivery lead for Adobe with Accenture Interactive. That was a tongue twister, great to see you. For the Adobe relationship with Accenture Interactive. That's correct. Thank you, global delivery lead, thank you. That's right. Welcome to theCUBE. Thank you.  Tell us about what you do, what are some of the issues around delivery because that's where the rubber hits the road on all this. Well, that's exactly right. You know, when I think of my role, think of me as someone who's out there working shoulder to shoulder with customers. When it, you know, from a delivery aspect, you know, providing the capability, providing the skills, providing the talent, making sure that we're getting the results that our clients are looking for and ultimately the quality that we need to deliver for them. And you guys do a lot of work, Accenture Interactive. Got a great team that sets up all the great ideas, all the new business models, the new tech is here, people process, culture change, all going on. The end of the day comes into your, I got to deliver it. And then the outcomes that you want. That's exactly right. This is a core issue if people talk about operationalizing new things and sometimes there's change management involved, there's new culture shifts. So this is where we hear a lot. It's not the tech problem. It's the people and the culture. Can you share your view on this? Cause you're on the front lines on this one issue. It's a great point. And I think, you know, one thing is standing up technology and you can sort of get some of the nuts and bolts running. It's another thing to really get our clients and our customers enabled so that they can unleash the power of some of these platforms and technologies. You know, there's a, an entire journey map on what their own people need to go through from an ablement. There is a change management aspect around how we get those folks sort of feeling comfortable about that. And we often go through a couple of different methods to do that. Sometimes we do a two in the box where we'll sort of act with them in the same role. Other ways we'll sort of lead by example and do it and then they'll sort of shadow us and then eventually we just sort of make that transition. In some cases they just frankly, you know outsource it to us, right? And we'll take over that sort of feature of functionality or role and position on behalf of our customer and that's okay. What kind of horsepower do you bring to the table? I mean we just interviewed Nicky who handles the Accenture Interactive Operations. That seemed like a great power source standing up fast, some operational capabilities. What else do you guys do bring to the table in terms of the delivery piece? Well, what Nicky and her team do is vital for us.  And then Nicky's with her team and everything we're doing in Accenture Interactive Operations it's sort of operating that for that client, right? So once we sort of turn on some of those features and functions, then Nicky's out there with her team sort of running with it and that multi-year run and getting those customers. So do you hand the keys to her? I do. So that's the handoff is that? I do, exactly right.  So Todd, why don't you talk about the skills kind of the skills gap, if you will on some of the clients that you have and how are the skills and the roles evolving to execute with some of these new tooling in this kind of new process? It wasn't like build a campaign and slow roll it out. Now it's go, go, go, go, go. Oh, you're absolutely right on that. And I think, not only that, but it's evolving, right? I mean, we data scientists are more important than they ever were. And so all of our customers and ourselves are investing in how we get data science. Because at the heart of it, and if you think about what Adobe's talking about and some of the new products that are coming out, it's about building that data layer, right? And it's about taking that data layer to the next level too around security and permission. So helping our customers sort of get their arms around what it means to manage that data and all those aspects around the view of a customer is critical. Even the presentation tier, you know, Adobe provides all those amazing technologies that allow customers to drive those rich experiences, whether it's on a tablet, whether it's on a mobile, whether it's on your desktop, ubiquitous doesn't matter. But that presentation tier is just constantly changing. I mean, we didn't have, you know, the anger on the React 10 years ago, now you have all these other frameworks you have to begin to prepare for. It's like- Talk about the, one of the things, the keynote yesterday, we've got my attention was, the word, and I love the way it sounds, personalization at scale. And that's just a thing about that concept for a second. It's mind blowing. We all love personalization. It doesn't like personalization. But at scale, a lot of moving parts, this is in you guys' wheelhouse, a center in Iraq.  What does that mean to you? Because, and how does that happen? That's why someone might send out 40 million emails. I mean, it's insane, the personalization experience. What does it mean? Well, when I hear something that needs to be at scale, you got to break it down to be as simple as possible. You got to figure out how you make that something super complex and dumb it down to where you truly can scale it, where you can enable people quickly. And sometimes you think big and start small. So often what we'll do is we'll help our customers say, if you want to do one-to-one personalization, we need to be thinking about how we can create content quickly, how we can create art quickly, how we can go and operationalize that globally. Because many times, you need to be working around the clock. So for me, when I think of at scale, it's how do we turn those capabilities on around the globe quickly for our clients? And basically, you need to break it down. So that's the playbook. You go to the customer saying, let's pick some use cases, get some beach head, get this figured out, make sure it's not a lot of moving parts. Yeah, and again. Use software, maybe customer experience engine, things of that nature. It sort of starts small. So I would light up some teams, take some initial use cases, maybe think about how, what are some of those initial user journeys that end in journey we want to prove out and then let's operationalize those and then we'll build on top of that over time. Let me ask you a question about the Adobe announcements. What's getting you excited here at the event? What are some of the hallway conversations and conversations after hours and all the different events going on? What are you talking about? What's the top conversation that you're involved in? For sure, AEP. When you talk about the new experience platform that's coming out and everything around there, to me, I think that's a game changer in the marketplace and I think it's also critical. Certainly ODI is all mapped in there and all the data aspects, but the new experience platform that Adobe is investing is sort of where I think our customers are driving towards and what's required in order to meet the demands of how to secure this data, how to wrap some permissions around it, how to take what we would consider PII and PHI-like data and be able to use it in more of their tools knowing that we have the integrity of our customers. What's the impact of your job with the customer experience platform? Impact our job, is it unleashes all kinds of potential. When you think about what we're out there helping our customer solution, it opens the gamut for us to go and sort of drive those next generation experiences in a much more, you know, I guess, formidable way. You know, I can- For more capabilities? Oh, absolutely. Faster institution? Exactly. What was super complex for me to build now just became a lot easier because now I have a framework and a structure and a platform that they're enabling it. How does it impact the, in your view, the customer, I mean, so the partner landscape because you guys have a lot of partnerships. Adobe is the key one, obviously.  I want to plug this in. The Big Accenture Interactive Engine, you guys got a lot of global breadth.  How do you see partners? Because if it's an enabling platform, it should be enabling something. So that's going to be a tell sign. What's your view on the partner ecosystem? Well, the first thing I'll say about that is I think we're in a unique position because if you look at the scale we have at Accenture. So although I'm in Accenture Interactive, I'm very focused on that digital and building the best experience on the planet, I have this huge engine behind me of broader Accenture that has these capabilities. I mean, what we're dreaming up around how we're working with Microsoft and SAP? Well, guess what? We already do that too. So I can bring a lot of those vendor relationships and experience as capabilities and bring them right in-house quickly. And when I need to go out to market and partner, I have those avenues and I can go bring that niche. That niche. It's like putting Lego blocks together now. Yeah. Make things auto-integrate, just put it together, right? And Adobe's continuing to invest in their IO and that allows us to integrate and plug in these things a lot quicker than we ever had before. What's the biggest challenge you see that Adobe and the marketers and marketers have in the marketplace because I lead a lot of new tech, a lot of great capabilities now emerging. There's a shift happening. Yeah. We've kind of been going slow, yard by yard, move the chains like a football analogy, but now big movement's going to happen. We see happening. We see a shift coming, big wave of innovation. What's the challenge? Definitely two challenges I think. One, it's just the speed, right? The speed in which the market is moving and how do you keep up with that speed and how do you continue to invest in your own people to learn it? And then two, I think the sheer amount of data, like the fact that we can store all this data, we have more data coming in than we've ever had before. I mean, just think of what IoT is doing to our landscape and all the data that's coming in from an IoT and now we can use that as a whole, another level of sophistication and our analytics and our segmentation. And that's a tough job, right? That's how do marketers keep up with that? It's changing their landscape for sure. And what about just kind of the point of view when they get competition that comes out of complete left field, right? That Uber and Lyft are the obviously examples that get way overused, but the companies are now competing against companies that weren't even in their radar before that were purpose built and moving at light speed to your point. How do you help those legacy guys kind of take the big leap, take the big step, get to high-speed personalization? I mean, one thing, you can't be complacent.  And so I think take advantage of that mindset that those small incubation type companies are the small thing. And maybe even think about how do I build that same type of innovation within my own halls and how do I take advantage of how that rapid development of that rapid change? And oftentimes we're helping our customers go in and bootstrap that, right? Start it, like let's go inside and let's build a little innovation hub inside your own organization to go and compete with them. Otherwise, you know, you're going to see what, like the case studies you just referenced, right? You guys are in the driver's seat for sure. I mean, I think this is great innovation. The question that we, that came up on our last segment with Jim Lalonde was, you know, he talked about the vendor dynamics. Yes. When you have the world flipping upside down, things have changed. You see, vendors lead and enable. Now you have apps dictating terms of the infrastructure and that's a cloud model. He made a good point. He said, you know, a lot of the transformational stuff is great, but then it fails during integration. And pointing out that they get to a certain point and just crashes, not crashes, that's my word. But he said, this challenges. It wasn't specific on the outcomes of the transformation. But he said pretty much it struggles and usually doesn't happen. Yeah. How do you see that? Because with now automation, machine learning, now you have agility in a marketing landscape, not just marketing cloud, but you've got all kinds of other things. It's like this sales and marketing in there and everything. You have agility. How does the integration impact and how does the delivery impact that transformation goal? What, and you're exactly right in the fact that when organizations make a big investment in Adobe technologies, they typically have a lot of other investments and other technologies as well. And so how do you create agility where you've got to plug and play sometimes more than one. And I'm sure Jim talked to you about our customer experience engine and the beauty of that, right? Where we can go and really bring a framework to our customers and our clients that allows us to take the best of all these experiences, all these platforms I should say to build the best in class experience. And that's something we absolutely bring to the table. It's a framework, we've proved it out.  So from my mind, when I'm trying to get them to be agility, I bring that type of thing to the table to help them move fast. I think that's a successful tell sign. We see with successful vendors and partners and integrators is that you guys took your core competency and wrote software around it and you packaged it up to automate the heavy lifting that, I mean, why wouldn't you do that, right? And we see it in our customers every day.  Then they're going to go and make this massive invest in Adobe. And it's like, they're not going to just discard and retire some of those things. So we attempt to solve that problem for them. That's a real differentiator. Congratulations, Jim was great on that. Final question for you going forward. What are you excited about? What's on your roadmap? What's next for you? What's the next leg of the journey for global delivery? Well, more delivery. Honestly, it's to continue to build out scale around all of our locations. So when you look at Accenture Interactive, we're obviously a big North America business, but we have businesses all over the globe. And it's to continue to create, to meet our customer's demands as they expand global. It's how do we deliver local and how do we deliver around the clock for them? And so for me, it's about building those capabilities everywhere you go, South America, Australia, New Zealand and Eastern Europe and making sure that we create the same delivery patterns and we leverage the same assets and accelerators like the customer experience engine in all those places. And one final question as you look at the arena of all the vendors competing. What's the winning formula? What's the posture that you see that's a successful vendor as they integrate in these journeys and these experiences? What successful makeup of a successful supplier to customers? From a technology provider? You look at all the players. You've got Microsoft, big parts of the Adobe, you've got Amazon, you've got all these, Martek stack is littered with logos, consolidations happening. There's a lot of battles on the field right now, a lot of players fighting for their future. Honestly, I think those who are going to make it as simple and as easy to empower their people to use is going to be the winner. And I think you're seeing that certainly at Adobe, but there's a lot of other formidable vendors out there who are creating very simple techniques to go and light this up. The more you can empower a business person and a marketer to do self-service, the bigger win you're going to have. And to your point about scale simplicity. Yeah. God, thanks for coming on. Great insights. Thank you so much. You're in your commentary. Appreciate it. Todd Schwarz here on theCUBE. Global delivery lead for the Adobe account for Accenture Interactive. Stay with us for more day two coverage after this short break. I'm John Furrier with Jeff Frick. We'll be right back.


And so what do you think we can do? Obviously, you know, you have tub, the organization, but besides that is like, what are steps men can take today? Well, I mean, I think that the main thing is in being party to conversations, like the one that we're having and being, you know, finding places and spaces to engage with and connect with men who are dedicated to this conversation and dedicated to helping men to be empowered in a healthy manner in fashion. And you know, the tricky thing about that is that there are a lot of people who are becoming aware of this as being an important facet of what's going on right now in the world, but not all of them will have fully benevolent intentions. And it's a little worrisome to me because I can see there's a great potential for the exploitation of the vulnerable and the disenfranchised in men right now, the whole in-cell movement, the whole potential for backlash against women I see as something really problematic and worrisome to me because if men start to feel disempowered and disenfranchised and if men identify and recognize that once upon a time they were the kings of the castle and now the sands underneath them are shifting and they are losing that position of power and authority, it's likely that there will be men who will be upset about that, aggrieved about that and unfortunately will point the finger and villainize women potentially or men possibly. Well, they're playing the victim card but my question is who's stealing this platform underneath them?  Exactly.  Absolutely, that's the key point, right? I mean, set it in classic Amir fashion right Amir. Go work 100 hours.  Eat well, train, lift heavy shit, man. Get on top of your business, right?  Take care of your business. Take care of your business, man.  Right, I agree with you completely and you and I as classic sort of alpha guys who live like that, do like that, see like that, be like that, not a problem. You don't have that issue, I don't have that issue. We're good, so we're not talking about us but what we have to realize is that we are a subset in a small category, a small subsection of the entire populace, right? A lot of people and who don't have either the insight, now we're back to the red, you know, red or blue, right? Well, you just broke down for them was the red pill, blue pill, pick it, right? Okay, listen, if you don't go and work out, what do you think is gonna happen? Like really, you know what I mean? Like if you don't exercise your body and use it, it's not going to be robust and capable and functional and optimal. It's not the end, not a complicated story, right? I need to understand this perspective because if you look at evolution, biology and psychology, women go after the top 20% element.  And nobody should disparage them for doing so. And like if I put myself in a woman's mindset, I'm like, women are attracted to people who are go-gethers, they're attracted to empathy, they're attracted to love, they're obviously aesthetics is number one, they're attracted to aesthetics, all these, and so why- You might not be number one for women, but it's on the list, it's definitely on the list. When you talk to women, they might not put that at the top of their list. But let's put it in the cluster, let's put it in the cluster, it's part of. But let me finish. If I'm this angry person, whether it's in a whatever group, I don't even care what you label yourself. I'm just angry men.  They had a lot of trauma in the past, they had to figure things out. From a female perspective, what? I'm trying to figure out their cognitive dissonance, that is, it's like- Between who's got their demands? Yeah, it's like, okay, you're not go-getting, you're not financially there, you're not working- You're not doing the things that would position you- The biology calls for. They would position you ideally- Psychology, the whole evolution and trade. You should be doing that would position you ideally to create or to experience the life that you're interested in creating. It's like someone bitching about not fucking, not being rich, but not working for it.  I agree. I mean, hey, I always tell people, you wanna be rich, go for it. Like, I mean- Especially here. Sky's the limit. Here, in particular, in the developed world. The developing world, which I spend a lot of time in, it's different, because the opportunities are very different in some places. Well, opportunities, click, click, clack, corruption. Yeah, or you know, I mean, I have kids that I'm supporting and things that I'm doing in the developing world. You've got them, right? I've got them, yeah. Where there just are not the opportunities. Like, if you're in a little fishing village in the middle of nowhere, there's just is not, there's nothing to do there. Like, you can't get, you have to get some way out. That's why I tell people, this is the golden land, United States and Canada man. No question. So I say, for people who tell me that they wanna be rich here, I said, no, you don't. Like, if you're not rich and you wanna be rich here, then there's a problem. Because you don't really, if you really want it, there are so many resources and there's just so much available now to tell you how to do it. Pick one. You don't even have to read all the books. Pick one book and follow it verbatim. I don't care which one it is.   Pick one. There's so many government grants that give you like $20, $50,000 here. Just even start. Follow the guy who's pitching about doing real estate on TV. I don't even care. If you follow anybody's program to the T, chances are more likely than not that you'll succeed, you'll figure out a way forward.  The balance between the two. We have a lot of people who want but don't quite understand how and or didn't have the role modeling to understand how. You really think they don't know how to go to the gym or how to work? Or they lack the confidence and the insertion point to get started. I mean, you know, we're talking about the big questions here about why basically what we're asking here is why are there so many people who were living unhappy and dissatisfied and dysfunctional lives I'm here. That's what we're really talking about. That goes to Buddhism. That goes to expectations. If you have zero expectations, you're good. You can satisfy, you're good. But I mean, basically, that's the question we're asking here. And if we talk it about specifically men, why are there so many men? Because they're just part of the whole population of humanity. We're back to the same sort of question. Why are there so many dissatisfied people on this planet, period, right? We're back to that big question. And I would say, based on my own assessment and evaluation of this, is that the multitude of factors that come together to create that large cluster, socialization, family history, dramas and dramas that affected and influence and compromise your sense of capacity and confidence even to step in and step up. Mental illness comes in there for a certain section or segment, right? There's so many of these things, a lack of role modeling, a lack of support, a lack of guidance, a lack of understanding, a lack of opportunity to step in comfortably, right? Take, for example, Tub. So let's use that as an example. I hold these events, I invite men to come out. It's interesting for me to see who comes out who doesn't come out. Some men would be enticed by the concept of coming and connecting with an eclectic group of men from a wide swath of the population. By the way, we're fantastic food too. And we have to thank you. We usually have a great day at the go with it, thank you. But I realized as I've been doing this for a long time that many other men are intimidated by this prospect, right? And so they won't even like, they're attracted by the idea in some ways but they're also quite intimidated and people get into these sort of patterns of inertia where it's very hard for them to get out. You sometimes literally have to take people, I know, it's hard to sort of, when you're not that person, it's hard to understand it and you and I are not those kind of people. I mean, I've been very proactive and I've been on a road less traveled since I was very young and I've developed an uncommon level of confidence in my capacity to move through life. Well, a lot of people don't have that and we have to be sensitive to that. Let me clarify. What irritates me are people who complain who play victimhood because they're very body able to complain and scream at people. They're not dumb, I'm not saying they're not dumb. They're intelligent. I'm irritated by individuals like that. Who has time for that? I mean, I'm with you. And I agree, there's people out there that who are very quiet, who have demons and they're suffering and need help and they're afraid to ask.  I'm like, you have the energy to scream at people. You have the energy to complain at people.  I'm like, dude. I'm like you in that regard. We're sympathetic on that viewpoint. Like I'm very much about people being proactive and taking control and charge of their life to the degree that they can. I mean, there's so many factors you can't but the ones you can step in and step up. And make it happen. I'm with you. And don't be rate. Don't blame, you know, this is, you're absolutely right. I mean, these people, these are the ones who are dangerous. Dangerous, man. These are the dangerous ones. The people who look outside of themselves and are pointing fingers at other sources. It's the immigrants. It's the women. It's the this, it's the that. It's always something outside of them. They're raining on their parade and shitting in their pool. Okay. Well, maybe you need to turn that lens around a little bit. Yeah. If you're looking inward a little bit, start recognizing and understanding that your modus operandi is not serving you to the best. How is that working for you? So those are the people that are really important to reach in terms of some messaging about them being willing to really take stock of who they are, how they are and what they've been up to and introspect around their own responsibility for what they've been creating in their lives. I'm with you about this completely. There has to be that interest in reevaluating, reassessing and exploring the nature of self such that one can understand one's complicity in one's own misery and suffering. Because if you don't, and you're constantly looking outside for the sources, you will not resolve the problem. It will not happen. There's a lot of pain. There's a lot of pain. There's crazy feminists these days who... It's crazy everybody. It's crazy everything. And it goes to internal pains.  Great, or an ayahuasca journey or whatever it needs to do that you know, or go and sit in deep meditative practice and recognize and see yourself for the small little speck of micro dust that you are in these universal cosmos, right? I love the Buddhist paradigm. So whatever way that gives you some insight into understanding both your own humility, which I think is very important, but also empowers you with an understanding of what it is that you can do to adapt and adjust. But you know, there's so much to this, which is, you know, this is the field that I am professionally involved in, right? I mean, I'm not trying to do a spiel here, but you know, what I try and do is help people to understand these things, see these things and take the steps necessary to ameliorate their own problematic patterns of behavior and habitual behaviors, right? Because habitual behaviors are entrenched in everybody. I mean, and they're very hard to transcend for many people. And some people are not even capable of recognizing their own shortcomings and seeing how those play out and affect their behavior. So giving them an opportunity and some guidance and or some reflection or some counsel around how to do that is a critical piece of this process. But certainly, you know, the tools are available now insofar as there are people like myself, you're out there trying to offer people guidance in different ways or on different subjects or whatnot. There are people who are available who can help individuals to become more empowered, more capable. You know, I'm interested in empowerment, not over outside factors, first and foremost, but you have to be in control of yourself, right? I mean, mastery for me is about self mastery first. It's not about power over, it's about power over self. So I'm interested in seeing people demonstrate that. And it comes back to the point you made earlier, namely that so many people don't have self love. They have low self esteem. They have a low sense of who they are. They have a low sense of capacity. They have a low sense of confidence. Those things have to be addressed. Those things have to be improved when you can help people to feel good about who they are. So that's the first step. Then we can move further to figuring out, you know, what it is, do they really, what do they need and want? And the needs and wants are two different things too, right?  And he's a MMA fighter and also MMA producer based out in Vancouver. And Sabah Fidai, shoutin' you out in case you ever hear this. He's promoting a group called RISE, RISE Fighting Championship out there. I know RISE. Yeah. Sabah's the guy who- Oh, very cool. Yeah, so we were hanging out just recently and whatnot and he made a comment, of course, for our conversation about having always wanted a Ferrari. And I sort of teased him a bit because he's now, you know, he's 34 years old now. And I said, you know, you've always wanted a Ferrari but let me just make mention of the fact that you know what you'll realize as you move forward. And of course, I'm a little bit older now, 21 years on him. I say is that your childhood and childish aspirations don't necessarily hold the same weight as you move through life, right? At a 10 year old or 12 year old, maybe you've always dreamed of having a Ferrari or an Lamborghini, but maybe you've come to 35 or 45 and you realize now that you're a parent and other things are going in your life that it's not really that meaningful to you and your contentment will not be attached so much to that experience. Cause he was telling me an experience about a guy who he knows who has a Ferrari and now says, you know, it's just a car and it doesn't drive very much, right?  Those are the two facets that I consider to be so critical, you know, who are you in relation to yourself and who are you in relation to others?