Hello. Welcome to our talk. We're representing teachers, paid teachers. We're going to talk about how we implemented GitOps and, you know, what we learned along the way. So what we're going to do is we're going to start with some introductions and some context, and then we're just going to go straight through the decisions that we had to make, kind of learning GitOps as we went. It'll take about 15 minutes. Then we're going to wrap it up, and finally we'll get some Q&A time. Introductions. So, hey, my name is Raptor, really Raptor. Been doing DevOps-y sort of stuff for like six years, mostly with education tech things. And I'm just super excited to be here. I don't know. Do you want to introduce yourself, Alicia? Sure. Hey, I'm Alicia. I'm really excited to be here, and I'm also very happy that KubeCon is here in Detroit because I'm from Southfield, Michigan, so I didn't have to travel, which was pretty awesome. Also, doing DevTools, kind of stuff for about six years. And, yeah, excited to be here. Some stuff about us. So TPT, teachers pay teachers. That's the acronym. We've got about five million resources available on just about every aspect of pre-K through 12 Ed. A lot of resources. Teachers just generally know us, and they usually have feelings about it. Generally positive, but if you have any teacher friends, definitely ask them. We've got about 250 employees, and we're mostly remote. And now, like, we're going to start getting better and better stuff. So, engineering context. So, we're about 100 Devs deep, and we've got 101 services. We got really lucky when we started TPT, both of us, like, about a year ago, in that almost all of our services have a lot in common using a similar Node.js template. We pretty quickly ruled out tackling the monolith. And we also have some front-end services that we were able to work on, too. Our infrastructure stack is in Kubernetes. We have three cube clusters on UKS. And we also have a bunch of serverless apps in there. We didn't really think that we'd be able to do the same GitOps stuff with them, but it all kind of worked out well. And our team topology is we're on DevTools, but a lot of our, like, actual, like, deeper cloud knowledge is on a different team. So, we worked closely with them on all of this. So, what led us to GitOps? So, you're here. So, you probably know a thing or two about GitOps. So, what brought us there is we wanted to make software delivery improvements. So, starting a new company, you're not sure how you can help, what you can do. And we noticed, like, three main things come up. The first one being reliability. So, there were a couple of rollback bug issues on our legacy system, which we called Houston. So, this legacy system would call into Jenkins. And Jenkins would do the actual work. And it just didn't always work. And developers were not happy about it. This was for rollbacks and deployments, generally. Another thing they really cared about is visibility. So, because it was two systems, it was hard to know where the problem was if you were a developer day-to-day. And you didn't get a lot of user feedback from the first system that said whether things were working or whether they weren't working. And then the third thing that we really wanted to, and that has come up a couple of times today already, is, like, different deployment styles or canary deployments. So, we really latched on to a couple of different services for doing that. So, again, how can we improve software delivery? It took us, like, a little while. We had, like, some complicated product, like, charts. But we decided on using Argo CD. We had some experience with Flux One and Flux Two. And it was just a little rocky. It does a lot of cool stuff, and it taught us a lot of lessons and things we were doing. And we wanted to try something new, particularly with the upgrading from Flux One to Flux Two. It wasn't as smooth for us. We liked the Argo CD UI. It was just kind of bundled into it, basically. Like, that was nice.  I still don't feel like an expert on Kubernetes. And so just having that UI is helpful. And we just liked GitOps. And we liked it enough that now we're here, I guess. Cool. You want to talk about some decisions, Alicia? Thanks, Raptor. So, after we landed on using Argo CD, we had a bunch of decisions to make. First of all, where do we make those GitOps commits to? I think it was Jim from Harness. I thought I saw him there, yeah. Who was talking about that before. And then what are in those GitOps commits? So, first, to talk about, like, where we make those GitOps commits. So, like Raptor talked about, we have about 100 services or so, each one in their own application repo. And in those application repos, they have, we're using Helm, so they have a Helm chart plus the values files for both staging and production in the application repos themselves. Once we spun up Argo CD, we created a separate application manifest repo to store the Argo CD application manifest in. And we were kind of thinking, hey, it would be a good time, even before adopting Argo CD, we were thinking maybe we should get those Helm charts and values files out of the application repos and centralize them, because it's a pain to manage all the individual Helm charts and values files in each of the application repos. And we were kind of like, how should we do this? But we also, we just wanted to adopt Argo CD at this point, and we're like, let's make it small, incremental, let's keep the existing structure that we have, so that's where we landed on keeping it in the app and service code repo. Once we decided to put it there, we had to figure out what goes in those GitOps commits. So for deployments, it's basically just bumping a Docker image from most of our deployments, and we figured, okay, that should be simple enough, like our GitOps commits could just do that. They'll update the Docker image to the latest tag. And then, like I mentioned, we have staging, prod. The way pre-Argo CD before the way our deployments worked is developers would manually or sometimes, in some cases, it was automated deployment to staging, and then either an automated test or a manual test, check it out, then promote it to production. So we wanted to, again, continue the same flow, like make as little changes as possible. And to that end, we decided we'll have two GitOps commits. We decided we'll go to automated staging deployments always, so no more manual staging. So as soon as you merge your feature branch to the main branch, we'll do a GitOps commit, bump staging, and then have a pause for approval, and then promote it to production. After we implemented that way, we realized we actually had a couple more things that we needed to put into those GitOps commits. So we have these internal tools that make sure that any time you make any HelmChart changes or values files changes, you bump the HelmChart version, too. Again, we could have just changed those internal tools to avoid it, but we're like, it's not such a bad idea to bump the HelmChart version every time we do this anyway. So we added that to the GitOps commit. It's not a big deal. We're not making those commits. The CI system is making those commits. And like you might have seen, we're using CodeFresh. Also, in addition to that, our CI system, like I mentioned, we do staging, pause, and then we do prod. So since we're making the GitOps commits to our main branch, as soon as we did that staging commit, if we wanted to do a Slack notification with the author of the feature, like the commit author, we'd have to look back at commit, and we're like, okay, we could definitely do that. But instead, why don't we just add the commit author to the GitOps commit? So it was interesting. That's what we did. And here you can kind of see where we got in our V2. And V2 was great. Things were working fine. We had the good Slack notifications. Things were working. But developers were mostly happy. But we started getting some feedback that actually deployments were getting delayed. And it's an interesting reason for that. So prior to adopting Argo CD, like I mentioned, somebody would merge their feature branch to main branch. They would do a staging deployment, and then pause, take a look at prod. As soon as that fellow would merge their feature to main branch, if somebody else wanted to do a deployment afterwards, they could already rebase their feature branch with the latest code from the main branch. This is prior to Argo CD. Now, once we adopted Argo CD and we're making those commits directly to the main branch, in order for the developers to get their feature branches ready and to rebase, they actually had to wait until all the GitOps commits were done, then they could rebase. And it wasn't trivial because, unfortunately, we're hoping to improve this. Our CI times are a bit slow. Like, probably a lot of people have this. But, therefore, it was slowing down deployments. So we realized that, here's the Azure script again, what we realized we wanted to split out those GitOps commits to another repo. And like I mentioned before, we already had an Argo CD application manifest repo. So we were thinking, again, let's maybe reconsider, we'll move our values, files, our charts out of the application repos and move them into this Argo CD application manifest repo. But, besides for not wanting to make too many changes and boil the ocean, we also were relying on the presence of the charts and values files in the application repos for another internal tool, which spins up in a femoral environment every commit. And we're like, this is going to be a lot of work if we want to do this. So we're like, what else can we do? Is there any other way to do this? And we stumbled across, in your application manifest, your Argo CD application manifest, you could actually specify Helm parameter overrides. And we're like, okay, this is interesting. We can now make a GitOps commit, and I'll show you what it looks like, to our application manifest. And it's kind of an interesting thing.  And we were like a little bit hesitant because this is kind of a hacky way. So if you could follow along here, we have our application repo with the values files and the charts in one repo, your application specs, your Argo CD application specs in another repo. And in that other repo, we specify the overrides of the Docker image to use. So the Docker tag is being set in that Argo CD's application spec. We reached out, like on Slack, I guess, to the CNCF, or no, I don't know, the Argo Slack thing, and asked, and somebody's like, yeah, it seems okay. And it's been working fine. And it's great. Application owners are very happy. Things are working fine. And so far, we're liking. Raptor, nope, stole me. Sorry. One more thing. So now that we have these changes to the Argo CD applications, manifests, how do you apply those? So one of the things that people may be familiar with is the idea of an app of apps. So you could have an Argo CD application that manages other Argo CD applications. So even without all the other stuff that I discussed, we were kind of thinking, hey, maybe we should do this app of app thing, but we're like, I don't know. Yes, no. But here was a good use case for it because we wanted to sync the application, Argo CD applications themselves, with the Helm chart parameter overrides. Those need to be updated before you do a deployment. Because if you don't update those before you do a deployment, you don't have that override in. And therefore, you're getting the old code in. So you've got to make sure that those are off the date. So we're like, once we make that GitOps commit to change the Argo CD application parameter overrides, we need to make sure those are synced. So we were thinking, this is a great use case for app of apps. Let's try it out. But we quickly realized that it's actually a single point of failure. Because if anything happens with any of those apps, the parameter overrides, which we actually experienced, we had a Git commit that happened to be only numbers. And Argo CD complained that it was an integer when it should have been a string for the Docker image tag. I might be butchering this. But basically, because of that, the sync failed. And once the sync failed, none of other applications were getting updated. And if they don't get updated, then all the deployments are using the old tag. So we decided, actually, we'll just do a cube apply, and things are going well. And now, now do you, Refter? That was good. Yes. So I get to talk about syncing. I really like syncing. I hope you'll join me in thinking about syncing. So this is the Argo CD page. When you click the sync button, there's like a pop-up that's like, okay, here's what you're going to do. And I am not always super great at reading everything. And so I saw this page, and I was like, I don't know what to do with this. But I quickly realized that I needed to know what these did. In particular, I'm going to call out AutoCreate namespace, which is one of my favorite flags, and would totally encourage everyone to use. And then the bigger, scarier one is Perune here. So let's talk about Perune, maybe. So initially, we decided to trigger Argo CD syncs manually. And our reasoning for that was to get more feedback to users and more control, especially as we were gaining more comfort with the system. We had talked about doing Argo CD notifications instead to handle that. But we wanted to keep it consistent. It was less work to keep consistent with how we wanted CI and stuff to move over to Argo products in the future, too. So we decided to keep Perune turned off for the first couple services that we did, mostly out of fear. But eventually, we dove into the Perunes. So you can see this delicious bowl of Perunes. And once you try a Perunes, you can't stop eating them if you're me. So we turned it on. It was something like Cron Jobs, which we needed to delete every time we deployed one of our apps for. And these Cron Jobs had similar names that would conflict. And so when we had Perune, it worked. And we didn't have Perune. It didn't work. And we now have Perune on all the time. And it's just been fine. So yeah, go for Perune.  We were just pretty happy with the ability to get feedback and interpret feedback for running Argo CD commands. I feel like it also helped us learn Argo CD better, is like specifying the different Perune flags every time and knowing what you want, the different sync flags. So how do we migrate? That's one of the fun things that we as an end user company can talk about. So we started to do one at a time pairing. We got lucky. Our cloud team was like, here's a service. It's live in production. If it breaks it, it won't be that big a deal. And we were pretty happy with one at a time pairing for a while. In part because we were starting to learn GitOps, but our company didn't really understand GitOps. And this was one way to really build that education. And I think one at a time people just respond more and we learn more and everyone's happier. After we got better at that, we formalized a process for this, which turned into the self-service pipeline to add to pipelines, which is kind of just a fancy way of saying like there was one process that teams could click a button on and migrate their services over to using GitOps for. We kind of saw how that goes for a while and if they could actually self-service it. Some of the reasoning on these decisions is that when we migrated our first couple services over, we saw a couple bugs that we hadn't picked up on or guessed would exist, including like the malformed strings one that Alicia mentioned. We found some staging database connections that didn't work, which is like too bad. And we're glad we found those. There were a couple Kubernetes settings that were just out in the wild that weren't actually doing anything. And then with like with ARGA, we figured out they weren't doing anything. And we're just kind of nonsense settings for them. So that was nice. But yeah, just being involved in figuring out all those different use cases. At about 30, we started thinking how to automate through the rest of them because we remember we had like 100 services that we were trying to tackle. And we haven't gotten them all the way through, but it's going pretty well. The automation is fine. Did people like it? Yeah, the early adopters super loved it. Again, our legacy system was OK. We needed to improve the things they saw we improve the things they were they were happy. There's a couple services that are less excited about moving over changes hard, changing how you deliver software. As always, things go wrong sometimes, right? So it's understandable. We had it down to like less than 30 minutes for a service to deploy to run CI staging and production. We didn't get any major issues rolling out new services related to GitOps, which is great. We kind of thought there would be more, but it was fine. One thing that we even expected to have issues on was how ARGA works is it does a Helm template to make files and like templateize files, and then it does a cube apply on them. And before we were doing Helm upgrade to manage our versions. So switching from Helm upgrade to the Helm template and apply, that was fine. So if you are using Helm upgrade right now and are worried about that, it'll be OK. And there was the roadblock as mentioned before for GitOps commits in the same repos, plus long CI times, plus rebasing is frustrating. But yeah, we solved that in the way that Alicia brought up. So it was kind of a lot, maybe. I felt like it was a lot. Does anyone have any questions for us right now? Otherwise, we can talk about other stuff. I see one over here. Do you want to start? Hello. OK. It's really interesting because we went through this exact thing a year ago. And if you wouldn't mind, I would love to talk to you afterward, because I think there is a next step that you can take that would be really it's it's quite impressive. It's exactly the same path with the same repo first and then a couple of repos. But the way forward, I would say with application sets and how you can divide different things and the values. So yeah, we'd love to chat afterward. That's it. I will not bother everyone with it. Thank you. Hello. My question is, can you talk a little bit more about where the bottlenecks were? If there were any regarding the scalability you mentioned, it took 30 minutes granted there were multiple environments. And yeah, like what did you notice? Where were the bottlenecks in order to deploy a lot more services? Let me try to repeat the question. So you're asking when we were migrating a bunch of the services? Where were the bottlenecks? And did you say something specific specifically to more more on the deployments, not not migrations, just deploying your code to an environment? Like, where did you notice any bottlenecks? Or did you even notice them? Do you mean bottlenecks in terms of time? Right? Yeah. So like how many deployments could you deploy to production? You mentioned 30 minutes, right? So if you had like 30 services, so what happens if you do 100 services or 500? Sure. And where would you see the bottlenecks? Got it. Yeah. Thanks for the question. So just to try and repeat it is we have like 100 services. That's a lot of services. Where do you see the bottlenecks? It takes 30 minutes to deploy, etc. So to try and address that to be fair, we did not do 100 services at once. So we never really experienced like a huge rollout. What we did is, like Raptor talked about at first, we did like one at a time. And even now, once we're starting to automate this, we're going to just put in a space in between them. So we're never going to hopefully, I mean if we start a new cluster or something like that, we should run to it. But just to avoid the whole issue, it's like we don't need to do the migration all at once. So we just did it iteratively and just broke the deployment, the migrations apart. But one thing is to address maybe something else you're asking about is we haven't had any issues with scale yet with deployments currently. So there are obviously application developers make changes at any time during the day and maybe five applications will be deployed at the same time. But we, I don't think Raptor, you could correct me if I'm wrong, we haven't seen any scaling issues yet. So that's encouraging, I guess. I'm trying to understand if the developers are your users basically, they're end to end workflow. So they make a PR with their application code, right? And they commit that to the main branch or whatever. And then you have this Argo CD repo. I'm going to stop you right there for one second. Yeah. They make a PR and then they merge that, the feature branch to the main branch, okay, same thing. And then they, then they do a new PR on the Argo CD repo, right? No. No. Yeah. So, sorry. And let me repeat. Yeah. I guess you're using the mic. I want to go through a lot of good slides. I was just trying to imagine, like, where, where are their human gates at is what I was trying to basically get to where the, where are the human gates for them? Yeah, sure. Should I take this route or do you want to take it? Oh yeah, go for it. Okay. So they obviously have to get PR approval. And they have to pass CI. So GitHub enforces both of those things. And then once they merge to main branch, they next, they themselves could approve promotion to production. So everything's automated. They just, actually through Slack, we just have an approve button and that sends an approval, that, that kicks off the next GitOps commit to change the prod tag and trigger a sync. One thing we didn't really, Raptor touched on this, but we're not auto syncing right now. So we're right. So who's doing the auto sync or who's doing the manual sync? The CI system. It's triggering. Okay, so it's not you. For some reason thought it was you and I was like, how does that happen in 30 minutes? Do you have someone sitting there all day long? No, so we're not the CI we use code fresh and code fresh is triggering in our missing. Thank you. Sure. Yeah, I guess we called it manual, but we're not doing it. Yeah, thanks for the clarification. Good question. How are we doing on time? So you mentioned you found earlier adopters, let's say the first guinea pigs for the exercise. Was there a process? Are you already new? Like, oh, we can always go to those five app teams because they're going to try things before others try things. Please go for it. Even killing it. All right, I'll keep rolling. So the question was, how do we identify early adopters basically like who volunteered? So like Raptor mentioned, we were closely with cloud ops. We're on the DevTools team, but cloud ops volunteer to service. One of the fun things that I like that we did is we, like again what Raptor mentioned, we have a legacy custom deployment tool, like he said it's called Houston. We made that thing on Argo CD. So deploying the deployer, the old deployer on Argo CD. So we started off with like our own apps basically and then we're like, hey, call to action. Anybody want to be an early adopter? And generally people were feeling the pain of deployments and like Raptor called out some of the, like there was low visibility, rollbacks were painful. So we're like, we're trying to solve this. Like we think this will help. Who wants to volunteer to take this journey with us? And luckily there are a few volunteers. So we started with those. And it was it was definitely a manual pairing process with those early adopters. But then people, you know, word of mouth, hey, this is actually cool. Like, so that's how it worked. Yeah, I think we definitely had to beg a little bit. Just we have like a TL, like a team lead concept. And like some Tls were like, yeah, let's do this. Let's adopt. And and some were like, maybe later, let's see what other Tls do. So just like slacking people from a list of a pod chart, like who owns services. Will you let us please use your service and make things better? If there's no more questions, we have other slides we can talk about. How we doing time wise? She was just with. All right. Cool stuff. If we have time. Cool. I think there was a lightning talk that I missed about this and I'm kind of bummed about it because one of the things that held us up when we like first started is like, what does the Argo CD app repo structure look like? And we found like a couple of blog posts that had like ideas. And we weren't really committed to following any specific one of them. So how we ended up doing is so we had three clusters, three EKS clusters. And we just made a folder called apps and a folder called RBAC for each of those clusters. I don't know if I worded that well, but perhaps you can see in this image there's EKS CI and then the apps and then these are some of our apps in there. The RBAC stuff didn't really fit in into the Argo CD structure that we like saw initially and so we just kind of added that later. But yeah, not worth getting held up on what the right repo structure should be. I think like ideally we had used helm files a little bit in the past and we kind of like that set up too. But with just three clusters it seemed like let's just keep moving. But we'd love to talk more about this if other people have better structures on that. Another thing that kind of held us up initially was installing Argo CD and Argo rollouts across clusters. We had seen autopilot, Argo autopilot, which I think was not yet fully released when we were installing things but we really like it now and I think in hindsight we would have used something like that. What we did use was the Argo CD home chart and the Argo CD apps, home charts to manage additional apps. And we do manage Argo CD through Argo CD so that's been cool. Chat ops stuff. I think you've kind of been owning the chat ops things. Sure. Yeah, so we've been going closer and closer to being able to just use Slack and just like we talked about the approvals through Slack and putting in tons of metadata into there so it's been pretty sweet. Yeah, so let's wrap it up. So where we're at now is a lot of our delivery stuff is working really nicely with Argo CD and with GitOps. We'd like to start incorporating Argo workflows. CI was the bigger beast for us to tackle so we got started with CD and delivery, improving that first. Things are pretty smooth. We didn't mention it, but the diff checking on moving over to Argo CD is really nice and we're just happy using Argo CD. We still have lots to iterate on and learn, obviously, as I think you've seen from some of the slides of just like our confusion. But like overall we feel good. We love GitOps. The company has been supportive and I think people have appreciated it and seen value in it. We're excited for the future. Thanks for answering. I just wanted to call out Christian over here. Thanks for this is our first time talking. So thanks for the call out to try and talk. And yeah, like you mentioned, we'd really like to continue the discussion if everybody has ideas. We know we don't know a lot of things. So it's great, great to be here. Thank you very much.


Wow, what's up everybody, once again, it's Bram and Sean and today we're going over 21 Savage's marketing genius. Before I get started, I want to do a shout out to Jugman Sosa because he asked me to do a 21 Savage video about two months ago. And James Royal in 1987 also asked me to do a 21 Savage video last week. Might not be exactly what you guys are expecting, but it's super important. Now first, when you talk about 21 Savage, you can't ignore the core tenets of his brand. One of those obviously being the overarching street brand that 21 Savage has, but the authenticity that really relates and resonates with people in relation to his story. Of course, there are other streets rappers with authentic stories, but when you hear him talk about his on the breakfast club and just other places, it does resonate. But a second major element is his voice. As a matter of fact, it adds to the authenticity of his street brand because it sounds so rugged and raw. If the streets tucked, they'd sound like 21 Savage. Vocally, 21 Savage is his generation's version of DMX. And a third element is obviously the way 21 Savage looks. Not only does he visually come off as what a lot of people would probably consider street, he took it to the whole another level by looking like a fool on villain. But really, those are just some core elements of Duke's brand makeup. The genius of his marketing comes in when we talk about that knife on his forehead. So of course, if you already know 21 Savage, you're already probably familiar with Slaughter Gang. Just from a terminology standpoint, that's always reinforcing each other. But that's not even what I'm talking about. But the real moment for the knife is to show it to go down as legendary interview with DJ Vlad. The hilarity of the awkwardness of having DJ Vlad just misunderstand what's on his head. The couple with the deadpan answer straight serious is the 21 Savage had when he corrected him. What's the perfect recipe to go viral as a meme on the internet? And you've probably done seen them everywhere. Putting 21 Savage at the dead center of a godsend as far as marketing, which is the internet working for you becoming the machine that pushes you as a meme. Now, everybody's having conversation about first the interview 21 Savage, but then outside of that began to live just the terminology of Issa itself. It's a picture. It's a commercial. It's a sale.  It's a Wednesday. Having something that's so applicable to almost anything and could be tracked back to you and also is this constant subconscious reminder of you is something that you can't even quantify really and how much that's worth in marketing dollars. That single interview basically took 21 Savage from being a figure in culture to becoming culture itself, constantly interweaving into people's day-to-day lives through language. But why in the world is 21 Savage genius for something that he technically didn't even do on purpose? What made this genius for 21 Savage and really his team because of course it's not just these artists out there making all these decisions by themselves. It's the fact that they as a team decided to capitalize off of the opportunity of the Issa going viral. They utilized a concept which I call agile marketing, which means you market, but you're also agile to make adjustments. No, they didn't just come out the gate saying, hey, you should start saying Issa and then we're going to make this a whole thing. But what they did do was analyze the landscape and what's going on around 21 Savage as an artist. And the best marketers of today will be able to analyze what's going on, what's working and what's not and be able to push the things that are working to maximize their results and awareness, visibility and conversion. See, agile marketing is realizing that you can't mastermind everything from the beginning. People are always creating memes of some kind about public figures. What they decided to do was take ownership of a thought that was already being pushed out. Of course, they also had Issa merchandise. They had Issa.website when you go to that website and basically you can have 21 Savage identify anything that you take a picture with on the phone. And then of course, you have the pinnacle, which is the Issa album. Another great example of this is if you think about Yo Gotti and the Down in a DM song. That song was not supposed to be a single, but it was catching on. So then he took it and he made it a single and that's going to be the smart way to move really going forward. Look at the results. Look at the data, how it's moving and if things are popping and bubbling without you putting energy into it, then you need to put your energy into it so you can really maximize what happens around it. Because it means that you're going to get farther for less money and for the artists that don't have a lot of resources. That's what agile marketing is about is getting the most out of the resources that you have and every single move that you make. As a matter of fact, when I think about Usher, Usher also had the song Shawty Don't Mind. And that song was doing well by itself. He wasn't planning to make it a big song or a single, but they pushed it a little bit more. But they nowhere near maximize the results around that single. They didn't even record a video for that song. It has like over a hundred forty five million views on a YouTube audio clip, which is actually more views, I believe, than the Noah Limit video has on YouTube, which Usher put a lot more energy behind. So I could only imagine that they probably could have got a lot more out of the Shawty Don't Mind song. But who knows what was going on in Usher's life at the time. It didn't really seem like once again that they even wanted to focus on that song. It kind of happened by itself at that time. It looked like his campaign was really trying to go a different direction. As far as the focus and brand they wanted to push at the time. And when you're already solidified like Usher is, it's a lot less urgency to just move and push was already working in itself. A lot of people get sold on what they already had their minds set on campaign wise. So the fact that 21 Savage and his team was really paying attention to the standpoint of maximizing something that wasn't even content, right? There's a lot of people that have it down pat in terms of maximizing whichever song is getting the most motion these days. People are starting to get smart enough to do that. But it's a whole nother level to be able to analyze things that aren't specifically related to the content that you created and to be able to own it so you maximize the look that you get from it. You can kind of even think about the whole interview that Birdman had with the Breakfast Club. I'll stop putting some respect on my name. You understand me? When y'all saying my name, put some respect on it. He made sure he kept off of the fact that people were making fun of him and then started creating shirts. Didn't even think to look it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if he trademarked it. Now, it is likely true that it's about to be time for 21 Savage to rebrand because after making it an album, you kind of closed the chapter on the whole Issa thing. Not that they could stop the world from using it or anything, but just using it as a forefront of their campaign, they probably won't be doing that anymore. I mean, I personally wouldn't recommend it. It's going to get old. But once again, that they played off it at first, but then saw that it kept on getting bigger and it just still existed. And then coming back with the album to remind people this whole phrase that you keep on using started with me. As a matter of fact, 21 Savage actually took so much ownership for they say he created the word, which is arguable, but that's besides the point. But what I see is important to take away from this is realizing that marketing today, especially with the internet and music, is not mastermining some grand scheme of campaign. It's not about the strategy that you come into the game with. It's about the adjustments that you make while you're on the field. It's not even the cause that you make while you're in the huddle. It's about the audibles that you call. Once you get a chance to get up to that line and see what's going down. I love that analogy. Let's brand that thinking about this in a form of steps is basically come up with your plan, which is ultimately going to be a framework that you work within. I'm not saying don't have no plan at all. And after you launch with minor investment and then analyze what's going on, put your energy, even more energy and resources behind the thing that's working, whatever's bubbling up that song that's starting to take off by itself. If people are really starting to take attention to whatever kind of glasses or headband that you're wearing. And then of course, depending on your goals, cap off of that as necessary. So that's it. Y'all know what to do. Hit that subscribe button.


at a super chat question. Any comment on the EU Google 5 million anti-trust fine? Should Google shrug and withdraw offering their service to the EU? Certainly they should withdraw service from the UN. Wow. I mean, it's horrible. I mean, the fact that the EU has the power, that any government has the power to inflict a fine like that on one of the most productive companies in the world. One of the companies that have changed all of our lives, that have in substantial dramatic ways made the world in which we live better. The fact that any government agency can do that is just a massive injustice and horrible.  I think this is about something about Android and bundling the apps in Android and stuff like that.  And the only thing is it's good that the US hasn't gone after Google yet. But it's just a matter of time before they do. I guess it's just this one that is too busy with Time Warner buying. What are they buying? Jonathan, remind me. AT&T? Time Warner? AT&T? No, AT&T buying Time Warner, right? Too busy with that deal because who knows why they believe that that is an antitrust violation. But this kind of fine is just so authoritarian in nature. And it is really horrible. Should Google shrug? I mean, yeah. I mean, if Google shrugged, the world would change in dramatic ways. But if it shrugs there, then it's going to shrug in other places as well. It's going to have to shrug across the world. Now, it's already shrugged. For Google's credit, it shrugged basically in China. It would not play ball with the Chinese. And as a consequence, Google is banned in China. And it's given up a big chunk of the world. Could Google do the same thing in Europe? You would have to look at the business case. But yes, morally, that would be amazing if they did it. But then to be successful at that, they would have to be consistent then in shrugging when the US government went after them. And I think it's just a matter of time before the US government goes after Google and Apple and Facebook. Facebook, you've already seen the beginnings of that. And will they do it more consistently? And it's a very difficult decision if you're a manager, particularly of a publicly traded company. Because as a publicly traded company, your fiduciary responsibility is to shareholders. And how do you calculate whether paying the fine or shrugging is better for your shareholders? Now, we know long-term philosophically it's better for your shareholders, but they don't care, they're there for the money. And you have to do a financial calculating. So look, the whole idea of shrugging is a very, very, very difficult proposition. And think about the shrugging in Atlas Shrugged. When the business is shrugged in Atlas Shrugged, they don't just shrug. They don't just stop working in Europe. They stop working.  And on top of that, they are working to ultimately change the world. So the whole goal is ultimately to come back into the world and change it. So just shrugging in one market without it being a moral shrug, without it being clear what your agenda is, without it being clear what the purpose is, that's a financial calculation.  If Google could do that, then they should shrug. But I don't think they can. So it really should be a financial calculation because they don't have the philosophical context to really shrug properly. There's a good lecture that Greg Salamiere gave about when to shrug. It's on the Ironman Institute. I'm pretty sure it's on the Ironman Institute YouTube channel. Greg Salamiere, something shrug. Can't remember the exact name of the talk. Maybe somebody on the chat here knows what it is and can tell us. But I would recommend you go listen to that because I think that'll have a lot more content about it. But I think if you're going to shrug, it has to be you have to know why you're doing it and you have to know what you're doing it for. It can't just be I don't like what the European Union is doing. If they don't penalize me a billion dollars, I wouldn't shrug, but $5 billion, that's over the top. No, it has to be a moral statement. And therefore, you are willing to shrug no matter what the fine would be. But for it to be a moral statement, I don't think Google is in a position to make that kind of moral statement.


Over the last century, an increasing global demand for food has led to intensified agricultural production and industrialization of agricultural land. This has brought many benefits, such as higher crop yields, poverty alleviation and improved food security and nutrition. However, these benefits have not come without costs. The inappropriate use of pesticides is linked to higher pollution levels on agricultural land, resulting in environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and damaging impacts on food safety and human health. A relatively small share of all pesticides on the market, referred to as highly hazardous pesticides, are of particular concern. Millions of serious, unintentional pesticide poisoning cases take place per year, often in developing countries. Women and children working in high-risk agricultural environments are worst affected. To address these challenges, FAO provides tools and technical assistance to its members to help minimize the risks associated with highly hazardous pesticides. FAO also works with other international organizations, including WHO and UNEP, on mechanisms for addressing highly hazardous pesticides. As such, FAO advocates high-level commitment to reduce highly hazardous pesticides risks to international chemicals management. Leads the international technical guidance to tackle highly hazardous pesticides risks under the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management. It's technical support to help regulators reduce risks of highly hazardous pesticides around the world and promote sustainable crop production and protection, making crops more resilient to threats and decreasing pesticide risks and cost to farmers. Now, a more ambitious approach is required to drive global action and facilitate the uptake of safer alternatives to highly hazardous pesticides. FAO is working with the WHO, UNEP and other partners to establish a multi-sector platform for engagement and coordinated actions in power national and regional pesticide regulators, scale up best practices and support farmers to access information so that they can make evidence-based decisions. By addressing together the risks of highly hazardous pesticides, we can build a healthier and more sustainable world for all.


So this lecture is part of an online algebraic geometry course on schemes and will be about divisors on dedicined domains, or at least their spectra. So we recall that in previous lectures, we've defined a map from Cartier divisors or Cartier divisor classes to Ray divisors or Ray divisor classes. And we've also defined a map from Cartier divisors to the Picard group, which is usually an isomorphism. So this map here is called the churn class. And I guess actually before going on a bit I better explain why this is called the churn class. Suppose X is a complex manifold, might be say a Riemann surface. Then on this complex manifold, we have the following exact sequence of sheaves. 2 pi i z goes to 0 star. I'm not quite sure whether to put a 0 or 1 here. It depends whether you write this additively or not. Here, this is the sheaf of meromorphic functions. This is the sheaf of non-zero meromorphic functions. That's ones that are not 0 anywhere. And this here is the exponential map. And the kernel of the exponential map is just multiple integer multiples of 2 pi i. And from this exact sequence of sheaves, we can get an exact sequence of cohomology groups. And yeah, I know I haven't defined cohomology groups yet, but this is just for background information. In particular, we get a map from h1 of 0 star to h2 of 2 pi i z as part of the long cohomology exact sequence. And when we were discussing line bundles, I said the line bundles sort of correspond to the first check cohomology group. And this is more or less the first check cohomology group, so it's more or less the Picard group. So we get a natural boundary map from line bundles to the second cohomology group of a manifold. And this is the map that is the churned class in differential geometry. More generally, you can define churned classes not just for line bundles, but for arbitrary vector bundles. And they take values in the even dimensional cohomology classes. But we're just going to be looking at the simplest case of line bundles. Now, what we would like to do is do an analog of this in algebraic geometry. And we run into a serious problem with this because we've got this exponential map is not algebraic. And we've got another problem in that, well, you can define the sheaf Z in algebraic geometry over a scheme. However, the cohomology of the sheaf Z turns out to be rather badly behaved. And it doesn't give you the cohomology classes you expect. And it's a really rather difficult problem to find the correct analog of integral cohomology that this was solved by growth that using etal cohomology, but we're not going to go into that. It's not yet. And so what we do well, a second cohomology group is sort of dual to a second homology group. It should be the homology of X with coefficients in Z. And by point current duality, a second cohomology group is sort of dual to a homology group of a homology group of dimension n minus two. And homology of dimension n minus two is something to do with co-dimension to subsets. Well, if you're working over the complex numbers, then there's something a real co-dimension to is something complex co-dimension one. So that's something to do with divisors. That's very divisors rather than Cartier divisors. So in other words, very divisors are something to do with the second cohomology group. They're sort of analogous to it. And we saw that Cartier divisor classes, at least in nice cases, correspond exactly to the Picard group. So this group here is sort of analogous to the Cartier divisors. And this group here is sort of vaguely analogous to V divisors. And the map from the Cartier divisors to V divisors that we defined turns out to be the analog of the churn class map in differential geometry. So more generally, in high dimensions, the Picard group would be replaced by some sort of K theory where K theory describes vector bundles over a manifold. The V group would be represented by some high dimensional generalization of co-homology, either using intersection theory or etal co-homology. So that's why the map from Cartier divisors to V divisors is sometimes called a churn class. Well, now we get back to Dedekind domains. So if we've got a Dedekind domain R, we're going to look at the scheme spectrum of R and try and figure out what the V divisors and the Cartier divisors look like on that. So let's just recall what a Dedekind domain is. So a Dedekind domain is the following properties. First of all, it's an integral domain. Secondly, it's notarian. And thirdly, every prime, it's not zero, is maximal. And fourthly, it's integrally closed in the quotient field. So this is the definition in terms of algebra. Now let's translate this to geometry. So geometry, well, if you've got an integral domain, this just means you've got an affine scheme, which is integral. Notarian translates to notarian. Every prime being maximal, every non-zero prime being maximal just says the dimension or the crawl dimension is at most one. And integrally closed in the quotient field means that the scheme is normal. Now for one-dimensional schemes, that's more or less equivalent to saying it's regular. There's no singular points. So Dedekind domains correspond to one-dimensional affine things with no singular points. So there's an obvious example of this. First of all, any non-singular affine curve over a field. So for example, we could take the curve y squared equals x cubed minus x, and the coordinate ring of this would be a Dedekind domain. The other really important example are integers of algebraic number fields. So a typical example of this would be the ring of Gaussian integers, z of i. And back in the 19th century, when people were studying curves and integers of algebraic number fields, people noticed that there was a strong analogy between them. And these days we say this is because they're both basically one-dimensional affine schemes. So now there are two classical approaches to the ideal class group. So in algebraic number theory, there's something called the ideal class group which measures how far the ring of integers is from being a unique factorization domain. And there are traditionally two opposing ways to define this, and people used to sort of argue a bit about which the best way was. So the first method is using divisors. So what's a divisor? Well, here we take the free abelian group on the maximal ideals of our Dedekind domain. So for instance, for z of i, if you took z of i, the maximal ideals would be 1 plus i, 3, 2 plus i, 2 minus i, and so on. So you take the free abelian group generated by these elements and call that the ring of divisors. Principle divisor, well, if f is an element of r, then you can write the ideal f as a product of prime ideals because it's a Dedekind domain. So it would be p1 to the n1, p2 to the n2 and so on. And n1, p1 plus n2, p2 and so on is called a principle divisor. And then you can define the divisor class group to be the group of divisors modulo the principle divisors. And this is trivial if and only if the Dedekind domain is a unique factorization domain. And what you can do is you can think of the elements of the Dedekind domain as sort of being like functions. For instance, if we take r equals z, so the divisors are 2, 3, 5 and so on. Then you think of, say, number 12 over 5 would have a zero of order 2 at 2 and of order 1 at 3 and a pole of order 1 at 5. This isn't the same way that if you take, say, x squared times x minus 1 over x minus 2, this is a zero of order 2 at the ideal x and a zero of order 1 at the ideal x minus 1 and a pole of order 1 at the ideal x minus 2. So this is part of the analogy between algebraic number fields and curves. Anyway, if you notice, the divisors that we've defined for a Dedekind domain are exactly the vague divisors of a scheme. So divisors in algebraic number theory are the same as what geometers would call vague divisors. And the divisor class group is just the vague divisors modulo principle vague divisors. So it's just the group CL of vague divisor classes. So this group was sort of discovered more or less independently by people doing number theory and people doing geometry. Well, because it wasn't really independent since the people doing it knew perfectly well about the analog. Okay, so that's one way of defining the ideal class group. I guess I better just do a quick example where the divisor class group isn't trivial. So the simplest case is zero minus five that we've had a few times before. And here we can see that, for instance, the principle divisor two factorizes is two one plus root minus five squared and three factorizes as three one plus root minus five three one minus root minus five and one plus root minus five factorizes as two one plus root minus five three one plus root minus five and so on. So, so these are principle. And, however, the ideals to one plus root minus five three one plus minus root minus five, not principle. So the divisor class group is definitely non trivial because these are non trivial elements in it that aren't principle. On the other hand, there was a second approach to the, to the ideal class group, which uses ideals, rather than, rather than divisors. Here we recall that a fractional ideal is a non zero finitely generated sub module of K, which is the quotient field of quotients of the data kind domain. And the, for a data kind domain, the fractional ideals actually form a group and multiplication of, well, multiplication of ideals extended to fractional ideals in the obvious way. And you can quotient out this by the group of principle fractional ideals, which are just all multiples of, of some particular element of the quotient field. And this is called the ideal class group. So, so for example, for C, root minus five. There are two elements of the ideal class group, you can either have the ideal one or the ideal to one plus root minus five. And this is a non principle ideal. And it's fairly straightforward to calculate that any fractional ideal is equal to a principle ideal times one of these two. So here the ideal class group is order two. And we notice that fractional ideals are essentially the same as invertible sub sheaves of the field K or rather of the sheaf corresponding to the field K. And these are essentially the same as Cartier divisors. So the two classical approaches to the class group of a number field, the divisor class group or the ideal class group, turn out to be these two, they correspond to the two different ways we've had a defining divisors, either Cartier divisors, or Cartier divisors and the classical equivalents between the ideal class group and the divisor class group in number theory turns out to be just the isomorphism we've given between the Cartier divisors and the very divisors. I guess you could if you want quotient is out by principle divisors. I'm arguing about which of these is the correct approaches a bit silly they're too perfectly good approaches which just happened to be the same for data kind rings. So I think it probably helps a bit to see what's going on if I give you an example where these two groups are not the same. So here I'm going to look at the spectrum of C root minus three. So Z root minus three is the classic example of an order in an algebraic number field that is not a data kind domain. And the reason it's not a data kind domain is it's not integrally closed. Because the element root minus three plus one over two is a root of x squared plus x plus one equals zero so it's integral but it's not in here so so we actually Z root minus three is contained in Z one plus root minus three over two. And this one is a data kind domain. And so in particular we get maps from the spectrum of Z root minus three and spectrum of Z one plus root minus three over two. This scheme is non-singular whereas this one has a sort of singularity in it. If you want to sort of visualize a picture of them you can think of the spectrum of this has been kind of like a curve with a node and this is kind of like curve without a node maps on to it or something like that but of course these aren't really algebraic curves this is just a sort of picture of what's going on. Anyway, this scheme has a singularity at the point two so this is a prime ideal of it and it's actually got a got a singularity there. So let's look at the Cartier divisors and the Baye divisors. First of all, the Baye divisor class group is non-trivial. In particular, there's the prime ideal to one plus root minus three, which is not principal. Sorry, I just realized I made an error here. This isn't the point to ideal to one plus root minus three of course. So this prime ideal is not principal so the Baye divisor class group is not one. Now let's look at the Cartier divisors. So here we have to look at the fractional ideals and it's not difficult to work up what they are. There are two sorts of fractional ideal. There's a principal one and there's the ideal two plus root minus three. Two one plus root minus three and this is, well, so it looks as if the group of Cartier divisors isomorphic to the group of Baye divisors. Here we've got two candidates for Cartier divisors. However, we actually made an error because this one is not a Cartier divisor, or at least there's no Cartier divisor correspondence. The point is, this is a fractional ideal but is not invertible. So in a Dedekind domain, all non-zero fractional ideals are automatically invertible but this actually fails here. In fact, we can work out what its square is. If we take two one plus root minus three and square it we get the ideal four two plus two root minus three minus two plus two root minus three, which is two times two one plus root minus three, which is the ideal we started with times two. So if this idea were invertible it would be the same as the ideal two, which it isn't. So, in fact, the Cartier divisor group only has one element, which is just generated by the principal ideal. In fact, we can see other things going wrong. If we look at the local ring, if we kind of localize it two and add root minus three, then the maximal ideal is now two one plus root minus three. And we see M over M squared is two dimensional over the field, quotient field, which is two elements. So M is not principal in the local ring. So in particular, it's not locally free at this point and it doesn't give us an invertible sheaf or an element of the Picard group or anything else. So in other words, there's a whole cascade of things that go wrong, this example. So here are things that go wrong. So first of all, so in spec of Z root minus three, we have a local ring is not regular or normal. Secondly, the ideal two one plus root minus three is not principal in this local ring. So it's not invertible. So for a data kind domain, all local rings are discrete valuation rings. So every ideal becomes principal in the local ring. So, so this fails for this example. Similarly, the map from the Picard group to the vague group, or this would be corresponds to fractional ideals, I should say invertible fractional ideals. This corresponds to divisors is not an isomorphism. So that's enough about data kind domains. The next lecture will be more examples of Cartier and Wade divisor class groups.


1. Background, there is disagreement about the level of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2, infection. To address this, a living systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to answer three questions. a. What proportion of people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? b. What proportion of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection who are asymptomatic when diagnosed will develop symptoms later? c. What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is accounted for by people who are either asymptomatic throughout infection or presymptomatic? 2. Methods and findings. The study searched PubMed, M-Base, BioRxiv, and MedRxiv using a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature that is updated daily on three different dates, March 25, 2020, April 20. This article was authored by Diana Buetroga-Varcia, Diana Igligani, Michelle J. Kunat, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for attending this evening's board of marina parks and forestry commission My name is Peter mayor. I'm the vice chairperson of the marina parks and forestry The chair is Mike fro. He's not here this evening. So I will be chairing the meeting. We'd like to start out Calling the meeting to order There will be a Period of time. I just want to explain the process a little bit There will be on the agenda a public input session That is limited to three minutes and it relates to matters not on the agenda so if you are here to to comment or Or discuss or Mention something relating to the matter on the agenda for the park That is not subject to the three-minute time limitation. So when I Mention the public input if you're here for the regular public hearing you do not need to speak at that time We'll call it later. I know that sometimes becomes confusing So I wanted to make sure to explain that to everybody because Sometimes we don't know exactly when we want to stand up. So thank you very much for coming Again, we're calling the meeting to order and we're going to start out with the Pledge of Allegiance I The next item on the agenda is public input if anybody is here to speak on matters Unrelated to the hearing you are welcome to do so the time limit is three minutes per individual Okay, I don't see anybody moving to the lectern to speak in the public input Therefore the next item on the agenda is minutes The minutes from the February 4th 2020 meeting which have been distributed There's a motion to approve in a second any discussion if not all in favor any opposed That motion carries The third item on the agenda is a hearing a Hearing pursuant to a notice published by the city clerk is Scheduled for this evening to give persons an opportunity to be heard relative to the proposed taking of Dedicated parkland Located at South Business Drive and Menning Road The purpose of the taking of the parkland is to create new parkland in the same subdivision We'd like to start out with a short presentation Joe Thank You mr. Chair So tonight is our second second hearing of three Proordinates of the City Council, so in the back room. You'll notice we do have Several maps the map of the location We have a preliminary plat We have one with the top of that graphical showing Showing the elevations of the areas also so Next week will be the third public hearing and then after that that's when the the marina parks and forestry board will make their recommendation This is tonight the second hearing Dealing with the the taking of a public park this park along Menning Road has no name It's never been on a city map is basically became a park in 2008 Basically as a place card holder for The future when this area was developed We wanted the city wanted to make sure that there would be public land available at that time so The the land at this time is very wooded and very Ranges and the Site levels are range over well over 12 feet lot of trees on the property and Then the proposed land that would be receiving in place is 1.7 73 acres and that would be graded seated the services would run to it would be electrical sanitary and So that's what we're talking about basically talking about an exchange of land After if this was approved To be taken for for from park property Thank you, and I should have introduced Joe Kerlin. He's the superintendent of parks and forestry So that's Joe Kerlin who just gave that short presentation now. I like to call for a motion to open the hearing There's a motion and a second any discussion if none all in favor Any opposed that motion carries okay if anybody would like to speak We would like you to come to the To the microphone in the center of the room state your name address and the Municipality that you reside in Hello, I'm John Birkin 2646 Prairie Wins Court, Sheboygan. That would be town of Wilson My land basically a butts property I want to thank you first of all for making Sheboygan a really progressive exciting place We're really really happy with our move here We moved here 14 years ago, and we're really happy with with what's going on in the city itself so Again when the land was set aside as a protected green space We were delighted in the fact that the developer in the city of Sheboygan Had the wisdom and vision to keep this green space as dedicated Parkland Now since the transfer of this property little has been done to enhance its purpose So over the last 12 years or so we anxiously anxiously waited for the city to come forward with its plan Now I have always been prepared to offer my ideas concerning the future use of this green space But unfortunately was not approached by the city nor Warner Homes the developer for my input Since I am a town of Wilson resident I somewhat understand why my input was not requested Now that I the plan is in place to exchange 3.5 acres of mature woodland for 1.5 acres of basically Monoculture monocultured farmland I'd like to present to you my ideas as to how I feel that your city is being short-changed here So the first problem deals with codes the subdivision plot seeks to destroy a Dedicated natural area and in doing so it's in direct conflict With the guidelines and principles of the Sheboygan City Code and the Sheboygan Sustainability plan it essentially violates the stated goal of Appendix C section 6.1 a of the subdivision code which says the plan Commission its goal when approving a plot should be protecting Preserving all natural features that add value to the community Such as large large groves of trees Specifically this plan Destroys a unique woodland that was previously deeded to the city for long-term stewardship in exchange for a very much smaller green space that may feature nothing more than a generic playground The second issue of concern Relates relates to section 6.1 B of Appendix C This requires the preservation of specimen trees When not within a plot it right away or buildable area It strikes me as challenging challenging and costly both to the sub-divider and to the city To find a way in which to comply with this section of the code not to mention the high probability of collateral damage To the natural species during development Would it make more sense to simply adjust the plot to preserve this area? instead of trying to engineer lots and roadways and utilities In and around such a desirable stand-up mature trees and unique natural features and Basically for four lots because that's all they're going to put in is four lots But to put those four lots in they got to build a roadway Now another issue that comes before you is that this sub-division plot calls for a Density that does not match the current context of the subdivisions to the north or to the south It seems out of character with the ex-urban neighborhood at large When looking at the design the proposed dwelling units for acres seem much greater than the surrounding plots Many of the lots here are going to be quarter acre lots now in the city. That's probably fine But where we are and I'm in the town will send understand that But look at the subdivision to the north to the south. Yeah an average You know they might come out with a density as bigger than point two five acres But look at the number of quarter acre lots in that subdivision And I'm not even I'm really more concerned with the two lots about my property that are only quarter acre lots They're just small little lots. I Think it could be one huge lot, you know, it could be one half acre lot but While I am not opposed to development of the new housing in this area, I knew it was coming all along Now the proposed plan at a minimum has to comply with the city comprehensive plan in the subdivision code and currently This seems open to question More importantly though this plan should strive for more than mere compliance and seek Instead to place the preservation of this natural area at the forefront of the design while better addressing the context of Surrounding densities The city of Sheboygan's first subdivision Without carbon gutter, correct Is that correct? I think so could become the first subdivision with the dedicated natural protected sanctuary Where all residents of the area could enjoy its beauty? now From the day that it was dedicated to the city and I think it was about 12 years ago Always imagined the space as a protected natural area. I Envisioned it with a small parking area some walking trails picnic tables park benches Included in the development would be bird feeders birdhouses nesting areas to attract a diverse population of our birds and other wildlife which seek protection and This is an important part as they move through the city in a safe and secure matter These little woodlots provide a protected area for your wildlife It's amazing the number of different species of animals that have come through that woodland Please have the vision. Oh, no what you already have in place You have this at your fingertips is a natural area 3.5 acres doesn't seem like a lot of acreage But it can be nourished if it's filled that need Imagine if you will Park very different from your common city park That we're used to seeing a protected area with mature trees diverse layout of land and a sheltered area for wildlife You already have this at your fingertips and With proper foresight can create a very special and unique neighborhood green space a Community space that will use be used by all ages Not just the children of the subdivision an area where all members of the subdivision can be involved in its planning development and use In that way the park will be appreciated and cared for because the people who live near it have had the direct involvement in its evolution Please have the vision to keep your dedicated green spaces green So 20 30 years from now They will still be there Okay, they will be healthier. They'll be more diverse than they were before you acquired them Honor your sustainability plan with action now that preserves this green space for future residents of the subdivision This very unique part can be a place where the future homeowners Future homeowners of subdivision can witness nature at its best like my wife and I have been able to do over the last 14 years We look forward to the development to our north We hope the plan commission will carefully look at all other options and follow the wisdom of those 12 years ago Viewed it as a valuable part of their sustainability plan I would encourage the commission if at all possible to at least Hold out an approval of phase two of this plan Until they have thoroughly looked at all options furthermore I Would ask the developer to forward to your commission The plan that was first formulated the one that he talked to me about the plan that he and I talked about last summer The plan and the plan that he and I talked about Two summers ago that did not intrude upon this green space I Thank you for granting me the opportunity to speak even though I'm you know from the town of Wilson We're very happy with what's happening in Sheboygan and we look forward to you know This development to our north if you have any questions. I do have and I first proposed a much longer Presentation with ideas of how For example the elderly could be in would use this this special place how the teenage Kids would use it and how our youth would use it. I Have that information if you're interested in getting it. Thank you Thank you. Hello. My name is Mark more and I live at 26 30 Prairie Winds Court Right next to John so I live in town of Wilson with my backyard to the plot So my name is Mark more and I'm relatively new to the Sheboygan area I relocated Sheboygan for work about two years ago with my wife and two daughters Which are now 18 months and three years old while looking for a house I struggled finding the right home for my family through that experience I could not agree more than more and more new homes are needed in the town or in Sheboygan in general Through months of searching we decided to build a home And I had found the perfect lot with an abundance of trees that board of the lot I had grown up loving to see and explore nature and is something I want my children to enjoy Prior to purchasing the lot I was told by my builder that the lot was public park and I would not need to worry about anything happening to those trees Working with Warner. I built my home of mine and my family's dreams and we officially have lived there for about a year now Over the last year my daughters and I have appreciated the wooded park daily My little 18 month-year-old Lily runs to the window in the evening looking for deer and every so often She sees one and screams with joy as they walk through our yard My older daughter Emma three years old loves to walk through the woods always asking about plants and trees It is in this park. She saw her very first painted turtle and wild turkey The grove of trees is more to my little girls than just a pretty background It is a chance for them to learn about the circle of life the importance of caring for nature Getting out away from technology and just for 30 minutes hearing the leaves in the wind and getting dirty looking for grubs and worms Yes, there are dying ash trees in that grove, but there's also so much more life in there as well The irony is not lost with me that the same company that informed me that my girls can grow up with public land In our backyard is the same company that is now trying to acquire this land back for private lots When I discuss this with my frustration with Warner, they directed me to come talk with you. So here I am No, I don't view Warner's evil or the enemy quite the contrary I had a great experience working with them and I believe they had a great value to Sheboygan I just feel there's a better way to optimize this land Versus parceling it off and making it a private property where only a few homes can appreciate this nature in their backyard My ideal hope is that all 3.5 acres can be saved as public park for all families in this new subdivision Where they can walk from their house to the wooded park of endless imagination a Chance to step away from all the hustle and bustle and enjoy nature at its finest regardless of age Yes, there's Kohler Andre State Park. That's close, but that park is not walkable and this one is for all the entire subdivision At a minimum I asked the city consider keeping some of the grove as a park and creating a walking path Through the trees so there's still some public land where families can enjoy nature versus just a select few One idea I had is that you could have a path starting at the retention pond that Warner's gonna be building and Continuing following south and east of the border, you know open up at rim Rock Road, so it'd be that perimeter This would have a minimal impact in the current design of the lots will still find it a way to preserve some of this nature I believe it could be a non-zero some game where everybody can win I've had the privilege of being part of leadership Sheboygan County this year I've learned all about the fantastic offerings of Sheboygan has and know some or all the park would be another unique way For Sheboygan to offer something unique and pretty cool. I think I'm not only here for my two little girls But I'm also here for the children and families that will have an opportunity in the future to have a public forest in their subdivision Filled with wildlife nature and boundless exploration. I ask that you reconsider the fate of this park if physical labor is needed To improve the forest I will be the first set to sign up I absolutely love that park is all and I know there's a lot of other people that volunteer But leverage my energy and excitement and make this lasting impact to Sheboygan I hope that I was able to adequately articulate how valuable of an asset this Grove trees is and I appreciate your consideration. Thank you Thank you. Would anybody else wish to speak if so, please come up to the microphone Does anyone else wish to speak? So this is the intent of this is a public hearing. This is your opportunity to speak on this issue Does anybody else wish to speak? Okay, seeing no other speakers? I'll entertain a motion To close the public hearing so motion and a second any discussion All in favor any opposed Okay, that motion carries the next meeting date is February 25th at the municipal services building at which time there will be one more public hearing and then a recommendation From the board of marina parks and forestry. Is there a motion to adjourn? And a second. Okay, all in favor Okay, the meeting is adjourned