The T2tile project is building an indefinitely scalable computational stack. Follow our progress here on T Tuesday updates. Hey, hi. Thanks for checking in. Stigma-gic state machines. It sounds like the same thing I talked about two episodes ago, but there it was state versus Stigma-gy. And here I want to talk, well, I mean, it's not like I set out to talk about it, but in the process of working through programming problems over the last two weeks, this is kind of what popped out. So when we get to the serious nerd stuff, this is what it's going to be. But first, right, in top stories. So the Living Computation Foundation, the nonprofit organization that we set up to take care of all this stuff. Then I mentioned last time that we have these exclusive LCF nerd numbers. You can join us and become a nerd for $5 or more on PayPal. And that I'm going to try over the next month to reach out to the nerds via email, using the email that people turned in for that. If you don't want your PayPal address, email address being used, you should send me a note, you know, actly at livingcomputation.org to what address you prefer and we'll update the records. But we have four new members, four new nerds. So thank you and welcome to Ian Fabian Spencer and Raphael. Spencer's been a long time contributor. And Ian and Fabian and Raphael are I don't know before, but some of them people included their mailing address, which is helpful. And so I can say we've got folks coming from Alaska to Germany and Switzerland. It's really pretty cool. And Spencer is another recurring monthly contributor, which is like way over the top. So thank you, folks. And I want to be in contact. And I want to talk back and forth as much as we can during the month of November when I am not going to be producing T Tuesday updates. After this one, the next one is going to be like December 6th or something like that. And in the month of November, just like last year, well, not just like last year. I'm going to try to do this nano-remo again, national novel writing month. I wrote 30, 40,000 words or something of which some of them were good last November. And I want to spend a chunk of time reorganizing that. I have some new ideas and some new approach and one key idea that I think as far as a sort of writer's technique that I'm going to give a shot. Well, it's just the idea that, you know, I was taught or I somehow learned that, you know, if it's true, if something happens, you shouldn't tell people about it. You should show it to them. And as I was writing last November, that's what I was really trying to do. There was a lot of stuff going on. So it took a lot of words. I mean, even when I started boiling it down to get through a particular scene because this happened and this happened and this happened. And then I came across some advice from Orson Scott Card, who was I was a fan of his science fiction when I read a lot of science fiction and he's, you know, he's done a lot of writers teaching writers, workshops or stuff and so on. And and he was pointing out, you know, sometimes you need to tell that the really and not show the really important stuff, the dramatic stuff you show. But otherwise you just exhaust the reader. And so it's OK to tell to get you to the next important thing. And I kind of needed that.  Just say, you know, weeks went by and they learned how to do whatever without actually explaining how they learned it, whatever. So that's what's coming on as far as the novel best effort science fiction novels set in the future. And in addition, this is the, you know, a crossover event between the Hyperspace Academy and the Living Computation Foundation to try to get out this second lecture. And I'll talk about that, well, right now, actually. So OK, living computation says, in the end, living systems and computational systems turn out to be the same class of systems. They may not look like that now, but that's because we've got some wrong ideas about what living systems and computational systems really are. And that constitutes the idea of this linkage between life and computation is one of these big picture ideas.  It's all about money. It's all just physics. It's all just chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, ecology, cosmology, you know, or it's all just duty, luck, God, religion, honor and so forth. And you can make a claim. But, you know, really, none of these things are actually true. You know, it's not everything is equally well explained by physics or money or honor, and it's not just that either. There's other stuff that gets in there. So all of these statements are it's all just X. It's all just computation are all overstatements. They're all strictly speaking, they're kind of lies. And we want to be OK with that. We want to understand that and recognize that whenever we say such a thing, we are vulnerable to people pointing out the cases in which it isn't. And we want to say, yeah, yeah, for sure. But I think we have a case in the modern era of understanding not just computation, but best effort computation to make the case that computation, understanding the relationship between computation and life can be a very clean, a very powerful way to rope in an awful lot of stuff that, you know, all of the all just X's, all of these theories of everything have to cover everything. So, you know, it's always going to be able to say, oh, yeah, well, finance talks about that as deficit inversions or, you know, whatever it is. And that's all fine. I think there's a few special properties that the computational case has and it leads us to be, you know, the sentence that scientists often find themselves or feel propelled to try to address the sentence. Humans are special because, you know, to answer that question. And this our approach, which is what we're going to try to work on to get the second lecture in the hyperspace academy introduction to classical hyperspace video over in the day of the channel in the month of November, it might not release in the month of November, but we want to get major production done, going for serious in November. Humans are special because where are we? There we are. We are coders. We are programmers. And the more I've sort of worked through this, I think it's got a lot going for it. And so that, you know, from the, there's this picture, we're all like these little programmable machines. We're all running around trying to program each other to do work for us, to get an advantage for us. And it all sounds extremely crass. And from one point of view, it is. But from another point of view, yeah. So there's still room for all of the other stuff as well. And there's sort of better explanations, I think, for some of it. So that's the goal. We are coders. And what are we coding? Yes, there are all these amazing digital computers, these octacore, blah, blah, blah phones and so forth. But that's not the main event. The main event is programming other people. As far as the sort of flexible, subtle machinery, capable of doing amazing things, people are the machines that we focus on coding for. And we are coders. Sometimes we're the machine. And that's as it has been. It's just the new era of computers, digital computers, manufactured computers, makes it easier to understand us by looking at that in relief. And so we're going to build a theory of living computation where we're going to build an implementation of what we're saying using the digital technology. And that's where the T2 tile, that's where best effort mobile fees all fits in as another description of the big picture, living computation. And, you know, I'm saying we could take a full lecture slot for this, so like 50 minutes or something. And we'll see, we'll see. I need your help. All right. And that's where it starts. We're coders. We're coders, we're coders. Sometimes we're the machine. All right. So that's that.  We had to invent a new addressing scheme because this is not IP addressing. This is not the Internet 126.123 BBBB sort of things. We did source-routed streams, talked about that last time. So there's been progress since then. So let's take a quick look at it and try to do a demo and then finish up. So this was source-routing. Go out the first port, pop your address off, and the receiving guy sticks on the port that it came in on.  Guy sticks on the address it came in on. So you end up building the route back in the process of going forward. We introduced these relative coordinates at the tile level. We already have relative coordinates at the individual sites, the atoms in the movable feast machine. This is another implementation detail using the same principle of spatial addressing. How do you talk to neighbors? Not by name, not by addresses given to you by the manufacturer. You talk to the neighbors by spatial address. Hey, West guy, how's it going? Hey, East and so on. I got the basic carrying data back and forth. This is one of the first times I got it going. I was just typing garbage and stuff to see that it would show up. So these are two command lines. They're both connected to this general purpose networking tool. They're talking to our source-routed thing. And hey, it went back and forth. When in one side came out the other side, and all of this stuff going on under the hood, and it was getting messy. It was getting pretty messy. I got it to work, but getting it to disconnect, getting the two ends to know that the other end had disconnected, it was nasty. And so by a week ago, Saturday, I was stressed enough about this that I was thinking about general ideas. I was thinking more and more about how one ought to represent state machines. Now, in traditional digital computing, when you have a state machine, you have a variable called the state variable, and it's usually just a number. And you associate state zero does this kind of stuff, reset, state one does whatever, and so on. And that's it. That's what it means to be a state machine. So then you may make transitions where you change the number based on input and stuff like that. That seemed more and more wrong. And in fact, that was what we talked about two times ago with state versus Stigmergy. But then I was thinking, you know, maybe they should really go together. And I came up with this idea that I'm currently calling Stigmergic state machines. And the idea is, and it's not a new, new idea. I mean, I've had the idea before in the CCR project back in the 90s. I did something very similar to this, but not quite in this context, and not quite as sort of as clean as this. And so the idea is when you ask for, you know, you often have a function, a method where you say, please return the state. And normally that would just get the value of that little state variable. But in our case, it's not going to do that. In our case, it's going to look out in the world and look at the data that would have justified being in state two and say, is the data there? Okay. Then it's at least state two. And then it's going to look out and say, well, could it be state three? Oh, no, it can't. So that's the Stigmergy part of it. Instead of having an internal variable, we're going to look out into the actual conditions of the world, the state of the stream and how many bytes have been received and whatever it is. The definition of the world can shift a little bit as we go. But the point is, it's all meaningful. All of the state that the thing looks at to decide, am I in the state or not, is not an arbitrary variable that was just put down to remember something. It's the stuff that generated it. So that's been working pretty nice. So, you know, all right. And then, you know, by the next day, I was thinking, well, it's like, you know, so we're in state need this a state where we have a need seem to be the right way to do it. We need configure unless we actually have a root array. We need to open, you know, that kind of thing. So that was the structure. This is not code. This was just me talking to myself that I was struggling towards this. And I couldn't, at first, you know, I couldn't clean it up. It all took a couple of days. And as usual, I had had a nice clean core in it, and then I rushed on and put a bunch of hacky stuff all around it that I didn't really understand and I couldn't sort out, couldn't debug. So clean slate, pull the pieces together where you just say, okay, give me a new empty screen and I'll just start writing again and then gradualize. Okay, well, this little bit is clean enough that I can bring it in and so forth. That's what happened. And eventually it kind of worked. And so here it was. The advanced function is the state transition function. And it says we should try to abort if we need to abort. If not, we should try to configure if we need to configure and so on. And we go through that every single time. It's not like we remember that we're past configuration and we can go on to contact. That's part of the robustness. If the world has changed so that whatever it was that called us configured was no longer true, we don't want to go on to the next one. This has been working out pretty well. I managed to get the life cycle of a stream. One guy connects. The other guy's waiting. They connect. They talk. One guy ends. The other guy ends. They try to get in touch with each other about ending. And it turns out that making a reliable stream of data in two directions over an unreliable network, which is what TCP does. The thing that's underlies HTTP, the worldwide web, everything, this video that we're watching right now. Probably, well, may or may not be transported by TCP anymore, but it was when it mattered. There's all kinds of subtle tricks and things don't actually guarantee to work as far as when they end. And there's always this infinite regress of, OK, he said I was done. He was done. I told him I was done. He acknowledged that I told him he was done. I acknowledged that I heard that it and so forth.  And you cut that off at some point. And then there's actually a vulnerability because that last one is not acknowledged. Whoever stops first is not acknowledged. And so the other guy is going to have to just deal with it. Give up and time out without any official justification of the infinite regress logic. And that's just something that's real that we live with in all of these things. All right. So, right, the definition of need configure is really just shorthand for, well, you haven't got a root. The definition for needing contact is you do have a root, but you don't have a sequence number, which means someone has talked to you and gotten started and so forth. Won't go through the details. But the long and short of it is I got far enough to say, okay, we can move files around, built a new script, SRF, source-routed files that can be a server to collect a file, can be a client to send a file. We'll try a demo. You'll see. And that got us back to the logging for the intertile events, which is what we've been trying to build infrastructure for for several months. So, progress. All right, let's try to do a demo. I've got the grid running here to turn the lights down, whoops. And actually, let me see if I can zoom in a little bit without messing this all up. Something easier to see here. My old display up. Oh, well, that looks might be possible to see something. It could probably go in a little further, but I don't want to mess with it. Okay, so the idea here is two of these tiles. Let me just, this tile here has got the yellow ethernet cable coming out of it because it's sticking out the bottom so it can do that. And here, this tile's got the white ethernet cable coming out of it, and we're going to try to send a file source-routed through the grid from the yellow ethernet tile to the white ethernet tile. And we've got screens here. Okay, so I've got this set up. I think it should work. So here it is, the program SRF, source-routed files. The first argument, ZOT, is just an arbitrary tag that the client and server both have to agree on in order to connect up. It's kind of like a port number in regular IP communications. And then here's the root. Got to sneeze here. All right, excuse me, I had to sneeze. The source-routed, how do we know? It's a server-routed because it begins with eight, which is us. So this is the white one, so this is the guy over here, and he's saying eight is on the server, and then the first stop is three. So zero is up, one is northeast, two is east, so three is southeast, and so we go southeast, east, east, east, east, southeast, and we should arrive at the other guy. And the other argument for SRF, when it's being a server, is a directory to put the files in, we say temp files, and there it is, now it's waiting. And whoops, and then we control seed it. I don't really know why we did that, but then, hey, wasn't it given that that would have worked twice? Whoops, I keep thinking these are Emacs buffers. All right, now here we are on the other side. We're running SRF again, same tag, but now we're having a client root because the eight is at the end, and instead we're going from out the seven, which is northwest, and then six, which is west, west, west, west, west, northwest to get in the reverse root. We're going to send a file that contains 25KB, here we go. Oh, actually, let's put up the CD, no, actually, wrong. I should, we'll just leave it. We'll leave the tile thing up here, the tile displays that we'll be able to see, that maybe we'll be able to see the bytes moving through the thing. We'll put the CDM display on the endpoints, like that. Okay, oh, and let's see, you can see that. That s10-2, that means there's a server running that is listening to 10 relative coordinates of 10-2 because we already did that. Down here, oops, on the client side, there's nothing yet because we haven't hit enter yet, but now we'll do that. Oh, now it's waiting to make contact. Oh, there it is. And, oops. Yeah, and I already, this is another feature. Since we put a big checksum for the whole file, a cryptographic checksum, in the initial file exchange message, the server knew we already had it. Well, we can fix that. Yeah, so we'll just take some more random data. All right, now we have a new 25KB file. And notice here that now we are starting the client side, although it's waiting for contacts. Oh, there it is. It's trying to connect to minus 10-2, and we don't have anything visible up here because we started the other guy. And that also didn't work in the middle of last week, and I can't do this again. All right, so we'll start up the server. And then things should start to move. Waiting for client. The client, there it is. So now 2.2KB, 8.7, and we can see the data moving through here. The big arrows moving right to left. Down through here. Now you must have seen it. I wasn't looking at it, but there's a lot of buffering in the net. So in fact, the 25KB was out of the client's hands long before the server reached it, received it, stashed it away, did the checksum, confirmed everything was okay. But it all worked out. Progress. All right, so that's it. The next update will be almost six weeks from now. December 6th will be exactly six weeks. I can't do arithmetic. Part of the reason that I'm doing this is when I tried to do nano-remo last time, I had a fence post error. Like I'm such a brilliant programmer, and I kind of shortchanged myself out of the actual amount of time I expected to have. So let's hope for the best for those of us in the United States and for everybody in the world who cares about what's happening in the United States. Let's hope for a soft landing as much as can be expected in the circumstances and be safe no matter where you are. And best effort. Hope to see you next time.


Okay, then without further ado, I'll just introduce Ed Crane from the Cato Institute and he will talk about the Libertarian Party in the United States. It shows if you have a small enough room and few enough chairs you can get a good turnout for about anything. I should open with a disclaimer, I guess I gather the program, I don't gather it, I know it. The program says that something about the Libertarian Party being an important force in American politics and that's not really my view, so I'll be presenting a much more negative assessment of the status of the Libertarian Party. Then might be implied from the program. The program does say I am the person to give the inside scoop on the Libertarian Party I have to perhaps regrettably agree with that assessment. I've spent much of the last, well not the last few years, but certainly the first ten years of the party's history I was very actively involved. I went to every NatCom meeting from 1972 when the party was founded through 1981. So for the first ten years of the party I was pretty actively involved. I was national chairman of the party from 1974 through 77 and I ran Roger McBride's presidential campaign in 1976 and Ed Clark's campaign in 1980. So for better or for worse I am well qualified to speak on the party. As was mentioned earlier today there was a split among various groups in 1969 that led to the formation of the activist Libertarian movement in the U.S. As far as the Libertarian Party is concerned it was primarily the YAF split. And the effect of that is that in the early years at least the party had a pretty strongly conservative bias. The Libertarian Party was founded in Denver, Colorado in 1972. And I had been active in politics when I was in college. I went to Berkeley and ran for the student senate on a platform of abolishing the student government. Which I thought was a pretty radical plan, but I was defeated by a Bettina Aptecker whose father was the head of the U.S. Communist Party. I was perceived in Berkeley in the 60s as being more radical. But I had worked for Barry Goldwater in 1964 up through the primary period and became disillusioned with him as he got closer to the nomination. In fact got the nomination, started compromising on his views on Social Security became more adamant about getting involved in Vietnam. And so I just assumed I would never be involved in politics. And then we got notification in late 71 and early 72 that there was going to be an organizing convention for the Libertarian Party. And I thought, what the heck? I'll go. As a Libertarian I had always been respectful of the idea that people should be allowed to pursue alternative lifestyles. But until I went to that convention I wasn't really aware of just how many alternatives there were. It was an interesting group. There were about 85 people there from 13 different states. All sorts of orientations. People who were goldbugs or science fiction freaks or whatever. You didn't see a lot of mainstream America at that convention. Nevertheless, they all had a very strong commitment to individual liberty and were committed to the idea that political change through the two major parties was probably unlikely, at least in the right direction. So I admire those people for having the courage to try to bring the Libertarian movement into the real world. Prior to the formation of the Libertarian Party, what passed for the Libertarian movement was a ragtag collection of counter-cultural types who really had no visibility. And their distinguishing characteristic, I think, was a strong alienation toward their own society. And that's an important distinction, I think. It wasn't just an alienation toward government, an anti-government sentiment, but an attitude that there was something wrong with American society, American culture. And as a result, there was very little interest in trying to reach out and trying to change things politically. It was almost as though it was a sell-out to try to deal with the real world. And I'm not saying the Libertarian Party got off on that foot, but the original group had that in mind, and after several years it really was becoming a factor on the American political scene. We nominated in Denver in 1972 John Hospers and Tony Nathan. John is a philosophy professor at the University of Southern California. At the time, he was the department chair, and he made a tremendous sacrifice in running for president. This was an unknown party, the 14th largest political party in America. And America is a two-party system, so they were pretty far down the road. And he ultimately lost his chairmanship of the department because of his activities in the party. Tony Nathan was a TV journalist from Eugene, Oregon, and she ultimately became the first woman, the only woman, to receive an electoral college vote in the United States. One of the great trivia questions of all time is who was the campaign manager for the only woman in history to receive an electoral college vote? Muah. It was all downhill from there, however. But they traveled around the country and on a shoestring budget of about $5,000 went to, I guess, 20 states, and we discovered libertarians who were out there and who were looking for some means of expressing their political views and were fairly excited about the concept of a libertarian party. I think the attitude of the people in the party who wanted to bring libertarianism to a broader audience was that for better or for worse, and probably for worse, about the only time in the United States that people are actively concerned about ideas or political ideas is during election years, and particularly presidential election years. And if you weren't part of that debate, if you weren't being covered by the media, if you weren't participating in it, it was next to impossible to communicate with the American people, with the middle class Americans who need to be convinced that libertarianism is the proper course if we're going to have the kind of social change we want to bring about. So that was a major reason for supporting the party. By participating in this process, whether or not one thought it was a good thing that the process existed, one had a platform, a vehicle to communicate with people who were interested at that particular time in ideas. And so that's what we set about doing. That electoral college vote, as you know, and the people from the U.S., and I imagine most people from Scandinavian Europe are aware that the actual election of a president is done through representatives who were elected by the popular vote. One of those representatives was Roger McBride, who was a lawyer, is a lawyer from Charlottesville, Virginia. He was a Republican elector and instead of voting for Nixon, when the perfunctory process came up to cast the electoral college vote, he voted for hospice Nathan, giving the party a third place finish in its very first race. In 1974, there was a convention in Dallas at which I was elected national chairman of the party. That's sort of the point where my life starts to go downhill. And I was given a box, a shoe box full of three by five cards which consisted of the acting members of the Libertarian Party. I subsequently tried to mail newsletters and political propaganda and anything I could, any list I could find, Reason Magazine or whatever, and pretty soon we built up a pretty substantial computer list and had a functioning organization in, I think, about 40 states by the time the presidential campaign rolled around in 1976. Roger McBride was rewarded for his electoral college vote in 1975 in New York at a convention of about 500 people. It was a tremendous air of electricity in that convention in New York. Real excitement, a sense that there was enough energy to really change things. By then, there had been a few interesting campaigns that had occurred in New York and Ohio. People were getting to know each other starting to feel like there might really be something possible to achieve with this new party. And Roger McBride was a Harvard Law School graduate, a very successful man who was wealthy in his own right. He was nominated and we pretty much took off from there in 1976. The Libertarian Party was on the ballot in 31 states plus the District of Columbia. And for those of you who are not Americans, you don't just get on the ballot, each state you have to petition and it's a time-consuming, resource-consuming process. But in that election, Gene McCarthy, who just eight years earlier had almost gotten the Democratic nomination, was really cheated out of it in 1968, was running as an independent and he got on the ballot in fewer states than McBride, which was the first indication that Libertarians had organizing ability, which was quite a surprise to all of us. And we got about 176,000 votes. We ran, I think, five or six network television ads. So for the first time, there were millions of people being exposed to the existence of the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Alternative. That was the most votes of any other third party. So we had gone from 14th largest party in two years to the third largest party, even though McCarthy got more votes than McBride. And that perhaps the most successful race in the party's history was in 1978, when Ed Clark was convinced to run for governor of California against Jerry Brown. And Clark was a terrific candidate, a very articulate Libertarian who was able to express ideas in terms that people could understand. He was not put offish or he was more interested in bringing people in than in excluding them. Clark had an ability to articulate political ideas in such a way that they were, beyond anything, either party was advocating in a Libertarian direction, but not so far beyond that he was no longer part of the debate. And that was an important distinction between different elements of the party, those who wanted to be ultra-radical and those who wanted to communicate with people. My own position is that there's nothing particularly radical about standing on top of a hill in a black suit or even a black flag and yelling smash a state. It's not radical, it's silly. The true Libertarian radical is the one who's most successful in moving our society toward less government domination. And there must be lots of different paths to pursue, lots of different strategies, but it seems to me that should be the definition of a radical. Clark campaigned throughout the state of California, the largest state in the nation. He received 376,980 votes, as I recall, and that was about five and a half, nearly six percent of the total vote for governor in the largest state in the country, which was a significant achievement. And there were candidates throughout the state running for state senate and state legislature receiving on average four to six percent of the vote, which is significant too because it's typically a balance of power vote. So the Libertarian party was really on the scene. It was growing in other parts of the country as well, but I think that was perhaps the highlight of the party's existence in 1978. That year Dick Randolph, a Libertarian from Alaska, was voted into the Alaska state legislature along with another Libertarian, the first two Libertarians ever to be elected to a state legislature where they had an enormous impact on stopping state spending while they were in office. They also initiated a state initiative to abolish the state income tax, which forced the legislature to do that. They've subsequently passed an initiative just recently, as a matter of fact, that has abolished the state equivalent of the Civil War and non-export in Alaska, much to the chagrin of existing air carriers. But Alaska is a good case study of how Libertarian politics can in fact increase liberty. They have a tremendous presence up there, they did until recently, and Randolph is a principled, committed guy, put a lot of money and time in his own career to try to bring Libertarian ideas to the state. He ran for governor in 1982 and got 16% of the vote. So that was the state probably that had the most success. But in terms of the dynamics of American politics, this Clark for Governor campaign in 1980 was perhaps the most successful in 1978. In 1979 we had a presidential nominating convention in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, well, 79 was the year of the convention because of this ballot access requirement. It was important for us to nominate our candidate ahead of time to give us time to get the candidate on the ballot, which was a tremendous advantage to the other parties, the major parties, because of course they didn't have to go through that process. But actually more important than that was the fact that the media wasn't really attuned to a presidential campaign yet in September of 1979. So it was much more difficult to get publicity. In any case, there were some 2,000 people that convened at that convention. It was a remarkable affair. It was contested, a very articulate fellow named Bill Huncher from New Hampshire was running against Ed Clark, who was the favorite and who subsequently won two to one. But it was a very hotly contested race. Both candidates went to most states throughout the country and got significant media coverage wherever they went. And it was clear that the media was starting to take the libertarian party seriously. When I say that the purpose of the party was to expose millions of Americans to libertarian ideas through the political process, that is, through that process whereby reporters come by and cover you because you're a candidate, this was the best example of it. Millions and millions of people being exposed to ideas that were just pure libertarian ideas. And the primary, if you will, was a very important contribution. The campaign itself, well, let me say that during the convention, which had all the trappings of a major party convention, the reason for that, of course, is to present these ideas, as other people have said, radical ideas within a conservative format so that people are not put off by it, conservative in the sense of being consistent with what people expect a political convention to be like. This is not some group from outer space. These are Americans who are doing things the way they are done in this country. The ideas being put forth are radical. They're far different from anything the Republicans and Democrats are saying, but they're being said in a format, in a context that makes people stop and listen. The Los Angeles Times is probably the fourth most important paper in the United States behind the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. It had three front page articles during the course of the convention on this campaign, on the convention, on the race for the nomination. And that, to me, was very significant. Other papers in the country, the news media itself, takes its cue from papers like the LA Times. If they thought it was a serious thing, and clearly they did, then the rest of the country was going to. And I was convinced that the 1980 presidential campaign offered a really unique opportunity for libertarians to establish themselves as a viable third party. And I say viable because in the United States, it's almost impossible to have a viable third party. We have a winner-take-all system, which makes it very, very discouraging over a long period of time. When you can get 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and still not elect anybody, not have any representation, any spokesman in the state legislature or the federal government. And for that reason, there haven't been any viable third parties for 40 years in the United States. George Wallace ran a campaign in 68, which was a personality campaign. There was no party behind it. There have been states' rights parties, regional efforts, but there has not been a successful, broad-based third party movement in the United States in decades. And so for libertarians to do that, I think was a very significant achievement. And we were on the verge of overcoming enormous obstacles, which I'll touch on in a little bit. Something that, you know, there are people all throughout this saying, it's a waste of time, don't do it, which can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. But I really admire the people who were involved in bringing the libertarian party up to a point in 1980 where it was being taken very seriously. It was going to be a factor in the presidential campaign. Now, one of the things we had going was David Koch, who was the vice presidential nominee under United States election law. There is a contribution limitation of $1,000 to a federal campaign for each person. Above that, you're abusing your First Amendment privileges, your right to free speech, and so forth. So, you know, to have a contribution limitation like that is analogous to, say, Sears, the big retailer in the United States, saying, well, anybody can compete with this, but they can only advertise up to $1,000. Obviously, a new party needs large amounts of seed capital. Gene McCarthy, when he ran for president in 1968, got enormous sums of money from people like Stuart Mott, the General Motors Air, Liberal General Motors Air, and other wealthy individuals that got his campaign off the ground because he was not part of the Democratic establishment. He'd always been something of a maverick senator. And if the election laws had been in place in 1968, he would not have been able to run. And had he not run, then Lyndon Johnson probably would have run for reelection. So you can see that these laws have a very insidious of impact or effect on the electoral process. The Supreme Court had ruled on a challenge that the Libertarian Party, among others, were a part of the federal election laws. And one of the few rational things the Supreme Court really did was say that, well, if you're actually a candidate, the contribution limitation is an infringement on your rights. If you want to support the candidate, it's not. But so that made it very important for a new party to have a wealthy candidate on the ticket. And David Cope was a personally very shy person and not interested in publicity or getting out in front of other people, made a very big sacrifice financially and personally to be on the ticket. And so we had not only a very good candidate for president and Ed Clark, but we had the resources to publicize this campaign. We had, although we probably wish we didn't have it, through previous campaigns, expertise to get on the ballot. As no other party did, the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Labor Party, the American Independent Party, Left and Right Wing Independent Parties have existed in the United States for a long time, but it's only the Libertarian Party that's had any impact in terms of visibility. So we knew from the people that we were going to have working on the campaign, that we were going to be on the ballot, we're pretty sure in all 50 states, which was another first in the last half century in that country. That combined with the fact that we had the resources to purchase somewhere between 40 and 50 five minute television ads in prime time in the United States. Network television ads meant that we were going to have credibility and visibility. My position was, and there are those who say I was naive to expect this, but there was a tremendous disenchantment with the Reagan Carter choice in 1980. People really were not happy with that choice. Reagan was not nearly as popular as he was by 1984. Carter was clearly unpopular. People were very uncertain about Reagan, an actor and didn't take him that seriously. They were afraid he was a little trigger happy and Carter had been a failure in his first four years. So an alternative candidate would have gotten a lot of attention. My position that with all the network television ads that we were running and the fact that we were on the ballot in all 50 states, that the national media would have been very hard pressed to ignore Ed Clark. But by April of 1980, as we were in the middle of our ballot drives, an unusual phenomenon occurred, and that is that a Republican candidate for president who was getting anywhere between one half of one percent and two percent and the primaries dropped out as a Republican, John Anderson was his name, and decided to run as an independent. And for whatever reason, he became the media, the darling of the media and got enormous amounts of coverage. In the early going, most of this enormous coverage was about the fact that he wasn't getting any coverage, which was frustrating to us because he was getting plenty of coverage and we weren't getting any. But in any case, he was then the third party candidate. He was able to get on the ballot, he got a lot of publicity, and he provided the outlet for the media. They were covering the alternative that was really required in 1980 because of the enormous frustration on the part of the American electorate. Anderson was a bombastic, pompous, ignorant person who early on, after he'd been through this process of getting on the 50 state ballots and had some reasonably slick television ads and so forth, actually went up in the polls to 25 percent, which only reflected the extreme frustration on the part of the electorate. As they got to know Anderson, his percentage went down to ultimately 6 percent in the election. But in any case, it precluded Clark from getting network television coverage. And in the United States, you can buy ads, which are important, but they don't have the impact if the networks, the three networks, are not covering your campaign. They covered three campaigns, which was one more than they usually do. They weren't going to cover a fourth. Bill Moyers on public television had an excellent spot on Clark's foreign policy views. There was a lot of very, very fine local coverage of Clark, and he campaigned tirelessly throughout the country in all 50 states. And it was a superb campaign. There were press releases that went out every day, very professionally written. There were four major white papers, one on taxing and spending, that proposed reducing the size of the federal government by $200 billion in one year, and detailed where the cuts would be, which was at that time a third of the federal government. It's only about 20 percent of the federal government now. Radical tax cuts to balance the budget. There was a white paper on social security reform that would have allowed younger people to opt out of social security and essentially put that enormous one-third of the federal government on a road to privatization. There was a white paper on education that would have created education tax credits to undermine the public school system, a very well thought out proposal. And there was a white paper on foreign policy authored by Earl Ravenel, which was a very eloquent and real world statement of the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy. These combined with speeches, major forums throughout the country gave the Libertarian Party a terrific level of exposure. Libertarianism through the Libertarian Party, and particularly the Clark campaign, was recognized and is to this day a political alternative. And 10 years ago, it was not. To me, this is an incredible achievement. The idea that there could be a political point of view that combined both the respect for individual rights, a tolerant view on civil liberties with a laissez-faire approach in economics, that combination of views, much less adding in the non-interventionist foreign policy, that combination of views simply was not part of the game. It was not an alternative in American politics during the 40s, 50s, well, in part it was during the 40s, but in the 50s, in the 60s, in the early part of the 70s, that was just not what one was. One was a conservative or a liberal, but you had a package deal. If you were a conservative, you may have believed in the free market, although there's strong case to be made that most conservatives don't believe in the free market. But you had to believe that it was important to control people's lifestyles and morals and restrict speech in all sorts of anti-civil-libertarian positions. If you were liberal and believed in civil liberties, why part of the package deal was that you had to believe in big government, the New Deal economic programs, redistribution of wealth and so forth. I think one of the interesting aspects of that dichotomy is that for the most part conservatives tend to know more about economics than they think about the implications of their positions on social repression and civil liberties. Liberals tend to think more about civil liberties and not really understand economics. They just sort of go along with these package deals. I think there is an enormous constituency in America that is fiscally free market and on civil liberties issues very libertarian. And in order for them to become self-conscious of that, they have to know that that alternative exists. And I think the Libertarian Party has achieved that. There's an article in the current issue, or at least it was current when I left on my trip, of Fortune Magazine, the most important business magazine in America, which is all about the new libertarians in the business world. It makes this very point that these people are tolerant on social issues and lazy fair on economic issues. And I don't think that article would have been printed, would have run, if it had not been for the Libertarian Party. Nevertheless, Clark only got 1.1% of the vote, 920,000 votes. Quite an achievement really, when you consider in eight years it had gone from, I don't know what hospice got, 5,000 votes or something like that, to 920,000 votes. But it was less than people had hoped. There was a tremendous volunteer effort that had gone into the campaign. There were 25,000 people who contributed to it. It was viewed by many as a failure. My position has always been, contrary to what I'm sure some people believe, that the success of the Libertarian Party longer term was a long shot. That the odds were very much against it. And the only way it could succeed is if it continued to grow, because with the winter take-all two-party system in the U.S., you can't year in and year out go into this political effort knowing your candidate is going to lose. If you don't feel like your effort is resulting in some progress. And from 1972 through 1980, that progress was there. And it took an enormous effort on the part of a lot of committed people to bring it about. But these various obstacles, let me list them now, ultimately I think have overcome that energy that existed early on. Well, one thing is a unique problem that Libertarian candidates are Libertarians who are involved in politics, and that is sort of an a priori approach to politics. That is, we know it's the government's fault, so don't bother me with the facts. Which is fine if we're talking to each other, but if you're trying to convince the average voter that our program is correct, you have to understand the history behind existing legislation, the interest groups involved, why they're involved, have a proposal for getting out of it that makes sense to people. You have to get involved in a manner that reflects a recognition of what other people think. And too many Libertarians who are involved in political action refuse to do that. It was too much work or they felt it was unprincipled, whatever. But it was not effective. There were too few Ed Clarks who were willing to learn the issues and articulate a reasonable Libertarian alternative. That was one problem. Another problem and second problem was this question of momentum. After the Clark campaign, I felt that the party was pretty much over as it were. It didn't really manifest itself until the 1984 campaign when the vote total was 225,000. But it had gone up exponentially and then dropped precipitously. And that, to me, was the end of it. But I thought because we didn't attract the kind of people we needed to in 1980, we needed to get more professional people, business people, people who were successful in their own undertakings in society to get involved in the party. They didn't do that, I think, because they didn't see us on the network television. And that led to a situation where the decline started. A third area, I mentioned before, is this winner-take-all situation in a parliamentary system and a system where there's proportional representation. In the legislature, I think the Libertarian party would have done exceedingly well in the United States. There is a two-party bias in any case. That's another reason people think that the two-party system is part of the U.S. Constitution. You're brought up in school, you're indoctrinated with the idea that two-party system is America and multi-party system is the rest of the world and the communists and so forth. Another reason was the Federal Election Campaign Act, onerous reporting requirements, the main thing being the contribution limitation. There's also enormous subsidies to the major parties, but that's not really the issue. The contribution limitation was devastating to any third party, particularly to us. There is a sixth item I cite is the paradox of an ideological party. Because of all these obstacles in the U.S., you almost have to be an ideological party to get people to put in the work to make the party succeed. You have to be committed ideologically to this political party to put up with all these obstacles. At the same time, once you get it off the ground, you cannot be exclusionary. You cannot say, my God, you're wrong on that issue, you're not a libertarian, you can't belong to this party, which is the way a lot of people acted in the libertarian party. My view is that the party needed to be a peace and free enterprise party, a party that was in favor of the free market, that was opposed to U.S. intervention around the world, and that was in favor of strict respect for individual liberty. And there needed to be ways to articulate that on specific issues, but we didn't need to be in a position where we had to list 2,000 specific applications of this, which is what the media always wanted to hear. The other parties didn't have to do that. So you ended up with a situation where people who might have agreed with 90% of the libertarian platform and 50% of the Republican platform feeling much more at home with the Republicans because they didn't have people telling them, you're not a Republican. There's a tension there, obviously. You have to have ideological leadership in a political party if it's going to achieve what you want it to achieve, but it can't be an exclusionary phenomenon, which to a certain degree the libertarian party was. And finally, there are the people involved themselves. To a large degree, any new party, any minor party, attracts a disproportionate number of people who are looking for really a psychological outlet, an excuse for their own problems in the world. To an unfortunate degree, there were people in the libertarian party who were using it as a social vehicle.  It wasn't a serious political movement to change politics in America. And that element ultimately is now running what's left of the libertarian party. But let me conclude by saying that I think overall the party achieved about as much as it could have, absent Anderson's candidacy. I'd be very interested to know what might have happened had John Anderson not run in 1980, but he did. But the fact remains that libertarianism is now on the political map, which it wasn't before the libertarian party was started. It's become a self-identified movement. It's recognized by every intellectual in the country, by all of the media, by most intelligent people. It's recognized libertarianism with a small l by the Washington Post, the National Journal, major politicians. Once it's out there to be considered, I think we have a terrific chance of making headway. There were, when the party started, hundreds of libertarian activists in the country. There are tens of thousands of them now. That's a terrific achievement. There are, in the U.S., I think about a third of the voters are independent. Most of them are of this baby boom generation that is socially tolerant and fiscally free market. I think they're going to be increasingly attracted to libertarian ideas now that they know that they exist. And I think the libertarian party is responsible for that. And with that, I will conclude and answer any questions you may have. In the back. Speaking of libertarianism in the United States. And to read this history, we do something like this. There are an awful lot of libertarians who are doing research for think tanks like the American Enterprise. They're a heritage foundation. They're paid attention to it. Now, Reagan does not take a lot of advice. Their policy suggestions like people who are on social security things and so forth are covered by the media. And they're considered in the intellectual community and so forth. They're getting a kind of exposure that they were never getting before Reagan was elected. Now, what I'd like to suggest is, what would have happened if... Now, think about the forced market. It really was... I mean, it was talking about people like Gary Hart. It was talking about a constituency that appears to be out there. But they didn't talk to a director. They talked to Ronald Reagan. They identified Ronald Reagan as a libertarian candidate. And they said, well, we don't really believe he's going to do any more important things about being free market party. And that's how the media really kept covering the libertarianism all along. And they included in this, you know, as people feeling people like Gary Hart. They weren't even talking about it. But I want to suggest it.  And thinking and getting those ideas out for people, where people can see they're doing these terrible research that you were saying earlier, is so important to any kind of political action. Now, what I'm asking is, what if all of the money that was put into the Eiffel Tower campaign in the state of Birmingham and so forth, were instead put into this kind of research? How many more noses and hikes and treatments would there be in the world influencing this kind of idea? Well, if you want to put the money into the Cato Institute, I think that'd be a terrific idea. But I, you know, a lot of people have complained about all the money spent on the Clark campaign. It could have gone here, it could have gone there. Well, Burglund didn't raise any money, but, right. Just consider just in Massachusetts, you know, 60,000 dollars. Right. Just to get a personal balance in Massachusetts. Right. What would you want? How much money could you raise for that? The point is that people give money to what they want to give to. And if it's a cause they believe in and they're libertarians, that's what they give the money to. I think there's a lot more money available to be raised by think tanks and research organizations because these people have been identified and because they have been, had their consciousness raised. You mentioned Pete Ferrara, his first major work was for the Cato Institute. His second one was for the Ed Clark campaign. The American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation are not libertarian think tanks. Well, the work that they put out is not identified as libertarian. Even the good stuff, even the stuff that's libertarian. And I think it's a critical distinction is that these ideas cannot be seen as floating good ideas but as part of an integrated political philosophy. And there was no word associated with these ideas to integrate them before the libertarian party came along and popularized it. And that's what we've achieved. Now, I agree with you that there's tremendous progress being made in think tanks and it's not Reagan. And that article didn't, I think that article went out of its way to say that people sort of, these libertarians have voted for Reagan, held their nose when they did it. They don't agree with his foreign policy. They don't agree with his social issues. Yeah. What do you see as the future of the libertarian party in the United States? I don't think it has one. I think it's, I think it's served its purpose. Yeah. Just because a libertarian party or a political force might have declined completely and even disappeared, it does not necessarily mean that libertarians must abandon the political arena. Do you see any chance that one might radicalize one of the other parties eventually build a wing of the Republican party where the pressure is going to be very serious, say a socialist faction of the Democratic party versus a libertarian faction, and eventually with the hopeful growth of the movement as an intellectual alternative, it may even make the Republican party libertarian. I think that's a distinct possibility that there, in fact, this Fortune magazine article we keep talking about is really based on this idea that there is this large baby boom vote out there that neither party has been able to attract. And the question is which party is going to get it because it's a plurality in this next election of the American electorate, and it's not closely identified with either party. And I think there's a chance the Republicans could get it. I think there's just as good a chance the Democrats could become a libertarian party in a very broadly defined way that there is a growing awareness on the part of intelligent Democrats that this special interest phenomenon, big labor, the teachers' unions, all the special interests that they deal with alienate the American people. If you had somebody like a Senator Bill Bradley who seems to understand the tax system better than most Republicans and the need to lower taxes, adopt a strongly free market position, I think the Democrats would have a very, very powerful candidate combining a more socially liberal and less interventionist foreign policy. I think that's the hope is that if we can get this generation of younger Americans to identify themselves broadly defined as libertarians and obviously this group you're always trying to cultivate and radicalize a minority of them. You can't radicalize everyone. But if you can get enough ideological direction from this group and then have it have an influence within either of the major parties, then I think a broadly defined libertarianism could become a major part of either party. I think it's going to be a big influence in American politics regardless of whether one party or the other claims it. Yes? Isn't there a problem with a party that it's all continued over by personal ambition? I mean if you've got a party, a party is a very tight organization and if you want a tight organization as a party, it often results in personal combats. You try to achieve personal ambitions. I really can't see why the party went down after 1980 because there were in fact one million people out there. There were in fact one million people out there who had weighed with you. But you went down because there wasn't any, you couldn't see that there was any chance that you could get a guide, maybe not a guide elected, but that you could have progress in votes all the time. And that problem, you haven't got that problem when you're working in think tanks or whatever. Then the ideas are definitely the most important things. But in a party that happens, other things happen. You're in a personal ambition and there's this winning aim. If you're not winning all the time, people want to be at the winning team. And I think that's the problem with the party and I think the party would have been destroyed anyway. Then at another time, now it happened in 1980, but I think that if the conditions where they would be later, it wouldn't have been destroyed anyway. Well, it may well have been. I wouldn't argue with you that the political parties are not the best associations to work in. There's enormous problems. But they are ultimately voluntary associations and there's no reason why good thinking people can't make something like that succeed over a long period of time. I think it lasted for quite a long period of time, as it was. And that it really was not a question of continuing to win, but continuing to make progress. And it's just a rational judgment as to how long do you want to work at this thing if you're losing ground. I'm told I've got to cut it off here. Thanks.


Hi, everyone. My name is Shamim, and I work as a developer at Moodle HQ. And today, I would like to introduce the new developments and improvements of Question Bank tagging in Moodle 3.5. So just a brief overview. In this session, I'm going to introduce the tagging feature, explain how we can tag the question in the Question Bank, the improvements in Moodle 3.5, and, of course, the advantages and applications of question tagging in different situations. Who here already uses tagging for questions? Probably just one or two, which gives me good motivation. You really need this talk. OK, let me first start with a bit of nostalgia. Yes, our dear Moodle 2. When Moodle 2 was released, one of the features was that when you create a question, you could attach some tags to the question. As we can see in this picture, we could choose a tag between a list of standard tags or official tags, or even create a customized list of tags when we were creating or defining the question and attach a tag to the question. Yes, so we had this feature since Moodle 2. And yes, we could tag questions. But then, after attaching these tags, how could we use the tags? Or what were the advantages of having tags for the questions? The reality is the application was limited to nothing. Well, we could assign tags to the questions, but then there was nowhere in Moodle where we could search questions by those tags. Or we could use those tags anywhere in Moodle. Well, yes, there were some third party plugins to help us with that, but there was no feature in Core. Well, of course, until now. So the project of question tagging improvements was requested and funded by the Moodle User Association. And therefore, it was one of the big improvements in Moodle 3.5. And we actually added quite a lot of new features and capabilities thanks to MUA, which I am going to explain now. So first of all, tagging a question is now much easier. As you can see, while I can still tag questions on the question editing page, I can also easily edit or remove tags on the questions when I am on the question bank. So when I'm in the question bank and I can see a list of all questions, I can see these small icons in front of each question. And if I click on the tag icon of a question, I can see all the tags that are attached to that question. I can remove some of the tags, or I can add new tags to that question if I want. So I don't have to go to the question editing page to see what tags are attached to that question or to modify the tags. I can do that directly from the question bank. Another very important expansion of the tagging functionality for question bank is that now we also add a new layer of tagging called course level question tags. What does this mean? OK, first a little bit of background. When you create a new question, you can specify which category you want that question to be in. So if you have the right set of permissions, you can put the question in a question category that is at a higher course category context. And a question that is in a course category can be used in all the courses that are in that course category. OK, back to tagging. So basically now we have two types of tags. Question tags and course level question tags. When we attach a tag to a question as a question tag, the tag is always going to be attached to that question no matter which course or where we are. And now the second type, course level tags, are attached to the question in the context of a course. For instance, we have a question which has been tagged vegan and vegetarian. The question has also been tagged healthy in the course one. But as the tag healthy is a course level tag, when we are in course two and look at the same question, we are only going to see the vegan and vegetarian tags and not the healthy tag. That is only for course one. Also, I see both types of tags on the question everything page, so nothing is lost.  So when I did explain this new feature to her, she was first looking at me confused, and then she started to translate this in chemistry terms. So this was her example. She now can create a question and tag it with something like acids and bases, which then later would remind her that the question is on that topic. But then, if she wants to use the same question in few courses, for example, she's teaching general chemistry, and the acids and bases concept is in chapter three. So she would tag the question with the course tag of chapter three. This way, when she is in the course of general chemistry and she needs a question from chapter three, she can see this tag on the question. But the tag chapter three is irrelevant in another course. So for example, in the inorganic chemistry course. So as the tag was only attached to the question in the general chemistry course, she's not going to see the tag of chapter three in another course. But she would always see the tag of acids and bases in all courses, because those tags are question tags. They're not in a specific context. Yes, OK, we did all these great things. Now we can tag questions easier. Now we can have a new type of tag. And OK, we have all these new features. What Moodle 2 says, so what? What is the real application? OK, then Moodle 2. Now we can filter questions based on our tags in any course. For instance, I search a tag vegan, and all questions with this tag are going to appear. The filtering will come handy when I'm in a quiz and I want to add a question from a question bank to that quiz. So I go to my quiz, I click on the add questions from the question bank. And then not only I can shortlist the questions based on their category, I can filter them more by entering some tags. Then I can pick the questions I want and add them to my quiz. So this searching and adding the questions can be a combination of searching based on category and searching based on tags at the same time. Moreover, I can add random questions in my quiz based on the tag. Before, you could have random questions from a category, but now I can say I want to add a random question from a specified category and with specified tags. Also, as you can see in this page, we also have a preview section. So as you choose a category and specify tags, it will preview all the questions that match with the category and tags. As you can see, I now have two pages of questions, which I can see there preview. It also allows the question to be added by tag from the course context and question context, which means that if I have assigned this tag to the question or in the course context, in both ways, now that I am filtering the question, the question would appear in my search. Same story with the chapter three, all of the healthy tag, which was only in one course and not the other course. So if I am in course one and I put healthy, I see those questions that have the healthy tag in course one. But if I'm in course two, of course, I won't see those questions. Again, one more feature, which has been added to the Moodle 3.5, and we didn't have this before, is that before we wanted, when we wanted to add a random question, we had to pick a category. We couldn't say I want a random question from any category in the course. We had to pick a specific category. But now we have a new item called top category, which all the categories are its subcategories. So if I want to pick a random question from any category in my course, I can simply pick the top category because all other categories are its children. So select a question from the top category, and as all the categories are its sub-division, my question could be from either of the categories within the course. I can also have random question from just a category or from a combination of category and tags or have just a random question by tag. OK, now let's have a quick quiz. I have the question one, which has been tagged by learning. This question has been tagged by cooking in course one and creativity in course two. We have also the question two, which has been tagged by calligraphy. The question has been tagged as art in course one and by learning in course two. Now, we are in course one and searching for a random question tagged by learning. Which question could come up? It's the question one because the question two doesn't have the tag of learning in course one. But now, if you are in course two and searching for a random question tagged by learning, which question would come up? Both could come up. That's correct. Thank you so much, and I hope you have enjoyed this presentation.


Hey, this is Brett and this 2018 Audi Q5 Premium Plus is stock number 23J45A, I am here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, you're new and used SUV headquarters. This 2018 Audi Q5 has the 2.0-liter 4-cylinder turbocharged engine, puts out 252 horsepower, 273 foot-pounds of torque, it's paired up with the 7-speed automatic transmission, this vehicle has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop, has a fresh oil and filter change, all the fluids have been checked and topped off and it is 100% ready to go. I'm going to go all the way around inside under the hood and start it up in this video to give you the most accurate representation of the vehicle before you can see it in person. Brilliant black as the color and if you have HD capabilities that's great because I shoot all my videos in 4K and that's the best way that you can check out the vehicle quality condition and options wise as you go down the driver's side here doors and rear quarter all look really good. Fun fender is in nice shape and if you like the video you can subscribe to my YouTube channel which is youtube.com slash Summit Auto click the bell notifications you'll get updates on the videos I do each and every day here at Summit Automotive. This one comes with the painted alloy wheels these are 20 inch wheels and it has Michelin Premier LT X tires these are 255 45R20s and they have I would say probably about half the tread left on them maybe a little bit more coming around the front here you can see you get the LED running lights the LED headlamps as well and we'll turn all those on at the end of the video so you can see how nice and bright they are you get the front bumper parking sensors on this one as well this of course is an all-wheel drive the hood is in really nice shape I didn't see any major dents or dings on there and the passenger side front fender is in fantastic condition as well passenger side front wheel no major scuffs or scrapes on there and as you go down this side of this 2018 Audi Q5 take note of how clean the body is how reflective and mirror like that paint is take these HD videos so if you are far away or even if you're close by just cannot make the trip down but you're still interested in purchasing the vehicle you can see the vehicle hear the vehicle and I'm confident in what you're looking at before you even get here so when you do get here there's absolutely no surprises you can make a smart and informed buying decision from wherever you're at if this video helps you make that buying decision let your salesmen know it just saw the video that was helpful and that Brett sent you back wheels in pretty nice shape does have one little scuff down here nothing too bad back we have tire has just as much tried as the front tires and the only thing I wanted to notice there's a couple little dents and stuff on the rear door here but other than that really a clean vehicle all the way around coming around to the back the rear bumper is in nice shape you get the backup parking sensors back here the LED tail lamps they look really good the rear gate is a really nice condition as well it is a power lift gate back storage area you get a lot of space back here you also get compact spare tire and then those seats do fold down for extra storage I'll show you that in just a minute to press that button that rear gate comes down like so and for full disclosure this back wheel very nice and clean and once again down the rest of the side doors look really good you get the heated power mirrors built in directional signals inside the premium plus package you do get the Audi lights under the door that's pretty cool inside the premium premium plus package gives you the black leather interior you get the bucket seats in front no rips or tears on them they are in very nice condition I don't think this vehicle has ever been smoked in factory floor mats auto headlamps you get the really nice woodgrain trim on the dash and door power windows locks and mirrors memory driver seat and these mirrors do power fold in I think you got to have the vehicle on the ignition on for that to work back seats are just as clean as the front seats no rips or tears back here these seats are heated on the outboard side and you do get the latch child safety system for any child car seats you may want to put back here factory floor mats they're your heated seat buttons and these seats fold down like so and they go almost completely flat which is pretty nice especially if you have to haul a bunch of extra stuff and the latch for that is right there back doors are trimmed out the same way and you do get child safety locks on the back doors inside of the doors all look good and it has the bang and olives and premium sound system we'll hop inside check out the miles the radio and everything that this q5 has to offer you can see that this one has 54 506 miles instrument cluster is all digital and is very clean outside temperature display as well you get the heated leather wrap steering wheel bluetooth and audio and nav controls on the right as well as heated steering wheel controls and information center controls on the left your cruise controls are down here it's a tilt telescopic steering wheel it does come with the factory navigation system on it you get the heated seats and climate controls down here here's your control pad for the touchscreen radio or for the radio i should say everything's you know control down here with the pad and then the controls right there and this one does have if we can do the am fm and serious xm radio capabilities but i gotta start the vehicle to show you the backup cam anyways you have your drive select your start stop capability stability control parking sensors downhill assist control and then that turns the screen off and on you get the nice woodgrain trim that goes all across the dash onto the passenger side door and the passenger side floor mat and seat are in fantastic condition once again i don't think this vehicle's ever been smoked in you get the panoramic roof up there with the power sunroof in front home link buttons for your garage door security systems and lighting systems sos button as well and sunroof and sunshade controls you get a compass display in the rearview mirror and we'll start it up and take a look under the hood also check out all those lights in the front starts right up no check engine lights or anything like that there is your backup camera and that is working nicely and as far as these mirrors go you can see that they do power fold in now it's like showing both sides say you know that both sides are working properly all right let's take a quick look under the hood at that two liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine remember 252 horsepower 273 foot pounds of torque under the hood engine bay is very clean runs very smooth once again this vehicle has been fully safety then inspected by a service shop has a fresh oil and filter change all the fluids have been checked and tapped off and it is 100 ready to go shocks are doing a nice job holding that hood up there is the emissions sticker see those lights are nice and bright and to see more pictures of this audio one of our other 550 new and used cars trucks scvs minivans wranglers half tons three quarter tons one tons you name it we got to go to that website right there summitauto.com full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle two locations all at summitauto.com and if you'd like to check out more hd videos you can go to youtube.com slash summit auto remember to like subscribe and share on this video and all the videos that you see there click the bell notifications to get updates on videos that do each and every day here at summit automotive in fact in a second you will see link to subscribe my youtube channel the upper left the link to more auto vehicles i've done in the upper right link to this vehicle on our website the lower left and a link to one of our latest youtube videos in the lower right click those check us out we're super excited to help you with this ultra clean 2018 audi q5 premium plus and brilliant black christa pearl thanks again for checking out the video remember to like subscribe and share on the youtube channel i really appreciate it thanks again


Never refuse gold given. Dyer's bottom tower is under attack. Never refuse gold given. Dyer's bottom tower is under attack. Never refuse gold given. Dyer's bottom tower is under attack. Has been killed. Never refuse gold given. Dyer's bottom tower is under attack.