And welcome to this afternoon's session on the future frontiers of technology control. We have a very eminent group of people who's going to be discussing this very important issue. One of them is not yet with us, T-1 Siabo, the Minister of Defence Industry of Australia. He's delayed a bit, he'll be joining us as this panel proceeds. We have, of course, Frederick Kemp, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Atlantic Council, one of the most eminent institutions in Washington DC, a city which is itself today going through different transformations. Technology clearly is one of them that you will be having to manage as you get out of the current state. And Frederick is going to be kicking off with a presentation. And finally we have Alice Bunn, who works as a Director International at the UK Space Agency. And she is going to be bringing in a different dimension, a space dimension on the whole question of technology. We are primarily trying to uncover and unclutter three key conversations. The one, of course, is that what is the advent of new technologies like robotics, AI, biosciences, material sciences, doing to the strategic balance that exists today? Is there a balance that exists today? And if there is, how is it being implicated by the advent of these new technologies? How are these new actors pursuing technology and how is that shaping geopolitics? The second, of course, is can these technologies be regulated? Can they be managed? What is the best way to do this? And if we do it, what are the implications of regulating technology? What are the collaterals on development, access to technology? And certainly, what are the implications of technology going awry and creating public bids? And finally, most importantly, we are going to refocus on the regimes themselves, the 20th century regimes, how do they need to be updated? How do they need to be tweaked and reset to respond to what's happening with us? But to get us underway, let me request Frederick to give us a presentation on a subject that he's been pursuing for a while. Frederick, over to you. You have 15 minutes or so. Yes. Great. Thank you. So welcome, everyone, and welcome to the geopolitics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In his groundbreaking book in 2016, Klaus Schwab said that we're just the beginning of this revolution, changing the way we live, work, and relate to one another, the changes are historic in their size, speed, and scope. What's been inadequately studied, and what I'll talk about briefly here, is the geopolitical changes of the Fourth Industrial Revolution will also be historic in their size and scope. Who will take the commanding heights in this breathtaking and unprecedented confluence of emerging technologies, and what impact may that have on how this tech revolution shapes our future? The most fascinating and compelling question within all of that, as posed to me by Foreign National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, is, can the incumbent U.S. and the insurgent China become strategic collaborators and strategic competitors in this tech space at the same time? He then adds the caveat, it's never been done before. So an unprecedented challenge for an unprecedented period of time, but I'll come back to that. Let me start with three framing arguments. First, this fusion of tech breakthroughs, blurring lines of the physical, digital, and biological space, is reaching an inflection point that makes it already clear that they will usher in a revolution that will determine not only the shape of the global economy, but also, and this is the important part, which nations and political constructs may assume the commanding heights of global politics in the coming decades. Not just global technology, but of global politics. Second, over the course of history, societies that dominated economic innovation and progress have dominated international relations, from military superiority to societal progress and prosperity. On balance, technological progress has contributed to higher standards of living in most parts of the world, however, disproportionate benefit goes to first movers. Third, the technological arms race for primacy in the fourth industrial revolution has essentially become a two-horse contest, and some of you may argue with me a little bit later on this, and I think in a multi-polar world, obviously there are many parts of the world where people are showing gains in many different aspects of this race. But at the moment, if you were looking at the AI race, if you were looking at the quantum computing race, if you were looking at bioengineering, it's really become a two-horse contest between the United States and China. We're in the early stages of this race, but how it unfolds and is conducted will do much to shape global human relations. Moreover, the shift in 2018 in U.S.-Chinese relations from a period of strategic engagement to greater strategic competition has also significantly accelerated the tech arms race. Finally, the nature of this emerging technological contest, and this I want to make very clear because not everyone agrees with this, but the nature of this emerging technological contest may favor the insurgent China rather than the incumbent United States. So it's time to think harder about what that means. What does that mean for how we all need to manage tech change so that we can focus on the potential positive sum of its collaborative contributions rather than suffer from the dangers of zero-sum thinking and competition, which appears to be where we're headed now? So let's do a brief flashback to history to understand how technological breakthroughs have shaped their time. So I've taken you back to 125 AD and the Roman Empire's road system, which you might want to call the early internet. Roman innovations, including roads and aqueducts, allowed Rome to expand and govern its empire and become the most important political entity of the ancient world. In 1440 AD, Johannes Gutenberg optimized previous systems of printing to create the printing press. I think we lost the printing press. Yeah, the printing press seems to have been lost. Hang on. Yeah, there we go. So Johannes Gutenberg optimized previous systems of printing to create the printing press in Europe. This innovation set the stage for European political and economic dominance for the following centuries. Then the creation of the steam engine and the following industrial revolution enabled Britain to create a global empire, and this was the first industrial revolution. Most of our lifetimes, most of our lifetimes have been colored by a largely U.S. driven era of technological innovation, so the second and third industrial revolutions. The second was electric power, bringing about mass production ahead of World War I, telephone, light bulb, phonograph, internal combustion engine, and then the third, the digital revolution, personal computers, internet, information, and communications technology. So if technological advance played a key role in determining who gained the upper hand in seizing the geopolitical commanding heights in the past, that's likely to be even more the case, even more the case during this most remarkable, most far-reaching and most rapid of history's technological revolutions. Countries and companies who take the lead will dramatically increase their economic growth, competitive advantage, and political and economic influence globally. And as with the Cold War Contest, this race could also determine which system of governance reigns supreme. And it's not at all clear to me it will be liberal democracy or free market socially responsible capitalism at current trajectories. And though the race, as I said, was primarily between China and the United States, it was probably Vladimir Putin, a tech pioneer himself in cyber warfare, disinformation, and military systems, who set it best in earliest on with a certain sense of hyperbola, the one who becomes the leader in this sphere, meaning artificial intelligence, will be the ruler of the world. The U.S. was shocked into overdrive to win the tech race during the Cold War by what became known as the Sputnik Moment. When the Soviet Union launched the first human-made satellite into orbit on October 5th, 1957, it set off a national response that would change the course of geotech history. China quite recently has had its own version of the Sputnik Moment, which has sent the country into technological overdrive. Its Sputnik Moment, little noticed in the West, came in two parts, and both involved artificial intelligence capability deployed by the U.S. company Google, being applied to the game Go, a confoundingly complex Asian game played on a 19 by 19 line board, as you see with little black and white stones, and I have absolutely no idea how to play the game. The first shock came in the spring of 2016 when the Google system called AlphaGo defeated a world champion in Seoul, South Korea. In China, no one really noticed this much in the United States, I don't think in Europe either. In China, some 280 million people watched this machine owned by a California company, mastered their own game. The second shock came a year later in May 2017 when the same American machine, in the words of the former boss of Google in China, Kaifu Li, quote unquote systematically dismantled the then 19-year-old go master seen here who was ranked at the top of the world. He doesn't seem quite as upset as he ought to be. Chinese authorities went so far as to ban any live stream of this defeat, despite huge public interest. Within two months of that event, the Chinese government rolled out its ambitious roadmap called the Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Plan. The goal was audacious by 2030 to become the global leader in AI, in theory, in technology, and in application. President Xi Jinping has shared with high level visitors that China was left behind by the first three industrial revolutions and paid the price. And he has told them that he's determined to win this round. And you see the growth of China's interest here. Before 2017 was out, Chinese venture capitalists and venture capital investors had poured enough into AI startups that they made up 48% of all AI venture funding globally, surpassing the US for the first time. Many on current trajectories, China will be the winner of this new technology race. Even though the birth of AI, better described as deep machine learning, took place almost entirely in the US, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Beijing is at the precipice of taking the commanding heights of a period of tech development in which machines will both radically empower and perhaps dangerously displace human beings. Many in Silicon Valley have made the mistake of believing that it was inevitable that the internet and the associated digital revolution would inherently empower democracy, individual rights and free speech. Yet there is just as much evidence that we could face a new, more sophisticated wave of what some call techno-utilitarianism and less kind voices called techno-authoritarianism. Kai-Fu Lee, and I recommend all of you who are interested in this, who if you haven't read his brilliant new book, AI Superpowers You Should. But Kai-Fu Lee argues that the harnessing of power of AI today, the electricity of the 21st century, requires abundant data, hungry entrepreneurs, AI scientists, and an AI friendly policy. He believes that China has the edge in all of these, and also in particular has the edge because the world has moved, in his view, from the age of out-of-the-box research and development where the U.S. has the edge and is strongest. To implementation, where China is better. And from the age of world-leading expertise, again still favoring the U.S., where the scientists still are stronger, to the age of data where China wins hands down. The economist is called China the Saudi Arabia of data, and with that as the fuel for AI, it has an enormous advantage. And the government, without privacy restrictions, can gain data and use data in a manner that is out of the reach of any democracy. China has three times as many mobile phone users as the U.S., and those phone users spend 50 times more through mobile commerce. Many of you who have used or have seen the use of WeChat would understand how that works. Kaifu leads bottom line. China already has the edge in entrepreneurship data and government support, and it's rapidly catching up to the U.S. in expertise. I haven't touched at all on the military implications of taking the commanding heights of artificial intelligence, which are chilling in a futuristic world of autonomous warfare. The United States is beginning to recognize the perils of losing this race in all its dimensions, but I'll leave it to others to dissect the military side of this. I think what's important to know is that current trajectories in the four primary areas of artificial intelligence over the next five years, China will gain, and in some areas of these technologies, particularly autonomous AI, dramatically and autonomous AI coming back to parity five years from now. This is again from Kaifu Lee. But to a certain extent, maybe this was the wrong presentation altogether, because if we look at this as a zero-sum bilateral superpower contest, it's ignoring that AI and all its implications and the other emerging technologies as well are going to influence the entire world. And to have the Chinese and U.S. at loggerheads over this in the end probably doesn't serve humanity. The societal implications of AI are far-reaching. This is a chart that just shows the jobs that will be lost, the jobs that will be in the danger zone, jobs that are in the safe zone. But more shocking are these statistics, which is across the West, but also in China. The challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution could be enormous, caused by AI-driven automation up to 54 million U.S. workers or 30 percent of the American labor force could be displaced by 2030. Similarly, in China, up to 100 million workers could lose their jobs in the wake of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. That's 12 percent of the Chinese labor force. And you can see here 46 percent of the Japanese labor force could be displaced. And you can do that count all around the globe and then think about what happens to populism and nationalism at that point if we don't figure out ways to deal with it. So what is the way forward with these huge societal implications but a bilateral race underway? I see three possibilities. I see three possibilities. One is a sloppy status quo, a continuation of the status quo of the last several years where China and the U.S. continue to cooperate but increasingly view each other with suspicion. They manage their rising differences and distrust imperfectly, never bridging them entirely but also not burning bridges, either between researchers, corporations, and others. The second possibility is a techno-cold war. China and the U.S. turn the global tech contest into more of a zero-sum battle for global dominance, organizing themselves in a manner that separates their tech sectors from each other and ultimately divides up the world. Some of the political momentum is heading in that direction, but what impact does that have? What does this do for the Chinese giants on the global stage and their hold of their markets? What does it do for the U.S. and billions of dollars of loss in China? And what does it do for overall technological developments in the world and how countries decide which one to side with? After being slow to recognize China's geotech challenge and leaps in capability, the Trump administration has leaned more in the direction of countering and understanding what are the risks. A year ago this month, Axios published a leaked White House presentation that argued that the U.S. and its allies should build a 5G network that excludes China. And a global pushback against Huawei is currently unfolding. The arrest of the CEO, a federal investigation into technology theft and congressional legislation that would limit the use of U.S. components in the telecommunications companies of China that are involved in breaking sanctions or embargoes. The third possibility is a collaborative future. Nicholas Thompson and Ian Bremmer argued in Wired Magazine November that despite the two countries' political and societal differences, the U.S. should wrap China in a tech embrace and that the two countries should work together to establish international standards to ensure that algorithms governing people's lives and livelihoods are accountable and transparent. They would recognize that while the geopolitics of technological change is significant, even more important will be the challenges AI poses to all societies across the world in terms of job automation and the social disruptions that may come with it. It may sound utopian to expect the U.S. and China to cooperate in this manner, but this is the world economic forum. This is Davos and this is what we should hope. To do otherwise would be self-defeating and at the cost of others in the global community, which needs our best thinking to navigate the challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. And then I close with this where Henry Kissinger said recently, we're in a position in which piece of prosperity in the world depend on whether China and the United States can find a method to work together, not always in agreement, but to handle our disagreements. This is the key problem of our time. Thank you for your attention. For those following us, do use the hashtag WEF19 and do follow the session on social media as well. This was a statutory announcement I forgot to make when we started the session. Fred, let me ask you something that bothered me here with your presentation. Of course, we were not on the map, that's one part of it. But you end with Kissinger, but have during your presentation kind of reached the conclusion or rather stressed on the fact that there is a serious decoupling underway. The tech embrace is unlikely to happen. And it is not just Trump, I think as someone very aptly put it, the deep state in the US and the loud state in the US have reached a conclusion that the US and China need to have a different sort of a relationship. And technology and trade are no different anymore. It's when we talk trade and when we talk technology, we are actually using interchangeable words. Do you think there is a possibility of an entente where we can create the regulatory architecture pretty much like the USSR and the US were able to do in the 1670s, 80s? But it took us some time to get there. And our economies weren't as intertwined. I think that's one of the biggest differences between the Cold War and now is, first of all, the Soviet Union just really wasn't that competitive of a global economic player. China is. Second of all, our economies are deeply intertwined as we're seeing with the market hit from fears of China's slowdown today. And in general, the market getting hit whenever it looks as though that China and the US are going to be more loggerheads than working at common purpose. Answering the overall question whether we can reach this, I'm almost embarrassed to try to answer because I do see someone in the room who's worked at that pretty hard and may know more about it. So at some point, if he doesn't mind, maybe we'll have Tom Bossert late of the White House working on these issues if he's willing to give a point of view or two. All of what I know he can fit on his little fingertip, so maybe worth trying to. I think we're just not, we're not talking in a way we need to talk strategically into the future. We haven't had the sort of Kissinger-Nixon moment with China and that opened up great possibilities. I think in the US one hoped that China by having such economic success and such incredible lifting of the country from poverty into poverty, it really is a miracle what's happened in China. And one had hoped that what would come with that is also a changing of society where it would be much easier for us to collaborate on the world stage as partners. And I think that's where you've seen a shifting of opinion in America from a hope that by engaging with China you could have this combination of the two rising powers of the next age working together for a better global future. And there's a fear that that's not happening, that China's not playing enough by global rules. So I think you can only get to where you're going if there's a level of conversation, a level of looking into the future and a level of accountability and transparency in the questions of the future of particularly artificial intelligence, but you can go to human enhancement, you can go to any set of other issues where the ethical questions will be huge for the entire globe and no one's really starting the conversation about it. So while these two represent the two ends of a spectrum, China and the US in terms of what they offer to the new forms of globalization going ahead, there are other players as well. I mean the US is struggling to reach some sort of a balance with its Atlantic cousins say on data itself, you mentioned data in one of your slides and as the new basis of the AI century, are you struggling to also have significant and serious conversations with other interlocutors besides China? The conversations have taken place and as I don't have access to top secret sort of clearances, I don't know at what level and how deep that you can imagine among the five eyes, among the closest intelligence friends of the United States, that this is becoming an increasing piece of conversation, but all of this has happened pretty fast. The breakthroughs have happened rapidly and a lot of it has happened really over the last two or three years where it's gone from a theory that one has been talking about for a long time to a series of breakthroughs that have made a lot of this technology much more doable, much more executable and so I think that this is all new and there's not a conversation, there was a meeting of American ambassadors recently and I heard from a couple of them in that meeting that they were surprised the extent to which this is the center of conversation which is the technological future and I think it's going to come to dominate conversations here in Davos and it's going to come to dominate conversations among allies at NATO and elsewhere and certainly China and China has been a first mover in a lot of markets in some of these breaking technologies and the real question particularly in 5G and Huawei's ability to really win the global market in 5G sort of telecom equipment and so the race is on, the conversations aren't taking place well enough but they certainly have accelerated and deepened considerably in the last months. Alice, let me come to you at this stage. In fact, in Fred's presentation he mentioned that sputnik moment and we have seen a few recent developments in outer space which have clearly signaled new actors and tensions to put new energy, new resources, new efforts into a new form of space exploration, space rates, space dominance. In fact, if you have been following the space debate, one it's a badly governed space, second it's getting highly congested, it's probably the most expensive real estate outside of Terraforma and three, militarization. Creeping militarization of space is undeniable. Countries now have capabilities which they didn't have developed over this period of time. So for those who are sitting in the room, what frontier does space present today? Is it as serious in terms of possible contests and competition or are we seeing development that is more likely to benefit most of us? Yeah, I think it's a really good question. You're absolutely right that it wasn't so long ago that space was really dominated by those two superpowers, the US and Russia at the height of the Cold War. But now there's over 100 countries that have space programs and interestingly there's a whole new bow wave of commercial entrepreneurs as well. So you see a lot of private operators. Now, space is quite an evocative subject. Quite often when people think of space, they think about missions to Mars. It was actually the space programs that are most pertinent to our everyday lives are those satellite missions orbiting around the Earth. And there is a fantastic development. There's a fantastic development in so far as what's achieved. 95% of the data that we need for weather forecasting comes from space. Over 50% of the measurements that we need to even understand climate change can only be measured from space. Space is in fact underpinning all of our financial transactions by providing the very precise time stamping capability that we need to assure our financial transactions. So space really, really, really is absolutely part of our everyday lives. But then no one owns space. So you consider you've got that capability, which is so fundamental to the way we live. And you've got hundreds of actors out there in the operating environment. And there are no norms of operation. I mean, the space operations are loosely marshaled largely by UN procedures, which are largely voluntary in nature, which take many, many years to negotiate. And as a result can often be quite out of pace with some of the technological developments we're seeing today. So on the one hand, you're right, there is a congested, there is a contested environment up there with both civil and military operators. But on the other hand, like Fred, I share a more optimistic outlook for cooperation in space. If only because everyone has a stake in that operating environment, everyone has an interest in making sure that we do get safe operations. Because if there are collisions in space, then everyone stands to lose and unlike collisions in other domains, you know, land, sea, air, those collisions stay where they are. In fact, those collisions become the cause of further collisions and further collisions leading you to an exponential effect, which could render the whole operating environment unusable. So I think the prospects for international cooperation in space remain quite strong. The visions for that cooperation, because I think you, Fred, in your presentation, spoke about what is the system that we are exporting? Or what is the system that we are trying to put in place as countries sit around the table in carbon new regulatory ecosystem? Who do you think, amongst the current actors, is most likely to shape a space regime, a space based regime where we can all come to a certain agreement on rules of conduct, you know, code of conduct, norms of behavior? Who is carrying the bait in today? Yeah, so there's a couple of really interesting trends at the moment. I mean, ultimately, our legal frameworks will come back to the UN. But what we're seeing at the moment is an increased appetite in the industry, in particular, to really drive forward best practices, drive forward norms of behavior. What do I mean by that? I mean, things like taking a commitment to limit the amount of space debris that is in that operating environment.  There's hundreds of thousands of pieces of space junk. And navigating through that operating environment is becoming more and more of a challenge. And of course, the industry themselves, you know, they have the biggest stake of all to make sure we get this right. So we're seeing a new push coming from India itself to align best practice around limiting space debris, more transparency about their operating regime. And I think that's the second area where we are likely to see some change. So to date, most of the world's information about those objects that are in space has been held in rather a closed system. It's been in the US military system. It's been provided as a global good. But when you consider today, there's so many different actors, so many different countries. I'm not sure that that closed model can be fit for purpose for the space operations of the future. We may well need a more open system where all operators can act in a more transparent way and share information about those hazards in the operating environment. So technology, so technology companies, space companies, businesses, now beginning to exert themselves and trying to bring governments and other actors together to create new regimes. Fred, is this likely to be a modest operandi for the US and China to begin to see a common future? Well, if you'll forgive me, sir, I'm a recovering journalist myself. I was at the Wall Street Journal for 25 years, and I actually have a question. Because the answer is, I had a conversation with a national security advisor, HR McMaster, when he was in his job. And I asked him of all the things he's looking at in the world, and you can imagine the national security advisor is looking a lot of danger. I said, what keeps you up at night? And he said space. And so what is it about space that would keep him up at night? And I think it is, it is connected to China. And I think it is connected to the military dimensions. But he didn't go into that level of detail in my conversation with him. But what what keeps you up at night about space? And if you don't mind me, no, please mind usurping the role of modernity. But because I do think this is a frontier, our whole economy rests upon this. Any warfighting that's been taking place, whether it's the Russians, the US or anybody else is connected to this. And so what worries you? What what vulnerabilities do you see? Yeah, absolutely right. I mean, the US seniors talk about it in the language of space providing the third strategic offset. So the first strategic offset being nuclear, the second being precise positioning, and the third coming from space or cyber in some way. And I think the belief is there because straight space really does give you so so many powerful tools in communications and in navigation, you know, if you can, if you can, you know, direct and navigate, if you can communicate securely, and if you can see what's going along in the theater securely, then you really have a lot of capability in your hands, which will really give you the advantage over your adversary. So I don't work in a military organization. So that doesn't keep me up at night. It probably would, if I did. The thing that would keep me up at night is this idea around there being collisions in space, which would then cascade and render the operating environment unusable. And we have to find a way there's a very fine balance here between a very understandable, you know, commercial competition element where you've got players around the world who want to be that first to market, the first to be able to provide, for instance, some of the amazing communications capability that's being talked about from constellations of satellites in low Earth orbit, versus the risk that those new innovations may ultimately pose to the operating environment for every nation. So Fred, let me take back the mic and pose that question to you again. Do you think US industry could play a role in bringing the two countries closer to each other or techno nationalism and nativist economics and nativist business policies will actually see a section of the US industry exploit this new tension to their benefit? I'm going to answer this in a roundabout way. So so if you if you look at the end of World War two, it was clear that the Soviet Union, the United States were going to be the competitors of that time. I think it's relatively clear that China and the United States are going to be the ideological system competitors of this time. And we had to go through Berlin airlift in 1948, we had to go through a Berlin crisis and building the wall in 1961, we had to go through a Cuban missile crisis in 1962. And it was really only after all that. But we started talking sensibly about how not to how not to blow up the world through through our various ambitions and goals. I we're not I don't know what year we're at with China. I hope we don't have to go through those kinds of crises and nail biting moments. But we got to start talking we've got to start talking with our allies bringing in our allies bringing in bringing in for sure, India, the Europeans, the rest of the world, but somehow the US and China have to start talking. I think space wouldn't be a bad time, but bad place to start. And I do think industry just has a role to play now that particularly in the technological field where so many of the breakthroughs are there and so much of the understanding is there. And so I think industry can't sit back and think of itself as a bystander any longer. I think we all have too much at stake. And so maybe some of the best ideas for this period of time would come from industry, rather than the quiet back, you know, walk in the woods kind of negotiations that would have taken place during the Cold War. We're going to open this up to all of you to come and join this conversation. I'm particularly going to get Tom into this debate. Tom, do you want to come in? You're here to learn. Okay. Learn more. Okay. But before we go to the audience, let me ask you one last question. Export controls or technology restrictions. And you could see that the 5Is in varying degrees have begun that process of controlling tech, controlling the flow of AI, controlling the flow of intellectual property. Is that something you think is useful in globalization 4.0? Do you think it could really create access challenges for many others who need such technologies for the daily businesses and social purposes? Or are you fearful that if we are not careful today, we could be moving into a new round of export control regimes, which will be commensurate, or which would rather coincide with the proliferation of or rather the control of technology that today integrated most of us in the 21st century? I can't think of a tougher job than to decide on behalf of the US government what technology should be controlled and what technology should be commercially used on behalf of the US to deepen relationships with allies to strengthen the commercial standing around the world. And it's not an easy line to draw because the technology is moving so fast. And so clearly you have to control the technologies if they were lost, it would be a danger to your national security. But there are other times where we control technology, such as armed drones, and then suddenly another country picks up that market and our allies are suddenly flying somebody else's drones. So I think it's really, really hard and we're going to have to continue to try to protect our most sensitive technologies. But it's such a moving target that's really, I can't imagine trying to keep up with that and doing it in a way that doesn't cost markets and outrage allies time and again. Space sector, I think it was a sector especially in the 20th century, which saw limited capabilities being allowed to be transferred across borders, because it had other uses as well. Yeah, absolutely. But if we if we're if we're still discussing export control, I think, actually, the far more significant step forward would be around aligning some of the regulatory regimes. What you don't want is for some piece of technology, some highly innovative, but perhaps, you know, too unproven, too risky type of technology finding a flag of convenience somewhere and being launched into space for the detriment of all those other actors. So I think it's far more imperative on governments at the moment to focus on aligning those regulatory regimes to make sure that, you know, we we establish a level playing field, things like in orbit servicing is a massive new area, really exciting. And it could be a very, very effective way to prolong the lives of some of these very expensive space missions. But obviously, if you've got that capability, you can also use that capability in an offensive way as well. And we have to pay attention to that issue around space operations. Yeah, so I'm going to come to you now. So we have two interventions from the first floor here. Get my attention. I will come to you as well. Thank you. Your prediction about work displacement surprised me because AI and the Industrial Revolution 4.0 are going to dramatically increase productivity. And when you increase productivity, people will have to work less hours a week and actually will not want to work many hours because they want to have a lot of spare time and free time to play with the new tools or to use the new tools and new technologies. So I don't think that they and actually also history shows that technology revolutions did not reduce the labor force. So technology does not lead to job losses. Can we take a series of questions and then come back to you? Look, I'm a student of this as you are. And my optimistic half full side wants to believe you're right. What I know so far about the technology, you know, and it's not just going to hit blue collar, it's going to hit radiologists, it's going to hit legal clerks, it's going to the jobs that are going to be lost to this. Now, I was very interested to read Klaus Schwab's interview with Time Magazine coming into this, because he acknowledges all of that, but also thinks it's going to force us to rethink what the purpose of life is. Is the purpose of life to work 60 hours a week? Or is the purpose of life to sharpen my tennis game? I don't I don't know. But the but the fact of the matter is, you know, that kind of shift in thinking happened when you know, farmers moved into factories. It happened when and there was there was a lot of feeling when digitalization first came about that there would be enormous job loss. And you're right, a lot of jobs get created from new technologies in the new world that we're in, in the leisure area and the entertainment area. There are all sorts of jobs that can be created. But it's going to happen quickly. And it's and we already are facing a great deal of nationalism and populism, I think less from globalization and more from technological change and people feeling unsettled by it all. And so I think we can't say for sure what's coming at us. But we ought to at least think about the possibility that this many jobs are going to be lost. And if that's true, what should we do about it? And I guess your larger observation is probably true. Technology does create more opportunity that's shown that to be true about 200 years of our experience. But I think it's that transition shock that governments and countries have to respond to. And in this case, it is the rapidity of that shock. And it could not unfolding. The other thing that scientists are showing is it could bring an even greater concentration of wealth. So does that mean more government intervention to distribute that wealth to avoid social upset? Because AI will be concentrated in certain hands, it will augment what you can earn off of certain activities and products. And it will and it will weaken the lower end of the ladder. There may be even a bigger gap. So you've even got some people, I think Zuckerberg, Mark Zuckerberg gave a speech at a graduation last year of one of the universities where he talked about a minimum assured salary that American citizens would have to be promised at some point. So it's raised, it will raise huge, huge society questions. So I think these days we are talking a lot of the rivalry between United States and China. And now we are doing the same thing. But when I listen to such a talk, it reminds me of the one historical moment of the rivalry between setting right the German Empire against British Empire, one rising power and one power. And I think the United States seems to feel the same frustration as the Empire once had felt and Germany the same way. But this shows that the first German Empire and British Empire was nothing but the troublemakers in terms of World War I and II. And United States came in as peacemakers. They were actually the troubleshooters. And so it seems to me that in the future we are facing, we are going forward to digitalize the decentralized world. So we are no more fighting for commanding heights in terms of market or territory. So probably we might end up fighting another peacemaker or troubleshooter, which don't identify at this point of time. From World Economic Forum, when we are talking about globalization 4.0, we are thinking of something like that, which is shaping. For example, I'm from South Korea. I'm chairman of the Asian Group and chairman of World Energy Council. I recently found out that South Korean economy is larger than Russian economy. Small forest countries have become larger than one super power, Russia. So I think the world is changing very drastically. And for example, in terms of the energy transition, energy storage system is the technology of future. And South Korea is the leader. And no one recognizes it. And so in the future, probably India or some one like some organization like World Health Forum initiative that comes from that we have can shape the world in the future and becoming the troubleshooter for all the troubles caused by United States or China. I think there was a comment, but I could probably ask you both to respond to that as well. But let's try and get another one from the audience. I saw, yeah, there you are. Do you want to comment? Hi, I'm Swarov Sinha. I'm a global shaper from the New York City Hub. And recently, there's been a refocusing on the moon and the lunar space race, especially between the US and China. So when thinking about the resources down on the moon, how are we thinking about who owns the moon? How are those resources allocated? And how do we make sure that countries with developing space programs, how do they have a seat at the table when we're thinking about this? And then also, what are the national security implications of this lunar space race? Great. So let me go to Alice now. Yeah, no, I mean, that's absolutely the right question to be asking is there is a new resurgence in exploration. I think it's a fantastic, exciting time in exploration actually, because most of the world's efforts have been focused on the International Space Station for the last 20 years. We're now really, you know, at an inflection point, we've got a blank sheet of paper in front of us. You know, the exploration has been a fantastic success in international cooperation. We need to make sure that that endures going forward. So you're right, there is a new push to the moon. We will be discussing having an international space station, but not orbiting the earth, but orbiting the moon. From that, we will use that as a launch pad to go further and onto missions and Mars. And the specific point around resource mining is really where the ultimate goal is to be able to find everything you need for space exploration from space. Because if you can get to that tipping point, then you're really, really opening up a huge new paradigm in what can be achieved in our space exploration missions. So it's interesting, it almost reflects back to the conversation we're having on export control. There, we're not talking about export control, but we are talking about standards. We are talking about putting in place systems which all countries around the world can participate in because there are common standards and they're enabling standards. And through that, we certainly hope that we're going to be able to have a bigger multilateral even than we've had before. And bear in mind before, on the international space station, we have over 103 countries. So it's pretty impressive already. He also asked you about property rights. Yes. Yeah. Whole new legal world. I couldn't, in all credibility, give you the answer. It's keeping many lawyers in gainful employment. So maybe that's part of the answer to the earlier question too. To date, the moon has been a site of special scientific interest and that has limited what we can do in the ends that will have to be presumably under UN frameworks, a mechanism via which countries can agree that resource mining in a sustainable way. We're not there yet. So I think one almost has to have some panels planned at World Economic Forum. Maybe there already are, which is what can we be optimistic about? And what should we celebrate? Because if you look from the birth of the World Economic Forum to now, global poverty has been cut in half. The global middle class is bigger than it's ever been before. Technology is available to more people in the world than it's ever been before. So we have the tools to unlock the best era of human progress the world has ever seen. And but we can also miss that chance, miss that opportunity. That's why we talk about the issues that we're talking about. On South Korea, there are breakthroughs all over the place that are really exciting technology around the world. The nuclear technology that South Korea has been developing to protect against proliferation. The small module nuclear plants, smart plants is really interesting. But if we're going back to this history moment, the founders of the Atlantic Council, Dean Atchison, Mary Pillsbury, Lord, Lucius Clay, they all sort of congregated around this notion of being there at the creation. And that was Dean Atchison's famous book about that period of time where the US got so much right at the end of World War II after getting so much wrong at the end of World War I. I think we're at another one of those points. So are we going to do 1919 or are we going to do 1945, which on balance I'd rather have that, although it wasn't great for everybody, it was a move in the right direction. And that takes people who are there at the creation. So are we there at the reinvention? Are we there at the reinvigoration? Are we there at the destruction? And so Peggy Noonan's written about genius clusters. And so at these moments of time where history is bent in the right direction, you tend to have this cluster of geniuses, whether it's Churchill and Roosevelt Truman, whether it's Conrad Adnan and Albert Shulman, that come about. And for the life of me I don't see that genius cluster right now. You know, and you wonder whether it's going to emerge in the right time or whether it's going to take something something awful to get us there. One hopes not, but the times are so promising in so many ways. But where is the genius cluster that's going to tap this and then put together a new world order that really works for everybody and takes us in the future? And I think to a certain extent that's what this whole Davos has been organized around by Klaus is the whole title of it has been aiming at that. And we're all kind of swimming in the deep trying to find our way. I think I entirely agree, but I think it's also about us finding common platforms, finding common goals and objectives. We will always need the peacemakers in the mix, but also if we can find areas of shared interest. And that changes, right? As technology changes that changes. It's why, you know, I really enjoy working in space, but you can't help but have that perspective. You know, astronauts talk about this overview effect, you know, that very iconic image that you get when you look down and you see the earth and you realize that, you know, the geopolitical borders don't really matter at all. So I think it's finding those common platforms. I had, for May, just one anecdote from last year. I've talked already about the UN frameworks and this need to use those UN frameworks to find, say, you know, common modes of operation. Last year, one of my teams said, we're nearly there. We're nearly there. You know, it's the first time in decades, but we're nearly there with a new UN treaty. I said, that's amazing, you know. What's it covering? He said, it's a weaponization of space. I said, that's absolutely remarkable. That's surely the most controversial topic you can imagine. And he said, no, no, no, weaponization, but not at each other. Only at something else. So I was like, right. So what we were about to agree was it was okay to use space as a weapons means for aliens, but we didn't even get that far. So before we wrap up the session, let me ask you both possibly, let me throw a curveball in the baseball lingo. Platforms, I think you use the word platforms. As we move into the world which is proliferated by rapid change, technological change, the gig economy, questions around work, informality, new forms of social cohesion, existence, coexistence. Do we need the 1945 solution or are we chasing the fool's gold? Or do we need a more informal platform based systems of solution finding which are nimble, lith, flexible, mobile, where informal gatherings, maybe not the genius cluster, but some semi-genius clusters themselves, can respond to a specific issue rather than creating the UN of the 21st century. Do we need more divorces? Do we need more gatherings where business leaders, academics, media thinkers, civil society can actually produce nimble solutions? So are we moving towards a new age of informal institutions and informal regulations which rely on standards not necessarily on laws? A short answer. It's got to be public-private and I know that's kind of a catch word now, but when people get into trouble, when you don't get your paycheck in the United States right now, when you're afraid of war you're going to turn to your country and you're going to turn, I think the era of the nation-state is long past, is not over and will continue as far as I can see into the future. The problem is the nation-state doesn't have the tools to solve all the problems it's expected to solve and so it has to work together with non-state actors, with NGOs, with others to solve it. The question is what coalition of actors can you actually put at a table to solve what problems? And there's some models for this and there's some models that are working all right. So nation-state can't do it alone but it's not going to go away, the informal networks aren't going to solve all the problems of the world but the nation-state can't do it without these networks. Everything Fred said and pace and pace. That's the really significant issue we have is that the velocity of technological innovation is at a pace which far outstrips our ability to govern so we need you know using these only big UN structures for instance so we have to find a way around. And back to AI tools can actually help governments deliver services better and more efficiently and so there's ethical AI that could be really game changing in a positive sense. So as I conclude the session I carry back with me four thoughts which were expressed by these two very erudite speakers, the role of the private sector and its partnership with governments. I think that's a central theme that was evident. Second of course was regulatory innovation itself and can technology as you mentioned at this particular last intervention, can technology itself be a problem solver to its own creations and can we use AI and big data as a regulatory input to manage the world. The third of course was the social transformations and I think the largest regulatory interventions will have to come toward the management of societies that are going to be implicated by this change. If we don't get the average Joe right, if we don't get his ecosystem you know healthy he's going to work in certain ways he's going to express himself politically or socially. So I think management of societies even as we manage technology is equally important from what I heard this afternoon and finally genius clusters I think that was a way of saying that we need leadership. We need this world requires new kinds of leadership and new forms of leaders, leaders with new ideas with creative minds and possibly we might have some of them outside. Please join me in applauding the panel for the intervention and thank you for joining us at this panel.


All right, next question is, how lighting is measured? Now we have so much of light here, how do we measure the amount of light that we get? Usually the light output is measured in luminous flux, or the amount of light falling on horizontal surface. All lamps, for example, this one, is listed with how many lumens? Lumens is the output from a particular bulb. How much light do we get from this bulb? Lumens, not watts. Watts is the second one that you see here, and that is how many watts, or how much power are we drawing from the electrical wires? And the third one that is indicated on every package that you see is the number of hours. In other words, this is the life expected life of this bulb. And you can see here, lumens is the light output. Lumens is an indication of how much light we get from these bulbs. And for example, as I said, 40 watt bulbs give you 500 lumens, and here we have a 60 watt bulb, which gives you 865 lumens. It is not proportional, but as the wattage increases, you get more and more number of lumens.


Hi everyone! Well, I am in the most beautiful environments here of the Mount Congrave Gardens and the view that I'm showing you does not at all give justice to where we are. We had a conversation here today all around preparing for the future for business. It was in association with Watford Chamber Skillnet, County Tipperary Chamber Skillnet and Carlo Kilkenny Chamber Skillnet. And we had arranged different speakers and I'm going to tell you all about what happened, particularly with a summary of insights right here. Okay, first of all we started off with Paul Healy as Chief Executive of Skillnet Ireland and he pointed out that two-thirds of people who work in the state work in an SME. Secondly, he said that 12% of people in Ireland engage in lifelong learning and that is in some cases less than half of what goes on in other countries, particularly in Scandinavia. He said according to research very recently published 9 out of 10 people want to learn a new skill and he also said that we as businesses need to make sure that we're engaging with AI and looking at how that changes the game in the way in which we deliver what we deliver and how we engage with it from a business process point of view and also how sustainability is a competitive challenge and he really did the call to action was very clear which is think about how these things can impact you, your business, your customers and of course your staff and make changes and take time to think about your business from the point of view of working on it and not in it. Then we moved on to me. I was the speaker today who was focusing on giving people a business finance toolkit. So a couple of things that I pointed out here in number one is how important it is to know your numbers. I said that it's really important to know for example where your last 10 sales came from because that helps you number one understand where your sales are coming from and therefore it can underpin where you put your marketing resources thereafter. I also said it's really important to know your profit margin and per product. Sometimes people can get cut out by implicit marketing costs where they're not spending money on marketing but it does take time and if you have to pay somebody else to do that when you don't have time to do it yourself that can really affect your profit margin in a way that you didn't anticipate in the first place but also when you know the profit margin per product you can then determine where the resources need to go in terms of promoting the products that you have or services of course and also how you can improve that profit margin perhaps by decreasing cost but also perhaps by engaging with a complementary business or licensing a technology or a product that can align in with that as well. As you can see it's actually starting to rain here it's actually raining and the sun is shining at the same time but I'm going to persevere here now because at the same time we're out in nature so why not why not be part of it all the way. Also I pointed out a range of state supports that are available and I mentioned a couple of them and Paul Healy certainly encouraged people to engage with them too but particularly I do want to mention the SME support tool because that is the one that can help you navigate the environment so rather than me list out a range of what's available take a look at that instead and that may well be able to help you. I know people who've listened to me before on videos on LinkedIn you'll know that I am the number one fan of Enterprise Europe Network because it is so helpful in terms of helping companies to export but also in engaging with companies around the EU and beyond to license products and bring new complimentary products into your portfolio so that then you can build your offering for our customers in a really fast way so check out Enterprise Europe Network as well. Also I pointed out three other things number one is that it is important to financial goals so whether that might be increasing revenue by x percent, increasing profit by x percent, increasing the salaries of your staff by x percent and the second thing I pointed out as well is that it is important if you are a business owner to make sure that you're taking care of yourself financially too and particularly to the lens of a pension the most underfunded if absent people who have in the situation where pensions can either be underfunded or absent typically are the self-employed or people who set up small businesses so it's important to do that too particularly in the context of auto-enrollment coming soon and then the third thing as well that I mentioned is the role of automation. Automation in my opinion needs to be something that is people-centric and that it is designed to implement changes in efficiency and effectiveness for your customers as opposed to tools that are cool and if you can take that approach and I gave a range of different ways to do that today then you can really make a difference to the bottom line yes but also to avoid errors and to making jobs that you offer to people more exciting by virtue of the fact that you've eliminated repetitive tasks. Okay now moving on from there we had a sustainability fireside chat with Amanda with Ann and with Michael and they particularly said that the reason that we need sustainability to happen and happen quickly is for intergenerational justice we need to make sure that tomorrow can be here as a result of our actions of today. Amanda particularly talked about the triple bottom line and that a very quick way to implement sustainable solutions is to change your providers to renewable energy right away. She also said that the best way to work with people around sustainability is to workshop it as opposed to simply sit and listen and also to break down silos is bringing people together in your organization and asking them about things like maybe how they do things or lean manufacturing how that can actually happen or what would be the impact of implementing one change on a different part of the business can be helpful of course to implement sustainability changes but also simply in understanding how people work together. Now Ann Crowley who's the HR manager of Red Mills she told us that it's important to look at how you can keep your environment clean and then add to it she said that sustainability efforts can make a business more efficient and also she said that it's important for anybody who is involved in senior management to be transparent and visible about any changes that they're going to make and if they're going to make a sustainability initiative happen they need to practice what they preach and she particularly was very complimentary of the senior management team of Connelly's Red Mills about that she also said as well talk to people on the ground about how changes can actually happen there's no point in people dictating from on high about what should happen when they don't have experience of what it's like on the ground in a very practical or a tangible manner and maybe how that affects either how people are interacting with customers or how people are interacting with each other in the workplace etc and also then Michael the chief technical officer at Connelly's Red Mills he said that it's very hard to go green when you're in the red and I think it was really important to draw out the perhaps challenges around sustainability and I did ask about that but also the challenges that can come maybe it's point of view of cynicism and maybe it is our sustainability and profitability incongruent and I wanted to put that to him and so he made that point is that it is hard to go green when you're in the red but that's not to say that you can't do it and certainly it sounds like the company isn't in the red at all but the point is is that they need to be aligned going back to Amanda's point of the triple bottom line and he said it's also important that you bear in mind what is happening in sustainability in line with the pace of change of any other business development he also said as well when it comes to markets customers owners and employees sustainability offers a competitive advantage and he said it is important to tell your story so that you can bring people with you both in your own company as well as in the industry and wider society so then we moved on to Ray Goggins and he talked about a resilience toolkit so he started off by talking about it's really important that you've got communication in a team and communication means more clarity and that people apply different levels of listening he said trust, respect, integrity are all needed and a leader when he asks the audience what does the leader do and then he answered it by saying everything and don't expect any reward for it he said people will always remember the time that somebody spent time with you it is the greatest gift to give to anybody he said as a leader you need to be open honest and get stuck in and that you stand and fall as a team and resilience is not just about bouncing back from adversity or otherwise but also your ability to deal with change he posed the question what kind of people are resilient and asked us to think about that and then he said people with purpose don't do drama create your why remember who you are and why you're here he said control the controllables don't get caught up in trying to fix things that you can control he asked us to think about our mistake culture he said what happens when people mistake make mistakes do you fix them or do you appoint blame and then he said and let's say then people said well you know of course they give leeway to people who make mistakes and it's all about learning one of my own favorite quotes is if you win if we win we'll be successful if we lose we will be wise but then he said do you give yourself your own leeway and it's important a very important point there to make he said the three piece of positive thinking are permanence pervasiveness personalization permanence means nothing is permanent anything can be fixed in a period of time he said about pervasiveness keep going and persevere and personalization the universe is not is not out conspiring to pull you down and to instead see things for what they are and then build upon them thereafter he said his mindset principles are awareness of you of us personally acceptance willingness present moment and self-belief and then finally before we had the most beautiful lunch I will say but finally the rain stopped now by the way and then we had Neil breathe with Neil now I cannot describe to you the experience that he brought us through we were outside in the garden and then we had an experience inside in the room all about where he taught us to breathe but he did very kindly we everybody had a book to take away here so as you can see the blissful breath I haven't read it yet but now that I've seen him in action and Neil will really and truly give you practical ways to think differently about breathing and also put you outside your comfort zone and on that note I'm going to leave the suspense there about the activity that he engaged us in but I do want to thank Ashling I want to thank Louise and certainly also wanted to thank Tommy for inviting me to MC today


Hello and welcome to the Freedom Central channel. My name is Adam also known as iSacrifice Some of you may have heard of me for those that haven't I will go into a little detail on what I do for the freedom community And as well as that we're going to be doing a giveaway and a summary of what I'm going to be doing in the next couple of episodes So starting off with what I do for the freedom community So guys I created this graphics channel dedicated to helping the freedom community with free graphics for their social media sites The channel covers Facebook, Twitch, Twitter and YouTube as well as any others that you guys suggest And we do this by designing free generic templates for you guys to download and use As well as the free graphics guys the channel does support the designers within the community Through sport lights and various other uploads as well as that the opportunity to join the design team Now that I've spoken about what I do for the community It's time to go into the giveaway Today's giveaway guys is a call of duty at advanced warfare branding kit and as you can see on screen It's going to cover Twitch YouTube and Twitter and we'll include the following if you want to download this link will be in the Description I'm going to show you some slides showcasing what the branding kit looks like and talk about some revamps Guys if you want your Twitter or your YouTube channel revamped with new graphics by us Then go into the comment section and use the hashtag hashtag revamp me Using the heartbeat extension. We will pick two of you guys to revamp that concludes my video guys Thank you for watching and if you've made it this far make sure to hit the like button And if you want to suggest the next branding kit then do so in the comments below. Thank you for watching It's been I sacrificed Let's discover freedom click the first video to learn what is freedom and how it helps you grow Click the second video to learn about sponsorships for all freedom partners Even if you have just 10 subscribers and click the other videos like how do I leave freedom to learn more? Click get more views to learn how to build your audience faster on YouTube Click get more CPM to learn how to make more money from your channel and click get more music to learn where to get More music to spice up your videos Click the first playlist to watch the George show on freedom That's my show or watch the Anthony show or the Alex show also on freedom


Hey, how's everyone doing? I'm just out here by the beach. I've got a quick message to share with you tonight. Narcissists love to gossip. They really have no life of their own. They're always watching what you're doing. They're always talking to people about you. Because they've really just got no life. And you know you're something special when these narcissists are constantly focusing on you. Because narcissists only focus on people who they feel threatened by. If they feel like someone's beneath them they're not really going to care. They're not really going to want to talk about them. But then when there's someone who they perceive to be above them someone who's more successful, more attractive whatever it may be they just seem to become fixated on that person. They can't leave things alone. They have to keep checking in on what that person is doing. Where that person is going. Who that person is talking to. Because they feel threatened by that person. They're afraid. They feel very insecure. Because someone who's secure within themselves is not going to be fixated on anyone. They might see you and then you leave and they just forget about you. But narcissists they can become very fixated on you. They can't just forget about you. Because deep down they believe that you are superior to them. And their way of dealing with these feelings of inferiority is to say stuff about you behind your back to other people. To smear your name. Assassinate your character. Make up rumors. They want to turn everyone against you. They want to make you feel like you have no support. They want to make you feel like there's no way you can go. They want to make you feel like you're on your own. And the reason why they do that is because whenever they're around you whenever they have to look at you they feel small. They feel inferior. It hurts them. They make them feel like they're not enough. But they already felt that way. Even before you were around the wound was already there. But when they see you it's like it just pulls off the band-aid. Hurts people. Hurt people. Desperate people. Do desperate things. And you will definitely notice that with these narcissists. They are very desperate people. They are desperate to tear you down. Desperate to put you beneath them. And that is why they will go to any lengths to crush you. Because you've injured them. And I know what you're thinking. You're thinking how have I injured them? What did I ever do to them? To make them react in that way. But what you have to understand is that it's just you being you.   Because they didn't want you to know. They didn't want you to know just how capable you are. They didn't want people to know just how great you look. They didn't want anyone to know that. So they kept you down. They brainwashed you into thinking that you're nobody. And they went around and they told everyone the same thing. They told everyone to treat you in the same way. But I feel like that's why I'm here. I'm here to tell you the truth. You are special. You are something great. That's why they went through all that effort to make you think something different. To make you think that's all you deserve when you deserve so much more. They lied to you. They wanted you to think that you're nobody. Just because that's exactly how they felt about themselves.   Because they were afraid. They were afraid what if you knew your true power. Maybe then you'd overthrow them. Maybe then you'd be the one in control. Maybe then you'd be directing the court of events. So they lied to you. They made you feel small. They made you feel like you're not capable of anything when the truth is you are more capable than you could ever imagine. People with true power will build you up. They will make you feel better about yourself. It's people who lack power who have to put you beneath them. They have to make you feel small. And that's why you find yourself surrounded by so many toxic people. Because they know your true power. That's why it's so difficult to get rid of them. Because they know just how great you are. But if you were to know that you'd start to look at them and wonder what you're even doing around them and that's the last thing they want.  Even though that's the truth they have to keep you down. They have to contain you. They have to keep you in the box. And that's why they gossip about you. That's why they tell people lies, rumours. It's all just an attempt to contain you. To stop you from realising your true power. As soon as you realise it that's when the gossiping starts. That's when they enforce the Flying Monkeys and start media campaigns. I just had to share that message with you guys. Just a little awakening to anyone who doesn't realise their true power. You are all very powerful. You've just been led to believe that you're not. Just out at the beach here you can't really see much because it's dark but there's also a nice little garden here as well. Anyway, I hope that message was helpful for you. I've got a premiere starting in about 25 minutes so I hope you can join me there.


What's going on you inky savages today? I'm announcing the winner of the conchland uragraph lapis lazuli fountain pen a pen shall a Exclusive and a giveaway that I was running over the last couple of days and commemoration of my deceased fish So crates. He's the first fish that got me into my fishkeeping hobby. So let's get to the winner Big thanks to everybody who participated in the conchland uragraph lapis lazuli pen shall a exclusive So crates commemorative giveaway the winner is going to be Ryan W who commented about his dog Brutus on YouTube Ryan? Congratulations for winning long live Brutus and please make sure you reach out to me at penboyroy at gmail.com to claim your winnings Thanks for watching. Thanks for participating. Love you guys. Be well. Be safe


It is so good to be here, and I'm so happy that Gabseth had, you know, we're not in a rush. I am American, clearly, but I'm from the South, and what we can do well is we can talk. So yeah, thank you for that invitation, and we're going to try to get this done. But really thrilled to be here from the U.S. Many of you all know that in the U.S., we just celebrated a couple of significant holidays, right? So at the end of June, we had Juneteenth, and Independence Day was July 4th, and Juneteenth is a celebration of freedom for black Americans, whereas Independence Day, obviously, is a celebration of the country's freedom. And so I have to say that we went into this holiday season pretty somber, right, with the state of what's going on in the world. And like many families, mine gathered together over the holidays, and we just had some conversations and shared our diverse views on everything, ranging from, you know, the Supreme Court's ruling on women's reproductive health to the Supreme Court's ruling around environmental protection and what's going on in society today. And one of our families' elders said something that I thought was very, very important. He said that, you know what, companies are really stepping up, and I think they might get it right this time. So they might get it right this time. And so my takeaway from that is that corporations, companies, they're doing something differently now. They haven't done the past. And the thing that they're doing differently is that they are empowering the workers, the employees. We have agency now to move forward with some key initiatives. And I want to talk about some of these key initiatives that we have the power to move forward with. But what I really want to do is introduce why I'm here today. And that's to celebrate you, to celebrate open source developers and really what you are doing. I want to celebrate the fact that you have the blueprint for inclusion, for valuing other perspectives, for accessibility, and really for making sure that there is a community of people who feel that their contributions can lead to something greater, whether it's a technology or a platform. But they feel that their contributions can lead to something bigger and better and greater. And what I want to talk about is, first of all, to celebrate you for creating that community. And secondly, to give a couple of use cases around how that might be able to be applied to your business, that inclusion model, as well as how that could be applied to broader society. And then we'll talk a bit about the how. So how do we apply our learnings from this inclusive model, this model of collaboration? How do we apply that to our businesses and to the greater society? We already know that information flow is important. Knowledge sharing is important. And that's what you do really well. And that's what companies want. They want to see more information flowing. They want knowledge sharing. They want people to feel inclusive because we've seen study after study that when we feel valued and we feel included in a process and we feel that we can collaborate with others, that's when we do our most creative work, creativity, leading to innovation, leading to revenue generation for the firm, but also leading to revenue generation for the employee, which means that the communities, that the employees live and where they do business, those become wealthy as well, wealthy from a financial perspective as well as from a cultural perspective, from a societal health perspective. And I want to talk a bit about how we do that, how you do that, and how you might be able to apply that into the businesses and into the social settings where you're doing business communities, your anti-siload approach. So before we get there, I want to just share a couple of key terms that I think will help us bridge over from the how we do it in the open source community into how we can do it socially and in our businesses. And by a show of hands, how many of you have heard of DEI, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion? Okay, a good number. So we'll just do a brief. We have a lot of acronyms here. So DEI and then ESG. How many of you have heard of ESG? Okay, so about the same. So as we know, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is really talking about ensuring that people feel included in a process, which is what the open source community is about, inclusion, collaboration, valuing different perspectives, equity, making sure there is parity there, pay parity, no matter who you are, if you're doing the same work as me, we should be paying the same. And then diversity. We want our businesses to reflect the communities and the clients that give us business. And obviously, the developer community really appreciates and embraces that as well. Now ESG, Environmental, Social and Governance, when we talk about ESG, a lot of people think about climate and what we're doing to reduce our carbon footprint. And that's part of it. Governance, which is the G, we'll get to the escalator. Governance, which is talking about corporate ethics and how corporations govern themselves, board structures, that sort of thing. That's a key part of this as well. But what I want to focus on today is the social aspect. Social can be not just what's going on in the broader community externally, but also what's going on inside the business, the people inside your business. Are they feeling that they need to be there, want to be there, and that what they're doing is valuable? So that's the social piece, and that leads clearly to social change when we talk about that. Now, going to the use cases that I mentioned, again, I want to just really reiterate that what you are doing in terms of opening up your communities and making sure that we have diverse representation and making sure people feel that they are important, that that can be reflected in society as well as in business. And in society, I'll talk about a use case that many of us know. I want to talk about credit, right? So we know that in many times having good credit leads to financially healthy communities, people, etc. And I'll share a story with you. When I was in college, I got bombarded with credit card, university mail, email, they sent me lots of credit card applications. I'm sure that's a story for many of you all. So when I got all these credit card applications in my email, I decided to go to my own personal financial guru. Now, this is a woman who knew more than anybody I knew about finance. I knew she'd leave me in the right direction. This was my college roommate, 19 years old herself. That was a smart move, wasn't it? I went to another 19-year-old for financial advice. So I went to my college roommate and said, oh, wise scribe, tell me what I should do. I got all these applications for credit card companies, etc., etc. And she said, oh, let me tell you what I did. So when I graduated high school, I took out a credit card because I wanted to go to the island. So I got a credit card. I'm like, yes, this is why I came to you. So I could hear about this. I took out a credit card, went on vacation, got the bill, that was a year and a half ago. I'm still paying for it.  I didn't expect that. Then she went on to tell me I also got some other credit cards and now I'm getting a loan and I got a balloon payment on the car and it just went downhill from there. So I decided that maybe she wasn't the financial guru that I needed in my life at that time. So I then went to others who were able to share with me some information about credit and how to establish credit. But think about if we opened up that process, if it was a bit more transparent, if young people, university age people, underserved communities, if they knew a bit more about how to establish credit and how to maintain a good credit score, think about how that would help them financially and individual, as well as their community. And I'm not saying that open source and sharing source code could solve the issue, but what could solve the issue is really promoting transparency in the way that business is done, really making sure that knowledge sharing is there, whether it's your bank or credit agency for those of us who work there, sharing knowledge around best practices, educating people, making sure that communities are engaged and know about the importance of good credit instead of going to their college roommates who probably had the worst credit score that anybody's ever had. But sharing information that can really promote good financial health. And we see here that this is an American statistics talking about communities, one in nine Hispanic consumers in America have below 620. That shouldn't be applying open source accessibility, applying knowledge sharing that you do in your jobs, applying that to the broader business in this context is important. So the other piece I want to talk about going from how the broad accessibility openness can be applied to the broader society into how it can be applied into our businesses. And by a show of hands, how many of us know how we can get promoted at work? We are very clear on what the steps are to get a promotion. Okay. All three of us are very clear on how to get a promotion. We got this done. Okay. Well, good for us. So for the rest of us, we can all safely assume that it's kind of opaque. We might have job descriptions that we have or we understand what the bans are and that's clearly written out. But other than what's on our internal site, we have some questions around how we can get promoted, how we can move up. And it's not just us in this room, right? There are loads of people who have that issue. Now, again, taking the blueprint of the open source community, which is all about knowledge sharing, which is all about contribution, think about inner sourcing. So think about the way that others in the organization can use their expertise to help with a greater goal, right? So we have the legal function. We have the HR function who really they're kind of the masterminds at this point when it comes to promotions hiring. We have the administrative function. Think about those functions working together to make sure that everyone has a very clear view on how to get promoted, how to get hired. And that could be something simple, such as, you know, tell us what questions you have, you administrative, you know, team members, what questions do you have around promotion? How can we make this clearer? Legal folks, tell us how we could speak to this and reduce some of the legal ease that we have in some of these websites and the content. What do we need to say? And what do we have to say? And how can we say it in a simpler way? You know, technologists, how can we make sure that we bring in the people that we need to bring in? What do we need to say in these job postings? Well, how do we need to look at promotions? What are some of the key characteristics that you want to see in your leaders? You know, so that's the way we could really use inner sourcing. Look at the people that we have in our organizations and really ask them to support, to contribute to a simpler process, a simpler procedure, simpler language. So we can all be on the same page about how we can bring in talent into an organization and how we can get promoted ourselves and help others to get promoted. So again, using that blueprint, if you will, around openness, accessibility, knowledge sharing, and applying it to business settings. So the key part of this is to really get a sense of why we want to do this. And obviously, we want to create better businesses. We want to create better places to work. We want to create better societies. But also, how do we do this? So, Kisa, that's great. Yeah, I know we're open. I know we have these great communities. I know we're all about accessibility and inclusion. But how do I take what we do in my open source community and apply it to business? Well, I'm glad you asked. One way that we can do this is to simply go to our management teams and say, you know what, I know that we're hearing right now a lot about inclusion, a lot about how we can bring in diverse perspectives and how we can help employees feel valued. Well, in my community, I have access to a couple of policies that we've put in place to do that. And I'd like to share with you how we've managed to do that in this community and maybe that can support some of the initiatives that management has. We can go to our ERGs, employee resource groups, also known as BRGs, business resource groups. And we can join them and say, you know, there are some things that we're doing in the open source community that I think can be applied here. I think that we could help other people feel valued, really help them feel respected. If we changed our language, you all have great governance policies around, you know, if you want to contribute, these are our rules. Make sure you use respectful language. Make sure that you're respectful in this way. I think we can apply that language piece to what we're doing here. I think we could apply that accessibility piece I think we could invite other people from other groups to contribute to projects, to contribute to the policies that we have in HR. It's as simple as that.  You all have done a fantastic job of creating this open, accessible, inclusive communities. Businesses want your opinion. Businesses need your expertise in how to create this inclusive environment. And that's what I want to leave with you in terms of really looking at how do you do this. And I want to end on a parable that I really appreciate. And for those of you who are biblical scholars, I'm going to ask for your forgiveness now because this is not a direct quote. But this is my interpretation of this parable around this, we'll call this person, and I think it says a manager, we'll call this person an executive director. And the people, their partners that they work with. So there's an executive director who goes out of town for a couple of months and I'm going to, you know, going to Barcelona, going to get some sun and some fun there.  And I want to see when I come back what you were able to do with the coin. So the executive director left five coins with one person said, hey, I'm going to leave these five coins with you. I'm going to be gone for a couple of months. You want to get back. Left two coins with the number three, three coins, three coins with the other person said, hey, partner, leave these with you. See when I get back and third partner left one coin. Okay, I'm going to Barcelona. See you later. Sun and fun. Boom. So you want to get back. So that's four or two months. The executive director of the company is back. Went to the person that gave five points who said, oh, I had so much fun. Look at me. I'm tanned, had a great time, sun and fun. You know, those five points I gave you, what were you managed? What did you manage to do with them? Executive director said, you know, what did you manage to do with them? The person, the partner, their business associate said, I'm glad you asked. I took those five coins, I put them boom, boom, there, there, there and there. And guess what I was able to do? I was able to get five more coins. So see, Mr. Executive Director, I gave you 10 coins. You gave me five. I'm giving you 10 back. The ED said, well done, my good and faithful friend, well done. Let me go over here to the person I gave three coins to. So I gave you three coins with the Barcelona. How are we able to hook it up? What were you able to do? That person said, well, Mr. Executive Director, you gave me three coins. You went out of town. So what I did was I put those coins, boom, bam, bam, there, there and there. I was able to make three coins. Three coins? So that means you have six total. That means I have six coins total. The executive director said, well done, my good and faithful friend, well done. Pat on the back. Went over to the third person and said, I gave you one coin, went to Barcelona, had some sun and fun. Now I'm coming back to see if you were able to make it shake. What were you able to make happen with that one coin? And that person said, well, Mr. Executive Director, you know, I know you work hard for your money and I know you would be terribly upset, woefully upset if anything happened to that one coin you gave me. So what I did was I buried it. So look, I'm going to go dig it up for you. Hold on. And the executive director said, wait, you buried it? Yeah, yeah. And here it is, your one coin back. And Ms. Executive Director said, I'm so disappointed in you because when I give you something, my aim is for you to take it and build on it, apply it into other places, apply it elsewhere and make it grow. And as I look at the people in this audience, I know you are like the partner who had five coins. You are taking the expertise that you have around open source governance policies, a spirit and culture of inclusion, and you are making it grow. And from that growth, you'll inspire creativity in your businesses with employees and partners. And from there, they'll feel innovative because they know that they're valued. And from there, that will help the company prosper and continue. And also will help communities grow and gain wealth. You have the insight, you have the knowledge, and you have the power. Thank you so much.