Well thank you very much Andrew Magnus and Giovanna. I wasn't too sure when I stood here this morning what the three speakers, four speakers were going to talk about, but I'm very impressed by the variety of topics that we've been engaged with in the last hour. So thank you very much everybody. I'm sure we must have quite a few questions. We'll start with two or three questions from the floor and we'll ask the speakers to respond to those first before we look at for the online questions if there are any. Thank you. Eitgen Romsom, energy cc, I got a question for Magnus as you set it up already. So I've got a long background in the oil and gas industry and actually 10 years ago I was looking at deep sea mining as an opportunity in a previous life. And a lot of technology is now available through the subsea developments in oil and gas. I mean oil and gas is going down to 3000 meters depth setting quite complex permanent infrastructure on the seabed for long term operation of oil and gas fields below the seabed. So technically there's been a lot of development to be able to do work at those sort of depths. However in the oil and gas industry one should work under the premise that ultimately you need to know the impact of your activity. It means environmental impact assessments and also when the work is done a complete remediation of the area where work was undertaken. Now I'm very much aware that doesn't always happen but that's the standard. Now for sea mining and particularly deep sea mining there's so much still unknown about how the deep sea actually interfaces with smaller seas and new species are being discovered quite regularly at these depths and so we actually know very little of what goes on in the deep sea. It's a very much unexplored area of our planet. So how do you see then how one should move forward evaluating this as an opportunity when there's a considerable risk that we don't know what we're doing when we start doing. Thank you very much. My name is Es Ramadzwanika. I'm working for African Texas Administration Forum as the research manager. Firstly I want to thank the presenters. I think I was impressed with all the three presentations and I really want to thank you for that. Just a comment for the presentation from Steve. I think it resonates well with the work that we have also done on the extractives and we have also developed a few ideas which I saw were quite linking with what he was suggesting. Perhaps just one question for Steve is where we mentioned about the involvement of the states in mining. What should the state bring into the game? I'm saying so because there are countries like I'm coming from Zimbabwe. We at one time introduced what you call the indigenisation regulations. Where we were saying for a company to come and invest, the nation should also get a stake of 51%. But we were not prepared to offer something but we're saying so it was a difficult thing for the investors and it created a lot of tension until we sort of set aside that regulation. So what should the country also bring to the table where it is going to shape profits? That's for Steve and then I have a question for Jovan. I think your presentation was very interesting. I really liked it and it was also exposing the corruption that comes through the different licenses or contracts that are offered in the mining sector. My question to you is we have seen, especially in Africa, where most of the contracts that have been negotiated previously have been re-looked in Tanzania as one of the examples where actually there was a renegotiation of the existing contract because the state realised that it has not been done well. So my question to you is I think so many countries are facing that problems. We have already alluded to sometimes this corruption involvement or politically connected people. So it means when the license are offered, they are not offered in a transparent way. So it means if there is new government, there might be an opportunity to renegotiate that. Do we have that capacity, one to renegotiate and is it feasible from the legal perspective to renegotiate existing contracts in the mining sector? Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any more questions from the floor? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I also have a question for Dr. Marco Longo. I really enjoyed the presentation. I'm Esteban Manteca from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and so we work a lot with that information as well. Two things. The first one, it was a little bit sad to see that you had to pay for data to do your research. I think that should not happen and we are pushing for that to actually not happening anymore. It will be really interesting to see if future iterations of this paper can actually utilize data that has already been public in different countries that are implementing the ITI standard. In that, I think one of the most interesting projects we have had recently in Colombia and now, just last week it was announced in Nigeria as well, we were launching a project called Joining the Dots with the support of directorio legislativo, CSO in Argentina. What they did was based on information on sworn declarations by public officers, they took a list of all the different extractive licenses that existed and they highlighted some potential red flags in terms of politically exposed persons and extractive activities in Colombia. I think mixing these two would be a fantastic next step because then you can see exactly whether this offshores have also politically exposed persons and then that could strengthen the linkage. On that note, I have just one question. Is there any way to identify, for instance, the different sectors that these offshore companies are listed in? For example, I'm thinking that there might be some financial companies or there might just be others that are dedicated to different things. Thank you. You had a question from Etienne. Yes. Somehow Etienne, I think we have the two of us, a little different view on the technology necessary, but we can put that aside. I think it's quite a different thing to do the oil extraction, but I think there are several options here. I mean Norway is intending to start the operation on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Norwegian authorities have asked for proposals how to do this and what will be the environmental effects and so on. I think, I'm not quite sure, but I think that process is still underway and that previously it was thought that that could be completed already this year and mining activities starting next year. I don't think that will be the case, but I think that's one way that various countries and perhaps it is illustrative that the Papua New Guinea government, they were very excited about the opportunities in the Solvara project. And they actually invested, I think, I don't know, in the order of 50 to 100 million dollars, which were completely gone and after that there will be no more deep seabed mining in PNG for a long period of time. But I hinted at the possibilities for the international waters and that is really to try to strengthen the role of the international seabed authority. If there is a moratorium put in place, that will be in the stop of all, end of all research on the environment. Most of the research has been funded through the exploration conditions that ISA has set up. So I think strengthening the international seabed authority and using that as their research and the conditions to their exploration licenses is a way forward. There are a couple of papers on this and they are cited actually in our report that the dangers or the effects of a moratorium will be, yes, more, it will be a complete stop also on the more general research on biology and found and environmental effects. And I think that's a pity because in some instances it might be useful into the future considering the high demand for some of these metals in the green transition. But at the same time I think it's important to understand that the growth rate of copper demand and nickel demand that is projected by the international energy agency and others into the future, they use the absolute numbers they are staggering, but the relative growth rates are not much higher than what the land-based industry has managed to supply in the past 20 years during the super cycle when demand increased quite rapidly. So from a demand point of view I'm also a bit sceptical, but I think of course that there should be readiness so that as I said the international seabed authority is unique, it's a no mining has started and the regime is being discussed and debated. Our little group has done studies for the international seabed authority on what royalty rate should be, for example, so that work on the regime and the environmental effect should continue until so that when the extraction from the seabed is economically feasible, all the regulations and dangers in the environmental side and for that matter also socioeconomically are in place. Thank you for that question. Actually, I have a very radical answer which I normally give. When you are negotiating with the foreign entity in terms of joint ownership, the first position of the government, should be that the reserves are ours. The investor will bring in the cash, the country will bring in the reserves. That's already a basis for 50% ownership. This is what Boswana did. When the bearers went to Boswana to start mining, they said you want a joint venture, they said you have to pay for the shares. Boswana said no, no, no. The reserves are ours. For us, that constitutes 50%. That's the beginning point. Governments need tough negotiating teams. If they cannot manage tough teams, they can get help from other sources. Of course, if you want to be more lenient, more economic, there are other methods. One of the methods we looked at was that we could use a royalty flow. I can't remember the word now, Steve. This is where you agree to the ownership, but then the government says, look, I don't have cash. From my royalties or from my share of the profits, I'll be paying off for this shareholding and tweets it's paid off. Between those approaches, I think we can achieve what we are looking at. I hope that Zimbabwe can, you know, revert to this. I know there's so much mining coming up in Zimbabwe from Chinese and so forth because of the platinum. So I think this is a good approach. Thank you so much for that question and for all the other questions that have been brought up. Let me just emphasize two things. One, of course, indirectly you're talking about private sector participation in mining in Zimbabwe. I've always been fascinated by this tension between private sector development and what the countries really want. So I once wrote a small paper and said private sector development, but whose private sector? So just imagine a scenario where you have no way, which has a lot of money, but you have a private sector owned by Ugandan's. Ugandan's own everything and it's still the private sector, but people are going to be worried. So, you know, grumbling, maybe revolution even. So you need resource nationalism is going to be with you whether you want or not. And so part of the political economy is how to manage that resource nationalism. It could be by giving government 51% or whatever it is. But I think the trick is to find ways of doing it in a strategic manner in an efficient manner. And there's a lot of run standing all over the place from the side of donors and so all the private sector must come in but have to be very, very careful what kind of private sector you have. Let me just make one other point. The so-called key principle, which Andrew, you know, so essentially, so keep it simple.   So it's too complicated. There are also so things in this, but let's try to keep it simple. And what does that mean really? That you are running these things to make a bit of profit. You're running mining. You don't want to destroy essentially the endowment. You're trying to preserve some money for future generations. The issues are quite simple. So try to make it simple. The more complicated it becomes, the more difficult it is to actually get some benefit for the country out of it. So thank you so much for your questions. And I'm going to reply to your question on three points. So about renegotiation on contracts. So I think again, the key is, as we heard in this morning as well, is about transparency. So I think as long as the terms of the contracts are being published and available, then at that point, then it becomes that not only the government is going to be involved in renegotiation, but also the citizens will have the ability to see what is happening. And therefore, at that moment, not only the multinational corporation, if that's the case, has to officially say what his standards are, but also the government has to respond to the citizens. Then the second one is coming from 80, actually. So 80 is promoting initiatives that are on standardising, for example, the ways that the revenues are accounted in the different countries when these revenues are coming from the extractive resources. So I think this is useful not only to have transparency again, but also to have comparisons. So once we know that the numbers that we're putting when we're counting, for example, revenues are accounted in the same way in different years, then it's going to be easier to make a comparison across the years, and also to learn from the past and see what are the terms that we're negotiating, how they compare to the different years. So I think it has a point on making the government and the corporations accountable, and then there is a point on being able to look at the data over time in a way that we can learn better how to learn from the numbers that we have been publishing. And then the last point, I'm going to borrow it from yesterday keynote, and it's going to be about the trade-off between the short term and the long term. So sometimes corruption is coming because who's involved in it, and maybe the public figure that's involved in it is giving more value to the short income that could be what ends up in his pocket or her pocket versus what the long term could be, what the money could be used to build, as it was saying. So it's going to be made like schools, hospitals and roads. But then at that point I would say, why not making the renegotiation or the contracts conditional on these long term outcomes? So it's being like, okay, together with these terms of the contract it's going to come that how many jobs are you going to create? And so at that point you not only have something that is a long term outcome, you also have something that you can measure. And maybe because I'm an economist by training, but I do like to have things that can be measured in an easy way to know whether like I've reached the goals or to at least evaluate the impact. And to the AT, and so thank you so much for the ideas definitely, and I look forward to joining the DOTS project. And the reason why we had to purchase the data unfortunately was because we were looking at an analysis that was across country and that was actually again like standardised, like the data was reported in a similar way across different countries. But we would love to have a publicly available database on licensing, also not only for example on oil, but also on minerals and mining. And then about like your idea is definitely like something we should look more in detail and looking like joining again, like what are the companies they are linked to perhaps. So the tricky part is that for example when we look at the Panama Papers sometimes like we can link the country of the beneficiary, but often time it's not the person that is like for example a minister or public figure, maybe it's not going to put his name and so it's going to be tricky. But it's definitely something to look more into. Thank you. So I think we have one online question, so make them stay with me, we'll have the one online question and I think you have a question as well. Yes, thank you. And from the online, from Nana Gwaison, the question is where the sector becomes more competitive and there are more countries or organisations seeking to explore the international seabed for minerals, how might the allocation of rights or permissions to explore these resources have to change? Thank you. That's it. Thank you very much online for that question. I have to disappoint you. I don't have much of an idea how to do that. It's true that the present system is fairly complicated with you have to have a sponsoring state that supports the various companies that do apply for exploration licences. And I'm sorry that it's a question that I don't have any good answers to. One of the, if I may say so, problems with the United Nations Convention Law of the Sea is that United States hasn't signed it. They decide to not sign it before it was even completed. So that's the reason why some companies then from the United States can circumvent some of the problems. But I'm sorry I have to disappoint you there. Just check. We have no more questions online now. Okay, so are there any more questions from the floor? So yes. Thank you. Lorsic Manorad. It's more kind of a reflection and we'd like to solicit your reflections on it. And these days there is a rapid evolution and growth of carbon offset markets. And there is a keen interest in many African countries to benefit from this market. There are various issues. I think the growth is very much related to many companies now trying to become net zero in terms of emissions. So there are kind of business opportunities. And I wonder if you have any kind of reflections on possible to speak experiences, lessons learned from the mineral sector. That might be useful when African governments start to regulate and benefit from this. There are challenges with integrity. There has been talk about the need to have jurisdictional approaches, not only to have product by product approaches. There are of course issues because land is involved, how is benefits to be shared between government concerned people living in these areas. So there are some, I can see some parallels to the mineral sector. But of course it's different also. Could I just say one or two words and then Andrew could round it off. You see what I sort of say is that there are a whole lot of incredibly good ideas out there in the marketplace. Carbon capture, of course essentially planting trees in various places. But you see if it's not driven by governments themselves. If a company is coming in, a lot of companies have come in and have introduced rapidly growing trees. I forget the species. But those might not be necessarily the stuff you need. They're not indigenous in a way. They find trees that sprout in 25 years but come in with also some problems, diseases and so on and so forth. So there's that problem. Everybody is very anxious to come in. The governments are very busy fighting jihadists and all those kind of problems. I might not be quite focused on these issues. So the agenda is completely overwhelming sometimes. So I don't quite know which way one could. I mean maybe these are part of the donor community could come in and give a lot of these countries a soft landing. While they might be sort of diverted by other social issues on the ground that have become too complicated. That actually the donor community, why they're self and so on, which is already, this is what it's doing. Find some kind of common ground. Does it need legislation? I mean, can you possibly let the market begin? We're taking these offset trades already. Probably not. Companies multinational that are trying to deal with scope 3 emissions are doing offset. So let them fight it out on the... I can understand. You're saying markets will eventually find a solution. Very interesting. But if you're saying that institutions are not working at the moment because of XYZ reasons. Definitely your markets are not going to work in Asia and Mali and Gabon now because of political reasons. So the situation on the ground is a little more complicated than we think. Thank you. Are there more questions on the floor, please? Sorry, Andrew. Just to add that this issue of carbon credits offsets is gathering momentum. I know that in Zambia they are trying to build some capacity through the minister of environment and green economy. The focus initially is on the forested areas. How we can do that? But I think the idea of extending it to mining would be also a very, very interesting prospect. I think that should also come up. For countries like Zambia, which have a lot of mining, the regression is also getting stronger. I don't know whether you heard that the government in 2021 gave a mining license to a concession to start mining in the lowest and busy. The lowest and busy is close to the border of Zimbabwe, close to the falls, close to the game parks. So these guys, we are almost mobilizing to start mining. And then the new government, using the environmental authority recommendations, has put a stop to that project. I think that's one way that governments, by strengthening a regression, can bring into this offset of credits. Not only in forestry, but also in mining. You had a question for Andrew. It's a question for Stephen and Andrew here. In the 60s, Zambia nationalized its mining companies. So my question is what lessons have been learned from that very quickly, so in order to make the present idea of buying 50% more feasible and to work in the proper way. I'm all for it. But the government moved to take in the mines. What they did at that time was that they acquired 50% of the assets which were then controlled by Anglo-American and GRST. The move itself was very much commissioned. But what KK did, they agreed that we don't have the cash, but we are going to use stream royalties to pay for our share of the capital. By apportioning a certain amount, maybe 2% to whatever, every year until the capital is fully paid up, the companies were very happy with that. The things are working, that was in 1969. But the big lesson which came up was that in 1972, KK was very proactive in the present. In 1972, KK got impatient and said no. This arrangement of buying shares and paying slowly is not working for us. So he moved to pay in full for the shares which they could have paid for over maybe 20 years. They went to the World Bank, borrowed money and paid off the mines. That was the biggest mistake they made. Otherwise the idea of acquiring through gradual payments was genius. So I think for me that that's a lesson that can be taken up in looking at the future. So it's something that can be looked at. Thank you. Thank you very much Andrew. I think we've come to the end of our time. I think we've had three very interesting presentations and some good questions on the floor. So may I ask you to thank the panellists for their contributions and thank yourselves for your very good questions. Thank you very much.


Welcome back to Screencast 9. The last one, that semi-option one, did a lot of derivation about why we're interested in root mean squared speeds and pressure relating those two things together. This is going to be, thankfully, a little bit more qualitative, less derivation, but still quite a bit of analysing equations. So we're going to introduce something called the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution. You'll probably come across a little bit before I've mentioned it, but we're going to relate to things like a distribution of molecular speeds. We're going to specifically look at that version of this, and then we'll see how mass and temperature affect it, and then finally go into a few measures of speeds. So just a bit of plot history. The Maxwell Boltzmann distribution, this comes from really 19th century physics, as you can probably tell from the the age of these pictures and the fact that they are dead bearded white guys, which science tends to name everything after. The one left is James Clark Maxwell, really, really big hitter in physics, derived something called Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, and found that the speed of light is constant as well. So as most people probably are familiar with Einstein's famous equation, that uses the fact that C, the speed of light, is constant, and that drives from Maxwell's equations. So he determined through just studying how magnets and electricity interact, that there must be a constant speed, and that speed happens to be light, which obviously, as far as relativity is concerned, gets a bit strange. Again, that's another kind of physics, but that's what Maxwell did, and he also did a lot of kinetic theory gases. The fiddle triangle gases and got a bit of what we're about to discuss together, and then that was all refined by Ludwig Boltzmann. So we name a lot of things after Boltzmann. There's the Boltzmann distribution, there's the Boltzmann constant, for instance.  So the Boltzmann constant, that's KB, comes from that guy. So this is a bit of the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, which is not quite the same as the distribution. They are related, but we're not going to go too much into the stats. And it's the idea of this sort of function of how many molecules are in one state versus another as a function of their energy difference. So you can see at a really low temperature, they're all huddled around at low energy state. As you increase the temperature, they start getting enough energy to jump into higher energy states. So you can consider these as quantized boxes, like in quantum mechanics, or you can consider it as a continuous energy distribution in terms of classical mechanics. So it holds true in both cases. Push the temperature up even higher, if they go even higher and higher energy levels and so on. So you can calculate that out from this. But we're actually interested in something more distribution. So this is not in fact the equation that we plot for this graph. The equation has to be in that form in order to make this shape. The statistical distribution here doesn't get us in. So we're going to look at the equation that actually does plot this. And there are a few bits related to it. There is a little bit of a relationship, but we're not going to go into the statistics too much. We're just going to be interested in the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution equation, which is this utterly huge monstrosity of an equation here. But hopefully you shouldn't be too overwhelmed by this. There are certain things that all we can familiarize ourselves with. And there are certain things we can do to simplify this down. Now this is an equation, and an equation is always just a y as a function of x. So we have yx. Well, there'll be a little squiggle line to represent it. That should be straightforward. Now, if you're not familiar with it, this whole notation of f with something in a bracket means a function of we can also even do g as usually the next one up. But this with a followed by bracket just means a function. It just means, well, it just means it's an equation basically. And this is representing the distribution. So this is our function of velocity, velocity being a variable. That's how I look at it and feel the things in this. There is a four pi involved in it. Where does pi come from in this? These pop up a lot in these physics equations. And it mostly has things to do with when you're generalizing from any direction to a single direction. So you know that the area of the surface area of a sphere should be four pi r squared. So these four pies tend to come from that. If we're going from something that's quantitized in just one direction to generally around an entire sphere or in any direction, we multiply by four pi and divide by four pi from the other case, if we're going from a general any direction on case to a single direction. So there is there is a reason for them to appear there. We also have a function of the mass. So the mass of the molecules going to be involved with this. And then we also have kb, that's the Boltzmann constant, and then temperature as well, temperature mass. We are doing it to the power of two over three. That's a bit weird. But think that three kind of comes from the fact we're dealing with three dimensions. So when we were generalizing from one directional velocity to three, remember, we had three involved in it. So that's where that comes from. Then we've got the velocity squared. This is the first interesting part of this equation, because this is our variable. And the variables are what we're going to be extracting the moment, an exponential. So we're raising oil is constant to a particular power, in which case it is minus, again, mass Boltzmann constant temperature. So you can kind of see very similar things happening here. There's a two kvt here, two kv2, a mass times a velocity and mass times a velocity there. In fact, both cases are velocity squared. So there's quite a bit going on here, but we can interpret what's going on. And one of the best ways of interpreting this is to break it down into multiple components or and then kind of simplify down what we're not interested in. So if I wanted this in one of the standard ys of function of x equations, I want this y equals something x. And I want to get rid of all the stuff I'm not interested in. So four pi, well, that's constant to constant Boltzmann constant constant pi, we can cross all of these off from not that interested. And again, over here as well. Then for any particular molecule, any particular temperature, these are also going to be constant, the temperatures and masses. So what we're really interested in is just this. It's an x squared. And then we're interested in the E because that's to find the fact we've got an exponential, we can't just cross that off. And we're interested into the fact that there's x squared here, or converted v into x. And then there is a minus. So if you type this equation into a graphical calculator, you should get that characteristic shape out. And it will go on for nothing forever. Now in this case, I've kept the T's in just to see that we can plot different versions for different temperatures. So now let's have a look at what happens for these two halves of these equations. Why is that shape appear? So what I've done is I've broken it down to y equals an x squared type function and a y lead to the minus x squared function, multiply those two together to get Boltzmann distribution. So this first one is x squared. That is a parabola. So you've probably plot this kind of thing, y equals x squared. And it goes kind of symmetrically around zero there. Now y equals e to the minus x squared, you've possibly come across exponential functions like this before e to the minus x things do pop quite a bit in physics actually. And that function kind of comes down this way. Make sure that it comes down here. Now the important thing about the e to the minus x squared is that they never reach zero. They go off to infinity before they reach zero. So these are the two functions. What happens when we multiply them together? Well, just get rid of some bits right at the beginning. Well, if x is zero, this term is zero. So it must begin here. If you've done physics at some point, they will tell you to look at the extreme behavior. What is it when x is zero and what is it when x is infinity and ask you to interpolate in between. So when x is zero, it must be zero because of that. And then it will go up like a parabola again. But here's the important thing you need to know about the exponential functions. When they're x to the e to the minus x, as x increases, they begin to approach zero way faster than this begins to approach diverging away from zero and approach infinity. So obviously when x is infinite, why is infinite? But when this is infinite here, this becomes zero. So that dominates towards the latter half of the equation. The exponentials approach zero far faster than the x squared can diverge from it. So this dominates at the beginning. And then if I control this relatively smoothly, it sort of interpolates in between. So there's the x squared keeps going up. Here is our e to the minus x squared coming down. And they sort of swap over in which dominant. So you can take a really complicated equation like the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution and break it down and see what it does. And that's really the important skill when it comes to physical chemistry and mathematics in general, as far as we're concerned at science, we're interested in graphs, what's the shape of the graph? How do we relate one quantity to another quantity? And even though we have this huge quantity of information here, how can we break it down to just the simple bits? So that is the skill you need to know. So the remaining part, let's see how it's affected by these masses and temperature. So first, I'm going to look at temperature. As you can see, we're dividing through by temperature. So things are kind of an inverse of temperature. So as t increases, this number gets smaller and smaller and smaller. And so what we can see is that the v squared or x squared term kind of gets a bit smaller and smaller. So this becomes less capable of dominating at the beginning end of the graph. And so it shifts in that direction. At low temperature, the opposite happens. So high temperature, we increase the speed and distribution. Now for the mass, this is our other variable for any particular molecule. As mass increases, this part of the term obviously increases and becomes larger. So that x squared bit dominates a bit more. So it kind of shifts the graph in this direction. In the other case, for mass is really hard, high this dominates. And so the graph against us moving in that direction. So high mass shifts us one way, low mass shifts us the other way. High temperature goes that way, low temperature goes that way. So those two effects kind of balance these two other out. Now this makes some kind of intuitive sense as well. Heavier molecules require a bit more energy to accelerate them around. They're going to be sluggishly moving around and you need a lot of energy to accelerate them. So you need higher temperatures to get all things being equal to the exact same graph for a heavier molecule. And when there are higher temperatures, they are whizzing around a bit more. They are capable of being much higher in energy and much higher in speed. So that is why these graphs are shaped like this. And they are not entirely symmetrical as well. So the things like the median, median, median, mean and mood of their speeds are going to be different. So finally, we're going to just cover some measures of speed. So how are we going to measure speed a bit? And we spent a lot of time driving this one. It took 20 odd minutes. And this is our, this is our root mean squared speed. This is kind of an expectation value. What should the root mean squared speed of it being? And the reason we do this convoluted thing is because the average, there's random motion. It means that this average speed here is not going to be the same value if you just took an average velocity. For instance, half molecule is going that way, half molecule is going that way, they're on Virginia at zero. So we actually have two different ways of calculating it. So this is root mean squared speed at the top and then average speed at the bottom, which is calculated in a very different way. And it gets us two different ways of doing it. And then we also have most probable speed, which is this is where we look at the peak of that distribution diagram. So we want to work out what is the very peak of that? What is the most probable speed that we'll be finding? Sort of a measure, another measure of average. So these are three ways of kind of measuring average speed. And there are three sets of different equations. We're not going to spend too much time deriving them or just define them, just kind of accept them for now. And there's also a way of doing it between molecules. So here, molecules. As you can see, the Boltzmann constant appears. That tends to be when we're dealing with individual molecules. We use the Boltzmann constant and then the massive and individual molecule. In this case, this is for moles. So this is probably going to be more useful for us from a chemist's perspective. Here we just replace the Boltzmann constant with the gas constant. That's R. They're related terms. And then M4 molar mass. So we can see that there are two ways of looking at this. We can have a look in terms of moles and think of them as a bulk entity or can really focus down on one individual molecule. Get to see exact same result in any case. Let's just review this one. So our Boltzmann distribution relates temperature and rate constant. I've clearly copied that over from another one. This is not quite right. I should proofread these things. So the Boltzmann distribution is all about getting energies out based on this energy and the number of molecules and the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution of speeds actually gives us our speed and then kind of a percentage of molecules going upwards. So it's this kind of shape that we want. 20x squared. It also implies there is no upper limit. I mean statistically speaking there could be a molecule with infinite velocity. Obviously that's a nonsense. But the distribution as far as the theory is concerned implies that. You would have to have an infinitesimal number of molecules that have exactly infinite speed. So it's not entirely absurd but that's what the model says. And it also says that zero molecules are stationary. It's got a bit more of a physical significance because think about absolute zero for a moment. That is the temperature in which kiss in which everything stops moving.  We can't get to absolute zero so there are no molecules that are perfectly stationary. That's a neat little consequence of that equation as well. And then mass and temperature. So a low mass gives us a wider and higher distribution. It sends the graph in this direction. And then higher temperature is a wider and higher distribution as well. Again sends the graph in that direction. So that's the Maxwell- Boltzmann distribution and it's quite important for kinetics especially when we're starting to look at the microscopic theories behind it. So we'll see you next time in the lecture where we'll do some problem solving.


T.F.N. Update. Good morning, folks. This is Steve Rhodes coming to you live from the shores of sunny Delray Beach, Florida. This is your Lebanon update, and currently we have a little bit of a mixed bag out there. You've got the Dow and the S&P up slightly. The Dow is up 103. The S&P is actually flat. To the downside, the NASDAQ 100 is off nine points. The Russell is off 18. Semis are down 22. There's no way the market makes any kind of bottom until we see that signal coming from the NASDAQ and the Semi-conductor index. Trend is up 84 points. It's about 7 tenths worth of cent. Gold is off $9. 16.76 is the print there. Silver is off 53 cents. 18.95 is what she's printing out. Light's recruited us off a buck 68. Trading out at 87.66. Natural gas up 4 cents and a 30-year treasury. She's printing 124.14. Let's go take a look at that nine panel. Mark it up, HR. We begin with the E.S. Mini in the upper left-hand corner. Still has its buy-the-de-point pattern, and it remains in effect as long as price continues to close above 35. 35.71.75. Price, though, it is below the bottom of its daily profile out there, so old support clearly becoming resistance. That resistance level being 36.45. As long as that spot volatility remains above its 50-day exponents moving average to 50 days at 27.67. Spot fix trading out at 33.79. That does not bode well for the S&P 500. The NASDAQ, which I just said, we're not going to see any kind of market bottom until the NASDAQ and the Semis give us that signal. The NASDAQ negated its buy-the-de-point pattern yesterday when it closed below that September 30th swing point. That level was at <IP_ADDRESS>. We're trading out at 10.8.54 as we speak right now. U.S. Dollar Index still trading above the top of its daily and weekly profiles. It should go target the old resistance area at 114.74. Gold. Gold is testing a very key level, so we know that gold broke above its daily profile that was last week, and it did it for more than two days out there. The new profile formed below price, that's usually a bullish message, but that new profile also formed below the prior profile. That's kind of a bearish message out here. But here's the deal. Here's the playbook. As long as gold holds 1668.88, it is setting up the possibility of an A to B equal CD to the upside. Now, silver needs to do the same thing. When I say the same thing, I mean it needs to continue to stay above the center of its daily profile. That's in 1891. We're trading 1893. So two pennies out there. So that's what we want to watch as far as gold and silver. Lights we've crude, just consolidate it with inside a brand new profile out here. That formed yesterday, and that resistance area is at 93.64 in support all the way down at 80.59. The natural gas contract, it has to buy the D point pattern, but struggling to get above resistance. That's the old profile support level. So support becoming resistance there, it's at $6.72 and a 30 year treasury. It's also got to buy the D point as long as price remains above 123.30. Folks, stay tuned for the Trader Zen show. But if you're off to start your Wednesday, please have a wonderful one. We'll look forward to seeing you again soon. Take care now.


Singapore has a wide range of police capabilities that it can provide to support our member countries to enforce forest crime, to enforce the laws in the forestry sector and also to ensure that there is transparent financial flows in the way that the forest sector is managed and international investment is made into the forest sector. We can do this through linking up countries globally between our national police forces. We can ensure that intelligence is exchanged so that any illegal activity is closely monitored and prevented, that as countries involved in both producing timber, importing timber, are able to communicate with each other to ensure the legality of that timber and to prevent any illegal activity along that entire timber supply chain, that as foreign investment is made in countries to support their timber industry, that there is a proper transfer of intelligence and information between those responsible for financial investigations, responsible for monitoring the flows of that money. We can bring those to those countries together, those investigators together to to oversee and monitor that work. We can provide analytical support through our analysis teams that are able to access the Interpol database to identify any potential weak points or hotspots that we need to ensure that there is a greater oversight and greater monitoring of by law enforcement. We're able to sort of do that across all of our member countries. We've been working very closely with a number of different regions, particularly across Central and West Africa and also across Latin America. We've been able to bring a number of different countries together for joint law enforcement operations. We facilitate their information exchange. We help bring them together into the same room so that they can exchange intelligence and work with each other to ensure proper transboundary investigations in a coordinated manner so that they're able to complement each other's investigations. Over the past couple of years we've managed to support a number of different law enforcement operations resulting in significant protection of forested areas across the globe. We estimate that our work in forest protection through strengthening law enforcement has resulted in at least 330,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent being saved from admission into the atmosphere. By forest protection we can point directly to our ability to help protect forests and thereby reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.


it's happened friends hello friends welcome to today's video hope you're all doing great as always for anyone new to the channel my name is Lee also known as Osiris so yesterday we are a little bit late with this news uh working a regular nine to five does put me out of pace with most other content creators but we're here we're doing it better later than never and because we have covered some things to do with this update it I feel responsible that we need to cover the update and future updates as well in regards to the new games so yesterday like I say we got version 1.1.2 as an update for brilliant diamond shining pearl and what does that entail so if we hop over to the Nintendo of America website we can have a look at all of the update details that they've listed here with this patch so version 1.1.2 currently available as an update in brilliant diamond shining pearl the notes are this update must be applied in order to use the game's internet features so if you're going online to battle if you're trading anything to do with the union room or the underground if you're going online with that you're going to need this update to do it otherwise it will refuse you access and it'll just prompt you to update so you won't have those facilities available if you stay on version 1.1.1 version 1.1.2 release December the first so yesterday evening fix some issues that would prevent the game from progressing under certain circumstances and that is to do with the soft lock so the soft lock in the ice gym is one of them you can get yourself stuck in a position what you kind of got out of and that is a soft lock so you'll essentially lock in yourself the game that's been resolved now which is really great news especially for younger players that are playing this game which it might happen to and I'm not just including young players in this but it could happen to anyone so it is a really good fix good patch to have updated the other issue was some issues have been fixed for more pleasant gameplay now what does that refer to let's come back into game or not into game but let's just get our switch up so one of the things that the glitch will allow you to do is I'm just gonna I'm just gonna come into game one version one version 1.1.1 if you want to know what version of the game you're currently on when you're on this home screen you just hover over or have your game selected that you want to look at the details for and click the plus button on your controller it will show you the all the data about the games you can see in the top left hand corner it's got version 1.1.1 so what are we referring to about more pleasant gameplay well this is one of the things we're currently doing in a Nuzlocke I haven't done this glitch on this before but there is a cloning glitch that you can do when you come to a Pokemon summary screen pressing the art simultaneously it will do an overlap of a menu glitch like this and then you'll be able to do all sorts of shenanigans like run around and do and do all sorts of things but press and B gets rid of it now the update what it will do is make it no longer possible for you to do any cloning no cloning boxes no cloning Pokemon no cloning items nothing like that you're gonna have access to none of that it will fix the shaman glitch as well so you're not gonna have access to the shaman glitch before getting the actual oak's letter as an event in the game that will be gone through using these means if you want to take advantage of the cloning if you want to do it offline obviously because you're not gonna have access to online with 1.1.1 just don't update your version just keep it 1.1.1 and you can have as much fun as you want cloning items cloning Pokemon doing the glitches and all those fun things but if you want to access the internet and take part in the game that side of it you're gonna have to update and to update what you want to do is you want to just go back to your home menu obviously make sure you save your game before you do this but click on the game it'll ask you it'll prompt you if you want to install the update and you just click install and it will close your game so that's why I'm saying make sure you save and the update will take a few seconds to do and then you'll be able to go back into it now some things haven't been patched I don't think this the shiny charm is being patched to affect wild Pokemon which we're kind of hoping that will get patched this this start screen has not been patched it's still a good hour to load up so that hasn't been patched um the radar the um pucker radar has not been patched so it's still that that won't two one IV on 20 chain 30 frame you get two and 40 and anything in between you're not guaranteed so that hasn't been patched either whether that will be or not I don't know maybe in a future update but for this update it hasn't been the only thing that has been patched is this glitch and you're not going to be able to do the menu glitch anymore so if you like I say if you want to do it then don't update your game but you're not going to be able to trade Pokemon or anything like that if you um if you if you if you do update if you don't update I should say so as we can see we'll try and try and do it here and be hilarious if it worked you see no no it don't work it won't work we've got that pretty much down as well we you know we've got that method down and I think yeah at least at least two times and you see it doesn't work and then you can check your version by just clicking on it and it will say version 1.1.2 and that will fix all these issues there was also um a glitch which we didn't cover here on the channel um which was about creating shiny pokemon and don't get me wrong whatever anyone wants to do on their own game they're entitled to do it is their copy of the game but I can see the point when nintendo and gamefreak may want to patch that because um there are the the chances of impacting other players games and when it does do that there's um some people that have covered this glitch already uh and the update already and mentioned about the band system um and how that works and if you are interrupting other players games um then that will be a reason for handing out a ban and I could see that with the the illegal shinies that have been created out of pretty much nothing or another shiny so um yeah that's all gone that's all gone so everyone that likes to play the game just in a steady standard way be happy they're gone but don't be surprised if we see more glitches along the way so yeah friends if you want to play around with the glitches still and you want to do all those fun things like get shaman before the end game and do those other surfing in the air glitches and cloning items and getting multiples of things then don't update your game but just be aware that you won't be able to access any online content or do any online trading or battling and things like that on that copy of the game that you've got so you'll still be able to do the glitches you're just gonna have to stay on 1.1.1 but if you want to uh access all the online stuff which is kind of forcing your hand a little bit if you do want to battle or trade or get involved in online things then you're gonna have to update your game so hopefully you found this useful friends thank you so much for tuning in hope you have a great rest of your day I hope this video was useful for some of you and um we'll be back very soon with more content on the channel so until then take care of yourselves and bye bye


I thought you were. I have more. Some people need to mute. How many cats do you have, Chris? Yeah, just the one. He's just got a big castle. Need more. And tell to my housemates. Okay, let's, I think we should start. It's 8-0-5, so we'll get started. Hello, Ted. Hey, how's it going? Good, how are you? We're good. You want to run the agenda today? Yeah, let's go over the agenda. See what items do we have there and start discussing them. We have quite a lot of time, the items. So first item is change processor and exporter interface to pass the source. I think I just responded to that. Who added it? Probably Rahul. Yeah, I added this, yeah. So while I was working on the resource, I realized that resources are tied to the trace provider and the span processors do not have any idea which trace provider they are attached to. And part of the, pass the resources to the batch processor. If you incorporate in the span data, it's probably not going to be efficient. We want single resource pass for the batch of span. So I think if it passes an argument, then batch processor can either cache it or something. I put some solution there and it can export to the exporter. Single common resource for the batch of span. I see. By the way, talking about batching and stuff, probably we should read more carefully what you have there. I do not understand exactly why it's not necessarily optimal, but I do see that in my open OTP implementation, I have to construct the map resource to spans. And that may cause some troubles. So I do agree that there may be other better solutions. Anyone has to comment? Yeah, I think Boggin, we were just chatting this on your PR. Your, I think your response to the question that I asked was could we have multiple SDKs installed in a current system and the share of the span processor between them? And hence, we need to have different resources, but it still can be passed in to the export method then. Yeah, so one of the things that we have a limitation that there is only one resource per span per tracer provider, but there is no limitation that running binary cannot have two or three instances of the trace provider. And there is not also a limitation that a span processor cannot be attached to two Yeah, that's also highlighted in the issue that there is no limitation there either. So I mean, one alternative is to associate the resource to the exporter, right? And basically that makes it easy as well. You cannot associate it with the exporter because exporter is associated to the processor. So hence, you can receive in the exporter from multiple resources. So one thing that we can probably do is to change the exporter pipeline to have a map of resource to span data instead of just span data and that will solve the problem. And we do the mapping in the processor that we implement. Yeah, that's one of the things. Yeah, you can do that. Create a mapping of the resource to the span data. Basically group the span by the resources. Yes, and also with the latest OTAAP, I think is 83. I'm adding the concept of instrumentation library information, which may share the same concern as resource because essentially inside the resource, you have multiple instrumentation libraries that are producing spans. So you do need to create the same mapping. Okay. Given the beta timeline, it's like right around the corner. What do we, I mean, do re-passing the resources along with the span in the interface with the span processor? Do we make that change? So currently, as I said, currently I'm passing it as part of the span data. It's not necessarily inefficient, at least in some of the languages, because that's an immutable object. So I can share a pointer to that object. In Go, you can't have that, I think. Why? You can have a pointer to the resource. But I mean, if we have that be immutable, it'll work. This is not how the span data was originally. There was a resource field and it could be null in which case the tracer was expected to fill it in. I think that was where we were like in May of last year. Yeah, so if it's immutable, I think it should be possible to not, to share the same memory, I mean, to have the same pointer there. Let me take it offline and look at it. Okay, that's an alternative. I think it will be good to do a better design on this, but just for the better, we can leave with that for the moment. For what is worth, that's how we're handling this in JavaScript right now, is by having a resource reference on the span data? Yep. Okay, so we're going to put here a comment. Okay, I added a comment that we will use a pointer reference to the resource in the span data and we'll reconsider this after beta. We'll redesign maybe. PRs, who added this and what is needed in this list of PRs? I added the first two. Okay, and for the, for at least the second one, I think you still haven't reviewed it and you said you would last week, so that's why I put it there. For the first one, we discussed it in pretty good detail and I thought came to a conclusion, either last week or the week before, but it doesn't seem like there's been any comment or approval on it to say that, so it kind of got stuck. I'm going to ping everyone. For the first PR, I left some comments and I think that probably my only small concern was about removing the section about having a start active span as a separate operation, but we can discuss on the issue itself. In the discussion in the SIG meeting like two weeks ago, people said that they wanted it to be two separate operations. Yeah, sure, but we need to add it as part of this PR or another PR, you know, because I mean at this moment, it barely mentions, I mean like the current before your changes, it says that there are two operations but it's not very clear and so if we, you know, it's fine to keep them as two operations, we need to make that super clear. Anyway, let's discuss that definitely on the issue itself. Yeah, I'm not going against the agreement, just trying to be more clear. Yeah, no problem. I'm pinging everyone on these two issues. Just to make sure we get their attentions. Library to go ahead. No, that's good. Thanks. The next one is clarify telemetry library. Okay, who filed this? Who put this into the agenda? Yeah, that's mine. I just wanted to make sure that we are all aligned and agree and maybe I can get some more reviews as well. There were some concerns by Sergei. I see that he's in the meeting. Maybe he wants to comment on that one as well. Yeah, this is about library and resource, right? Yeah, so my only concern was there. Yeah, I didn't know, but so my only concern was there is how do we distinguish instrumentation adapters and library instrumented itself. So was it like, yeah, maybe I'm lost between instrumenting library and instrumentation library and what telemetry.sdk will represent that. Currently, currently there is no way to specify the instrumented library. So currently the name tracer allows you to only specify instrumentation library, the one that makes the instrumentation. So it can apply something. I was thinking about this and I tried to kind of resolve this with the component thing, but it didn't get too much traction. Maybe one thing that we can do is add a property on the name tracer and a key on the instrumentation library called instrumented library, and then we can have it from there. Sure, I just want to make sure this PR is clear about what means we put in telemetry.sdk property. Do we put instrumentation adapter name or we put library itself name? These are of these, I think. In the resource, I think what we put in the resource is the name of the like the library itself, which is the open telemetry. In the resource, what we will put is we will put the telemetry library, not the adapter, not the instrument, not the instrumentation, not the instrumented library. We will put the the telemetry, the producer of the telemetry, which is most of the time is open telemetry and the version and the language. Yeah, that's exactly what the PR that I linked the 494 is about, and I think we should be careful not to mix up things here. So you have the OTEP 84 about adding the tracer name, aka instrumentation library. And we should look into that one separately. I already approved it, by the way, because now it seems pretty fine and clear to me at least. Then there is the telemetry library resource attribute, which I renamed from library, which was highly ambiguous to telemetry SDK. It is quite clear if someone comes up with an even more precise description, I'd be open to edit, but I think that at least with the examples two lines below, it is really clear because I say that the default open telemetry SDK, if that one is used, one should use open telemetry and so on. And for the instrumented library or application or service, I think we should open an issue and continue this as a separate discussion so that things don't get mixed up. Yeah, so I think currently we identified three libraries in this world. We have the telemetry library, the SDK that produces the telemetry. We have the instrumentation library. If we do auto instrumentation or if we do, for example, write a plugin for GIPC and that plugin belongs to open telemetry. And we have the third one, which is the instrumented library, which is something that we haven't defined yet, how to represent that. Yep, yep. Yeah, we also have expert if we care about the point that out. Can you repeat? Sorry, I couldn't get it. We also have expert ones that are being used to send data. Yeah, so you might want to specify this one as well. Yeah, we don't have something for that as well. Maybe we should add. Although it's, I mean, it's a different discussion, but I think the export is always specific to the data it exports and can add its own name on the data it produces, but that's a different discussion. Yep. Okay, I will read the FDR again from that perspective. And yeah, I will let you know. Thank you. Perfect. And there was one thing that Yuri opposed, the fact that I don't make it a compulsory attribute. I actually think it should be required, but I didn't want to, to, I don't know what the term is called to sneak the change into a PR that is called Clarify something. So I will do that in a follow up PR. Okay, just respond that you will address this in a follow up PR and that's good. I didn't quite catch that. You have some noise in the background. I said, just make sure you comment on the PR that you will follow up with the next one to fix that part. Ah, yeah, I did. Okay, thank you. Next one, messaging attributes. Yeah, that's also me. It has been open for a bit more than one and a half months now and it would be great if people could look into it. By the way, it has three reviews, so it should be good to go. I think that the latest from what I remember last week, Ludmila had some questions about it, but you know, she's not, she's on holidays or something. So yeah, I suggest we just merge it, three approvals and one suggestion, just mark a lot of these conversations as a result. Just not be rude to people, by the way, because we know Ludmila is on vacation for the moment. Maybe file an issue to follow up on that when she's back. Sounds reasonable. It will be a while and I think one of the suggestions I have for semantic convention PRs or documentation in general, if you start tracking all the implementations of the semantic convention, it will make life for everybody easier because we know the semantic convention already implemented and this is how it's used in practice. And I think some concerns people have is it looks great on paper, can we actually implement it? So maybe if we start tracking implementations of the semantic convention, it will make life easier. Yeah, I think what also Ted proposed last time is that we need some basis to start implementing stuff and then we will find possible problems in those and then are able to revisit it. Yeah, absolutely. And if this list is empty then it will give a sign that something yet to be changed if we will find some problems in real life. But what do you mean by track implementations of it? So maybe on the top of the documents that we were saying, like we have implementation of the semantic convention for like, I don't know, Azure Event Hub and references implementation. Okay. Yeah, just a suggestion. It's nothing actionable at the moment, I think. Okay. So yeah, anyway, whenever you are, whenever you have field those issues, around your Mila's questions, let's definitely merge it. Yeah. I mean, I responded to all of them. I'm just, I don't have any verification from her yet that this is fine in the dress now. Well, I suggest rating a meta issue or something just to, you know, hey, like we after merging this PR, there are a few remaining questions. Feel free to either close this issue or keep discussion going here. You know, so some meta issue. So we don't forget. All right. Okay. Is then the next one is OTLP result code. Probably T-Renati did? I added that and thanks for digging it up, actually. It's been there for a couple months, I believe already. We need a decision on this. We can't move forward with the protocol implementation until we decide on this. Basically, the question is whether we're using GRPC result codes as the indication of whether the request should be reached by DORNO or we use, as it was previously in the protocol, please explicit flag to indicate the retrieval or non-retribal errors. So we have to use, if we are using GRPC as the protocol, the transport protocol, we have to use their code because that's what they are going to return to us. For example, in case of a deadline exceeded, there is no other signal that we receive. We're just going to receive a status called deadline exceeded and we have. Exactly. By the way, we need to clarify. We're not going to use GRPC codes in our pipeline. In our pipeline, we have the three values that you propose. This PR is mostly like, if you are using GRPC as a transport between the client and the server, here is how you transform the GRPC codes into what we call retireable or non-retriable errors. How do you handle the error, right? GRPC code returns an error. What does that mean? What do you do? Yeah, but this applies only to OTLP. That's something that people need to understand. We do not force everyone to use GRPC codes or anything like that. We just say, on OTLP, where we do use GRPC, this is how we're going to treat this error. That's very explicitly called in the PR. It's only about OTLP and only about GRPC. Yeah, I felt from a Christian comment that it was not that clear. But anyway, I think, as I said, this is how I think it's possible. Because otherwise, there are a lot of these errors come from the framework. For example, the auth thing. If you use GRPC and you set up auth or whatever auth mechanism you have, you'll get a permission deny or unauthenticated error without your code running. So you don't have a way to send back any information. Right, yes. That's right. So please go have a look at the PR. We need the quick resolution on this. Otherwise, I mean, we're probably already late. Unless we're, I don't know what's the plans with the beta release. Are we still doing the March 16th thing or it may get delayed? March 16th, based on our discussion, March 16th is a target to have a candidate release for beta. The final beta is 20 something. Okay. So I think that we are not going to be able to do the OTLP by March 16th, based on this and other things that are still in progress. Let's aim for that and we'll decide if... Right. Yeah. The implementation is in progress, but we only have six days remaining. I doubt we'll have a release candidate by then. But let's try. We'll see. Let's give it a shot.  But let's try and put a crunch on for this last week. By the way, the reason why I digged into this is I was implementing the OTLP in Java as a client, as an exporter. And I was like, oh, I remember I saw something when to retry and when to not retry. And this is how I found it. So don't have much choice. When you write the code, you get the error code at some point and you have to do something with it. Yeah. You rarely have the code. It depends on that. So what do you do now? That's probably why we haven't find these very useful, because nobody was writing this exporter. Now that everyone for beta have to write this, is the time when we find these kind of issues. Of course. Thanks for filing that. Anyway, let's continue the discussion there. Please, everyone, please focus and read this and provide comments. This will be very useful. Thank you. Next one. Metrics View API. Do you mind, Chris, if I ask you to postpone that discussion until next week? Yeah. This has been explicitly excluded from the beta milestone. Yeah. Let's not discuss it. I will add a couple of more. Let me do this. There are some new issues we should discuss. I don't know if that deserves to be listed. Like the ones about character sets and coding is 504, 501. By the way, I'm adding the label set OTP. Please, please review. Okay. I think, all right. The label set OTP has quite a lot of support. I need one more approver on that. So please, somebody do that. Yeah. I think we already have, for the label set, we already have five or six approvals, including external people. Right. We just don't only have three of the official ones. By the way, I want to add a couple. There's also one on metrics, which is more of a philosophical statement, which I updated last night, but it's not quite ready. So I'm not going to plug it right now. That's number 88. And I think that most people have agreed to it. It's just not clear. So I'll keep working on it. Okay. Perfect. So, yes. We need to review those on the removing label set. The adding instrumentation library also has a bunch of support, three official approvals, an extra one. So I would like to have that also under review. I don't know what about please. Okay. Next topic. I think we discussed about PRs. It's mostly about people reviewing them. Who added this and please translate. I added that. I still need some feedback on that. So, John, if you managed to take some guys to the, that you said from expert from function as a service to review that PR. And second is you are a comment of few Bogdan. If the execution ID does belong to the correlation context or not, should we try that track that as resource attribute or should we add to the correlation context? Yes. So in general, my idea was, I think your proposal was that execution ID changes between different executions, correct? Exactly. And one of the property that we try to have was that resource describes an instance in a way that is not, so that's, for me, that's a runtime property of a property of the request. Every request has a different execution ID. So applying that logic for me, that's a property of the request. So it's probably belonging to correlation context. And then hence, we'll be associated with all the spans that are produced during that execution. And we can associate as examples, for example, for, Okay. See your point. Thank you. Bonnie, the new relic folks chimed in and all their comments have already been, I think, responded to and they thought it looked great. Okay. Thank you. So and that's why, by the way, that's why with the correlation context, that's why I was pointing to that because you also proposed to add that as a span attribute. And I think we should add it to the correlation context and then it will get automatically added to all the spans. Okay. See your point. You did manually add it for every span that we create. Okay. I will look at it and then I will comment on the PR. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Number. Okay. Whoa. I just grabbed the latest stats from the milestone on what's logged in for the spec version 0.4. Just putting what's there for right now. So I see a lot of the language that's trying to follow the lead of the spec SIG and with the current status of the current direction of 0.4 milestone are optional things in order to include into the beta launch. I think they're looking for things to solidify for possible inclusion into the beta launch based on the timelines of March 16th as the complete date. So I think something maybe needs to be cleaned up or adjusted in order to make make it reasonable either to achieve this or to push out for another milestone. I do agree with you. I think there is a meeting about beta later today or something. I think we should address all these issues and we should follow them and decide which one goes and which one does not go into beta. Yeah. We're meeting at 2.30. Andrew, you have an invite. So do you, Bogga. Okay. Yeah. I also heard the date of like March 20th. So we can talk about that at the 2.30. Yeah. About the timelines and such. Yeah, we're still, I mean at least in my head, we're still aiming for the original date of the 16th as code complete. The other date was thrown around was like the actual announcement, but that's more like March 30th. But that's not like an engineering date. That's just like long posts and things. Okay. So I don't know whether this meeting could be at least adjusting the due date of the version 0.4 milestone because having it as the due date of February 20th just doesn't make sense too. Oh, February 20th. Yeah, no, I agree. Yeah, let me adjust that. Yeah, Bogga can go just that right now. I did. I put it March 16th for the moment as every March 16th. That's good for now. It's better than in the past. Yeah. Yeah, it's just to jump in line. I was asking about beta blockers, but I think one thing I want to emphasize is for me getting the beta started, we have an ideal of course we don't want to make breaking changes after we start the beta, but the main point of starting the beta is to make sure we have something that works end to end that people can start using and start getting feedback from building instrumentation and checking out the results in a back end system. So if we do have some design changes, we have to push out past March 16th where people are trying to make trade-offs to figure out what they should work on to get the beta at the door. It's really about getting that basic end to end pipeline out the door. So you've got an API for some API for metrics. The Trace API is like, I think, very locked down at this point. An SDK for those things, exporters, a way to talk to the collector and then collector exporters to talk to the back end. So those are really the core things so that we can start doing user research and getting our feet wet with getting people onboarded onto the project. Yes, so I think you're correct and I think we are doing great progress. Since we set this deadline, we're doing much better progress than before. Yeah, agreed. Even though we may not have deadlines, but I think great progress. Yeah, I see a lot of real hard work going on with everyone and it's normal. Deadlines get closer, it gets more stressed, but people are honestly doing some really awesome work. But we have to be realistic about what is remaining for the timeline because as it gets closer, there is less and less that can be done. So we have to understand what is the definition of done and what is a realistic timeline for everyone. Yeah. So, Andrew, for the moment, let's repeat with tougher deadlines. We found in the past that if we don't have these deadlines, we are reluctant on making decisions sometimes. So let's have some deadlines and maybe as Ted said, we should revisit a bunch of these and we should not be worried to break some of the things during the beta phase. Yeah, we are declaring in beta. We still can break some of the things we find critical mistakes in our design choices. Yeah, it's quite clear to me we've passed the good enough mark with our designs. I have some question around the remaining metrics work because I think that's an API that's more new. And so I know we definitely have more ideas about what a better metrics API would be. But it seems like on that front, we've also hit the good enough mark for launching. So I actually wouldn't mind an update about the current state of the metrics discussion because I know that's an ongoing. I think the last item that I want to push is the removing of the label set that will introduce a bigger change in the API. Anything else, especially Josh's work is very good. So we're in a situation right now where we've agreed upon and negotiated and discussed a number of changes that haven't landed in the spec language yet. So we're kind of in a backup. I can't merge things quite fast enough. So I agree that label set is the last significant change from what's going to break if the user starts using this. But we already have plans to introduce some new instrument types. And those can be done after the beta, for example. And by the way, the Go SDK is completely out of sync with the current state of the specification and I'm working on that as fast as I can. It's not going to be ready. Like it's not going to match the spec on March 16th, right? Unless we all start working 24 seven and getting me really fast code reviews. Good. Which I don't expect. Thank you. Yeah. Define restrictions for attributes and label keys. Armin. Yes, I brought that up. I just noticed that we don't have any restrictions there like at all defined in the spec. There are some limitations that impose restrictions on their own. For example, the Java SDK limits attribute key length to 255 characters and so on. But I think we should really find a common restriction definition in the spec so that people can rest assured that what they are doing confronts with the spec because the limits that Java imposes, for example, are not documented and all and not really expected to be stable. Yes. This is something the spec is definitely missing out on. A bunch of the restriction in Java come from my previous work with OpenCensus and where I believe that that is both of the good ones. Sorry for that. But I do think I discussed with Josh as well about the character set the question that we need to have an encoding for all these strings. If we say something is string, we need to define an encoding for all these strings because otherwise by default, for example, a lot of people will assume UTF-8. But that may not be the case. If we do truncation or stuff, we may break the encoding. So we need to specify for all the strings that we support in our library, not only for every string. Even the spam name has to have an encoding defined for strings. Yeah. I want to add, Armin, thank you for posting that issue or that PR. I was actually about to write the same type of issue because we talked about it last Thursday in the metric SIG. I fully support that issue and the restrictions that you proposed. Thanks. As I said, we need to only have a general thing for all the strings and then if there are other parts that we are more constrained, we comment on that. But I think we need for all the strings in our system a definition. Last week I commented to my colleagues that we were talking about encoding issues and unicode and stuff and that meant we were at the end. So that's the nice thing here. I know from working in logging systems that people are going to dump every encoding under the sun into a log. So eventually this solution won't hold up, I think, but I'm happy with it for now. I think we can always relax. So if we start with more restrictive things, we can always relax that restriction because it's backwards compatible. Or you could extend it. You could have a way to indicate the encoding somehow, which sounds terrible. Okay. I think this is important to be discussed. I do agree that can happen after beta. I don't think it's a blocker in a way that we can have an end-to-end working and we can clarify this immediately after the beta. Any beta blockers? That was me. I think we already discussed this, but I'm just curious if anyone on the call does have anything they're hyper-concerned about. We've discussed metrics already. Is there any other concerns? Yeah, the OTLP, as I mentioned, but we'll see if we can make it happen. Great. Tigran, is there anything that we on the group here can do to help you speed that process up, or is that just a man-hour sort of thing? I think we already have a few people working on this, mostly full-time. I don't think there is a way to actually split it into more ways for others to help. I don't think that we need help for other issues, but for this particular thing, I don't think having more people will help actually to deliver it faster. Tristan, things that will help us probably is clarify that OTLP with the retrieval thing. That's probably something that, as a community, we can help Tigran. Besides that, I think he has a lot of support from his colleagues, and I also help him. We can probably have something working there. Speaking of help, even though KubeCon Europe has been punted, and that was where we originally wanted to do a kickoff with open telemetry workshops, we are planning, we don't have exact plans yet over at LightStep, but we are planning on trying to continue to organize open telemetry workshops and training sessions to just both get an understanding of what needs to get worked on in open telemetry, how easy it is to get started with, but we're also hoping that we'll naturally get more interest in the project and we'll cause more organic growth in people wanting to contribute back to the project. By the way, it would be nice for people if we can organize maybe a meet-up here in San Francisco.  I think we can have a meet-up with people, more contributors and users, more informal than a workshop or anything, just like chats and stuff. That would be great. Are you guys talking in-person meet-ups and all sorts of things? Without travel restrictions, it's unclear, right? Yeah, masks, arms length, like less than a thousand people. Yeah, and sharing coronavirus, so it's a meet-up where we share knowledge about the telemetry and coronavirus. We're sharing knowledge of coronavirus or just sharing coronavirus? Maybe a bit of both. This global pandemic, really what everyone should be doing is staying locked in their basements and hacking on open telemetry. The problem is, if you lock into a bunker, you're not going to have internet, so I don't know. You just haven't seen everyone else's bunkers yet. Yeah, come up to the Pacific Northwest. I'll show you. Yeah, that's right. You need a better bunker. Okay, I think we're done with the agenda. Anything else we should discuss or we can get 10 minutes back and go hacking more. I think that's it. Yeah, that's it. Thank you guys so much. Ciao. I'll see you later. Bye.