Well, thank you very much for the invitation, Lema, and for the opportunity to be in this beautiful city for the first time in my life, and also for the opportunity to share with you my views on the Chilean experience with financial sector reforms, as you were mentioning, and with crisis management. Before starting, let me make a few, maybe a disclosure, or maybe even two of them. The first one you mentioned is good to say what is the perspective from where you're talking, what is the bias that I have. I was in charge of banking regulation in Chile until last March. So I'm pretty much focused today in this presentation on financial stability, and I have this concept of prudence in my head. And it's hard to move away from that because I was there just a few months ago. The second disclosure is more human maybe than the one before, and as you already know, I'm from Chile, and you also know that the World Cup is in the process. And just a few hours ago, about five, six hours ago, Chile was eliminated from the World Cup, and it was eliminated in the worst of all possible ways by the local country, which is Brazil, which is kind of a powerful soccer team, after time 1-1, not only after 90 minutes, but then they went to half of 15 minutes each, so after 120 minutes, we tied 1-1, and we lost by one penalty. So basically, I'm in a bad mood, and I'm a little bit tired also because I was watching the game on TV, so don't give me a hard time, OK? Please. Fine. Let me then start my presentation and use my 25 minutes. Remember, I'm in a bad mood. Remember, so OK, now I'm going to say it for 20 minutes. OK, so I'm going to try to be as precise and focused as possible so that we can have time later to speak about the hundreds and thousands of possible topics that could emerge in a conversation about financial regulation and financial reforms, especially after the Supreme Crisis. But let me just try to focus in some very simple messages. My presentation has three parts, and for the sake of clarity, let me say that the three parts are basically a story. I'm going to tell you a story.  And those are the three parts that my presentation has. The story is a great story. It's a story of a crisis that did not happen, and this is going to be very important, which is the Supreme Crisis in Latin America. The message is, and believe it or not, as it says there, is a positive message from the developing country to the developed world. That's why I say believe it or not. I didn't think I was going to be alive to tell that message. And my concern has to do with basically the kind of challenges that we're facing today, given the new restrictions that the world is facing, and the new restrictions that these developing countries are facing in comparison to what they were facing before, say 10, 15, 20 years ago, when we basically faced some pretty dramatic crisis. So let me start with the story, with, as I mentioned before, the great story. The two crisis, I don't know if you are aware or not, but in the early 80s, there was a huge, a huge death crisis in Latin America.  But let me first, just to make sure that I make myself clear, start by saying the following. Just put yourself in the shoes of somebody.  So we all have some experience. And imagine that they tell you that there is a large and deep global financial crisis. The second one, only to the Great Depression in the late 20s, early 30s, almost 100 years ago. This is the sovereign crisis. So what would have been your guess in terms of the impact of that crisis, especially when it's a financial crisis, in the developing world? The world disaster is the first one that comes to mind. Well, this time it was different. And I'm thinking about Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart and so on. In this case, it was different. And the reason it was different, and I'm going to try to elaborate on this, is because Latin America, as it says there, learned the hard way, the numbers are going to show that, when their countries face their own financial crisis in the early 1980s. So let me go in two minutes to three figures. This is the first figures that tells the story of our own crisis. And I mean the Latin American crisis in the early 80s. Let's see if this, yeah. You see, so I'm starting here in 1980. The crisis happened at some point in 82, 83. You can see there are three, six, about 10 countries from Latin America have chosen them in terms of how large they are, or how important economically they are in the region. And you see that most of them, it's not all of them. There are some just face a huge reaction in output. This is GDP here in the vertical axis. They're normalized to 1 in 1980. And you see that some of them went down by 15, almost 20% in a two-year period. We all know that we're coming from the emerging world, most of us. So that's a dramatic impact in an economy, right? 20% drop in real output in two years. Now, that's dramatic and we could speak two months about that, I know that. But I want to focus on something different. What I care more about here in this picture is the recovery, because even though almost all the countries, even Colombia, Colombia won yesterday night, actually, the Uruguay. So they are gonna face Brazil on Saturday or something like that. They're gonna lose with Brazil on Saturday. So Colombia, Colombia, they behaved very well. They didn't have that problems, but they also face a huge crisis. Container was important in the region for everybody. But the recoveries were very different. And we typically talk a lot about Chile because Chile is one of the countries that kind of emerged in a successful way from this crisis. You can see the red line there going down like 15%. And then to some, almost back in trend, I put the trend there, imagining a 2% GDP per capita growth per year just to follow the traditional macro fact. But the point is that Chile was almost back in trend as if it didn't have that 20% or 18% drop in output by a decade later. I mean, that's very successful. Other countries stagnated. Now, even though not everybody recover in the same way, there are some successful stories and there are some failures here, all the countries end up doing something different and that changing the regulation after the early 80s crisis. And 25 from 82 to 2008 or something like that trend, almost a quarter of a century later when they were forced to face this second largest financial crisis in a century, the super crisis, you can see that we had some impact. Of course, in Chile, we had a minus 1% growth in GDP but it was nothing compared to what we had before. And here there were no assumptions. Every country did fairly well. Well, what I'm trying to say here is that the reason why countries had different recoveries after the early 80s debt crisis and the reason why they end up facing the new huge, in some, to some extent, more important financial crisis in 2008 in a successful way is because they made policy decisions that allow them to basically come out successfully from this dramatic event. In opposition to what happened in the developed world. So let me, well, and the result is a beautiful picture of prosperity. Since you're talking about growth. Some of them, like Venezuela, have had a lot of problems. Now I'm using again, 1980 as one here and I'm going back to 1960. And you can see that after 20 years of some heterogeneous growth across countries, some of us in the region really grew fast after the early 80s crisis. And Chile is today about three times what it was in the early 80s. What Chile was able to accomplish in the last three decades is more than what it had accomplished in the previous eight decades. And today it's a $20,000 PPP per capita country. At that time it was a $2,000 per capita country in real terms. And there are some other successful stories also like Uruguay and Colombia and so on. Some of them are more recent and this is why it's not so dramatic the change in comparison to the 80s. But if they keep doing what they're doing today, they're gonna be telling a similar story maybe 10 years from now. Okay, so let me go to my second part. That was a story. A great story, the story of a crisis that didn't happen. Let me go now to the second part that has to do with the lessons. So learning, I never thought that I was going to be able to say this. Learning from the development world and not because of what you did wrong but what you did right. Okay, so again, a little bit extra missed and you can give me a hard time after I finish during the conversation half an hour. But let me try to push the idea. What did we learn from the 2008 financial crisis? I mean, again, there are thousands of papers about that but let me summarize this in two lines. We learned something about the importance of resolution in the sense that if banks have problems, they must be able to exit so that the anti-exit important aspect of the market economy also works in the banking sector to provide the right incentives and so on. So resolution is a big thing today. The second thing is something related to the need of having this macro prudential view of the world. We cannot realize, I'm exaggerating, we cannot realize after 2008 that to look at each individual bank was not enough and that there was something that we call an endogenous risk and then, and again, this is the part that we could discuss but let me just follow. To some extent, you can read a lot of literature that claims that the corollary from the 2008 crisis in Europe and the US was the need of macro prudential policy. It's something that has been written today as we speak here. Well, let me try to go a little bit against the conventional wisdom. I'm not going to say that macro prudential policy are not important, far from that. Of course, I know it's important but let me just take everything to the extreme and mention something that I think we can learn from the experience in Latin America and let me use Chile in 2008. Let's see how important macro prudential policy, and to some extent, when you talk to people who are writing these papers, they tend to tell you that if they had had a good set of macro prudential policies, they would have not had the crisis they had and I don't agree with that. It's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's not important. And just an example, by counterfactual, let's talk about Chile 2008. Believe me, Chile is not a preferred country. It's far from that. And this is the third part of my presentation. I'm going to mention a few of the challenges that we have and don't mind. However, you are in 2008 in Chile and I could say the same about Peru. Chile is an extreme in this version of this. There was no financial stability board. You know what I'm talking about, right? This thing that we create when we force the people from the governor from the central bank and the minister of the treasurer of Hacienda, as they call it in Latin America, and the banking regulator to meet together every month and so on, right? And to have this broad view, I think it's very important. I engaged in that in Chile and it was a wonderful experience. However, Chile didn't have anything close to that in 2008. We didn't have Basel III, of course not. It's 2010, but we didn't have Basel II either. Not at least the jury. No consolidated supervision until today. No information about economic groups that own a bank. We were far away from the recipe of the list of bullets related to what we learned from the 2008 crisis. However, even though we're so far away from that perfection, we also didn't have a super crisis. And I think the reason why we didn't have the super crisis is, in part, related to what I was saying before. We did the homework. And what do I mean by that? Let me just try to stress, because then we can use time to discuss because so I can finish. This is a paragraph. Taking, it's exactly as it was, it has quotation marks from a congressional research service report in the United States trying to teach the US what to learn from Chile. And I thought it was perfect because if you read it, I don't have time now, you're gonna find all the elements during the discussion today. But there's one that I want to stress in a few minutes. And it's a good way to summarize. Actually, this is something from WikiLeaks. So I don't even know if this is legal or not. Okay, but I know this is gonna stay here right and nobody's gonna. So maybe this, what we're doing is all right. Still, I took it from the internet. So this is a WikiLeaks document and it says things like, what did I emphasize there? I mean, you have time later to try to go through this by yourself. But the traditional concepts that are important today when you talk about financial crisis. Of course, solvency. So what did we do in Chile? We did something about solvency in 1983, 84. I'm gonna refer to that in one second. We restructured loans for all the borrowers, consumers, households, commercial loans. We restructured also the lenders. And we reorganized our balance sheets in order to make sure that they were basically giving the information that we're supposed to do in order to make sure that the payment system was still alive and the liquidity problem was not there and so on. This is described there, but some concepts that I want to emphasize. Solvency was there, liquidity was there. This is 1983, 84. Resolution is there, 1984, something that we're talking today. And then as a result of all these things, credibility. The system keeps operating. And then some interesting thing.  And if you don't pay them back, you cannot distribute profits as banks. So you cannot give the right incentive in terms of moral hazard and you use the market to do that. Now, the cost was not cheap, 40% of GDP, but four years later in 1985, the financial system in Chile was back completely healthy. And you have the picture that I showed before. I don't have time now here, but I mean the kind of elements that were important and I already mentioned this. I have here, again as I said, it's a debt restructuring process with relief for both debtors and lenders. It's a restoring of the bank balance sheets with the recognition of long losses, but not forgiving them, just giving them time to come back. And it's a restructuring of the distressed banks with mergers, with sales, with liquidations and so on. Making sure that they were supposed to pay later, so the moral hazard problem is not there. And here are some of the elements that were part of the process. So at the end, and give me just four more minutes, Elena please. So the concept that I wanted to emphasize, the market was part of the story. The market played a role here. I'm gonna show a picture tomorrow when I talk about another country when I compare Chile and Mexico. Interest rate, very soon were already given signals, the right signal to the market. But at the same time, there was this hugely tightly regulation with a supervisor, very strict, with a lot of power to allow banks to do what they wanted them to do, actually to have simple banks. That has a cost, of course, it is a trade-off. And there was this institutional commitment to individual risk management, which is what I wanted to get to. You see, so what I'm telling you is a story that is in the first chapter of the first week of the first course of banking supervision. Basically, what they did here was to make sure that the banks in Latin America in 2008, to some extent, were doing their homework. They were doing the basic thing. Before talking about this complicated macro-potential set of tools that we need, of course, to be prepared the next time, we need to make sure that we're doing the basic job, which is to assess adequately individual risk of banks. As a matter of fact, I like the quote by Cristina Lagarde. At the end, all financial crisis, she says, are brought about by the same circumstances, easy money, slack regulation, and blue sky thinking. I want to emphasize the slack regulation and easy money part. I'm gonna jump, so one more slide. Now, what is my concern today? As a matter of fact, let me just mention one little thing. If you don't agree with me about the importance of doing the micro-prudential, micro-MI-prudential job, remember that for every financial institution that collapsed in 2008 and 2009, there was another one that emerged stronger than before. I could give you the least. I mean, we know Citibank, Burston, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, USB, AEG, all of them collapsed. However, we know that Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Teddy Suisse, and MedLife, the equivalent to each one of them were stronger after the crisis than before. They did their job. So I want to stress that because I think that we tend to forget that. So my final slide. As a matter of fact, if you look at numbers related to leverage and capital adequacy in the developed world, the red dots, and in the emerging countries in Latin America, you can see that they were all more prepared. We can discuss this. So my final comment. What is the problem? And this is my last slide. The way Latin America, and because we don't have more time, I'm gonna need to concentrate in one concept. To some extent, my concern is that one, what we did in the late 80s and 90s that allow us to overcome the crisis in the early 80s and then to face the 2008 crisis in a strong way, I'm not so sure it's gonna be useful, one for the Latin American countries in the future. We start doing that when we were $5,000 per capita countries. Now we're $20,000 per capita country. There are issues related to consumer protection. There are issues related to competition. That to some extent, we're put aside. So sure, you take a picture of the banks in Chile and I'm making an extreme argument here. You have a few very large, very solvent, very boring in the good sense of the word, banks, that are very profitable and very able to face the worst of the crisis, but at the same time at the expense of having lower competition, of course, because you have a few banks that concentrate most of the market, which if you have a strong regulator may end up working fine, but it's every day is harder when you face new challenges related to new things that before you didn't need to solve, like the coordination with the consumer protection authority. And two, the fact, and I finish with this, that innovation has been every year showing us the possibility of new ways to create credit by companies that are in the cloud. They're very different from the banks that we know and there is an incentive from the regulator to not to allow that because you don't want to change what has worked, but at the same time we have a huge opportunity for financial inclusion at a lower cost to reach people who are living in the, if you think about India in places where you will never arrive as a huge bank with some romantic pillars, you know what I mean? Columns, but the regulator and those large banks at the end are best interest groups that are gonna block naturally maximizing the real problem, the emergence of the new companies with the excuse of say operational risk, just to finish. So that's something that I'm concerned that the recipe is gonna be useful for the future and I think that there is a huge challenge in that respect today, both for the developed countries to use this model and for developing countries to use it again. Thank you very much.


Today I will finish our little trilogy about Wolf Shaper, which is an open source distortion plugin where you can define your own distortion functions, which is very neat. I want to apologize if my voice sounds a little funky, I have an ongoing infection and I can do much about it, but hopefully with the help of these we can push through. So let's get it started. So here is my outdoor session, it's totally blank. What I'm gonna do is add Ctrl Shift N, a bunch of new tracks with Helm, because I'm gonna use it for the sound design, for change. Alright and the target of today's video is to make some wacky sounds with Wolf Shaper using the simplest possible input that we can, which is a sine wave. Let me make these tracks bigger. Alright so here's the first one, you can see or hear rather it produces a saw wave, which is the default thing. I'm gonna disable the second voice by making it not audible and change the first one to a sine wave. Now we have a sine wave. I'm also gonna deploy headphones. Okay so let's do just a bunch of quarter notes and because our door has imperfect timing I'm gonna make them a little bit shorter holding the Alt key so they don't overlap so we don't have problems. Perfect. Now it's just a sine wave. Let's add a Wolf Shaper plugin. There it is. And let's make something weird. Let's play this in loop. It's a bit quiet. I'm gonna turn it up. However first I'm gonna turn down the output of Wolf Shaper and turn out the input, the output of Helm and the pre-gain so we have the whole function saturated nicely. Now let's add some points. How about pitching it down to octaves? Yeah sounds interesting right? Now this is all neat but a little bit boring so what we can do to make it move. We can use the polyelipho for example to make the volume go up and down. Now that will reset with every note so we can also add some fun stuff like you know shorter notes. How about this? Yeah sounds so good I'm crying. Alright so that's a very simple sound we can do. With just a sine wave as input and all the wave shaping is done here and we have something. Let's add a simple scope plugin so we can see the waveform. You see this is our function. It's all there. As I make it louder sine wave just exceeds the function window and it goes up there and it's no longer distorted in the top you see. Alright let's see I wonder what it can do with maybe automating these. That's another way of making it move. Wolf Shaper horizontal warp amount. Yes this is the horizontal one. Okay let's do let's make it play and just make it ramp and see what happens. Yeah I wonder what it can do with the vertical too. It's gonna do this but generally it makes them sound louder. It also sounds a little bit different. Okay let's add a new wolf shaper vertical warp amount and make it play and also make a ramp here. However I'm gonna make it the opposite direction ramp just for fun. Yay how about some faster changes in these like along this little note let's make it go really fast up and down up and down and that one yeah let's maybe do the same with this. Are just different like this. Oh these things are happening. Nice I think we can do the same with other notes too. I wonder how fast we can change this to make some really wicked, wicked changes differences to sound. Whoa sounds vibrating. Interesting. How about shifting this a bit lower. Pa pa I want this to be just a excuse you for a moment. They know Joe. Okay I'm back. Listen again. This is quite dark. Like it. All right so this is something we can do with wolf shaper. I have other ideas so let's let's put a new track under this. Let's leave this thingy. Gonna mute this. Mute it and now just take a look at this. Oh it's a saw wave. Very loud saw wave. We want a sine wave. I'm tiny shorter. Use the post gain. Increase the volume. I like this.  Let's go with wolf shaper pre-gain. And let's do this. Okay but why do we have four notes and maybe let's do something with the notes themselves. Like I don't know. Make the pitch go up and down a bit. Huh this didn't sound as expected. Changing the waveform of a silent oscillator in helm doesn't change the modulation at all because it simplifies all the oscillators for two sine waves for modulation. That's why you can't actually do any complex FM in helm but that's intentional. Yeah so we're combining features of helm with features of wolf shaper to make some interesting sounds. And for sure we could actually process this further like add some other effects. Maybe some reverb. Interesting sounds. Let's mute it and do another one. Now I would like to experiment with something that I can't do with helm unfortunately just with ZenitsubFX. I'm gonna call this truck Zinn and remove the helm plugin. Let's close this one and this one too. And let's add ZenitsubFX before the fader please. Okay because you see Zenfusion has a feature that you can add DC offset which means every sound that comes out of your speaker is coming out because there is alternating current driving it. But if you put direct current it will just push the speaker out and keep it there. And you know normally this is just a problem in audio but we can use this to do creative things because if you add DC offset you're actually offsetting the waveform from the neutral point the middle zero making it asymmetric even if it was symmetric before and if you drive that into distortion the distortion itself becomes asymmetric too even if it wasn't before and because wealth shaper of distortion I want to try something with that. So where we can do we can make our distortion go in and out of asymmetric which is gonna be interesting I think. Maybe let's just add one long note here cool. Zen is so nice that to just produce a simple sine wave on its own but it's also very quiet as you can hear and see so let's push the pre-gain all the way up and you can see it's not enough so I'm going to add volume here and now it's good it's that's perfectly it's perfectly loud I don't like this little click so I'm gonna make this note a little bit shorter because I think it's because of that overlap okay so now let's make a function okay so we have our basic thing now let's add the DC offset into the mix so I'm gonna loop this sound again you know what I'm gonna make this for shorter notes because it's gonna refresh every single note if we have just one long whole note it's gonna refresh that's a bar so let's add a new voice which is now a sine wave you can change the type to DC and now we're just pushing the waveform off balance let me bypass wolf shaper and just show you what we're actually doing push the frequency higher so it's easier to see so voice one is generating a sine wave voice two is generating DC offset the louder I make it the higher our waveform is going above the actual neutral point I can push the waveform higher and higher up just gonna make it the distortion as a metric okay let's enable the trigger again let's make the frequency lower again the volume higher enable distortion we have this thing of course like doing it just it is boring so we can use an LFO it's working I don't think it is it's just an envelope it sounds very much like frequency modulation actually I often think about frequency modulation as the same as distortion just happening in the time direction not in the amplitude direction the results can be similar oh this is interesting what we can do with this maybe if we can also do the let's add a little a little bit of noise let's do your noise a little bit of now without wolf shaper it sounds just like that kind of boring right you don't make this even more interesting how about making them shorter oh this is one not what I thought but it sounds interesting reminds me of infected mashroom for some reason do more of that interesting I wonder if we can make a piece of music out of all that crap that we're making now I want to try something with a changing pitch like going up and down maybe a super saw or maybe a super sign okay let's mute this track oh that's well loud yes just sign with please maybe let's make this a little bit shorter by the way I haven't I haven't had a sip of my coffee yet so and then we'll have a beat instant party instant party instant party instant party come on the fuck instant party yeah yeah instant party it's not party instant party let's go to assemble sorry sorry but you just had to do this have to fucking do this instant party instant party oh i'm distorting not good I need to turn turn down my microphone and some party instant party instant party yeah instant party let's record a second trunk of that so we have a nice stereo field and some party and some party instant party yeah instant party and some party and some party instant party yeah instant party yeah perfect one two three four let's cut it here let's move them here if I make them sound the same for length I should be able to select them both with one click uh if I can do that oh yes fabulous and some party instant party yeah that's perfect that's just so perfect okay sorry all right all right you know what you know what I'm gonna call this instant party I'm gonna duplicate this track so we have this safe and copied here in case we ever want it again and now I'm gonna explain why does it happen okay so we have these eight notes eight notes one two three four five six seven yeah eight notes and we have a mono LFO driving the pitch and it it is that it's going over and over it's it's uh going independent of the notes so and so and because halm syncs to the session bpm this is actually quarter notes and some party and because we're playing eight notes that means every sing every one note is on this snipe sine wave LFO going downwards and the next one is on the LFO going upwards and then it's going downwards again and to go upwards is and the downwards ones sound like a kick drum and the upwards ones sound like fun sound so that's my instant party the problem is I don't know if I can offset this oh dear oh no clear modulation instant party oh yeah so I can flip the the polarity of that so we have the kick drum on the oh instant party so we have the kick drum on the first note yeah that's better however now this is offset by an eighth note oh dear not good okay I fixed it music yeah interesting yeah so I recorded it when I enabled the the click track the metronome and I couldn't hear the metronome here's the metronome it played with like a eighth note offset or quarter note offset something 16 now quarter note offset I guess so yeah now I fixed it never fucking mind ah so now this is this is bad let's let's remove this our backup is messed up now let's let's make another copy I'm gonna copy mute all that oh maybe just group all that and mute them together great now let's figure out what can do with distortion to this because maybe to make it 500 louder saturating this function oh that's too much okay well wow um wow just wow sorry sorry okay ah let's just drop this let's drop this yeah let's mute that this is muted too let's let's do something new new loud loud loud normal loud sounds no please no more loud sounds I want quiet sideways please sideways okay let's copy copy copy you know what I can just split this all d all d all d now select the range right click consolidate range there you go select all make them shorter whoop wrong wrong direction cool I want something I want an envelope pitch envelope whoa sorry oh my goodness that is painful yeah a lot way too high how about reversing this relation let's clear the modulation uh yes painful like um like we wanted I believe that during the last live stream someone said the best music is the painful music ah there you go clipping everything that's quieter than interesting we're gating it I actually like this does this play any any any special notes I wonder if that's a pitch I think that's not a pitch no no it's just also it happens somewhere like how about adding something else maybe a chorus I like the guitarics chorus guitarics chorus stereo makes it more stereo actually makes it stereo at all because it was totally mono by the way I think my my my voice is too quiet I apologize ah you probably didn't hear me very well for the repast 10 minutes or so not good sucks to be me and you know what let's put an envelope filter calf envelope filter let's make it all wet instant side trends thingy you can't believe this I think we're we're bound to make something trippy out of this how about playing all the tracks together how many I don't know what's gonna happen I no idea raise yourselves holy shit uh no but maybe we can find two that sound nice together these two do and this yeah the problem I have with this one is that it's kind of offset what do I do what what can I do about this I have an idea oh what am I doing I think I'm gonna yes I want instantaneous response uh I think this sound could work if we just offset it basically do this no and how about this maybe now we can cut off this put it here we have a perfect loop okay sorry um where was I okay so I think that actually wolf shipper is pretty interesting for sound design because you can do a lot of things it can be trippy and you have to be cautious but all in all I think this is a very interesting interesting idea the thing is sometimes limiting yourself is a great way to become more creative for example I really like the um the challenges when you have to use a certain set of tools a very narrow set of tools to achieve something and it forces you to find ways to do things you haven't thought of before and I think that using wolf shipper for sound design is kind of like that it's not a tool you would normally use to create a timbre of your sound but because it's different and it kind of forces you to do work backwards it makes you come up with sounds that you wouldn't come up normally I think it's interesting to try and I think that wolf shipper is pretty pretty powerful in this regard and you know because also you can use it as a you can gate things you can limit things you can clip things you can um wave fold things you can make it asymmetric you can you can automate the the shape of the functions it's very powerful you have you have a lot of things to do often just automating the pregain makes your makes your inputs and will saturate the different parts of the of the function and just yields completely different results sounding a little bit like frequency modulation it's a very interesting thing so um yeah thanks for watching this is all and hereby I end this trilogy about wolf shaper next up I think I want to make some guitar stuff I want to make some guitar distortion I want to make some guitar facts recording guitars yeah something like that anyway I hope you've learned something and if you have any questions about this or Linux audio in general um or any suggestions for future episodes please leave them in the comment section below this session will be available for download if you want to make a track out of this feel free yeah and I will see you in the next video oh and you know what I want to say big thanks to all the patreon supporters who are allowing me to sit here now and do this and share my knowledge and experience and talk to you instead of doing other things it's it's really appreciated and it's only because of you I can really do this because you know there's only so far you can go in your spare time and there comes a time in your life when you don't have a ton of spare time to spare so thank you so much to everyone who is supporting this channel and helping me stay afloat once again I apologize for my bad voice today and that's all I will see you in the next video bye with the help of these we can push through so oh uh what are you doing


Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to another raw, uncut, uncircumcised, unfiltered, unleaded review. I'm Salah Mike and we're talking about the best chest exercises for hypertrophy. You want to build them double D's. You've come to the right spot. Stay tuned. At the end of this you'll understand what is absolutely trash gimmick and what will build them tatters. There's multiple exercises here. Some pictures are a little small so we're not going to go over them all but let's start at the top. Top left it looks like we've got a nice classic pec deck. Now what I think defines the pec deck is it is a fly machine but you can also do reverse curl or reverse rear delts on it, reverse flies. Overall, the beauty of hypertrophy training or bodybuilding or training for aesthetics is that if a machine feels good and you feel it in the proper muscles it's probably doing that. If a machine doesn't feel good or an exercise doesn't feel good you could probably find a replacement really, really easy. There's a lot of different fly machines. The general pec deck because you can adjust the width or the tension plus the weight and the seat height you can find this solid positioning for yourself. I would give the fly, the pec deck, probably in a decent tier. I don't think it's going to automatically build the greatest bobeys but it's a great isolation exercise. Next it looks like we have a fly machine that's a little bit more particular and it actually leads from the elbow which is very important because you can do pec deck, flies, other things incorrectly and not really isolate your chest. Now if you're a meathead and you've been training a long time you'll figure out ways to best utilize an exercise machine to target the muscle that you intend to but there's also some machines that kind of take the brain work out of it and that's why I would put this style of fly just above the pec deck. I actually don't think with a well trained individual that one's necessarily better another that'll be based on your preference but for the masses you'll probably be able to contract your bobeys a little bit better with that one. Next we're moving on to the dip, the straight barbell dip. You can add weight to it. It is actually a great exercise. Some people might even call it calisthenics in the world of strength conditioning or in more particular power lifting. It's on a very high upward trend but I'll probably put the dip up there personally. I actually prefer it more as like a delt tricep movement. I like to get a little bit more upright with it.  You're just bending elbows you can get a deep stretch, deep range. If you lean a little bit more forward your feet behind you can get a little bit more chest involved. For me personally and I'm the king here, no democracy, we're running this. I actually have to load up weight because I'm very efficient at dips and in that point it starts to hurt my shoulders and stuff. So if I'm just trying to catch a little pump or warm up I think it's great. I'll put it in the decent tier for myself. For others if you feel no pain with that exercise it could definitely creep up to the excellent. Here we have what looks like maybe a decline pushup. There's a ton of pushup variations so we're just going to whip through these guys. I'm not going to explain everything. I'm sorry. A decline pushup I think is fine. A regular pushup is fine if you can't bench press a lot of weight but eventually your dumbbell press or machine eventually you're going to be able to upgrade and start stacking on weight and it's going to be much easier to overload on a bench press or a dumbbell or a machine than it will be with something like a decline pushup. So I'm going to throw it in the decent tier at the bottom. Next we've got like a deficit pushup. I'm going to throw that down there too. Instead of just making slightly more difficult pushups I'd rather just start to add load whether it's for power, for strength or for hypertrophy I think there's better option. This one's actually probably the best one of them all. We have like a greater range ring dip with load. Again like slightly functional because you've got to plank out and worry about your core but if you're just worried about building your chest we don't want to focus on that stability. As an overall movement that's something great and I know I'm whipping through these and I apologize guys but there's just so many. This looks like an ultra wide pushup. That's probably going to throw you in the A cup. Now a greater range of motion or time under good mechanical tension not just time under tension because if you're a marathon runner there's a lot of time under tension on your legs and you're not building any muscle there. We want mechanical tension and the time under that matters and range of motion. So typically yes a wider grip on something will get a greater range of motion but on something like a pushup where the ground is stopping your range it's actually just trash if you ask me. There's something I'm not a huge fan of although some people love with dumbbells and functional training. This looks like a unilateral arm by arm chest press machine. Now I like unilateral. I like when my weights are loaded per arm but I actually like to squeeze and press together a lot more than I prefer pressing one. I think there's too many ways with the chest that you can lean and kind of take away actually some of that contraction of the pecs. So I'll throw that in the mediocre. It's something you could do for sure but I'd rather kind of press both and you're forced to contract your chest. This looks like a flat basic chest press and I'll probably throw it at the top of excellent tier. You can load it up. It's very stable. You're not going to be wiggling around. You don't have to worry about anything. If we're talking about purely building muscle of your chest and moving some weight it's probably a really great option for nearly everyone from advanced IFBB pros all the way down to beginner. Same here with what looks like an incline press. I'm going to put that right there. Those could go vice versa any way you want. An incline chest press is one of my favorite moves. Right now I guess you'd call me a power balader what the internet calls it. I like to hit my squat bench deadlift first for a set or two just to keep and maintain a decent amount of strength and I handle those in this rep range from two to eight and then everything else is more hypertrophy based. I'm worried about building that muscle, focusing it on, catching a nice pump and really get a mechanical tension with as much stimulus as I can. So an incline hammer strength is the machine of my choice that I use for the primary hypertrophy movement that I do on chest days which I actually just finished. Next I think we got the bench press and this may piss some of the bros off but we're going to get into it. So all the bros say like stability this, stability that and I understand the argument that with a chest press machine you will be able to be more solid in the rest of your body. The rigidity is there so you can hypothetically just focus on the stimulus of the chest but I do think gaining some strength from a bench press which is the exercise we can load the heaviest over time will allow us to move more weight and handle more volume on our hypertrophy sets on the back end. It's always people saying no bench, do the chest press but why not both? We could do both. You can handle both exercises, you'll be absolutely fine and over time once you get a better muscle endurance and general fitness you'll be able to handle both to their maximum. They won't take away from each other. Next it looks like a dumbbell incline and I would say the same thing. You know all these can kind of be interchangeable. Yes, dumbbell incline is a little bit more difficult to maneuver because of the stability of each arm because of the free weight nature of it versus an incline machine but instead of just saying yes to one and the other sucks we can do both. This is an OG move and I can't speak too heavily on it because I haven't actually done a ton of it. It's the reverse bench press. Now some people say it feels better on their shoulders but I don't think that's actually from supinating your hands. I think it's just from forcing yourselves to tuck your elbows more which obviously leverages your triceps a bit more too. I think purely for bench press hypertrophy or sorry chest hypertrophy it's probably in the A cup tier. There's just kind of no reason. You're going to be better off doing a regular bench. It's probably safer. You're more likely to slip the bar out of your hand that way. And two if your shoulders are in the bench press we could probably fix it with a technique situation.  I don't even know what this thing is called. It's called like the bendy 9000. I don't really know but it's basically like a bend deal and you do one of these and I don't really even know what you're doing.  That would be below A cup tier. Chances are the mechanical tension isn't enough. The resistance isn't enough. Once you do that for three days even if you're a beginner. The next two I literally don't even know what they are. So we're probably going to skip them. One looks like a rowing movement. Next we have the football bar or neutral grip bench press. So that's a specialty bar often made to protect the shoulders again. Some people I think do have issues benching and a little nagging shoulder pain but I think all that can be fixed with technique. I think overall actually a neutral grip is fine. There's nothing inherently good or bad about it. But again yeah if you want to focus on some strength stuff with that movement then work on a more hypertrophy or allow that strength to carry over to more mechanical tension on something like a machine or fly. That's a great idea. But personally through experience I'm not a huge fan of the neutral grip. It feels fine but I've never caught any kind of Benny from it. Both of these look like the same ones just standing on one seated. The plate press where you'll take two plates and you'll squish them together. So you're doing like an isometric fly and then you're pressing it. I think that's fine. You'll probably, it's kind of like some schoolyard old G stuff. But the tension when you're doing a fly needs to be coming from the outside. I'm not a physicist or engineer or nothing but the gravity is going downward. So if I'm holding the plate this way I'm working my front delts a little bit. I'm kind of working an isometric of a fly and then if I'm pressing this way I'm still just working delts and a little bit of triceps if I'm horizontal. I actually think it's probably a large waste of time. That's one of the few movements. I think it's probably just trash. Moving on to a couple others. We've got the dumbbell flat bench. It's going up into the excellent tier. Great movement. Again, the only negative would be probably once you get too strong. You know, handling 130, 150, 180, 200 pound dumbbells is just not very applicable. It's kind of more annoying to get them into place. Although plenty of bodybuilders, Ronnie Coleman, et cetera, et cetera have made that look just easy and fine. So they obviously work. It's a great pressing movement. You can get a deeper range than a barbell. You can overload them decently if you have five pound increments. If you get too strong, I understand why you might go towards a machine or even a barbell with a lift off. This is a power lifting movement. We call it the Larson Press, named after Adrian Larson. Feet up bench. The idea back in the day is that you would take some of the load off of the stability off of your legs and put it more onto your chest. We're actually probably backwards where more stability will allow you to press more weight, which will put more mechanical tension on the chest. As a strength movement, great, great variation. Talking purely hypertrophy, you're going to be better off with a very stable base and allowing yourself to press the maximum weight you can week to week. Moving again with kind of a unilateral. So dumbbells are obviously already unilaterally loaded. I'm not a fan of pressing them one at a time. I just don't really see a lot of application. I understand the mental note of it. Maybe it's easier. If you're in a class setting, it's something new and exciting. So it has some applications, a little bit of rotational stuff there and stability for sure. But we're not necessarily looking at that when we're trying to build pure strength or pure muscle. So for that reason, A-cup tier. The reverse grip dumbbell that's going bottom of A-cup two. If we're not going to do it with a barbell, I don't see a reason. Incline reverse grip dumbbell. Again, I don't know why we're doing that. I see almost nearly no reason because of whatever you do in a supinated position. Elbows and shoulders are unrelated. I can come way in here and press like this. I can press like this. And I can do that in both ways. It's a little bit more uncomfortable, so it naturally keeps those shoulders down. But not something I'm looking for. What's Arnie doing? I think there's just a sexy picture of Arnold. It looks like he's outside. That's going to go into gorilla tier. I mean, he's got a gorilla chest. He's known for just being the greatest, but he does have a great chest. Next, it looks like maybe a very high incline dumbbell. I'm going to throw it in the A cup because I'm not sure what's going on. Now we're going to calisthenics. We've got three of them. Again, as a beginner, as an athlete, as someone who enjoys moving their body through space, I think calisthenics can be great. Talking about overall athleticism, overall strength, or hypertrophy, building muscle, it's probably not where we're going. A voodoo push-up, I think you kind of do the worm and do a push-up or something. A cup, no reason. There's not going to be enough tension on the chest. We're moving that throughout. Again, if you like to move your body, great. Reverse grip push-up, that's below A cup tier. Absolute trash. There's just no reason if we're trying to build overall strength and performance to do it. One arm push-up, same idea. Maybe slightly better than those others because sure, you're bringing more of your body weight onto one side, but then you're leaning your body and so you're getting more on your tricep and shoulder. For building a big boobies, those are out. Now this might be slightly controversial. I think the next three are kind of the same. I'm not a fan of a dumbbell fly. Obviously for 30 plus percent of the motion because of leverages and gravity, we're not getting maximal tension. I prefer doing flies on machines or cables where you get tension throughout the range and again, mechanical tension, volume and progressive overload over time are the key factors to building muscle. Mechanical tension, progressive overload and volume over time, those are what we're looking for and so why not replace? I mean, if all you have is dumbbells, sure. But if you have a machine or you have a cable, I'm doing those flies first. So I think those are literally three in a row.  Two are the same. We got a medicine floor press and a barbell floor press for strength conditioning, for power lifting, for force output. There's many applications that we may use something like a floor press. It does cut your range of motion, but adds a little bit of stability. It can kind of cut up and change the reflex between the concentric, eccentric portion of the lift. Something like a box squat where you can rest your triceps on the ground, take away some of that elasticity response and then fully focus on pushing from a dead stop. There are some applications. If we're talking about muscle, again, mechanical tension and range of motion are so important. Both of these are probably going in the A cup. I would not do them if my only goal is to build big tatters. And that's going to a bunch of these, man. We're gonna do some weird stuff. We got a medicine Masubal 360 Hamel Camel pushup. That guy's out. He's in the D list and I'm not talking double Ds. The clapping pushup.  I don't even like the word cringe, but what are we doing? We all know you didn't build your boobies that way.  Next it looks like we got a landmine single arm press. Something like that is good. If you want to build kind of more of your shoulders, delts in general stability, I guess I'll throw in a mediocre. It's not necessarily targeting the chest. It is more of a delt movement, but it's solid. A more horizontal looking chest press. It looks super solid. Obviously, each chest press machine is built slightly different. So that's where bodybuilding is fun. You can find ones or styles of ones or settings of ones that feel best for you to really focus on your chest. This guy's probably going up there, maybe in the gorilla tier. If I had to choose one movement and you just say I want to build chest, but I can only do one movement, it's probably a very stable, solid chest press. You don't have to worry about anything else going on. It's on fixed arms and all you have to do is press and focus on your chest. So many movements. A regular push-up. Sure, we'll throw it in the mediocre. I don't want to bash all push-ups. They got some, you know, they got some applications for sure in hypertrophy. It's just not as high. This guy's just standing in his underwear in dumbbells holding them. Oh yeah, I think he's doing a shrug. I don't know. He's just half naked. He's going to the eight cup. This guy, this next guy, I think he's just touching his boobs. It looks like he's, it looks like, you know, coaches touch your boobs. He's doing it to himself. So I don't know if he's just wanting, wishing, dreaming to have a bigger chest, but that's not going to work either. This one, in powerlifting movement, I call it like ultra wide grip. In the bodybuilding world, I believe they call it a guillotine press.  The issue here I think is that, in like logic or talking through it, it makes sense because you'll get a wider stretch, a bigger stretch of the chest when you start to flare those elbows and really get your chest up. The issue is you'll put more on your delts as you start to flare way out there. Now flaring a little bit isn't a huge deal, but you're almost flaring above the 45 of your shoulder. Plus, benching like in that manner will force you to use such little weight. The mechanical tension would be better off again with a chest press machine or just benching normally. So in that, I would say it's very mediocre. It's probably got some application, but it's pretty mediocre. Here's one that's kind of from the strength world that has a lot of good ties. We call this a camber bar or a small camber bar or a Duffalo bar or a Buffalo bar or whatever it is where you get a little bit of lean going on the bench because the one knock on the bench press for hypertrophy is that your range of motion is obviously constricted by where your boobies or belly may be. So you can't always get your elbows as deep as you want because the barbell is gonna stop. You get a little cambered in there, a little valley in the bar, and now you can get into a dumbbell range of motion, but you're pressing with both hands so you can use progressive overload a little bit better. You can move more weight. I actually think that's maybe underutilized in general for hypertrophy. So I'll throw it up in the excellent tier. I think that's kind of a dark horse of the bodybuilding world. Some guys definitely know about it and use it, but I think it could probably be utilized and paid more attention to than it is. Now a cable, shoulder height, fly, love it. I might even throw it in a gut gorilla tier. That's one of my favorite movements. I can really put my body weight into it. You obviously tend to fly a lot less weight than you can press, and so the stability issue with a cable when you're standing isn't actually that much of an issue for me because it's not as much weight. So I can lean into it, do a half lunge, and I can really feel with the cable a nice stretch, contract reflex, which I literally just did before we got back here, feels great. Here's another one. This looks like the reverse grip. Front raise, but how some people do it, they're flying, but again, I'm not an engineer. I'm a college dropout.  So if we're trying to do a fly but we're standing pretty vertically, where's that resistance going? It's gonna end up on our delts. It's gonna end up on our forearms. Now we're just doing like a front raise, right? So are we really hitting that? No, we'd be much better off on a machine or a cable where the resistance is pulling us backwards rather than pulling us downwards. So in that case, and it kind of looks like one of our members out here, we're going into the A cup, sorry buddy. Go put on a shirt. The triangle pushup.  They're gonna say, I have a big chest and I do pushups. Well, a lot of da, bro. You would have a bigger chest if you didn't. The tricep or the triangle pushup is actually focused more on the tricep.  I think it's A cup or below again. There's just kind of no reason for it. Here's a great one, the Smith Machine bench press. I think that's probably going in gorilla mode, tier mega super Godzilla mode too. Lot of stability. You can set up the bench and it moves a lot so you can really focus in on an angle of not only the incline, but of where you're touching on your chest that feels good that you can feel the stretch. The one negative, sure, maybe your elbows can't go as low, but I would do a very slight incline Smith Machine press. Feels awesome. You can load it very well. You can load it infinitely and vary your reps. And I think it could be definitely a primary staple in a press. I think this is a cable press, which is actually kind of an underrated movement. A lot of people think you just cable fly or you'll dumbbell press. I think a cable press, if you have the proper setup in a big enough stack or a machine to do it, is an absolutely amazing movement. If done correctly, you can kind of, that's where you actually can build the depress fly combo, right? Cause you're getting a squeeze cause the cables are a little bit further out. So you get that kind of fly action where you're still pressing, get a little tricep, great, great, great movement. I think there's two of them so I'm gonna throw them both up there in the gorilla. One is seated, one is standing. All right, we're gonna switch it up. The seated one, because if we're pressing, we're gonna be able to use more weight, right? Cause we are utilizing our triceps and our shoulders. Rather than a fly as an isolation, we're using one joint. We're just kind of swinging them things, the tree hugs. One is a low to high fly. This guy has the example with the fly too low. It's kind of by his hip. I would never do it like that. But a slightly biased, I think one of the biggest things with all exercises is the drastic angles people take. So like, oh, I need an incline press. And then they're basically straight up and down. Just do a baby angle. Same with the fly. If you're doing an incline fly, just a baby angle.  Just baby angles 10 to 30 degrees for all presses. And even rows, you don't have to be that drastic, right? We have obviously horizontal elbows out, horizontal elbows in, vertical elbows in, vertical elbows out. But beyond that, we don't have to get too crazy with those things. So for that case, we're gonna throw into the mediocre. I think he's doing the same thing, but a high to low fly, but it shits up here. It looks like he's trying to take off. And so again, I would just have it a very small angle, 10 to 30 degrees, a high to low fly has a great option.  I don't know why. Because you can use more weight, the range of motion is slightly less. So your feet up the bar path's less.  And they'd say like, oh dude, you need upper chest. You don't need lower chest. Which is kind of true. It is a little bit more difficult to build some mass higher on your chest. So a lot of people switch over to the incline and do no decline work. But I think there is balance and a way to do both. So I do, you know, 70, 80% incline or flat. And I always try to do a fly or one movement a little bit lower.  Definitely some options that you should probably do some kind of decline. It could be a slight decline press. It could be a slight decline fly. It could be a dip which ends up being a little bit of decline. I know you're horizontal but wrap your mind around that inception or something. It does work. So it dips a little bit more of your bottom booby. Getting one or two of those in a week on top of again, the meat and potatoes, 70, 80%. Hopefully just press fly. It doesn't have to get that complicated. Find one that works. Find one that's stable. Find one that you can overload well. Find one that you feel in the muscle that properly that you're intending to target. And it's that simple. Lot of options. Lot of gimmicks. But go out there. Make me proud with your big man and lady chests. All chests are welcome here. If you like the cheerless man, give it some love. We're dropping new content every single day on the channel. So I appreciate you sign up Mike. 3sb.co for all your clothing needs. Next big announcement coming to goodcompanydiscord.com. So stay tuned. It'll be in June. And I'll catch y'all in the next one, man. Be a part of something bigger yourself. Community and culture. We're out.


A bacterial motor powers chemotaxies, a key finding in the process of bacterial infection.  What do these nature-made motors actually look like? It's so interesting because it does look a lot like what you would see in a car or an axle or something. This ring is the one that flips the flagellum rotation clockwise or counterclockwise by like actually physically kind of changing gears. And this then generates torque and spins the flagellum through electrostatic and interaction with a stator, which is like a stationary component. So what are some future applications? If we were able to stop this chemotaxis within the organism, like inside a human, you would be able to stop recurrent infections from happening without impacting your microbiome. So you wouldn't have to take antibiotics.


Fly me to the moon, where Gosling's in the stars. Hey guys, Jeremy here, and I got a review for First Man here. Now this was a film that I admit kind of intrigued me. For one, Ryan Gosling's in it of course. Also Damien Chazelle, who has directed two very heavy music based films, Whiplash and La La Land, was directing this movie. Which is very interesting. Going from music to space is kind of a jump. But I was interested to see how he would handle it. It to show whether he could make something other than just a music based movie. And at least to say he does. This actually is a pretty interesting, very personal reflection on Neil Armstrong himself. It's not so much about the NASA and Apollo program because that whips by. It whips by very quickly. However, it does focus on Neil's struggles. Not only with trying to complete the mission, make the mission happen, but also with own his own family. There's a lot of things that I never knew. I never knew he had a daughter. I never knew that he had such a personal kind of inner reflection and this struggle of it himself. I'll be honest, the last 20 minutes of the movie or so, as incredible as it was to see it shot, I actually didn't care too much for the ending. Because everyone knows that. It's what happens before they leave is what's so interesting. Talking about all the failed experiments, all the situations, the Apollo test failure that happened. Now the one thing I'm going to complain about a little bit is how this film was shot. It's very interesting considering it was filmed by the exact same cinematographer of La La Land, Linus Sandgren, if I'm correct, he went from that film which was incredibly well shot in terms of just how smooth that movie felt. This is different. It kind of goes for a documentary sort of style sort of filming and when they're in the spaceship, that very personal, very enclosed sort of filming aspect worked. Damien definitely takes a lot of notes from Interstellar because there's a lot of this use of only being aside the ship or in the ship that you never really see anything flying off by itself. It's all on the ship itself so it's definitely some model work. So again, a lot of Interstellar sort of vibes there. However, when they're on Earth, the camera's doing this all the goddamn time and admittedly at first it wasn't so bad and then there's some sequences where at one point Ryan Gosling's getting in his car to drive away and I honestly felt like the cameraman was having a seizure. There's a point where it just gets to be too much and there is a lot of it. I understand that whole documentary-esque style but it just takes away from the film and the fact that I saw this in IMAX, it's just irritating. It's not nausea for me but it's just irritating. That's another thing too. This film was boasted about, oh you must see it in IMAX and Universal had apparently never released a movie full IMAX cut before filmed on an IMAX camera and what did they do? Apparently just before the film's about to be released they decide to cancel the IMAX prints of the film.  I hate when they boast about using IMAX technology and they don't actually use it. The film itself is pretty decent. Ryan Gosling does a really good performance, Claire Foy is okay, she's his wife. There's a few scenes here and there when she actually has some pretty interesting parts but she's kinda just stuck as being the wife. There's not really much you can do with that. There's not just saying that she's just there. But his interactions with the NASA program, his own kind of strife with his own conflicts were actually really interesting to see unfold and like I said this is a different perspective of what we've seen from most of the movies about the Apollo missions. So I did like that. If you're watching this movie for Apollo facts, you're not gonna get that much because like I said it just spins by really quickly and there's something at the end that I kind of wonder if it was dramatized or if it actually happened. Because the ending is, it's a bit of a dramatic note. It's actually a pretty touching note but I kind of wonder if it actually did happen. Again I have to look into that. I did enjoy the movie but again the final 20 minutes is not exactly the most interesting for me just because I already know so much. I've already read so much about the whole Apollo mission thing. The beginning of the film up to just before they leave is actually pretty interesting afterwards it's kind of like okay you've seen this a million times. So in the end First Man is an enjoyable film. It's not really a rewatchable film for me at least but it is still a well-made movie and I definitely give Damien Schiffel credit for doing a movie that is completely unrelated to music so. But he does throw some music bits in. The score is pretty well done as well. So my final score for First Man is a five out of seven. It's an enjoyable movie. Maybe not the most enjoyable film. It's definitely got a little bit of pacing kind of slumps here and there and again the cinematography is not the greatest in my opinion. Anyways guys I hope you enjoyed the review. If you did leave a like and if you're interested maybe subscribe. Otherwise it's all from me. See you guys next time.


Welcome to another edition of RCE. Again, this is Brock Palin. You can find us online on our complete back catalog at rce-cast.com. You can also find links to Jeff and mine's Twitter, our blogs, and all that usual fun stuff. Also, I have again, Jeff Squire from Cisco Systems and one of the authors of OpenMPI. Jeff, thanks a lot for your time. Hey, Brock. How you doing? Good season here. We're just post supercomputing and post the American Thanksgiving holiday and so on, so we're back into the swing again, recording some more podcasts. Yeah, and so we have one more comment. Also, I need to apologize. I dropped into your OpenMPI state of the union at supercomputing for like five minutes and then turned around and left to go to something else. Yeah, I didn't want to say anything, but I noticed that. I was like, oh, there's Brock. Oh, there goes Brock. Yeah. Well, you were nice enough to put your slide deck out on the mailing list, so that's available out there so everyone can get their OpenMPI updates and what's coming in the next version. Sweet. Okay, so let's go into our guest for today. Our guest today is Thomas Summers and he's gonna speak to us about Open Compute. So, Thomas, why don't you take a moment to introduce yourself? Yeah, I'm Thomas Summers, founder, CEO of Rex Computing and we're developing new HPC-focused processor solutions. And so, as part of Open Compute, we started the group back in July and I'm project co-lead along with Devashesh Paul from Integrated Device Technologies and we're trying to push HPC into be more open and kind of bring that into the more data center and server-focused Open Compute project area. Okay, can you give us a little bit of background of what Open Compute is? Most people, if they have heard of it, they probably associate it with Facebook or somebody like that, not somebody you normally think of as being high-performance computing. So, can you give us a little bit of background? Yeah, so Open Compute was originally started by Facebook and the general premise of it is to what Facebook originally did is that they donated their internal custom server designs so that both includes the mechanical, the racks, the blades, how they're connecting them all together and new motherboard designs and everything and they contributed that, they started the foundation, they donated it to the foundation and got a group from Intel, Goldman Sachs, Rackspace and a couple other companies initially and they came together and said, it's better for us consumers of technology to actually define things that we need to have and if we design our own stuff internally to make that available so that everyone can use that as a base and contribute to making those things better. So the real goal initially and has been up to now is to make more efficient data centers and server systems and in the HPC world, think that that's a pretty good idea and something that would be very beneficial for HPC users and HPC system manufacturers and we wanna bring that to the group. So you just say there about how it started and what some of its initial goals are and some of those you said are the ongoing goals but really if you could put it in terms of what is the 10 year goal? What is the five year goal of OCP? I mean, what do you see as down the road more than just making designs for hardware available? Yeah, so up until today, I would say that that has been the primary goal with the base principle for the long term viability of it is that these open designs would cover enough of the different parts of the data center that if some complete new startup wants to build their own data center, they could take all of the pieces from open compute and go to some contract manufacturer or the idea is that the contract manufacturers would already be making open compute specific designs and those would be cheaper than the proprietary HP or Dell or whatever systems out there. And that startup would just be able to take all open standard items and bring that and roll that and put it together and based on the actual specifications would know exactly how everything goes together and make sure that it works. And then if they have some new innovation that they've been able to improve something for whatever specific tasks that they're doing that they can then contribute that to the community so that others would also be able to benefit from it. Now, the longer term goal, which is now starting to develop actually with the HPC group is most of what open compute has been up to today has been related to mechanical and at the lowest level being your Gerbers for your actual motherboards. And what we're trying to do with HPC is bring that deeper into new networking at a silicon level. So up to now networking, it's been taking whatever off the shelf, 10 gig, 40 gig, whatever is out there and then throwing that on a board while with the HPC group because of HPC demands for low latency and high bandwidth where we want to focus on trying to bring basically covering all of the areas that open compute does right now and focusing on the specific needs of HPC in addition to instead of just doing mechanical layers, we want to go all the way down to silicon. So you've kind of touched on them a little bit because I have a little bit of familiarity with OCP but what are the big components of open compute that consists of the stack and what are especially focused on the primarily different ones than you could say like the commodity world uses right now. Yeah, so with open compute, it's not just one set standard. So the Facebook standard is called OpenRack and Microsoft back in January donated their own version which is very different. They updated that this past October but there's no really one set standard. The idea is that the project allows anyone to contribute anything and people can pick from that what they want to have. So for the major groups that is part of open compute, there's storage, networking, server design, open racks, certification, hardware management and the data center groups and each one is focused on accepting and reviewing submissions for their specific areas. Okay, so I actually got to see a one vendors implementation of OCP server and rack and one interesting thing was the rack was a different size and it used bus bar DC power in the back. Is that like a standard thing or is that just like what part of the community is looking at? I would say that that's the majority. So that's the open rack design that Facebook initially contributed for what we're doing with the HPC group. We're taking that primarily as a base but just the one thing I want to point out is that that's not a restriction. You people, there are other contributions of different designs for your racks and how blades and such. So but yeah, the basics are the open rack rack is 21 inches wide compared to your standard 19 inch and it has AC power dumped into it and has a bus bar, three different bus bars in the back to distribute power to the all of the blades. So let me ask a dumb question. I'm sorry, I'm a software guy. What's a bus bar? Yeah, so a bus bar is just metal bar in the back which is the actual power connectors when you slide that into the rack connect to it and that's what distributes power to it. So one of the neat designs with open rack is that for the full size unit you have three what are called power zones in the actual spec. And those three power zones are each according to the original Facebook contribution 40 and sec. I have to actually pull up the spec. I believe it's 4,200 watts. Yeah, 4,200 watts for each power supply. So instead of each having each server blade having its own power supply, the idea is to have that distributed across the rack. And so every single blade is receiving DC instead of AC. And so the actual conversion going from AC to DC only happens three times in the entire rack. And is there again, software guy, I'm very little knowledge about these things. Is there a benefit to that? The DC to AC conversion limiting that and how does that factor in with getting DC power into your server, into your data center as opposed to AC. I mean, is that difficult? Is that cheaper? Is that better somehow? Well, you still have the same AC in your data center for when you have the power supplies inside the rack because the actual connections to the rack itself are AC. And then that AC power goes into the power supplies and that does the conversion. So the advantage with having DC throughout the rack level is that you only have the conversion happen three times in this case. So instead of going from AC to DC which most power supplies are around 80 to 90% efficient for when Facebook was designing this they really wanted to have the best power supply designed. So they're almost at 95% efficiency at their target load level for the actual units. But the basic idea is instead of having that 80% power or sorry, 15, 20% power loss every time you go through a power supply like that which in a normal system would be happening at every single blade. The OCP model is to have that only happen once once per power zone and that power then be distributed to all of the blades in that power zone. And there are three of those in the standard open rack model. Okay, and all right, so that makes sense for that one. And another improvement or at least specification that you mentioned was that the rack was wider is 21 inches versus 19 inches. What was the rationale slash benefit for that? I think it was really just to be able to fit more in one rack in areas relatively cheap and so expanding the actual rack a couple inches doesn't really hurt you in terms of just rack density but in terms of how much actual components you can fit in there does help a lot. And it's also easily dividable into for Facebook they as part of that also contributed what they originally called when the first generation was called windmill and then now there's a winterfell which is the dividable blade up into three seven inch wide components. So like in a lot of the cases in my 19 inch racks we're putting two nodes in that 19 inches. So you're saying at 21 you're putting three. So you're actually saving space. Correct. Okay. So we've been talking about all these things so it sounds like higher density, higher power efficiency, this is all things that sounds like when we design a new HPC system things we're concerned about because we tend to be space constrained, power constrained, things like that. So what else about OCP do you think the HPC community is specifically interested in? Yeah. So I think that what has been contributed to the project so far is a good starting round when it comes to the new mechanicals. I am a fan of the open rack design. I think that's just having the bus bar is a nice improvements. And some of the things that we want to do in the HPC group with open rack specifically is integrating networking into the rack itself. So basically having dedicated networking spaces within the rack so you can connect nodes as we're assuming that you're going to be having this as a giant MPI cluster for instance. But as for the rest of the project we are not trying to step on the toes of the other groups and we really want to focus on optimizing both existing designs from open computers and accepting new ones that are focused on just low power, high performance and fast systems. Okay, so let's go into this a little bit more because like we said at the beginning here most people think open compute think your Facebook and other data-centric applications and whatnot and you're doing HPC specific designs. Give us some of the differences between some of the other designs that have been submitted for OCP. What are you focusing on? And you just touched on a couple things, right? So fast network, obviously, assumedly fast processors but you also said low power which sometimes contradicts HPC requirements. So give us some of the high points of what your HPC focused designs are looking at. Yeah, so I think for most of the HPC community as where I'll talk about having this huge almost insurmountable problem of getting to exascale that is primarily a power constraint. And so in the top 10 systems, power is the almost the number one constraint there. And I think that that's gonna be felt by more and more systems as we get closer to a petaflop machine being your average top 500 HPC platform in the future just as terror flop and tens of terror flops are now the norm now. But in terms of what we want to do specifically with the group, we have multiple phases set up as part of the part of our charter. And so this kind of first phase which we're just starting off now is taking the existing OCP designs and reformatting them a bit and to better suits the requirements for HPC. And we're starting that as, that's the most minimal amount of work. And that's the plan that we have for the next six months to a year where those designs would actually be finalized. And actually that's already we're planning on having those submissions in the beginning of next year. But in terms of a longer term, we think the big differentiating feature of the HPC group in terms of completely new contributions will be things at the silicon level which none of the other groups are touching. Ooh, at the silicon level. Okay, can you expand on that? What are you making? Yeah, so part of I guess my own company we're a fabulous semiconductor company. And so that's part of our goals. But from just the group level we believe that the existing semiconductor providers that are part of OCP don't necessarily target their silicon for HPC specifically. And so what we want to do is have a set of designs that are usable by both other semiconductor companies. So just specific IP specs for network-on-chips or chip-to-chip interconnects and things like that to allow it for it to be easier to actually merge all of these different components. And then from my own company perspective, the crazy thing that we want to do is actually have a open instruction set architecture as part of the group that is targeted for HPC. And as the group continues, we hope to contribute things on the RTL level as well. So are you talking about both new CPUs and a new type of networking? So not your traditional x86-based CPUs from large companies that Reimu Schmintel and Schmay-MD? Yes, so that's my own company doing that. And we have a couple others that are interested on the processor side. But the main silicon contributions or the bulk majority of them will mostly be in the networking area. So both on-chip, chip-chip, and just more targeted node-to-node silicon. Fascinating. So this is, what kind of network is it gonna be? Is it gonna be Ethernet? Is it gonna be InfiniBand or something new? Well, we're open to contributions from anyone, but in terms of what we're looking at right now is things from primarily RapidIO. And then in the future, kind of our longer, this is the three, four years off, but part of our charter is actually talking about the future of silicon photonics and how we think that as that's a new and emerging area that making sure that we have open specifications for that is an important piece for the future. I guess one other point with that is that company that runs with MIMTEL, they've contributed to the networking group, their own photonic interconnect stuff, but that currently only relates to their specific, it has to connect into their processors. And so with the HPC group, we will obviously love to have contributions from anyone. We do want to focus on having these systems be interoperable as in the future of the HPC data centers, we think that interoperability will also be very important and you don't wanna be stuck into having one specific manufacturer as you upgrade your system over its love time. So you keep saying, you know, contribution, participation, stuff like that. What is the actual process? I mean, your company is one of these contributors. What's the actual process for the working group and contributing stuff and getting it in the actual repositories of the project? Yeah, so anyone can become a member of Open Compute either as an individual or as a company, it's free. The only tiered paid levels are, you can either become one of those tiered levels by either contributing time and a certain number of specifications or you can pay for it, but you're only limited in not being able to become part of the incubation committee, which is the high, the kind of overseer of all the project groups.  And so for the actual processes, if you're a company that has a new specification, you would join Open Compute as an individual or a company. You would sign the contributor license agreement and basically that's just saying that you're not going to sue other people for using your spec and you're giving it up. You choose what license you want to submit and under. For hardware, there's two. There's the reciprocal and the permissive license. So it's similar to, basically you can think of it as the reciprocal as being more a GPL V2, V3. And then the permissive is more like the BSD license. And you submit that to the project lead for whatever group you think is most relevant for that. So if you're an HPC, you would send that to devastation myself. We would review it if we think that it's something, that's good for the group, which basically our checkmarks is that you're actually contributing full specification for something. It doesn't need to be a full blade or anything. It can be one very specific component, but if you're open about how you are plugging into it and everything so that others can look at that spec and make something that can plug nicely into that, most likely we'll think it's a good submission and then we'll put that out on the mailing list where people would be able to also see that and then we would submit it to the incubation committee, which would actually review both our project lead comments, the initial submission and then whoever submitted will be able to present that to the incubation committee and they would have the final approval. So you were talking about silicon before and then you also mentioned to make sure they're actually contributing a full spec. When you're looking at something like silicon, do they actually have to contribute the design of the chip or can they contribute the interfaces to a chip? So I'm a network vendor and I can say, okay, I'm going to contribute for OCP. Basically there's no cost to licensing the developer capability or the API for hardware is kind of thing, but basically how do you deal with like proprietary inside the chip, which normally people hold pretty closely, but then have this interoperability around the outside? Yeah, proprietary insides we're expecting as being the norm. And so the main idea is that we want them to be able to say, okay, here outside of the NDA world to have their chip and we have rapid IO, we have ethernet, we have infinite band on this chip. Here's the connections for that. Here's, you know, all of our Rata, other things and here's how to place it on a board. That's kind of how we see like initial submissions being. Hopefully as we get further into the future and there's more submissions on the component side that as if there's a open compute, there's a specific network on chip or chip-to-chip interconnect or something along those lines. Okay, so this is a fascinating blend of proprietary and openness. How do you envision this playing out, particularly when you said at the beginning that your goals were that you could go to a contract fabbing plant or manufacturer or something and say, hey, build me this, but parts of it are going to be proprietary. How would they be able to build those proprietary parts in conjunction with the open rest of the system or did I misunderstand that? Yeah, so when I was saying that previously, that was more in relation to the existing OCP designs for the mechanical and for the board level systems, not including the processors or that silicon. And so with the HPC group and us trying to open up the silicon, we think that that's more of a long-term thing and fabrication costs are expensive. So even if someone wanted to do that, most wouldn't want to pay the upfront cost to go to fab and that's really go to TSMC or Global Foundries or one of those and even if the entire chip was open, I doubt that many people would go out and have those fabbed on a whim. And so I still think that the actual semiconductor companies themselves are going to be very involved in actually making those in the future and they'll be selling those. The point of it being open is just so that at the initial design level, that an engineer can see those specs, see exactly how that should be placed in the system and design that without the constraints of NDAs and having to go and talk to every single sales team from all these different companies, there's a one place where you can go and see things that are all supposed to be interoperable. So what has your personal experience been like working on open source hardware? Yeah, so I started Rex computing a little over a year ago and initially we were kind of had the goal of being a semiconductor company, but initially the idea was to just be a box manufacturer and taking off the shelf components. But then back in March of this year, we're looking out there specifically for the area that we want to target. We didn't see any chips out there that really met our needs. And so we started designing our processor architecture and August or so we had some stuff working on FPGAs and we were trying to think of, okay, what's our actual business plan? We have some cool stuff running on FPGA with some nice demos, but it doesn't really mean much if you can't sell it or raise money or anything. So that was when I was getting involved with open compute and had the kind of crazy idea of, well, if we're going up and competing against Intel and these other giant behemoth companies that have the established install base and we're coming with this new architecture that you have to recompile your software. How could we ever break into the market? And what we came up with is, well, why don't we make it so that anyone can make compatible chips with us? Because if we donate the instruction set architecture and we have quote unquote competitors with us that are making competing chips, that would actually be a good thing because if there's other people who are evangelizing the base architecture that we all share and are contributing to the software ecosystem, that is really just pushing the architecture forward. And so this is, in a similar way to I think how Linux kind of pushed the Unix ideas from the 80s and had it in the late 90s through the 2000s became an actual real push against Microsoft. And you didn't see that when all every single company had their own Unix. So back in the 80s and 90s, Sun, HP, Deck, everyone all had their own Unix piece and they weren't really compatible with each other and none of them gained any significant market share and they were just all fighting to the death. But as soon as Linux came about and became significantly stable enough, that became kind of a unifying place where everyone could go to that, use that and share in the spoils and each company would then make specific, they would differentiate in their specific areas and that's how they would profit. Okay, so you just described the process for getting a spec in there. Clarification question on that. Is there discussion about these submissions? I mean, is there negotiation or, well, not because you said you're, consider yourselves a standards body. So when somebody submits a spec, is there discussion about that spec or is it more like, here's my spec, enjoy. You guys either publish that or not, right? You know, you accept it or you reject it. Is there more to it than that? Yeah, so the kind of points I just didn't emphasize previously were, so when it's initially submitted to the project leads, we talk with whoever submitted it and if we have any questions, we hope to get it from them and once our questions are sufficiently satisfied, we put that out to the group mailing list. So the kind of involvement place for everyone in the group, we have a mailing list which anyone can join and that's where we discuss submissions and just our general plans. We also have bi-weekly calls where we would also be going over those submissions. So you're a fabulous design and your company specifically focuses on certain pieces of it. What is the process, do you see most OCP vendors? Like if I wanted to go buy one of these things, do you see them building all of the pieces based on the specs? Are they sourcing certain parts from others? What are you kind of seeing being the norm? So I think the norm for if you're building a system and there will be a mix of if you have some specific alteration that you need, if you're talking with whoever the contract manufacturer is, you can download the actual mechanical drawings and such of whatever the open rack component that you want to modify. You can change that up and then send that to a manufacturer and that works pretty well at the mechanical, the rack and blade levels. And then I'm also assuming for significant a certain, if you're a large enough company or project that you would be designing your own piece, your own motherboards, which there's examples which are contributed to the group and you can modify that and get that made at some contract place. But when it comes to the actual semiconductor area, I still think that that's going to be pretty tightly controlled by the actual semiconductor companies just because the costs of fabrication are pretty high and to do a run just to get the masks made are $5 million and I think that that's, you're still going to have to go to whoever you want the chips from there. They are going to be the ones selling them to you. Okay, so you mentioned a lot of things about the OCP project here from the submission to the design to the goals and things like that. How can somebody get involved? I mean, more specifically, what are the opportunities for different levels of involvement?  What do you think are the opportunities for involvement for these or other types of groups? Yeah, so for Open Compute in general, you could just go to the website opencompute.org and read over the website. You can see a lot more about all of the other groups. Under the community tab, you can click on get involved and it talks about exactly what they, how to actually contribute and be involved in that way. But in terms of the HPC group specifically, unlike many of the other groups which don't really have the academic or government involvement, we see that as being a particularly strong part of our group for HPC. And so we're trying to make it as easy for anyone to join and the simplest way without actually even, becoming an official member of the project, you can just go and register for the mailing list, which there's links to that on the Open Compute website and I'll also provide a link to you guys to go join that and you can read through the archives and join, send an email, ask questions, anything. And we're trying to just have it be a very simple process to start and ask questions. So for someone who's listening right now and this sounds of interest to them, what would you say like where your top one, two or three needs right now, someone who's got a skill set that you could use or time or resources that you could use, particularly in the HPC group? Yeah, so right now we're very early, we have not had any submissions yet. Our charter is not yet approved, it's going to be approved at the next Incubation Committee meeting. But the basic, we currently have over 50 members as part of our mailing list from a wide variety of companies, every networking, semiconductor, storage, everything all part of our HPC group. But what I think the more involvement at least I would like to see and I'm biased as a semiconductor guy is, I think others involved in the Silicon would be great, but really anyone where we want this group to be pushing the bleeding edge in all of the areas that affect HPC. The basic idea when we're talking to other people within Open Compute, part of the other groups is that we're working on the specs for the systems all you guys will be using in five years since we think that the trickle down from HPC to more general data centers is just how things have always been. And that we want to focus on that and have that be more open so that in five years when data center requirements obviously continue to go up that people will be able to pull from those submissions and start integrating those into their more commodity systems. Okay, Thomas, again, what's the website for OCP? Yeah, it's opencomputet.org. Okay, and thanks a lot for your time. Well, thank you. Thanks, Thomas.