Hello and welcome, we are so grateful to have you here for another episode of the nonprofit show. Today our guest is Dominic calms which I'm probably going to refer to as Dom at the entire episode, but Dominic is the founder and CEO of be generous. He's been on the show with us just one time before so I'm excited to get more information from him. He's a wicked smart guy he's got so much great insight and information to share with us in the sector. In particular today's episode is about economic change and the impact that it might have with our donors so before we dive deep with you Dom we want to remind our viewers and our listeners who we are so I'm Jared ransom your nonprofit nerd CEO of the raven group, and I am grateful for Julia Patrick who created this American nonprofit Academy platform called the nonprofit show. She's taking a much needed week off and I hope that she is resting well and getting back up to speed because we have a lot happening. We also want to give shout outs to our amazing presenting sponsors, including Dom and his company be generous. But we also want to say thank you to blooming American nonprofit Academy fundraising Academy at the National University again be generous. Your part time controller staffing boutique nonprofit thought leader and the nonprofit nerd. These companies keep us going and growing but better than that. We're here for you. They're here to elevate your mission they're here to support you. So look into them research them contact them because they are all fantastic. We've already done the benchmark test and we approve so thumbs up to these amazing sponsors for sure. I also want to remind you that you know if you're bored this weekend and you've got the trip to fan kind of going on, you can go in and watch many of our episodes all of our episodes on Roku YouTube, Amazon Fire TV, as well as Vimeo and for those of you that are podcasters and maybe you want to walk off that turkey.  You've been waiting so patiently and I know that's probably really hard for you because you've got high energy and I always love nerding out with you but Dominic calms founder CEO at be generous and for those of you that are listening. Check out be generous.com it's just the letter be and then generous.com so welcome Dom. Thank you so much for having me. It's great to be with me. It's great to have you and we've nerded out beyond the nonprofit show so I've gotten a lot of taste of you and really enjoy what you bring to the sector, your energy your passion. So for those of you that are watching and listening I would love for Dom to share a little bit about yourself and then of course about this platform be generous. Yeah, so I was born in Asia, I was born in Hong Kong, kind of interesting and then grew up in London, England, and eventually made my way to the US ended up at University and grad school New York City, and ended up on Wall Street after graduate school at Columbia University I didn't love it. So I was on Wall Street for a few years. And I thought there's got to be more to life than this and so I ended up going to the public sector, and I was a political aid to the Afghanistan ambassador during the war in Afghanistan which was incredibly fascinating, and was an associate in the chairman's office of the Senate Finance Committee, which was very, very cool so I moved to Washington DC I worked in the United States Senate on Capitol Hill for the chairman of the finance committee so we were doing some interesting work during the first Obama administration. And, you know, ultimately decided that maybe there was a way that I could combine the dynamism the resources of the private sector with the promise of the public sector which is to improve the conditions of the world somehow. And I thought well that would be where I want to sort of have my career. And so I found myself at this very niche intersection of profit and purpose. So, where I've really spent my last 10 years is building private technology companies that are traditionally backed by investors and venture capital money, but that build products to create efficiencies in the largest underserved sector finance in the world, which is the US philanthropic market. And all these companies philtech companies philanthropy technology companies kind of a play on fintech but we are a philtech company so I'm currently running my third philtech company called be generous and that that's a little bit about my story. I love it and I love what you do. Excited to join forces forces with you as well to get more people you know on this platform, the donate now the pay later methods so excited for that and thank you for sharing more about yourself. We dive deep really you know when it comes to the economy and donors and as we move forward into 23 but talk to us Tom a little bit about what are the current donors and the giving trends that you're seeing and just, you know, far and why talk to us about this. Yeah, it's not great. So I don't just say that because our product solves this problem so yeah shameless plug, but also if you look at the giving trends they're not great so. Kiva just did a study the micro lending platform and concluded that most donors say they're going to give less this giving season and 44% of them cited lack of funds, which makes a lot of sense you know consumer spending is growing at a related rate only grew 2% in the first nine months of this year inflation obviously was running at 8% at one point which is eroding the purchasing power of most Americans and 41% of Americans now reports struggling to buy basic goods on a monthly basis 41% you know one of every two people so I think you know most nonprofit should expect a tighter season this year, having said that you know, even in recessions and debatable if we're in one or not but even in recessions charitable giving doesn't normally go down very much so it's somewhat inelastic charitable giving. Now it does go down on average about half of the point during a recession but that's not a sizable dip compared to a lot of other industries which can see the decline of 1020% in some cases. So Americans are very philanthropic Americans like to give Americans do give an extraordinary high levels. But I think this year with consumer spending where it's at, and people's perceptions of the economy, which does influence their spending habits, and at the same time inflation where it is. You know there's been obviously a lot of mass layoffs in the tech sector in particular, but that news sort of ripples throughout the economy, the meltdown of FTX the crypto exchange and others. I think that Americans will probably not give as much this year as they traditionally do. And you know, I mean to be honest with you that's why products like the generous and donate now pay later are so helpful to nonprofits, and why so many nonprofits have adopted our product because it actually actually genuinely solves this problem. And when obviously when I started the company two years ago I wasn't anticipating a recession. But this product, what we created donate now pay later actually solves this problem we're talking about so we can get into that later but that's my thought on on kind of donations. Yeah, no thank you and and at the end of this episode we're going to ask you to pull out that crystal ball because I knew you had one because you could forecast this you know two years ago to say hey this. This is what we need. And I just have to say personally Dom you know, I'm getting emails almost daily from vendors and you know people that I do business with that are announcing their pay increase or their rate increase I should say for next year. And I am feeling that sting and it's like, it's just, it's inevitable fear, and I just have to name it I have to you know kind of own that and witness to everyone because when those emails hit my inbox, I immediately am like, Okay, you know but it like it like insights a little bit of fear, a little bit of uncertainty and so at the end of the year. Here we are q for 20, you know 2022. This is giving season and we have, we have trained our society to give the majority of their giving and these final months and yet also the recipient of inflation. Totally totally I mean, yeah it's it's not great you know 40% of all donations come in November December with five to 8% coming in the last day of the year which is incredible and obviously giving Tuesday is a is a big giving day as well so you know we are running at you over 6% inflation right now and it remains to be seen if the fed can get that under control but I mean that really will erode purchasing power if 41% of Americans saying they're struggling buying basic goods and the price of certain foods for example about 1520% rent is up significantly across the country. I mean home prices haven't majorly corrected yet so I think most Americans are going to be thinking about themselves this year and you know we can understand that right we got to put food on the table and got to be able to put gas in the car whatever it might be and not necessarily thinking about how much can I give away right now. And you know as much as that's tough to hear you know given that we're both in the nonprofit sector. I mean it's understandable in a certain in a certain respect right I think it's clear that Americans want to give more. In fact, Fidelity charitable created this wrote this great report called overcoming barriers to charitable giving. They pulled American donors last year. And they concluded that about 72% of American donors said they want to give more, but are constrained by their current cash position or liquidity right. So even more impetus for starting be generous and donate now pay later because again it really solves a problem like that but yeah I mean Americans are philanthropic and want to give but I think some are constrained by their ability to really do so.  Right. And so it's the same concept and I just kind of bake it down to that level because you know if this is the current donor trends and giving trends that we're seeing. It begs the question will donors try new giving portals bring this economic change something like be generous. What are you seeing in that space. The answer is is that I always like to say the proof is in the pudding right so let's look at our trajectory we launched two months ago. We were expecting to sign maybe a few nonprofits between now and the end of the year it's giving season it's busy season. We've signed almost 100 nonprofits in like a couple of weeks including some really big ones, like for example, Peter, people for the ethical treatment of animals which is really big obviously, and core, which is one of the largest organizations in the country, and the Jewish Federation of Massachusetts and beat a week. And I mean I just go on and on and on. So, the point is that there are certainly demand for our product, our product works incredibly well. And we have received over in just in just a few weeks $75,000 of donation loan requests from small dollar donors so it is it is working and it is working well. And, you know, we obviously for those who don't know we've created the first ever philanthropic credit product which instead of allowing somebody to buy now pay later, allow somebody to donate now and pay later so exactly what you said, the nonprofit gets the donation upfront right away immediately, but the donor doesn't have to spend any money out of pocket, and instead the donor pays for that donation over three six or nine months, completely for free. No transaction costs, no, no late fees no hidden fees no interest payments nothing like that so you just taking your donation spreading it out over three six or nine months, but we'll send the nonprofit the money today. I love it one of the things I talked to my clients about is, you know the power of the sustaining donor. And if we look at $1,000 as a gift an annual gift that is broken down to $83 and 33 cents per month right so if we're talking to donors and they want to give more, perhaps they want to move from 500 and double that to 1000, you know what does that look like on that monthly basis so that hopefully we can, you know, have them give more as they wish because as you said, 70 71% said that they wanted to give more as they were giving, but the reality is, you know, as I even mentioned the inflation, the fear of the unknown, the economic turmoil, we're also talking about a campaigning season and anything politics kind of, you know, jumps into the philanthropy space as well so I love that you're having great success on this Dom and I'm not surprised. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. Yeah, it's been, it's been delightful to be honest with you.  So donors are comfortable we know donors are comfortable giving monthly just because you look at the data. The problem with monthly giving really is twofold one, not all nonprofits can afford to have money drip in over the course of each month because they a lot of nonprofits need the liquidity now you know half of all nonprofits have less than one month of cash reserves on hand half right so a lot of nonprofits need the money now and the other benefit which is this is the biggest drawback I mean drawback excuse me is according to guide star 50% of donors who signed up to give monthly don't make it to the first year, they drop out right so there maybe it's a credit card expiration maybe it's a plaid link, you know breaks for their ACH account maybe they just cancel it might be. And so nonprofit it's not necessarily reliable revenue because 50% of people are canceling, according to guide star for whatever reason then that's a huge drop off rate, and then nonprofits have a choice that we just let it go or do we pay for expensive overhead to try to then collect and try to actually get people back on. So the difference between that in our product is that from our standpoint, non donors from our product donors. This is a monthly gift from our donor, whether it's $19 on a sustainer model or $19 a month on our model, it's the same thing money coming out of your account every month no fees or anything like that. The difference for the donor is they'll get the full tax deduction right away. So if it's $100 times 12, they'll get $1,200 tax deduction today, although they don't actually spend any money. And the biggest benefit for the nonprofit, and this is a big benefit is that even if the donor stops paying, the nonprofit gets all the money up front. And of course we don't claw it back or anything like that. So if I signed up to give $100 a month and to let's just say PETA one of our clients and PETA gets $1,200 right. And then I decide on month three I'm not going to pay anymore. PETA has nothing to do with PETA PETA already has the money. Right so in a normal sustainer model, PETA would be out effectively $900 in that instance right and they wouldn't get they would literally have lost $900 if I canceled on the third month. Whereas in this opportunity to donate now pay later, PETA gets $1,200 and they get it now. So it's, you know, it's a it's a good model, it's a good model. It's a great model. And I loved your story to you had. I think the first episode Don you shared about a gala or gala. Where someone wanted to buy this, I think it was like an electric guitar and they were like well we can't wasn't you were you sitting next to the guy and you're like I was yeah, I just love that so okay we're not going to tell the entire story because I want people to go back to that story. It was a good one. But I think that's you know it's it's phenomenal so. Okay, now's the time to pull up that crystal ball. So shine it up pull it out because clearly you're the one that had it two years ago to start, you know the But what is your crystal ball forecast moving you know closing up this year moving into 2023. There's a lot of uncertainty there's a lot of unsettled individuals. What are you forecasting in the philanthropy space for the new year. I think the number of donors overall will be slightly down this year the number of donors, but I think there will be a net increase in total donations. So when you see the numbers that are going to come out probably toward the middle of next year right they always do them six months later so when the numbers come out, you know six months later so you're talking about kind of middle of next year for 2022. And I think they'll show a net increase in the total amount donated, but a reduction in the overall number of donors so if you look last year, about $484 billion was donated to nonprofits. And about 75% of Americans gave that's kind of the general statistic. I think this year you'll see that 484 go up it'll maybe be closer like 494 92 something in that range I don't think it'll be much higher than that. The overall percentage of Americans who give will be in like the mid 60s. So what that effectively means is that wealthier Americans will give more, and people who cannot afford to give as much will probably drop out of giving this year or give or give less is what I'm predicting. No, I would say you're right and I want to say like you heard it here first you know like a quote Dom on this forecast for next year. I think you're right there's a lot of money out there and so what I want to encourage people is don't stop asking right the people that have the money to give and the propensity to give they will give. And I think the worst thing you can do is to sit on the sidelines or push that pause button and I think we both know Dom there are a lot of organizations that did that in 2020, and they might have closed their doors by now. Well, what's crazy is that there was a net increase in giving during cobit like, like everything else right when cobit first sort of came to the United States everything dipped consumer spending films of course because nobody what the hell was going on everyone thought, you know this is the end of the time forever so to philanthropic giving in that first quarter where cobit slammed into the US, it precipitate precipitate drop just like everything else though, but then, if you look over the last two years, give there was a net positive, I think it was 6 to 7% net increase and philanthropic giving during that cobit period which means exactly what you said, which is that those who can afford to get stepped up and gave more and also with the growth of donor advise funds, which have you know almost $200 billion of assets under a million dafts in this country that has also spurred philanthropic giving so I think I think that's right nonprofits should not sit on the sidelines. And you know there are there are lots of innovative products like donate now pay later and be generous and others that can that can allow donors to give without stressing their bank account I mean that's literally our motto it be generous. So allow donors to give what they want to give, not what they're constrained to give, and it's no cost to them. So to your point a moment ago, the donor who normally gives maybe 100 bucks might now say, well I can give $200 because it's only going to cost me $20 a month. Right for 10 months as an example, but the nonprofits going to get $200 now. So it's like a win win for everybody you know so I think I do agree with you I don't nonprofit shouldn't sit on the sidelines. Okay, is now a good time to ask about your end of year campaign that you're offering for be generous, as I've seen it on LinkedIn and I know we've got a time to connect as well but tell our viewers and listeners what be generous is offering, offering my apologies for the end of your campaign. Yeah, absolutely. So we're doing an exciting end of year campaign, we're matching, we're matching donations so we're basically going to try to give away essentially up to a million dollars of matching donations for our clients who use donate now pay later. So we have a bunch of clients as I mentioned who use donate now pay later and we're essentially going to double up their donations that they raise between now and the end of the year at no additional costs so there's no strings attached there's no cost to any of this. You know $100 on donate now pay later will make it $200. So we will match dollar for dollar up to a certain cap, depending on the size of your organization and like I said there's no strings attached. It's just straight matching grant. Yeah, no I love that. And it's something that you know I really think we need to look into because I just I love the model so much. We did have a viewer asked you know hey what was this last episode that Dom was on so I, I just diverted my eyes to our spreadsheet so it was episode 643 but it was on October the fifth so it was, you know how fintech can be used for good in the nonprofit space and so Dom was on his inaugural episode for us it was October the fifth so you can go back and take a look at that you can hear the gala story. I love it I like to do a lot of MC events for our MC services for galas, and I always plug it I'm like you know if you had this service.  They basically were stressed out about how much they wanted to donate and I said you could do this doing donate not pay later, and the guy was like, I can, I can make this charitable contribution now but it's not going to cost me any money. The nonprofit gets gets the donation I'll get the guitar because it was guitar like you said, I could pay for this over the course of a year at no cost to me and I'm like yeah he's like oh it's a no braider. So he got these so he bid it on the guitar and he got it, and it cost him nothing and he gets to segment those costs over the course of a year, but of course he got the guitar and the nonprofit got the donation. It's, it's so fantastic so well thanks for all you do, Julie and I are actually looking at crystal balls because clearly we need to invest in the crystal ball method and the forecasting of this. I'm just hearing what you're forecasting and I do think you're right so if I was a betting woman I would put a bet on on your forecast for sure. But again, Dominic calms founder CEO with be generous. Check him out and chances are he could be in your neighborhood or your community he's got a very lofty travel schedule coming up, and then do check out the website be generous.com donate now pay later fill tech company doing some really, really great work. And again, Julie and I are always so grateful to have amazing rock stars like yourself Dom join us in the conversation. We are coming up on our 700th episode right around Christmas day, but we couldn't do it without the support of you Dom at be generous so thank you so very much, and also to our other amazing rock star sponsors which include blamering American nonprofit Academy fundraising Academy at National University, again be generous. Your part time controller staffing boutique nonprofit thought leader and the nonprofit nerd. It's a good time to check out these companies because they really are here to help you elevate your mission in around and throughout your communities. So please do check them out you won't regret it again we've added them thumbs up from us they're they're awesome. You'll hear more from Dom and our other sponsors, moving into the new year so thank you Dom it's it's always a pleasure. I know we're wrapping up a little early but we fit a lot into this conversation. And as we talked about before I think some people still need to hit the grocery store so maybe we'll give them a little bit more time. Absolutely it's a pleasure being with you always thanks for having me on and thanks for giving us the opportunity to talk about what we built and how it can help nonprofits. And I hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving and I hope everybody has a nice Thanksgiving. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for all you do it's always fun to nerd out with you and other rock stars with the same mindset that are innovative and disruptive so thank you for being who you are very grateful. And for those of you that have joined us so glad to have you here, another fantastic episode of the nonprofit show. This is it for the week so that's a wrap for the week we're going to be enjoying our family our friends are turkey. The rest of the week so join us back on Monday, but get some rest and until then, we ask you to stay well, so you can do well. Thanks everyone.


Welcome to Kangaroo Island, our home, a place that's pretty unique. Our secluded location helps keep our industries and our natural environment free of disease. We protect our island as if our future depends on it because it does. Kangaroo Island is known for its disease-free soils. Together our growers produce about 16% of Australia's sea potatoes. The island is also home to the purest strain of the Ligurian bee left in the world. Not bringing honey products to Kangaroo Island will help us protect the unique Ligurian bee. Kangaroo Island's natural environment has had a tough time over the last few years. Now more than ever, it's important to protect it from plant pests. Pest animal species also threaten the island's native wildlife, like our beautiful K.I. Kidner. Marine pests don't just threaten our biodiversity, but also our fishing, agriculture and tourism, which are all lifelines for our locals. If you have any items you are unsure about, put them into the amnesty bins at the ferry terminal or at the airport. Remember our team work really hard to keep Kangaroo Island free of disease by conducting random biosecurity checks. Help us to protect our island home. Our best defence against biosecurity threats is you.


Hi guys, LaptopMedia already in Taipei, Taiwan. Nihao. Don't worry, it's in Chinese. I hope so. It's pretty hot here, but it's gonna be even hotter when the technology starts to flow at Computex 2015. Actually, we just behind the Taipei 101 building, where we have an appointment with G-Smart in one hour. Yeah, let's see what's new with the company, their new plants, new products. That will be the beginning of our 2015 trip at Computex. Stay updated with our live coverage or let's see our reports from Computex 2015. LaptopMedia.com is the place for that or subscribe to our YouTube channel not to miss our videos. See you soon guys. See you.


And it is time for another Vintage GI Joe Twer review and I'm proud to announce that the entire month of April 2017 will be Battleforce 2000 Months. This month we are going to look at a whole first wave of Battleforce 2000 from 1987. Now, I'm no math scientist, but according to my phone app called a calendar, there appear to be five Sundays in the month of April. That means this month, instead of doing five reviews, we're going to do six. That means for one of the weeks in April, instead of doing one full review, we are going to do two full reviews for a total of six for the month. My God. What have I done to myself? There are reasons we're doing it this way. For one thing, all of the vehicles in Battle Force 2000 had a gimmick. You could detach certain parts of them and put them together to form the future fortress. With each review, we will assemble part of the future fortress. At the end of the month, we will look at the entire future fortress and see what we think about it. Also, Battle Force 2000 will be part of the Jocon 2017 exclusive figure set. Some of you will be going to Jocon and picking up those exclusive figures, so I thought you might like to see the vintage versions of those figures before you go out and buy the new ones. Now, I don't know much about modern GI Joe action figures, so for each vintage figure that we review, Joe Fan 82 will give us a preview of what to expect from the modern version of that figure. Hey guys, Joe Fan 82 here. This year at Jocon, we'll be seeing the first modern versions of the Battle Force 2000 figures. So after HCC reviews the vintage figure, I'll be taking a look at what we can expect from the Collectors Club for Avalanche. Thank you, Joe Fan 82 for providing the previews. Now, Battle Force 2000 is a divisive subject among GI Joe fans. Few loved it, some thought it was okay. A lot of people didn't like it very much, but I'm going to try to be as fair as I can with these toys. One quirk about the Battle Force 2000 sub team within GI Joe is that none of the vehicle drivers were sold with the vehicles they were intended to drive. All of the figures and vehicles were sold separately, and that's not usually how GI Joe would do it. But despite that fact, for these reviews, both vehicle and driver will be reviewed together. Let's kick off Battle Force 2000 months by looking at the Dominator snow tank and the sold separately driver Avalanche. This is the 1987 Battle Force 2000 Dominator snow tank and Avalanche the Dominator driver. Thanks to Lenny Allen for helping me complete the Avalanche figure. You helped make this video possible. As you can see, we have two Avalanche figures here. That means we will be looking at a variant. Battle Force 2000 was a new concept in 1987. It was a small team that would field test experimental equipment for GI Joe. Even though GI Joe had expanded its science fiction elements by 1987, Battle Force 2000 took it even farther, with entirely futuristic looking figures and vehicles. The problem was, GI Joe already had a lot of futuristic experimental vehicles and figures. So Battle Force 2000 was kind of redundant. I would like to direct your attention to a GI Joe Berg podcast episode that had an excellent discussion of Battle Force 2000. The Battle Force 2000 vehicles in the 1987 series had an added gimmick. Parts of them would detach and you could put them together to form the future fortress. Hasbro set up Destro's private army, the Iron Grenadiers as enemies for Battle Force 2000. They even went so far as to put Battle Force 2000 logos on the Iron Grenadiers packaging. But as far as I know, the Iron Grenadiers were never used for that purpose in GI Joe media. Another problem with Battle Force 2000, all of the 1987 Battle Force 2000 figures were vehicle drivers, yet none were packaged with the vehicles. They were all sold as carded figures. There was no reason to do this other than to squeeze more nickels out of the kids. It emulated what Kenner did with Star Wars toys. Their pilots and drivers were also sold separately, much to the annoyance of many a Star Wars fan. A couple things for this video that I don't normally have. I have the box for the Dominator, it's a bit beat up, but we can take a look and see how the Dominator appeared on retail shelves. I also have the full card back for Avalanche. Let's set the action figures aside for now so we can take a close look at the Dominator. Let's start by looking at the box for the Dominator, why not? And we have some artwork for the Dominator, it shows Avalanche driving it, and these background colors of blue and purple that were standard for Battle Force 2000 are a little weak. They definitely did not pop as much as the explosion background for the standard GI Joe line. We have the GI Joe logo up here on top, we have the Battle Force 2000 logo under it. It says Dominator in parentheses, snow tank, two battle units in one. We have the future fortress ad right here in the corner. On the bottom we have the same artwork, and on the top we have basically just text and logos. On the back though we have a photograph of the vehicle, and this looks like it's a photo of a prototype because there are some differences between this photo and the toy that we actually got. For one thing, the antennae are two separate pieces and the hatch is flat rather than raised. So those are some changes they made to the vehicle before it went into production. As you can see the Dominator is colored white, it is a snow tank. This one is slightly yellowed, not too bad, these do tend to discolor over time. This isn't quite as white as it used to be, but it's pretty close. Dominator was also the name of a later vehicle, Destro's Dominator, and there's no relation between the two. Let's look at the parts and the features of the Dominator starting here in the front. In the front we have a grill, and we have the GI Joe logo and the Battle Force 2000 logo side by side. We have a latch here for the split open gimmick, and we will take a look at that later. We have two black guns, which pivot, and the blueprints call these Twin Terror dual pivoting 7.62mm machine guns. 7.62mm by 51mm was the standard NATO round. Both guns pivot, but do not elevate. We have foot pegs on the running boards on both sides, so extra figures can ride along. Also on both sides we have tool boxes, and these two open up, the covers pop off, but on my example the covers are on there pretty tightly and they're kind of difficult to get off. I used my trusty mini screwdriver to pop these covers off, and they are very tight. To me it seems like they're made wrong. They have a tab here on the top, so it seems like you should pull them off from the top, but it actually seems to work better to pull them up from the bottom, but it's not easy to do that because the tab is on the top. There is some detail on the cover itself, and then you can see the inside of the toolbox. It really just kind of looks like some extra gadgetry there. See some engine detail. To put them back on, it seems better to push them up from the top, and then push back in at the bottom. That just seems to work a lot better. Same thing on the other side, and that snaps back in pretty easily. We have the main turret, and this is the most tank-like feature on this vehicle. It can turn 360 degrees, the cannon, the black cannon does elevate and has a pretty good range of motion on this. The blueprints call this cannon the Battle Dog 152mm XM175 gun-slash-missile launcher. How does it launch missiles? I don't know. Attached to the main turret, we have the antennae. They are green, they are swept back, they are attached at the base, and like all G.I. Joe antennae, they tend to go missing. On the main turret, we have the hatch cover. It is also in green, and you can pop that up and open it to reveal the cockpit. The inside of the vehicle has no detail whatsoever, it's just a big cavity in there for the driver. There are a couple different ways you can put the figure in the vehicle. You can stand the figure up so he is partially exposed, and this is not a bad way to display the figure with the vehicle. The other way to put the figure in is to have him sitting inside the tank, and it's easier to do that without the accessories. Just bend his legs and sit him down in there. He can go all the way down in there, and you can close the hatch.  When the figure is sitting inside the tank, his head still pokes out a little bit above the top of the turret. So I think this is why they changed it from a flat hatch on the prototype to a raised hatch on the production vehicle, so you can fit the action figure in there and still close the hatch. On the other side, we have six wheels, and we will take a closer look at those wheels when we look at the mini vehicle inside the shell. But since it does have wheels, it's more like an armored car than a tank. Treads may have worked better for a snow tank than these tiny wheels. Outside of the wheelbase, we have blue skis, and these are for unpowered downhill sliding. Not only would skiing with a tank be fun, it would also allow the dominator to approach an enemy silently. These skis can swing up, but that's really for fortress mode. The back is pretty plain. It has this large hinge that is not very aesthetically pleasing, but this is for the split open gimmick. It also has this ZZ EHB3, and this kind of looks like backwards calculator typing. Was there somebody at Hasbro named Ed Hess? There is no tow hook here in the back and really nothing else at all. Finally, it's time to split open the outer shell. We have a latch here on the bottom and another one here on the top, and we're going to kind of squeeze it together and pop that open. It's not very easy, unfortunately, and it makes a horrible cracking sound. It's not breaking, but it feels like it's going to break, but we split that shell open to reveal the sub vehicle inside. Here is the mini tank, and this outer shell I guess you could use as its own sub vehicle. It does still have the skis, but we're going to show how this works for the future fortress later. We're going to set that aside for now. The body of the mini tank is smaller than the outer shell, of course, but the cannon is the same size. This gives it a comical look. It looks like a tank that has shrunk in the wash. Looking at the parts and the features of the mini tank, we have a brush bar here in the front that's green. We have a couple headlights, and we have two small pivoting guns. The blueprints don't say what these guns are, but the box says they are laser guns. It has a couple removable hatches for weapons lockers. It's best to move the turret to the side, and like the ones on the outer shell, these can be a little bit difficult to pop up. They can both come off like that. On this one, on this side, it has some molded-in grenades. That's a nice touch there. On this side, it has some kind of cylinder, which maybe are some extra energy rods for its laser gun or something like that, I don't know. But still, interesting details in those weapons lockers. You can just pop those right back on. They should snap in there without too much trouble for you. Now, they have these lock-unlock handles here, and these are all over the vehicle in several places there and there. They're also on the outer shell, so that's just kind of a little detail they added to lock and unlock it, I guess. This is the same main gun turret we looked at before. There's no reason to rehash that. On the other side, we have those six wheels, and we can see them better now. They have green hubcaps. They do roll pretty well. They roll better for the mini-tank than they do with the outer shell on. Moving to the back of the vehicle, just under the back port side corner of the gun turret, there is what looks like it should be a fuel port, but it has been filled in, and I think that's too bad. Having a fuel port back there would have been a nice touch that would have integrated it more with the main GI Joe line. Finally, in the back, we have a troop carrying platform with two foot pegs and a tow hook, which the outer shell lacks. Now let's take a look at that outer shell and see how it transforms to become part of the future fortress. You just split it open like a pistachio and swing it around to about a 90-degree angle, and then flip the skis up, and in this position it forms the outer wall of the fortress. It doesn't look too much like a fortress yet, but let's see if it looks like a fortress by the end of these Battle Force 2000 reviews. Now let's look at Avalanche, and the name Avalanche was reused for a vehicle in 1990, but there is no relation between this figure and that vehicle, they just shared the same name. In 1987, Avalanche was available as a single-carded figure. In 1988, they started selling Battle Force 2000 figures in two packs. Avalanche was sold with his Battle Force 2000 teammate, Blaster. This may have been done to make up for not packaging the drivers with the vehicles. Unfortunately, this doesn't help kids who didn't have both of the vehicles for the figures in the two packs, or if they had already bought one of them as a single figure. Let's take a look at Avalanche's card back, and one thing I don't like about Battle Force 2000 cards is the large area of negative space just above the blister. You can't really tell on this card because it's peeled off, but this entire area between the logo and the bubble is just plain black with no text and no art, and to me, this looks like poor composition. Another annoying thing is, since the figures were not packaged with the vehicles, we have card art that does not show the vehicle. In fact, the vehicle does not appear anywhere on this card. Here in the back we have a partition for Battle Force 2000 in the cross cell. They did the same thing for Tiger Force. We have our single flag point, and we have Avalanche's file card, we will look at that later. Let's take a look at Avalanche's accessories. He came with a large rifle, and the card contents call this a P480 Sub-Zero Stun Gun. It is in silver plastic. It looks like a futuristic laser rifle with a Buck Rogers aesthetic. Stun Gun implies that this is a non-lethal weapon. Wait a minute, hold on. Yep, yep, yep, there it is. There's his lethal weapon. Avalanche's other accessory is his microphone, and his microphone attaches to his helmet. And a couple holes that attach to pegs on the sides of the helmet. And this microphone is pretty large as far as microphones go, but because it is removable, it will frequently be lost. Thanks again to Lenny Allen for helping secure this accessory and making this review possible. The microphone just pegs in, you just line up the holes and push them into the pegs, and that's pretty much it. It does take up quite a bit of the side of his face. It is fairly large for a microphone. Let's look at the articulation for Avalanche. He had the articulation that was standard for GI Joe figures by 1987, meaning he could turn his head from left to right and look up and down. He could swing his arm up at the shoulder and swivel at the shoulder all the way around. He had a hinge at the elbow. He could move at the elbow about 90 degrees. He had a swivel at the bicep. He could swivel his arm all the way around. The figure was held together with a rubber O-ring that looped around the inside. That allowed him to move at the torso a bit. He could move his legs apart about so far. He could move his legs at the hip about 90 degrees, and he could bend at the knee about 90 degrees. Let's look at the sculpt to design and color of Avalanche, starting with the head. The head has a non-removable helmet. I would normally complain about this, but I will probably beat up Battleforce 2000 quite a bit during these reviews, so I'll give him a pass for the helmet. The helmet is white. It has a brown camouflage pattern and a texture pattern on it. It has a fin up here on top that may be a flashlight. The head sculpt or the face sculpt is kind of mediocre, I have to say. His chest is white with that same brown camouflage pattern, and there's a quilted pattern on here. Same on the back. This is probably for his winter gear. He has a silver shoulder pad on his right shoulder, and across his chest he has a silver bandolier that doesn't seem to serve any purpose. On his right arm he has a silver shoulder guard. He has white sleeves with that same white and brown camouflage pattern. He has some very nice sculpting on his gloves. On his left arm he has some silver padding, and then on his left wrist he has a white watch. On his waist he has more of that quilted pattern and the same white with brown camouflage. He has a belt with a lot of silver pouches, Rob Liefeld style. On his legs we have white with brown camouflage. His right thigh is pretty plain. He has some padding on his inner thighs. And on his left leg he has a device. On this figure it is gray. What exactly is this? Yojo.com calls it a knife, but it doesn't look like a knife to me. There is a variant on this left leg detail. Some avalanche figures have that painted in gray. Others have it with silver paint. These figures seem to be the same otherwise.  The toes are slightly upturned on those boots. Let's take a look at Avalanche's file card. And there is a variant of this file card too. When he was packaged as a two pack, where it says Dominator Driver it said Dominator Snow Vehicle Driver, otherwise the text was the same. On this single carded file card it has GI Joe and the Battleforce 2000 logo and his faction there and a portrait here from the artwork on the front of the card. We have a codename of Avalanche and he is the Dominator Driver. File name is Ian M. Costello, primary military specialty armored vehicle driver, secondary military specialty cold weather survival driver, that's kind of awkwardly worded. Birthplace is Madawasque, Maine. This is actually misspelled it should be Madawasque, Maine. His grade is E5 Sergeant. This paragraph says when Avalanche came of age he declined joining the family business in parentheses poaching, smuggling and bootlegging and opted for the U.S. Army instead. Having spent most of his youth in the woods with a rifle he was quite well prepared for certain rigors of military life and totally unprepared for the discipline. He sounds kind of like a hillbilly. This paragraph says as part of a survival exercise Avalanche and 20 other trainees were left in the wilds with a knife and a compass apiece. Most of the others staggered in, haggard and worn after a week. They found Avalanche a month later and 200 miles away, lounging in a motel and spending the money he had made from the furs he brought in. So he used Captain Kirk's solution to the Kobayashi Maru test. He cheated. Is this guy GI Joe material? What makes them think this guy should handle high tech equipment? The dominator and Avalanche made no appearances in the GI Joe cartoon series. Battle Force 2000 came out too late to appear in the Sunbow series. In the GI Joe comic book they first appeared in issue number 68. Battle Force 2000 made a fair number of appearances in the comic book series. Avalanche was in Special Missions number 20, an issue that featured GI Joe's cold weather specialists. He was not driving the dominator in that issue. He was a passenger in the snow cat. Famously, Avalanche died in issue number 113, along with most of Battle Force 2000. Now I'll turn it over to Joefan82 for a preview of the upcoming Joe Khan exclusive Avalanche figure. Thanks HCC. Here is the mock up image for the new modern Avalanche figure. Right off the bat you can see they replicated and updated his white uniform with the brown camo pattern. He also has the silver accents across the uniform as well as the silver boots. As with the original figure he comes with a non-removable helmet. This is a bit of a disappointment for modern collectors as we're used to seeing removable helmets on the modern versions of vintage figures. One detail that is missing is the microphone attached to the helmet. I'm not sure why that wasn't added. Avalanche and the other Joe Khan exclusive figures come with retooled versions of their vintage counterparts weapons. In Avalanche's case it's his Sub-Zero stun gun made of white plastic instead of gray. The figure also comes with a removable bandolier, knife, assault rifle and green figure stand. That's a quick look at the new modern Avalanche back to you HCC. Thank you for that preview Joefan82 and don't forget to check out Joefan82's YouTube channel for modern GI Joe tour reviews. So what do we think of the dominator and Avalanche overall? Both figure and vehicle are difficult to judge. Clearly a lot of effort went into both. They have good details, good colors, some special features but they also both have some problems. If Battleforce 2000 didn't exactly fit within GI Joe, Avalanche and the dominator don't exactly fit in Battleforce 2000. This is a cold weather operation specialist with a snow tank and no other figure or vehicle in Battleforce 2000 had that specialty. Because of the specialty, the color scheme for the dominator is different from other Battleforce 2000 vehicles. The vector had a similar color scheme but the vector was a jet. Other Battleforce 2000 vehicles were in a metallic gray. So you will either have the entire Battleforce 2000 team operating in snowy conditions for which most of them are not equipped or you're going to have the dominator operating with the rest of the Battleforce 2000 team outside of its element. Either way, something is out of place. You could have the dominator operating solo in an arctic environment but without the rest of the team, you can't form the future fortress. Avalanche is not bad. His weapon is totally sci-fi but that fits with the Battleforce 2000 theme. His head sculpt is bland and some of the details sculpted on the figure don't make any sense. But the figure has some extra effort put into it and the brown and the white and the silver work well together. I'm going to say both figure and vehicle barely make it into the middle tier. I know I'm supposed to hate Battleforce 2000 but I don't hate the dominator or Avalanche. I just think they're out of place. Even in Battleforce 2000, they don't exactly fit. There are many aspects of Battleforce 2000 to talk about. For instance, how did my friends and I integrate Battleforce 2000 into our GI Joe playtime? And if the concept of Battleforce 2000 didn't exactly work, what could have been done to make it work better? We will talk about that in future reviews. We can't talk about it all in the first review otherwise we won't have enough to talk about for the rest of the month. That was my review of the dominator snow tank and the driver Avalanche and that kicks off the first and only ever Battleforce 2000 month. Six reviews in five weeks. Six reviews in five weeks. You're asking yourself, has he gone out of his mind? Is he crazy? Yes, he's crazy. Crazy hoody has six reviews for the price of five. Get them now while supplies last. Thank you for watching. If you liked this video, please do a few things for me. First of all, give it a thumbs up on YouTube and subscribe to the YouTube channel and share this video to spread the word. Like me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter and support the channel on Patreon for some special perks. Don't forget to visit the website, HCC788.com to see this review and all my other G.I. Joe toy reviews and we have t-shirts. Not this one but other t-shirts. Thank you everyone for watching. Battleforce 2000 month will roll on to next week. I'll see you then and until then remember only Battleforce 2000 is Battleforce 2000. The Protect America Battleforce 2000 creates the battle vehicles of the future. Nobody beats G.I. Joe's Battleforce 2000. Sky Sweeper Eliminator Vendicator. Nobody beats G.I. Joe's Battleforce 2000. Dominator Vector and Burrata, they split and recombine into the awesome Future Fortress. Go, go! Nobody beats G.I. Joe, the real American hero. Battleforce 2000 figures and vehicles sold separately collect all six vehicles to form the Future Fortress.


Spring Cleaning is here and Appalachian Wireless has the deal to get you started. Get a Samsung Galaxy S8 for a penny or a Galaxy S8 Plus for only $89.99 on the region's best network. Better service, bigger savings, that's today's Appalachian Wireless. So your agreement requires you to store for details. The Click It or Ticket campaign runs nationwide, but law enforcement officers in eastern Kentucky are paying extra attention to those not buckled up. I can see it to the left of the shoulder there. It appears to be on. It appears to be going down across the shoulder. It looks like she is wearing it. Statistics show 90% of drivers nationwide wear their seat belts. The average for Kentucky is 87%. However, only 75% of drivers in Pike County wear their seat belts. And local departments are working to change that number. So if an officer sees somebody not wearing a seat belt or a child not in a child seat, it is a primary offense and you can't be stopped for that. Trooper William Petrie says an officer can stop a vehicle and issue a citation if the driver or the passenger isn't buckled up. He says his hope is to change the behavior of all drivers who don't wear their seat belts, but especially of those who are around small children. The kids will watch the person driving and their guardian or parents. If they don't wear a seat belt, I think they'll follow suit, drive on through and not want to wear it when they get over. And while getting a ticket for not wearing a seat belt is an inconvenience, officers say it's nothing compared to what could happen. If we can get somebody to wear a seat belt or put the kid in a child seat and get them strapped in right and have that done before they are involved in an accident, it makes us feel better because hopefully we have saved them from serious injury or even getting killed in an accident. Of the 16 fatalities in Pike, Floyd and Johnson counties since January of 2017, 15 were not wearing their seat belt. In Floyd County, I'm Shannon Deskins, EKB News.


Um 2022 we're starting off really hot. Let's get right into it. Why wait had a bad day, but I bounce right back This don't fluke cuz I'm on my path when I hit that speed gotta stay on track. There are no shortcut. You already know that This song work ain't six inch twice.  All right, so I'm gonna start jumping right into it First of all, I've been training so much. I've been a little behind in the vlogs I don't know we even what to post what you guys want to see so as you watch this Let me know your questions. I may do it just a Q&A of all your questions and podcast form and just yell at whatever I want to yell about once a week, but right now I hit a new level. We're starting off 2022 hot the goal is the same progress every single day and Just dunk on people's life, which I almost did today. So been training super hard. This is 9 9. Let's get right into it So I even jumped yesterday And warming up. I was doing my two minutes and you guys know that's not easy for me And I got it with my barefoot shoes on 9 9 then I'm like, I got a drop step next level So as you see here super close up like I think I could get this drop step That's basically a drop step. So it's almost official drop step Hypes can be huge for me. That's huge for me Now I'm just freaking out now. I'm just losing it. Okay. Now. I'm just losing it Now the shoes are on. Okay. We're getting warm. I'm barely broken a sweat Okay, we're just having fun on this infant rim. I'm starting to tumble Who is this guy? Reverse it in nowhere. I got everybody in the gym dunking by the way.  I almost destroyed that freaking wing. I didn't even jump up with it. I Love this. Everybody's going for it East goal? Look at this one Front of the rim. I'm gonna smack that Just head at the rim. I mean Literally I had to push the rim down, but my head's up there boy. I can get I'm gonna destroy it This is not even a good day for me. This is just a random day of four hours of sleep He said look at this. He had to see it up close. I love it Weird you see it's so awkward I have to focus my energy on those dunks and practice them more My god, okay, then I play some pickup and your boys got give this who's back and Not the best comp, but I mean Don't sleep on this not even a good jump but he backstripped. He's back rims it Good move. I don't know if that's a travel. Let me know if that's a travel doesn't really look like this kid Roll his ankle, but he's fine. I'm too quick. I'm too quick. First steps too quick.  No, good lord. Oh God, you got to finish that with the left. Oh Double dribble kind of Too quick. He's just too quick. He's just too quick What is this? Just a bang. So boom. Thank you for watching. I'm keeping it super short Let me know what you want to see I got a lot to do and thank you for supporting my journey becoming a star because I love talking I love expressing I love doing different types of art whether it's rapping whether it's a painting whether it's fricking Dunking physical expression. So that's what I love to do if you're new to the channel You got a lot to learn and if you also want to dunk I have thousands of videos This is literally a college which is what I said in my rap Which I might put at the end of this just so you can jam out to that on your way out But point is anything you want to see on YouTube dunk wise search my name's even selly and type the dunk related comments And I get I guarantee there's a video and I guarantee you're gonna like the way you look. I guarantee it Don't play baby. Let's roll A knowledge my YouTube a college with all of my videos could have already been flying you too busy lying to yourself That's deep sorry, but I'm trying to help repeat sorry, but I'm trying to help making you up to potential you limitless I am the proof you can choose what you want in the universe given it How about you give it a shot here is the I guess it's a known only place to grow and now you know Let's see where you go. Will you step out or stay in your comfort zone? I won't I won't stay in my comfort zone


Hello, welcome to kubecon We're here today to talk about Naturey v2 redesigning the security supply chain for containers It's me and Steve here and I'm not not unfortunately, but hey Well, it's a virtual conference. So Omar is even more virtually actually here while you're doing this, but not Anyway, it's it's great to be here and Let's let's get let's get started Who are you? Who are we indeed? I'm Justin Cormack. I'm an engineer at Docker I'm also a naturey maintainer and a member of the CNCF technical oversight committee I work a lot with them security and CNC. So I'm really interested in all the bits of how Security fits in with containers, but I'm also I've been working for you know for five years now at Docker I've been very much embedded in the whole How do we do containers? How do we make them better space? Every container has a bit of Justin in it As I'm Steve Lasker. I work at Microsoft on the Azure Container Registries for ACR and MCR I work a because of that because registries are at this source of all, you know cloud computing at this point I get involved a lot of the end-to-end workflows Including security and as part of that I work a lot with the community in the OCI technical oversight board for Things like notary as well as artifacts and other things that we do under OCI So it's very fun to be able to continue to work on this with Justin and others and I'm I'm also probably much here with Registry ECR registry at Amazon. So he's also really heavily involved in the whole registry and container ecosystem So it's a it's a good team. We've got Just to frame this this is really about supply chain security and why it's important The way I like to tell the supply chain security story is back in in the good old days before the whole Cloud thing happened you had things like hardware firewalls and Actual cables you plugged in and you knew that if the computer was plugged into this cable It would get this network and straightforward things like that, but everything is software now And if an attacker can just modify your software You can change absolutely anything to do with your infrastructure and connect the computer to a different computer Rewire things we rewind networks rewind connections Rewire TLS certificates Rewire, you know change absolutely everything and so Your code suddenly starts to really matter and it really matters that the right code gets into production And someone hasn't come along and made any modifications to it and that your code's got, you know security checks in it And that you understand how everything gets from source code into production and make sure the right bits get into production Supply change and tax have been growing Not Petro is a famous one from 2018 cause billions in damage You know brought down all of companies a supply chain attack indirectly via a you know a Ukrainian a piece of accounting software, I mean Probably a state-level attack, you know these things are Important and so we want these we want protections against these in the container ecosystem because like more and more people are shipping more Millions of things with containers and this becomes really important I mean containers are effectively becoming the next virtualization stack We keep on moving up the stack from you know physical machines to virtual machines And this is just the next way to get the best first better virtualization It's got to be secure and and Actually in many ways we have opportunities to build better practices than with VMs I think that's what's one of the exciting things about not only is it in a way I mean like there are potential risks because everything's software, but actually the fact that everything's software means it's more mutable There's a lot we can do the artifacts are more manageable We've got a better ecosystem around them than VMs ever ever did So I think there's there's a real opportunity to do this really really well with containers And that's what's really exciting about the container is not the fact as a container It's the fact that we can build better infrastructure around these things And a bit of history about no, this is notary v2. How did notary v1 start? Where did where were we? Notary v1 was an implementation of the update framework, which is a kind of cool name Usually known as tough to its friends As the update framework adapted to containers It is appropriate it came out of NYU. You know, it's New York tough CMD It was based originally around the security problem of Linux package repose such as apt or More generally language package repose such as NPM But it was originally and the work came out of studying what went wrong with them, you know your package manager Turned out there was a bunch of security issues Serving up fake packages and claiming that your packages engine X when it's not Serving out replay to accept me up an old package and saying it's a new one Just deleting packages from mirrors and saying that they aren't any updates this package to keep people on an insecure version changing dependencies between packages Mixing imagine different and and so on. So there's a whole set of papers around what these threats were and so the idea was to kind of Take these take these ideas and models and apply them to containers was the original idea it was originally a docker project and Back in 2015 and We worked at docker with the NYU people who had invented tough and Let's join CNCF in 2017 as one of the one of the quite early projects in CNCF along with the tough specification itself Which is also a CNCF project But there was a kind of a bunch of issues I think 2015 was an awful long time ago in the in the world of containers That was back when basically when I started working in this space. I actually was not involved with this originally It had just been launched when I joined Docker. I think My first docker con was in Barcelona and I think that's where the launch was if I remember I think it's that one We gave everyone Yubi keys for signing their containers Under the chair prize, I think I still have my But back then containers in production were really new we didn't really know what all the issues were We didn't have a kind of field for exactly what the workflows were going to be Like you know the whole way that people actually work with containers was still in flux I think there was a bunch of design mistakes. We'll talk about some in a minute But now the security needs are really really important and getting this absolutely right is important And you know, we've had time to reflect on what the best practices are and where we're going with containers And where we want to be in the next five years Bunch of issues to fix The first one really is the No, true was added as a side car, you know, not not a side car in the Exactly container sense, but it runs on the side of a registry. It basically has its own database its own server and that was quite good for just shipping it without Modifying stuff and we're training stuff, but it's actually We've really developed since then a kind of whole registry native ecosystem I'm just Steve you can talk more about that you've been involved a lot in that recently as well Yeah, it's the the there was so much value in the work that was done in registries and the abstraction models that When we started looking at other artifacts that we needed to manage in deployment such as helm and you know We started this project as to how to kind of stuff it in That the more we were doing that, you know singularity came up say hey, we'd also like to use a registry CNAB was starting There were some questions around terraform and others and we're like Can we just leverage this common infrastructure so that it works across all clouds because we can't really ask the helm team to Build a helm CLI that's unique to Azure. It needs to work across all registries So we went down this OCI artifacts approach and what was really nice about that is is just there's so many things that we can know leverage that you know global production resilient infrastructure including putting signatures in and You know where we talk about the side Carly who cares about the implementation details The problem is is that was leaking out and if I pulled an image without notary enabled I would get one set of you know artifacts images at the time and if I turned it on to get a different one So it just created This very end user poor experience and one of the biggest problems of you couldn't actually move the signatures from one registry to another That's kind of one of the key scenarios We see is I have a pump something. It's on some public registry I need to bring it in my private registry so I have control over you know that content whether it be vNets or making sure that I nothing changes on me If the signature doesn't move how do I prove that this thing that I've got in my private registry is the same thing It wasn't originally so those are some of the key problems that we just had to overcome to make this thing usable It just so happens that the artifacts approach allows us to do that because if every major registry Supports artifacts then we'll be able to support signatures as well And it is so in addition to the that being I mean I think in a way That's being our number one requirement the way through but I think There's a whole bunch of requirements that are really important about usability and usage We've that we haven't had a lot of people using nursery v1. We've had a lot of complaints about usability issues with it And I think I put a separate thing about observability and understandability and debugging these are kind of related though It's difficult to see What the state of the world is what the the clients are not very good at telling you What the signatures that there are there are and why for example why it's complaining you can't sign something and If you know if things go wrong It's very difficult to debug the state of the world because the toolings really not Not very good from this point of view in in particular There's a kind of there's a tendency to fail if it to fail closed which is the right thing to do when some signature check fails But that actually means it's hard to see it doesn't give you a good explanation of why that happened Which is really makes it very difficult for people to see what's going on because if something Something has expired so it doesn't check something else which you're expecting it to check and you don't know what's gone wrong So you don't know how to remediate and the security model is not widely understood which I think is is a partly an explanation problem and partly I Think people's model in their heads of what actually Signing is for or not very clear and I think we need to explain that clearly more clearly But there's also some fundamental security issues that Really not addressing this this tofu one. It's not about the food stuff. It's basically trust on first use and Part of the model with notary V1 as used. I'm just it's not actually requirement of notary It's a requirement of all bit of the docker and docker-dressed implementation in particular But it's also the way the only effectively the only implementation. So it's kind of The way it is used is that When you pull a container, it'll pull the signatures and check them the first time in the same way as SSH does and it says do you want effectively SSH says do you want to use this host key, but for Containers this doesn't work very well because a lot of times you're pulling container. It's basically it's a it's an ephemeral server It's always first use and so And that is something that's changed a lot right since when when we talk about first start of this project years ago We didn't really think about this serverless kind of model where every time a container is pulled It's a clean pristine environment that the clouds kind of hand you so you only pay for what you use We were very focused on you know VMs would come up and they'd have lots of cached images and that was okay You kind of build up some state, but we were now building to this ephemeral client model where every time Wherever the containers run. It's like brand new Yeah, yeah becomes a challenge and nature and people are actually doing this for security reasons because having clean starts Is actually a good way of keep making sure that everything's refreshed attackers around all those things that there's good I mean, I think the ephemeral thing is actually one of the great things We've actually managed to do and that's good But it basically does affect security models of things that assume long-term state and we have to adapt to to that model So How we're getting there with V2 We started really at Kubecon a year ago Originally we had a meeting with Docker on Amazon and Microsoft on the on the side and San Diego on one of those rainy days rainy San Diego But and then we had a series of meetings back when you could have meetings in Seattle Over in December and January. I think February even I think we had we had a few meetings in person, which was actually Really great Lots of people involved NYU with the people who've been working on tough IBM Red Hat VM where let's more J. J frog All sorts of other people have been involved. So it's a very broad Harbor yes, yes, well, yeah, yeah, multiple parts of being where So it's been a really great Community thing coming together to To really work out as a community what everyone wants We had hoped it would finish sooner I think growing consensus is actually really difficult for especially for I mean things like signing and supply chain security are complicated and trying to Get everyone aligned with understanding What each other's problems are and what the kinds of solutions that we want to Explore are and why things are not working now was actually really complicated and I think that That that to take a long time, I think we were a bit slowed down by the COVID thing and And just you know generally And I think we are we are making progress now I'm kind of pleased with the progress we've made in the last few months, but it's I think it's um It's always you can always be optimistic and think that things will happen fast, but it's just difficult sometimes, you know, it's just And we just blame everything in COVID in 2020. We just want to get past 2020 as fast as possible We don't want to get I mean we do want to get this right We don't and we want to lay down a framework of it Everyone's happy with and we don't want the community to fragment because we don't want people saying this doesn't work for us We're just going to do something else we want one solution that works for everyone's use cases And so we've been very inclusive and try to get as many people in as possible who are doing things now or Got interest because it really I think having everyone doing the same thing and having interoperable tools is really really important I mean if an image can't move between clouds and between registries on-prem different clouds and so forth then we failed So, you know, we have to make sure everybody's on board everybody agrees it meets them the scenarios everybody needs and Then we're good. Yeah, no big deal And you know this kind of highlights that what we've also some of the problems We've talked about is you know multiple the multiple signature problem Which has an effect in a number of different ways So we'd like to try to have fun is some things can get way too serious So we have you know a company we just you know fictitious web at networks that creates this net monitor software It's an ISV kind of product Where they're building it in their environment and they create a key that they're not to create key They create a signature with their key and they sign it They could then post that content on Docker hub as a curated location But Acme Rockets is this company that wants to consume the software. They don't know who web at networks are but they trust Docker So Docker certifies that content. So great. Okay. I will now use that So if I go to Docker, I'll actually see two signatures one from Docker of one for web at networks And then the Acme rocket team can bring that software in as they bring the net monitor software into their environment They'll only bring in stuff they trust from Docker hub. So that's a first check for the signature They'll run some functional tests to make sure it works in their environment because it's not just the first time They wouldn't be able to get updates and then if it passed those tests They will add a third signature, which is the Acme rocket signature So now when they try to move it to their production environment, they actually don't care about the other signatures They only will put things in production that has an Acme rockets, you know validation on it so you can kind of see this progression of flow where the Software starts all the way over in you know Way upstream if you will moves into another environment the signatures move with it the signatures are added the add additional attestation But the digest and the tag of that original software never change So then when it moves into Acme rockets, we you know can continue to add signatures to it as we go So that's like the major model of what we're trying to do And support this you know workflow, but there's yeah, I mean there's a lot of detail That doesn't cover like how does you know, how does the end users have policies for they trust who? But which you know which bits of You know which keys attest to what how do we deal with one of the problems with nature v1 has is there were too many keys And there was a huge proliferation of them. And so we need to arrange keys and Manageable but not too extreme way. And so there's all sorts of Issues that follow on from from these scenarios that we're going through We've made quite a lot of progress with storing signatures in registries. I think I mean we've we One of the aims here has been to have a very generic signature model. We don't want to Just constrain signatures to being something that's specific for nature v2. It's like signatures are something that could be used for other security applications And so we want to have a generic solution, but there's we had one requirement that really Is one of the things that's actually meant that we've looked at actually making registry changes. So This is question about inline versus detached signatures really the way to understand that is like is the signature part of an object and therefore As registries a content addressable part of its content hash because either the signature is You know actually part of the Jason manifest of the object or it's referenced from the Jason manifest of the objects And so if you want to change the signature, you actually have to change The object and then in the registry means you have to re-tag the object now a lot of people don't like the re-tagging model in Registries lots of registries are now implementing models where tags are immutable and can't actually be changed once they've been once the content has been shipped to the registry and so There's there was a big we don't want we don't want re-tagging. We want to be able to add another signature for a different purpose like You know I bring in an object and it's signed by it's a bunch of it's signed by Canonical that's great, but I also want to add a signature as part of my workflows, but I don't want to Do any you know, I don't want to chain I want any code that is looking for Genuine Ubuntu 14.04 from the Ubuntu source not to have any issues that oh actually this content doesn't look like genuine Ubuntu It's got a different hash. Oh, I have to look at it. I see that the hash is actually like it's actually an additional signature It's not a problem. It's still genuine Ubuntu. So these kinds of concerns meant that we we've Been actually proposing a major change in registries to add extra API's Which where you can basically have a what a detached signature, which basically just means a signature It's in a separate document, but not just detected as in a separate document, but as in there isn't a pointer to it from the Registry object instead. There's a pointer from the signature to the registry object and we want an API that can actually traverse that Backwards and that's a real Significant registry change because registries don't do things backwards right now. They're forward, don't they? There's no reverse very much a That's very forward like if you you traverse a tree downwards and they're not Not upwards. There's actually I think potentially other interesting use cases for this type of model But anyway, so at the moment we're we're doing work on actually putting that into the The Docker distribution registry reference client and the spec And so because I think that there was enough demand for this But it was seen as important to actually design these make these registry changes around that So that's a kind of substantive change I mean one of the One of the interesting ones about that is you know people have these deployment manifests whether it be a kubyaml You know a helm chart or just even a docker file that references something with a digest and a Tag and there's you know tag locking you know semantics and so forth and even docker lock is some projects that are out there the challenges if we To add another signature in the Acry rocket scenario for instance if that digest has to change for that tag That kind of breaks the workflow. So that was you know a big piece to this So for the demo we can show what we're at on the current prototype. Yeah, so just to talk about We've started prototyping a couple months ago now. These are not in any way meant to be like final things do not use and But these are Kind of worked examples to show how things how things work How are we putting things together how we're experimenting with things and the kinds of things so that people can see them And but they're they're not take they're not just totally fake. These actually implement the actual Work behind the scenes in the there's actual things in registries and their signatures and registries and all the formats And so on are documented and they're all in the in the PRs that these correspond to so it's some It's Pretty it's it's very real price typing not just mock up So they are nothing up our sleeves will take a look. We have nothing locally on the machine So what I want to be able to do is you know, son build and sign So what I'm going to do is just make things a little bit simpler And I'm going to set an environment variable for our image We've got this registry and v2.azurewebsites.net and it's hosting the changes that we've been proposing to the distribution Docker distribution for the distribution spec So now what I could do is I can say Docker build dash t and our image And what that's going to do is just take this Docker file from hello world and just add something to it really super simple and It's not helpful Oh, thank you minor detail um So now we can see that I've got my image and that's great And there's that image now what I want to do is when I sign it I you know, I need to enable the notary workflow. So I'll say Docker notary dash dash enabled And what we're doing here is where And you know saving this configuration and now you'll see we've got this for you know our initial prototype where we have just enabled trip So now when I want to sign this thing I'm going to say docker notary sign And I give it the key for the azure websites netkey And the cert for these two and then I'm signing this image So we'll generate the manifest because we're we're signing a manifest and we output This JWT token. That's what's the the OCI artifact that is the signature that we want to push to the registry But we don't want users to have to think about pushing and pulling signatures independently We want to build it into the experience So I'm going to log into the registry And when I do docker push What we'll see is because we're using this docker plugin, right? We didn't actually change the docker api docker cli yet. We're using a docker plugin that we're routing this to So now we're just going to be able to do is push the actual image And we're going to push the signature. It's just an additional component And then when I want to do a docker pull, but let's get rid of our images first Is dash q we'll get rid of those And now when I do a docker pull I have not configured anything yet So it's going to go look because I have notary enabled says hey, I found the signature But you don't have any of those keys. So by the fact that I don't have any keys local that match it It is by definition going to fail So I don't have anything To Enable this What I do is I put the reference to the key The azure webs notary v2 azure website cert and save that And now because I have that key locally It's going to look up signatures found the signature And it's a valid signature So now I am going to be able See I have now found our image So that's the prototype right we're talking about prototypes from end to end And we'll continue to experiment with this and decide what experiences we like How do we validate this with things like opa and then figure out the next steps So Going back Yeah, so What's interesting and just to kind of talk about this before is you know everything related to How do I want to store things in registries? It's more than just images and helm charts and Scenabs and opas and wasms and other things I want to be able to store signatures and have a movement. In fact, I want to be able to put verification objects signatures on any of those things Well, I also need to know well who signed the signature. What get commit was associated with it. What was the When was it added and so forth? so We and once we're doing this reverse lookup on Hey, I'm looking for this thing. What artifacts are impacted by this thing Then we can actually start to create more of this generic api for finding these things And that's been kind of a lot of the feedback as well as like if you're going to make a change to our registries Let's make sure that I don't have to make yet another change for the next thing and the next thing the next thing Yeah, so there's the typical problem of yeah generic tools that will enable us to do more More good things in future Yeah, the generic apis and the generic tools that will do that. So We are definitely making sure that we're doing that, you know canonical balancing of the boiling the ocean, which will never happen and Versus a small pond So we're trying to make we feel good about the progress thus far And these prototypes help us figure out where our rough judges for instance How many signatures are on there? I only care about this one signature So when I'm looking up Signatures for an artifact don't make me download all of them I want to download only the signatures for that match a certain criteria So that's the kind of things that we're looking at. So next steps really We're carrying on with prototyping. We're doing a lot of work on key management There's a separate working group on that. We need to consolidate recommendations that enter the requirements then Get agreement on the directions from these prototypes and make sure there's there's actually other prototypes of the one We're showing that are going on as well. So And so and then we have to check everything against our threat modeling that we did earlier on Um, and then get production next year, which would be great for fun. Um, so if you're we just it's just let's just get past Kill 2020 and 2021 will be nice and secure. Uh, so come and join us. Um Uh, we have weekly meetings get hub Uh, naturally cncf cncf slack, uh, is the sort of central source of um, Where everything is so thanks very much and See you soon


Statistics and Excel, Deck of Cards, Statistics and Excel. Got data? Let's get stuck into it with Statistics and Excel. Or actually OneNote here, but we'll still talk about Excel. You're not required to, but if you have access to OneNote, we're in the icon left-hand side, OneNote Presentation 1325, Deck of Cards, Statistics and Excel tab. We're also uploading transcripts to OneNote so that you could use the Immersive Reader Tool, changing the language if you so choose, and then being able to either read the transcript or listen to this transcript in multiple different languages using the timestamps to tie into the video presentations. OneNote desktop version here, remembering the two major categories of statistical problems we are working with. Number one, where we have all the data of the population, we then using our statistical tools to organize that data in such a way that we can extract meaning from it. Number two, where we don't have all the data of the entire population, but maybe we can get a sample of the population applying statistical tools to that sample in a similar way as we would apply statistical tools to the entire population, not because we're interested in the sample itself, but hoping that we can take the information from the sample and it will tell us something about the entire population. Now in prior presentations, we looked at examples such as heights where we took an entire population and then took a sample from that population so that we can test out whether or not the sample does give us information that we can possibly apply to the entire population. We thought about a more theoretical situation of a coin flip where the entire population is basically infinity, infinite number of coin flips, and the sample then would be however many times we flip a coin in order to test that out. Now we want to take a look at a deck of cards because when we look at a coin flip, for example, you still have only those two options, 50-50, the deck of cards adds a little bit more complexity because now we have 52 cards in a deck, so we want to be thinking about the statistical implications, how we might organize the data, as well as how we might use our tools of Excel to help us out with our analysis when we're working with something like a deck of cards. When we think about a deck of cards, we have numbers of the cards and we have the suits of the cards that we're going to have to be dealing with. Now with the numbers of the cards, it goes from ace or one, two, three, four, five, six, up to ten, and then it doesn't keep on going up to thirteen, but it kind of does because you've got the jack, queen and king. So we could assign a number to all the cards. We can say, well, they're basically numbered from one to thirteen, and notice if you play different games, you might say, well, some games say that all the face cards count for ten or something like that. Those are particular games, but if we just simply assign a number to the cards, we can do that and say, well, there's one to thirteen. That can be a useful tool for working in Excel or even for memorization of certain things. And then we have the suits. I'm not putting the suits in any kind of order of importance. The suits might have different implications for different games that are being played, but the suits, we have the four suits, spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs. So if we take each of the cards then, such as an ace, we could have four aces, the ace of spades, ace of hearts, ace of diamonds, ace of clubs. Therefore, we have four aces of different suits. We have four twos of different suits. We have four threes of different suits, and so on and so forth, and we've got the four jacks of different suits for queens and for kings. So if we add all this up, we can put this into a table to try to analyze this, right? We could say, okay, well, if I number the cards one to thirteen, and then each of those cards have four of each of them, that's going to give us four of each card or fifty-two. So you can add these up both ways nicely in a table, right? So now you've got one, two, three, four. I can sum up this column to get to fifty-two, or I can say how many of each suit are in a deck, how many spades, how many hearts, how many diamonds, how many clubs, thirteen of each, thirteen plus thirteen plus thirteen plus thirteen is going to be fifty-two. So that's nice. That's useful for us to kind of organize this in our minds and on the page. But now I still have this kind of issue if I want to set up some kind of statistical problem, because I don't have one numerical value for each card, right? I have to say two things in order to name one card. I've got to say, well, this is an ace of spades or an ace of hearts or an ace of diamonds. I don't have one number that can stand for the card. So that's going to be kind of an issue for us that we'll take a look at in a second. Now, if I just run some standard statistical kind of analysis, I can say, well, one card out of fifty-two. What if I had a deck of fifty-two cards? It was an even deck of fifty-two cards, and I draw one card out of fifty-two. Well, then the chances of it being any one of those numbers, if it was chances of it being an ace of hearts or whatever, is one out of fifty-two, right? Or one point nine-two if I move the decimal about over. And I can say, okay, well, what are the odds of any suit? I think that's how you spell suit, right? Or is that like a business suit? I don't know. Thirteen out of fifty-two, because there's thirteen of each suit. Thirteen of each suit out of fifty-two. So the odds of pulling a hearts or the odds of clubs or whatever, twenty-five percent, right? Because it's thirteen over fifty-two. And then I can say, okay, well, what are the odds of one number of any suit? Meaning, what are the odds that I choose an ace or a jack? Well, there's four jacks in the deck of fifty-two. So I can then say, well, then four over fifty-two is going to be about seven point nine-six or so on and so forth. Standard statistical analysis we can get just from that table. Now, the next thing we might do if we're trying to analyze this more, is I could say, well, why don't I assign a number to each of the cards that's a unique number? Now, obviously there's many different ways that you can do this, but the concept would be if I assign a number to it, then I can have just one cell representing any card. So for example, here we had, if I regroup my table over here vertically, I can just say, okay, I need two columns the way I had it before, right? I need the ace to thirteen, which represents the king of spades. And then it starts over, ace of hearts to thirteen, which is the king of hearts, ace of diamonds to thirteen, the king of diamonds and so on. But what I'd like to do is assign one number to it. So I'm going to make this other column and just assign one through fifty-two. So now I've got one number assigned to each card. And if I can do that, and again, there's no like uniform numbering system. I could have put the clubs on top or the hearts on top or whatever. But once I have a numbering system with one number, then I can use my Excel tools a little bit easier and it might...