Why wasn't Ethiopia colonized? Ethiopia and Liberia are widely considered to be the only African countries that have never been colonized. To their geographic location, economic sustainability, and unity, Ethiopia and Liberia were able to withstand colonization. The Great Rift Valley divides Ethiopia, a hilly, landlocked country in the Horn of Africa. It's a site steeped in history, with artifacts dating back over three many years. One of the most important sites is Lalabela, which has rock-cut Christian structures dating from the 12th, 13th centuries. In Aksum, you may see the ruins of an ancient city with obelisk, tombs, strongholds, and the shrine of our Lady Mary of Zion. Ethiopia is Africa's oldest sovereign republic, and one of just two African countries that has never been colonized, with a population of 115 Moanian people. However, in the 1930s, Italy invaded Ethiopia, compiling Emperor Hale Selecy to evacuate the country. Hale Selecy was allowed to return to Ethiopia after the British and Ethiopian forces ousted the Italian army during World War II. Ethiopia is the African Union's O, headquarters, and a key troop contributor to UN peacekeeping deployments. If you've ever wondered why Ethiopia was never colonized throughout the period of colonial control, join us as we learn why. Reasons why Ethiopia wasn't colonized. One, Menelikom II was Ethiopia's emperor from 1889 to 1913, as well as the king of Shua from 1866 to 1889. He made a few important changes. For example, his decision to relocate the royal seat to Addis Ababa in the late 1880s, culminated in the construction of a permanent capital in the 1890s. For a long time, Ethiopia has been an isolated country. As Menelik's dominion expanded, European colonial powers were more interested in Ethiopian regions. During his rise to power, Menelik battled to control Ethiopia against his internal foe, Emperor Johans on the floor. The Italians backed him up and began providing Ethiopia with weapons in the hopes that Menelik would hand up sovereignty. Two, in 1885, when Eritrea was still a territory of Ethiopia, Italian troops invaded the country. It was largely done to hinder French progress in the area. The Italian occupation of large areas of agricultural land in Ethiopia's highlands sparked an anti-colonial insurrection within Ethiopia's troops. In 1896, the Italians attacked Tigray in reprisal, but they were faced with Ethiopian resistance, which they eventually defeated in the Battle of Edouard. As a result of this victory, Ethiopia won substantial esteem as well as widespread recognition of its independent status by European nations. In the peace treaty that followed, Emperor Menelik the second abandoned Ethiopian claims to the Italian province of Eritrea in exchange for Ethiopia's recognition as an independent state, United Nations Human Rights Office of a High Commissioner. The regions of Bogos, Hamasin, and Acal-Guzai were all transferred to Italy. The Italian king declared the colony of Eritrea on January 1, 1890, which Menelik the second, the new ruler of independent Ethiopia, recognized. Three, in the Battle of Edouard 124 years ago, Ethiopian men and women defeated the Italian forces. As a result of this resistance, Ethiopia became the only African country to never be colonized. Ethiopia was converted into a global symbol of black liberation thanks to Edouard. Four, when you hear that Ethiopia was not colonized, it's mostly because Italy only occupied Ethiopia for a brief period of time and because the outbreak of World War II swiftly overshadowed and ultimately reversed the colonization process. Five, the Addis Ababa Treaty. The Treaty of Addis Ababa, signed in October 1896, revoked the Treaty of Wichail and restored peace. After that, the Italian claim to a protectorate over all of Ethiopia was withdrawn and a peace treaty established the Italian colony of Eritrea. Shortly after, the Treaty of Addis Ababa was signed, obtaining Italian recognition of Ethiopia's sovereignty in exchange for Ethiopia's acceptance of Italian administration of Eritrea. Ethiopian nationalism. Ethiopian nationalism, often known as Ethiopianism, is a political philosophy aimed at uniting Ethiopian identity. Due to their unified civilization and social coherence, the Aximite Empire, which dates back to ancient times, was the first country to be given the name Ethiopia during Azana's reign in the 4th century. For more than a century, the Amhara governing elite has used ideology to promote an assimilation agenda and cement power. Furthermore, the Battle of Edouard, a pivotal episode in Ethiopian history in which the country successfully resisted European invasion by defeating Italy in 1896, strengthened the idea of Ethiopian independence. Other factors that contribute to growth of Ethiopia, economy of Ethiopia, agriculture employs 70% of a workforce and accounts for a third of GDP. Coffee is the country's most important export. Africa's largest hydroelectric power project, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, is now under development. Ethiopia will be able to export electricity to its neighbors once it is completed. Natural resources like as gold, at least a million people are bought to work in gold mining, platinum, copper, potash, natural gas, and as mentioned above, hydropower all contribute considerably to the economy. Ethiopia, on the other hand, was a major producer of Pumas, Pumasite, and Tantalum in 2015, greater social stability. Ethiopia, which has a history of being one of Sub-Saharan Africa's most dictatorial and politically restricted countries, has been steadily opening up and adopting democratic practices. Domestically, democratization has begun and a path toward international reconciliation and peace has been charted. The government began to heal fences with Eritrea over a boundary dispute and also moved to improve relations with Somalia and Djibouti. Ethiopia has received extra political and financial support from the European Union, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, among others. Youthful potential. Over 70% of Ethiopians are under the age of 30, with more than half being under the age of 15. Higher education enrollment has expanded fivefold since 2005, according to a World Bank report issued in 2017, with the number of public institutions growing from eight to 36 during that time. In higher education, the government has implemented a 70-30 policy, with 70% of students obtaining training in technology and science and 30% receiving training in social science and humanities. In a world where service industries account for 65% of global GDP, these are the kinds of education initiatives that appear to be tailored to the contemporary global context. A promising start-up environment. Local issues such as mobility, agriculture, infrastructure, and healthcare might be turned into a series of opportunities by the start-up movement in a country the size of Ethiopia. To sustain a strong Ethiopian economy, the construction of a local start-up ecosystem will be essential. It will be vital to build an ecosystem in which universities, large enterprises, service providers, research and funding agencies work together to assist local entrepreneurs in getting started and scaling up. Thank you for taking the time to watch this Ethiopian history video. 10 most impressive mega-construction projects in Ethiopia, 2022. For example, is one of several interesting videos about Ethiopia on Africa Reloaded. Like, share, and comment on the video, and subscribe to Africa Reloaded if you loved it. Please feel free to watch our previous videos and turn on your notification icon to receive notifications when new videos are released.


So, we had a spirited discussion. All of the usual suspects were there in the pharmacogenomics arena, and I'm sure they'll chime in if there's anything that I've missed or misrepresented. Our understanding of our charge to the working group was that we were to discuss and identify one or more collaborative demonstration projects that would advance implementation that should be a capital I of pharmacogenomics into clinical practice. And I have to say, in our discussions, as we talked about applying sequencing approaches, the discussion each time moved from implementation to discovery, and then we had to move back to implementation. So I think that was a recurring theme for much of the discussions. But there were some items of consensus, and they're summarized on this slide. We would suggest that perhaps more than any other field in genomic or personalized medicine, pharmacogenomics has actually advanced to the point where we're ready to implement pharmacogenomic testing into clinical practice. So in terms of readiness for implementation, pharmacogenomics may be more advanced than some of the other areas. And that's because we know about specific actionable variants, and in many cases the mechanisms by which they act. Secondly, pharmacogenomics is less shrouded, we believe, with some of the ethical, legal, and social issues that come along with some of the other areas of broader aspects of implementation in personalized medicine. I think we can discuss and argue about that a fair bit, but I think that that's probably a true statement. Thirdly, I think there was agreement that broad preemptive pharmacogenomic diagnostics is the direction we need to go, preferable over single variants, sort of reactive pharmacogenomic testing. That being said, there are some clinical circumstances where potentially single variants, reactive pharmacogenomic genotyping might be more effective. Perhaps the CYP2C19 Clopridigrel story being won. Next, it was generally agreed that there's a need for a coordinated effort to develop best practices for implementation and to develop a framework to advance new discoveries. And on a number of levels, including technologies for variant detection, defining which variants are actionable, sharing genotype-phenotype definitions to sort of standardize them in a better way, suggested actions, educational materials, local best practices, et cetera. And finally, coming back, maybe again, moving more to the discovery phase consensus that we really did need a centralized repository to annotate rare and new genotypes of unknown significance and, in addition, phenotypes connected to them. And of that bullet, you can see that there are already a number of ongoing efforts largely as part of the Pharmacogenomics Research Network to address each of those four sub-bullets. And we thought it would be a good idea to leverage these ongoing efforts rather than recreate some of them. And in particular, CPIC is addressing the defining of actionable variants and also standardizing genotype-phenotype definitions, suggested actions, sharing of educational materials, et cetera. The Translational Pharmacogenomics Project that I mentioned as well as opportunities for collaboration addressed some of these issues. And also the VIP Pharmacogenomics Sequencing Platform being developed and potentially a demonstration project that will involve the Emerge Consortium. So those were all items of consensus. One interesting paradox that kept coming up over and over again is that, at least for implementation, if Pharmacogenomics is a little bit more advanced in terms of readiness for implementation than some of the other fields, paradoxically speaking, genotyping is probably a better direction to go than sequencing. In fact, in some ways could be regarded as a far more elegant approach to implementation of diagnostic testing. And I guess the analogy I'll use is that if I'm in the clinics seeing a patient with diabetes and I want to know what their glucose levels are, I don't measure a metabolomics profile, I measure a glucose level. And so in the field of pharmacogenomics where we know genotypes, at least for implementation, genotyping may be a more elegant assay than sequencing. But that being said, if we all believe that next-gen whole genome sequencing will be the genetic test of the future, maybe the not too indeterminate future, we do need to know about how the pharmacogenomic tests or genotypes who are interested in what the quality of these are in a next-gen sequencing platform. And so reworded in a slightly different way in terms of a pilot project, a demonstration project. It would be of interest to perform a study in which we could look at next-gen sequencing and determine for implementation, do sequencing platforms add value over direct genotyping platforms for pharmacogenomics implementation? And the reason I think this is an important question is that some pharmacogenes are sequenced poorly on these off-the-shelf whole genome sequencing platforms. And we may need to develop next-gen whole genome sequencing platforms that cover these pharmacogenes better so that if there is a single genetic test that will be done, we have the pharmacogenes covered properly. And as I said, we know what the relevant actionable variants are, so why sequenced? So the proposed collaborative project could be to compare head-to-head, so to speak, whole genome sequencing, directed VIP pharmacogenomics sequencing, and low-tech chip-based or other genotyping platforms in an implementation project. And we could measure the technical aspects of variant calling and also potentially relate drug response and adverse events to these genotypes. A somewhat related project would be to ask what is the role of rare variants in pharmacogenomics implementation? And again, this is where we kind of blur those borders between implementation and research, but certainly a proposed collaborative project could begin to apply whole genome sequencing technologies for rare serious adverse events for both discovery but maybe also family-based pharmacogenomics implementation. And I think you've heard this echoed over and over again, pharmacogenomics is no different, but a repository for well-annotated rare variants in pharmacogenes would be very valuable to the field going forward, as well as not only annotating the variant, but also evidence for any functional or clinical consequences. So I think I've summarized most of the salient points, but I'd encourage those who were part of the discussion to chime in. So Alan has done his usual, very clear job of summarizing the discussion and his usual diplomatic job of hinting that we had a vigorous discussion. So I think he won't be surprised that I think he accurately described the outcome of our discussion. And I would respectfully offer a minority report, which is that genotyping is great, and we're all doing that, but where the world is going is sequencing. And I would prefer that pharmacogenomics be in the vanguard of that effort. Now he was talking about whole genome sequencing, and I see Debbie sitting across from me. And Debbie is not bashful, and I know she'll speak up in about two minutes. She's leading an effort within the PGRN, working in collaboration with both the Washu and Baylor Genome Centers to develop a capture reagent. That was this VIP thing, you know, I would have to find a better name than that, but a pharmacogen capture reagent for sequencing. Which in some ways may be a useful intermediate step, and I know that Terry's holding the microphone, but Terry will be able to speak for herself in just a minute, that she's thinking about perhaps applying through the eMERGE network. And frankly, I think that's a good idea, and I will immediately declare a conflict of interest. I'm not a part of the Mayo eMERGE project, but I think that that would be a good idea, but beyond eMERGE. So I'd like to think about something like this for pharmacogenomics beyond just eMERGE, and I hope I'm not saying anything politically incorrect. So everything Allen has said, I would agree with, with the exception of wanting us to move very rapidly toward sequencing technologies as applied to what I also believe is the leading edge of the application at the bedside, and it's already happening, it's been happening in many of our places for years, of genomic science for clinical decision making in pharmacogenomics, but Allen was entirely accurate on what he just reported. So I'll just speak up. I mean, the group has identified a set of genes and is developing reagents to be able to sequence these on a large scale in many, many individuals at a time. So it's a little bit different. What we're finding in looking at large scale or looking over large scale exome sequencing is there are many rare variants in these genes. Whether they actually have phenotypic effects, we don't know. The other thing is that many of these genes that we look at are worked together and they're not independently metabolizing or certain drugs. So knowing the full knowledge base of variation in these genes together, we may actually find some new insights. So I mean, that's what everyone hopes for, and to apply these to true clinical samples is really an important thing to think about. So I do think there are some great projects that can be done to prove principles that might only have one single SNP or variant. But I do agree with Dick that there is an opportunity with technology advances to do something broader. The concern there has been all of the incidental findings, if you will, and how to deal with them. And on that note, Greg Ferro and others at NHGRA have been engaging a number of the other parts of the community that need to be involved in. Wednesday Greg had a session, and Greg's here, you can comment further, but had a session with the major pharmacy organizations getting them engaged. And they're a group of people that is used to having to act on a pleiotropic way with data. So their drug interactions are basically a great example of how one event can affect a whole bunch of different pathways. And that's what often we're talking about in the case of pharmacogenetics. So I think some of the fears about doing broad genotyping may also help us get towards solutions because it will bring in people who frankly didn't even know there was a genome and are just waking up to that fact. This is a targeted panel. It has 50 genes on it. Well, it might be up to 100 now. But 83, excuse me, it's right. But they will be very well covered, and we're trying to cover some of the more difficult genes. I mean, this is an important thing. It sometimes is easier to cover these by whole genome, but then the incidental findings become an issue. So developing targeted pathways can help, particularly if they're really inexpensive to apply, which we hope long term this will become so it can be applied in any clinical study of a new drug. And by incidental finding, I don't mean accidentally looking at a gene. When we did CYP2D6 for Tomoxifen, we had to be ready to account for almost 25% of the FDA-approved drugs in terms of what I call collateral data, the collateral damage type data, where we looked for one thing and had to be responsible for all these other things. So even when you do it on purpose with just one gene, there can be a lot of information. I wanted to ask, are any of the places that are doing sequencing, actually reporting out pharmacogenetic information when they're talking to their patients and giving them actionable results? So can, is anybody? We are. The first comment I would make, Alan, is that when you order a blood glucose the test that actually gets run on autoanalyzers, 1,000 analytes, and you get reported back the blood glucose because that's what you order. The other comment I would make is I think that if you look at the economics of this, looking, we have to do two or three things simultaneously. One is we have to do what Debbie is doing for the PGRN, move the content for these pharmacogenetic genes onto a next-gen platform so that clear labs who have next-gen tests can provide that content through that methodology. But I think it's a denial of reality to think that sequencing isn't going to be the mode of analysis here. And for several reasons, I think it's important to be looking at this. One is the genome is not just SNPs. It's indels, it's copy number variants. It's the ability to look at microRNA and RNA-seq, and the genome is complicated. It's much more complicated in terms of clinically relevant variants than just SNPs. So that's the first point. And then the second point is you look at the cost curve. You look at the money here. We can't, you know, somebody who's running a clear lab in the context of clinical care, when you're providing content on a small number of genes that are well-curated, and you're providing that back to clinicians, the cost of that is greater than the cost of sequencing the whole genome. The information, it's true that the interpret, you know, it's the $1,000 genome, and as Bruce Korb said, the million-dollar interpretation. There's no question about that. But if we're all going to be on this platform, I think it's a mistake not to move in this direction now. Both from a research perspective and from the translation to clinical. So that's my feeling about it. And I know that, you know, a lot of us in the PGRN, there are few of us that sort of feel this way, and a lot of people that feel on the other side. But I got to tell you, from my perspective, I think that sequencing is the way to go here. So I think this discussion is very similar to the discussion we have in the smaller group, and that's good. It's a good reality check. And I think really there's more concurrence here than there is debate. And I think where there is the debate is how we define research versus implementation. When I think about implementation, I think what can we do tomorrow in the clinics? And for pharmacogenomics, I think genotyping is the answer. For discovery, I believe that sequencing is the answer. But for implementation in five years, sequencing is the answer. Right. And that was the basis of the pilot projects that we proposed. Well, I mean, I was there, and we had an interesting discussion from my perspective. And I think it's really important to say that for things like what Debbie's interested in, which is discovering rare variants, there's no question you've got a sequence. From the standpoint for which those of us that are trying to implement this and write algorithms to detect a rare variant that's never been described before or that I don't know what to do with doesn't do me any good as someone that's trying to implement. So I think that although there may be value to knowing that the patient has a rare variant in the context of saying, well, let's figure out what in the future we're going to say about people with this rare variant. That doesn't do me any good right now for making a decision on that. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Not at all. And that's the whole concept. I mean, we know common variants will affect people commonly, and there are clearly examples of this. It could be genotype today to look at the effect of this. But you have to understand, if the objective is to actually implement, where it's to gather information that you can't use is actually a barrier to getting the study done. I mean, under current law, if you find any information in your study that is available to the patient's physician, that information is potentially disclosable to any insurance company other than a health insurance company that that patient may wish to do business with. So if you truly did inform consent, full informed consent, I don't think anybody under the age of 50 that might want to buy life, disability, or long-term care insurance, that matter under the age of 60, would ever want to be in such a trial, because that's the law. And it's just not going to change any time in the near future. So unless we have a way of doing whole genome sequencing and some way blocking access to the information for anything that is not part of the study, we're going to have a real implementation barrier. You know, I think that this is a different issue that's coming up here than the point of rare variation, which collectively can represent like 5 to 10 percent overall of the types of variations we see in populations. So collectively they're, you know, collectively they're common. Yeah, I would just like to follow up on what Scott said and maybe take it one half a step further in that I think what we've been talking about here are a lot of sort of tactical approaches to developing evidence. But I think the larger strategic picture is if there is consensus that whole genome interrogation should be developed to be deployed in the clinic, then I think all of these different facets of it, like pharmacogenetics and family history studies, should be designed so that each one of them is a brick that will be put into a structure that when you put all of the bricks together, then whole genome interrogation makes clinical sense, because it would be a complete failure if we only do this at the tactical level, and each study ends up saying, well, if you genotype the 83 genes that you already know are involved, guess what, genotyping is a cheaper way to do the same thing. You've completely blown it. So I think we have to do these kinds of studies in the context. Again, that's what we agree the goal is in the bigger picture of where we want to be at the end of the day. I think towards that goal, you know, we need to know that whatever whole genome sequencing platform is used covers those pharmacogenes. So that's the pilot project we proposed. So I want to make three comments very quickly. One of which is that somebody who volunteered for a research study had an echo and found out I have a heart lesion and I can't get life insurance, so this is not limited to genetic studies, and I was never consented about that issue because nobody thought of it. I think one of the things we need to be very clear of when we're acting like whole genome sequencing isn't in the clinic, it is. It's a reality. I have a whole bunch of patients that I have pharmacogenomic data on that we've got to decide is the pharmacogenomic data more accurate than the DMAT chip, which, you know, the problem with SNP chips is if you've got a variant next to it, it actually affects the quality of the cause. So I would argue that yes, there are problems with sequencing, there are problems with chip-based, there are problems with SNP-based. Anyway, you're going to genotype, there are problems with it. The reality is right now we can get reimbursed for doing whole genome sequencing, we can't for doing a DMAT chip in our institution, so we can do one but not the other, and the one we can do is the sequencing. And so we've got to get over the idea of which is about a platform and deal with the reality that probably increasingly most of our patients are actually going to have their genome sequenced. And so we've got to design our studies based on the fact that we're actually going to have that data, not, you know, pharmaceutical companies are now using whole genome sequencing in pilot studies. So this data is there. The question is are we going to use it, not which is the best platform for getting the data? I guess I was going to just echo what some points that have been made earlier, that is even if the project is clinical implementation and the vast majority of pharmacogenetic variants I'd be willing to clinically implement are ones that have been previously discovered and therefore are interrogated on arrays, I do think there will be some rare variants in genes that we know are super important, like CYP2C19, like TPMT, like CYP2D6, that if they were truly early stop codons or something, I would implement them. I know there's maybe disagreement among clinicians here about whether they would do that or not, but I think that's where we get to what Kate brought up yesterday. There's precedence for evaluating variants as they come up, like in BRCA1, BRCA2, and having levels of evidence where if it's really an early stop codon in a gene that's basically a monogenic gene for a drug that's important, even if it's the first time it's been observed, I would be willing to clinically implement it. Then you're going to have a whole other series of rare variants that you've discovered that you're not sure whether you can implement them in real time and they will go into the research side of the project. I think it is worthwhile considering sequencing in a clinical implementation project, even though I'm a DMET array girl. Maybe we should, just in the sake of time, since the next topic is sequencing, maybe we should move on to the sequencing workgroup.


Talking about more related to some important issues in assessment, test scoring and interpretation services are very very important to be discussed. Psychologists who offer assessment or scoring services to other professional accurately they need to describe the norms of the test, the validity of the test, the scoring, the applications and the other procedures and special qualifications which are applicable to that specific test. So, we just cannot give the test in isolation yet we need to know that what are the other factors involved, what should be the test accuracy, what should be its validity, its scoring and all other details to the other person before we are going to administer the test. Interpretation services are selected on the basis of evidence of the validity of the program and procedure as well on the other appropriate considerations. Whenever an individual goes for a testing service, they first see how it is in the repute market, what kind of things they are offering, whether they just generate a report after taking a test or not, whether they are providing the same norms or not, whether they are providing reference value or not. This is similarly as if we go to any medical test in a lab and go there and give a blood sample and take a test and after that blood sample we get a report that the reference value for your this particular test, let us say CA125 is 34 and you are clueless that what does the meaning of 34, if you do not know the reference value, the cut of value, the range, then what will you do with the result of that test. Similarly, in the test of assessment in psychology, in psychometric analysis this is very important that when we do a test, its validity, reliability, its range, its scores, its cut off, its mild, moderate, high, severe, all these things describe it in a proper way. Psychologists retain responsibility for the appropriate application, interpretation and use of assessment instrument. So this sole responsibility of psychologists is that they will own all these responsibilities and until they have all these relevant expertise, relevant procedures, they will never offer any intervention or any assessment. Then this is very important that how explaining the assessment results taken off because until it is not properly described with reference to the whole contest, with reference to the whole test, it remains meaningless or it remains insignificant. These take reasonable steps to ensure the explanation of the result which are given to the individual or the designated representatives unless the nature of the relationship reclates the provision of an explanation of results. Like, if we do not give the individual a result in a particular situation, then it is okay. But if a forensic test has come on it, its mental health certificate, you have to provide it to the government, you have to provide it to law enforcement agencies, or the forensic department has asked you for pre-employment, we are not profiling of any personality, we will give it to the organization directly. Otherwise, we are bound to give it to the individual. Then release of the test data, we will release the client as much as we need to release it. But if we have specific instructions that we do not have to tell them how we have transformed the raw scores into clinical scores or things like that, then it is not necessary to tell the whole procedure to the client. So, ecologists may refrain from releasing the test data to protect the client or others for substantial harm or misuse of the data or the test. At times, we just give the report, we cannot give the complete data details because it is afraid that the person will not be harmed, his dignity, his self-esteem will not be seen in the derogatory sense or his social review will not be damaged. So, there we deal with the data very carefully and openly, not everyone is given the data CD. When a client has not provided a release, psychologists will only release the data when there is a legal mandate. You know, so not in every situation the data would be released, but data would be released when it is being asked by the law enforcement agencies, perhaps by virtue of court order or as required by the law. So, you know this is something very sensitive, we are not supposed to give the data to everyone except there are the certain conditions being applied.


Oh this is way too funny to be a mainlister. Have you thought about turning it into a joke article? Far too often that particular criticism is leveled at maybe slightly sillier mainlist articles. I personally think it's a bit of a problem and today we're going to talk about it. So let's explain why you're probably wrong about joke SCP articles. There are many different kinds of jokes and there are many different kinds of mainlist articles. There's nothing wrong with taking an idea and turning it into a joke article and there's nothing wrong with taking a joke and turning it into a mainlister. However you're going to run into people all the time on the SCP wiki and this is not just with regards to joke articles but that's what we're talking about today but you're always going to run into people who feel like they know what the SCP wiki should be about and sometimes you're going to get something I like to call soft gatekeeping where you're like oh no no this is definitely allowed to exist. I just want it to be in a place where I don't have to see it which is generally how people treat funny SCP articles because most of the people who say that are the kind that believe that the mainlist should only contain serious articles that examine things seriously. A lot of these people are saying people who will tell you they've got to be scary they've got to be serious. Without really giving you a reason why that is that's just the version of the SCP wiki they have in their heads and so whenever anything runs against that idea they immediately balk and they want to change things and they want to complain about it. Unless you really trust someone's opinion really very rarely should you listen to what they think something should be and of course there's the problem of trying to limit the types of articles that can show up on the main list. Taking something and saying that it's too funny for the main list is to me mind boggling because what you're saying is that it's something is too good at what it does to be on the main list. Like the whole point of the SCP wiki is to have good writing. Comedy is a type of writing and I say this is someone well I'm not gonna say that I have a particular amount of experience with this I do tend to write things that are a little bit funnier than the average scp article not because I'm necessarily particularly good at humor though I think I am but mainly because it's just my style is a little bit less serious and I've done serious main list articles but I tend to like them a little bit less than the other stuff I've created I think my favorite scp articles are generally one of them is a dash j it's a it's an anaconda who is capable of speech but can only tell the truth when asked questions and is capable of reshaping any flat areas of geography that are either described to it or that it sees and he's asked to explain what he is and he says he likes big buttes and he cannot lie which is completely and totally accurate and I turn that into a dash j but it's treated in a serious way and in fact I could probably have done that as a main lister if I just tweaked it a little bit but then I want to I like the punchline as it was and so did the rest of the scp wiki generally I think that's rated uh probably over 300 it's been a while since I've looked but also my most popular article which is over 500 is an article about a bunch of seals that really hate a guy called Carl and that's it and it plays up the joke as much as possible and that is a main lister so you can do both there's no problems with that and yes in that article's comments you will find people saying I don't know this is a little too funny for the main list and me personally I don't know how to respond to that other than to just tell them to shut up so I don't usually say anything I do wonder in a serious way where people got the idea that funny doesn't belong on the main list like were they going along one day and they were reading scp articles and they ran into something that was that made them laugh and they were like I can't stand this being here how dare they ruin my scp wiki this is unacceptable I don't get that response to me it was it seemed to me it seems like a bit of an overreaction to the problem although maybe it spoiled somebody's immersion because of then the scp wiki is only a place for grimdark stories about people who are very very terrible people but that's the problem with anything that's super grimdark in the first place I mean like I mean this reminds me actually and when I use the words grimdark and I'm thinking about the warhammer 40k stories which are all very dark like we're talking as dark as a story can get sometimes but also that universe is fleshed out in the sea of his cane books a sea of his cane hero of the imperium which injects a little bit of humor into the whole concept where it's got this guy who it's a bit more complicated than this but I'm just gonna oversimplify it for you it's a guy who basically looks into heroism right and like it's a joke but also not a joke it's treated seriously but it's also funny and that is a valid path for any grimdark setting and in fact I would argue that less serious main list articles act as a palette cleanser of sorts to allow you to appreciate the darkness more and maybe for some kids who read the scp wiki they feel like the juxtaposition is bad because they only see it as the one thing but I feel like as you get older you start to appreciate nuance so I don't know that I want to ascribe this particular instinct entirely to youth though I am sounding older and older every day when I talk like that but the problem has always been and this is the thing and like kids don't take things seriously but maybe they look at the scp wiki and they're like ah this is the only place that I treat it seriously death destruction sadness I must have more like I said the the comedy acts as a palette cleanser for it and maybe that's why they think it should be separated out to them they think that a dash j is something you can go to yeah of course that's why they want it on the wiki obviously kids it has a place but it needs to be separated from the real content I personally can't see a world that way when I write be it a tale or an scp there's always an undercurrent of you know jokiness to it to me anyway because you're dealing with the infinities and and anomalies and a little bit of everything that's terrible in the world you can't live like that forever the characters involved can't live like that forever there's gotta be something to lift things up or else most of these people wouldn't still be around and sure there is a dividing line like you can't have an scp on the way you could have an scp on the main list depending on how you justify it but if you don't justify it properly you can't have an scp on the main list about you know a talking pink bunny that works for the foundation unless you justify it properly like I said like if there's a reason some sort of anomalous property that makes it so people once the people either can't fire this guy that would be an interesting idea actually a pink bunny who works for the foundation whose only anomaly is that he can't be fired and somehow he applied and got a job and now they have to keep him employed well you could still keep him contained that way oh no I'm currently thinking of an scp idea while I'm trying to record this thing maybe I should stop and wrap things up anyway and if you think about it like normal writing with a twist which is half of what the genre that we write in is about I think the twilight zone of the outer limits this kind of weird paranormal fiction even the x-files any paranormal fiction has a strong strong basis in the narrative twist and you know what most people don't seem to get this but there's very little difference between a narrative twist and a joke both of them set up expectations and both of them subvert those expectations by the end at least with a normally structured joke I mean not all jokes are the same there's comedy is very subjective but but there's a one-to-one with the basic joke setup you know uh two bacteria walk into a bar the bartender says we don't serve bacteria here and the bacteria say well what do you mean we work here we're staff the joke is obviously and I'm going to explain it which makes it not funny the joke is obviously that staff is a type of bacteria and also a word you could use to describe people that work at a place that final line subverts the expectations of the listener in a way that gives them an incongruency and makes them laugh that incongruency is important because it recontextualizes the entirety of everything that comes before it the same can be said of a narrative twist when we watch the sixth sense and we find out spoiler alert at the end bruce willis was dead all along it recontextualizes the entirety of the story it is a long joke except it's treated entirely seriously so this is the important thing especially for people who eventually want to write for the scp wiki in order to understand narrative twists which are integral to the genre we write for you really need to understand how basic jokes are structured and if you think that there's a gulf between jokes and writing normally then you need to learn more about how to write and that's simply the way it's going to be and also readers who don't plan on writing but think that that's the way it should be need to understand that the reason why jokes show up in this genre as well is for the same reasons and you're dealing with absurdities okay anomalies are at their core absurd and because of that there will always be a potential for jokes anyway that said thank you very much for listening if you'd like to support this channel please scroll down and hit the subscribe button just click on that and you'll be notified well if you hit the notification bell next to that you'll be notified as soon as i upload a new video and if you really want to support this channel right now is the perfect time to do that there'll be a link in the description and in the first comment on this video that links out to my patreon at patreon.com forward slash d samarian if you click that link you'll be taken to my patreon it's the first of the month which is a great time for you to pledge because you're going to get the whole month of benefits at the exact same price so if you're planning on supporting the channel right now is the perfect time to do that i'd like to thank everybody on the screen right here right now who have pledged for this month and well let me know that i'm not alone out here i'll see you all again on thursday


Hi everyone, Joe for Jasper's casewrakes.com coming at you with 2016-17 Panini Select Soccer One Box Random Country Break Number 14. Big thanks to all of these folks for getting into it.  List of countries are right here. Got you taken care of right there. Let's delete those blank spots here and we're going to go by this checklist which is in the description and also if you're watching live in the chat. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it. 5, Hard, 10, 1, good luck, 2, and 10th and final time. After 10 we've got a bunch of Roberts up there, Robert Runkles down to Arturo, 5 and 5, 10, the hard way for the teams, 1, 2, and 10, good luck. Ukraine down to Hungary, all right so Ukraine, Italy, Chile, Ireland for Robert Runkle, Rob with Slovenia, Brazil and the Netherlands for Robert Arturo with Croatia, East with Portugal, Sweden, Northern Ireland, there are a lot of our names here, Rob Weger with Montenegro, Roger with Columbia and the three Lions, Christopher with Wales, Christopher Welty with Wales, the Welty in Wales almost tripped me up there. It did tripped me up. Robert with Bosnia-Herzegovina, Turkey which had a terrible earthquake there, hopefully everyone's all right over there, Robert with Russia, Rob, Germany and the Cote d'Ivoire, Christopher with France, Arturo with Poland, Rob with Austria and L3, Robert Runkle with Argentina, Romania, Arturo with Espana, Uruguay for Robert, Iceland for Robert, Roger with the Estados Unidos, Caras, Robert with Belgium, Arturo with Hungary. Policic for us, could be the hero of U.S. soccer, all right any trades in this little one box break? Give it a couple moments here. All right looks like no trades so let's roll. TWC, trade window closed, let's print, let's rip. All right good luck, all right good luck everybody. We got Oleg Gusev for Ukraine, that's a 249 and that did I not print, I did not print this out, Robert Runkle. We got Giovanna Elber, Giovanna Elber, 13 out of 30, tie-dye autograph, historic signatures. The old Brazilian forward going to Robert Runkle, this is like late 90s right, 13 out of 30, nice those tie-dye always look sharp. There's Aaron Gunnarsson, Silver, Paul Pogba as well, Romelu Lukaku and we got a Tony Kruse, Red to 199, Germany. That will be for Rob and the Germans. There's Oscar, John Stowes and Alvaro Morata, equalizers, wave parallel right there, he's pretty good for Spain, Arturo with Spain and these look like Portugal colors, wow Cristiano Ronaldo and Pepe, 55 out of 75 dual rallied, two-color dual rallied, it's pretty sharp, they're both pretty good and that goes to Roger Eastwood and Portugal. 55 out of 75, there's Eden Zeco for Bosnia to 299, Guillermo Ochoa, Robert Runkle as Bosnia and there's Giuseppe Rossi, Forza Azuri will be for Robert Runkle in Italy. There you have it folks, quick little one-box break right there, a lot of fun stuff, some more in the store if you want to run this back, a lot of great stuff in here too, very underrated, check it out on jaskiescasebreaks.com, I'm Joe, I'll see you next time for the next one.


Hi, Manuel. Hi, Rob and Destiny are not gonna be able to join today. So I have been given hosting duties temporarily for the day. So I hope I behave well. So also we always follow the code of conduct and we're equally and mutually respectful of one another. That's our rules that always happen. I don't think we have any new faces today. Everybody knows each other, I think, right? Okay. All right, no new faces. Catherine, did you want to say before we get rolling? I think Andrew is joining for the first time, the meeting. So he is kind of a new life face, not a new face on Slack. So I don't know if he wants to say a few words and introduce himself. Yeah, Andrew, would you like to introduce yourself? Yeah, I'm Andrew. Hi, my name is Andrew. I get called DC. I'm from Austin and I've been in tech for a lot of years. But until recently I decided to switch focuses and I've been doing a lot of just varied work but I'm narrowing my focus quite a bit. And the position I'm in now is with internet cybersecurity. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, I made a sign more slowly, it's fine. Yeah, I'm in security and I have been for a while. So I'm in a place of moving forward with my own internet security firm. So that's happening. And it's my first meeting with you all. And I've talked with everybody on Slack for a while but it's nice to meet you in person for the first time and put a face to a name. So thanks for having me. We can go ahead with the meeting. Great, wonderful, welcome. Thanks for joining us. It's great to have you on the team. Look forward to working with you and sharing our experiences with each other. And if you have any ideas, we welcome that. Join us in coming up with new ideas going forward. And in future meetings, if you have cybersecurity, that's a good experience that we'd like to hear about. We're interested in what you do if you wanted to give us a brief presentation on what you do, we're really very interested in that. We'd like that. We can discuss it for sure, yeah. Yeah, I love educating people. Terrific, great, that's great. All right, next up, a couple of weeks ago, I guess, yeah, it's been a couple of weeks ago. Yeah, we were in Paris. We were at KubeCon and so much happened. What a great week, what Paris was amazing. So yeah, got to see Catherine and Rob and Anastasia and Martin. And let's, that's hard to say his name. Sandeep was there and what a great experience.  I'm sorry, I missed you there for a second. Yeah, you weren't there all week with us, sadly, but you were there with us a couple of days. So it was great seeing you and hopefully the next KubeCon. Let's see, huh, where's that again? Where will it be? Oh, yeah, yeah, in London. The next European one will be in London. So hopefully we can see some of you and some new faces there as well and we can all meet in person again. But anyway, backing up to Paris, a lot happened. It was a lot of important stuff that went on. We had six talks, was that right, Catherine? And then, yeah, and yeah, okay, okay. Yeah, six talks of varying topics. And you can look at the agenda and see the different topics that we covered and Catherine posted that. And let's see, there were five interviews that went on and I never even saw all those. I thought we had maybe two, but five? That's incredible, yeah, just incredible. So overwhelming, all of it was so overwhelming, five, wow. And then we had a couple of community activities. We hosted an open gathering with hearing people where they could come and join us and have a deaf chat, learn some signs and it was a tremendous experience. We had a great variety of people and it was a really good experience. And we had a lot of hearing people come. I felt really impacted me because there were a lot of people there and we had to explain everything over and over because people kept showing up, but it was great. And we were talking about how to improve this going forward at future conferences and more visibility for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Working Group in the future and being more ready for the next CUBECon in terms of the disability piece. Let's see, another thing, Catherine, remind me. We had, I'm gonna get it backwards, I'm gonna say it wrong, but first or second sign language course, the fun course that we had, what did we call that? It was the first time we had it where we had invited a bunch of hearing people to join us and teach them a little sign. And it was an open space discussion. What was the exact name of that, Catherine, to your call? Well, one was the sign language crash course and the second one was the open space discussion was, which is what you just described, what was the round table discussion about accessibility and the crash course was more of a fun interactive thing for people to learn a few signs and basically both activities. But it was in the same location in the center and the expo center, right? Yeah, but a different day, different days. Oh, okay. So much happened that Milad forgot. I must have missed that part. I remember when we were practicing something on one day. You missed one, you missed one, actually. Yeah, I don't know when you were the only one who was lately gone and we were like, where's Milad? And you came very late. I don't know which one it was, but you missed one activity. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, a lot going on. The kiosk, we hosted a kiosk and I really kind of wanted some feedback up here, but there's not a lot of people that were here. Okay, Anastasia's not here and Sandeep's just coming on, but I was hoping to get some feedback on that. One bit of feedback that, hi, Sandeep. Hi, thanks for joining us. Glad to see you, everybody. Hi. The kiosk, I will let Sandeep talk about that since he's here. Do you have any feedback on that, Sandeep? I mean, I thought it was a great experience, terrific to meet a bunch of new people, just get to interact with everybody. And one that was a thing that was a little bit challenging was trying to juggle all the time with all the people switching in and out. It just felt it wasn't as smooth as I would have liked it to be. Having to run new practice sessions and come back to the kiosk. It just felt like there was a lot going on and go and see somebody else's presentation. It felt like a lot of running to and fro, but maybe we need to improve the flexibility on the time or something, I don't know, so that everybody can go prepare for their stuff and make their presentations and all of that.  There was a lot of that kind of thing happening there. That's just my feedback, my two cents. I don't know, Sandeep, did you want to add anything? Your experience at the kiosk, how you felt like it went? Do you have anything fun to add about that? Milad, you put too much put all the points. I'm guilty of not spending much time in the kiosk actually. Maybe because it was like sometime between like, practicing and then sometime like, maybe going through like all of the, going through all of the sponsor booths and all, but I think the way the people left the comments, the way people left the comments on the Slack, I think went it well, went it very well. Maybe yes, Catherine, you want to say something? Yeah, Catherine, did you want to add? Yeah, I don't have any comments because I was working at the Lingardikiosk, but I was actually hoping to hear from you more about the interactions with the hearing people, the communities, like what, how do you think was that? I mean, because I always thought that it's really important for people to have the opportunity to meet the deaf people, to ask them questions, to have those interactions, which is why we did all these activity things. So it's like, I'm really curious about your interactions with people, your conversations. How did you feel that went? And that question, of course, is for Milat, Emmanuel and Sandeep. Okay, Catherine, that's a good question. So I think I interrupted quite a few people and so one of them was an AWS Machine Learning Bureau, Jamie in profession. So she just came and wanted to know what it was all about and had a really nice interaction. And then some, I think another one was the parent of a deaf child. So, I mean, speaking about my experience, I mean, for personal feedback for me is that I just wish I could have spent much more time at the mood, maybe much more interacted with a bit more folks. That's the personal feedback for me, but apart from that, what all the people we met, what all the people we talked, everyone really felt good. And like all of the posts that went in LinkedIn, a lot of hearing allies are also joining it. Like my friend, Shivangi, she has been with us for a long time, but then I did not happen to tell her about this. But then she ran over LinkedIn posts and then she joined as an elite. So I think we got like a lot of traction, I'd say. Maybe Emmanuel wants to ask something. I think you're on mute, Kevin. Yeah, I realized. So overall a good, I mean, it's something that we should try to do again. I would assume, right? Yeah. Yes, yes, yes, we should definitely, definitely do it again. Definitely, 100% we should do it again. Okay, cause all these things that we've done are basically things where we sign up for, right? And I jumped on every single opportunity and signed us up for everything. So because I thought like, first of all, let's try it. And yeah, so I just wanted to get like your feedback. Like, should we do it again? Should we try to do all these things? I think, well, I always imagine that the most valuable thing is actually having these one-on-one interactions with people, like speaking and so on is important for visibility, but really to change people's minds, right? And making, sensibilize them for accessibility. For that, you really need to have like one-on-one interactions, people to meet people. So I hope that we've accomplished a little bit of that, changing some minds, every single coupon maybe, then bit by bit we'll change the community, hopefully. At least that's my hope. Ah, Catherine, I would say we accomplished a lot, a lot more than what we expected, a lot more. Maybe I think the issue was like, I had like a couple of sessions that I wanted to attend. And the session crashed with my exit time allocated at the boot. So I think I need to do better planning on the coupon, like which sessions I want to attend and manage my time slot for the boot. I think I did not know a good job there. Like one or two sessions I wanted to attend class, not on with my time at the boot. Yeah. I think that most people didn't really know what to expect either, right? Because it was the first time we're doing all that. And so maybe next time, as people sign up for their shifts at the booth, as you said, it's just like looking at the schedule, what do I want to attend? I know Anastasia did that, but maybe some other people left it for the last minute and then already had signed up for that. And then same thing for scheduling dry runs with their panel discussions, right? Like trying to do that at time. So it's a lot of scheduling to do, of course, in planning, but I think, again, it was the first time for everyone. And I think like no one really knew maybe what the booth looks like, what to expect. So hopefully next time, yeah, we can plan better because we know what to expect basically. And maybe we can keep like a smaller time session. Maybe like if we have more people instead of like one and a half hour, Milan and Sandeep, we can hand them for a smaller time duration. Wouldn't that help? Whatever works for people, right? Like, I mean, if we had, it always depends like how many people are actually joining, right? We can always do more shifts and shorter shifts, but then also it's difficult because you have to remember to run, that might be more running, right? Cause if it's a lot longer shift, it's like maybe just one or two and then just go there and stick there for an hour and a half. If you have more shorter shifts, then there is a lot more running. So it's like, it just depends. We can experiment, but whatever works for most, I would say, we can discuss. And now it's easier to discuss that before a conference because everyone knows what it looks like. So I think it's easier to determine the best approach. And yes, I agree with you, Catherine. I think it needs like an at least 15 minutes of time to have a deep and engaging conversation. You cannot have a very meaningful conversation in just like five minutes. Probably like an average of 15 minutes, at least an average of 15 minutes would be a good way to engage in a deep and meaningful conversation with other people who may not know what is it to interpret or who may not know what is it to use a sign language. Okay. And yes, it's nice to see the interpreters. Nice to see them. But really after meeting them first to first, yes, Milad and Catherine and you all, nice to see you in Zoom after meeting your first to first. It's always nice to meet people in real life after seeing them so often on screen. Yeah. Emmanuel, you are good? Yes, I'm good. I was so happy to see you guys. I hope you all join us in Paris for people who doesn't know I'm from Paris, I'm French. I know sign language, but French sign language, I don't know about ISL and ESL. So it was fun to communicate with different people with different sign language. And who the communication between us is very, very fun. It was very fun and I was so happy to see you to communicate with you to participate, to open about SSBG. It was very interesting. And the unit was incredible. We had sign interpreter and a channel. And it was totally SSBG for everyone. It was fun. And yes, and a round of applause to Catherine for putting this all together. Thank you. Wow. Thank you. Well, we all put it together, right? With a little guidance, but it was all a big teamwork. It was amazing. It was amazing the way you put this all together as a group was wonderful. Yes, it was wonderful. It was a lot of fun for me too. I mean, these are the best parts of KubeCon are like meeting everyone you collaborate with. And this group is particularly... And the attraction to that video, it was super cool. That video, it was awesome. The one that Mila did? Yes, it was awesome. So I have a link to that. I hope to do more videos and maybe you can help me put those together.  And Catherine, one thing that is like, to be honest, I did not actually know what the booth is about. So probably like, we can have like a brief session about what we are going to do at the booth and something that would really help to set expectations. Okay, sure. Next time we'll do a little bit more prep. Maybe like a pre-KubeCon meeting with everyone who will be attending. Yeah, I would add to that, Catherine. I guess Paris, before that we were in Chicago and we didn't really have a kiosk there like we did in Paris. Is that correct? Paris was the first time? Awesome. Okay. Our group didn't really exist a few months before Chicago. So Chicago was the first kind of like, we didn't even make the CFP was already closed. So yeah, it was like, what can we do? So we were late for everything because we were so new. So this November, we'll have a kiosk there as well. And going forward, especially in the North, like we're going to be in Salt Lake City for the North American version coming up November. That's the idea. You always have to sign up because there are more people interested than actually available slots. But I feel like in general like you have, a lot of things are first come first serve. And I'm pretty sure I was the first one who signed up for the kiosk. So it's just about keeping on top of stuff and being faster than the others and signing up for everything. So it should work. Yeah. Right. One thing I would say is in terms of working on the kiosk and the experience with all of that, the hearing people who came up to the kiosk, I felt like I had to kind of invite some of them over and to show them that we were interested in talking to them and kind of invite them and engage them in discussion instead of just standing back and letting people come by. Because sometimes people would pass by and not say anything. But if you engagingly invited them in and welcomed them in and that their expressions showed that they were interested in talking, they just didn't know quite how to start the conversation. And in the hearing world, it's just a little bit different, I think. And that's just, I don't know, that's just my opinion. It worked really well to engage them. Okay. So feeling like nothing else to add, we can move on. Okay. I'm sorry, Blarish speaking, I'll wait.  No, Catherine, I actually wanted to ask you what feedback do you have for us? Let's ask from all of this, what feedback do you have for us with the kiosk or what we could have done better, according to you? I think everyone did great. So, you know, it's all about engaging with the community and talking. Everyone was up for everything. So again, I signed this up for every single opportunity and I know it was a lot of work. So no one complained. I was afraid people would be like, this is too much work. But no, I think everyone did great. You know, it's all about exposure and meeting, hearing people, making allies. I don't know about you, but like in our, in the sign language crash course and the roundtable discussion, there were not a ton of people. I think we could have, like, I think the CNCF could have done better by promoting that. But people were very engaged and I feel that we've changed people's attitude towards accessibility, like, forever, you know?  And then suddenly it's not just like this. I always say it's not an abstract concept anymore, right, accessibility. Normally, if you don't know anyone, it's just abstract. It's like, yeah, I know it's important, but it's just like this not very close to you.  And I think that changes attitudes. And that's why I think all these activities are so important because, like, it's changing, you know, minds bit by bit. Every single people, you cannot talk to everyone because it's a small team, 12,000 people at KubeCon. I mean, some people may not even have realized that people were there even though on the keynote stage there was like sign language interpreters. And some people don't attend the keynotes, right? So it's slow, but I think like if we do something similar, every single KubeCon, I think we can actually change, help shape the community and make it more welcoming in general and sensibilize them to accessibility not only for deaf people, but like for anyone, right? Cause it's like deafness is just one thing, but like once you meet someone who's deaf, you're like, oh yeah, and what about all these other things? So I think that's, so I really think it's really important work. So I think you all did a really great job and I hope we can do this many more KubeCon. Maybe, I mean, from everything I saw on Slack since I wasn't there, it looked like you had some really great meetings and got some interest from new people, which was exciting to see. Maybe next time for KubeCon, if there wasn't as much participation, you could make a goal of inviting different groups that you know will be there. I know there's a lot of groups that do mentorship or allyship. So in a sense, we're early now instead of how it was in Chicago was developing a few key groups and inviting them at specific times to come by the booth and invite their members of different organizations or different affiliations. That way there's a key list of targets to invite to learn more. I think definitely awareness about those activities like help, like yeah, if we can work on it. Like I was just assuming it's on the schedule and then people will just come but there's so much stuff on the schedule and it's like, so I wanted to talk to the CNCF to see like how they can promote it a little bit more because I feel it is important, but yeah, that's another idea. You know, like kind of promoting it among allies and groups that are willing to help so they can, you know, let the word out and then have more people attend. That's a great idea. I guess I think Saria, that's a very beautiful idea. And I think I don't have some specific groups in mind that we can invite, but then we have to see like if they are speaking at the same time they might not be able to make it. So maybe I think it's all about how we schedule. Okay, terrific. I see we can, I think we can move on to the next thing. Deaf and cloud native. It feels like it's kind of the same folks over and over and which is great, but I would like to see some and same topics over and over as well. And I would like to see some technical topics and some more variety in topics. So if we want to plan something for that and schedule it maybe 10 minutes, 20 minutes at a time, that would be terrific and that'd be fine. And then in the future, maybe more people will come than maybe just like one like Kubernetes talk, you know? I mean, I feel like we've all talked a lot about Kubernetes and maybe we could talk more other cloud native topics. And it'd be a wonderful experience to also improve our presentation skills and practice for future conferences and future cube cons and have more deaf people on the stage there and give us an opportunity to practice. So if we'd like to have more practice sessions with feedback and improvements to presentations, et cetera, I think that'd be great ahead of the next cube con. So a deaf native, cloud native, that kind of thing. So I'd like to have one or two more people interested in doing that contact me if you are interested in doing that and we'll see about setting it up, okay? Thoughts, opinions, viewpoints about deaf and cloud native. If not, I'll move on. Catherine, before I move on anything, anything to add? Okay, all right, moving right along. Catherine, if you could take the next one. Yeah, so I created a PR tracker, PR for public relations, not full request. We had that confusion before. The link is in the chat. So I wanna just keep track of everything. Yeah, I was meant to ask, but you had public relations, okay? So yeah, the idea is to add all of the stuff that we, all the opportunities we have, we get, right? Like all the videos, the talks, interviews. So we don't forget where they are and then, or that we've done them. And we also wanna make sure that we promote them, right? We have like all these different talks now. Each talk is an opportunity to help raise awareness. And we've seen that a lot of our members came through LinkedIn post, right? And so you don't wanna post the same thing over and over again, right? Instead, you know, like we can promote one talk and then talk about and then like mention the working group, you know? So I think it would be great to promote one talk per week. So we have several there. Maybe we could start with one. The idea is for anyone in our group to do one. So it's not always the same people. I know Milad has been great and promoting a lot of stuff. Rob has done it. It would be great to see other people doing it too. So, you know, because you have different networks and so on, so we're also sharing and content from different people as well. So yeah, please, I mean, I'm gonna question here. Anyone who would like to do the first one? I can help as well if you want. Yes, Sandeep? You? Oh, yes, yes. I can take it. Okay, so Sandeep is this week. You can pick something and then let's do next week too since we're here. Who wants to do next week? Great, great. And then we'll take it from there. And then you can also... Good. Okay, so yeah, just go through the list and pick whatever, you know, and if you need help, let me know. And then don't forget to post it in our channel so everyone can see it as well. And then if you haven't done so already, there are two things that we should share. One is the interview with Sandeep. Awesome, very great interview. Got a lot of traction. Has like over 250 likes or something. Let's make that even more. And then there's the recap video from Milat. So do share those. And then yeah, we have someone who just joined. Do you wanna say hi? So I'm Srivangi, I just joined a bit late, so... I introduced myself on the Slack channel and I gave the name a bit out of context, so still catching up. Okay, well, welcome. Glad you made it. So we have two people from India joining right now. So thank you for making it so late. It's not ideal time. Any questions regarding promo public relations tracker? I have a couple of questions, but I think I've been your class. Okay, okay. And then next one is me as well. So we did have some feedback for the Linux Foundation Events team. It's mostly focused on interpreters. The thing that I could think of, I think everything else went good, but if anyone wants to add something, the link is on the agenda. Again, it's always an opportunity to say what they could do better. And yeah, so have a look, at least the people who were there have a look and see if there is anything you wanna add. And then the next one is actually something that Rob brought up. I think we've talked about it a few times, and that is like a sign language glossary for cloud native terms. Basically, you being part of the community means that you are kind of shaping sign language, a technology sign language, right? Because it's like there aren't a lot of people here besides you yet. And so that makes a lot of sense. First of all, like also to share it with interpreters for yourself when you're doing talks, like everyone. So we're all agree on the sign language would be nice to have something were to find it. And so there is a CNCF glossary already, which is explaining cloud native terms, right? And then I think there are 13 languages. And so one thing could be where we just add another language. So go, you can choose French, Chinese, whatever. You could do sign language and there is just the video. So you see the screenshot with all the languages in the agenda, if you look at it, or I think even better for accessibility is adding it, not accessibility for visibility is making it a part of the English glossary. And I made a little mockup where it's like you have agile, software development of the one that I have, like you have the definition and underneath you have sign language. And then I have an embedded video where you can see how it's signed.  So it's like, again, another way of discovering that, yeah, there is a need, there are deaf people in the community and so on. So first of all, any thoughts about that in general? I have something. I have a website and I have technical vocabulary and signs and English words there, but it's not a lot about Kubernetes at this point and we could definitely add, you know, if you need help, you can look at the ASL glossary and you could look there and have those words for sure. So that's just a thought. You mean in addition or making it a CNCF thing as well? Or like just picking? Because there are lots of places, right? Yeah, maybe, I don't know, we could discuss it as a team and come up with the vocabulary words that we want to see used and then kind of come up with some common technical terms and check it out and then maybe change it based on what we're seeing with ASL and CNCF and develop it that way, make it kind of a dynamic process where we all get together and discuss it. But I'm wondering, I do have a question, CNCF, their glossary, do you mean they have one word and one sign? Is that what you're thinking or are you thinking about their glossary explains what the words mean? I don't really follow what you meant by the glossary. No, so there is a glossary and I know it's hard to, so you can check it out later because I know it's hard to look at the glossary and participate in the conversation, but so it's a glossary that explains cloud native terms and that's actually a project that I started two, three years ago, I don't know, whenever I started. Yeah, so that is to explain cloud native term, right? Like what is a cluster? What is a container, right? And then so, and that thing has grown into, so we have lots of different teams and this is like also it's open source and you have the French team, like for instance, Anastasia on the keynote, she shared the keynote with one guy who was part of the French localization team. So you have like all these different teams translating it into their languages. So you have English and then you have 13 or more because there may be other languages that are not published yet, working on translating that into different languages. So what I like about that is that it is a CNCF non-coat open source project. So it's another opportunity for members to become contributors, right? And so I think there are two ways of doing it. It could be either, so it's a little different because we don't need to explain what it is in sign language. People can read the English description to learn what a container is. Our glossary is to show how to sign it. And so there are two ways of doing it, one in the dropdown where you have the 13 languages, there could be one where you look sign language and I would just put the sign because it's not ASL or whatever. Cause we all said we want those to be global, right? And then for each term, you have a video where you can see how it's signed. For that, I mean, that's kind of nice to have it all there. It's not very discoverable for hearing people if we want awareness and visibility. So what I like even more is just adding a section into the English glossary, which is the one that is used most, right? So you're looking for containers and then you have an explanation, what is container, blah, blah. And at the end, you have an embedded video and this is how you sign it, right? And then so people who are looking wanna know what is container and like, oh, look at that. There's a video about, you know, maybe they even learn how to sign containers. I don't know. So it's an additional kind of way for hearing people to see that deaf people have heard of the community. So that's what I like about that. And so that is good. And the other thing that's good is that already, the glossary has already determined several words that are important for cloud native. So we don't have to come up with, oh, what are all the terms that need science, right? So cause we go there and again, again, cloud native technology, cluster, container orchestrator, like you can just go through it cause some teams have already thought about what is important. And then it would only be a matter of creating the videos only in quotation marks cause of course it's easier said than done. But does that make sense? Like, is it clear what it's supposed to be? Yeah, oh yeah, clear. Thanks. For me, it's clear. I hope it is for videos. Yeah, Jay says yes. And what I really like about this again is cause we have, we have you and Anastasia who are the co-host of the deaf and cloud native deaf, like the community groups is an entity in our community. And there are lots of people who are core organizers of community groups, right? And you are the ones who do the deaf and cloud native meetup. So it is something that already exists, right? And then we have lots of different teams working on the glossary, the CNCF glossary cause it's this non-coat open source project. And then it would be great to have another glossary team, you know, like maybe two leads who kind of do that. I think the videos ideally would be from lots of different people, right? Like so, but it would be great to have maybe two leads who, and this is a pitch to this group. Like if anyone is interested, you know, like say like, hey, I would love to do that. And you're, you're basically taking ownership of that little project and ensuring kind of like, like trying to drive the conversation, how should we sign container? And then of course it shouldn't be a discussion between the two people. It should be a discussion with everyone. Maybe there is something already, but then say like, okay, this is, this is the term who will record it, like manage the whole thing and then create the PR, the pull requests this time and ensure, and yeah, just so that the videos are added to the glossary.  So then we would have more people owning different things. And then again is, yeah. Yes, three steps, got it. Yeah. And it's also like with the interviews, right? At KubeCon, like one of the pitches for the reason why Milad and Anastasia, I pushed a lot them, because it's like, hey, last time we were pushing the co-chairs of the working group. Then like this is like, hey, do you wanna meet the organizers of the community group? And then this is another thing we can say like, hey, these are the glossary maintainers, like the sign language glossary maintainers, you know, like the people leading that project. So it gives us an opportunity to talk about different things as well. By participating in different parts of the ecosystem that already exist, but now for sign language or for deaf, or for, you know, like something specific to our community. I hope that glossary, maybe the working group can talk about how to do that, get a few deaf folks involved in creating that. That sounds really cool. So anybody who's really into that we'll talk about that more as we go forward. I wanna be just said, I'll join it. Who said that? Sorry, I didn't see. Andrew. Awesome, awesome. Yeah, I would definitely join that. Yeah, and Jay said me too. Okay, do you wanna get started? That's cool. Okay, so let's talk about this more offline. I can tell you which Slack channels to join and so on, but I mean, I would be awesome. And again, like you would be leading that effort. You wouldn't be doing it all on your own. It's just like Milad and Anastasia are doing the meetup, but they're not making all the presentations, right? So the videos, I think it's important that we have like videos of different people as well. So it's like, so you could do the first ones and then, but yeah, it's great to see different faces. So people see their different people who are part of the community as well. But yeah, thank you. I was hoping to get volunteered. That was my goal for this meeting. Yeah, and I think I have one last thing. Yeah, there's one thing left. Yeah, about the Zoom improvement and accessibility. Do you want to comment on that, Catherine? Yeah, so for those who don't know, a few months ago, we met with the Zoom accessibility team, because as you probably know, at least Rob was saying teams is a lot better in terms of accessibility. There are a lot of issues with Zoom, but Zoom has much better, the streaming is much better. So a lot of deaf people use Zoom and Teams at the same time, which is kind of crazy. And so we did talk to Zoom, created a doc with recommendations, then someone left and then, because I followed up a few times and said like, so what's going on? Are we implementing it or not? But they had to leave, well, they left and then someone else came in and then someone did add comments in the document. And I just wanted to be sure, like, can you have a look is that stuff that was already there? Should it be improved? We have their email addresses and I'm happy to bug them until they are sick of me and hopefully implemented, but like have a look, because it's like, I mean, you're using Zoom often, I assume. And the better it is, the easier it is to work virtually. So please have a look and see if you see or find the improvements, if that's something you knew about, is it new or not? Because I have no idea. Really, if it's stuff that was already there and that's not exactly what we meant. And if not, or if there is anything missing, I'm happy to kind of, you know, bug them again and say like, hey, this is really important and just see if, whether they get it implemented or not, I don't know, but they do have a team that is dedicated to accessibility. So they should better listen to people who need accessibility, at least that's my opinion. If not, they should look for a different job. That's it for me. Yes, and somebody had a question about the glossary in terms of, somebody was talking about the glossary. Hi. Hi, Nicole. I'm gonna try to join this real quick. I'm working right now, so I'm high. I'm just coming in really quickly. I'm great to see you. There are lots of glossaries that are already in existence. And I'm just wondering if any of you guys are involved with those at all and the ASL core, that is one, and it might be able to link to them. Yeah, Melod saying, what Catherine was just saying is that the CNCF has a glossary for their different terminology. And there's not a lot of available platforms that have such glossaries for their specific terminology. For example, I would say the inference, the word for example, there's no real sign for it. We have to create a term for that or we have to expand on that and explain what it means. And in terms of cloud native relationship. So Catherine, I don't know if you have other thoughts on that. But I don't know, my thought was just to create something that is an additional CNCF, like contribute to a CNCF project, an existing, contribute to an existing CNCF project to have another additional way of participating in the ecosystem, right? I think if there are different glossaries, probably it would make sense to add those, like the same video or contribute those as well back, but it would be nice to have this within the CNCF kind of documentation, again, also for visibility. But I think like we shouldn't, I mean, the more places these things live, the better, right? Like if you have one video, like again, just to have the container example, right? Like maybe that same video can be contributed to the other glossaries because different people use different glossaries. We don't only have one English dictionary, right? People have lots of different English dictionaries and they all have the same explanation or similar explanation. So it's not about having one only, right? Or it's like if we can just, you know, like distribute them as much as possible that way more people can discover the cognitive terms and other glossaries as well. And you call it is already an existing project. So it's just piggy-bagging on that one. It's the CNCF. It's an open-source project. And I'm responding to the Slack channel. And I think as a team, we can certainly volunteer to help that, put ourselves in the mix on that. All right. I think, Catherine, we've covered everything. Is there one more thing that you wanted to cover or is that it? All right, so we've got like four minutes left. Anything from anyone here, questions, comments, thoughts, anybody have any last closing things they want to say in the last four minutes? I thought Zoom is better than Google Meeting and Teams. But I couldn't be wrong. I'm not sure. Maybe I'll check out the link in the recommendation. Yeah, I think. Go ahead. No, I just thought that in the Google Meeting the screen sharing is not at all intuitive. In Zoom, the screen sharing is very intuitive. In Google Meeting, it's not at all good. So I thought Zoom is much better. But I'll check the recommendations and let you know. Yeah. Well, just have a look at the document because I remember that, like we did, like this is what Teams has. It's Teams, not Google Meets, by the way. So Teams has, and this is what Zoom lacks, kind of. Maybe there are other things in other views and maybe there are other things where Zoom outperforms Teams. But yeah, have a look, because that was, I think a lot of the input came from Rob and a few other people. We were much smaller at the time. So we didn't have as many members either. What? I don't have much experience of using Teams. I mean, we use Teams on everything I said, but that is only for chat. I mean, Teams is just used for chatting with each other. We don't use Teams as an audio-visual resource. And Sivange, nice of you to turn up. Yeah, so everyone, ah, Sivange, I met her in Detroit in like October 2022. And she's the other friend I still carry from that conference to the coupon. Yeah. Very nice. That's nice. And we have submitted like quite a number of talks together. So yeah, we'll see how it goes. Yeah, Sandeep is like the person because of whom I could understand, okay, like how lack of like accessibility is hindering people to attend multiple talks at CubeCon, right? And that is when I noticed, okay, this is also something which needs to be looked at. And after I saw Sandeep's talk, I came across, okay, this is a group which is something I might be interested in and I can contribute. So yeah. Well, welcome. Wonderful. We have a minute left and I just wanna say thank you. Thanks for coming today. Thanks for being part of the meeting and I think we got through the agenda. And anyway, nice to meet you all. It's nice to see you. See you soon. Great, have a great day. Thank you.