Okay, I'm gonna take advantage of the 30 seconds or so and start a little bit early, only cause I've got about an hour it's worth the material to fit into 40 minutes. So, see how we do here. So the title of today's talk is Tuckman Was Wrong. Just real quick, if you don't know me, I'm Doc Norton. I am with a consultancy called Anbole and I am Doc on Dev everywhere. All the things whack Doc on Dev. Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, all of them. So if you wanna follow me or tweet about me or whatever, that's how to find me. All right, so Tuckman Was Wrong. Let's start off, this talk actually came out of some research that I was doing a couple of years ago on a completely different topic. And I stumbled across this information, started digging more into it and a talk emerged. But let's start off talking about stable teams. So, stable teams have been, for a long time, a given and agile. We have to have stable teams. All right, it's one of the things we need to do. We gotta get the team set up and make sure that that team stays together so they can get to a high-performing state. And there's all kinds of mantras around this. We wanna bring the work to the team, not the team to the work, et cetera, et cetera. And it's pretty much everywhere you look. Here is a quote taken out of Scrum Plop, stable teams pattern, where we talk about keeping the team stable and avoid shuffling people between teams. And if I ask people, why stable teams? Why do we need to have them? The number one answer that I get in some form or another is because Tuckmans. Now, how many of you are familiar with Tuckmans' theory on team development? So, Tuckmans' theory, we'll do it quick. Sounds like several folks are familiar with it. There are various forms of this. I'm gonna basically talk about kind of the original form, if you will. But in Tuckmans' theory, all teams go through a set of stages. You start in one state and you move through a series of stages. And those stages are fundamentally forming, storming, norming and performing. Now, how many more of you realize you're familiar with Tuckmans' stages? Yeah, okay. Now, according to the theory, all teams start off in forming. In forming, we're pretty polite with each other. Everyone's kind of figuring out where everybody else is coming from. We're not really showing necessarily our true selves. At least some of us aren't, depending on personalities. And everyone's kind of trying to get along. And then eventually what happens is there's little things that just agitate you. You can't stand the fact that all of her commit messages are past tense and not active tense. And how dare she? And he keeps putting curly brackets on the wrong line. And this person thinks that we're supposed to look at the board during standup instead of talk about the work that we were doing or whatever it is, right? There's things that these people are doing that just kind of doesn't seem right. And we start to raise these issues. And the next thing you know, we're in this storming stage. And the storming stage now is where we're not really getting along. Our performance goes down. And eventually, hopefully, we move into a norming stage where we recognize that this behavior is not particularly healthy. What we should probably do is figure out how we want to work together as a team. We come up with our norms. We begin to acclimate to those norms. And then we move into a performing stage. According to Tuckman, all teams move through these stages in this exact sequence. If something happens, you add someone to the team, you will likely revert. If you are in norming and someone new comes in, you will revert to storming. Well, performance standpoint, Tuckman's looks something like this. This is the typical graph that we might see. Performance over time, as the teams kind of progressed through these various stages. Looks beautiful. Very simple, easy to understand. Now, you might, if you have studied Tuckman's over the long term, you might be familiar with some other stages that either been suggested or added, adjoining, transforming, mourning, reforming. I recently heard of another suggested stage of stagnating. But let's just stick with the original phases for this talk. And storming ends up being the number one reason that we want to keep teams stable. When you adjust the composition of the team, they regress back into storming. Their performance goes down. And they've got to go back through norming and get back up to high performing. And that's a real problem for us, right? So I've got a question for you. How many of you have actually experienced this on a team that you've joined? Yeah, almost everyone has experienced this on a team that they've joined. And almost everyone says, yep, that's exactly how it went. We went exactly through those stages and then we became a high performing team. And then when you start to dig in and you start to really look at it, it turns out that many, many more of us have slightly different experiences. Maybe if we hadn't been told about the model and then said, hmm, yeah, my experience matches that model, we might have told different story if asked. And sometimes instead of looking like this, it looks something like this where we spend an awful lot of time in storming. And for some teams, it feels more like this where we never get out of it. Some teams experience something more along these lines. They seem to keep going back into storming over and over and over again, right? Which is actually realistically on a timeline looks more like this. And sometimes it's a little questionable as to whether or not we actually ever hit performing. So when you actually talk with folks, while they say yes, I've had this experience and then you start asking more detailed questions, it turns out they're like, well, I've had a similar experience. I've had something that was kind of like that, not exactly like that, but it was close enough. So I was talking about having done research and this talk came out of that. While I was doing this research, one of the things that I found was some interesting stuff on Tuckman's and the science afterwards. And it turns out that there has been study after study after study. And none of them have really been able to definitively produce results that match with Tuckman's model. There's always something wrong. Now it's a theory, it's a model, that's okay. But then in 2007, the US government published a study that they had done across all of the armed forces over a significant number of years with many, many people, hundreds of thousands of people, tens of thousands of teams. And what they did was they took the behaviors associated with forming and storming and norming and performing and they evaluated teams and when did they exhibit these behaviors and what did that actually look like on a graph? And this is Tuckman's stages for real. This is how it actually happens. It turns out that teams don't go through all of the stages necessarily. Some teams entirely skip early stages or mid-staging. Some teams never regress. Some teams go through the stages in order you wouldn't expect. The stages, the behaviors of the stages cross over each other. So you may be showing forming behaviors long after you've begun norming and even long after you've begun performing. And here's the most significant one for me. Storming right here is the dark brown. Look at storming on this graph. It's happening all of the time. In fact, in teams that show performing behavior, storming happens more, not less. It turns out that a high-performing team, a truly healthy high-performing team is constantly having good, healthy, rich debate. They're constantly looking at is what we're doing the right thing or not and they're having some really hard discussions about that. That's actually an element of performance. High-performing teams are storming. It's not a thing that we can avoid. We don't regress into storming. It's happening all of the time. So if this is the case, then the problem that we've been trying to solve all along, making sure that teams stay stable so that they don't go through these cycles so that they don't regress into storming, must not be valid. So if the problem wasn't because Tuckmans, even though that's our most common answer, what was it? Because stable teams did make things better. How many of you have experienced this? You've been in an organization where people get moved around all the time, teams get stabilized and things actually do get better. So if it wasn't Tuckmans, if that wasn't the problem, what was it? And I think what it was, it is in many organizations, is because of resources. It's because we treat humans as fungible assets, as cogs that can be inserted into different types of work. When we move them into stable teams, some of these elements go away. So because of resources. Here's our resources, some of you may call them humans, if you're all hippy-dippy like that. But here's our pool of resources and here is our massive stack of work that needs to be done. We got lots of projects and they're all kind of big and fat. And by the way, they're all funded so they all gotta happen. If you do the headcount and look at the skills necessary, we don't have enough people to get all these projects done. What is an organization to do? Well, we could cut a couple of the projects or maybe defer them, but that's a hard decision. It turns out there's another way we can solve this problem, right? All we need to do is take those projects, just spread them across all these people. Hey, look, now all the projects are gonna get done, aren't they? So we just assign people to multiple projects because why not? Because we don't wanna make the hard decisions. What happens when we do this? Well, there's a couple of things that happen when we do this. First, you'll notice none of these people are assigned to one single project. Some of them are assigned to two, some of them are assigned to as many as four. What happens when we assign people to multiple projects? All with the same basic priority, all of them having separate project managers who are confident theirs is the most important and the things need to be done. You end up with a problem. So if you were my workshop earlier this week, you've seen this. Let's imagine that you have four tasks of eight hours each. Now how you know they're eight hours, I don't know. Maybe you're the one person who can actually estimate the size of work. It doesn't matter. Let's just say we have four tasks and they're eight hours each. And you are assigned to all four of these tasks and they all have to get done. How long will it take you to finish those four tasks? Anyone? Four tasks, eight hours? 32, thank you. Four times eight is 32. So I'm just gonna go ahead and slice those suckers right up. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I'm gonna work a little bit on each one to make sure that they all get done. 32 hours later, all of them are gonna be done, right? It doesn't happen, does it? What happens? Well what happens is we have context switching. I'm on this task. I've got a bunch of stuff about this thing in my head. What's the history behind it? What am I doing right now? What's the problem we're trying to solve? Who cares about this? Blah, blah, blah, right? I gotta move to the next task. What do I gotta do? I gotta dump all that stuff. I gotta think about this task. I gotta load all that stuff into memory. Now I'm thinking about this task. Well that switch is a context switch. That context switch on average costs 20%. 20% compounded for each task that you add. So what happens is that 32 hours turns into 48.75 hours. That's how long it takes you to get those four tasks done. You spend more time task switching than you do on any one of the tasks. You'll also notice, this is our first task. When does it completed? More than, it gets completed basically at 40 hours. It takes longer to complete the first task than it should have taken to complete all of the tasks when we do this. Now of course if we actually start one and then finish it and start the next one and then finish it, we only have one transfer in terms of what was I doing? Okay, load up the new thing into memory. That's accounted for in the task. So at least theoretically it would be 32 hours. It might be 34, but it's certainly better than 48.75. So this is one of the challenges that stable teams I think actually solved was that we stopped splitting these people across multiple projects. So I wanna look at this just from a slightly different perspective. What does this look like? On a graph, here's eight hours worth of work and for every task that you have, how long does that one chunk of work take you? Just different representation of this same thing. But also because resources. So what else happened here? So one, we got you split across multiple projects. What else have we done? Well, okay, so we may have looked at the skills. Let's hope that we did. Let's hope that somehow this designer is needed on all four of these projects, right? How much of this person is allocated to work? They are fully booked. They are 100% utilized. That's great, isn't it? That's perfect. That's what we want. We need to 100% utilize all of our people because they cost us money. What actually happens when we 100% utilize a resource? This is what happens. Our productivity goes down precipitously once we cross basically 70 to 80%. The task time actually starts to double when any resource, be this a queue or a human or whatever else gets to actual 80% utilization. And then it doubles again from 90 to 95. And then it doubles again. So it's exponential. And basically at 100% utilization, nothing's getting done. Now it turns out that a 40 hour work week isn't really 100% utilization for most humans. We are capable of working more than that. And that's often how we try and solve this problem. Is when we're 100% utilized at a capacity assumption of 40 hours a week, we all just work 50 or 60 and we kind of make up for that gap a little bit, right? So similar graph, utilization, task time. Down here, the task time takes a little longer when you're at like 10% utilized. But for the most part, it takes eight hours up till about 80, 85% and then it starts taking a lot longer. And of course, as we add projects on the amount of time it takes you to get any particular task done gets longer and longer and longer. So I posit that stable teams solve because resources. It didn't solve Tuckmans. Tuckmans wasn't the problem. Storming always happens and high performing teams storm more than low performing teams. At least they exhibit storming behaviors more than low performing teams. They also happen to do it better than a low performing team. But something happened. So we created these stable teams and we solved a bunch of problems. But then something new emerged. We created boxes. We made a new style of silo. This team operates together all of the time. They become a little too homogenous. They become a little bit too much like one another. And we start to get these subcultures in the environment. And sometimes those subcultures are toxic and the environment grows. And we decompose the monolith into microservices and every microservice has its own team. And so we have smaller and smaller and more and more tiny little atomic boxes creating more and more subcultures in our environment. And what we learn in front-end development on one team doesn't spread to the other teams. What we learn in back-end development on one team doesn't spread to the other teams. Every team is becoming its own little thing and now we've got a whole new set of problems, don't we? So we solved one set by making stable teams and now we've got a new set. There's a lot of words in this slide and I apologize for that, but it's an excellent statement from Michael Feathers. Different areas of code are gonna need different skill sets at different times. And for that reason, we need people to go and work on those particular areas at different times. None of this is basically status. It's very fluid. If you have the ability to redeem, then you're able to do this sort of thing consistently.  And as you grow, the needs of the code change. In the beginning, it was sling stuff, figure out market. Then it starts to become stabilized, the flat platform. But we still need innovation in different areas. And so code that once needed innovation now needs stabilization. Those are different people with different skills. That's what Feathers is talking about. None of this is static. It's very fluid. And if you have the ability to redeem, then you're able to do this sort of thing consistently. So redeeming. So here we go from we have to have stable teams because Tuckmans, which turns out to be, well, maybe not so much. And now we've got a new problem. We've got these silos. We've got these cults of personality. And we've got teams working on a code base that now has a different need than their skillset provides. So what do we do? We redeem. Now to get started with redeeming, there's a couple of things that have to happen. There are fundamentally four factors in any environment that lead to better team performance and collective satisfaction. And I've got a whole another series of talk on this, but let's go through these very quickly. What are the things you need in any given environment in order for teams to be able to start redeeming healthily? The first thing you need to do is foster autonomy. The teams still need to be able to define for themselves the way that they do the work. But you also need connection. So you need connection between these teams. You need them talking to each other. You need them sharing information so that organizationally we're coalescing on these standards and figuring out what is the leading way for us to do this work versus keeping them all isolated. So now they start to work together on what is the right kind of thing to do. We need excellence. Excellence encompasses a number of things. When I'm talking about it here, what we're talking about fundamentally is a way for teams and individuals to clearly understand the goal and to be able to see progress towards that goal in a consistent manner and the autonomy and connection to work together towards that goal. And then you've got to have diversity. And what I'm talking about here is diversity of thought, different backgrounds, different perspectives, different mindsets coming together, different expertise in specific areas. Most of the work that we do today is emergent. Most of the software that we're building, we don't actually know what the thing is supposed to be. It is in the building of the thing that we learn what the thing was supposed to be in the first place. We're not replacing accounting systems anymore. We're not writing docketing systems for law firms or any of that stuff where we know exactly what the manual process is and we're just automating it. Today, we're inventing new ways of working and we don't know what they are until we invent them. And in order to do that, you've got to have diversity. There is no one person that can make the decisions. The team's got to be able to work together and they've got to be able to bring different perspectives to make that happen. So if you've got these things in your environment, then you've got a much better chance of re-teaming successfully. So here are a couple of examples of some places that do re-teaming fairly well. Valve. So Valve has this thing that they call cabals. I don't know if it's actually still around. When I first did this talk, first did this research, I know that they were operating this way. Basically at Valve, there's a bunch of different things that are happening. I don't know, a few years ago, they released their employee handbook. How many of you saw that? All right, pretty cutting edge stuff. It was very interesting. One of the things at Valve, so I'm a developer, I'm on team A.  I happen to go out to the bar with a couple of folks on team B. One of them starts telling me about what's happening on team B. That stuff sounds pretty cool. I kind of like what they're doing over there.  That's it, done. That is their internal transfer process. Go do what you want to do. Move and work on the thing that you think is most important. Now a lot of organizations, that sounds super scary because everybody's gonna go to the sexy work. Everyone's gonna go to the stuff that's interesting and exciting, except here's the thing. What you think is interesting and exciting, someone else does not. They think it's tedious. They think it's too risky. They think any number of things or maybe that lead engineer that rocked it when we were launching the new product, maybe she's a little tired now. Maybe her mother's taking ill and she wants to spend more time at home and the best she's got for the next few months is to come in, pick up a ticket, move it to done and go home. So she wants that work, not this work. When you let people move to the work that they want, it gets done. The other thing that Valve discovered was they had initiatives that were basically hubris-driven development.  Now how many of you have heard of the Spotify model? All right, you may see that there are quotes around this. When I say Spotify model, I usually say Spotify model. The reason I say that is this thing that we call the model is not the model. This is an artifact that represents a moment in time. The Spotify model is constant inspection and adaption. They're constantly looking at and changing the way that they do things. They focus on autonomy, giving teams the ability to do what they need to do. Connection, hence guilds, chapters, those types of things. That is a way that they create that connection. Excellence, clarity of understanding and diversity. They focus on those four things and they've created an environment that allows people to move around relatively easily within that environment. Not quite as easy as Valve. Let's not just get up and walk over there. But it is very easy to move from team to team and Spotify as well. There's a few patterns that have emerged. Now there's a really good book on this now. Heidi Helflin has actually done a book on reteaming and she covers a lot more patterns. I'm gonna go through just a couple of them quick. So the first one that I like is socialization. So this is a team creates their own onboarding and gets good at ingesting new members. They get good at you show up and say, hey, I'd like to work in this team. And the team goes great. If you wanna work here, here's our standards. Here's how we do things.  They're gonna be your mentor for the next couple of weeks to help answer any questions that you might have. And all we're gonna ask of you is get used to the way that we're doing things. We know you're gonna have questions. We respect that. But we'd like you to maybe hold off on change suggestions until you actually know how it is that we operate and then we'll have that discussion. And they get good at bringing people into the team and getting them acclimated to the way that we work around here. What's really important about socialization when you get good at it is it allows you to relatively rapidly grow a team. You can add a member within a matter of weeks they're acclimated. You can add a new member within a matter of weeks they're acclimated. You can add a new member, you get the idea. Now, the challenge here is sooner or later that team's gonna get to be a little too large, right? You wanna keep them at, what, two pizzas, whatever that means? So what do you do? You implement the next pattern, which is mitosis. The team gets to be a certain size, you split it. You now have two teams. Those two teams have normalized on the way that things work. And then they're both good at socialization so you can add members. And you can add members until they split. If you want to grow an organization's excellence, if you have a team, the way that we normally do this, you have a team that works really, really well. You guys are fantastic together. I love the way you guys work together. I don't know how you figure these things out, but it's amazing. We've got hundreds of teams in the organization that we want all to work like you. So here's what we're gonna do.  And what do we do? We split that team up, we spread it around. We put them in unfertil ground that isn't interested in their crazy wacky ideas and it doesn't spread. Add people to that team and split it. Keep doing it and you will spread this excellence. Another pattern is the volunteer fire department. This happens when organizations called these Tiger teams or other names form, something happens. Something terrible has gone awry and or we've got some really amazing opportunity that right away we need to have something happen. So we pull in people from other teams, we put them onto a single team for a defined brief period of time and then we go ahead and we send them back. This is one that we probably wanna exercise less often than the others, but it is an actual pattern that happens with reteaming. And then another really good one, trading places. At LinkedIn, they have this concept of tours of duty. You take a job, you sign up for six months. At the end of those six months, you may or may not be offered that same tour or you may go for a different tour. So they are deliberately moving people from team to team on a regular basis. Other organizations will do things like, I'm gonna send two developers from this team over to that team and they're gonna send two developers over here and we cross-pollinate. You get to learn a bit about how that team performs. We get to learn a little bit about how your team performs and then we come back to our own teams and we can share that new learning. Hey, you know what? It turns out that when they do their stand-ups, they've got this totally different thing that they do and it seems really effective and it kind of solves one of the problems I think we're having. Could we try that? In the words of Nayan Hajwala, reteaming is inevitable. You might as well get good at it. That's the end of the talk, thank you. Are there thoughts or questions on this? I try to get through as quickly as possible because this is usually one where people are like, whoa, wait a minute. Yeah, right, so I think there were two pieces of that question. The one was people are moving around, how do you do performance management and then you said something else in addition to performance management or was that it? Okay, all right. I guess my question is how do you do performance management now and why? If performance management is you've got a boss that determines you're doing good or not, my question to you is why is that the structure? If you had a structure where performance management was maybe real-time feedback in a more robust fashion, 360 or something along those lines, I'm not talking about necessarily formal 360 reviews, but if you had something where the network evaluates the members of the network, you would solve that problem. So in order to be able to do re-teaming, perhaps you need to reevaluate the current hierarchy and is it actually providing value to the members and to itself? So it would require a change in the way the performance management is done or at least I would encourage a change in the way performance management is done. So I think that there's an assumption in there that we're talking about super high fluidity as if people are moving every few weeks. That may not be the case. People may stay on a team for a couple of years. They may stay on a team for six months, I don't know. So when I did this at Groupon, what we ended up doing was we basically went with the tour of duty concept. Once you enlisted to work on a team, you were guaranteeing that you were gonna be there for a period of time.  You were there for four, six months at a time. Also, we're pairing and we're mobbing. As a result, knowledge share is extremely high. The entire team knows what's going on. So it's actually fairly easy to join these teams and to get up to speed pretty quickly on what's happening, what is the business problem that we're solving. If we are defining the work in terms of actual business problems, if we are product focused, that helps a great deal as well. When the team moves from implementing requirements to solving problems, it's actually easier for them to get a quicker understanding of what are we doing, why are we doing it, how are we doing it. So you gotta think about in your environment what makes sense. It might be that you want to say, hey, yes there's fluidity but when you join a team, you gotta be there for three months or six months or a year. It might be like Valve, you're willing to say, move when you want, however you want. I would experiment with it and I wouldn't, if I'm introducing this to any organization, I wouldn't go from no fluidity to everyone moves all the time. Take some small step, how did that work, tune, adjust. As the organization gets better at this, you can accelerate the movement. You may find that at first it's once a year, people can move and after a few years, it's once a quarter people can move and you're not noticing a difference. What else? Yeah, yeah, but productivity was the thing that we were concerned about when we 100% utilized and put people across multiple projects and when we stopped worrying about that and we took a different approach, we actually increased the productivity of the people. So I get the question, I understand it. It is looking at short-term local optimization. Oh, if we've got a couple of too many people on this team, they're not all being utilized efficiently. I'm not thinking about what's the long-term effect and impact on the overall organization. Think about the amount of time that is spent between teams arguing over how the work is supposed to be done. That team insists that they have to have everything designed up front and know exactly what the API looks like and that team wants to just kind of figure it out as they go and that lack of cohesion, that lack of connection between those teams, the lack of fluidity that keeps them stuck in both of their ways of doing things, costs the organization far more than it would to use a mycosis pattern to actually grow this thing out. Okay, I'm sorry, I'm not sure. Yeah, I think we're kind of saying the same thing there. Like it's not actually four stages that happen in sequence that, yeah, yeah. Which is what the studies have actually shown. What Tuckman had done was look at a bunch of studies up to that time and was looking for patterns across them and said, hey, it seems like in general this is the thing that happens and then we kind of adopted it as like this is the thing that exactly happens all the time. So yeah, you're right. Performing can look different on different teams. You're storming while you're performing, et cetera.  I think you're good. More of a controlled one than a democratic one. Good meeting. What do you mean? It could, right? So I think part of your point is that sometimes we need these folks on a team and if they opt to move, then we lose a certain amount of knowledge that then ends up becoming a real problem for the organization. So what is the demand? I think there's different ways that that can be addressed. One is that maybe you could do internal job fair type thing so that people know that there is, what are the opportunities that are open? Then when I opt into, I want to join this team, the discussion is not a matter of if, but a matter of when. In order for me to move from my team to that team, what needs to happen? My knowledge needs to be transferred. When my knowledge is transferred, then I can move. The other thing that we gotta be careful of, because I saw this at Groupon, they wanted to keep people on teams because they had certain level of expertise so they refused to let them move. What did those people do? They moved. They left the organization altogether. So now you've lost that knowledge entirely. So we gotta be careful that we don't try and control humans in that way. We gotta think about what is the real impact here, not just to the organization's need in the short term, but what is the risk? So we were losing good talent because we wouldn't let them move internally so they moved externally. It actually made more sense for us to say, all right, fine, you can go to a different team. At least you're still in the organization. I can now come to you and ask you questions. So we gotta keep that balance between those things. Yeah, there's one back here and then one over here. So you're saying that in some teams, people would be performing and other people are still norming within the team itself? So I think if I'm hearing you, you might be looking at evaluating individual performance on Tuckman's model and that it just, those two things don't go together. So we may have people who are more experienced, more adept at a particular thing and people who are learning and coming up in that particular technology or that domain. That's gonna happen on every team. And in fact, I think it's really, I think it's healthy for a team to have that kind of that type of diversity on it as well. It's amazing how often the really interesting ideas come from the folks that don't know any better. You had one over here.  You both look confused. All right. How do I view a team? What's my definition of a team? I don't know. Yeah, I should have a better formal definition of that. And I probably have one written down somewhere. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know is there's once, once you've got a organization that is constantly evaluating, constantly growing and sharing knowledge across it, when you pull any group of people together, it almost instantaneously becomes a team of people. They've got a defined purpose, right? Some kind of a mission, some problem they're trying to solve. They have a way of knowing that they are moving positively in that direction. And they are working together, not that each of them has an assignment, but that they are actually sharing the work together. And I think there we have a team, be it for a week, a year, a decade. Yeah, they're cross functional. Yes, thank you. So that's kind of what I meant, better statement of the working together. So I think we're actually a little bit over time. We do have two minutes. Okay, all right. So I don't know, that's interesting question. The first thing that came to mind for me was, how does the existing structure address any of that? It doesn't, hierarchy does not respond well to that type of change, whereas a resilient dynamic organization would be better structured to respond well to that type of change. So in my, I mean, from my estimation, having an organization that's structured like this would actually be able to do better when direction at a high level, when strategy is changing every couple of years. When it's hierarchy, watch this over and over again, the new leader comes in and says, from henceforth thou shalt's yeck and ye smack. And then slowly but surely, that makes its way through the organization with lots of resistance at every layer because my job as a middle manager is to protect status quo, not to allow change. And by the time it finally gets to where it's like we're almost functioning, the new leader comes in, right? Yes, that is absolutely correct. So when we were talking about dynamic redeeming and that type of stuff, we were also talking about organizations that are flattening out, right? That we have fewer of those layers, we have more, it is much more of a network than it is a hierarchy, yeah. All right, thank you again. I'll be around.


All righty, I had the pleasure to go to Canada's Wonderland today on Friday and check... Not today, because you guys are watching this a day later. I'm so sorry. I had the pleasure to go on Friday and check out what Canada's Wonderland looked like in stage three. And at first glance, you're going to panic, because you're going to see a lot of people and we've been locked away for a year and a half. So seeing a lot of people is really weird at first, but I promise you, not sucking up or anything, it is extremely safe and yeah, everything went really smoothly. It was a really awesome day and everyone I talked to had such a fantastic visit. People were getting on large amounts of roller coasters. People were riding like Yukon Stryker 10 times, Leviathan 17 times, and it was awesome. You were even able to use the Coke freestyle machines again at Canada's Wonderland, so that was fantastic and super excited to see that. And yeah, there was a lot that you could do. I'm going to try and go over everything I remember. There are shows at Canada's Wonderland that they had the cliff diving experience. They had the show in medieval fair with the cliff diving and the acrobatics, so that was super cool. And they have an awesome dog show in the international show place just across from Wonder Mountains Guardian. So if you're into entertainment, they have that at Canada's Wonderland right now. And to be honest, social distancing is taking place. Obviously like anywhere, you as people have to do your part to keep your social distance. Masks are being worn on rides and Wonderland isn't forcing that. So yeah, it is definitely a very safe experience. If you are super overly cautious, then obviously this probably isn't for you. But for those of us who are vaccinated and wearing masks, go out and enjoy it. It's an awesome experience. There's so much to do. The ride lineups have improved greatly because there is no social distancing going on in the trains, which is such great news.  The single rider line is back at Yukon Striker and other attractions as well. And Fastlane lines are almost walk-ons for a lot of these attractions. So if you have all season Fastlane or you buy Fastlane for the day, you will be able to get everything done numerous times. So if you have a little bit of excess cash and you want to go have an amazing day, Canada's Wonderland is definitely the place to go do it because regardless, as you can tell, it is busy. It is fairly busy. I think they are up to 50% capacity right now. I know that Wonderland is going to be upping it slowly to 75% over the next couple of weeks. That is just what we're hearing online or seeing in comments online. And yeah, trying to think if there's anything different. The indoor restaurants are not open yet. They could just be prepping to get ready to open, but we didn't see any signs of training or anything indoors. So they are not open. Wonderland is still hiring. So if you're looking for a job, definitely go check out Canada's Wonderland's website as they have many positions open at the park. And it's an outdoors job environment. And it's very summer campy from everyone that I know that works at Wonderland. As long as you go in with the right mindset, it's a very fun place to work. You can form lifelong friendships working at Wonderland. But yeah, trying to think if there's anything else. Again, the Coke freestyle machines are open. There's no social distancing on the rides. It was so weird. Cyclone was fully up. The shows are going on. So again, there's three different entertainment shows at the park right now. Actually, four of you include the one in Planet Snoopy. And it may be five. I don't know if the other one in Planet Snoopy is going on, but there is one at the Kazebo with Beagle's Brigade. And I don't know if there's another one in the little kids' show place there. I'm trying to think if there's anything else. Sledgehammer is not open. Riptide is not open. And again, the indoor restaurants are not open. The arcades are open. And I'm trying to think if there's honestly anything else. Q-Lines are socially distanced. But again, it's recommended to be socially distanced. They are unfortunately people don't follow the tape that Wonderland put down. Security does go from ride to ride and try their best to get people to follow the COVID guidelines. Obviously, you have a few Karens in line that throw a little fit.  But won't get into that. But yeah, it's just so great. Can I honestly just say that the best part about Wonderland for me right now is these shows, when you go there, people have been not able to go to movie theaters. They haven't really been able to gather with friends for the most part. They haven't really been able to do anything. So when these cliff divers, the show you just saw are performing, everyone is cheering so loud and everyone's just so into it. It's got a whole different vibe compared to previous years with the same show. And it's just so awesome to see like the parents even interacting with their children and everyone just looks so mesmerized and everyone's like screaming really loud and just like so into it. It just, it was honestly, it just like really like just felt really good to be there almost like tears to my eyes to just, I don't know, it just felt like we just like survived like the end of the world and like everyone's just like so happy about it and enjoying life now. And it just feels really good. It's just like great energy and vibes at Wonderland. And again, if you go with the right mindset, you'll have a great day. So again, you have to go with the right mindset. But even that moment right there, I don't know if you just saw like that mom running by with her kids running to try and go like see the show. It's just like vibes, vibes. It's just like, this is amazing. It's honestly like Wonderland slogan that they've had for a couple of years. It's amazing in here really suits this year for me. Like it's just, it really sums up my emotions over Wonderland being open and with them not having to social distance on the rides anymore. I'll give you a lot of our common questions is how long are the lines? Well, I waited in Leviathan's line today at one of its busiest periods and it took me 30 minutes to get on the ride, maybe even 20 minutes, 20 to 30 minutes. A lot of rides are walk-ons. A lot of the dragonfire was a walk on all day today, even without Fastlane. Fastlane for Leviathan was essentially a walk on. I was with friends that had their Fastlane and they would go do rides while Beast was a walk on without Fastlane. There are many rides and attractions that are walk-ons. So super awesome, like again, you do not have to spend money to enjoy all the rides right now and the park is busy. The reservation system was almost fully booked today and it was still able to enjoy the park with hardly waiting. So you'd be able to do all the major roller coasters without Fastlane at this park right now as well. That's pretty much it. Again, the games are open for those that enjoy games. The arcade was open. I'm just trying to see if I'm missing anything. I'm trying to see. We get a lot of questions, so I'm just trying to review any of the questions that I might get asked. Again, if you guys have any questions that I didn't answer in this video or haven't answered in previous videos, comment them down below and I will do my best to answer them. Again, I do not represent Canada's Wonderland and I do not work for Canada's Wonderland. So anything I do say is my opinions or my predictions or just what I think is going to happen. Obviously things can change at Wonderland with the flip of a finger. So even if I say something's open or that Wonderland's going to do this, it could change very easily tomorrow by the day you go. But it was just really awesome. Everyone I talked to was having a great day. Everyone was super happy. No one had any complaints at all. And yeah, if you want to book Splashworks, it looks fully booked right now up until August 23rd. So I would definitely keep your eyes open for more reservations opening up. I did learn that your reservation, so for example, if you have a reservation today, it doesn't actually reset when you scan into the park. It resets at 12am that day. So you can actually book a reservation a little earlier if you are using up your two reservations or four reservations, including Splashworks. You can book it the day of even before you scan into the park. So just a little advice there. Again, biggest advice if going on a hot day, bring your own water bottle. They have water bottle refill stations or water refill stations. Get the drink plan if you can. It's like $35, $37 after tax and you get unlimited drinks every 15 minutes, all season long. They got all these great deals that go up until Labor Day 2022. So get all season fastling, get all season dining, all season drink plan. Get it all. It is a great deal. You'll never get this kind of a deal ever again from Cedar Fair or Canada's Wonderland. So this is a once in a lifetime deal. So take advantage of it right now. And do I have an update on Winterfest or how we hunt? I cannot confirm that those things are happening for sure, but I am very confident and comfortable to predict that those things will happen for sure on my end. And I wouldn't be surprised if we see some sort of extension of Winterfest. Instead of it just being Friday, Saturday, Sunday, I could see them doing what Cedar Point is doing Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday as Winterfest was one of the most successful launches at Canada's Wonderland compared to the other Cedar Parks. I do not see them extending Halloween Haunt just because Canada's Wonderland's Halloween Haunt is a little slower, especially to start. Obviously, they get fully booked up later on during Halloween Haunt. I don't see them adding a day. The only reason I could see them adding a day is if they were to have restrictions on attendance, maybe adding that Thursday, not the first week, maybe starting the second week adding that Thursday could help allow people to have more days to go. So that could be the case. I mean, who knows, Cedar Fair is a little unpredictable right now. They have a lot of debt they need to pay off over the next five to six years. And yeah, they're going to look for ways to pay it off after trying to survive this pandemic. And they could come up with unique ways. Again, I keep saying you'll hear it in another video coming sometime this week that Canada's Wonderland could really benefit from being open from January to spring with some sort of winter light festival or winter ice festival like Six Flags Dead. Obviously, Canadians prove that they're willing to come out cold, snow, rain, anything, especially this season. People are at the park while it's pouring and they don't leave like they used to. They hide, wait for the rain to stop, and then they go back out and enjoy the park. We are definitely seeing Canadians are desperate right now to do things and winter would be, this winter would be the time to try out being maybe open a little longer than normal without rides. Again, not saying Wonderland can open with rides in the winter, especially after January. But there's definitely possibilities that Cedar Fair could experiment with. That being said, Wonder Mountain's garden isn't open yet. Again, I already said it, Sledgehammer isn't open. The upcharge attractions like Slingshot, Extreme Skyflyer, Go Karts, they aren't open. Go Karts are definitely not opening. There's a new video coming out probably on Saturday night or Sunday morning about some construction markers that have popped up in the Go Karts and they remove the ticket booth. But yeah, that's pretty much it. Is there any rides that are still social distancing? Nope, not to my knowledge. And yes, again, just covering no new dining places have opened up. Again, the park is looking for staff and hiring. So again, go to candidateswonderland.com and go to the jobs section at the bottom of the page and definitely apply if you are looking for a job because they hire a lot of people. So you have a really good chance of getting a job. And I think that's pretty much it. Again, ask any questions down below. I probably missed something. And yeah, I hope you guys have an amazing weekend. Thanks again for supporting the channel. Your guys' support on all these new videos has been absolutely amazing. And just the suggestions for new content, definitely reading them and have it down on a list of content to film. So thank you so much for watching and listening. And again, have an amazing weekend. Definitely book a visit to Canada's Wonderland. It is safe. It is worth it. And it's only going to get better. Thanks so much, guys. Have a good one. Bye.


Alright guys my Pat McGrath order came in so for today's video I'm going to be doing swatches of five of the six divine blush duos from Pat McGrath and then I picked up two of the new Divine Glow shades. I'm gonna do comparisons of what is in the regular blush line and let's get into it So I ordered all of this from the Pat McGrath website I did see it's currently available also on Sephora a couple of the shades are Exclusive to Pat McGrath's website But most of the shades are on Sephora so I will link both retailers down below like I said I did order off of Pat McGrath. The shipping wasn't bad this time The blush is launched a week ago exactly today that I'm filming it and I got some nice little cute gift with purchases Look at this I got a sample of the divine skin which I did not buy because I don't know why Pat McGrath came out with skin care But okay, and then this is super cute I can't believe I got this for free the love and lust gloss trio how cute then we got like I said five blushes and Two divine glow duos. I'm gonna do this by shade We're gonna start off with the blushes, and then we will do the divine glows divine blush duo is going to be $44 it's a bit more expensive than say the individual blushes But you get two blushes in one the exact same amount of product, but I'm happier that you can get two shades I'm okay with paying a little bit more and if you want to see a difference in the box The divine blush duos have more pinky to lilac Ombre whereas the regular divine blush is just all lilac all around all the blushes are made in Italy Yeah, and if you didn't know the divine blush duos are supposed to be limited edition So if you want to get them now's the time they're supposed to be all new shades and today That's what we are going to test. I mean let's not waste any time Let's get straight into it. So the first one that I have right here is aphrodite a more So this one is kind of more of a blushier pink So there's a bright peachy pink here and then more of like a muted rose tone Let me swatch these for you. So here is The two shades in here This is the brighter color and this one is a little bit more neon I just mix both shades together and here's what they look like mixed together In terms of what I thought was similar This is nim-fet right here and I feel like nim-fet is kind of the combo of both especially the rose colors So let's try it. So here's what nim-fet looks like a bit more purple in nim-fet But the vine rose is definitely more mauve. I don't think we need to compare that here's nude v-n-s These also look very different and that's definitely the closest but it holds more purple I will have everything that's currently on my face right now I'm gonna set with a little bit of the raffae water-based powder. I don't have any powder on my cheeks right now This is a really lightweight powder So I think it's gonna be perfect because on a normal day I do have powder on my face when I'm applying these blushes So it's only fair going to use a bk beauty and Angie hot and flashy a 507 brush wiping in between each application we start off with the more muted color and Let's put this more so on the apple of the cheek So this kind of has a somewhat matte finish on the cheek You'll find that the Pat McGrath blushes Assuming these are the exact same formula. They last such a long time really high quality. There almost is an iridescence to it I don't know if you can see that that's gorgeous. And now let's go into the outer part, which is a little bit brighter I'm gonna put this on the outer part of my cheek so the rose shade in here is definitely more shimmery and The outer part which are the rays has a little bit more matte to it and is definitely more of a hot pink I think these two are gonna be beautiful mixed together But if you want to see how they look separately, you can see this one's more matte has a little bit more red in it This is more of an iridescent finish gonna mix them together because I think they look really pretty on the cheek Mixed together. Yeah, so you have to like bright pink blushes to enjoy this one I think this one is really pretty. I like this one a lot This shimmer is slightly emphasizing the texture, but not in an unflattering way So this next one that I'm gonna show you is divine rose too So you have a brighter hot pink in the roses and then the sun rays is a little bit more peachy and just so you can see the difference between aphrodite a more and Divine rose to divine rose to is definitely brighter punchier and Aphrodite a more looks almost more peach compared to divine rose to which is a lot brighter So we're gonna start off with the brightest shade which is the roses and then the rays You can totally see the difference between the two I can blush duos when the two colors are very different because it makes More sense that way you get more out of it. I feel like with aphrodite a more They were somewhat close on the cheek these two are definitely a little bit more different So there is a single blush in the shade divine rose You can see divine rose is definitely much more natural right here Whereas divine rose to kind of matches up with the eye palette and that it's brighter So these are very very different does not look like divine rose blush Yeah, the single one worth comparing is cherish right here, which reminds me of the rose shade So let's see. So here is cherish. It's pretty close. I would say to the bright shade So just keep that in mind if you do have cherish I'm gonna wipe off my brush start off with the outer color Which is a little bit more muted and I'm gonna start that off on the apple of the cheek and Wow, she pigmented the outer ray color is definitely more on the matte side and you can use a light hand with this This is gonna be a good shade for medium to deep Complexions as well, but you can certainly make it work for a lighter complexion I find with the matte blushes from Pat McGrath You do have to use a lighter hand because if you just go like that and stamp it sometimes they can be harder to blend Okay, and now the brightest color Yeah clear difference between the two I really like that I think that that's important in a blush duo I am more partial to wearing aphrodite a more but I like this shade better in terms of the value I like how the colors look more different from one another aphrodite a more divine rose too Okay on to the next. This is the shade that I was most excited about Venusian sunrise to have this lilac color here And then you have a hot peachy pink and I'm telling you now by looking at the individual blushes that I have if you do Not want any repeats. This is one of the most unique. I don't have a shade that's close to any of these So I'm going to show you flirtatious right here flirtatious is actually quite mobby and this makes flirtatious looks so neutral and boring and almost gray Which is so odd and then we also have divine rose which has a lot of purple in in it doesn't look like anything Nymphet yeah, none of the blushes are even worth swatching compared to these Because there's nothing close especially with this peachy pink shade Not even close. So Let's just swatch them and they feel by the way consistent to the pomegranate formula that we're used to if you're familiar So that's the purpley shade and here's the pink shade and they look Surprisingly wearable. They looked a little bold and bright Next to the other blushes, but they look good. Okay So I got to see what this lilac shade is about and how it looks on me I've been curious. Huh. It actually looks a little bit more pink than I thought it would Well, you can see it's slightly purple. Let me get a clean brush. I don't think The brush was the problem, but just to ensure Yeah, okay. So this does look purpley, but there's a little bit of pink just against my skin tone. I think That's pretty. I don't have a blush quite like that Okay, now let's Pop it on the center of the cheek So this peachy pink shade Totally different from the purpley shade Looks a lot more neutral. So I definitely feel like you get two blushes and one compact with this one Both of these shades have more of a satin finish to them. Let's see how they look mixed together So if you want, this is what they look like mixed together But I think with these two I'll probably end up using both of them separately. That's really really neat I like the purple shade there. So here's the next shade. This one also is great two very different shades This is cosmic coral. So you have the coral shade right here a little bit warmer First of the warm shade so far and then we have a very bright pink lots of bright pinks in this collection Here's the warm coral color Definitely going to have to compare this one to cherish We mix both of them together Kind of warmed that up, but I don't think I love that shape So we're going to compare the hot pink to cherish because these two definitely look close Cherish Yeah, these two are pretty close cherish has a little bit more blue in it And then let's compare desert orchid, which I can definitely see there is more pink and cosmic coral Desert orchid also has a shimmer to it whereas this one is more satin. All right. Let's try and let's throw them on the cheeks I'm really excited. I need to play with the warm shade. It's kind of hard not to get the pink in here though So just be aware of that, you know, you'll probably end up Having the colors mixed whether or not you mean it because I can see right here I accidentally got some pink on the brush So that might be a little bit difficult and something to keep in mind But it looks really pretty very smooth on the cheek, but that pink goes a far way Let me just say that like I'm just using a little bit and it already took over this look just for my brush I accidentally dipping in there. This is definitely more of a matte finish very bright Going to be very good across many different skin tones here The only thing is I probably wish I used a smaller brush because it's Nearly impossible not to get that pink shade involved, but you can see the warmth up here This one is also quite pretty. I don't think it looks like any of the other ones No, not really. So this is very unique in this range as well venusian sunrise right here Cosmic coral right here. We have one more blush to work with that brings us to the very last blush duo This is the shade paradise glow I was resistant on getting this because I don't know especially with the red shade I just didn't think it would be very flattering on my skin So but now I'm looking at it and I feel like we can make it work So we have this definitely looks like a shimmer and then we have kind of a brick warm red So here's The lighter shade which will be better for my skin tone And then here's the deeper shade and then we'll mix them all together And you get this which actually is kind of pretty again really no matches here that I have other than Desert orchid which looks similar to the color of the rays. So let's see So here's desert orchid a little bit more neutral close But desert orchid also has a shimmer that this doesn't have So I don't have any shades personally that are close to this. So let's apply I actually want to start off with the deeper shade using light hands And I'm gonna focus this kind of in the outer part of my cheek For the purpose of this being my skin tone if your skin tone is on the deeper side like this but for me, I'm almost kind of playing it as A bronzer or a contour and that looks really good like that, right? For a certain look like in the winter that could be very very pretty. Ooh Okay, I didn't set the outer parts of my face and it's definitely clicking onto the blush I will say that so I do have to kind of work this out a little harder than normal I don't know when it comes to the Pat McGrath formula in general when I first reviewed them Months and months ago. I wasn't that impressed. I just thought they were like a good solid formula But I found I continued to reach for the Pat McGrath blushes because of How long wearing they were and how quickly I could get the color on the cheek because I did contain some pigment As long as you use the right brushes and tools. They're one of the best So that is with just the deeper shade and I think that that is So pretty let's focus on getting the lighter shade Towards the apples and again, we're gonna have a little bit of trouble not mixing in both shades The lighter shade has a little bit more shimmer to it And this gives a really pretty kind of warm burnt look which I like Ooh, I like this one. I don't normally go for warm blushes, but I think that this is very pretty I'm gonna subtly kind of blend both together and just kind of put it right in the middle keeping it away from the apple Building up the color a little bit. Ooh, I like this one. That's so pretty. What do you guys think? This one might actually be my favorite simply because I don't have a lot of blushes that look like this and I didn't think it would work for me All right, now let's go into the highlights So four shades came out one was a repeat and I picked up two new ones that I didn't have I already have golden nectar So I'll show you what that looks like and then I also have venus nectar right here So same deal with the blushes in how the packaging looks Same amount of product as the regular divine glows. These are kind of expensive though They are 48 dollars, which is a lot for a highlight But I will say this is by far one of the best formulas in terms of highlights that pat mcgrath has come out with They are beautiful and smooth. Let me show you. Uh, oh, so this one came a little messy I don't know why but this is lunar allure Which looks like this. So this is definitely going to be great for more fair people, which pat mcgrath didn't have highlights for you Wow, that's really really bright. And then the other one I have is golden moonlight, which is visibly deeper That has more gold to it, which is going to be better for me. This is almost a little bit cooler But this is really great for my fair skin tone people. Let me show you how they compare We'll do golden nectar, which I can see has a little bit more peach in it. Let's see the swatch Golden nectar. Yeah, definitely more peachy champagne. There's a stronger gold in golden moonlight And then for my bridgerton trio, I have venus nectar, which is definitely darker And that's right here has a little bit more warmth to it as well But these are the two new shades that I picked up. Let's try them on Okay, I actually think this might be a little bit too glazed for me compared to what I'm used to I'm gonna use a little bit. This is lunar allure Yeah Fair girls, you're gonna love this For me, this is a bit brighter than what I typically prefer a bit too blinding unless I'm like going to an extravagant evening event That I want to be super bright for Which is not often that's what that looks like I love this highlight though. You can see how smooth it applied how smooth it blended out And I'm just excited because I know I had a lot of you guys tell me that none of the pat macroth Highlights were light enough for you. Here you go. You have it here. So that's very pretty And then this is the one that I knew was going to be my favorite golden moonlight I'm using a sigma f zero three brush and this is still quite quite bright on me I think I still prefer the shade golden nectar. That's my go to But this is a little bit more flattering on my skin tone, but still quite Quite extra, but I do love even how bright it is You can see that it does a really nice job working with texture, you know a highlight by nature It's going to highlight things that you might not want to be highlighted But I feel like this doesn't do it in an obnoxious way And it blends in seamlessly with the skin like you can't exactly see Where the highlight started because of how well it blends out It looks like it's coming from the skin in a very unnatural way because of how bright it is But that's beautiful. I'm going to use this as my inner corner highlight None of the formulas in here are new from pat macroth So I knew I was going to like them, but I just think this highlighter is so stunning on my eyelids for those wondering I'm wearing the color pop super shock shadow in the shade bestest That's it nothing else I have a brown shadow as my eyeliner, but isn't this so pretty? Okay, let me get myself together and I'll give you my final thoughts One of the things that I wanted to do in case you were between shades So I mixed both of the shades in each pan just so you can kind of see how they would compare and the general vibe So starting from the top, we have aphrodite amour Divine rose to venusian sunrise cosmic coral and paradise glow just in case you wanted that visual for comparing All in all, in my humble opinion, I am very happy with this launch I don't think it is a need, you know, if you have all of the individual blushes You don't need to run out and buy these But I will say if you were looking to try the pat macroth blush formula and was waiting for the right time I do recommend these duos over the individuals because I do think you get a bigger bang for your buck in terms of like You get two shades Now what I would recommend going for are the blushes that have two completely different tones in one pan Because I feel like for example, while divine rose two is beautiful and wearable It's two shades of pink. They don't differentiate on the cheek as much Also aphrodite amour like these two have two similar colors In one pan.  Don't get me wrong. And then also if you do have a lot of the pat macroth blushes There's a lot of pinks in the pat macroth blush collection when it comes especially again this aphrodite amour And divine rose two there are somewhat similar shades in the pat macroth line. They're less unique So the ones that I would recommend if you're looking for Unique and a little bit of a better value given that you are paying a little bit more I recommend venusian sunrise because I think both shades in here are very unique to the pat macroth line They don't have anything like it cosmic coral. This shade's a little closer to the shade cherish But this shade is unique and this shade kind of overtakes. I find this shade So I don't love this one, but it is great because you get two extremely different shades It's not my personal favorite combo and I was hoping that it would be I was hoping that The ray of color could be used as a bronzer. It definitely cannot be So I don't love the colors in this as much because I just feel like this takes over everything and I can't just get this shade on my cheeks. So this is not my personal favorite But it's one that I would almost recommend because the shades are so different from one another But I think today I don't know if my favorite is venusian sunrise or paradise glow for me I like paradise glow because I just feel like I don't have any other blushes like this I really like the darker shade in this duo and using it almost as a contour So for me, this is the blush of the day that I'm enjoying But my top two are venusian sunrise and paradise glow for sure And then both of the highlights are beautiful as well I mean this this was a pre-existing formula She just expanded the color range to go along with a larger range of skin tones, which is really great I'm still a fan for my skin tone of golden nectar. I have more of a light medium skin tone This is my favorite but golden moonlight. It's a little bit brighter for me But I still think it's very pretty and then the lightest shade luna allure Not for me, but I know pat mcgrath was missing A color like this for various fair skin tones. So there you go So overall a very very successful launch if you ask me not something you need But I'm happy that she I have nothing bad to say about these. I love the formula I think the colors are really pretty So hopefully this video was helpful to you Thank you guys so much for liking it and being subscribed to my channel And I will catch you guys in the next one. I guess have a good one


There you go. Hey, come on over. You gonna break it? There you go. There you go. I think Captain Boykin... Oh, man. There we go. Go fast.   Better be the staff, sir. Staff, sir, and very staff, sir. Doesn't look like you're going to get it. I believe. One, two, three.


Hey there lads and ladies, it is Petrifying Pumpkins here with a new Firewall Zero Hour video. This one is a continuation of a video I made three months ago. Back then it was called Firewall Zero Hour one month later. This one is Firewall Zero Hour four months later and I'll let you figure out why. And it'll be about taking a look back on how Firewall has progressed and evolved since that first video right up until today. So let's hop right into it. It is now 2019, happy new year everyone by the way, and Firewall Zero Hour still has a very active player base four months after launch.  Now you may think that having an active player base after only four months is not that big of a deal, but on PSVR that is a fairly big deal. Quite a few PSVR multiplayer games have become ghost towns shortly after launch, but it seems like Firewall has what it takes to keep PSVR owners put in the headset back on time after time. And with the holiday season just passing us by, there has been a recent injection of fresh Firewall players taking their very first steps into the magical world of VR. But what has changed since my last video and what does 2019 have in store for First Contact Entertainment's first PSVR title? Well since the last video, First Contact released DLC number one in mid-October. Now DLC number one focused primarily on integrating the PlayStation Store within Firewall and the first cosmetic DLC isms were released. This DLC set the template for what would constitute cosmetic DLC which all subsequent DLC releases have followed. So you get the four weapon camos, you get the four contractor camos, usually the same. Four face paints, four trinkets and four patches, with PS Plus members getting a further free cosmetic ism for a limited period of time. So not only that, but the weekly Firewall Friday community updates by Damon Shabastari began as promised. It was around the time of DLC number one where Shabs teased us on some of the fixes and improvements that the team were working on. This included a fix for AFK players, improvements to weapon offset aka nipple aiming and anti-aliasing toggles for PS4 pro users and smoke grenade adjustments. They also later teased a fix for the infamous suicide jammer exploits as well as economy adjustments with crypto amounts being altered. So then in late October patch 1.05 hit Firewall zero hour and it did indeed hit some of these teased features. It brought with it an option to disable the weapon offset. This was one of those things that I didn't know I wanted until I disabled it myself and it met a lot of people happy so that was very well received. So those of us who played on PS4 pros also got the ability to toggle off anti-aliasing with 1.05. However the reception to this change was more mixed. Disabling AA on pro may make the text easier to read, but it introduces some fairly harsh shimmering. Many were hoping for more of a middle ground rather than the all or nothing approach that first contact have taken with AA on the PS4 pro. This patch also met it so that the game would recall your last used contractor rather than a random one and it also finally put an end to the suicide jammer exploits by destroying the equipment of players who commit suicide during the match, thus rendering their jammers useless. Challenges were also expanded to have 10 levels rather than the just one that they had. This was a nice way to earn some larger amounts of XP. The smoke grenade, whom many thought was more like a vape pen than a smoke grenade, was buffed to have a more dense smoke cloud although it does dissipate fairly quickly. The crypto changes were also introduced in 1.05 so picking up a crypto on the map was now worth 50 crypto rather than the measly 20 crypto it had been. There was also some improvements met for left handed people but who cares about those freaks. To date 1.05 had quite a nice selection of improvements and was mostly well received apart from some crashing that was introduced briefly but was very quickly fixed in 1.06. So then in early November we got our first teaser trailer for DLC number 2.  The screens then changed to display 3 brand new weapons, a tease for the contractor's skill and what I believed at the time was a tease for a new map. We were given a release date of the 20th of November and this trailer led to a lot of speculations from the fans and myself. We figured out pretty quickly that 2 of the new weapons were based of a P90 SMG and a FAMAS auto rifle. But the skill and the map left a lot of the community guessing. In the community update that detailed this teaser trailer we were also told that DLC number 2 would be the last DLC drop of 2018 with the rest of the team's focus being on fixes and improvements to the gameplay. Meanwhile in the game itself the messa had evolved and a new unlockable attachment had become God, the grenade launcher. Both feared and hated by those who felt victim to us and loved by those who wielded us it had become very prevalent in the game as more people leveled up and unlocked us. The grenade launcher can attach to many of the game's auto rifles though it does require you sacrifice your lethal throwables. It seems to deal the same damage as an impact grenade but it can be shot while simultaneously firing your rifle, the combination of which often proves very fatal and if used rife can end a match very quickly. The downside of using a grenade launcher is that you don't get the aiming arc you do from using a normal grenade so in theory it does take more skill to use it accurately. And the few times that I have used this I've indeed almost killed myself, more than the enemies but that's what little practice. This very recent post on redis got 60 upvotes and spared some heezy debates so let me know your thoughts on the grenade launcher in the comments below. Anyway, back to the DLC. The Israeli contractor Nash was revealed to the world on the 20th of November. Now Nash is the first DLC contractor ever added to firewall and while she is paid DLC her skill binary which allows you to carry 2c4 charges was added to the game for all to buy with in-game currency as long as you had reached level 45. The Spitfire, G6 Commando and XMOR90 were also added to the game the first DLC weapons to ever be added. All of these were purchasable only with in-game currency and all three weapons were quickly adapted by the player base. G90 in particular was very impressive so impressive that it seems it was nerfed a little shortly after it was released. DLC number 2 also brought with it a batch of new cosmetics however there was no map included so despite DLC number 2 adding some great stuff there was a bit of disappointment floating around over the fact that there wasn't a new map even though first contact entertainment never promised a map but people like me went ahead and speculated and got people's hopes up. It was a very nice surprise when first contact entertainment announced that despite what they said earlier there was going to be another DLC drop in 2018 on December 18th to be precise. Although no details were given about what it might include at the time I think we were all praying for a map. It was around this time that firewall zero hour was up for a nomination for VOR game of the year at Jeff Keely's game awards show the most prestigious game awards show on earth. Unfortunately for first contact entertainment it was AstroBus who took that prize and unfortunately for all of us the VOR category was more of a quick announcement than an actual celebration like most of the other categories so even if firewall did win we wouldn't have got to see them even receive the award. Hopefully as VOR grows that kind of thing changes but anyway after that new fixes were teased to arrive alongside DLC number 3 including the long-awaited AFK fix. On the 18th of December DLC number 3 dropped and it did indeed bring with us a brand new map as we had all hoped. The new map called containment was set in Greenland and sees us battling for control of the laptop in some high tech laboratories and brightly lit rooms and has been received very well by the community especially seen as it was released free of charge. DLC number 3 also brought another batch of cosmetics as well as some nice fixes. AFK players were addressed and if you are idle too long in a match you will now get a warning message before being kicked out of the game if you continue to idle. The patch also included a change to the Taylor CQB variant, changing it from burst fire to full auto making it more unique compared to the full sized Taylor. Finally eye movement was added to the contractors in the lobby area adding a bit more visual flair and believability to these avatars. There was going to be another improvement added in this patch that had to be pulled at the last minute thanks to a bug. Originally the patch would have also included voice chat during load screens, fixing a fairly minor annoyance that currently exists in the game however this fix is still scheduled to arrive in early 2019. And so that brings us up to days, we've talked a lot about what has been added to firewall but we haven't really talked about some things that feel like they might be missing. The number one request from the community right now is for either host migration or dedicated servers and first contact entertainment haven't said too much about this since my first video. However they did already tell us in the past that host migration is not nasive to unreal engine 4 so it would be a really big undertaking to put that into the game if they do it at all. But do keep in mind that first contact entertainment are very unlikely to mention anything that they can't 100% guarantee. So just because they're not talking about host migration or dedicated servers doesn't mean they aren't working on that stuff behind the scenes, waiting until their hands are no longer tied to talk about it but that's purely speculation on my part. Another noticeable absence is that of any new game modes. First contact entertainment have hinted at the inclusion of a hardcore mode in the past but we are yet to get it. Now it could be possible that they don't want to split the player base up by adding in a new mode but perhaps the recent influx of players thanks to the holidays will be enough to make a new mode viable we will have to wait and see. In the meantime first contact entertainment have reaffirmed their commitment to firewall by telling us that there's plenty more to come in 2019 and I know I can't wait to see what they have planned. So firewall 4 months laser is much improved over firewall at launch. It has a healthy player base that I hope Sony recognizes as there aren't too many PSVR games that can say this. It has a small but talented team improving it with every update and it has a ton of potential to become even better in 2019 with further support and a growing player base. And it is still 4 months laser the only game that gets me moist. Thanks for watching lads and ladies if you enjoyed this video and want to see more firewall and PSVR content then consider doing all that usual shies. Of course I'd also like to hear what you think of firewalls first 4 months are you happy with the direction it's going in and what are your hopes for the game in 2019 etc etc. I'll see you guys in the next video bye for now.


Hi, my name is Stefan Reindowitz and I'm a professor at Munich University of Applied Sciences in Germany. I want to talk today about WebAssembly and its usage and embedded systems to build, manage VMs around WebAssembly for scalable secure IoT deployments. I found that WebAssembly is used beyond browsers nowadays and I want to outline a little bit some projects that we are currently starting. So, what is WebAssembly? WebAssembly is an open standard for platform-independent bytecode and as many of you probably know, it's originally been developed in the context of browsers to interface JavaScript and to make more performant web applications. But what you can do is you can compile any other VMs supported language to wasn't like this is short for WebAssembly and as interpreters ahead of time compilation, just in time compilation, all the stuff that you could do with the standard managed VMs comparable to Java, for example. But what I found nowadays is that you also have WebAssembly targeting systems beyond the browser on the side of desktop and server deployments. The WebAssembly system interface could, for example, be of interest and so you can see there's clearly a trajectory of WebAssembly outside of browsers. Why would WebAssembly be interesting for embedded systems is that it has very strong isolation properties, which is a strong benefit of managed VMs. And what you get also by it is some improved portability and you would decouple the languages that you're using, the frameworks, the runtimes and the hardware and you don't have an end-to-end et cetera relation. So this is interesting to us and I started looking into what kind of WebAssembly runtimes we have and how portable they are and to elaborate on some demonstrators so that we know where this could be heading. So of course you have the standard browser runtimes. I don't want to talk about them, but there's also standalone runtimes which get more and more popular and get used in many projects nowadays. So there's VASMA, for example, which is implemented in Rust, which we have a deep look into at the moment. And there's many others, for example, the VASMA MicroRuntime or VASMA 3, which are more tiny and written in C and C++. So what do we want to gain with the projects that we are currently running is the question, how could we build scalable WebAssembly deployments using many applets, spanning multiple devices from server edge down to the device and maybe some sort of trust in embedded system deployments, modern IoT systems. So what we need, and this is not covered by WebAssembly itself, is the lifecycle of applets and the management of applets, even from a remote side. We need authenticated communication so that we actually have some attestation around the underlying system that we are working on. And we need some frameworks in the form of APIs, like Arduino-style programming. We want complex frameworks like the global platform, such things like trust execution environments, etc., maybe CPM. Those kind of things is something we are looking in our research nowadays. So we have started some projects and I just want to quickly go through them and see, I want to describe the potential that we have. The one is the OpenTitan platform, which is an open source root-of-trust silicon device that is driven by Google. There's TokoS, which is planned to be running on top of it, which is a Rust-based operating system. And we are currently working on integrating Vasma and TokoS onto OpenTitan to run WebAssembly in a secure way on a root-of-trust element. You could combine it. This is another project we have as an ESP, like the Expressive Devices 32-bit running the Sapphire real-time-of-rating system.  Another system that we are working on is Raspberry Pi with Linux and Vasma Time, which is pretty much out of the box. What we are in particular looking into is the question, how do we do cross-platform integration? How can we establish WebAssembly multi-upplet deployments that span all of those devices? And how do we want to integrate them inside a large deployment, spending different levels of devices? And one thing we are particularly looking at is authenticated communication with Spiffer. So it just started recently. You can stay tuned. You can find it on GitHub. There's a brief description of the projects we are running. Please get in touch if you're interested. I'm looking forward to more and exciting topics. Bye.