Okay, we might as well get started. Okay, hey everybody, my first time on Bookmap. Hi, you might not know me. All myself is on the bottom left-hand corner on YouTube if you want to see that. I mean, we can wait for people to come. I don't really care. I'll stream to forever. I am streaming on my own Twitch, but that is what it is. Okay, let's just get started. So, let's start again with sort of where the moves have been going. I mean, we can pick off from yesterday's live stream we did yesterday. We can carry on from there. So, from yesterday, we were sort of anticipating a potential pull-up from here. I mean, at the beginning of the session and then the time range here. So, we expected an anticipated potential rise from this point here. And coming in from this point, we ended up just smashing up from Asia range. And whatever we end up setting up in Asia range, we all expect the opposite to happen. We ended up getting exactly what we wanted to break out of this area here. We got outside of the trap volume so that indicates that all these longs that entered here in the market are all liquidated on this move here. And they just were letting people go short on these fake red candles that printed during the 15-minute print then just closing it green letting these guys feel some fear. Driving the market up due to sort of liquidations. And then on the end of the range, just pulling it down, bringing a nice outside structure, giving you a nice retest to this area and then pulling up. New York coming in pretty nice in terms of already testing the daily imbalance. We always like testing this just as a point of contention. Any test below is bearish. Any test above is bullish. Especially if we get rapid movements because again this candle just smashed itself all the way down.  Ideally we're looking for within the range and so we got about half hour left of this. So we want the half hour to try to print itself down to try and take out the liquidity just under then pull it up, give you a nice trade to just pull up for sure. Go ahead and look at the liquidity and sort of say try and find where we can look for these trades. So if you look at bug maps again, sort of look at that move we got overnight. Smash yourself down, let these guys get liquidated. Yeah, it's overnight. Yeah, let these guys get liquidated. Hit this into this wall as you see this wall here as soon as it enters creates pressure upwards. This wall is left open and they liquidate the shorts on this move up. Liquidate the shorts, smash into this wall. Then just exhaustion, let these buyers fill. There's not really buyers but just let the liquidation just cascade here. And for some reason they end up picking just a bit more like uncle. We can pick up a few more liquidations if we swipe it one more time. People I don't know what they were doing. I think there were 100x shorts. Yeah, this is the short we need. Then they end up doing this or they end up getting liquidated. So that's fun. Ends up pushing down, we see selling, we see selling. This starts moving into those people who went long and breakout traders above the view up here, pulling back down into this wall here. As you can see, this ends up just selling into this and then just absorbing a lot of pressure. And where you can look at absorption and if you don't have the absorption indicated, just look at the volume delta. It's like super easy. If it moves too slow relative to the cumulative volume delta. So the delta is moving faster. So you have a faster tape than you do have actual price movement. Then you expect some absorption to take place. Oh guys, if you guys have any questions, you can either leave it in the crypto chat or you can leave it in the book map. You can leave it in the book map live stream. I'll be able to see them. I can't hear anything I'm saying. Volume is really low. I don't know if that's on my side. Should be fine. I think I'm just being quiet. Okay, I'll try to speak up. Is this volume really that bad? I have my game fully on. Let me check mic settings. Let me check mic settings. Yeah, it should be fine. I think I'm just being quiet for some reason. I'll try to speak as loud as I can. Is this better? Is this better? Test, test, one, two, three. Yeah, okay. I think it's just me being quiet. You can try to turn up my own audio in Discord. If you're watching on Discord on YouTube, just turn the volume up. I'm a very quiet person. You're not going to see any loud shouts or anything here. I'm not that type of streamer or person to just shout at you. Okay, back onto the moves. I'll end up moving too far out. Another reason why this sort of move was sort of easy telegraph to try and go up. If you have access to looking at, say, the ES, you can just see prior to close, they were smashing it up. And if we sort of look at that here, they ended up liquidating on prior to close. As soon as the close came on, or it's not, I think, closed just about, like still trying to raise it, but they left this bid here. They left this bid, so even overnight, when if price were ever to come down, they're letting these traders cement into these sort of broken areas here and just say, you know what, you're not allowed to escape out of your position here. So it's easy to say off of Asia, we're potentially looking for upwards to consolidation. So that's that move that we got here. Downwards into close, spikes are up and consolidate sidewards. Let's let people take the wrong position of the trade. They end up liquidating as much as short as they could, because they don't want people to be long if they were to spike it high. So you can really follow the liquidations here. And wherever people, you see the most liquidations in the consolidations, they volume super good, trolls, we trolls. Okay, did you buy the dip? Wow, that, what a lung. Where are the cells in our, okay, yeah, yeah, I'll come into that. So it hits up into this, an exhaust, so you can sort of say, okay, they've taken this to a point where you potentially want to go down and I think this is where we start setting up for New York. If you sort of find New York, New York on the line.  Basin, how would you trade it? Okay, yeah, sure. The way things are looking now, I think we're looking for at least one of these walls to get hit before coming back down. We are trading in the session, so they'll probably test out the range here. They'll probably test out the range.  But we did end up catching a lot of lungs here, so I doubt they want to release these. So we might see some phantom bids just try and come and create pressure here before pushing these down. So ideally you're looking for lower, taking out the point here. They're liquidating the shorts, so they're trying to push it up to a point before bringing it down.  If you sort of look at the spot order book to try and contrast what's happening, similar things. They enter a bid here to try and drive price up. They're trying to, I think, drive it up into these walls. So potentially looking for these walls within the range, pull it back. And if it sort of ends, it's pushed at the end of range, so at 10 a.m. eastern time, you're probably looking for that to come back down or expect a second leg high, pull it back down and trading back into sort of the Asia range. So again, this was the daily imbalance, the very tight sort of range that we ended up getting given, which is great. So this entire thing here, I have to hold it. So this entire area here, it would be your daily imbalance. I mean, I think it came in slightly lower, but who cares? It's around here, but it's around where the high volume node was from the prior area. As you can see, you come back in, tap that, pull it back out. So let's actually correct that. Six, yeah, six a.m. is around here. Put them in the triangle. There we go. That's the area. Extends slightly higher, but I think it was a 67. Whatever time it was, we ended up coming back to it. You see that's where we have longs here. So probably these are good longs, and we see price moving up, taking up into the bids, being aggressive. These are moving away. So as these move away, it allows price to go higher. You wanna see how much it ends up moving by and what we end up doing. Looks like we're getting some level of iceberging here, just purely based on the fact that we've been here for a decent amount of time, just collecting orders. We'll see the futures, see if we have a short bid to answer that. No, we don't. So it looks like they might potentially drive price higher from here. We'll see if they end up closing it around here. See that back down. Because remember, you are trying to look for price to come back down in the range to be bullish, ideally, because that's sort of just from testing, does a lot more for you than purely just, it just goes up and up and up. I think one times out of 10, you'll continue to do this. The rest of time, you'll just do this and come back down. So if it sets up the range and if you're wondering, for those who do not know, FOMC, I'll put down. Down, I guess. Wait, they haven't meeting today? I've been so out of it recently. Let's see what's on. Let's see what's on. Ah, Bloomberg's got one of these now. Ah, Jesus, everyone's got one of these. Three months auction. Let's see, what is it? It's the 25th today? No, it's not. Yeah, it's not. It's the 27th, Jesus. July, let's see. Let's see. Whole sales, retail.  Actually, Jesus. Yeah, statements. Bed interest rate decision. Ah, okay. Yeah, so. That's going to be an aggressive day today if it's actually going to be a statement and a decision on the interest rate. Ah, god damn. So, whatever that ends up being, it doesn't matter, sort of chart is setting up. I think to go up high, it's going to be a whipsaw. So you want to grab detail under the whipsaw.   I mean, grab a range, something like this.  And you want to see where it's trading prior to that, because if the natural pause and natural way wants to go is up, then you'll try to go up prior to a large announcement of people to go long to liquidate them all and let the people who are trading the news be super bearish, then pull up. Again, you don't want to trade the news, you want to trade pre-news and after-news. That's the way you trade the market. I mean, I think we should start coming to a point where we see some level of retracement here anyway. With Bitcoin, but that will take time. Let's look at Ethereum. Ethereum, like we said, it's not really too much. It hasn't been outperforming by too much, but it has some level of been performing better relative to Bitcoin. Hits out into these two areas that we're looking at.  If you look at how it sort of traded that and where it's sort of trading in terms of orders, I think it would trade pretty much exactly the same as Bitcoin. There shouldn't be any caveat.  We've got walls already set up pretty aggressively, so they're letting these just sit here. They'll take some off as algos don't necessarily want to be in the wrong position, depending on how aggressive the volume is. If you take it off, you want to see some level of absorption, which we are seeing right now, but the liquidation is driving price aggressively. As you can see, look how fast this tape is moving, and it is moving correspondingly. If this keeps moving faster and higher, we want to see absorption to potentially drive this down. So it may be we whip-sort down then whip-sort back up on that FOMC news statement. I TP'd my sh-long. Yeah, I would TP your long, definitely. Especially if you got in Asia. Oh god damn. Yeah, this is bugged. Okay, cool. Subscribe. Look at Avax and Solana. I mean, same thing setting up for EOS, actually. Well, since we're here, as you can see, it hits up into the bid, slowly back down, exhausts. We'll probably expect Spike High into these bids, so this will probably carry Bitcoin a bit higher. Spike these bids, pull it back down into these. You got in at $21.10? What was the price? What, Asia? Oh, you got in here? Okay, oh no, slightly low. But yeah, either or. This is still good to TP now. We might drive it slightly higher one more time, but it doesn't matter if you spike it. It's just safe practice to try TP, especially on the back end. No help here. Again, depending on what you look at, you want to change your tick size accordingly. This was too small to be considered trading. So, resubscribe, change your tick size. And for Bitcoin, my tick size is set to 10. Actually, I think I changed it to 25 at some point. But it's whatever you feel like is the reactive thing, because then you can go into settings and change it from auto, Gorgian Blur, to manual. I prefer manual, because then you can just like, okay, even at this point here, you can go super aggressive, grab all these and just make these all just do that. None becomes like, depending on how small your tick size just becomes too much. One got filled. Oh, okay. It's not too bad. If you start zooming out, none becomes too aggressive of a non-blur. So manuals usually are good to stick it at. We're waiting for this. Again, I'll show you that. There you go. 10 tick size, one granularity. Granularity just means the decimal point that you want it. I mean, outside of having it at one, there's no need to go to small decimal points, because people who are training point anything under one Bitcoin are just people who are not considered but so 10 tick size, I like that. It's a great sort of middle ground that I like and past that. I mean, you can have it on 50s for more, for sport, order book, futures.  Otherwise it becomes too scalpy. And then, yeah, sure, you can have the auto and start clicking the bids and sharing them together. By that point you just might want to set your tick size higher and just not have a blur because then you can see higher levels. Because again, if you start setting your tick size to one, then that means, let's say if you're doing if you're just trading the dome then you're putting a stop at 10 ticks at one tick away or two ticks away rather than so which is $1, $2 away rather than $20 or $30 if you were to do 10 ticks that was more than the blur or whatnot. So that's just a reminder. And again, you're always able to just unsubscribe and just change that like you did with Solana. All you have to do is just reload the data. But Solana, same thing, hits out into the cells, smashes up, just looking to go up high again. You're looking for this to end up whip-soring back down. Then once it finds its logical conclusion down, try to take that straw off and trade that news potentially upwards. And same things happen with ES. I always try to call it a spy. It's the same thing relatively speaking. It's getting absorbed these long hits into probably a bunch of cells. You might see this average out, but it does look like a nice outside structure coming back down. But for a bearish case, you ideally want this. Smash the edge of the bids, pull it down these look even, these look much better. They're much closer. They're closer to and they'll liquidate these lungs that were accumulated here. And they will sort of take out the stops placed here. And we'll hit into this bid. Let the people who try to break out here get punished. Then push back down and into that bid. So exactly what I'm trying to expect from Bitcoin, you see it's already trying to drive itself higher slowly, slowly. If you sort of look at where our resistance walls are with do I not have this mark? It's the spot one. There we go. If you look at our resistance walls again we mark this off on Transbider. I just like Transbider just because of the blue dodges. That's the only thing I use them for. These give you a nice support and resistance zone. If you don't know how to read those Transbider Transbider have their own documentations for it. But what I do is just grab the straight line on the 50% of this blue dodgy and it gives you a nice support and resistance for a very long time and it keeps coming back and it just keeps working. Hopefully Transbider will automate them. I've pestered the owner about doing that so hopefully I pestered enough that he gives in and does it. But as you can see here there's a blue dodgy here with volume trapped around here so we can mark this off as a mental note and we can see what price that is right now and we'll come to that at the point that's 21277 21277 we're looking for longs to be trapped here even if the spikes higher if we come back down as soon as we come back under that's your point to try to take that down we'll print off a sort of nice M whatever happens then we'll pull it back down. Ideally looking for if we whip saw we're looking for it to trap below here come back, reject here to try and push down we go back to say the 15 minute chart we're at the mail so I think people are willing to go along here as you can see all short depending on what they're seeing it's like okay there's one there's two there's three hits to this makes sense to try to drive this price down if we get that extension or deviation everyone will get it up until we fill here fill out the Asia gap we're already sort of 21500 just call it even but we're looking for it to come back underneath outside of that looking at the old coins those have been doing slightly better same thing with results we got the hit up for Solano that we wanted from yesterday hit up into the daily level we're looking for rejections and the same thing as Bitcoin hits three times on the mail or the 200 EMA so past that we want to see Long's trapped here, pull it back down hit up into a nice short and this is less of an M, it's just weirdness but we can still trade weirdness can't we looking at the EMA, I don't think I've got the EMA marked here, at least in this range I mean this hardly been anything to mark from the EMA, so now smash that slightly higher again, it's been outperforming relative to Bitcoin, if we look at the EMA it's been above the EMA, this is what we call a deviation but it's just deviating to the point that I think you might just grab and if you can reach this liquidity here then pull back down, we're looking for people to go long here, as soon as people go long we're trying to fade that and what you're looking for is high volume dots on big up high volume dots on book maps and those high volume dots will mean those buys got eaten by someone every time we come back up we're trying to see walls hit up into this trying to see these walls trying to hit up and absorb the movements but once we get these absorbed it's your time to sort of say there's a point to go short alternatively you can avoid trading this and wait for the entire range to be set up and that set up that 10 like I said that 10 EST 10 EST is always a great point to look for your first trade if you're just raking up just purely based on the fact that we set up a range and once we set up a range you can always get a free trade off of that and ideally you want to do the opposite of whatever this does so if this continues to go up like I said you'll always want to do the opposite you might get a leg extended up higher but it depends on if they want to grab if they're greedy and want to grab liquidity but usually it's always more time to trade the range just the opposite for instance like what was Asia dissipates New York, I mean London dissipates ideally if you get a second extension it'll be a stop on to this one so with stop on to 425 sorry about that 25 to 50 pips in Bitcoin's translation or in theorem translation that's perfectly to 25 to 15 in terms of absolute absolute price movement in in Bitcoin's price movement is 250 to 500 so again Bitcoin is 250 USD to 500 that equates to 25 to 50 pips which is nice I thought Ethereum is 25 to 50 that equates to 25 to 50 pips again how you calculate this is super easy well it's not really too easy all you've got to do is take a high and see where we stop hunt outside of it and just measure it and you measure the average across let's say 50 to 100 sort of points and as you can see there's 35 comes in perfectly out if you put a stop at say 40 or 50 if you put a stop at 50 and you enter in at 25 stop hunts then you push out when did I start streaming on bookmark this is my first stream on bookmark I started streaming at 8 EST they want me to do 8 EST every time I rather do afternoon sessions because afternoons are pretty quiet and you just keep doing that and just keep seeing okay how far away is a stop hunt and a stop hunt you're always expecting a sharp move away so you say okay to this point that stop hunt as you can see this point to this point is a stop hunt and you keep measuring those until you get a rough set of data and you equate that as to being your 25 to 50 stop hunt if it extends higher then you can say 75 to 100 pips and it should be the extension slight extension higher in terms of price movement so you can do that with all coins and everything and you can easily translate forex sort of terms into actual sort of any asset terms into crypto so we know that in forex people unless you're trading the GJ so Japanese yen versus the dollar you're not really expecting you're expecting 75 to 100 stop hunts because that trades aggressively for the most part but in most other sort of pairs you're looking for 25 to 50 stop hunts and it's super easy to translate once you figure that number out you've got sort of an easy sort of point to trade stop hunts as you got that you're happy get an astrology here 9 o'clock so I mean news releases happen at 30 so that's that's where I think embargo lifts up 9 30 is open so we want to expect open to be we give 30 minutes from open and we see where we finish this range once we finish this range we want to see either stop on high to pull it back down if this pulls back down and stop on slow we reverse that and try to do the opposite and more times you'll be successful into that and again you can trade the session to counter your trend and sometimes it won't work out I mean here is just what the currencies need I mean Bitcoin led all the way through Asia it tried to try and it tried to reverse outside and it tried its best but most you could do is go into a consolidation and that's the only other thing you can do you can either reverse consolidate or for stop on you can't you can't really do anything else you can't continue to go down you have to either consolidate or reverse so that's I don't know and we end up we end up being stop on if you grab the range I mean there's 25 if you do 500 500's all the way here to be honest it is still considered a successful stop on but not successful in terms of what the capital you gain out of it if you're speaking in terms of relative terms so there's 500 and 25 would be here so I mean depending on the exchange you might have got wiped out here but you could have stick it there but I mean there's no point to be in this trade past I think past this week here goes into consolidation I mean past this in terms of a long trade here so it goes into consolidation spikes it you see the trap liquid to here and on that large we can even see that on say anything was like in order for software and you can use say exo charts if you want to but if you don't want to pay for exo charts there's always a free alternative that being ASAS and so you can see where the liquidity is on that so as you can see on that move here there was that trap long trap long just spiking it back down spiking it back down there's another trap long area yeah whatever yeah that came in a bit too early but you get the picture anytime you see these longs getting trapped or shorts getting trapped we always expect the counter move to happen so there's always a good bet to trade it and that's basically what you're trying to do you're trying to counteract where people are doing and here we're going heavy shorts we're seeing people sell off that's not really good towards the long side I mean short side again expect that second higher trap more longs I don't think people are too foolish to go for this we do see trap longs here so if it short throws and then just close below here that's potentially a short but if it extends up higher you're looking for more longs to be trapped and if you go to our walls we see where this is slightly higher so we potentially might extend that slightly higher we're seeing those buyers exhaust we're seeing that these people not willing to buy anymore so you might take a liquidation to push this up so we're seeing those shorts entered here so liquidations should be an easy reach to grab these positions up higher creating pressure on both sides that's not something we want to see I think off this move it pushes it down lets people want to go short we want to see this flip outside push back down what indicators is that I said you can use the EXO charts but that I am using ATAS as an alternative and all you're looking for is footprint footprint why can't I say that footprint candles I give up footprint candles that's all you're really looking for you probably want to hit that as soon as you hit that you can see these deltas so you want to see those deltas come in you can use an aspect ladder it's easier to counter delta easier to counter delta because again this will more time the retail traders showing up in the books so you want to always counter the trend of retail traders because you want to do the opposite of what they do because once you do the opposite you're a bit more successful who are the real losers in this game retail traders we're getting these all set up so as soon as these get removed price will drive itself up it's just a point where when you get these sort of things it's just to create pressure to make people go short I have a video up on my channel if you want to see it but again if you want to pay for the EXO charts you can pay for EXO charts they changed things around so I can't say for sure if I really like it anymore because I need to see what they changed which urges me but you can also use market delta anything that I provided you is a footprint that's all you really need because with footprints you can tell delta and it's just a nice visualisation I've been pushing for transpider to include it but they've been busy doing other things and they've got custom scripts coming out so waiting for that EXO doesn't give EXO is shit it doesn't give you anything people always rave about EXO charts though someone in my chat said EXO charts that's not it chief use their tasks again I've been pushing as soon as transpider was done EXO is for retail that's so sad for retail why you bully retail ATAS is for ATAS for Russians that's the only issue with ATAS you got installed potentially Russian spyware I'm joking I'm not EXO EXO is nice but steep landing curse on new trainers there's a lot of material out there I've got a ton of material in my discord for footprint calendars because it's one of the things I use you are a reeter damn man I'm a reeter that hurts ow that pains me and it's another case again as soon as custom scripts come out with Transpider I think bitcoin has very short life friends after that I think that's the only thing stopping Transpider from becoming great people always want their custom scripts I want my custom scripts because I made my own ones so I know how they work and it's not there on Transpider but as soon as they come out it's going to be good as you can see come in high volume node here push back down you can probably see that if you grab weapon spy moving down aggressive coming back down probably might come back into the view up but you're looking to see this spike up before you're short you're not looking short this move here this is more times where you want to short you want to short high volume nodes into walls so you want to hit absorption see a 1k bid then coming into liquidation that's where you sell and actually on that sort of learning exciterated stuff on YouTube you can find a lot of three things if you just go market delta type in market delta footprint they have everything explaining it and you can just put two and two together but you can just watch my streams until you get two and two together seeing it slow down now so again just these sellers slowly slowly accumulating coming back down let's see what ES is doing it's pushing up so we're sort of moving slightly counterparty to ES usually we snap back aggressively once if that's the case so if ES starts moving up and we are not moving up in bitcoin we usually snap back and it's super easy to sort of sort of grab that and let me sort of actually grab the there we go I have correlation indicators from my favorite there we go as you can see once we go inverse we snap back aggressively we always snap back and if I turn off the kind of the Dixie and obviously by now you can see anytime we're inversely correlated we always snap back so we're inversely correlated at a high we snap back down inversely correlated at low we snap back up and vice versa it's always nice to sort of exploit that so I mean on open you want to give it some time because again remember ES does have close times so there will be points where you can't trade it on the snap back but once we are mid session as soon as you see inverse correlated you see a snap move here for okay been using Excel for two years now yeah I mean everything really I mean it depends on your learning but like yeah Bookmaps is probably like better I mean there's no replacement for it in terms of identifying depth of market because it gives you depth of market history and that's the main thing depth of market is something that's fleeting and it's been fleeting for a very long time like so you can't really sort of have a history and say okay if walls do this and traders do this so I do the opposite and whatnot but now it's becoming more prevalent we're seeing people put I mean spoof beds have always been the thing but it's just you can now sort of track save it and say okay a trader will potentially do a wall here to create upwards pressure to maybe hit it one more time at a later point may drive up a liquid and liquidate traders into a wall to try to create breakout traders to then push it back down and just just looking for that and that's essentially what all trading is like okay what what happens when something when something else happens what's the effect and what's the cause of that happening okay let's say price driving up into here the effect is price goes up back down and the cause is the reason or reasoning for the cause is they get into a large amount of shorts the traders were absorbed or liquid and liquidate at the same time and they gave a free reign to push it back down and vice versa here a lot of liquidation is coming in absorbed into that then pushing back up so again this could be a it's a mini whipsaw it's always a nice addition to have at least at least one of these onto you audiobooks history is very nice, dome leather yeah exactly and that's what their history is it's just it's just the dome visualized cause I think for me I'm even though I'm a meth head not a meth head I prefer more visual things cause I'm more of the like a better in geometry mechanics than I did actually wait no I did better in pure maths than statistics statistics was my weakest module in mathematics which is funny cause I'm basically entered into a very aggressive statistic based thing so go figure that I lean towards something that gives you a visualization depends on how you work some people can read the dome if you're autistic enough yeah some of these in the future is not the one to trade you'd have a bit set up higher but I mean really it's just messy and pretty hugged together and if that's the case you always want to just switch to spot data spot data will probably more or less provide you with more clean data than futures and especially for longer term sort of trades let's see just do 248 tick size do I have 0.1 yeah 0.1 that says let that load in now take his time follow us through that we can sort of look at bitcoins see where everything's coming up 2 it actually won't explode I have bids at 3k yeah they are of course they are there's always bids at 3k there's always that idiot there's bids at 5k there we go I think it bids no oh no bids at 0 someone got bids at 22 oh cool these guys are just trolling at this point the hell bids at 8000 bids so I think it's at 3000 it just doesn't let me hover over it yeah it's basically around 3000 I guess around 5000 there are bids there there's always bids in dumb positions I think there's bids at 200k at one point when we were at 69 are they still there I'll come to my list let's look for these bids let's look for dumb bids and we can go haha there we go someone's got a bids selling 3 bitcoin at this price since someone has 3 bitcoin and is willing to sell at that price oh he's getting filled that's the fire thing as the order book is willing to go and show us it's not on the load ok it's loading but it doesn't want to give me history that's stupid yeah it just doesn't want to give me history yeah I can spot looks much better in terms of trading as you can see you got your walls more spread out and especially with all coins out pretty illiquid recommend trading looking at both I always recommend looking at trading looking at both spot and futures but if you can only look at one then I would recommend looking at spot for spot for most coins and futures for like very rarely short term future and scalping yeah it's good where it's at is probably spot cause it gives you again usually like once we were higher these were super clean you could not see any fault with the spot book in terms of trying to find how to trade but now it's just become pretty much messy hucked together it's become more controlled Ethereum was like this it was just like any small I think the Ethereum spot book is like this still to this day any small move will cause massive liquidation because it's super super controlled because it's at a low price so they can have a lot more of this a lot more liquidity in pocket but again we're setting up to have this yet to be hit so so aggressively ah cumulative we're losing some volume here's what it is so we're looking for that still looking for a spike up prior to the open I mean actually on open we might get that so we'll wait for the 9.30 candle we'll see how it comes we've got 15 minutes for that so we've got some time we need the company here so three small ticks usually you can go into this and say okay there's a potential long scenario here there's a potential long scenario here and then there's just short afterwards so again like I said you're not really looking towards short this move especially within this range we might get that spike higher it's just trying to culminate into a point where it's just making these people go short they're seeing these whatever they see in the retail sort of mines seeing the shore it goes spikes up the short was here pulls the bike down we'll wait for the session to be printed to fully sort of commit into a single point but you could have taken again tests of the imbalance the Asia at this range here push back up look at other coins I mean pretty liquid and how you see it liquidity is just like you look at the variations of the candles as you can see it moves pretty much it's blocky it looks blocky that's the best way I can describe it if it looks either very I have a lot of wicks or it looks blocky as you know your market is pretty much a liquid and you can tell that off the back just by looking at the candles I don't even need to pull up book maps to look at those so and if you're sort of like looking at coins if you want to look at book maps you want to see either liquidity that time lower timeframes or you're just trying to avoid trading that short timeframes but actually this is nice this is what retail retail traders will like to call it inverse head and shoulders with a retest so again they'll probably be heavy long here so definitely drive that and Apex did end up going slightly higher than expected they just went above this area here initial short was there they've only really pulled it up until here and was like lost confidence lost a lot of confidence on it because the bitcoin was falling strong missed the bottom touch that I really wanted for a long so didn't take the long but you have your short up here because it deviated slightly higher to then push down pretty aggressive in terms of me looking for 17 I doubt I might get that but you can only pray you can look at it's going to transpire I've got more marked there actually let's look at the timelines the spot there that I've let's see how accurate they have been oh no yuck so these are like timelines so the quarters was divvied up as you can see it faded towards quarter gives you nice results it's been really nice doesn't look like it's pretty white coffee and I mean I think if this dump led into this here to then push up it would have been better off by the way things are moving we've got a touch out here it is what it is we're getting maybe one more spike low off that news get the liquidity here slightly under here as long as we close around here we should be good to then try and dry price up so if we sort of chug along and sort of are pretty slow next sort of expected is here and here to then push up so in terms of date wise you're giving yourself timings on the 10th of August at 8 and that's ESD time so I mean those points could be good as you can see it has been reactive the change over of the new quarter at 8 o'clock gave you this change over this gave you this I mean pretty much no brainer to expect these to be slightly reactive at some point as you can see these points do cause they don't cause a change they sort of happen with changes these are not based on anything other than other than dividing up time accordingly they're not based on the moon cycles don't worry I'm not one of those nut jobs please I have far too much respect for myself again probably expecting four hours to come down so expecting some downside but we might still get a spike high it might end into a four hour close that could also be a possibility so one more spike high could give you that possibility to go short then push back down into a potential lower wall to maybe go for a longer term sort of long it's been slow, we've lost so far about it's not too much in terms of in the books lost but still potentially likely tomorrow is a perfect day yeah 3rd of August not 4th 4th of August for you that's the 4th I said 3rd midday 11 o'clock but midday in terms of four hour candles it just happens dead we don't do no no 5th times no we only do logical things we don't do illogical things taking 1.68 of something it's highly illogical but again with the 4 hour printing as you can see if it closes here, drives the price down takes out the liquidity falls it up by tomorrow it might be earlier than tomorrow but I don't care 6.1 is tomorrow okay no haram okay absolutely haram if it plays out it's not cause if it plays out tomorrow it's not cause of the 6.18 5th time is because of the things I've outlined here okay stop with your haram yeah even on the hour you've seen a lot of just like volume just trapped here if we go back in reference the order book we've seen that it just absorbs high amount of long deltas of time if it plays out because of the time no correlation is not causation okay okay listen here you little for both statements sorry for giving yourself some causes for both statements as you can see on the day your shorts trapped here high volume node here putting down aggressive absorb be higher than this uh be higher than this or spike it here come back down still setting up the range watch it I'll give you guys the link to the session time indicator actually since I'm already here there we go those who are still here still listening to me I'll give it to you guys yeah my lot already have it let's just send it over to them as well just in case and once you have it just turn off everything each movie was just there for fun just turn off everything and if you're asking how do I set this up you don't need to touch anything it just works okay it just works maybe change the visual settings so it only really works it only really works on the on like saying on the minute candles because we don't really care because it doesn't really show up too nice because it's only really I think what two hours, two hours and a half every now and again but pulling that in terms of what you want to pay attention to you want to pay attention to again each session so the pre-market session to slight overlap and to open you just want to pay attention to where this print is going to be arranged easily you want to either stop or get breakouts and in terms of targets you want to grab you grab and you want to use either 50% make sure you have 50% marked off you want to do 0, 1, 50% then you want to go into 0.5 increments on the opposite side so let's actually flip through so as you can see let's make sure that nothing, okay nothing I didn't say anything I'm only using 6.1a you said fibs really? I don't remember saying fibs I think it's smoking yeah shadow but I mean usually you're pretty nice to grab this if you want to just mark out the 50% you can just do that it's just the EQ without grabbing that 50% fibs don't work right but it's nice to mark them out 50%, 25%, 75% works you know why they work because they're very easily computable but 6.1a is retail man it's retail man stop stop it's your legal business okay I've got a post for you guys most of that rain gonna rest on the fence yeah you're looking for whatever new york closes at 10 that's your mark of high you can get a stop on it you can end up doing this and if you get a wick we don't have a wick to trade into here but we did have here you can trade in the wick and you're just looking for that you can try it about 50% is always a good point to mark off and sort of expansion wise and this is what you use fib for expansion so price will expand accordingly as you can see price came in stop on expansion it expands high and it usually does 1 and 2 and anything above it's like it's nice but if you're scalping you're only really caring for those two I think that's pretty much all I got today hopefully you guys enjoyed leave a thumbs up leave comments for improvements or what you want to see in the next stream or what you want me to cover I've got a lot to cover in terms of ground for people who are not familiar with my stuff if you're watching on discord or what not you can join my own discord if you want to jump into that but you can always catch the word on bookmap channel other than that see you guys on the flipside peace


I'm really excited to see the show of hands of just how many people are here new and fresh and excited because I woke up this morning and I was sort of getting ready for my talk and I realized sort of as an image of how I act myself sometimes that when you've been around for a while you kind of develop this sort of a little bit harder shell a little bit more skepticism. Let's just put it about that about what you're gonna see because you've been here before and maybe you've been to RailsConf a couple of times and the tweet I woke up to this morning was, oh man, I really wonder if DHH keynote is going to announce a not a Rails feature but I have to turn off every single time I start a new Rails project. And I thought like that's just heartwarming to get that sort of sentiment because it shows that that's a grizzly veteran, right? Like they're already skeptical and cynical about being here. As the answer to almost all programming and computer related questions, have you tried turning it off and on again? Works here as well. So this is a celebration. RailsConf is always a celebration and the main thing it celebrates is you. It celebrates that you had such wisdom and diligence to pick the absolute best tool for the job. It doesn't really matter what the job is, whatever the job is, you pick the best tool. Of course, that's why you're here, right? And you get reaffirmed and validated in that choice when you look around and you see yeah, that's right. There wouldn't be 1500 or 1300 or remember many people are here if I didn't pick the right thing. We all picked the right thing. We're pretty great, aren't we? And I just wanna say yes, yes, you really are great. You picked the right thing because of course you went through careful analysis to pick Rails. This wasn't just a fly of the pants kind of thing. You did all the pros and cons. You read all the benchmarks. You did all the comparison studies. You probably did a lot of demo projects in like what five to seven other frameworks and languages before you picked Rails, right? This was a very hardcore scientific exercise for you to end up here in the Ruby and Rails community.  Okay, well, don't let that spoil the party. I'm, as I said, here to reaffirm. Everyone is here to validate that part of a little due diligence you did, you did pick the right thing. Because this reminds me of how I came to Ruby and how I picked the right tool for the job. I of course also did none of those things. Back in I think 2002 or something like that, I was reading Martin Fowler and Dave Thomas in a couple of magazines and they just kind of said hey, if I could have written this in whatever I wanted to write it in, I would have written it in Ruby. And I went like, yeah, good enough due diligence for me. I'll just pick Ruby. So that's how I ended up starting with Ruby. It wasn't through this careful analysis. It wasn't through picking the best tool for the job.   And when they make their choice, it is surely the best choice because it's the choice they made. And I don't really subscribe to that. I actually, whenever I see this or we pick the best tool for the job, it's a tell. It's a tell that someone is trying to cover up something. They are not trying to tell you how they picked that. It was just like, oh yeah, I did things and I arrived to the solution. And I think the reason why we have this shield, this idea that we have to project that we are rational people who pick tools and make technology decisions based on facts and proofs and whatever else it is that scientists are supposed to do, is that it's kind of scary, right? It's kind of scary just to take this leap and decide, okay, well, I'm going to invest a major part of my attention, my career, my life, into this one thing. Because that means I'm not going to do a lot of other things, right? Like if you showed up here, Ruby on Rails, you're probably not going to Django Conf next week. Show of hands, I'm gonna go into Django Conf next week. I don't even know if there's a Django Conf next week. And neither did you. Because you're not in a shopping mode, right? You're not still sort of looking around and let me see all the other things I could do, at least not as sort of a serious endeavor. But you are still trying to walk this tightrope. And this tightrope is a lot about sort of just figuring out and validating your own sense that like, I'm doing the right thing, right? Like I'm being a responsible adult here that's making sound career choices. And as long as I believe that and just keep walking straight, everything's gonna be fine. But of course, gusts of wind come in. I kind of just throw you up battle, balance. Maybe you read something on Hacker News and say, okay, have you seen this hot new framework? This is the best thing ever. And you go, whoa, I thought I'd already picked and figured it out. I thought I had the best tool for the job. And that's the funny thing. And I think that that's the smash, the paradox of think of ourselves as a profession of computer scientists, of people who make these sound rational choices when the most important choices, the major choices, the defining choices of our careers like which communities to focus on, they're not based on anything of that at all, right? They're based as in my example of just like, oh, I heard someone say some nice things about Ruby. And I kind of like what those people were saying in general. Good enough for me, let's go with that.  But every now and then it's hard not to look down and get a little scared, right? Because we keep hearing the technology move so incredibly quickly. And we're reaffirmed in this belief because every three days there's a new JavaScript framework out and people go like, what? You didn't even know about whoosh, whoosh, whoosh?  That is just crazy, right? So we get this constant sense that the world is moving really quickly and we could fall down at any time and we could have made the wrong choice. We could have ended up as co-option programmers, right? And that's pretty scary because then you're like, well, I made that choice, right? Even if I didn't do all the due diligence, it's still my fault. No one told me to use co-option, I hope. So at some point you sort of just picked something and you went with it and perhaps you wake up one day and you realize that wasn't the right thing. Now, I don't think this actually happens very often. Most major open source and programming communities actually last for a very long time. I just read this article last week about how in-demand co-opal programmers are right now. Co-opal's been around for a pretty long time. You'd still be a very successful co-opal programmer. Who knew? So perhaps this risk is a little sort of over-inflated, but I think it's important for us to address it head-on and just recognize that the dangers of being responsible for your own happiness can be overwhelming because sometimes you think as Bojack Jackson here, one of my favorite characters of all time, I can't even be responsible for my own breakfast. How am I supposed to be a responsible adult making these serious life and career decisions? And that's when that rational illusion starts creaking a little bit. That's when these underpinnings, the industry in our community is based on of computer science and below that even physics. All these truths we're building on top of, they start feeling not so secure because we're at a level just one step above that, one step above that rational truth.  I really have no idea what I'm doing. I think that's a mistake. I think that's the easy way out is to just look at that, look down and then freak out and think, well, I don't know what I'm doing anyway and that's just how it is. I'll never know what I'm gonna do anyway or what I'm doing anyway. I think this is also why FUD is such a toxic and dangerous things for our minds is because if we had made all these decisions about which community and which programming ecosystem to be in and they were based on sound principles of like, this is actually the best tool for the job. Like the answer is 44% and the other tool had like 39. So this is clearly the best. We would have something solid we could rest with and say like, I arrived at a conclusion that's indeniable, right? But it's not because we all make these flimsy choices. We all make these choices based on these flimsy justifications that are really rickety. And that leads to I think a lot of anxiety when people then start blowing these gusts of wind at us. And it leads to sort of, it's a main contributor to this emotional roller coaster that a lot of programmers go through.  Am I moving too slow? Should I know more stuff? I'm supposed to be full stack. I don't fully understand all elements of SQL outer joins yet. Does that mean I'm a terrible person? And you end up in the other end of like, shit, I got this thing to work. This is amazing. I have some stuff on the screen. Like I implemented a real feature, hooray me. And these things go up and down. And I think we need something to stabilize that a bit. We need that balancing bars. We're rocking across the type rope to even out the roller coaster a bit. And I've been thinking about sort of what things can help us in that regard. Well, clearly RailsConf can help us in that regard. As I said, one of the main jobs of RailsConf is not necessarily for someone to show up here and like, I'm going to learn a lot of serious stuff. As I walk out of here, I will know more about views or SQL or ActiveRecord or Rails 5.1 features or any of these other concrete scales that you totally can pick up here and I invite you to do and that's great. But I don't think that's the main job to be done for a place like RailsConf. I remember back to the first major programming conference I went to. It was a conference in Copenhagen called Jiao 2003. And what was monumental about Jiao 2003 was, first of all, it was a majority of Java conference. I couldn't afford to pay the tuition, so I worked as an intern in helping out, doing the organization. And I wasn't really that interested in Java. I knew that already then, but I was interested in going to a program conference because it gave me this feeling that now I'm a real programmer.  And that was sort of that mindset I was in, like this is what I'm supposed to do, right? And if you look at it like that, then the main job of the conference as a conference here today is closer to that, closer to giving you the validation that yes, you are a real programmer. Yes, there is a community of other people who pick the same thing as you do and that's great and I did the right thing and that's good. It's kind of like a soothing communal experience where we can just go like yay us. And yay us. Yay Rails and yay us making the right choice and yay these jobs. So there's this framework for analyzing products and services called the jobs to be done framework, which sort of hinted at what is the real core job of RailsConf, the real core job of RailsConf is not necessarily like I'm gonna learn a lot of technical skills, it's more whatever sort of feeling I walk out of there from there. The real job of Rails too, is not necessarily just productivity or easier code or any of these sort of surface level bits of understandings. There's a deeper job I think here hidden in the fact that Ruby on Rails is an ecosystem of choice. So this is in opposition to ecosystems that are mandated like if you wanna write an iOS app you pretty much have to go with Objective Swift. In some ways that lack of choice is liberating. In some ways the fact that Apple just tells you what to do, tells you this is the tool set that you need to go with, relieves you of all this choice, relieves you of a lot of that anxiety on the wire that you might have picked the wrong thing. With Rails, we're in this other boat, right? We're in this boat because Ruby on Rails is about making things for the web.  You can use the B script, which was one of the early things I got started with. You can use PHP, which I also used a bunch and some people still use. And you can use Ruby or you can use Python, you can use all these other things. And I think that that's a huge part of the double-edged sword of these communities of choice. That it's wonderful that we get to have these choices, but it's also a little scary. Now, this is cemented I think by the fact that at least when we kicked off Ruby in the West in the early 2000s, no one picked Ruby as their first thing. Everyone in the community at the time, they were refugees, fleeing other communities of oppressive nature that I will not name Java. And I remember I showed up to the first Ruby conference, I think there was like 30 or 40 people there. And the vast majority of those people, obviously they came from other programming backgrounds, they weren't first-time programmers. They had picked Ruby because they were trying to escape something. And in those days, it was enough just to say, hey, Ruby is easier, Ruby is simpler. Well, we never said Ruby was faster actually, that doesn't make any sense at all. So subscribe to that one. Easier and simpler because those weren't necessarily words that people used about J2E, right? No one was like, hey, you should use WIP logic because it's easier. That was not part of the sales material. So just saying those things and talking about those outcomes actually had some attraction, right? Because they were in contrast to something else. Well now, not so much. If you look at basically any open source language or framework today and you go to the website, they will all claim the same thing. They will all claim that it's easy, that it's fun, that it's simpler. And it's become banal and commoditized to claim these outcomes because anyone can say them. It's not like it's a protected title, right? Not like you can say, well, it's easier than what? That question is usually not posed. For us, in the early days of Ruby and Rails, we had it easy because we had this bear we could poke at, Java. And we could say, look at that XML5. Did you know that that is 4,000 lines roll? That was such an easy, obvious target and that's not true anymore, right? Today, there's lots of other communities that can legitimately claim many of these same values as we claim for Ruby and Rails, which brings us back to this, oh my God, then how do I pick again, right? In some ways, Ruby and Rails and Ruby in particular, it was always the language of choice, but the choice was much easier. The choice today is significantly harder. The people who were here for the first time who made this choice recently, they were faced with a much, much tougher choice because everyone is saying everything is easy. Everyone has these major apps on their credit roll, right? No matter pretty much which environment, whether you're picking PHP or Python or JavaScript or whatever, all these domains, they can say the same thing, they do say the same thing. This is easier. Look at all these wonderful apps, look at all this web scale that's happening in our community, so how do you choose? Well, this reminds me of back in the mid-90s when Ruby was just getting created, I was just getting into the web and one of the first things I got into back then was Usenet. So Usenet was basically the common section before the common section. Online discussion groups where people would talk about all sorts of shit and at that time, my reason for getting into programming was I was interested in games and writing about games and reviewing games and maybe someday making games. So I went into this group called Alt Console and one of the main things on Alt Console was the famous console wars where people were arguing which is the better machine? Was it the PlayStation one? Or was the Sega Saturn? Or was Nintendo N64? And I learned a lot from spectating that spectacle.  In online discussions on forums, right? Like no one ever went like, oh yeah, that's a really good point. I'll throw out my PlayStation via your Sega Saturn instead. That just never happened, right? But yet these threads would go on for weeks or years even and repeat over and over again because all these proponents of their individual platforms had these really vocal proponents who would talk about why the Sega Saturn is the best. And the arguments that they were using were just awesome because they were all technical and which meant they were all pretty much bullshit. The arguments would go like, hey, did you know the audio chip on the Sega Saturn have like 16 channels and the one on the PlayStation you don't have 12, 12 channels?  So it would be this game of Trump where you go like, ha ha, 12 channels, 16 channels. Well, 950 polygons a second. Well, 1.2 million polygons a second, right? And you think like they legitimately thought every time they played that Trump card, I got you. Now you can only accept the truth that my system is better and you have to switch tomorrow. And of course no one did that, right? Because consoles like a lot of use for programming languages and frameworks are not about the technical details. They're about the games. They're about what people make with that. And they're about the ethos that's come out of that because these aren't just three similar machines even though they are similar in many ways. And the technical spec at least in the day was quite similar, but they were still very different. The kind of person who like Yoshi and Mario, picked Nintendo, right? It didn't really matter whether the PlayStation had another four audio channels. That was not their motive of picking. So if we can't convince anyone to either pick another console or pick another programming language or environment based on these technical specs, based on the underpinning signs of the solution in most cases, unless there are these edges, then what can we use? What can we use to even validate our own choices and feel good about that we make the right one that fits for us? What are the games and the philosophy of programming languages? Well, even though a lot of these programming languages are very alike and I'll do some contrasting in comparison in a second, they're also quite different. The belief systems that underpin the choices that we make, the features that we implement, the APIs, how we structure them, the code how it's formulated, the division of the systems and in which chunks and how large, all these choices come and stem from something deeper. They come from belief systems. And sometimes when those are done really well and when those are implemented sort of fully and all out, you can just see them in the code. Here's a great quote by Aber Camus on, a novel is never anything but a philosophy expressed in images and in a good novel, the philosophy had disappeared into the images. I think that is completely true of programming languages and frameworks as well. When there is an underpinning philosophy and when there are some underpinning values to drive the development of these systems, you can see them in the code. But like with novels, it's kind of hidden. And if you're new to it, like it's not necessarily sure you wanna do a full textual analysis of a given programming language or framework to figure out whether these values actually resonate with you, right? So it'd be nice if there was something a little more concrete that you didn't just have to derive from first principles by reviewing code or community and so on. And I think Ruby put one of those big stakes down early, which put it on the map. And that big stake, that big value was that it was going to be optimized for programmer happiness. There was this specific goal that Matt's had creating Ruby. And at the time when he announced that, that sounded ludicrous. No one was talking about programmer happiness in that sense. Now of course, as we talked about a lot of these things like happiness or clarity or simplicity, there's kind of been commoditized and a lot of people talk about these things in the same way. So it's not quite enough. I think actually Ruby is not doing itself fully justice by lacking this elaboration of the values and principles on depending it. Other languages do though. This is the send of Python, which is PEP 20 from 10 Peters in 2004, explaining some of the specific values and principles to drive Python. And what I loved about finding this was both on the one hand, I could see why there are at times cultural similarities between Python and Ruby. And I could also see why we totally disagree in a lot of ways. So in some ways, reviewing the send of Python was a way of deriving the ideas of Ruby. I'll read some of these out. Beautiful is better than ugly. Okay, the one thing about belief systems and values is unless someone wants to say the opposite, that's probably not like a major element that's gonna resonate with someone.  Well again, maybe the Java people, but let's leave that out of the equation for a second. The next one is much better because the next one has real opposition I'd say. Explicit is better than implicit. Now if you read that just in void of context and just by itself, that also sounds like beautiful is better than ugly. But I actually believe that for Ruby, usually we pick the opposite. We actually pick implicit code a lot of the time. Convention over configuration is based on implicitness, is based on deriving elements of the code inferring those rather than spelling them out. So that's a great point because that's a point where we differ. And I think the same is true in Ruby in general. Here's another one, simple is better than complex. Again, not a lot of people would say the opposite. Java joke.  There should be one and preferably only one way to do things. I love that because that was the first piece of philosophical nugget I got from the Python community. And again, on the face of it, it sounds reasonable. But the more I dug into it, the more I realized that I don't agree at all. I don't think there should be any one way to do things.  Where do we place the conditional at the beginning of the sentence? Do we use if, do we use unless? Do we place it at the end? Do we place it in the start? There's a lot of lovely subtleties for you to dig into that gives Ruby its beauty. And that's where this becomes even more interesting to me is that these belief systems are interlocking and interdependent because they're often in opposition. When you say beautiful is better than ugly and then you also say there should only be one way to do things, I feel tension. Okay, so by reviewing this set of Python, you can learn a lot about the kinds of people who would be attracted to Python. And no Python joke here because I actually completely respect someone who would look at this and go, that's me, like this totally resonates with me. I want to write Python. And I also fully respect, surprise, people like me who go like, no, I don't want to do things this way. These are not my values. I cannot adopt this. And that is why Python doesn't work for me. It's not about the intention, meaningful intention. It's not about these specifics because each individual specifics is kind of like, 16 channels of audio versus 12 channels of audio. Yeah, you can have an opinion on those particulars but they all derive from a core base of principles. And if you dig all the way down to those, it becomes much easier to decide. So last year, was it last year? Maybe it was the year before. I tried to remedy that for Ruby on Rails a little bit. By coming up with the Ruby or sorry, the Rails doctrine, a set of principles and values that I felt best expressed why it is I after 14 years still continue to love working in Ruby on Rails. Number two here, convention over configuration is one of those things that's in direct opposition to explicit is better than implicit. That's what I love about it. I love to compare these value systems and these principles between different communities because that's where we find the dividing points. That's where someone can go look at those and see at least after some experience and some exposure to the communities, what is for me? Where will I fit in? The great thing about enumerating these principles and enumerating something like a Rails doctrine is that, well, first of all, it makes it explicit, which means that it's hackable, right? We can change this. We can reflect on it. We can see whether it fits. We are not. And I wish I kind of had jotted this down 10 years ago because it would have saved a lot of meaningless debates. Especially in the early days of the Rails community, we had a lot of clashes over fundamental principles such as, hey, how big of a surface area should an object have? For some people, having a very small surface area was really important as in having just one way to do things, right? For me, it was not important at all. And I said, I don't care whether action controller has, I think, 350 public methods maybe. That's not a concern that I have. It's not part of the value system. It doesn't reflect any of these things. We have that to get these other things that we care about. An Omicasa menu, convention over configuration, these serve a purpose. So if I share the purpose with you, at least you can understand where I'm coming from, right? Because a lot of these debates I find in technology, they're all debates about tactics. They're all debates about like, oh, should we do this? Should we do that? And they very rarely, like the console wars, resolve themselves by people being persuaded by just purely technical arguments. If there's not a shared sense of values, if there's not a shared base for us to form these opinions from, we're gonna keep running around circles. Now, neither obviously Python or Rails were particularly pioneering in jotting down values for technical endeavors. This is the manifesto for the agile software development. I think it was published in 2000 and 2001. A bunch of, funnily enough, you can almost see them out here. Dave Thomas is on the second to top left. Martin follows in this group. A bunch of these people who had a huge influence on the Ruby and Rails community were present at this meeting where they decided basically to encode their values for how software methodology should work. And this is in part what inspired me. Not just the agile manifesto, but at that conference in 2003, the single most influential speaker there for me was Ken Beck talking about extreme programming. Extreme programming, true to its worth, is also quite extreme in how it spells out exactly its values, principles, and practices. Basically, the extreme programming book is a manifesto in the same sense that this is. It's not so much about specific techniques, although those practices are there. They're more about those values. They're more about those principles, which brings us to the whole, well, at least part of the point of going through this whole exercise of trying to uncover what our values are and what we believe and what we don't believe is that it gives us a foundation to plant roots. You can't plant roots in features. You can't plant roots easier and faster. There's nothing there. There's no soil that's gonna hold it down. What you can plant your roots in is philosophy and values. You can say, this is me. There's longevity in that. I think a lot of the people who stuck around in the Rails community, again, have not stuck around just for those auxiliary benefits of, oh, I'm more productive or this is easier. No, they stuck around because the values resonated with them, which is kind of also a counter to another prevailing role model, I should say, in the software development world, which is that of the nomad. I find there's a lot of hero worship around people who learn seven programming languages in seven weeks and everything is just syntax and we can just move freely from one world to the other and I don't really care which specific community I'm in. I'm just a programmer. Again, one of those things when you're here at the first time and, oh yeah, yeah, totally, that makes sense, like I shouldn't be tied to anything. Well, what, why? I think actually a main source of that anxiety that we feel, the openness we have to fud, of fear, uncertainty, and doubt comes from the fact that if we have no roots, it can just all blow away. So actually taking up roots, actually taking on even an identity from those roots and saying proudly, I'm a Ruby programmer, it's not a bad thing, I find quite the opposite. I find a lot of people are very afraid, perhaps because they've been told that like, well, programming languages come and go and you should just learn as many as possible and all those things are true to some extent as in source of intellectual curiosity and expanding your mind and blah, blah, blah, blah, but I still find that unless you place your roots in something specific, you're just gonna waver around. Emil Durkheim was a 20th century sociologist and philosopher and yes, this great quote where he's reflecting on sort of what was going wrong in society at the turn of century, why suicide rates were going up and all these ill studies all in society. If society lacks the unity based upon the commitment of man's will to a common objective, then it is no more than a pile of sand that the least jolt or slightest puff will suffice to scatter. This is exactly why we need those roots. As a counter to that, as a counter to that modern rootlessness of us just moving around constantly, us just following the next shiny thing as soon as it blinks. I think if we have that, if we dare say, this is where I stand. If we dare say, these are the roots that I have, these are the things that I believe and yeah, everything is eventually up to reconsideration but not on sort of a day-to-day basis, right? Like your values are probably not values if you're changing them every 48 hours. Then you also have a chance to give counter to sort of what I learned to with that early tweet I woke up to this morning, the cynicism that everything is amazing and nobody's happy. Rails has never been more amazing than it is right now. We have never had it better. We've never had more people caring about making it better and yet this rootlessness, this anxiety often leads us exactly to Luis CK and to that tweet of this morning that everything is so wonderful and we walk around pissed constantly. Not a great place to be. I think it's also the antidote to the fear of missing out. If you actually have roots, if you have a core, you're probably not going to be as likely to be constantly scared about missing out, right? Because you base yourself in something that's deeper than just easier, faster set of features that could be duplicated or changed tomorrow. Okay, so as I was thinking through all this, I was sort of looking for inspiration of other places to see the similar patterns or thoughts and so on. And I think one of the wonderful things about computer science and programming in general being such a young discipline is that we get to build upon wonderful thinking from other disciplines that went before us. So Christopher Alexander, for example, the architect famous for pattern languages of how to build buildings was a huge inspiration for pattern languages and software, for the agile movement, for a lot of the Kent Beck and Warth Cunningham took a lot of inspiration away from that, wonderful. When I think about belief systems, about sort of interlocking values to help guide us, well, what do I think about? I think about the original full stack belief systems. Religion. Religion has thousands of years of perfecting communal cohesion. Thousands of years of perfecting these ideas of committing to a set of values and principles and practices to give you roots. To create communities based on kinships of the mind, not just kinships of blood or other earlier ways of how groups would organize themselves and figure out who's in and who's out. And that was sort of a funny realization for me because I'm an atheist. I don't believe in religion in that sense. What I do believe is things that work. And I think religion works when it comes to all these elements that we've been talking about or I've been talking about for the last half hour of getting rooted, of having values, of committing to something, of being stable in a group and not being constantly on the run for something. And what I like too about religion is this rich history of the pattern language of religion. The rich history of the vocabularies. One of my favorite things in programming is naming things. Both because it's hard and also because it's really rewarding of carving out a concept, giving it a specific name and sort of seeing a complete world spin up around that. Well, religion has done that better than anyone. The names are just evocative, absolution, salvation, sin. It just sounds good, right? There's just someone thought about this for a couple of thousand years and the things that kind of came out at the other end of it, pretty good. I gotta say, a lot of respect for that whole process. And I think a lot for us in other communities and especially in the programming world to learn from that. So I sort of thought quickly through like, what are the main things I take away from that? What are some of the examples that I could use? Well, one of the ones I really like is this notion of patron saints. People who set out specific examples for this group that really represent their values and shine a light for how others should be and behave. If I think of my two favorite patron saints of the Ruby community, they're why the Lucky Stiff, the patron saint of Weird, who wrote a introduction to Ruby that included things like chunky bacon and arguing cats. And it was one of those, I think 2006, early definitional pieces of who are we going to be like a community? Well, we're going to be weird because why the Lucky Stiff is weird and it's pretty cool. Unfortunately, I think this is also part of the patron saint's thing is they're not here anymore. So why the Lucky Stiff retired from public life, Ruby life at least in 2009, but I seriously encourage you to look up his work. It's deeply inspiring. And the other patron saint that I hold really dear is Jim Wyrick, the patron saint of Wonder. I've never seen anyone light up in their eyes like Jim when he was telling someone about a new idea. And when he was teaching new commerce to the community about the things that we do here. He's also the creator of Rake and Builder and a bunch of other tools. And it was just an example for me of leaning on that pattern language of religion to identify things that matter to us in our community. Well, like most religion, though, of course, it's kind of a buffet, right? Like there's not a whole lot of people who subscribe to all of it. And it doesn't have to be that way either, right? We can still, someone can read the real doctrine and go like, oh yeah, like most of these things totally mean this one thing, not so much. And we can still get along just fine, right?  And there's still also differences. Sushi buffet versus a Thai buffet. Yeah, they're both buffets, but they're quite different.  And again, I think that that's one of those wonderful things fundamentalists is generally not a word we say with sort of embracing notions. But the one that really gets me, the one I think struck to the heart of why I wanted to give this talk is faith. Believe in ideas for which you have no proof, of which you may not ever be able to have proof. I think this underpins a whole lot of things that we argue about in technical communities. We argue about a whole lot of ideas and principles and practices for which there will never be a final answer. For which you will have to rely on faith to get something out of it. And that goes straight to the core of this identity crisis that I think a lot of programmers have, where on the one hand they see themselves as computer scientists. They might have gone through a computer science degree. And then on the other hand, they're constantly faced with the fact that the big questions in software development are not about the science. They would kind of sell the while ago which was the better sorting algorithm, right? It's not a major source of contention these days. Whether you should use bubble sort or not. The answer's no. And we arrived at that answer a long time ago. The focal points of attention where we have the battlegrounds of principles and practices are around these faith-based ideas. Like TDD. I called this out in 2014. And I just watched that talk back again. And one of the things I sort of used this as a way of squirming that and then overplaying that principle was TDD was a faith-based methodology. And I used that in kind of a derogatory term. And I've come to a little bit regret that because as I realized all these things we talked about in the Rails doctrine, they're all faith-based. We're not gonna have any final proof. There's not sort of a experiment that we can set up and reasonably run and then come to a conclusion which is definitely better or not better. Same goes for TDD. Same goes for a lot of software methodology that it doesn't subject itself well to science. It doesn't subject itself well to controlled experiments. Does that mean it's not important? Of course not. Static typing. Static typing versus dynamic typing. I think that is one of the, we've been at this for what, 30 years, maybe longer, going back and forth, dynamic typing, no static typing, no dynamic typing. You can't resolve something in about 30 years, like probably you're not gonna resolve it, right? We're very not gonna come to a conclusion that all programs henceforth should be either dynamically typed or static typed because it falls back to these values. The people hold different values and they come to different conclusions on questions like dynamic versus static typing based on those values. Immutability. Functional programming right now is hot, right? It's one of the gusts of wind that if you've been doing object-oriented programming for a long time, you're going like, whoa, did I miss the boat totally here?  Will immutability make me finally pure and happy and a responsible adult? And the answer is probably not. Doesn't mean it's not a worthy idea. All these ideas are worthy. Not only are they worthy, they're the most important ones. As I said, these are the ones where it's actually interesting to interrogate where you land up yourself because there is not a uniform answer. You are forced in some ways to choose. The same goes for Ruby. We have this obsession in Ruby. Well, I have this obsession certainly that beauty is the promise of happiness. That writing beautiful code in itself is something we should do not because it's more productive. I believe it is, but it's fair to say someone would believe the opposite. But simply because that's my faith. My faith is in beautiful code. That's where I derive a huge part of my happiness. So this resonates perfectly with me. So I think the conclusion there is when we look at these major questions of programming life and software communities, we have to look to faith to answer them. We have to look to values to answer them. There's not going to be the possibility of an experiment that men can conduct and come to a final conclusion. Okay, so why go through all this, right? Like, where's this journey going to take us? And for me, this journey is mainly as a bulwark, as a strengthening of the balancing bars is that when those gusts of wind come in, not just from, oh, new things popping up, but from daily life and daily absurdity, I have some ballast. I have some way of not being knocked over and falling down from the wire easily. Another quote here for Albert Camus. Man stands face to face with the irrational. He feels within him longing for happiness and for reason. The absurd is born in this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world. You can replace unreasonable silence of the world with unreasonable silence of the computer very easily. And you can replace a lot of this absurdity with some of these things that we do all the time, like shaving the yak, right?  And you got no further on your original task. You got to no completion. This is completely absurd.  That's enough to drive most humans mad. And it's intrinsic in the development. It's intrinsic. We cannot escape this, right? We can try, but I think it's rather more likely that we simply come to terms with the fact that the absurdity is part of what we do. Lots of programming is just patently absurd and the sooner we accept it, the better off we are. And it's not just on the technical side of things. It's also on what we're trying to do. I love that Juicero is not just a joke that you don't even need to deliver a punchline, you can just show the image. But imagine Juicero, right? Like they've been working for, I think, what, three years and part of that was a fair number of software developers and some of those software developers were tasked with the fact of building a system that would check the bar code, basically DRM the food and make sure that it was valid food and there hadn't been a spinach recall. They probably worked on that for like 18 months. Imagine sort of the absurdity of working with something that has so little meaning will never really be used in any reasonable context. And like that's what you have to look back on for the last 18 months and say, yep, that's what I did. I'm the Juicero spinach alert guy. There's something depressing in that and I don't just mean that to rag on Juicero because there's a little Juicero in all of us. We all work on features and systems from time to time that end up not mattering at all.  A lot of that, right? A lot of absurdity in what we're trying to implement where it just doesn't go anywhere. We have nothing to show for it. And if you, again, if you don't have some roots to base that into sort of make sense and give yourself an acceptance to the larger world, that's going to be really depressing. And I've seen lots of programmers go through this with both shaving the yak or working on something that doesn't ship. And at the end of it, they go like, yeah, that's it, I'm out. Programming thing, I'm not so happy with them anymore. This is not perhaps when I'm going to stick around. Same thing with entropy. If you have this belief that you can keep the ice cube perfect as soon as you take it out of the fridge, you will eventually end up in a puddle of disappointment. Lots of programmer have this exact notion that we can maintain these pristine systems if we just use the rice architectural pattern. No, no, no, that messy system that's five years old, you just use microservices. It would still be an ice cube. A beautiful ice cube, not a drop would have fallen off it. Because there's this quest constantly to sort of deny the absurd, that we can somehow fix the absurd, that there will someday be a day where no programmer evermore shall have to shave the yak because she is tracing some transitive dependency that broke.  People have been trying for a very long time to take the programming out of programming, but the programming is the absurd. I think the important thing is to learn to live with one ailment, not seek this perfect cure that's nowhere to be found and that's bound to disappoint you. And there's sort of different ways of coping with that absurdity. Mr. Peanut Butter from Bojack Jackson has this great quote that the key to being happy isn't a search for meaning, it's just to keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense and eventually you'll die. Which is sort of one way of denying the absurd and just distracting yourself and then you're dead. That's a little gloomy for me. Another one is to pretend that the absurd is actually heaven. Sergeant Apoc from Aliens. A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal is a banquet, every paycheck a fortune, every formation a parade, I love the Corps. I have more sympathy for that. I think this is more of a sort of optimistic way of the world but still a denial of the absurd and still one that's going to lead to disappointment because you will wake up and one day you just can't tell yourself to that sludge on the table in front of you as a banquet and all of a sudden your entire world falls apart. Now I think that Camus and the myth of Ciphosis is much closer to where we need to end up. To embrace the absurd that we will roll a rock up the hill every day and every night it will fall back down. And if we can come to accept that that is just what we do. A lot of programming work is rolling a boulder up the hill and watching it fall down the next day. It's a lot easier to cope with. That we can embrace this absurdity and we can embrace sort of the details and like, oh, I took a slightly different path up the mountain today. Yes, the rock will still roll down but that's okay. I think we're going to be better off. And finally, I think if we can accept that, hey, we're not computer scientists. None of the people in this room who do work on Ruby and Rails or with Ruby and Rails most of the time do anything that resembles science most of the time. I think we're going to be better off. If we accept that it's the passions that drive us most of the time. It's not the passions here in this image, it's the elephant and logic reason is the rider. But you're alone for the ride a lot of the time. You're alone for a ride with your anxieties, you're alone for the ride with your insecurities, you're alone for the ride with the absurdity of what it is that we do. But at least you stand a chance to last if you find solace in your roots, if you find solace in your faith and if you learn to cope with that. All right, that's it, thank you.