Turning your Bibles to Genesis chapter one. Genesis chapter one. The Bible says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. And it's not speaking about a one-time hearing, the tense in the Greek when it talks about faith coming by hearing, it's a continual hearing of the word of God. It's constantly bathing your mind in the word of God. And so it's hearing it over and over and over and over again. And you might come to the place where you go, well, I know the scriptures and I'm sure there are many that especially in a church like this that teaches the word that does know the scriptures. But the Bible says that faith comes by hearing the word of God over and over and over again.  It's being built up inside of you. And Jude exhorts us to build up yourselves on your most holy faith and we do that by hearing the word of God. And that's why I think that attending Bible study is essential. Being a part of a midweek study is essential to your Christian growth. Because you're bathing your mind in the word of God, especially a church that teaches verse by verse through the scriptures. So you're getting the whole counsel of God. Now, when I first started attending Bible studies, I was, I wanna say I was about 15 years old when I first came to Calvary Chapel and began attending Bible studies. And at first it wasn't the most exciting thing I have to admit. There were parts of the Bible that I found fascinating. I absolutely loved the stories in the Old Testament. I loved hearing about the life of Jesus and I'm a thinker. So I loved the writings of Paul. And of course, everyone loves the revelation series, the movies to see Kurt Cameron being left behind. Such a blessing. And then there are parts of the Bible where you're just reading a bunch of names and you're like wondering, why are these names in the Bible and why isn't my name in the Bible? But I stuck to it. I kept going week after week after week. And I noticed that as I did that, I began to develop a hunger to know God's word. And not only did I develop a hunger for God's word, but God's word began to make sense to me. I began to understand God's word. It began to come together for me. And so I noticed that the scriptures would come to my mind throughout the day. That the scriptures that God was ministering to me through that Bible study would start coming into my mind, especially as I was dealing with things and facing challenges. I noticed that I began to worry less. I noticed that I began to pray more. I began to trust God more. I noticed that I felt more connected to other believers, to other Christians. And I felt more connected to my home church. And I also noticed that I began to wanna share the love of God with others more. I began to be a natural part of my life, not something that I had to work myself into to do. It just became natural to me. And then I noticed that my desires changed. The things that I wanted to do, the ungodly things I wanted to do, they became less and less. And I became more drawn to doing godly things and wanting to be around godly people. And this changed over time. It was not something that was like an overnight thing. It happened subtly over time, but it was a definite change that as I look back on my life, I saw a huge difference. And that was 40 years ago. And I've never missed a Bible study. I've always been there. And so if you want to grow in your faith, if you want your faith to be built up, I would really encourage you to attend the Wednesday night Bible study. And this is something I've been sharing with my church. It's just something that's on my heart because one of the things that we see in the last days is a famine for the word of God. There's a famine in the land. And when you look at the counseling load that I have, where I'm talking to people, the first thing I ask them is, are you in, well I know they're not in Bible study, because I know if they go to my church, I know who's in Bible study and who isn't. And it's many times, in fact 100% of the times, it's people that are not in the word that end up in counseling because they're not equipped with what they need to make it through life. And if you think that you can go through life without knowing the word of God, you're deceiving yourself. You really are. Because God's word tells us how life is supposed to work. God's promises to us tells us what is ours as believers. It keeps us from being taken advantage of by the world system and the things of the world or to give in to the lives of the enemy because we know what the promises of God are.  And so I encourage you to attend the midweek Bible study and Pastor David and Marie text me before I came this morning and said, you know, tell everyone how much we love them.  And I don't need to tell you that you have one of America's premier Bible teaching pastors here at Calvary Chapel Chino Valley. Did you hear that David? No. And man, I also want to encourage you to come to the men's conference this week. It's going to be awesome. You have Pastor Raul Reese is going to be here. Yeah, Pastor David Rosales will be interpreting. And of course, when I was on a trip with Pastor David to the pastors conference in New York, we got to hear Bill Page and what an incredible blessing he is. And also, yeah. And to see Brennan Beeler and hopefully he'll have achieved puberty. And his voice will come down a little bit. Most people don't know, he's like 40. No, I'm just kidding. But it's going to be an awesome time in God's word. And it's just an opportunity for you to hear the word of God and have your faith strengthened, have your faith built up and have you grow in your faith and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, today I want to bring your attention to Genesis chapter one. And I want to talk about the greatness of God, the greatness of God. And we're going to look at the greatness of God through creation, because it says we see how great and marvelous creation is. And then we understand the God who made this creation.  It just gives us that perspective. And so in Genesis one verse one, it says this, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now in the Hebrew, it actually doesn't say in the beginning, it says in beginnings, God, the word the is not in there. It's in beginnings, God. And it speaks of multiple beginnings. You say what do you mean multiple beginnings? Well, the book of Genesis is a book that tells you the beginning of daylight, the beginning of land, the beginning of animals, the beginning of man, the beginning of sin, and also the beginning of redemption for sin. There's many beginnings that are listed in the book of Genesis. But those three words in beginnings, God created the heaven, well, that's more than three words. But in beginnings, God, those first three words are the most attacked words in the Bible. Because if Satan can get you to disbelieve this fundamental truth that it all began with God, then he can get you to doubt anything else the Bible says. Now, it's interesting also to note that the Bible never seeks to prove the existence of God. It always assumes the existence of God. In fact, there are no arguments in the Bible that seek to prove the existence of God. Because God is clearly seen in His creation. You cannot look at the world around you and not think how did it come into being. In Psalms 19-1, it says, the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. In Romans 1.20, it says, for since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse. If you notice here, it says through creation the invisible attributes of God are clearly seen. What are those invisible attributes?  How else could you explain the complexities of the human eye apart from God's infinite wisdom? The wisdom that would design such a thing. How would you explain the intricacies of the brain, the human brain and how it functions? It's still a mystery to man, really, how the brain works. And yet to God, God understands everything. He's infinite in His wisdom and understanding. You can't explain it any other way. How could you explain how vast the universe is apart from the infinite power and greatness of God? In fact, man doesn't really know how big the universe is. All the scientists talk about is the known universe because that's as far as they can see. It has nothing to do with whether there's more beyond that. It's just they can't see it. So to them it's just the known universe, but it goes even beyond that. The evidence for the existence of God is so overwhelming that the Bible assumes only a fool would say, there is no God. And so man is without excuse. God's creation is overwhelming proof that God exists. Now for the person who says, well I have to see it to believe it. I have to see God to believe in God. Well I think it's interesting that God made the universe out of things you cannot see. And the Bible tells us this, that God made the universe out of invisible things. For instance, how many of you have seen an atom or how many of you have seen the components that make up an atom? The proton, the neutron, the electron. And yet the chair that you're sitting in is made up of these neutrons, protons, electrons, these atoms that are held together by what very educated people have told us and they've gone to multiple degrees, many years of university, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to define exactly what it is that holds everything together.  Exactly. They have no clue what the atomic glue is. But what about DNA? Have you ever seen your DNA? I know you can go get a test and find out what it is, find out what part of the planet you came from, what your ancestry is, but how many of you have seen your DNA?  It's part of your DNA.  And yet no one has seen their DNA.  Imagine if we were in the Old Testament and you lived to be like a thousand years old. You would look like Dumbo. I mean, I think there was some good things that happened there. We lived a little bit shorter, I look good. But there are plenty of things that we don't see and yet we believe that they are true. We believe that they exist, we believe that they are real, even though we don't see it. It's only when it comes to God that I say I have to see God in order to believe in God. That's the only time that man ever says that I need to see it in order to believe it. Every other time he just accepts it as fact. And so God says my eternal power is clearly seen by the things I've made. So every person is without excuse. In Hebrews 11.3 it says by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. So again, the Bible's telling us the things that we see are not made of things that are visible, they're made of things that are invisible. The Bible says that all the way from the beginning. And so real science really is there to observe and draw conclusion from observable facts. But what we're often told in school is that there is a scientific method and that scientific method starts with what we call a hypothesis. And a hypothesis is basically a belief that you have that you either want to prove or disprove. It's not true science actually at that point because you begin with a bias. True science actually looks at what is and observes what's tangible and what's real. And God has shown himself real through his creation. In Genesis 1.3 for instance, God said let there be light and verse four tells us how God divided the light. Now think about this for a second. How did Moses know in his what we think is limited technological scope of things in his brain? How did he know that God divided light? How did he understand the concept even of dividing light? But we now know through modern science we have the ability to discover that light is in fact divided. It's divided into light, color, and sound. And so you have light, color, and sound and light and color and sound are basically operating on the principle of vibrations vibrating at different frequencies. So when you slow light down and you do it at a lower frequency, you have sound, audible sound. But when you speed light up, you have color. And when you speed up light even faster still then you have what we call light. And within the light spectrum, depending on how fast the light vibrates you have everything from ultraviolet to infrared light and everything in between all designed by God when he divided the light. And here's the incredible thing about frequencies and vibrations because being a musician, having that heart of a musician, I understand that basically sound tones, musical tones is just different frequencies or vibrations. That's all it is. And so think about this. Everything you see is vibrating at a different frequency and every frequency has a tone, has a musical tone. So everywhere that you're sitting right now there is a musical tone being generated by the atoms that are surrounding you. And so all creation is vibrating with the symphonic sound of worship that never stops, that never ceases, that is eternal, that is ongoing. And so that means whether you like it or not whether you believe in God or not the atoms inside of your body are vibrating at a frequency and they're declaring the glory of God. So you can sit there and say, I don't believe in God. Stop it, stop it, stop it. And then it's gonna be ignored because God created you whether you recognize it or not. And so the Bible tells us that the things that are seen are not made of things that are visible and we understand this by faith. And so science again has proven what the Bible has said all along that all matter is made up of things that cannot be seen and we call those matters atoms. We call that matter atoms. Now, this is what your textbook says and atom looks like, right? And we all believe this is an atom, right? In fact, if you go and you see the atomic things that has this logo on it, this picture and we just have all come to believe that this is what an atom is. However, even with advanced technology man still cannot see what an atom actually looks like. And so guess what? This is made up. Someone told you this is what an atom looks like and by faith you believe them. You put your faith in their words to say this is what an atom is. The latest theory is that an atom doesn't look like that at all. That there really aren't orbiting parts around the atoms, the proton, the newtons, the electrons don't actually orbit around an atom. What an atom actually is, is the nucleus itself is made up of protons and neutrons and they're held together tightly vibrating with incredible energy. Again, nobody knows what's holding them together. It's this atomic glue. It's kind of holding it all together, right? And then this field of electrons is around it and it's not circulating the atom. It's actually pulsating and so it's moving back and forth and all you see is you see it here, then you see it there and you see the boundaries of where it's bouncing to but it doesn't circulate because if it's circulated around the atom basically what that means is the natural flow of the gravitational pull would slow the atom down and it would stop eventually. But in order for it to go for eternity it can't circle, it pulsates. And that's what they've recently discovered. And so this atom picture that we have doesn't even look right. But we've accepted it by faith. But the Bible has always said visible things are made out of invisible things. So why not put your faith and your trust in the word of God that has never lied to you, that has always been sure, that always tells you what is right, that always tells you what is real, that always consistently is proven to be true. Why not put your faith in that and not put your faith in what someone else made up and now has been proven to be wrong? Science. I know I just offended a bunch of people. My name is Raul Rees. Evolution begins with the premise that God does not exist. It's a hypothesis. It's not a statement of fact. It's a statement of belief. Evolution is not a scientific method of research. It's a system of belief. It's a faith system that denies the existence of God. I believe God doesn't exist and therefore I will interpret the world and my existence in light of my hypothesis that God doesn't exist. And so this is not true science. It's a belief system. And then the hypothesis is that God is not real. And yet Genesis says in the beginning, God created. Those who say the universe was created with a big bang, you have a problem because you have to explain who created the elements that caused the big bang. A big bang doesn't just happen. They'll say, well, there was these gases. Well, who made the gas? I know if you're in my home and I know the big bang system doesn't work either, the theory of it, because I've tried it. I went out in my parking lot.  No Porsche appeared. Did not happen.  Those who say that we emerged from primordial ooze, you have to explain who created the primordial ooze. Those that said we began as single celled living organisms, you have to still explain who created the single celled living organisms. And so every theory of creation begins with unexplained matter that somehow was pre-existent. But Genesis tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. And that word created means that God created out of, or made something out of nothing with materials that had never existed before. That's what it means. God created something out of nothing with no materials whatsoever. He spoke it into existence. And thus God spoke and by his eternal power created everything that exists in the universe today and not just our universe, but the infinite number of universes that exist in space today. It reminds me of a scientist that came to God and said, we have now advanced to a place man has to where we no longer need you. We no longer believe in you. You're no longer needed. We can create man on our own. And so God says, well, that's very interesting. I'd like to see how you do that. Could you show me how you create man?   Richard Dawkins, who's a noted atheist, defines evolution as the idea that all living forms arose as the product of an unguided purposelessness, material mechanism, chiefly natural selection acting on random variation or mutation. And he called this unguided purposeless material mechanism, the blind watchmaker. So that's your hope as an atheist, the blind watchmaker. Now it's interesting because he leaves some big gaps in his theory. Namely, let's assume you're right. There is a purposeless unguided material mechanism called the blind watchmaker who made the mechanism and who turned the mechanism on and got it going. Because in order for you to have a mechanism that is so complex that without any guidance, without any purpose can randomly kick out any kind of life that it wants to, it requires an advanced intelligence to design that sort of system. It doesn't just happen randomly. And so his creator is unguided, purposeless and nameless. But my creator says this. He says that he has created you and I with intent and purpose. That you didn't just happen on the earth by mistake. That you didn't just show up one day as an afterthought. And it doesn't matter how you began in this life. Because I know if we were to take a raise of hands that there's many surprises in this room. And sometimes you can feel like, oh, I wasn't planned. Maybe I wasn't wanted or intended. But God has always wanted and intended for you to be born and you were made with purpose. And God desires to fulfill his purpose. And my creator has a name, his name here in Genesis one one is Elohim. And so that is the problem you have when you believe the premise that God does not exist because it leaves you with all kinds of holes in your theories. The greatest of which is to believe in evolution you have to deny the laws of physics. You have to deny the natural laws of thermodynamics. You have to deny the natural order of the world because nothing in the world supports the theory of evolution. And yet according to the National Academy of Sciences, really smart guys, evolution is a scientific fact. And it's taught in our schools as a scientific fact. Even though there are no current examples of evolution happening, even though there is no proof evolution has ever happened in the past, even though they have not yet found the missing link that connects man to his past. You might be like the student in our church that came up to me and said, Pastor Holland, you keep saying that Adam was the first man but my school book says it was Lucy. And I can imagine that. Ricky Ricardo over there going, Lucy. And she showed me this thing in her textbook and we actually went back and we saw Lucy. We went to the Creation Museum at the Ark in Kentucky and it was just a phenomenal experience to see this massive built to scale Ark to see how Noah would have done it and it just makes so much sense. But we went and saw Lucy. And what's interesting, what the scientists do is they'll take oftentimes one bone and they'll create an entire skeleton from one jaw bone. In Lucy's case, they have like 37 bones that they have created into what they believe to be a humanoid species out of 200 plus bones, they have 37 of them. But with further research, what they've discovered, if you don't go at it with the assumption that this is a man, that you're trying to prove a case, but you actually just go at it from a scientific viewpoint, open and observing and looking at what it is, what they found is that actually Lucy closely resembles an extinct species or cousin of the orangutan. That's really what Lucy is. And so the girl said, why would they put this in our textbook? I said, because they're liars. They're lying to you. But God has never lied to you. He's always told you the truth. Now you have to think about this for a second. If you were gonna devise a system to explain where you came from, wouldn't you devise something that was a little bit more intelligent? Like you wouldn't say, oh yeah, we came from purposeless misguided people. I would want to come from someone who was highly intelligent. That was amazingly brilliant. That was this advanced form of human life or something that would make me feel a little bit better about myself, wouldn't you? I mean, you have to ask yourself, if they tell the kids that they came from monkeys, why are they upset that they're acting like animals? It doesn't make sense to me. To be honest with you, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in intelligent creator who created the world. And I don't have that much faith. Genesis says in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The name used for God here is Elohim. And it's the name used of God when it represents God as the God of power, who has the power to create out of nothing, the power to keep his word, the power to fulfill his promises. It's the God of eternity who is infinite, boundless, who exists in eternity past before time and space, existed, God is. And this is the same God that says to you, I have loved you with an everlasting love and I will pursue you with everything that is within me. That's the God of power that's after you. That's Elohim. The same God who created the earth. This God that we worship is huge. Listen to what the psalmist says in Psalms 8-3. When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have ordained, the work of your fingers. In the ESV it says this, when I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have set in place. That God is the one that with his fingers set the moon and the stars and the sun in place. Placed every one of them where they are. Just think about that for a moment. How big must the hand be to put the sun in place? To put the moon in place? To put the earth in orbit? How big of a hand would it take for that? And I want us to meditate on that for a minute. How big, how great our God is. Let's take the closest star in our solar system. It's the sun. The sun is 93, we got a picture of a sun? There it is, that's the sun. It's mean looking isn't it? It's 93 million miles away. Light travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second. It takes eight minutes for light to come from the sun and to reach the earth at 186,000 miles per second. Now I want you to imagine this for a moment. If the earth was the size of a golf ball, how big would the sun be in relation to that? Okay, I thought you guys would be more on it than first service. So I got props.  But imagine for a second, this is a golf ball. If the earth was the size of a golf ball, the sun would be like two people standing on each other's shoulders, like actually two and a half people.  I'm half Japanese. You know, if you have a full-sized person on top here, although I will tell you this, I was the center of the basketball team in Japan.  And so if you can imagine two and a half people tall, right, that's two men and a midget. If you had two men and a midget tall, you had the golf ball looking down, that would be the size of the sun in comparison to the earth. Now I want you to understand this. The sun is so big that you could put 1.3 million earths inside the sun. 1.3 million earths inside the sun.  For those that remember what giant school buses was, I grew up in the south in the 60s. We were part of the force busing program. So I grew up on a bus in my elementary school year.   And that's just one star in our universe and it's actually not the biggest star. The sun is actually one of the smallest stars in the universe. The second star I want to bring your attention to is a star called Beetlejuice. It's a red super giant star. It's located in the Orion constellation. It's 642.5 light years away. And so if you were going at 186,000 miles per second for 642.5 light years, you would get to Beetlejuice. I figured it out if you were to go at 65 miles an hour, it would be like 6.2 quadrillion years that it would take you to get there. Or if my wife was driving, it would be there overnight. But if you look at the picture up there of Beetlejuice, it's actually, you can see the circles around the star there in the middle. That's actually the orbit of planets. And so if you were to take Beetlejuice and put it where our sun is in the middle of the solar system, Beetlejuice is so big it would go beyond the orbit of Jupiter. That's how big Beetlejuice is. It's 700 times bigger than our sun. Now imagine if you could fit 1.3 million Earths inside the sun, you could fit 1.6 billion suns inside of Beetlejuice. That's how big this star is. Now if Earth were the size of a golf ball, that's enough golf balls to fill up the super dome in New Orleans 3,000 times. But that's not the biggest star. The third star is called Musifi. Now Musifi is called a red super giant also, but it's much bigger. It's located on the edge of the IC 1396 nebula. And if the Earth were the size of a golf ball, Musifi would be the width of two Golden Gate bridges, side by side, that's 3.4 miles. So how many of you have gone to see the Golden Gate Bridge? Okay, a few of you. So all the rest of you, what you have to do is you have to go to the Golden Gate Bridge, you have to take your golf ball, you have to put it on the ground, you have to walk across the bridge and walk another 1.7 miles across the bridge and look back and try to find your golf ball. That's how big Musifi is. That's how big this star is. But again, it's not the biggest star. It's 1,260 times bigger than the Sun and you could fit two billion Suns inside Musifi. You could fit 2.7 quadrillion Earths inside this star, Musifi. 2.7 quadrillion Earths.  I'm still waiting for my first million. I don't know what that is either. But to help you understand and grasp for a moment how big a quadrillion is, everyone knows a thousand thousands is what? A million, right? And a thousand millions is a billion, right? A thousand billions is a trillion and a thousand trillions is a quadrillion. That's what a quadrillion is. So if you took a million inches, how far would that be? Well, I figured it out for you. A million inches is 15.78 miles. That's how far a million inches is. Now, if you were to take a billion inches, how far would a billion inches be? Well, I don't live in Chino Valley, so I didn't figure it out from Chino Valley, but I did figure it out from San Clemente. And a billion inches from San Clemente takes you all the way to Shreveport, Louisiana, almost all the way across the United States. What about a trillion inches? Now, I know what you're thinking. I got this one, China. It's gotta be in China. China's the farthest place from everywhere. So it's gotta be somewhere in China. Well, actually, a trillion inches is if you took the Earth Equator and you went all the way around the Earth six times, that would be a trillion inches. What about a quadrillion inches? Well, a quadrillion inches is if you go from here, actually not from here, you have to drive all the way to Florida. Unless you're Elon Musk, then you can go anywhere.  That's a quadrillion. That's how big a quadrillion is. And this star can fit 2.7 quadrillion Earths inside of it. Now, I don't know about you, but when you see how big the universe is and how big the God of the universe is, doesn't it sound a little foolish when we go to God and we start complaining about things? When we start trying to tell God how we think our life should run, and we start telling God what we think the best things for us is, it really brings me to the point where I just wanna hear what God has to say. Doesn't it do that for you? And the Bible says that God put Musiphi in place with his fingers. But Musiphi isn't even the biggest star. There's another star called Canis Majoris. It's a red hypergiant. It's located in the constellation Canis Majoris. In other words, it's so big, it's just its own constellation. Some guys think like that. I'm my own constellation. It's 2,100 times bigger than the sun. And if the Earth were a golf ball, Canis Majoris would be the height of Mount Everest. And so what you would do is you would go to the bottom of Mount Everest, you would put the golf ball down, you would climb up the mountain, you would stand in line. Hopefully you would make it to the top. Apparently there's a line up there. You know, and so you'd be up there for a few days trying to get to the summit. Once you got to the summit, then you would look down and you tried to find your golf ball. That's how big Canis Majoris is, the height of Mount Everest. If you, you could fit three quadrillion, 729 trillion Earths inside Canis Majoris. That's enough Earths that if the Earth was the size of a golf ball, you could cover the state of Texas, 22 inches deep with golf balls. That's a big star. But it's not even the biggest star. They just found one that's bigger. It's called the UY Scooty. And you can fit four quadrillion, 801 trillion, 860 billion Earths inside the star. And they think that there are bigger stars out there, they just haven't found them yet. And here's the point, no matter what you're going through, no matter what you're facing, no matter what the mountain is, no matter what giant is in front of you, no matter what challenge you're stressing out over, there is a God who is bigger than all of it. And God placed these stars in the heavens with his fingers. And just think about this for a moment. Imagine the size of the hand that hung the sun, the moon, the stars. And then imagine yourself in the palm of that hand.  Even if you ran for your entire life, you couldn't get to the edge of God's hand. That's the definition of predestination, by the way. Prohorizo. The best view of predestination is the horizon.   You can't get away from it. And God is so big that no matter what you're facing, and God is so big that no matter where you go, no matter how far you run, no matter what you do, you cannot escape the love of God. You cannot go beyond the love of God. You can test the love of God all you want. You'll never exhaust it because you'll never get to the edge of his hand. David says, even if I go to the farthest place of the earth, you are there waiting for me. That is how big God is. And this God says to you, I love you, and I've given everything for you. Jeremiah 32.17 says, Oh Lord God, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for you. Nehemiah 9.6 says, you alone are the Lord.  And the NIV says you've given life to everything and the multitude of heavens worships you. And so Jeremiah says there's nothing too hard and Nehemiah says you give life to everything. What are you looking to for life? What are you looking to for strength? What are you looking to for importance? How much more importance do you want than to have the one who created everything you see say, you belong to me. You're my special one. What are you holding on to? What are you pursuing? In light of God's great love for you, what else matters? I love what it says in Deuteronomy. It says the eternal God is your refuge. And underneath are the everlasting arms and he will thrust out the enemy from before you. Underneath you are his everlasting arms.  This year we were blessed with two grandchildren. This is a shameless grandparent plug. They're the most beautiful babies in the world. Even if I see your baby and it's more beautiful, it's ugly. And my grandson, I keep saying he's learning to walk. He's actually just learning to crawl but I like to think ahead. And he'll teeter and I'll grab him and I'll just tell him, I got you. I got you. Falls down he cries, I got you.  You don't have to catch yourself.  And this morning perhaps it's a time for you to acknowledge that. Lord, I've been stressing out. I've been trying to figure out how things are gonna work. I've been trying to sort out my future. Sometimes even as single people it's like, Lord, I don't know, I've seen what's around here. I'm interceding. I don't know what my future holds. And I don't know what your future holds. But I know who holds the future. And he says it's a good one.


Towards the end of this segment of the course, we would like to have a focus on securitization of credit card assets with a reference to, of course, Islamic credit cards. Islamic credit cards portfolios could be quite big. The banks offering Islamic credit cards may accumulate a lot of assets on their books. By assets, I mean that they might have a very large number of customers who would be using credit facility offered by the bank through Islamic credit card. So that portfolio, we call it an asset Islamic credit card assets portfolio of the bank. In some cases, this amount which the bank has offered in the form of credit facility, it could run into billions, billions of dollars or billions of rupees in the context of Pakistan. Now, banks like other organizations, they may face shortage of liquidity, i.e. they may find that there are a lot more customers for Islamic credit cards. However, the bank doesn't have enough money to meet that demand. There are different options to raise additional funds. One of them could be securitization. How securitization works. So many banks securitize their existing assets to raise more funds. Securitization involves creating securities of certain denominations and selling them on discount to third parties to raise additional funds. For example, an Islamic bank may have its credit cards portfolio worth 1 billion rupees. The 1 billion rupees key credit facility the bank has already provided to its customers. It may wish to issue 1 million securities with denominations of 1000 rupees and sell these to investors for 900 rupees each. In this case, the bank would be actually selling a portfolio which is worth 1 billion for a price which is less than 1 billion. For example, 1 billion rupees portfolio may comprise 800 million rupees worth of financing and 200 million rupees worth of return. So that makes 1 billion. The sale of securities if a security is priced 900 rupees that would generate an amount of 900 million rupees. In this way, the bank may face a reduction of 100 million in its return. Banks are very smart organizations. They don't do anything which doesn't benefit them. In this case, the bank has already got a portfolio of 1 billion in which 800 million is its own money and 200 million is the return which it is going to generate from these Islamic credit cards. Bank would sell this portfolio for 900 million. Then it would have an additional 900 million to use this for Islamic credit card portfolio or for something else. If that is the case and if the return on this new money 900 million remains the same, then the bank would be able to generate a return of 180 million rupees on this additional amount. The total return the bank would be getting would be more than 200 million and that is what is one benefit of securitization. The question arises and this was the main purpose of this module whether this is acceptable from a Sharia viewpoint. Of course not because in this case the bank is selling debt. The bank is selling cash and debt for a price which is less than the face value of the portfolio. The portfolio had a face value of 1 billion. However, it was sold for a price of 900 million which is exchange of an asset money in unequal quantities and if you remember we defined riba prohibited interest as an exchange in which an asset is exchanged in unequal quantities. Secondly the debt part which was 200 million actually the bank ended up getting only 100 million for that one. However, through this securitization process the bank got 280 million total return and that was the objective. Unfortunately in an Islamic economic context this kind of securitization is not allowed.


Excellent ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Lithuanian delegation, I would like to thank the United Arab Emirates government for warmly welcoming us in Dubai and hosting this significant ITU event. Lithuania has always been at the forefront of the new communication technologies deployment. Taking a trip back to the history, the first telephone line in Lithuania was installed in 1882 that is only six years after the patenting of the telephone in 1876. Today, having created a well-developed infrastructure, Lithuania has firm grounds for further deployment and development of information and communication technologies. Recent data shows that 4G mobile internet connection has already covered 97% of the territory of our country. Lithuania has every reason to be proud of the data transmission speed as we enjoy high position in global ranking of mobile 19th and fixed broadband 15th speed. Last year, 86% of households with the internet access used broadband, wired and wireless fixed communications. We continue with implementation of the next generation internet access development plan for 2014-2020 under which the coverage of 30 Mbps and higher speed internet access is being further nationally enhanced. Radio spectrum that is governed by ITU globally is a profoundly important resource for every nation in many ways. When managed properly, it brings not only the economic benefit but it is also important in shaping countries' political development values as well as fostering the transformation in social life by including all groups of people all over the world into the global digital society. We believe that radio spectrum should be continued to be managed in an impartial and transparent way. We are proud to offer to the ITU community the best of expertise in radio spectrum management and we have by putting forward candidacy of Dr. Mindaugas Jilinskas for the position of the director of ITU Radio Communication Bureau. Looking at the future, we have many issues on our agendas with developing of broadband networks of 5G. It will take much efforts to make more spectrum available for development of innovative services to ensure comprehensive mobile connectivity and global interoperability of 5G to set a strategic dialogue between the stakeholders. We see enormous potential of communication technologies as an enabler for growth especially in less developed regions. Thus Lithuania paid a significant attention to the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference. In 2017 Lithuania hosted the Regional Development Forum and the Preparatory Meeting for Europe in preparation for WTDC 17 and coordinated the European input to the above conference. Dear colleagues, it is because we believe in the power of communication to transform our economies in our world. We count on your support during the election to the ITU Council and stand ready to continue working with you in the Council for the second term. There are many challenges ahead of us both on a regional and worldwide level. I believe that with our commitment, concerted effort and dialogue, we will be able to address them in a constructive manner. Thank you very much.


Well, now we undertake our next teaching review of brain tumors. And we'll start out with a 45-year-old with cognitive decline and turn right to the images which are axial T2 sequences. And I'll let you gaze at them for a moment. I'm sure you've noticed that there is mass effect on the midline and that there is amorphous signal alteration and relaxation prolongation through the left cerebral hemisphere. And perhaps the right cerebral hemisphere, or not, you be the judge. The next sequence, taken a little bit more craniad, shows the same phenomenon in the left cerebral hemisphere, and perhaps the right cerebral hemisphere, or not, you decide. A temporal lobe-level axial image also shows signal alteration. This time, clearly on both sides. Brain looks perhaps a little bit expanded, but you be the judge. Some proton density imaging reaffirms what we saw on our axial T2 imaging, giving you a moment to reflect on the findings, but not too long as you might be taking an exam with cross-sectional imaging of this nature. Even in the thalamus, there's some signal alteration present on the accompanying PD imaging. And here is an axial PD or flare with the same findings seen previously, a little bit more clearly, and perhaps you might have reaffirmed in your mind that there is involvement of the contralateral hemisphere. As important as the contrast, T1 weighted image, and the amount of enhancement is something you should decide on. Is it dynamically enhancing intensely? Is it enhancing moderately, or not at all? We have one more image to show you, a coronal contrast enhanced image, and it's important for you to decide on the degree, the distribution, and the intensity of enhancement. So now that you've had a chance to review this case, which is somewhat complex, but a case you might see on an exam, what is the most likely diagnosis? Is it oligodendroglioma? Is it gliomatosis cerebri? Is it metastatic disease? Is it encephalitis, or is it progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, A, B, C, D, and E? Let's go on to question number two. You can pause if you want to reflect on your answer momentarily, because it will have bearing on what you answer for the subsequent questions. Which is not true regarding gliomatosis cerebri? A, diffuse, B involves two or more lobes, C involves the meninges in calvarium, D frequently bilateral, E, the clinical is outweighed or overshadowed by the imaging. Question number three. Which of the following statements regarding gliomatosis cerebri is true on imaging? A, diffusion restriction present, B, preserves underlying architecture with elevated MI or myo inositol on spec MRI, C, enhances intensely, D, high cerebral blood flow due to vascular hyperplasia, E. Pat FDG or fluoro deoxyglucose shows marked hypermetabolism. Let's go back to question number one. First choice, A, oligodendroglioma. This is a spreading infiltrative disorder, but while it does involve this distribution of the anterior centrum semi ovale, it doesn't cross the midline as often as some other diagnoses, it calcifies and it bleeds. This lesion neither calcified nor bled, oligodoso 90 plus percent of the time. Gliomatosis cerebri, that will be a point of discussion since that's the correct answer. It involves multiple distributions, lobes and hemispheres of the brain. More to come, but it is hypovascular which helps differentiate it from many of the other proposed diagnoses like metastatic disease which enhances since it disrupts the blood-brain barrier. There's usually not a broad infiltrative process, but several different focal masses that enhance. That is not the diagnosis. Encephalitis, it's not an unreasonable choice. Brain swelling, diffuseness, multi-focality, however these patients are acutely ill. They're not reported as having cognitive decline, but rapid descent into cognitive decline and coma. But more importantly, encephalitis is not going to be present without some enhancement even in a cerebritis and without some either reactive or infiltrative leptomeningial enhancement neither of which are present here. Encephalitis is not the choice. Progressive, multifocal, leukoencephalopathy caused by the JC virus, a slow-acting viral infection in an immunosuppressed patient. We didn't say the patient was immunosuppressed. It is a white matter abnormality with relatively large lesions that progress from peripheral to central around the ventricles, not present here. This is a diffuse process without respect for white matter or gray matter. It is clearly not isolated to the white matter. So PML is not a reasonable choice. The answer here is B, which is not true regarding gliomatosis cerebri. A, diffuse. It is diffuse. It's diffusely infiltrative, although sometimes it can even somewhat preserve the brain architecture. So that is true, therefore it's not the correct answer. B involves two or more lobes. Our lesion involves four or five lobes. Both sides of the brain, temporal, parietal, frontal. So that one is true, and therefore can't be the answer. We're looking for the untrue answer. It involves the meninges and calvarium, where all our lesion did not involve the meninges and calvarium. PXA, pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma might do that, but not gliomatosis cerebri. So C is not true, therefore it's the correct answer. Frequently bilateral, our lesion is bilateral, and that is true of gliomatosis cerebri. And finally, the clinical is outweighed or overshadowed by the imaging. In other words, the imaging looks worse than the patient. And that is true, therefore it's not the correct answer to question number two. The correct answer is C. Which of the following statements regarding gliomatosis cerebri is true on imaging? A, diffusion restriction present, you would think with amylignancy, this infiltrative that you would have diffusion restriction, but unfortunately not. It has an interstitial growth pattern in between the white matter tracts and sparing nerve cells in certain loci. Therefore diffusion restriction is not present. B, preserves underlying architecture with elevated MI on spec MRI. That is true. We already implied that it preserves underlying architecture when we answered question number one and also in describing its interstitial growth pattern. Sometimes it can preserve the pattern of the gyri and the sulci so profoundly that it mimics an infarct and to the inexperienced practitioner is called an infarct inadvertently or incorrectly. Seeing this happen many times. C, enhances intensely. Well no, it doesn't enhance intensely, that's untrue.  Virtually no enhancement and certainly no leptomeningial enhancement. D, high cerebral blood flow due to vascular hyperplasia. Well we know that one is most likely untrue because we hardly have any enhancement. Although enhancement on MRI, if it's not dynamic, really reflects breakdown of the blood-brain barrier. And on dynamic imaging, you're looking at vascular hyperplasia. But these lesions don't have high cerebral blood flow. They don't have vascular hyperplasia. E, pet FDG shows marked hypermetabolism. You would think that a large, huge, diffusely infiltrated malignancy would have hypermetabolism, but it doesn't. It's hypometabolic, another fooler. So the correct answer in this case is B, preserves underlying architecture with elevated MI on spec MRI. Remember it preserves the architecture so much in some cases that if you don't have history or you're not tapped into the clinical, you might accidentally or inadvertently and embarrassingly call this an infarct. Let's talk a little bit more about gliomatosis cerebrite. This is a World Health Organization grade three lesion, not as malignant as glioblastoma multiforme, which is grade four. They are supertentorial and diffuse, infiltrative, multi-lobar, multi-hemispheric occurring around age 45. They cross the midline via the corpus callosum or the mass of intermediate. There is white matter involvement with gray matter extension. It may balloon or expand the gray matter, but preserve the gyroform shape of the cortex. The expansion is rather diffuse. The lesions are ill-defined, it's hard to put your finger on that mass. But rather, it appears that the entire brain is enlarged or involved. It's ill-defined, hypovascular on C plus MR and CT because of the interstitial growth pattern and the lack of blood brain barrier breakdown. It is hypo metabolic on PET, even though it's a malignancy. And on T2 imaging, as well as flair, it's still very ill-defined. A unique feature of gliomatosis cerebri is when you do diffusion tensor imaging to actually image the white matter tracks or pathways like the callosum, like the centrum semi ovale, etc. They appear preserved. They may be moved from side to side. You may see them spread apart, but they are not interrupted or destroyed. We have a malignancy, but we do not have restricted diffusion in this entity. If you do dynamic contrast enhanced MRI, you're going to see decreased cerebral blood flow with first pass MRI imaging. It's kind of contrary to your intuition for a malignancy. And on SPECT MRI, there is marked elevation of the MI peak. MI is a transporter that takes ATP back and forth across membranes. So if it's sitting there doing nothing due to obstruction and encasement by gliomatosis cerebri, preventing the MI from carrying ATP back and forth, it will accumulate in the extracellular interstitial space. Let's talk a little bit about the differential diagnosis of gliomatosis cerebri. As stated on multiple occasions, one of the most common mistakes I see residents and fellows make is to call this entity a vascular injury, a vascular cerebritis, or an infarct. That is incredibly embarrassing when you take a huge malignancy and you call it a stroke. If somebody with a stroke of this size is going to be severely acutely impaired, so the clinical alone is going to put you in the right direction. But you don't always have the clinical, but you should. Both are gyroform, but gliomatosis cerebri does not enhance, whereas infarcts in the late acute and subacute phase will give you gyroform enhancement. The degree of mass effect may be a little bit different. Infarcts may give you mass effect at around 3, 4, 5, even up to 7 days, whereas the mass effect of gliomatosis cerebri is concentric, expanding the brain in gradual fashion. Vocal symptoms of a stroke are present, such as hand weakness, whereas gliomatosis cerebri, the symptoms are rather subtle, progressive, and amorphous. Vascularitis is often on the differential diagnostic list for the same reasons. It may produce an infarct-like pattern, but often vascularitis has hemorrhage associated with it. You may see aneurysms or pseudoaneurysms on MRA. One feature of a vascularitis that is very consistent is headache, and the headache is even more severe when they bleed. Anaplastic astrocytoma, or grade 3 astrocytoma, not as large, not as multi-lobar, not as likely to cross the midline, not as diffusely expansile, and it may enhance. Viral encephalitis, this is an important one. These two patterns are very similar. It looks like somebody went in there and just stirred up the brain with an instrument in the kitchen. But in viral encephalitis, there's an acute phase. The patients have a stiff neck. There's meningial enhancement. They have meningismus. Remember, you're an imaging clinician. If it's herpes, it's going to be temporal limbic with hemorrhage in the region, but there will be enhancement of the peritemporal meninges. D or dysmyelination. Well, you'd have to have pretty massive D or dysmyelination, as in, say, severe metachromatic leukodystrophy, or if you had severe MS, you're still going to have skip areas, even in some of the severe forms of MS, like the shielders variant or the bellows variant. MS is going to give you much less mass effect. It's not going to appear to cross the midline. When it enhances, it's going to be ring enhancement that's open on the peel side. You may have optic nerve involvement and spine involvement, neither of which are present in gliomatosis cerebri. Progressive, multifocal, leukoencephalopathy. They're not going to have enhancement, just like gliomatosis cerebri, but they're going to be immunosuppressed. It likes the parieto-oxypital white matter closing down into the periventricular region. It may involve the corpus callosum. Patients with AIDS are prone to PML, but any immunosuppressive state can lead to it. Metabolic dysmyelination. Well, we already alluded to D and dysmyelination earlier, but the metabolic portion of this choice refers to mitochondrial cytopathies, perioxosomal diseases, Mela syndrome, Merf syndrome, Lay's disease, disorders of pyruvate carboxylase, other enzymes. This occurs in a younger age range. You don't see gliomatosis cerebri in 10-year-olds or even 15-year-olds. There's no mass effect. There are multiple infarcts. There may be multiple symmetric calcifications. There may be multiple symmetric areas of relaxation change in the thalamus or in the globus pallidus or putamen. They have an elevated lactate in the serum and on MR spect in these mitochondrial forms of metabolic disease. There are other metabolic diseases that we won't cover right now. Limfoma. This is a deep, irregular, strange-looking, periventricular infiltrative process, but it enhances. It enhances intensely. So, picking limfoma as a choice is 180 degrees out of phase with the appearance of gliomatosis cerebri. It's multifocal. It likes the deep brain. It likes the septum palusitum. It likes the corpus callosum. It's hyper-dense on CT. It's iso-intense on MRI because there's very little cytoplasm. Little cytoplasm, little T2 hyper-intensity. The brain architecture, pathologically, is surprisingly preserved in this nasty infiltrative disease. There is no necrosis, a helpful side. There is no neovascularity. There is blurring or wax-on, wax-off appearance of the gray white matter junction under the microscope. There are infiltrates between the myelinated nerves as opposed to direct myelin infiltration and destruction as might occur with a dismyelination or a demyelinating disease. There are varying degrees of mitosis. You can have a lower-grade form of leomatosis cerebri, World Health Organization Grade II, although that's less common. The majority of them, more than three-fourths, are World Health Organization Grade III, the classic form. So in closing, a 40-something-year-old patient with headaches, weakness, seizures, confusion, cognitive decline that is non-acute, non-enhancing, large, expansile, infiltrative, non-necrotic, non-hemorrhagic, multi-lobar, multi-hemispheric, that is, leomatosis cerebri. The mortality is 50% at one year, despite its who-grading of World Health Organization Class III. That concludes leomatosis cerebri. Let's move on to the next case.


All right, yeah, thanks all for joining, nice full room. So yeah, my name's Daniel. I'm the graphics leader at Calabra, where an open source consultancy, I've been working on graphics sort of incrementally and by accident, and definitely when I started, it was a weird, mystifying thing that took me quite a while to get my head around really. So yeah, I suppose in contrast to some of the earlier talks, I wanted to just try and break down a lot of the components that you see in the modern graphics stack, how some of those flows look like and give you, I suppose, a bit of a toolkit to be able to understand and reason about all of these kinds of things. So yeah, in our line of work, we have a lot of people who are working, particularly on single board computer and SOM devices, and they end up pushing, like really pushing the capabilities of those kinds of devices. It used to be a huge area of revenue for us because the old graphic stack was so hopelessly inefficient that we made a great amount of money from I want to ship a product, but I need to pay someone to spend six months to a year just hacking everything to shreds in a completely non-repeatable way. And so a lot of the work that we've done over the past 10 to 12 years has weirdly been to try and get less revenue for ourselves. That whole idea of if you make a problem as boring as possible and commoditize it, then you can go on to do other things and not just be doing the same stuff for 10 years on end. I'm not sure we've made it the most clear and easy to follow in the process, but we're always trying to clear it up and trying to make sure that it is pretty accessible. So hopefully that's what we can get out of today. So here, as for a typical graphic stack that you would see in a consumer device, something like say a digital signage device or a mobile phone, since that's where a lot of our effort and attention goes. Any questions? We'll get to that. Excuse me. So if we take a bit more of an incremental look at it and try to approach it in a more sensible way, the way I usually like to think of things rather than top and bottom is nearest to the eye and furthest from the eye. And conceptually, you've got the display subsystem will be closest to your eye and then you've got the window manager and the window system as that kind of nice little bit of intermediary middleware. And then you've got the clients which they're the things doing the 3D rendering and media and stuff like that, right on the far end from the hardware really. Except that your window system also uses the GPU so that kind of gets complicated and maybe it's encoding media to stream to Twitch because that's what the kids like.  So you can actually get pretty deep in some weird nesting and circular dependency games if you really feel like it. And if that's your passion, come work on the graphic stack because we're always in need of people. So if we start with the display side of things, DRM is the direct rendering manager subsystem in the Linux kernel and it's both GPU and display. So DRM is the overarching driver framework and set of drivers that we have. In kernel mode setting is the part of it that's really specific to the display pipeline. And that is just the final step of turning pixels into like KMS isn't involved at any earlier point has nothing to do with 3D rendering or where your windows are positioned on screen or anything like that. Yeah, it's just turning memory bits into electrons and you know how hard could that possibly be, right? Some people will tell you that FB Dev can be used to do display as well and has historically been used. Those people are wrong, don't listen to them. So then if we go on our next step a little deeper through, we get to the window system. So using Wayland as the example that everyone knows and loves. Fundamentally, all the window system does is multiplexing between you have one set of display hardware and one set of input devices. You have multiple clients and it needs to interpret and route between them. Wayland is just a protocol for doing window systems. It's not a concrete implementation. The only implementation part of Wayland in and of itself is just some IPC and lifetime management and very basic stuff. So you know your desktop, I'm running GNOME. They have their own complete implementation of the Wayland protocol. KDE has another, in fact it has two for various reasons. And then on embedded systems you'll be running a different Wayland server all together like Western for example. So if you ever think there's a bug with Wayland because it just crashed, look at your desktop and blame someone else, not me ideally. So the main visible function is that it collects all of the client windows together. It stacks them, so bits are on top of the other, positions them, gets them out to the display. And similarly that's the one deciding where should the keyboard events go right now. The mouse just moved, what does that mean? Who should I deliver it to? So on. Again, there's a vicious rumor that there was something called X11. It's completely untrue, especially in 2022. I mean more seriously, Wayland does have an X compatibility layer which is just the full X server and everything routed sideways into the Wayland server. And that was really hard to implement because just don't even try to do X11 if you can. Then again, go in another layer down if you're looking at the GPU layer. We usually talk about that in terms of GL and Vulkan. And I guess one of the lesser understood parts of this is that in and of themselves OpenGL, GLES, which is sort of the embedded subset and Vulkan, all they do is rendering accelerated 3D and nothing else.  But they only do rendering and nothing else. So the bridge to actually getting them on screen is EGL for GL and the WSI for Vulkan. And they glue together the fact that GL and Vulkan are the things which can do this shiny cool accelerated rendering, but ideally you want to show it at some point. There's also, there's another library called GBM, which you'll see kicking about. That's kind of a weird special case of when we need to display things to KMS. The way EGL and KMS work, you can't quite do that directly. So we have this library called GBM, which is a bit of a side channel into EGL so we can punch through some of the abstractions and control much more directly where the buffers are and how we present them. Some people will tell you that it's called the generic buffer manager. It's not that acronym definitely doesn't stand for anything. Never was called generic buffer manager at any stage. So yeah, that's pretty much the top to bottom. You've got your clients rendering the content, it's passing over to the compositor. Here's a handle so you can access the memory that backs that. The compositor is going to do something to get that on screen in some kind of position with some kind of blending or whatever. And then KMS is the one that shovels it out through HDMI. So there's this really clear division, not only of responsibility. Well, that's quite light really. Yeah, not only responsibility, but also in design principles because you have at the low level, the APIs like DRM, GLES, EGL, KMS. They're very, not only are they hardware specific in the implementation, but they're very directed. You know, they do exactly what you tell them to with nothing else. If you tell them to do the wrong thing, that's on you. And as you climb up, you get not only much more hardware independent and abstract. So for example, you know, Mata, West and all of the Weyland compositors, we have no hardware specific code on there. They run everywhere. But they're the first layer at which you start to apply policy and various arbitrary choices that people think make a good desktop. So that's the first real layer at which we're translating from a kind of high level declaration of intention down to some very specific low level realization of that intention. And then obviously by the time you get up, way up into client land, it's, you know, I'd like a button and download some stuff off the internet and magic things happen up there. So yeah, if I wanted to walk a bit through each of those three layers and how they're actually put together and how you go about working with them, be that an implementation or trying to debug them or just trying to understand what's going on. So again, starting with nearest to I, if we're looking at KMS and DRM as well, I suppose. So each system device, you know, it's a sort of classic kernel model. Each system device has its own DRM character device. So this is your dev DRI card, whatever. On a classic desktop system like Intel and AMD, you'll have one device which covers all of your GPUs and displays and the things that use like two kilowatts. On arm systems, classically and risk five MIPS, other architectures are available. You tend to have a separate GPU and a display device. They're not only separate devices, but they're made by separate vendors and they're just glued in by the SOC manufacturer, which will become important later. So yeah, again, if you go from nearest to furthest, the way DRM devices are put together internally, which represents hardware surprisingly well. It's a design which has stood up really well for about the last 15 years. Apart from the one DRM object, which I don't mention here because we just try to pretend that never existed. Connectors are your actual displays. So a DRM connector will be, you know, this type C output or an HDMI output or your integrated panel. That's always one to one. CRTCs, which is old enough that it stands for CRT controller for anyone else with grays in their beard. They generate a pixel stream for the displays. So it's their responsibility to combine all the different inputs for that one display, scale them, apply anything it needs to, to get you one flat image, which is going to go out over the wire. Within the CRTCs though, it's not just a single image. Display controllers can to a limited extent do their own composition, where you can position and stack and scale and color convert images within the CRTCs. So you can have multiple inputs combined together. And then, yeah, frame buffers is just the stuff in memory which arrived somehow as a fully formed set of pixels. So yeah, conceptually, it's just, you attach a frame buffer to a plane. The plane might do some transformation like scaling or like a color transform. And then the CRTC logically combines them together to give you that final image. I think the most important thing is, yeah, again, that's quite light, but the CRTC generates timing fundamentally. If you have a 60 Hertz display, the CRTC is the thing that ticks at 60 Hertz. So within DRM and KMS, that's where everything flows back from is we start from the timing that the CRTC has. We know that that's our deadline. We know that that's our cadence and everything works back from there. So that's always our starting point when we're looking at things like AV sync or performance or whatever. You start with that CRTC timing because that's a fixed physical clock and you make sure that you've got that feedback element going backwards. So everything is properly flowing from there. Everyone knows when their deadline is. And yeah, all of these objects, you enumerate them, they have properties, the properties can have values. It's basically what you would expect. In atomic mode setting is what we've had as the interface for about seven years, which is just a pile of properties for the whole system. So saying, this plane should be at this offset, it should be scaled to this much. Displaying this frame buffer, this connector is enabled, this one isn't, so on and so forth. One of the more useful things that we have is atomic gives you a test-only interface. Display hardware is infuriatingly limited. It can do all of these wonderful things which save you power and save you bandwidth, but they have the world's most exotic set of constraints on when they can and can't do it. We had a session a few years ago where we all sat down and tried to enumerate all of the different constraints that we could think of. So we could expose those as an API and use a space to figure out, all right, this is what I can and can't do. So this is the configuration I need to put together. We got a bit over an hour in and then just fundamentally gave up. So because of the best way which I'll cover in a sec is essentially just brute force checking, checks quick enough because every single frame user space will put together this configuration throughout a DRM, how do you like this? No, how do you like this? No, how do you like this? No, and we can do that 50 times or more per frame. The frame by frame thing is quite important because DRM, it's not a sort of producer consumer.  DRM does what you tell it to until you tell it to do something else. So every frame, if you have any new update, you need to tell DRM, hey, here's your new configuration, possibly 50 times to throw stuff against the wall until it sticks. And yeah, it's again, working backwards when you start working with a DRM device. So there's some code samples I'll link to in a couple of slides time. You start with your connector. So once you've enumerated everything, you've looked at it and said, HDMI is connected. It says it can do 1080p. Then that's how you work backwards. So you start with HDMI A1, and then within the object enumeration, there's compatibility and routing constraints that are there. So the CRTCs will say, I can work with these connectors and you pick the one that works with HDMI A1. And then the planes say I can work with these CRTCs. So again, working backwards, you pull out this tree of objects derived from the output that you want to light up. And yeah, in order to display some pixels, you need to be able to source some pixels. So GEM is called the Graphics Execution Manager. It has nothing to do with the execution at all. It's just a memory manager. And it's a memory manager with no API, apart from destroying a buffer object, which is kinda cool. And all these GEM objects are, every time you see BO, that's a GEM buffer object. And all that is, is a collection of bytes. There's no type, there's no metadata. It could be firmware, it could be geometry, it could be pixels, who knows. And yeah, the reason the API only covers the concept of having a buffer and destroying it is that the hardware is super, super divergent. You think of unified memory versus dedicated video RAM, these kinds of things. So we don't have a generic API at the kernel level, which lets you allocate a buffer to use. And that would be a good point if you said that it didn't sound great to be using. So we have a limited cutout. If you're starting with your first KMS program, what you want to be dealing with is DOM buffers. So they allow this really specifically targeted, you're writing a splash screen or you're writing a software compositor, which just does CPU rendering and nothing accelerated. So that does give you a generic eye-opter which lets you allocate a buffer object for a certain width and a certain height. And you can M-map it and you can wrap it in a KMS frame buffer, which is just describing the properties of the buffer object and that's it. It can be tempting to use that for other things because that's the only generic API our KMS has, but don't because it probably won't work for you and when you try to make it work, you won't get a very good reception when you ask how to make it work and everyone will be disappointed. So yeah, it's quite a simple runtime loop because again, KMS is just doing exactly what it's told. So you've already enumerated all of your objects. You know how the routing looks and that's quite consistent. So all you're doing is making sure you've got your KMS frame buffers. You can attach them to a plane and crop in the process. You can position them within a CRTC, maybe scale them in the process, stack them relative to each other, commit everything. Hopefully you've got it right and it works because you've been sure to do your test commits, wait until the kernel finishes and then you go again. You know, it's a limited enough API and scope KMS that it's pretty easy to approach. It's some tedious typing, but it's not conceptually difficult. So the place I usually recommend people start is the thing that I wrote myself. There might be some correlation. But KMS quads is an example out there which tries to be quite self-documenting in terms of how you approach actually using KMS from the user space point of view, how you work with it and to be a relatively extensible jumping off point for, for your own work on top of that. And yeah, there's a couple of other useful tools like KMS cube is more focused, so you can probably tell by the Mesa part of the URL, but more focused on the 3D side of things. DRM info is a really nice debugging and introspection tool and there's actually some pretty good documentation in the kernel repo, so yeah. So then if we got to using Wayland, there has been a lot of material on how to use Wayland, so I'm gonna keep this one fairly light. Also please use a toolkit if you can, if you're just writing an application. They already do this really well. The most important thing about Wayland is that it does have that sort of multiplexing flow between the multiple clients and the single output devices as well as input devices like your keyboard mouse and so on, but the most important difference is that it's descriptive, not prescriptive, so as a concrete example, when you're working with X11, X clients will say to the server, here's a new window, it's exactly this big, put it on top of everything else, give me all of the keyboard and all of the mouse input until I tell you otherwise. In Wayland, clients say, here's a surface, this is a pop-up, please display it. So in Wayland, we have a lot more scope within the compositor to implement good semantics, so the whole thing's based on, the client just furnishes the compositor with a ton of context and a ton of information and a lot of descriptive parts, which let the compositor implement something good rather than X11 where we ended up painted into a corner because the capability of the whole system is constrained by the sort of least creative client. And then that ends up effectively as your API. The other thing is that we deliberately, we're very light on the compositor because it's such a critical system resource. The entire protocol is really focused around making sure that the compositor doesn't have to do loads of work and that you shouldn't see any blocking or janking. This didn't stop people from putting, blocking the bus calls to Google Calendar, which would block your entire system for a few seconds, but they fixed it now, so I won't name them. And yeah, across the compositor landscape, if you're wanting to put together a distribution or a product or something like that, the rough guide is that Western's designed for all the non-desktop use cases. So anything where you're not dragging loads of stuff around and it's somewhat more of a static configuration, that's sort of quite, it's super efficient on the hardware side and quite stable and predictable. The other end of the spectrum is MOTA. So if you're running GNOME, this is your Wayland server, it's mine as well. It looks really good. It's quite shiny. You can extend it with JavaScript. That doesn't scale down super well, but it works well for desktop use cases. And then WR Roots is kind of in the middle. It's a bit of a toolkit, which is less efficient than Western for sure, but it's also more approachable and more extensible. But all of these, as a client, you don't really have to care because all of the core protocols are implemented the same way by all of us. And this is, from the X11 mod, it's a combination of the server and the window manager and the compositor all in one piece that handles all that policy as well as the realization. Yeah, so quick run through is everything in Wayland is an extension. So clients connect and the first thing they do is ask for the list of extensions, stop binding to them. So that's what you'll always see on startup of a Wayland client is listening to the extension registry and binding to those extension interfaces. And the main ones, a WL buffer is exactly what you think it is. It's some pixels are over here. A WL surface is a window. So that's really a container for WL buffers that the client's pushing. And it's a receiver for input events that the compositor's pushing the other way. But in and of itself, that's all it is. So there's a lot of layered extensibility that we have in Wayland.  And then it will wrap that in what we call an XDG surface, which is sort of opting into desktop window management. And then an XDG top level. And then an XDG top level, which goes even further to say, you know, this isn't a pop-up, this isn't a dialogue box, this is like a full application window. So talk to me about title bars and right click menus and all this kind of thing. And all the input flows from WL seat is the extension interface. One thing we tried to do is make it as easy as possible to spin up and create new extensions.  You don't need to go to some central place and get the entire ecosystem to support it before you can do anything. Yeah. So yeah, this diagram looks familiar, well done on paying attention because I did copy and paste that from the KMS one. It's exactly the same thing. Like there's been no fundamental change from your attaching buffers to the container and then it's getting combined by the compositor. And again, you have that timing flowing backwards. So that's the compositor transiting all the way from the display back to your client to let you know how the pacing's going, when is a good time for you to be painting so you can keep up. And yeah, that's going all the way through. So we never have any fundamental collision where we need to resolve different ideas about timing because it always flows backwards from the display. And again, the loop is about as simple as you think it might be.  The server tells you, I think you should be this size. You allocate some buffers through generic high octals that we don't have, but that's the next bit. You draw some stuff, you tell the compositor to display it, then you wait around until the compositor sends you an event saying, now's a good time to paint your next one and that's what you do. In the steady state, the initial setup can be a bit verbose and a bit noisy because of all the extensions, but in the steady state, it's that exact same workflow as KMS. There's nothing more complicated you need to do as a Wayland client. And yeah, there are a ton of resources out there like the Wayland book and things like that. Do please use a toolkit if you are writing an application because they've done it and they've bottomed out all of the corner cases. But if you do end up digging into things or if you have something different, like say a media player where you need to be interacting with Wayland directly and providing it, for example, GStreamer does this. There's a few tools like Wayland Info is a good introspection just to tell you all the composite capabilities and give you an idea of what it actually supports. WL Hacks would be the most useful tool that no one knows about really. It is an intercepting proxy that sits between your client and the server. It dumps out all the requests. It keeps track. It's quite smart at keeping track of objects. So you can go and trace what your surface state is and what the last events were. And it's good for trying to figure out corner case bugs. Western's got its own toolkits which just try to surface as much information and logs as possible. And then, yeah, the usual starting place for my first client ever is the simple clients in Western which are completely self-contained just examples of how you would go about doing it before you get to all the complexity that you end up with in real apps. And yeah, just quickly through the GPU side. Yeah, so GL is just that pure rendering API. You're pushing in the vertex data. You're pushing in the textures and the shaders. They're really, really good at doing this because they are insanely parallel. All of your vertex shaders that you might run to deform your geometry and change the presentation and rotate things, whatever. And all of your fragment shaders which run to fill in all the pixels and do your cool lighting effects. They're all completely parallel, asynchronous and independent. And you have to program very, very differently for them. In the CPU world, you're thinking about doing things once, making sure you can share as much as possible so you're not duplicating cycles and you're not exhausting memory. GPUs want you to do the opposite, really. Any synchronization point is where things start falling apart. They want to free run across the entire thing without any interaction between themselves or between the outside world at all. It's just straight line ALU ideally. And yeah, the powerful goes with being power hungry. So even though they're really great and super capable, a lot of our display work is focused on trying to avoid them because we can get real power savings by avoiding them completely and being able to use the more fixed display pipeline where we can. And yeah, so break it down a little bit.  They would bang the video card directly and that rendering would just turn up immediately. And this is obviously not what we want today. So we've had this sort of slow crawl of GLX was the thing that introduced the idea of, hey, what if we have multiple clients and we have a server that has ideas about where those clients should be and what they should do. So GLX just forwarded all of the GL commands to the X server and said, okay, you do it and figure out what that should mean. Not obviously it wasn't super efficient. So DRI, which you'll see all through Mesa, EGL, any of these projects as an acronym. That was the thing that first got clients access to the GPU directly rather than conflicting. And then DRI2 was the evolution of that, which had them have their own memory areas like we do in quite a modern system. And they used everywhere, but they're just shorthand for accelerated rendering or modern accelerated rendering. They're pretty meaningless as terms now. And yes, so as I said, EGL is just that abstraction of GLX. It's that glue between GL and the outside world. And that's the place in clients where we get this concept of frames that are timed and pasted and synced to the refresh rate ideally. It's not great because it doesn't have any kind of event infrastructure and it really tries to keep you from knowing what's going on, which is where GBM comes in to give us that side channel and why as a compositor we need to use GBM. And again, it's just that sort of symbiotic relationship between them and that separation of concerns that we have between them. Vulcan is also the same, like Vulcan is GL and WSI is EGL. It's a better API if that trade-off works for you, but it might not work for you, but all of the concepts are the same. They're completely applicable between both. And then DMA buff is where we get to share buffers between our different subsystems and our different processes. So that's just being able to export a BO out to a file descriptor. So you can pass it around. You can import it into video for Linux if you want to encode it later on. It's the common interop. So every subsystem in the kernel, every high-level or middleware API has the support and has the bindings for handling DMA buffs to exchange the buffers everywhere. Yeah, so when you put it all together, it's roughly as described. So this is just a quick recap of you're connecting, you're creating an EGL window, the server's giving the client some hints as this is how you should be allocating it really. GL's rendering and then DMA buff is what's transiting over to the Wayland server. The server is exactly the opposite. It's getting the DMA buff. It's importing it into the GPU in its context or into KMS if it wants to use the display and figuring out how to realize that once it's got it over the interchange barrier. And if it's taken home, it's going to use GLES to composite the whole scene or if not, it's trying to avoid it. Yeah, I think I'm running out of time apparently. So I think I've largely covered this, but yeah, it's really hard to tell in advance that we can have that static and useful display controller pipeline. So at every point in the stack, we've got to keep on transporting these fairly dynamic hints about maybe you should reallocate in a different format or try applying scaling first, something like that, in order to actually get that nice feedback loop. Yeah, so KMS again, that's just a brute force thing and that's what we put a ton of work into, into Western to achieve. And the others are catching up as we're catching up to them and in some other aspects as well. And yeah, I think the main thing to take away with how you use GPUs is that you need to really target it and make sure you use them for the right things. If you have a really short super bursty workload that can be completely dominated by the setup time in the overhead, you don't want to be branching and serializing.  So you really need to think very carefully about how you use them. And with that, I think we are in fact, overtime. So yeah, I'll have to leave it there. Thanks very much for all your time and yeah, enjoy.


The US intends to give Kiev more long-range missiles. The US is considering supplying Ukraine with cluster munitions for longer-range rocket artillery. The Washington Post reported on this. As they assess the likelihood that the war will continue next year and possibly into 2025, White House officials are considering several important new opportunities to increase Western support. In Washington, for example, there is growing support for deploying cluster munitions for rocket artillery that can strike deeper. The F-16 will be delivered in a few months, but US officials are working with allies on the delivery of other weapons systems. The report said. Ukraine and its supporters continue to plead for long-range missiles, known as addings, that could hit deep behind Russian lines. But the Pentagon continues to resist, largely because officials feared the United States doesn't have enough addings to supply Ukraine without undercutting its own readiness for any future conflict with China. Pentagon officials have urged their Ukrainian counterparts to prioritize better and concentrate their forces on potential breakout points along the 600-mile front. Ukraine initially placed equal emphasis on three axes, rather than concentrating on the main thrust south through Zaporizhya toward the Sea of Azov. Ukraine is said to have responded, finally, by moving some units toward the south from Bakhmat and other areas in the east where, despite US arguments, they had remained entrenched.