Yeah, the separation of church and state in America, a subject that really needs to be discussed here on history is here to help. I'm Jay Fidel, this is Think Tech Hawaii. The handsome young man is Peter Hoffenberg, and he is going to introduce our guest, who is a UH professor at the School of American Studies, Cass Sands. Okay, Peter, go for it. Thank you, neither young nor handsome, but thanks. You're off to a good start talking about separation of church and states. Anyhow, we have a great opportunity today to discuss this large issue with one of our full professors from American Studies, Kathleen M. Sands, who is an expert on this and many complementary issues. Let me just briefly introduce her as holding advanced degrees from Harvard Divinity School and Boston College. I don't know if you're a colleague of Abbey's back there at BC in Chestnut Hill or not, our dear friend Abbey Soyfer. Fascinating in that Dr. Sands is trained in theology. And has moved beyond the specifics of theology to talk about religiosity and religion, sexuality, religion historically, law, public life, all that good stuff. I'm not exactly sure what critical religious studies is, but I understand that's also it. Maybe we can come back and talk about that. We've really asked her here, besides the fact that she's a superb scholar and teacher, because of her immediate interest in religion and public life in America and how we can think about that, both historically and contemporary terms. If you go to the library, please check America's Religious Wars, the embattled part of our public life from Yale, 2019, Mazel Tov, and then your current book project, What's Wrong with Religious Freedom? Question mark. So welcome, and we look forward to our chat and it usually ends up rescheduling a second chat. So please don't feel free to take everything in these 28 minutes. Welcome Aloha. Thank you for having me. So Cass, this is really an interesting subject, especially in our times, although we don't talk about it so much in the public conversation, the reality is that religion is there in the divisive condition of our country right now. So I guess this is a sweeping question, but how has it changed here in these United States? How has it changed here in these United States since the founders wrote the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause? It seems to me, looking over this history, that there are two fundamental ways that Americans have had of speaking of religion. One, I call separationist discourse in which religion is spoken of as very individual, very separate, it involves mainly beliefs. It's an area of diversity, not commonality, and it's purely voluntary. That separationist discourse. And I think that's really what you see in the religion clauses is a separationist notion of religion. But alongside it, there's always been a foundationalist notion of religion. And in the foundationalist notion of religion, religion is understood more generically, and it's understood as connected with civilization, with citizenship, with general norms. And it is not really voluntary. I mean, technically it's voluntary, but in practice it's not voluntary. For instance, if a person were to run for president and openly be an atheist, it'd be very hard for them to get anywhere. So I'm not saying that's how it should be, but I think that's how it is. So we've got these two discourses and today they have become polarized. One is either a foundationalist, which usually means a white Christian nationalist today, or one is a separationist. So the discourse is almost polarized to where one is either for religion or against it, which is, as we religious progressives know, that's a terrible sort of polarization to make. But it wasn't that way at the founding. In the founding, and the best example of this is Washington's farewell address, where he says that one of the essential conditions for a good polity is religion and morality. And he says that we basically share the same religion, manners, morals and habits. And of course, what are manners, morals and habits in captured in that broad phrase is a whole set of social conventions and hierarchies that he's assuming. And then what religious freedom means is that within that broad category that is very, very conventional, you get to choose which way you do it. So that was pretty much the case through the Civil War after the Civil War, those two discourses sort of came apart. And that's where we are now. Did they ever come apart? So we're on the second category you mentioned and it seems to be overcoming the first category. Absolutely, absolutely, yeah. You know, I was telling you before the show, my understanding, and I don't know if Peter has the same contact with this issue, is that at the outset, you know, the deal was, we will give you tax exemption. We won't tax you for your properties. We'll kind of leave you alone. And this doesn't, it's not limited to religion. It's all viable nonprofits, I guess, but religion was the first big nonprofit. You can think of. We'll leave you alone, just stay out of our government. Stay away from trying to force your religion on others and on public policy. And that's the deal. It's a compact we make in underlying the First Amendment. But we've given that up somewhere along the line. And I suspect it's relatively recent where we have dropped that. So still the churches get all these tax exemptions and special benefits. Government leaves them alone largely. That doesn't regulate them very much. And they in turn now, they have forgotten the compact and they're going actively and try to force public opinion. And I'm thinking of, you know, the Roe v. Wade, the Dobbs case where the church has been, you know, heavily involved. I'm thinking of, oh yeah.  And in the state of Hawaii, death with dignity, heavily involved. The church has, you know, opposed that in every which way for 30 years. It took 30 years to get the bill passed. And then it was like Swiss cheese anyway. So all the lobbying over the language. So what you have now is not the compact. It's different. And religion has taken a huge swath of public opinion, including heavy political issues as we see. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. I mean, since the 1980s, since the Reagan era, that has been the case. Wheeling back a little bit before that, you know, church state jurisprudence really only gets going in the mid 20th century, right? It's only in 1940 and 1947 that the religion clauses begin to be applied to the states. And after that, you have a period of, through about the late 80s, when that Noah Feldman calls, you know, the age of legal secularism, when there was a strong separation of church and state and what was new about it really, Protestants had always believed in the separation of church and state. It's just that they applied it to Catholics. To them it meant separation of Catholicism. What happened at that time that was so disruptive to white Christian America was that the establishment clause started to be applied against them. So you couldn't do their prayers and their hymns in the public schools. And their moral point of view was no longer to reign supreme. So that went on until the late 80s and then it fell apart with the rise of the religious right in the Reagan era. Yes. So something has definitely, definitely changed. You, can I just drill down a little on what you said that rise of religious rights in the Reagan era. The religious right. Yes. So how did that happen in this country? What were the forces and vectors and considerations that made that happen here? Yeah. The popular narrative about how that happened is it happened in response to Roe versus Wade in 1973. But historian named Randall Balmer has written, I think very convincingly that it's deeper roots are actually in desegregation. That when schools began to be desegregated, you started to see, especially in the South, the rise of what's many people call segregation academies. And they were Christian academies, right? And they were getting, they were not getting tax funding at that time because they were religious schools. And it's that that Ronald Reagan appealed to when he has in his famous meeting in 1980, when he speaks before the minister's association, he says, I can't, I can't, no, let's see. He says, you can't endorse me, but I can endorse you. He's really referring to those segregation academies wanting to get tax exemptions. That's what really started it. He doesn't mention abortion. And in fact, abortion doesn't come into it until later. So there's a strong strain of white supremacy right from the beginning, even though, by, I don't know, the late 80s or the 90s, they're starting to dis-identify with that. They're pushing that away, but I do think that is the real origins. I wanna come to your class. We'll do, we'll do, there's room. Come on in. So, okay, so now, you know, it's very interesting because in this phenomenon, or this combination of phenomena, you have very strange results where one religion wants to get on top and push down other religions, you know, the Jews will not replace us. Yes. Or this thing about, you know, in the case of Dobbs and Roe v. Wade, there are parts of the Jewish religion that say abortion is good. You need to do that. The rabbi will advise you to do that. An obligation to do that. You're required. If the woman's health is at risk, Jewish law says you are required. You're required, yes. To have the abortion. It's not even a choice. If the woman, her life is at risk, boom, then you do it. Yeah, and there's no rabbi, no orthodox rabbi. Yes. Pearson would not disagree with that. The other thing is this is, aside from being racial, maybe race is geographic. You know, if you look at the blue and the red and there's so many interesting overlays between, you know, the states, you find that, you know, religion is practiced differently in different places in the country. I know that's not a perfect statement, but you know, I think if you went into the red states in the South, religion would be seen differently. How did that happen? And what does that mean to us? Well, some of it is about, of course, the Civil War, you know, and the regional differences that come from that. I think in a broader sense, there are parts, it's not just that there's rural and urban, right? We know that's true, but there's also mobile and less mobile. So there's, you know, city folk, like I assume us more or less are that, are very mobile. We've lived in a lot of different places. In the Midwest and in the South, you much more commonly have folks who really identify with their place for generations. And so I think that race or ethnicity and place are more deeply connected for some people than for others. And I think that is a fundamentally sort of conservative impulse. It creates a fundamentally conservative impulse. I think it's a different religion. There are different religions also, look, they have different biologies. People practice them differently. And I think that's one of the issues that we have to deal with. Most Americans are religious among them, but they define religion different. And that's an important element. I think that Reagan was able to appeal particularly to the evangelical obsession with the martyrdom of Christ and a lot of the discourse. That's not, you don't have that ingenious. You don't have that in Islam or Buddhism. So I think in this discussion, I absolutely agree with everything you said, Cap. I think we also need though, to using Jay's term drill down a little bit and see what in this congregation, how do they understand religion? Therefore, how do they understand religion and somebody else? So for example, if you looked at Shrubb Bush's congregation, it's multi-ethnic multiracial in Texas. Some of the most multiracial institutions are evangelical churches. So we have to begin to think about what does that social environment need to those people and how they perceive religion? What do you think, what are your thoughts about that, Peter? Well, my thoughts are very much partially along your lines of where people have lived. I think it's one of the reasons, religion is very important point. Spirituality is very important point. And it has a lot to do with Christ. Actually both reasons, both reasons. I know living here a long time, but also people moving and feeling alien. And there it serves a very social, I don't want to be reductionist functionals, but it serves a particular purpose. Also it enables you to connect with co-religiousness elsewhere, like we've seen in the white Christian nationalism. Why should a subwoman in Idaho care about hunger? Right, which is what we're seeing. Okay, so that's part of it. And I think in a way it gets back to Jay's initial question, and what you said originally, that for some religion is a separate sphere. And they practice their religion that much. And they don't have any particular connection. Look, it's the old beer, the Pope and Roman Catholics, right? Kennedy even had to deal with that. So the part of it is your identity as a religious person, meaning what does religion mean for you? All right, so are you Orthodox? Whatever the Orthodox is. In the book, the direct reading of the book. Okay, but having said that, you could be Orthodox too, and not really care about the rest of the book. Right, the Orthodox Jews don't, I mean, Jay and I are infidels as reformed. Okay, so part of it is an intellectual exercise, relationship, look, okay. And I think going back to Jay's original question, the difficulty is the founding parents left us right in the middle. I mean, the French Revolution was clear. You need to have a secular society. And France has always been this way. And part of the backlash against Muslims is the Republic is secular. Well, the founding parents didn't quite go in that direction. They didn't envision. Would you say more about your thoughts? I think some of them would have, but they get for a whole variety of reasons. The fact that most white Americans in the colonies were very religious, they came here, right? They came here for it because they were persecuted in Europe. You know, some were persecuted. Some didn't get what they wanted, they wanted it. But this is an equal persecution. I mean, yes, it was persecution in France, certainly and in Britain, but not everybody here was put in jail for it. Not at all. They did have though, it's the way that most Americans have always thought it was a tabula rasa. So Native American people, most Americans have always thought it was a tabula rasa. So Native Americans had no religion. This was a blank slate. But what the founding parents had then, and Jay, we talked about with this, with the Articles of Confederation, there's kind of a state's rights to religion, right? I mean, Catholics were in Maryland. There were not a lot of Catholics outside of Maryland. All right? You're not a lot of Quakers. Right. So I think we're still dealing with the fact that from the get-go, as Kat said, religion was centered, in that case, it was on a colony. And from the get-go, there was no real way to legislate that separation. So I'm gonna be the pain in the tushy and say religion and politics have always been integrated. Yeah. You would not have the abolitionist movement without Christians in the North. Yeah. So in a way what we're dealing with is, do I have the right to deny you an alleged right? But the abolitionist quite clearly said that's not a kosher right to enslave somebody, enslave somebody. But the debate about thought was right is who gets to call what is the primary right according to religious terms. So we talked about this last time. We have to get out this way in which it's kind of a zero-sum game. Yeah. If it's only... I think there's three things to consider to connect the dots on this. And make it sort of get a comprehensive on it. Number one is, where did it start? Number two, we've covered that to some extent. I think we could spend a lot more time covering that. We're sharing it. And the second is, where are we now? We're talking about that now. And we have yet to talk about some of the religious religion cases coming out of the Supreme Court. But the third is, and to me, this is we really need to spend at least a little time on this. That is, where is it going? It's one thing to make your religion superior to the next guys and have your religion affect public policy more than the next guys. But then inherent in that, in the dynamic is bigotry itself. We get back to pogroms and harassment and beating people up and having violence over religious arguments. It's also just the role of the die. It's the role of the die at six to three. In 35 years, it could be six to... I mean, that's part of the problem with the decision. It's not only the court though. Not only the court. You know, one of the points we've discussed on this show, I think, is the inquisition, back in the 13th, 14th century, 15th century. The inquisition did not come from the royalty. It came from the people on the street who were bigots because they were envious maybe of other people. And the royalty realized that this was a political instrument they could use, this was a leverage point they could use to enhance their own power. So you get bigotry on the streets and then all of a sudden the government is using that as a political instrument. Anyway, so inherent in our discussion, I think should be where is this going? It's not just the courts, it's everybody. I agree. Go ahead. I was just gonna wheel back for just briefly real quick to what Peter was discussing interestingly about origins and stuff. It seems to me, in Europe, the arrangement at the time that the American colony started was not disestablishment of religion, but regional establishments, right? So if you were in Germany, you were Lutheran. If you were in Spain, you were Catholic and so forth. If you were in Great Britain, you were Anglican or else you were like marginalized. And what those who migrated and settled to the US did essentially was set up regional establishments also. So religion was regionally established. In most cases, New York was sort of an exception, but either in a smallish way that you had to say you believed in God or in a very big way that you had to belong to a church. So it's Roger Williams, right? In the 17th century who comes up with the metaphor of separation of church and state, the wall and the garden. And that was a very, you know, there had to be a wall of separation to protect the garden, the church, from the wilderness. That was a very controversial statement. I mean, Williams gets kicked out of Massachusetts for that. But, and Williams' idea gets picked up, of course, by Thomas Jefferson who famously repeats that metaphor. I mean, then later by the Supreme Court, picks up that metaphor. The only thing I really want to say about that right now is that when you speak of religion as separate from government, you are deciding in how you use the word religion, you're deciding what government should and should not do. Right, you're deciding who gets to be a citizen. It was a citizen and on the flip side of it, what is the role and what are the limits of government? What I want to say, though, is that the word religion, it's not a natural category at all. It's really a regulatory category, posing as a descriptive category. Religion isn't naturally defined with certain boundaries so that some things are religious and some things are secular. We are making that boundary over time and in history for certain purposes, some of which are wonderful for people to claim their freedom and dignity, some of which are not so great like for people to claim special privileges, but the term is really best understood as a regulatory term and the secular is just like the fraternal twin of the religious. They are both, neither of them is a natural term. You have to come back to talk about that because that's the $64,000 question. Why do I get to claim my 501C is religion? That's right, there you go. And that gets back to your point about atheists, why atheism isn't a problem. That's a great topic, we've got to come back and talk about that. And that's linked for us to citizenship. I think that you state to give the founding parents some credit, right? We got to remember, as you said, most of all of them came from, except for Holland, they came from societies and policies in which there was an established church which did keep you out of politics, often kept you out of land, et cetera. So that way, Jay, you're right, they came here because very often, as we say about the Quakers, they came to do good and they did very well, thank you, because they didn't have economic opportunities. Yeah, and that's where I didn't get the notion of establishment clause. Before we talk about coming back, let's talk about these cases that have been handed down. So we have three to talk about. We have jobs reversing Roe v. Wade. We have the main case involving support to schools, religious schools, and we have the Bremerton, Washington case involving the prayer on the football field. And I also wanna talk about Cass' book and how that relates to all this. And this is all in a, of connecting the dots to see where we are going, okay? Kat, the floor is yours. So the cases are, as you've already said, we have them up there, yes, okay. Carson versus Macon or Macon, which is about religious schools receiving public funding in Maine. Kennedy versus Bremerton, which is about a football coach who used a religious freedom argument successfully to be permitted to kneel on the 50-yard line in front of a crowd and say his prayers. And then the third case that we've mentioned that's so important, Dobbs versus Jackson. Did I get that backwards, Peter? That's right. Dobbs versus Jackson. Dobbs versus Jackson. Dobbs versus Jackson. That reversed Roe versus Wade, which is, of course, in the eyes of the Court, actually, is not a religion case. It's very important to them that it not be a religion case because if it were religion, it could implicate the establishment clause. So to them, it's absolutely not about religion. And that's the clever, our station of the anti-abortionists to use science. And that's where we fill off And so when we decided, you know, viability or not as a scientific matter, then the court can feel comfortable. That's exactly right. Now here you see religion functioning as a regulatory term. What gets called religion, what gets called secular are really functioning to move power around. But let me comment on the ones that are specifically about religion. So Carson versus Macon, of course, is as you guys said, Maine has a limit on how, because the population is low, there's a lot of places that don't have public schools. So they have these schools that are called, that can be approved to receive public funds, private schools that can be approved to receive public funds. The argument became, I'm sorry, except if you were quote, sectarian. Sectarian is a loaded term, sectarian non-sectarian. Again, regulative terms that were used throughout the 19th century. And in the study of religion, those terms don't fly very well anymore at all. So the school said, well, why can't we, why can't we get public funds to send our kids to religious schools? And they used the religious freedom argument. What's interesting here is that the religion classes have become so unbalanced now. It used to be that establishment would place a curve on religious freedom and vice versa. Here, the very fact that Maine was not willing to fund religious schools because of its desire to comply with the establishment clause, their very concern with that was taken as an assault on religious freedom. So the schools, the religious schools win. In Kennedy versus Bremerton, again, the issue is religion on both sides. Kennedy, who wants to prey on the 50 yard line is making that argument specifically because it's religion. And the school is telling him he can't do it specifically because it's religion. And again, the change in the way the doctrine works is that 40 years ago, the school's concern with complying with the religion clause would be taken very, very seriously. Now the very fact that Bremerton was trying to apply the establishment clause, the very fact that they're trying to separate church and state is taken as evidence of discrimination against religion. And so again, he wins. I would say that the problem is the category of religion. I mean, that's where I go with this. Yeah, and I would have a less intellectual response that each of these are steps to dismantle what these people think is the great society. Yes, I agree. To remove the brick from the great society. I don't even think that McConnell cares about abortion.  And I think he's gonna rue the day that he put justices on the court who made abortion such a big issue. You can even see him, he's backpedaling already on the midterms, as he knows. But I think a matter, and we can have a wonderful discussion about the great society. But you ask our students to give 10 criteria of the great society, eight or nine are attacked. Now, I think that are being attacked. And I think that connects the dots. Establishment as, you know, strict secularism, quote unquote. Boom, when that's right. You know, public health, boom. I mean, these are all assumed and voting. Let's look at voting. I mean, one of the most important elements is being impacted. So that, I can say Jay and Kat, that would be my wider view. Sure. Sometimes we need to, it's very important to build down, as Jay said, but sometimes I gotta step back a little bit. Yeah, these are completely right. You see this large pattern. And interestingly enough, of course, the large pattern is a minority view. Because people who support the great society or have benefit from the great society are overwhelmingly a numerical majority in our country. Well, yeah. And we have a very important and profound change happening, that's what we have. And, you know, it's really on the way. If you look for a trend here, you find the trend is the establishment clause, as we used to know it, is going away. I agree. And it's a question not only of law, but social policy and social sensibility is to whether it will ever come back. And, you know, usually these long-term trends, this is a long-term trend, are hard to reverse. So these cases, you know, may not go away for a long time. Even if the Supreme Court changes becomes more liberal, we still have a body politic. Can you talk about your book and how these things are covered in your book, Geth? Well, in America's religious wars, it's sort of an episodic history of religion in American public life.  And then there's a chapter on the founders, particularly Washington and Jefferson. And then I look at the 19th century between conflict between Protestant nativists and Mormons on the one hand and Catholics on the other. And then at conflicts over sacred land using the story of Theodore Roosevelt and Nicholas Black Elk as I twine their two stories together to discuss that. And then the next to last chapter is on creationism. This is a conflict that oddly in the United States is now a century old and doesn't go away. And there too, I argue that some of the underlying questions are really about race. And then the last chapter is about, you know, race, religion and science in conflicts over same-sex marriage. So it really covers a lot of stuff, but the thread is that there are these two discourses of separationist and foundationalist that work together in the first part of the republic. I don't mean they were, it was just or fair or coherent just that they did go together and then they come together, come apart after the civil war. In terms of church stature's prudence, my argument is that it is, I mean, this isn't happy news, but I think they are hopelessly incoherent the religion clauses. The problem with the free exercise clause is that the very thing that the religious adherent most needs is the thing that government can least afford to give, which is exemptions from laws that limit their practice of religion. So that's a paradox. And then the paradox with the establishment clause is that you can't disestablish religion, you can't separate church and state unless you know what religion is. But any definition of religion tends to establish whatever it defines. It's good to have an academic. So, I feel at home today, thank you. Oh, I'm so glad. So I mean, the upshot for me very simply is that these, the things we are talking about right now are very big questions of social ethics. And it's not that we shouldn't talk about religion, people's religious feelings and histories are very much a part of it, but they're deep questions of social ethics and that we have tried to manage through the manipulation of the word religion. And it doesn't do the job. It doesn't carry the burden of democracy adequately for us. So I think they need to be addressed as social ethics. Thinking historically, when do you find the modern use of the term religion? What period or race do you think that stands? Well, the modern use of the word religion as a generic category. So as a genus of which there are species, really the first thing in the West is the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. So ending or trying to end the religious wars, the leaders of Europe say, okay, so religion, there's more than one. There's Catholicism, there's Lutheranism, there's Calvinism, there's Anglicanism. There's four of them, you know? And Islam's right next door to them. Well, they're info, so they don't matter and Jews are heretics, so we don't have to. But the idea that there's a generic category of religion displaces the medieval idea of one true holy Catholic religion. So you see, Westphalia then is more a claim about religion than about nation-state? Well, I know it's both, it's both, right? And so what we see is that religion and nation-state right from the beginning. His ideas and ethnicity and race and all these are growing up together. Yeah, I'm connected, but like it or not. But Peter, can you tell us, how does this play in history is here to help? Now that we understand, or at least in part, we understand some of these things, what does it tell us? Okay, I want you to come back and talk about your new book, but we are running out of time, so okay. Jane, you just asked me to just quickly summarize nothing brilliant, but just sort of the takeaway. Okay. I think one takeaway from Kath is the need to sharpen our definitions and understand the history of those definitions. So rather than tossing around the word religion, we need to be more self-conscious about what we need, particularly when this seems to be a catch-all. And it's a catch-all in competition with secular. So I think it's a very important takeaway. And that's true here anyway. I mean, it's certainly true in Modi's India. I mean, what does Hinduism mean as a religion? So that'd be one important takeaway. I think secondly, that as Jay, you said at the beginning, things have changed. They are not the same way. And Kath has said, at least since the Civil War, that they've changed. And certainly from a reference to segregation, I would remind us of LBJ's famous comment when he signed the Voting Rights Act. He gave the pen to Martin Luther King Jr. and said, I just signed away the South. That's right. And I think that we're dealing with the legacy of Nixon and the white policy as well. We want to add though, the connections between ethnicity and religion in the North, right? And Irish Catholic, not to, no, exactly. And Chris Kirsten, president of our school, and it's not to, they're Jews who are saying, say gations as well, but the notion in the North as well that they're going to go together. And certainly, I think probably with not much optimism towards where we're headed. And not just, as you reminded us, Jay, not just 6-3 in court, but people's views in the streets. I see this as one more social civil war. As the abolitionist movement was, as the civil rights movement was, probably more so than Vietnam, because the anti-Vietnam sentiment was pretty reserved. OK, but certainly the civil rights era, and you can't find a bigger one. I'm a child in many ways in the 30s. That was the tremendous civil strife. But that's where I look. I look at the streets. The streets can be a problem. I mean, a woman's health clinic is going to be surrounded by people who support it. And people are shouting epithets at it. And the government is going to say, well, people shouting epithets have a right to be there. And the day is coming where the women don't have a right. That helps. This is very important. It's not particularly optimistic. But it is more important, perhaps, than the ordinary public discourse about the division in the country. I think so as well, because the one thing that Kat hasn't said, much of religious extremism is not just driven by racism, also by misogyny, also by attacks on it. I mean, we're not talking about men not getting by aggregate. So I think part of it. And I don't mean that in a simplistic way, but when you start peeling back, a lot of the attacks are on women, or women should just play a traditional role. But again, that's the new society, right? The new society is women in public office. The new society is women taking the pill. The new society is women having a choice. So that does worry me. The one point of optimism is a strange one for me, is states' rights. There are still a significant number of states which will do what they can to support the great society. So we may just be split again. We're literally split. Yeah, I don't feel we're in a time of enlightenment right now. Sorry. But I want to clarify one thing before we go. We're out of time, you guys. I want to clarify one thing that was said here before we go. I am personally not an infidel. I am a fidel. I'm a fidel. Very funny. Thank you very much. Cash change, Peter Offenberg. Get high on tech or not. There's no thinking allowed on think tech. OK. Thank you very much. We'll have you pass. Thank you. Really fun. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.


Hi, everyone. I want to tell you a little story. Of course, not about myself. It will be a story of a Python developer. Not so long ago, there was a Python developer. And throughout his career that lasted already several years, he write a few thousands of lines of code. And he was in love with his favorite framework. And he became so proficient in the tools he used daily that he even became a mentor for his teammates. And he praised all the tools he used because they were able to solve all his problems he dealt with in daily work. And after all, he was quite good. And this really boosted his self-confidence. And this isn't surprising. Of course, knowing a framework was not his only asset. He practiced writing tests rigorously and applied TDD whenever it was applicable. He was doing his best to make sure that the code he written was not only correct and well tested, but also readable and easy to understand by any other teammates. And every night before falling asleep, he was reading a Zen of Python to write a code that would never violate any of its verses. In other words, he was doing his best. And he was expecting the other teammates to do the same thing. And then he was assigned to a new project that changed everything. Well, despite the fact that our hero was proficient with his tools and he know them inside out, they were not well suited for the project he was assigned to. Because how valuable this experience may be when the weight of the project, its very business part, is far outside this framework. And it can no longer be solved by this framework, essentially. So he started to create his own classes, his own modules, and his own abstractions. And he felt that they were clumsy, and they do not be as good as the well-thought components of a framework he used daily. You see, frameworks are sets of powerful building blocks. If you use them for problems that they were created for, you're fine. And you shouldn't bother any other options. But the problem arises when there is an issue that they simply don't fit. And you try to effectively screw driving using a hammer. And for example, what would be the Django good for if you did not need to use its models at all? So what's left? I don't know, the views, the template system, and the routing. And that's all. Any other rich capabilities of Django are not used, so why would you do that? And the problem why our developer was stuck was that he lacked the thinking outside the box beyond his manual. And luckily, he noted this problem eerily enough to come up with an idea of asking someone maybe more experienced, maybe more interested in software engineering. And he had a friend, a Java developer, and he asked her for an advice. What should I do if my tools are not good enough for me for this particular problem? And she said, take a look at design patterns. They are meant to be reusable concepts to produce elegant code and nice solutions and are based on many years of experience, people that are much smarter than we are. So our hero took the design patterns, took the 23 years of book, and tried to implement some of those using examples there. However, the design patterns are not like libraries or tools that he dealt so far, so they are not easy to use solutions that you just import in your code and start using. They are more like re-scipes, like drafts for solutions. If you have this particular problem and they fit, like you have an analogy, then you can use them. But they are just outlines. They are not ready to use. Maybe you are thinking, what are they good for you if they are written in some old books by some C++ guys? Well, there's a funny fact about IT. Namely, our brand has some kind of amnesia, any 20 or 30 years or so. We forgot about old concepts, old ideas, and then we discovered them again and we were like, oh my God, this is so amazing. Cool. For example, let's take an Async.io and its core routines, yeah? Cool idea, the event loop. Except it's nothing new because this is almost 50 years old now and it's been around in the 70s. But we just now got it to the Python. Another thing to consider when you think about patterns is that are they applicable today? And well, the book was written 23 years ago which there were different tools in charge instead of Python. So, Python simplifies a lot of things and this is what the stock will be about, more about the tools and less about the design patterns because you will see that some of them are also present in Python but they are already invisible or you cannot differentiate one from another because they are so, so simple. But the main benefit from design patterns or at least learning the application in Python in some limited way would be for you to extend your toolbox as a programmer and as a result become not only a better Python programmer but a better programmer in general. Okay, so let's start with the first pattern. There is sometimes considered an anti-pattern, a singleton. This is a situation when you have a class and in any moment of lifetime of a program you need only one instance of a given class. Only one object has sense. There may be several reasons for that. Maybe all the objects will be the same. So why should I bother and why create new things every time? And maybe there is a business motivation behind this that there would be no more than one object or maybe creating an object costs a lot, takes a lot of time and you just want to avoid it to get some speed up. And for such cases we can use a singleton pattern and beside uniqueness there is also one requirement namely you need to have a clear way to get an instance and know that this is a singleton. So after googling a little, you may find the following solution and this uses a magic Dunder new method that is using during creation. So this solution comes down to using a class level attribute that will store your only instance and eventually return this whenever it's necessary. Using this is quite simple, you just create as usual as you would like to create the other object. And of course you can use this implementation in your programs but please don't call yourself Pythonistas anymore because there is one very serious flow I can see this and this is that it's not clear for a client of this class if he creates a singleton if it's really an unique object because we use an usual syntax for creating a new object. So you might get surprised if that you really use getting is the same thing over and over again. A slightly better approach is to use a class method. Class method has this advantage, this is more clear and it also does not block you from creating an usual instance. Well you could do the same by clearing that class level instance variable but we don't want to go that far. However, since we have Python and it's 2017 there is a simpler way and actually it's been around in Python for several years I guess or more and this is you can just create an instance object in your module and later in your code just import the object instead of class and this will achieve actually the same thing. So I told you that some patterns are present in Python and this is true about singleton. This is not an obvious fact but there is a creature in Python that you use it countless times and actually meets the requirements for singleton and this creature is called a module. So let's consider this. After importing a module at least once there is exactly one instance of it in this module's dict object. You can very easy and very clearly get an instance of a module using import statement and if you need you can recreate the instance using reload. So this actually adds something to this pattern. So the conclusion about singleton is that using the most simplest solutions would be our way out instead of creating some clumsy classes and if I am speaking about modules there is another pattern that very gets simplified thanks to them and this is facade. Let's say we have a project that is consisting of many distinct components and we can quite easily assign them to some groups responsible for certain functionalities. For example, we have a group with users that is responsible for getting user authentication and so on. We have a group responsible for block posts, creation, retrieving and other stuff and we have some things related to getting advertisements based on the contents. A net of connection between these classes might look like this and I don't have to tell you that this is a terrible idea because you get a tight coupling between these classes and anytime you want to change something in a class that has many connections with others then there is a probability that you will break things. Also it's very complicated to get desired functionality because you may not know what's behind this subsystem. This is what facades, this is issue what facades tries to address. You introduce in original pattern an extra class that will be your interface to the entire sub module. You are no longer allowed to use these classes directly under no circumstances. All requests that go to this subsystem must go through the facade. And of course you can go on with default implementation like using class methods all over and creating another class but perhaps this is an over-engineering, over-engineered solution in Python if all you need is just a top-level package that will get a bunch of functions inside. Just look how clear it looks compared to the idea of modules. The only thing you use outside this package is imports from this init file. Everything that's in these sub-packages is hidden. You may not use it outside. And this is how you hide the complexity of probably very complicated advertisement subsystem. So this pattern is, it doesn't sound like very original or something but it helps you organize your code and there is very little need for class in Python if you can do this the same in plain module. Another pattern is command. A command is an object-oriented callback. The original implementation assumed that it will be helpful, for example, doing graphical user interfaces because you see when you want, for example, have a reaction on clicking an item in the menu, you don't want to pass too many information to the graphical interface with the same reasons as the facades so you don't want to have too many connections in your system. And the command was meant to pass and configure during runtime your things. Its interface assumed that you have only one method which is execute. And the thing that uses command would just run execute when it needs to. Of course in Python it's over engineered because we can use just a plain function to achieve the same thing. And since functions are first class citizens in Python which means that we can create Python function during runtime, we can pass it to another function and we can return it, then there is no need to create a class. But I remind you, this is quite different times where the basic building block was class so you have classes everywhere. And if everything that your command is doing is just calling another functions of another object with some parameters, then maybe you can use the standard libraries goodies which is FunctalSparsal. And this one allows you to just prepare a collable object that will be accessible later to use. But in conclusion, we do rarely stuff like this in Python which making graphical user interfaces. So this is pattern of very little usage in Python right now. And another pattern is a visitor. And this is actually adopted in Python and it's used but for certain amount of problems. Let's say you have a complicated nested structure that we need to traverse and for each such node we would like to execute our own logic. And this is an example of abstract syntax trees. And this is your code represented as such structure. And this is really use of pylint and other linters which gets your code, turn them into such structure and then per each node it does distinct logic. For example, a root element is always a module and this is represent the whole code. The first thing you have, this is import statement and this is represented as distinct node, yeah? And pylint has different checkers, different strategies, different guidelines for any of these elements. So it is much more clear to just separate this. And this is what visitor is about. It's about getting know what is this node and separating this parsing from others. If we had a static typing just like in Java then we could just implement it like this. We would have a method visit and the arguments would point us what type is this implementation about? Yeah, we get a clear distinction about what to do next. Of course, we don't have such things in Python and the first naive implementation will amount to using big if-else statements which I don't have to add to you that this is ugly and this is gross quickie and it's slow. Luckily, we can use the dynamic nature of Python and create functions that we will call them later as usual methods. After we assemble a methods name, we can just get it from our object and call it just a usual function and this will work fine too. But having Python at least three, having at least Python three dot four, we have this single dispatch functionality which this is the closest what we can get comparing to Java. So it's directing implementations per argument type. Its usage is quite complicated. I will get it step by step. So first of all, we implement the single dispatch and we get a default implementation. Of course, the default if we did not have a specialized version for this time, we will be wanting to rise exception that this no handler is for this thing. Then we would start implementing our all specialized implementations using, take a look at this decorator because we don't use single dispatch, we use the visit decorator dot register and this decorator gets the only argument which is a type, a type of a first argument to this function and whenever you call a visit with a type like in this place, then this registered function will be called. Unluckily, this has a major disadvantage and namely it cannot be used in classes because there's always a first argument is a class. It would have to be re-implemented by hand in such case. Okay and the last design pattern is decorator and decorator pattern is not what you might think of when you hear a word decorator. It's not the decorator function in Python. It will become more clear when I was showing an examples and now some requirements. It can extend the behavior of a given object during runtime and it can be used multiple times with different decorator patterns and no order is not important. They should work the same way or at least have a meaning desired. So a decorator, when you decorate an object you have to get the same thing back which means as a user of class you shouldn't be aware that this uses a decorator. So if there is any attribute on the object then it should be also present on a decorator. And for example, if we have such class then it has two methods, get text and get number and we would like to decorate one of them by adding some bold HTML markup. Then we have also to reimplement the other function which is also, which is of course redundant and this is just writing a code for art not for making functionalities. But what happens actually if we request an attribute on a class and we use the dot and the methods on the classes and its fields are just attributes and this is a logic we can plug in. So first at all, Python calls a special DunderGetAttribute method and this looks for properties in the object itself. If it wasn't found then DunderGetAtteter I know wonderful naming is called and by default it just raises an exception that this property was not found. And looking for properties is by dictionaries that are per class and per object level. Okay, if the same property is present on class and on object then an object has priority. So to get the creator simplified we can just implement the method we need and for any other thing we just return the stuff from the original object and this frees you from need to implement all this unnecessary stuff. Okay, to get full compatibility you would also have to implement the other methods but that's a different story I guess. So to sum up, a Python is a very flexible tool much different from what we have almost 25 years ago and many of these things you might think are either redundant or extra art just for it but in Python there are multiple places when we can plug in our own logic and customize on nearly every aspect of creation objects to runtime. However, the very important question arises is magic that showed you in some limited way is worth the effort? Should we use really the magic? Well, it depends. The readability wins. There are cases when using this stuff will spare you some effort and any other things that we just create, I know I see a fancy Python feature let's use it, it's a probably wrong idea. And there are three things for me that I want you to take from this presentation to become a better programmer in general. So first of all, get to know with your tools and know them well and this is like vocabulary, like having a name for everything you see. The second way is to get inspiration from other languages and communities because there is not much interest in Python community in general in software engineering. There is not much talks on this top subject, on conferences, there is not much books. And the last thing I haven't spoken earlier is to know a business domain of your project because if you know your tools, you have a vocabulary. If you get inspiration from the languages, you know the software engineering stuff, you have a grammar, but a real value, a real meaning, what you do is in this point. So even if you write a beautiful code and know all the tricks and you still won't be able to solve the problems of your business, of a company you work for, then this is all for nothing. And just to sum up, my name is Sebastian Buczynski. I work for S-Takes Next, the biggest software Python house in Europe. I blog under breadcrumbscollector.tech. And that's all folks. Okay, we have time for about two to three quick questions. So who has a quick question? Anyone? No, everyone has hungry views. There's one. So it's less of a question, but more asking for a comment of you because in my opinion, actually, I come from the Java development community and design patterns are really important. And I also realized they're really important in Python. For example, the facade pattern you mentioned. Sorry, I will keep it short. But my question for your comment is you said that design patterns are not really important in Python, but of the 23 patterns in the Gang of Four book, ah, sorry. Like are they actually really not important or are they important to implement sometimes or just forget about them? So what's your opinion on the design patterns and the importance in Python? Okay, so I mean, your title was design patterns are not important in Python. But honestly, is it important to learn these and then implement them? Or, ah, I'm sorry, I can't really make my question. Okay, so your question was about, is it worth to learn the, okay. So essentially, I think that this is a tricky part for less experienced people, because they learn unnecessary stuff. There is a gap in our community and this is an established set of well-thought best practices. I think this should be prepared by someone, maybe, and this should be well propagated throughout the community. So they do not have to learn from other, from 23 years old books, yeah, because they are not relevant today. So we need just a new set and counter part for Python. Okay, anyone has a question? One more question? Nope. Well, then it's time for lunch, I would say. Give him a hand.


So what we see here is the thermal efficiency of diesel tends to be a little higher than auto due to the fact that the compression ratio is higher. So for a typical diesel, you might have compression ratios on the order of 11.5 to 1 and 22 to 1. So you could be anywhere in that range. And given that they operate at this higher pressure ratio or compression ratio, you will then result in higher thermal efficiencies. OK. So what we want to do now is we want to take a look at a video of a diesel cycle. And then what we'll do is we'll take a quick look at a comparison between diesel as well as auto. So let's start by looking at the diesel cycle. So from the video and from the sound of the diesel itself, that was increasing in RPM, going up to about 2000 RPM. You could hear that the engine itself was quite a bit louder than our auto cycle or the spark ignition engine. And that's because, if you recall, we are undergoing compression ignition and consequently the combustion is taking place at a higher pressure. And as a result, you get more of a bang going on within the cylinder when the combustion process takes place at the higher pressure. So let's now take a listen to both of them combined. And from that, you should be able to figure out that the auto sounds a little quieter than the diesel. The difference between the two, the diesel louder, auto quieter, diesel more efficient, auto less efficient, that's probably the best way to describe them. Final thing I will say about both of these, however, has to deal with the fact that our heat addition in both the auto as well as the diesel is taking place over a finite temperature difference. And the implications of that is that that is why these processes are externally, are not externally reversible. So the fact that they're not externally reversible has implications on the thermal efficiency and lowers it. The last gas cycle that we will look at in this lecture is that of the Stirling cycle. And that is one where the heat addition is taking place over an infinitesimal temperature differential and consequently it is modeled as being externally reversible. And it has the same efficiency as the Carnot cycle. So that will be the Stirling and that will be the last thing that we will look at in this lecture.


with a look at DJ LeMayhew who will enter his fifth season with the Yankees in 2023. He was terrific in the first two finishing top four in American League MVP voting both times but his offense has dropped off in some crucial areas over the last couple of years although he did win his fourth career gold glove this past season. So as you know what's going on with DJ LeMayhew, a toe injury, a broken bone in his right toe that also has a carryover effect to his second toe and that's a ligament issue and Flash they're still trying to figure this out and does he get surgery does he not and how does it impact him? Well it's got to be incredibly frustrating for DJ LeMayhew because you know when you have an injury at the end of the year there's always that evaluation how can we get this better do we do surgery you rehab during the winter you're good to go in spring training everything we're hearing everything that we're reading it's still up in the air whether this is going to heal on its own maybe he's going to have surgery if he has surgery then it might be another 12 weeks after that so think about the fact Jack that he's trying to get ready for another big league season but he can't be training the way that he's always trained to be ready for the first day of spring training I think he's got to be frustrated in the Yankees probably not sure what they have right now. Right if you're looking ahead to 2023 and you're Brian Cashman and you want to know what your roster is going to be to me right now LeMayhew is a question mark and we don't know when that question mark will be erased as you said we're waiting to see if he might have surgery if he does have the surgery there's a recuperation period both the New York Post on the athletic did articles in which they quoted orthopedic surgeons they're not working on LeMayhew but they're familiar with the fracture that he has and they talked about trying to stabilize his foot and how this is just a very tricky injury that he has how Steinbrenner has spoken about it as well so I think with LeMayhew it's just waiting it's a waiting period to see if perhaps he can overcome this without surgery and if he does can you come back and be the hitter that he previously was.


I work with elite athletes and we've recently done a bit of a study comparing elite athletes, elite runners that are training about ten times a week and we compared their response over an interval session, a high-intensity interval session with that of a recreational trained group of runners training for a marathon like around three times a week. What we found was that the elite runners, contrary to what we originally thought where we think that we burn a lot of carbohydrate at high exercise intensities and we burn fat when we're just sitting here, the elite runners actually wound up burning three times more fat to explain their performance relative to the recreationally trained athletes. The implications are, I guess, that we need to appreciate fat and fat burning as something that's valuable for exercise performance and then if we can confirm that finding, we probably need to have a closer look at how we can become better fat burners to support high-intensity exercise performance. Tweaking your diet, potentially reducing your carbohydrate content to up-regulate your fat burning ability might be something that we want to work on in the future. It's a hot topic, a controversial topic because there's some industry influence that's out there that perhaps our findings aren't that convenient with but that's, again, more scientists at the end of the day so the data shows what the data shows.


Let's look at finding the equation of a circle whose diameter has n points, negative 10, negative 8, and 8, negative 4. We want to write it in the form x minus h squared plus y minus k squared is equal to r squared, and then be able to find the center in radius. So to start, let's look at finding the center. What we can look at then, because we have the n points of the diameter, is finding the midpoint between those two points. And to find the x coordinate of our midpoint, we simply look at finding the average of our x values. So we have negative 10 plus 8 over 2 gives us negative 2 over 2, which is negative 1. To find the y coordinate, we'll take the average of our y values to negative 8 plus negative 4 over 2. We have negative 12 over 2, which is negative 6. And so the center of our circle is negative 1, negative 6. And we know in our form, x minus h squared plus y minus k squared equals r squared, that h represents the x coordinate of our center, and k represents the y coordinate of our center. And so we know that h equals negative 1, and k equals negative 6. We can substitute these into the formula. And so we have x minus negative 1 squared, or x plus 1 squared, and y minus negative 6 squared, or y plus 6 squared, equals r squared. Notice that we're still missing the last constant, r. And we can find that by substituting in one of our points in for x and y. We could use either point, I'm going to use the point negative 10, negative 8. And so we have negative 10 plus 1 squared plus negative 8 plus 6 squared equals r squared. And now we simplify it. So negative 10 plus 1 squared gives us negative 9 squared, and negative 8 plus 6 squared gives us negative 2 squared. Negative 9 squared is 81, negative 2 squared is 4. And so we have r squared equals 85. We know then that our radius is v squared of 85. And our circle is x plus 1 squared plus y plus 6 squared equals 85.


This is theCUBE from SiliconANGLE Media. I'm Paul Gillan. The cloud is all the rage these days, but as companies move to the cloud and some of them seeking simplicity, what they find is they actually get complexity because they want to balance their resources. They want to hedge their bets. They don't want to get locked in. So they will end up doing business with multiple cloud providers and often with an on-premise cloud as well. That creates cost complexity and that's what cloud health technologies is addressing. My guest is Tom Axby. He's the new CEO of Cloud Health Technologies, a Boston-based company. Recently raised $46 million. They have software that helps companies understand their cloud costs and of course to reduce them as well. So Tom, just a couple of weeks on the job. Welcome to theCUBE. Great, thank you, Paul. Nice to be here. Now I'm sure you can tell better what cloud health does than I can. So why don't you give your description? Actually, I mean, you did a very good setup for me. I mean, Cloud Health is the de facto standard cloud service management software. And as you quite rightly pointed out, one of the complexities now is of a multi-cloud or hybrid cloud environment. So people are making a single vendor bet. And that of course increases, as you mentioned, the complexity and the cost controls, the governance, security, even more. And that's what we do. We manage all that complexity and give our customers a single pane of glass to help manage and optimize their cloud experience. When do customers typically come to you? Are they in a crisis or are they coming to you earlier in the process to avoid that crisis? You know, it's all over the map. It depends on their cloud maturity. So customers, we've got who are early customers who are literally born in the cloud. So you think of services such as AirBnB and Pinterest and Yelp. You know, those services are cloud based right from the get go. And so what they've done is experienced tremendous growth on a global basis by offering these services, managing huge data sets in the public cloud. But they also had the expertise because they were going through that right from the beginning. But as soon as that scale becomes unmanageable, as it does, and that complexity becomes greater in a multi-cloud environment, they bring us in. It's just that their technical acumen was a little bit more advanced than say someone in the enterprise who has been managing data centers and they want to migrate the cloud, but they find that their expertise is in the data center world and their expectations are, I want the same governance and management that I had in my data center as I moved to the cloud. So you're really embarking on the beginning of their cloud journey. And then sort of the third set of our customers are MSPs. So these are actually cloud service providers who are basically offering their customers and they're the trusted source for their customers, all the aggregated services that are available for them and their experience. So mainly small, medium businesses and mid-market businesses will go through the MSPs, but they're customers for us too. Talk about complexity. What are some of the unique characteristics of the cloud environment that create complexity that perhaps customers don't always anticipate? Well, the first thing is, is that the pace of innovation in the cloud is at light speed, okay? You've got these cloud vendors, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and now you've got IBM, you've got Oracle, and many other ones, Alibaba in Asia-Pac, and they're all increasing their service offerings at a rapid pace of innovation. So just keeping up to speed with the domain expertise is very, very complex. And then when you migrate to the cloud, you're migrating services, critical business services, and just like any other environment, computing environment, whether it's distributed computing or client server, you've got to manage those complexities so your business services and applications can run smoothly. And as you know from, you know, certainly your experience, there's an inordinate amount of moving parts and even more so in the cloud. Now, you multiply that by a multi-cloud or a cloud or a hybrid cloud experience and certainly being able to aggregate that data, it becomes a business critical task. We hear a lot about multi-cloud and customers trying to hedge their bets. Is that a major force in the industry right now? Do you see companies trying, actively trying to diversify the number of providers that they work with? We do, yeah, absolutely. And obviously the larger the company and the larger their cloud spend, the more likely they are to do that. So they're not reliant on one cloud provider. And also they're experiencing different places of innovation from the cloud providers who are jockeying for that innovation right now. What really focused on as well is the hybrid cloud. So it could be a multi-cloud environment, but it also could be their private data center, their managing or both. So yeah, we do see a huge trend in that. When customers come to you for the first time and you do an initial analysis, what are typically some of the areas where you find the greatest inefficiencies and the greatest opportunities to save costs? Sure, I think it depends again on where they are in their cloud journey. They may be moving to the cloud or thinking about it. And what they want is some kind of visibility because they're so used to having tight controls and visibility and budgets within their data center because that environment is so mature to them and the cloud is like the wild west of them. They're going to get these monthly bills or they got to commit to certain workloads or resources without really understanding what their usage patterns are going to be. So we may come in and help with the migration, capacity planning, and certainly their forecasting abilities. The more mature they are, they want to start allocating costs maybe by department or by geographic region. So they're getting more and more sophisticated in terms of their cost breakdown and their usage patterns and when those usage patterns happen. But also as they control their costs, one of the ways they can do that is to buy future visibility, if you will, into those resources or compute power from the cloud providers. And so being able to figure that out from a historical and prospective billing standpoint can be incredibly valuable to the customers. So what kinds of data do you provide for them? Well, we provide essentially a window of aggregated rollup of any particular service that they could have. So it could be their financial data in terms of their usage information which rich resources or compute loads are working. Also, as they've deployed stovepipe data vendors for performance management or configuration management, security management, all of that comes into play as well. So we can roll up that aggregated data source so they got a single pane of glass into sort of their entire environment. And that could be at the VP level who's running a multi-cloud environment. It could be at the financial level where they're looking for cost controls or it could be at the DevOps level where they're looking for anomalies or performance issues or bottlenecks or capacity planning. So at every level, we're trying to provide visibility into sort of the function and task that our customers have. Of course, cloud vendors aren't interested in having their customers be multi-cloud. They want them to be single-cloud. How cooperative do you find the vendors are in working with you to enable your customers to hedge their bets? Well, I mean, I think that they're very helpful. I mean, number one, we've got deep relationships with all the cloud providers because we've been doing this a long time. And also what we're doing is we're hastening and accelerating our customers' movement to the cloud by offering them the same visibility and governance and tools that they had in their data or private data center world. So they actually embrace it. And they know it's going to be a multi-cloud environment especially for the larger customers. And so absolutely we're helping that. Do you, are customers beginning to look to broker their experiences, their costs, to move workloads sort of flexibly between different cloud providers based, perhaps on even short-term savings? They can do, yeah, absolutely. But again, short-term savings are a trade-off between long-term savings in terms of how much capacity you're buying, how much visibility you've got into your usage patterns as well. But certainly, I mean, that's the world that we're getting into these days. I mean, Amazon does per second billing now. So when you think about all that data, it's absolutely, you know, the complexity of it is absolutely mind-boggling. The cloud world, as Forrester pointed out in a recent report, is consolidating into basically three big players and then sort of everybody else. Do you think that's a good trend as far as customers are concerned? I think, you know, we've seen it over and over again. You see, you know, the dominant providers come forth and start taking over a marketplace, but there's always going to be room for other vendors. You know, IBM and Oracle, certainly, are not just going to lay down people like VM where they're getting into the cloud business as well. So, you know, they're the dominant ones right now, absolutely. I think what's good for the business is the trend itself of people moving all these workloads to the cloud and having more control over it so that it's actually be transparent as to who the cloud provider is. You certain had the opportunity to take executive positions in a number of companies. What was it about this opportunity that appealed to you? Well, I assume it's a very good question.  And we had a very successful run there and we were acquired by a private equity firm. And, you know, I was looking around at perhaps making a move. And I'd been fascinated by the cloud and what it was doing and how transformative it was to business. And it was very akin to experiences I've had in my career, selling infrastructure software. You know, I was at IBM, Tivoli, for example. I was at Micromuse and they were basically undergoing exactly the same transformation in client server and distributed computing days. So, I was also aware of the investors and a couple of board members of Cloud Health and I recalled their very first investment. And it was explained to me by one of their investors, this is Tivoli for the cloud. And, of course, that resonated with me. I thought, that's brilliant, that's so simple, because you've got exactly the same complexities. And then I tracked the company. I had the opportunity to meet the founders and I saw how they had executed against their vision. I saw the caliber of the team there. So, when an opportunity came up because the CEO and the cloud founder, Dan Phillips, was moving into the chairman role as my partner now, you know, I jumped at it. You say Tivoli to the cloud, there's an interesting analogy. Of course, the difference with Tivoli and cloud is that Tivoli is on premise. You have, you control the infrastructure, you have access to all the interfaces you need, not necessarily the case with the cloud. What are some of the difficulties that you encounter with getting customers the information that they need from their cloud providers? Well, certainly the cloud, like I said, the pace of innovation is huge. So, you've really got to be up to speed with the latest offerings. And if you look at all those APIs and how they could be changing new services that they could be coming out with, literally on a week by week basis, you've got to keep track of all of those. Then you've got to have a flexible architecture so you can actually easily integrate with those data sources and also understand the necessary workflows to present all that data in a consumable way. So, it really is a very fast pace of innovation right now. And I think that's why, you know, the analogy of Tivoli for the cloud was a good one because you were aggregating all that data, you were giving critical insight into, you know, certainly about their network and infrastructure and business services. So, the analogy holds true, but I think you're right, the pace of innovation is much quicker. Now, talk about how you justify your cost. What kind of deliverables do you promise customers in exchange for what you charge them? Well, fortunately, you know, the deliverables are born out of history. We've got incredible ROIs. As you know, the monthly spend, as it increases, as people's cloud experience grows, okay, those costs can spiral quickly. I think that when people talk about the cost, you know, we always talk about the value. So, what value are you looking for? How are you going to optimize your environment? And so the savings we can save just on their billing or utilization. And then there's the governance and then people want to do departmental chargebacks or geo-chargebacks and we can help them with that cost allocation. So, we tend to talk about value more than cost. Where do customers leave money on the table though? Where do you find some of the greatest disconnects between what they could be spending and what they really are spending? Well, it all comes down to consumption. You know, if you could just like your deciding which mobile phone bill you want to get based on what your projected consumption is going to be, you know, they want to lock you into the biggest one and they're going to show you lots of different values for signing you up for a three-year contract. It's the same for a cloud provider. So, the more you're willing to prepare, the more you can lock in your costs. And of course, as you do that, the risk is that you don't fulfill all those costs and realize those savings. On the other hand, you may be growing so exponentially quickly that you're actually paying more than you would be than if you just, you know, basically consumed a different pricing model. In general though, do you find that customers if they manage their cloud costs wisely, do in the final analysis save money by moving to the cloud versus an on-premises architecture? Without a doubt. The time to deploy services is so quick. You know, the time to integrate different facets of your business services is so quick. You know, when you think about unlimited throughput and speed and storage on a global basis for your services, you know, it's unprecedented. And does your service cover software as a service as well? We do. I mean, we're a SaaS company ourselves. So, and as you know, many SaaS companies are now providing services, excuse me, into the cloud. And we could be, you know, collecting data from those services too. So, what's the future holder then for Cloud Health? Where do you want to take this company? You know, I think that, you know, in the beginning, I said sort of with the de facto standard for cloud service management, it's hard to claim you're really the de facto standard, especially when we're a private company. You know, I think what we want to do is continue to provide value, continue to innovate, you know, continue to have that domain expertise. And when you look across the whole governance spectrum about all these different systems, all these cloud providers, all these different data sources, it's absolutely immense. And I think that always having that single pane of glass so that people can really get the visibility they need to optimize their services, you know, we're going to be a very large company just doing that. I understand you have some ambitious growth plans this year in terms of the number of employees and also moving your headquarters. We do. I mean, I've only been on board for about two and a half weeks. And, you know, there's already been 10 people hired since I've been there. So that's the pace of hiring right now. I think we'll end the year at about 240 employees. So probably out from, you know, probably hired about 80 employees. And then we are moving early next year, we're moving four point downtown crossing. So we've got to accommodate them all. For those of you who are not familiar with Boston, downtown crossing is the center of town. And four point is the hot new area where GE is building its new headquarters. The, in terms of how your business category develops, do you see this as continuing to be a major independent category type of services you provide? Or do you think cloud vendors will ultimately acquire companies like yours and offer these services on their own? I think both is going to happen. I think cloud vendors will acquire companies who do stovepipe, perhaps, you know, functionality for a certain area, but no cloud vendors going to be able to offer the cross multi-cloud or hybrid cloud experience that we do. So I think you're going to see both, but absolutely, you know, the ability to manage multi and hybrid cloud environments is key. It's something I always ask our Boston-based guests. What are the advantages of being based in Boston? Well, the advantage is absolutely huge, especially in this day and age.  It's a vibrant city. It's an invested-in city. You mentioned GE. There's other companies moving here. It's a great time to be here. You've got many success points in the high-tech arena, such as HubSpot and Wayfair and LogMeIn, publicly-traded companies offering great opportunities. So I think the pace of innovation here is happening. You know, at a tremendous, a tremendous clip. So, you know, Boston's a great place to be. Glad to hear it. Welcome to town. Congratulations on your growth and much success to you. Greg, well, thank you very much for having me. Cloud complexity simplified. I'm Paul Gillan. This is The Cube.


All right, I'm Andre and I'm from Pasco and I just want to share a few things that God's been working on with my life and I smoked weed for about seven and a half years and I used it to get away from problems. I used it to numb myself because I Mean it got to the point where I did it so much where I didn't know why I Needed it why I wanted it and so It happened if you can show the words if you can show the picture it happened on January 16th I believe I was working and we were driving back was probably like 10 o'clock and we slid off the road and If you guys know anything about laws of motion Newton third law of motion is a object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon some other force and so we were going down that road about 25 30 miles an hour and My buddy my partner was driving and he was like, you know, I woke up and I was just like hey How are you doing? And he's like, you know, I'm tired. I can't he's like I was like pull over Let me start driving and so I unbuckle the seat belt he presses the brakes and the car starts sliding and If you're going 25 miles an hour and you're not wearing a seat belt in the passenger seat you'll be flying the other direction 25 miles an hour and I walked out of it scratch-free No headaches no pain and the other guy the driver was actually had a like a problem with his head he had the headaches afterwards and This kind of set me up and where I mean after the day afterwards I went snowboarding and I mean I still smoked weed and But it wasn't the same anymore because I knew that somewhere Something was holding me somewhere something was looking after me and didn't allow me to fly out that window and land God knows where because it was a good 30 40-yard drop afterwards. We're clunk going down like a mountain road and I mean I laid in bed. I question. I was like why why why and And so and then I started thinking about you know my addiction I started thinking I was like God, you know, why do I need this and and and I felt like God told me He's like this addiction is a symptom. It's not your root and I was just I looked I was just like what the heck you know, I've been struggling with this for seven and a half years almost and God started showing things back to my first relationship where I Mean some things happened some things were said where I didn't know how to deal with it and so I started running to marijuana to numb the pain and I started running it to so much to so much that I mean throughout life. I did modeling I did underwear model underwear modeling. So I mean I was ripped.  What are you doing? What are you taking cuz I mean gym trainers for about what four or five years? they couldn't get to where I was where I got in like two three months and I mean in still still inside that rejection It's it was growing bigger even though I was you know walking on clouds and like you know what people were envious of me and I still there was just a big hole in my heart that would not be filled and I mean I wanted to I wanted it to be filled. So I tried I tried it all I mean I didn't go into heavy heavy drugs But I tried with what I tried you know messing around with opposite genders thinking that you know that maybe that Someone will love me for who I was But I didn't know who I was I've been lying to myself for so long.  I had no purpose to life I I smoked weed in the morning before I went to work I had to smoke weed to go to sleep because if I didn't I wouldn't sleep at night and the times I tried to quit I would only get like maybe an hour two hours of sleep at night and I'll start losing my appetite I would went from 185 to about 140 in two weeks. I mean that's weight loss I mean that's I was going nuts and it got to the point where I couldn't handle it anymore where I was Laying in my bed and I was just like, you know, I can't do this and that's when thoughts of suicide Started creeping in and you know, they start creeping in creeping in I know just be like, you know, this is just stupid whatever and and After a while after a while just the worthless like I felt so worthless and so I started entertaining those thoughts and I mean, I come from a family Some of you guys would want to be where I am like loving parents loving siblings I mean, we're not wealthy, but we're prosperous. We're happy. I wasn't and that's what killed me And so laying in my bed. I was I knew that if this wouldn't stop I would not see 2016 and it scared me because you know looking at myself and knowing what I could become and not being able to reach out and grab it because of the ball and chain that was tied around my neck and that would always hold me back and I just didn't know what to do and so I mean I've been to church most of my life and so I heard, you know, the God heals, but I I Didn't see it do it in my life because I was so in pain. My heart was just so shattered and I lay there and I felt like the soft voice was like Andre I died for you My heart was broken for you. I bled out all my blood so that way you don't have to live in pain and I Didn't know I was like God. I didn't know how to let go. I didn't know how to forgive myself I didn't know how to forgive others and I didn't even know who I was and And It was just that still small voice that said just give it to me Why are you carrying something so heavy that I took it all for you and That night I I just said God I don't need it anymore It was just like this Just like that like just weight lifted off me. I cried there was I mean my bed was completely wet because of my tears and First night in about seven years. I went to sleep First night I won't went to sleep laying on my back.  I was so fresh. I was so rested Where I mean seven years I Couldn't I mean it would be weeks where I would go with five hours of sleep and it destroyed me because I knew that there was something holding me back and after After it happened. I never had dreams so when I go to sleep, I would wake up and there would be nothing and I I was like I knew that there was you know like and Bible says that they will dream dreams and they will have good sleep and so two days afterwards I started having dreams again and I mean I I was so happy to wake up I was so happy to see sunlight again and before it was like, you know, why this another day and I mean, it was just the greatest feeling in the world and And I just want to say that You know, God took it all away and I felt like God said You know, you were on my mind before I made the world and That caught me so deep because I mean I I hated everyone. I hated myself and To know that the creator of the universe was Was thinking about me before even he made the whole world just Just just stuck me so deep and I mean after that day I mean, I still had I still had cravings Until God was just like give it to me and give it all you have give all the burden you carry Just drop it on me and I'll take it you take my load. It's so easy and I mean I came to realization or I needed this and so I finally made the decision and After that, I mean my life is never the same I mean all you people that I mean going through the same thing. Maybe it's maybe it's not rejection. Maybe it's something else Don't give up There's there's God in heaven who are who's the architect?


Hi, I'm Dave Trumbo, head volleyball coach at Stevenson University and I'm going to bring to you episode four of the Mustang Success Trail. Today I'd like to talk about the importance of reading your class syllabus, reading completely and carefully. Record all your tests, your quizzes, your papers, and your assignments in your planner so you can see the way the whole year maps out. If you have questions, go to your professor immediately at the beginning so you know exactly what he expects or she expects during the school year. This will go a long way to creating a successful semester for you.


Everybody forced in Jeff here ripping 22-23 immaculate basketball Hobby five bucks haste number six pick your team style got Anwar with the Pelicans Brad E. Magic Chayuti Watt thunder guesses Will not count until I prompt you Chew on with the Grizzlies Ching Wah with the Wolves Christopher J with the Wizards David K. Nick's Eric W. Blazers Evan M. Kings Hans H. Bucks HG has the Cavs Jessica G with the Celtics Kaho with the Sixers Kim D Has the Raptors LeWon Mavericks Marcus H. Nets Matthew X Clippers Matthew F. Hornets or in W. Warriors Pacers Patrick C. Sons Raymond D with the Jazz Sean K. Nuggets Thomas C. Spurs Victor F. Bulls Wayne Y. Hawks Pistons Young S. Rockets Heat and Jung has the Lakers All right guesses starting out 30 seconds, so I will grab whatever's between guesses start now And then what I call it done 20 seconds If you guess more than once your first guess is what will count if multiple people Guess correctly on a logo man that we hit it splits bounty splits 10 seconds five seconds four three two and One time is up. No more guesses. Is that Zion National Park Thomas? Just kidding National Park. Well, hey, we're having a good win We're having a good one. That's why I said all right cowboys last one for zingus. That's who I got Man, where's everybody been we do a logo man bounty everybody's chatting Jeff and I try to talk to you guys. What up crickets. Oh man Okay, it hurts it hurts you can talk to me Yeah, maybe I leave the room you guys to talk to Jeff No, I'm saying you can talk to me. Yeah, that's all we got Jeff to each other here You and me All right, so cowboy with poor zingus was the last one that I got The other guys after that do not count Got a guess in the amount of time That is given Love Sean Sean's not here you got us Sorry Again the guest is up to two Always forget as soon as we start The yeah, the guys is at 280 if you hit a logo logo man, we're at a thousand right now Hey, there you go Travis. There you go. Hey, that sounds like a solid day though.  That'd be cool if we hit it It's a 99 Julius Ronald Nick So if you want the guessing bounty to guess correctly bouncy you have to do it in the amount of time That's given within the third live chats promo why Jersey to 99 at Joe Ingalls bucks Kevin Durant said 99 Jersey card for the Suns That's Jersey There's a game more netsters. Yeah, so Suns card though KD or this way on lag. Oh geez That's pretty cool. That's a little one-one foil for a second to 40 though If a kazoo botch on the patch on up for the Clippers nice clip. It's a cool one there. He's having a good season That's he might be finals bound to they look really good They right now they look like the best team that they look like the team to beat in the West in the playoffs Thunder or young so until they can show that they have like the veteran like Someone other than like SGA can get a bucket in crunch time in a series. I'm gonna I'm gonna think about the clips for now Magic Cole Anthony auto to 99 Shady There's Cole Landy with the hair there and clutch time signatures number to 10 pistons Isaiah Thomas All good to me. I'll sweet Thomas There we go Detroit Detroit Get that one magged Just hate hearing that that means the magic about to get beat by the pistons Chauncey billips and Ben Wallace and Rashid Wallace and Rip Hamilton and Tayshawn Prince Every time Every time Alright, let's see what we got here. Come on logo, man. Where are we at? Where are we at? It's a 99 Halliburton for the Pacers Jersey card is nyang for the 76ers out of 99 The vets will be game using this next Jersey card is gonna be for Milwaukee. Yeah, I sent it a kumpo to 99 Giannis Giannis Let's see Let's offer Phoenix came in. Oh, that's a cool one How young he looks dude Mike Miller auto to 99 for the for the Grizzlies there Miller Mike Miller The what one should Mike remember that with the heat Where it fell off Mike with one shoe, dude one of the best present be history redemption For the Hawks sneaker swatches signatures red AJ Griffin AJ Griffin Hawks There's a Sam and Jake would say SOD griff SOD seal the draft Which he's not but And scores club auto Lakers Paul Gasol Wow, love seeing pow pow Sorry, you said we sing sing pow Sol's a bucket to reliable pow mags. It's Kobe's boy right there Hope he's best bud. Yeah, it's like all right check Bring over a Polly boy Second little mini Lakers mini dynasty there with pow He was so he was so underrated I felt like too. He's like a Duncan.  Yeah, the big moment never got to him literally the definition is of Cool as a cucumber It's the F and Catalina wine mixer power Three to go I'm a Number seven we've got pelicans nicks and blazers are available pelicans nicks blazers pelicans nicks and the blazers Mark them down a little more for you guys. There you go pelicans nicks blazers last few you got Franz out of 49 for the magic recognize that signature patch to 25 is Tobias Harris 76ers Randy Jackson There's their jersey for the Raptors is Scotty Barnes out of 99 Oh There we go, that's that's a memory right there Richard Lewis 17 of 99 magic shadow box signatures I'll have to get me one of those Richard Lewis autos aren't that cheap though. He doesn't sign a ton Or hasn't until I guess recently maybe I For sure Lewis sure that's cool. Lakers having a really good break 82 of 99 championship runs auto Pat Riley We had Pat as a player the other night With his long hair and his beard play for the Lakers. I didn't even recognize them. Yeah, little Pat We got coach Pat there And he went to a slick Rick that coach power at the showtime Lakers and Redemption Jaden IV rpa pistons Knew it was coming you marked them down too, didn't you? They were marked down. They're down a hundred bucks. That's a great Congrats pistons Jaden IV rpa redemption.  We're doing well. That's it. We're doing pretty well So I'm game Doing great, man How you doing last spot mojo to me the column the 99 pacer or not pacer's pelicans 3j McCollum. Yeah, I think there's like we pulled a heat There's a heat Richard Lewis in this I think he has some others He has like one or he's like one magic set with autos from like upper deck or something I forget but I've seen him on eBay. There's not a lot whatsoever with Richard There's some early sonic stuff. Of course, he's a rookie first-round pick, but Yeah, he didn't he had probably hadn't signed in like dude for years Jersey to 99 Jared Allen for the Cavs. They're right. I hadn't signed in a couple years either He used to be like all the flawless and NT and everything Not much anymore Anthony Davis Jersey Lakers at a 99 game worn Next auto or into the autos now. We've got fat lever to 99. There we go.  We've got sophisticated signatures of Cade Cunningham to 99 Very nice Cade. Oh dude is a bucket Buck's gone in one of the One of the Phoenix's guys every PYT is we're just gonna break what's full In order like the I max in order But a Phoenix fills up will do Phoenix seven to go each Phoenix three to go in the next on the next I'm back Which is what we're really trying to fill up first But they'll everything let's get it all going come on logo man right here. Let's hit a bounty month. We're hunting MJ baseball I Should get a Michael Jordan baseball card I have is Couple PSA 10s wish I could get a Tom Brady baseball card. Those are uh, there's our chief So those are not cheap Part of me is like, oh, yeah cool their SP So they're like they mean something when you hit it part of me is like I wish they were kind of just in the So I could just have a Brady. Yeah expose card. Maybe they'll have a reprint It's a 99 Anthony Simons blazers. It's your reprint. I'll take a picture of one of the cards and all I'll have that like yeah Put that on my fridge Ricky Jersey Peyton Watson Nuggets out of 99 bookends You're gonna be pretty good. Ah, you're the best basketball player. I mean let's take it off. Let's go play baseball for a few years Oh check Bosch you to 50 Ricky Jersey number patch very nice jazz He hung in there. He wasn't a great double-a player, but he hung in there for just we're just walking on to the field Exactly Trying to play a sport that he hadn't played in like a decade Over a decade. You imagine like there's a lot of actual football players that played baseball. I can probably Do okay, that's gotta be the hardest sport to just go be like I'm gonna go play that now That's gotta be the hardest one. Oh, oh Every sport is like that, but that might be the hardest one. Just like you're like, I'm gonna go do it Yeah, golf If you're not swing at a golf club every day, that's something it's like so much hand-eye coordination Figure it out. So dig Bay five of five auto for the Hawks. Oh Next one's pretty pretty sick. Actually, it's a little throwback for me coming up next As last month he had over 290 Figuring out a bit Dual auto for the Wizards on card Karan Butler and Anton Jameson to 49. That's pretty cool, man Remember early LeBron's career. It seemed like the Wizards and Cavs played every single playoffs with agent zero LeBron and like Moe Williams or something like that Every it was like three straight years. They played in the playoffs. That was a rivalry for a few years And Jabari Smith jr. RPA 19 of 99 Rockets That's an awesome hit for a Houston really good. I thought that's pretty good case actually I was That was far Houston young congrats young That's going into a mad clean-sig on it Do a recap now? So we'll start with the relics here that's Jarrett Allen Nyang Yanis Tobias Harris Kevin Durant Joe Ingalls Anthony Davis Scotty Barnes that means a logo man bounty goes up It goes up Autos of AJ Griffin redemption for the Hawks sneaker swatch signature Karan Butler and Anton Jameson do a lot of Sadiq beta 5 Bill Walton, Kate Cunningham the 99 fat lever for Charlotte Lewis for the magic Pat Riley coach card for the Lakers That's Mike Miller for the Grizzlies Cole Anthony for the magic the Zubat to 40 Clippers patch auto Payton Watson and Oceac Bajie patches and autos we had RPA Jabari Smith jr. For the Rockets out of 99 Clutch time signatures Isaiah Thomas number to 10 for the Pistons Turkey patch auto redemption Pistons Jade and Ivy Really good break for Detroit and scores club auto palgis all the 25 Lakers I'll do for K6. Thanks everybody moving on