Welcome to the Rich TV Live podcast. I'm your host, Richard D'Souza. And today we're gonna go over the markets. All right, let's take a look at what's hot today and what's not. So here's SPRC up 133%, the biggest mover of the day so far. You can see that SPRC has been trending down all year. And this has been the case for most small caps. They've been trending down. And what's happening is some of them are starting to do dead cat bounces. And starting to make these moves. Could it be a false flag? Could it be a false move? It's possible. So you need to proceed with caution and be very, very careful. Because a lot of these stocks have just been oversold, beat up, and they're starting to catch some life. So definitely want to watch today SPRC up 133%. Here's another move today making a big splash, A-S-M-B, up 88%. You can see it's been higher, came down, and doing a dead cat bounce and getting closer to the 52 week high now. So big move for A-S-M-B. Now, because we've seen that it's sold off here before, I'd be very hesitant to buy it at these levels because for whatever reason, every time it gets to this level, it sells off. That's clearly a sell zone, a point of resistance. So I don't want to be buying in points of resistance. So please proceed with caution and understand that past performance is not always an indication of future results just because the stock is up 91% right now, doesn't mean it's gonna go up another 91%. It could, it could go down 90%, it could go up 90%, anything is possible. But a lot of these stocks are moving on little to no news. They're what I would call a dead cat bounce. A dead cat bounce to me is when a stock is just heavily oversold, beat up, and then the market makers or insiders, somebody somewhere, something makes the stock go back up and a lot. And a lot of times those are shorts that are covering, so you'll see these big moves. But without news, it's hard to believe that it's sustainable. So proceed with caution with all of these picks. Here's OLK up 66% of the day and they're approaching a 52-week high. So we started to see some stocks starting to do well here, so OLK at $24 stock, up 66% on news that Thermo Fisher Scientific fails on plans to acquire olink holding. So investors are liking that news. Here's NKTX. 16 minutes ago, Nacarta stock climbs on FDA approval of drug application. And you can see they're up 71% in gaining steam on this news. You can look at the one-year chart and see this is another one that's clearly been way higher, over $12 and trending down all year. And all of a sudden now with FDA approval, starting to make a big move, up 70%. So let's see the trend line here, clearly trending down. And now all of a sudden doing a dead cat bounce. So we look at the one-day chart and you can see that this has been moving up nicely on this news. This looks very bullish to me. Right off the bat, this looks extremely bullish to me, extremely bullish and it looks like it's gonna keep going just based on the way it looks right now. I think there's a very good chance that this could keep going. So definitely put NKTX on your radar, on your watch list. The news came out on FDA approval just 17 minutes ago and the stock is up 70%. Here's OPGN, I did talk to you about them last week, another one that has come down and made a nice move last week and doing it again today up 26%. So put on your radar, put on your watch list. Here's TPST, been talking about these guys a lot.  They've been extremely hot and they've been running on news. So definitely one to put on your radar and put on your watch list as they've been very, very explosive. All right, let's take a look at what else is going on in the markets today, overall Bitcoin. So Bitcoin kind of sitting right at 28,468. You could see that they had a big move to 30,000, sold off, it was fake news that they were going to be getting a Bitcoin ETF spot approval from the SEC for BlackRock, which is news that everyone's waiting on and it was fake news, it came back down, but it's still holding over 28,400, so that's really, really good. I did predict that we would see it break 30,000 between October and November. We did hit 30,000, so my prediction came true, but then it came back down. So I like to still see this go above 30,000 and stay there over the next 45 days. We'll see if that happens or not, but full disclosure, I am a holder of Bitcoin and Ethereum and other cryptos, so I'm not telling you to buy this, I'm just letting you know what's going on. Must remind you that Rich TV Live is strictly for information and education purposes. Please do your due diligence and do your research before you invest in anything we talk about or discuss here on Rich TV Live. All right, let's take a look at the overall markets right now. So the overall market is actually green. Oil is actually down today. Gold is up, the VIX is up, the NASDAQ is up, the S&P 500, and the Dow Jones is all green, but slightly green, so it's not a big green day. It's a little green day, but it's better to have a little green than any red whatsoever, so we'll take it. All right, so definitely gonna be watching Bitcoin very closely over the next 45 days. It's something that I'm really, really interested in, obviously as a holder. All right, what else is happening? That's pretty much the big news of the day so far. If there's any other big news or any other stocks that start making moves, I'll definitely bring them to your attention, but the big mover of the day right now, SPRC, currently up 133%, you can see most of this move was pre-market and then it's consolidated sideways. So please proceed with caution, not trying to tell you to buy this up 133%, not saying it can't go up more, not saying it can't go down more, but I'm just saying be careful. And this is another one that I think everyone should be aware of, it's trending up on FDA approval of a drug application. So definitely to watch NKTX, I'm your host of The Most Your Boy Rich and Rich TV. You're not winning, you're probably not watching. Bringing the winners, CO interviews, breaking news, trending topics, and we bring it to you first. Thank you for watching everybody.  Peace.


Greetings and welcome to the introduction to astronomy. In this video we are going to talk about a couple of things, including different properties of galaxies, and especially distances. How do we determine distances to galaxies, and how far away they are? Previously we've looked at methods of determining distances to stars, but they only work to the very nearest galaxies, so we're going to need some other methods to be able to figure out distances to the further galaxies. So let's go ahead and get started here. And first thing we want to look at is how do we determine the masses of galaxies? And that's a good question. How can we determine the mass? How much does a galaxy weigh? Well, one way that we can do this is by using Kepler's third law. And Kepler's third law, as modified by Newton, told us that the mass is equal to the cube of the semi-major axis divided by the square of the period. So we can measure the orbits, for example, of a star around the edge of a galaxy and figure out how long it takes to get around that galaxy, and that would allow us to determine the mass. Another way to do it would be for spiral galaxies. We can look at the rotation of objects and look at the velocities as we see in the graph here, velocity in velocity as a function of distance. That means that we can then look at what we would see in terms of the velocities, and that is a way of telling us about the mass as well. And we can also look at the broadening of spectral lines, because elliptical galaxies don't have a disc in the same type of regular rotation that a spiral galaxy has. We can't look at their rotation, but we can look at the broadening of the spectral lines, and that can help us to determine the mass of an elliptical galaxy. And the thing is what we find in each case is a problem, and that problem is that there seems to be far more mass in galaxies than we see. So the graph here for this galaxy shows the rotation curve that we expect here. That's expected based on what we see, based on the galaxy that we see. What we actually observe is that the rotation curve continues to rise. And what that means is that there must be a lot of matter that is not visible to us. Not just part of the luminous matter, the stars and the nebulae and all of the gas and materials that we see, but there has to be a lot of dark matter as well. So let's take a look at what we have here. In terms of ranges, what kind of galaxies do we find? Well, we find that galaxies, here we're looking at spiral galaxies, ellipticals, and irregulars, and we find that there's a range in masses, and we look at the ellipticals having the largest range in mass, going from 10 to the 5th to 10 to the 13th solar masses. So that means ellipticals have the smallest and largest galaxies. Ellipticals tend to be smaller than the spirals, but you can actually have a smaller spiral. You can have an irregular that's actually larger than a spiral. In terms of sizes, again, the ellipticals have the widest range of those that they can range from 3,000 light years for a very small elliptical to greater than 700,000 light years for the very largest ones. Maybe again, we're going to find the same pattern here for the different types of galaxies, but really what we're looking at right now is the mass of the galaxies, and we see that spirals and irregulars are roughly similar, but ellipticals have the much largest ones and the very smallest. Now if you recall, when we looked at stars, we talked about what we call the mass to light ratio, and the mass to light ratio, just to review, was to compare the mass of an object in solar masses and the luminosity of an object in solar luminosities. If we divide those, we get what we call the mass to light ratio, and that is a way to compare. Now just to go back and review this, if we use the sun as an example, the sun has a mass of one solar mass, it has a luminosity of one solar luminosity, that's by definition, and if we divide one by one for the sun, we get a one for the mass to light ratio. So that's a way to compare how much mass and how much light things are giving out. Now if we look at this for other objects, which we can do, we can look at stars and galaxies, what it means is that if we look at low mass stars, they contribute a lot of mass, but very little light. So low mass stars have a very large mass to light ratio. High mass stars have a very small mass to light ratio. They are giving off a lot of light relative to their mass, so even though they may be 20 times the mass of the sun, they don't give off 20 times the light, they might give off thousands of times the amount of light or even more. So when we look at a galaxy's mass to light ratio, we add up the mass to light ratio of all of the objects that is composed of. And what we find is that for things like young galaxies, like spirals and irregular galaxies, we find mass to light ratios in the range of 1 to 10. For older galaxies, we find that the mass to light ratio is much higher going up to 20 to 30. So that depends on the types of stars that are there. Young galaxies have lots of these high mass stars, so high mass stars associated with young galaxies here, and low mass stars associated with older galaxies, meaning that we get a difference in the mass to light ratios between the two. So how does this tie into the masses of galaxies and what we look at as dark matter? Well, what we find is that dark matter also applies to this mass to light ratio. What we see is we're looking at the inner parts of the galaxy. Most of the matter in galaxies is what we call this invisible dark matter. Dark matter has lots of mass and no light. That means it really helps to raise the mass to light ratio.  All galaxies that we look at have some amount of dark matter. So it's not just present in one galaxy, but it's present in almost all galaxies. And galaxies with significant amounts of dark matter can have a mass to light ratio in excess of 100. Remember what we looked at previously for some galaxies? We were looking at things in the teens into the 20s. Here we have galaxies with mass to light ratios in excess of 100. So really, we need to be able to understand dark matter to understand galaxies and the universe overall. So that's looking a little bit at the mass. Let's look a little at the distances as well in terms of how do we determine the distance to a galaxy? In order to determine the distance to a galaxy, we need to use, need to find ways to determine those distances. And what we know we cannot use is parallax. Parallax only works for things within our galaxy. And while we've been extending that with things like Gaia, it still is only doing a part of our galaxy because the shifts are so small. So we cannot use that even though we can see individual stars in some nearby galaxies. They are way too far away to be able to use parallax. Variable stars and cepheids that we used, this helps a little bit more and this was actually done for the Andromeda galaxy in the 1920s and determined that it was not a part of our galaxy. But still, it only works for the very nearest galaxies. Anything more than, you know, tens of light years away is not going to work for this method. So what we need to find is another method, another way of being able to determine distances. And that is where we use what we call standard bulbs. And a standard bulb or standard candle is a way to determine the distance to more distant galaxies. A standard bulb, what we mean by that is objects that have the same luminosity. So if we have a standard light bulb, it has the same luminosity as any other light bulb of that wattage. So we can examine it and if it's at different distances, the brightness, the apparent brightness depends only on the distance and the distance is what we are trying to find. What that means is if we find a standard bulb, we know the luminosity once the object is identified. And things like our Lyrae stars were one example of this. Our Lyrae stars all had about the same luminosity. So once we identified one in our galaxy, or in a globular cluster around our galaxy, we knew its luminosity, we could measure its apparent brightness, and we could immediately get the distance to it. So it gave us a way to be able to determine distances. Now these do not work for distant galaxies because the Lyrae stars are too faint. However, they will work for others. There are other types of things that we can use. And let's take a look at some of those. And one of those, one of the prominent ones, is what we call the Type 1A supernova. Now a Type 1A supernova, if you recall, was an object that formed when a white dwarf star exceeded the 1.4 solar mass limit and became unstable and ripped itself apart. The key thing is that every single one of these supernovae forms from a 1.4 solar mass white dwarf star. There are none that are 1.3, there are none that are 1.8. They are all exactly the same type of object. And what that means is that, theoretically then, all of these should have the same peak luminosity. They should all get just as bright. The other thing is that they are incredibly bright so that they can be seen not just in nearby galaxies but out to 8 billion light years. Our galaxy, our universe, stretches out 14 billion years old so that stretches us a good way to the edge of our universe. And these are very important for determining distances and understanding the evolution of the universe as we will see in coming lessons. So what are some other methods of using distances? Type 1A supernovae are one very important one that we use. But some other methods that we use are, for spiral galaxies, we can use what we call the Tully-Fisher relationship. And what was found is that there was a relationship between the luminosity of a spiral galaxy and its rotation rate. So we could look at the luminosity, we know the rotation rate, that's something we can measure, and we can then find that there's a relationship between that and the luminosity, and we find the more luminosity spirals spin faster. So a more luminous spiral galaxy would be spinning faster than a less luminous one. In a way, it's very similar to the period luminosity relationship for Cepheid variables. And that was a way to be able to determine distances in our galaxy. Well, this gives us a way to be able to determine the distances to spiral galaxies as long as we're able to measure this, as long as we're able to measure their rotation. And we do that using that 21 centimeter hydrogen line. And once we do that, we can then figure out the rotation speed from the spreading of that line. Use that to get the luminosity and use the luminosity to get the distance. The limitation here is that this is limited to spiral galaxies, so this will not help unless the galaxy has a distinct disk and has hydrogen gas in it to be able to detect the 21 centimeter line. So let's finish up here as we've looked at a few distances, and let's finish up with our summary as we like to. And what we found in this lesson is that the masses of galaxies can be determined by a number of ways, including Newton's form of Kepler's third law. We use the mass to light ratio to compare... compares the amount of mass it contains to the amount of light it emits. The mass to light ratio for the sun as an example is one, so we compare everything relative to the sun. And we can use distances to galaxies using Cepheid variables if they're nearby or standard bulbs like the Type 1A supernovae going out towards the edge of the universe. So that concludes this lecture on galaxy properties and distances. We'll be back again next time for another topic in astronomy. So until then, have a great day, everyone, and I will see you in class.


Hi everyone. Good afternoon. Glad to be here. My name is Art Mannion. I work at the CERT Coordination Center, and I'm here to talk about supply chains, particularly vulnerabilities and how they flow down and affect supply chains. So at the CERT Coordination Center, I do a lot of coordinated vulnerability disclosure. We specifically focus on multi-party or multi-vendor issues. These issues underneath are entirely supply chain problems, or more specifically problems because of lack of knowledge about supply chains. Who and what are affected by a vulnerability? In 2002, significant manual effort and a best guess. In 2021, also significant manual effort and a best guess. We have not improved the state of the practice here in 20 years or perhaps longer. These numbers for these vulnerabilities, 285 vendors, 183 vendors. Again, manual effort, best guesses, historical anecdotal collections of who uses what software, who we could reach via email or by pinging people or doing open source research. Again, awful situation. Best guess is what we have as a state of the art today. That Alloc is a more recent one. Just a small example here. We've got the Alloc function in BlackBerry QNX vulnerable.  That in turn hits who knows how many embedded, operating embedded system or IOT or in this case, ICS OT suppliers and EPA and the water ISAC without a particular warning about the QNX issues. QNX is just one of the 18 vendors lit up by the Bad Alloc vulnerabilities. There have to be thousands of affected vendors and systems, possibly tens of thousands for Bad Alloc. And the answer is we don't really know who they all are. So the hope here is that software bill of materials can actually really help us. Software bill of materials is exactly what it sounds like. It's a bill of materials for software. So one or more identified software components. You identify them with names and hashes and version numbers, things you already identify software with. Their relationships, that's key, otherwise we have no chain in the supply chain. And other associated information you would need to do things like improve vulnerability management or improve, in my case, coordinated disclosure. If the S-bomb phrase is giving anyone any kind of heartburn or trouble, upstream dependency tracking is a fine way to think of it. Third-party inventory is a fine way to think of it. That's all it really is. So very simple concept. But it's more than just your third-party dependencies. You are someone else's third-party. So please label and enter into the S-bomb your first-party created software as well. In theory, if we all do this, the graph and the network work and we start to gain transparency. This work I've been involved for almost three years now comes out of the multi-stakeholder community in TIA process. Just to be clear, that is distinct from the executive order requirement for NTIA to produce a report, which they also did. So my work and my discussion here today comes from the NTIA community side of that work. And that's the short URL for the collection of documents coming out of that effort. Two sort of subuse cases for S-bomb. One is before public disclosure, whom do I notify about a vulnerability who might be affected? The second is typically post-public disclosure. If I'm a deployer or a system administrator, do I have to patch? Do I have to do something? And that's the vulnerability management use case. In the end, we want the same information, right? What software it contains these components and what software is affected by these vulnerabilities, as we're going to see those are potentially different things. A slight nuance on what happens before public disclosure and what happens after. There's an idea, and we'll explore this a bit, that an upstream vulnerability is inheritable down through the supply chain. And also an idea that increased S-bomb data and inventory data will reveal what's actually already there, lots and lots of upstream components we didn't realize were there, and their associated vulnerabilities. So we've now created more of a vulnerability management problem than we already had. We even created a bigger one where we just have more awareness of what's already there. How do we handle that at scale? Individual human written and human read advisories probably are not going to cut it. So I typically view S-bomb as a graph. It's a dependency graph. Pretty straightforward if you're dealing with software dependencies at all. This is a toy example that comes again from the NTIA work. And the sort of high level of abstraction dependent relationship is simply included in. Very likely more nuance is necessary there. You will see in the upper left bingo buffer is meant to be source code that is compiled, modified perhaps, and compiled to produce ACME buffer. So the ACME version of bingo buffer, and that's going to be key that built from or derived from is different than simply included. And then not that it's all that important but at the far right with Frank's final good, that's sort of pointing back to itself. Primary relationship just sort of indicates that Frank's final goods S-bomb is talking about the main subject of Frank's final good. Frank's final good could be considered a product here if that's a distinction that helps. Although product is somewhat relative anywhere in this chain, one person's product is someone else's sort of component. Now what happens when a vulnerability is identified in bingo buffer? So the bingo buffer developer, supplier, vendor, maintainer confirms the problem, produces a fix. There's no argument. It's a true vulnerability. Problem is solved. Great. There's no question that that CV affects bingo buffer. But what does this mean through the supply chain from bingo buffer down into its use ultimately in Frank's final good? I was hoping early on that perhaps some degree of inheritance could be assumed, and there was a safe way to do that. You know, safe, sort of in a conceptual belief sort of sense. It turns out that probably instead, every node needs to investigate its own vulnerability status. Early on from the NTIA work, there was a presentation from Veracode, and their study of at least here Ruby Java and Python produced very low inheritance rate. So 5%, lower than 5% of upstream component vulnerabilities made it down to the Frank's final good level or the product level. So this is real data. I'm no reason to doubt it. That's an important bit of evidence. I'm not entirely sure what other ecosystems look like. This is sort of something you could apply anywhere, or if it's less common in C or something like that. Also, even if there's a 5% chance of inheriting the vulnerability, do you want to make that assumption? Maybe you do. Maybe you don't. 5% chance of a truly expensive horrible impact might simply be too high. So from the NTIA SBOM community work comes VEX. VEX is essentially a way to record and convey vulnerability status. So if you imagine the nodes earlier, each one of them could have a VEX statement about that CVE. One of the tricks to VEX is this first sentence here copied from the VEX one pager, reduce efforts spent investigating non-vulnerability, non-exploitable vulnerabilities. So it's one thing to certainly convey that something is vulnerable. It's actually also very valuable to convey, if it's true, that it's not vulnerable and save us all the time digging into a non-vulnerable problem. Affected, not affected, straightforward, action required to remediate. Fixed and under investigation are perhaps a different or two different dimensions here, but they are all treated as status for VEX. You can read more about VEX. There's a one pager at the bottom of the slide here. Also, there's a CSAF profile for VEX. CSAF is a structured advisory, security advisory format. VEX was developed with the SBOM work. However, it's designed to be used without SBOM. You don't need an SBOM tied to the VEX. You can simply issue a VEX statement about any software whatsoever as long as you can identify it in a CSAF compliant way. So despite some evidence here that inheritance is not something to assume, I'm not done trying to figure out if it can be assumed in some cases. My suspicion is that non-vulnerability, certain kinds of non-vulnerability might be inheritable. So VEX does not currently support this feature, but under discussion during development of VEX, there was the idea that I would have a status of not vulnerable and then a reason for being not vulnerable. So for this example, if ACME grabs bingo buffer source code, compiles out or pound defines out certain functions or certain parts of the code, builds their version of it, their own component ACME buffer that they are now responsible for which finds its way into their application, which finds its way into Frank's final good. If ACME investigates their use of bingo buffer and can very clearly find and state that the ACME buffer variant of bingo buffer is not vulnerable because the code is not present. The vulnerable code is compiled out. I would argue that that reason for being not vulnerable is transitive and the ACME application and Frank's final good and cross that vulnerability off their list. The code is not present, at least not from the ACME buffer component and you can move on and deal with the next CDE in your list. So that's the end of the slides. I'm happy to answer any questions and I'll turn it over to our moderator. Thank you.


The opening of the Cordoban Lodge means that families from across the north can come and stay in this beautiful facility and support each other as they go through a very difficult treatment process when they're facing cancer. This home was literally built with the generosity and love of northern British Columbians and I'm very proud that our provincial government played a very small part with a $2 million contribution. Today is the special day for all of us filled with pride and joy for what has been accomplished for cancer care in the north. We are honored to share this day with you. The British Columbia government was so pleased to support this with a $2 million donation. Mary, of course, as you know, made an equivalent donation. So many people in this community have donated whatever they can to make this a reality.  My very best wishes and the best of luck to everyone who volunteers and particularly to everyone who requires this space in order to get better. Thank you very much. God bless you.


I didn't ask and I don't think so. Today, this is the build OGM call for Tuesday, July 6, 2021. I'll go back to sharing a screen because I'm reporting in on a lovely conversation I had yesterday with pristine Kappa first call. The company is called greater than the sum.  They're creating a database, a bunch of interesting information to us, I think. And in particular, she's got some posts about social system mapping, and a lot of really a lot of wisdom and time on this. And they're busy trying to figure out what their business model is and how this all works. So, and I just wish I had recorded the call from from the moment we started I recorded none of it and we were in her zoom so I didn't. It wasn't quick for me to just click in and do it. But I wish I could bottle that excitement in the conversation because she's not quite as old as me so she's been around the block but but she was like, you know, I don't I don't bring up these topics very much because I don't get to have conversations very much. And I was like, come on in join the OGM conversation and we would love to figure out how to how to build up some way to be helpful to you, etc, etc. So we'll, we both need to sort of chew on the conversation we'll come back in and probably invite more people into a conversation so we can figure out what's up. Several things about the conversation got me really excited. One of which was, this is a necessary conversation it's important to organizations like this. The, she was really interested in steward ownership and that whole conversation because she said look, I've been looking, you know, for the last long period for what is our business structure. This is sort of the same conversation fill that Michael has kind of brought up which is like, we really want to figure out what's the business model here, a business model that kind of works ethically and profitably. So she was really interested in that, and I'm going to introduce her to Jordan, and so forth. So just, I was, I was actually like my spirits were raised considerably just from the dynamics of the conversation. And then I'm sitting here thinking, okay, what are the, what are the moving parts that we should, I would love to brainstorm with you all barring that we have a bigger topic or something else to go toward. What are the elements that are important for us to do for OGM to be more of a structure to have more of a more of an essence more of more structure guys. So let me stop anybody else just like to check in. Yeah, to that to the question you're asking Jerry. Excuse me. I mean, Jordan is super supportive for for me to get off the ground and connect and find a real tangible mission to grab on to but what I'm noticing watching. There are a lot of groups and also the TRC. There are so many new entries I mean it's incredible how many groups are coming in, and you don't really know how backed up they are and what their resources are and so on but they're all full of enthusiasm. And there seems to be quite a bit of funding stretching around in the food arena in particular. Everybody is working in their own bucket, you know, the gays, what is completely missing in my mind is this coordinating effort. Now, and this is where my thing with the innovations because I think really resonates because to to. I had a meeting with my contact from the focus house and I'm on the advisory board for the United Nations food system summit. And so we had a conversation about something that he's trying to do and I part in this concept of a of a knowledge manager and all the innovations manager you got all excited about it. And we incorporate that into the discussion be set up. In fact, a dedicated discussion group that involves the Secretary General because he's just so excited this is what we need to do with Africa with South America and so on. And we're always working behind the scene now and really the best you can often do is just to stimulate a discussion and to open people's eyes and once they see it, they start running on off there. So I don't know how, how we can create a structure, you know that has a right and entity of its own. So, so close. The innovation brokers are kind of and correct me if I'm wrong, but when I talk about story threaders and I think when Pete talks about context beavers. And maybe we talk about map whispers and also Christina was really interested in this this idea of a map map whispers he older some collecting of people who are really good at mapping and understand deeply. And people will need some kind of a platform that is both a way to make a living way to connect build community build the guild or some guildish features and, to my mind, use and improve the tools and the data in the because the information brokers are basically going to be like wholesale connecting humans connecting them to ways of doing particular things that that need to be done across the industry as a whole bunch of that right and then if if an OGM infrastructure existed I would love for information brokers to be using it like crazy and improving it as they use it right. So my, my, the question I just want to pose is, is there some minimal set of things that we don't wind up creating but can pull together from different places to create a platform for a new occupation called innovation broker that is simply one of many different kinds of new roles that we envision that we would like to staff up and recruit for and get get hired into engagements everywhere and I think that I think that experts, experts managing Commons is hopefully a new job category that will be hard for the robots to automate and might be a big and interesting place for new kinds of employment for people remote work for other kinds of things in this world. And close first and then and then film. Yeah, see I see the primary purpose for for the gap, so to speak, is in taking an assessment in my food case, go into a community each community is unique in its own right. And it doesn't matter where that community is located but they have existing resources they have an in an existing socio economic structure. There's a power structure of this existing interests, you know, and so you have to map first of all who are the owners, you know what is working but it's not working in this school. So I call it the farm the fork community food systems. And because from the farm you need an aggregator you need logistics you need processing you need wholesale retail and so on and so on. And so what are what components are in place which ones are missing. How can you accelerate this system what do they need to know to move themselves to the next phase. That's in its core thing. Once you do this map, then, then you need someone in the field, who knows which who knows where the resources are located and how to call them up. That's a basic concept. And I think one could translate that into energy systems and into other aspects of a community. Bill and then Pete and then me. One thing just generally I was also recently recently about how you kind of put these amorphous voluntary groups into action. And one thing that really came up was creating a timeline of sorts. So, there are things we need to figure out as a group like what exactly OGM is forgive ourselves a month or two weeks or whatever it is that has to be figured out by then. And then from there figuring out how OGM works other entities and if, if that's putting out requests for proposal for projects, like classes or projects with knowledge waivers or whatever the project is but putting out an RFP and time line that and identifying that OGM role and that is providing funds and structure and then giving those people a that they need to hit certain milestones or deliverables within a structure timeline. I think that could be the most concrete way to start moving things forward. That's just where my head is currently. Thanks Phil. Pete. I want to talk a little bit about the platform for innovation brokers or or knowledge waivers or context waivers. And I guess there's two things for me one of them is kind of the tech infrastructure and then another one maybe is kind of like maybe I would call it social social structure. Social infrastructure. So tech infrastructure wise I might my guess is so obviously, obviously I would love it if everybody was using massive wiki. At the same time that the massive wiki doesn't do a lot of things even that I need you know so I use other tools. And so my I guess my top line thing is a recognition that we're going to have different tools, different people are going to use different tools. And so the thing to aim for is interoperability, I think, and being able to translate from one to another easily and well and with with good fidelity. I think there's there's, we're still kind of figuring out what the, what the atoms are the molecules of knowledge are. And so it's always great listening to Mark and talk about knowledge graphs and, and, you know, kind of digging down into what's the base unit of stuff. Because when you understand what the base units are, then you can decompose and compose them better. Right. So I, we're still kind of fishing around or hunting around for feeling around for what, you know, how do you, how do you get something that goes from Miro to Miro table to massive to Trove, you know, in a, in a chain that has a lot of fidelity rather than, you know, you have to morph it, and it turns into something, and, you know, you can't turn it back or, or it gets unusable or whatever. So a lot of work there to do. I think so, instead of the one tool to rule them all it's really, you know, how, how do we make many tools work together well. So then I also wanted to, is I feel I can kind of see the thing that's missing a thing that's missing, because I can look back at my time on Silicon Valley a couple decades ago, and Silicon Valley works differently than big corporations work. And, and I reflect on how it worked. So you have lots of little up and coming startups, you know, forming and merging and dissolving and and that kind of birth and death cycle. The thing that we had in Silicon Valley that I feel like we're missing in the network of network of networks that we're doing right now is maybe not missing but but we need to grow it significantly. It's kind of the, the social patterns and the knowledge patterns of how entities form and work together and subtle differences and things like that. So in Silicon Valley, going back to, I don't know, Fairchild, you know, in the 70s or something like that. They're kept being these innovations of how a little team of engineers would break off from a parent company and then, you know, in the early days I'm sure that they didn't know what they were doing and it sounded like they were completely crazy people hippies or something you know it's like why would you leave a good job and start, you know, you can't start a company that's not a thing right. 20 years or 30 years later startups were a regular par for course kind of thing of course you would you know you would leave your big company job and start a new company. So what happened, there's a lot of infrastructure built into Silicon Valley, right, that there's the VC community there's the banking community there's the legal community. You can walk into a bank in Silicon Valley, and there's specialist banks even Silicon Valley bank, but you can walk into a bank and say hi, I don't know anything about business except I've got this great idea. And they would say okay well I can help you with the bank account I can find a lawyer for you that you need some account and you need to figure out how to pay taxes. And same thing with a lawyer right it's like I've got this great idea and I've got to have it happen.  And all we ask is for a big cut in return right. And for somebody who's just starting out who has a great idea and no no understanding of the business infrastructure or how that works was huge. So, same thing in the in the lawyer's office. Each of the lawyers had been through that, you know, cycle dozens or hundreds of times. And I've had been in several offices all the time.  And all the lawyers had seen. The law firm has its own catalog of documents but that catalog of documents is kind of cribbed from all the other catalogs of documents. And so there were, you know, a few flavors of MOU and a few flavors of NDAs and a lawyer would read through and go this is, you know, I've seen this before it looks great you can just sign this, or I'm going to change one thing I'm going to, I'm going to send it to a opposing council in Wilson Sunsini and they're going to go oh yeah I get it I understand why they're doing that. So that layer of infrastructure of how this thing works and how you can do it is something that all of us as little sovereigns are kind of feeling our way through and beating ourselves up and trying to understand what's going on right. And there's just literally a bunch of missing pieces that we have to innovate. We can borrow some of those from places like Silicon Valley or Service Corps of retired executives or, you know, small business administration or things like that. There's a bunch of stuff that we have to innovate because we're doing business a different way for a different reason. But I guess I want to give us kind of, I think, I think there's a big missing layer of infrastructure that we have to build and it's not something that gets built by one or two or four or six organizations it's actually like dozens and dozens of organizations working together, chewing on how to do that, and then loosely sharing and loosely coupling the information together that's what the one the main innovations of Silicon Valley was the loose coupling and the remixing of entities. So that happened with companies that happens with legal agreements that happens with financial agreements. There's always this innovation stuff and everybody's stealing slash borrowing slash, you know, like seeing stuff fall off the truck and picking it up. In some kind of way that was, you know, maybe a little bit transgressive but also a little bit or very productive and and because it was a productive ecosystem of sharing, even in the face of competition and enclosure. It was sustainable and grew and things like that. So lots of lots of innovation, by lots of organizations feeding each other and learning and growing and and that's what we need. Just to follow on what Pete said, one of the things that I saw lots and lots and lots of groups from other countries come through Silicon Valley and do tours and learning journeys to try to absorb and carry back home. Whatever the hell it was special drink that Silicon Valley had drunk that made this work so well. And there was kind of a superconductivity of financing of legal help of programmers of everything else that move through it. And one of the things that made Silicon Valley work really well, all built on extremely proprietary attitudes toward IP and a bunch of other things that are not parts of the stack that we would like. But Pete, I think a piece of what you're describing is this when I talk about what are the next, what are the next stacks the social stack and the organizational stack, you're talking about layers of that organizational stack and how they interact, and you're adding really important sort of social dynamic aspects of the stack. Like, how do we find each other how do we recommend each other how, you know, what, how does that sort of work out. And, and there's this moment right now where work is kind of jobs are being deconstructed, and April one of one of the superpowers in April's new book is like your portfolio, build your portfolio career that jobs, as I'm going to be employed for a long period of time, working nine to five for a company, those are just going away. They're just melting like, we may want them, but but the number of those things for the number of humans on earth is just decreasing, decreasing, decreasing. In particular, because companies really don't like full time employees, they're cranky, they get older, they want more money as they get older, they don't follow instructions. You know, if you can automate a job is that robot software wins the comparison with humans as soon as software is good enough to do the job. So in the face of that, how do you build a portfolio career and part of the organizational stack is not about thinking about organizations as having the old sharp boundaries, but rather a sort of dissolving and having entities, sovereigns and individuals floating around in this in this primordial goo which is hopefully a nutritive estuary. I love mismatching metaphors. Wow. So, so how do we make this actually a new to divestuary where lots of healthy interactions show up and where we figure out what's happening where we can hear where we can see ourselves well a piece of what Christine yesterday was talking about was one of the things that really motivated her was to build I think like Vincent to build an infrastructure where the community could see itself. But then she said but I don't have this naive hope that once it sees itself suddenly magically things will will work well, and everything will be fixed but she didn't know what that next step necessarily was. Right. And that's all that's all really interesting here as well. So, so the one thing I would underline is that there is a new stack, but the stack that I observed in Silicon Valley was actually hundreds of very similar right. And so I do end up with patterns of stacks and lots of them and they all look kind of the same. And they all have a little bit different flavor depending on the personalities and the use case and things like that and so it's important for for each of us to be working on or or maybe this group to be working on a stack right but but really what you want is 100 or 200 or 1000 copies of that stack, all kind of looking the same. And everybody being able to sing from that same choir book kind of, but it's a different choir book over, you know, in their own kitchen key kind of. Yeah, yeah, but but harmoniously. Mark, I'm trying to pass. And no, just jump on the last thing about the stacks. Yeah, it means that you don't have to reinvent as much of the wheel. I'm, I don't know if I have a exact point I'm exploring here but there's this tension between we want to cooperate we want to create a commons we want to create, and we're living on scarce resources because not that many people realize they need the kind of connections. I'm trying because everybody does it well enough serendipitously and doesn't realize how much more it are much further it could go if we made it more systematic. So there's both. We can do much better. And people don't realize that so the demand is scarce. And on the other hand, so we're in competition in effect. We need to cooperate more because that's who we are and that's part of our mission and reason that. And really, we have to think about the ways to. And thank you Pete for reemphasizing the interrupt aspect and not want to rule them all. So if we could think about federation at a very, very deep level. How can we make sure that if ever one of us finds people who understand the need for what we're offering that it can benefit all of us and this is the other aspect of federation, because we're building a commons because whatever we build and another thing about, you know, we're all trying to build this tool where we can embody all those connections. So we're all making our little private personal knowledge network. And without the federation which we're still busy building. We all want to make sure we all have all the data. And that's ridiculous, because we want to build that knowledge commons that whatever we build is useful to all of us, so that we all gain value and we all share whatever we're building individually. And but on the other hand, we are building it also for ourselves and there is value in the understanding we gain by building our little corner of the global brain. So this this tension between scarcity and collective and commons and local and global is, I don't have answers I'm just trying to reemphasize the need for thinking about not just finding a raison d'être for us as individuals but also for us as the added value of us being in a community, and us being in a commons, so that people begin to realize the value of this global stewardship collective stewardship of this commons we're trying to build not just our individual value to, you know, whenever we're there with the mission, but we're collective values towards. And again, no answers, just trying to. And one of the commons that I'm sorry, you were done.  One of the things that I think it's important for us to be stewarding or minding or taking care of is just that of community and how we come together and so forth. And Kiko lab has had a bumpy road, the last few days, probably weeks, and a bunch of people have come together to try to be helpful and sorted out and be of help and I think that that that reaction and that method is lovely and productive and we need to you know and do more of that kind of thing because, because a piece of being productive as individuals and as sovereigns coming together in these messy squishy relationships is building high trust environments and helping one another overcome our weaknesses. We this is as much sort of therapy as it is like like life, life platform and life business and the better we can do that I think the better we will all be. Very, very quickly. I think we, we emphasize a lot what we have in commons as connectors but we all have different methods, and we need to be more aware of our complementarities, because that's also what makes us work as a collective. Love that Mark Antoine. Yeah, I wanted to pick up on what Pete was saying because I think that is really sort of a profound way to look at the markets evolving the high tech markets men men the tech revolution happened. Currently, innovations taking place in the hardware development and in software development. And these innovations somehow found their way to merge together. And, and out of it came some really big players, you know, as we, as we see today. Imagine if you would have to turn this whole thing upside down and reinvent it. And that's where we are with the food system because he in the US, almost 90% of the markets are controlled by very few corporate players. I mean maybe six companies right would dominate the entire market. Probably the market is maybe 60% or so controlled and I just got into a conversation on LinkedIn with someone who wants to reject any kind of interference because companies that promise to help a country like Indonesia or Honduras or India with the agriculture actually ended up damaging them damaged the entire economy, the civilization, their social structures I mean it is incredible when you start looking at how much what a mess we have made right I mean, and I was participating in it. And inadvertently so to change in the food system, you know you have to. It's not only that you have to build it from ground on up but you also have to do it against the opposition of a system that really doesn't want you to succeed. Because you're challenging existing very dominant structures here. And so that adds the dimension to it that requires completely different approach, you know the creativity and the tools that are out there that could be assembled to make a community really successful. And have an obstacle course to pass through before they can really get there. So that I think we want to see that same kind of evolution happening in the food systems development and it is incredibly necessary I just posted an article where science is basically now clear, you know, project fall down everybody is clear, because it is out fixing the food system, we can't meet the IPCC targets impossible. It's physically impossible so how do we, how do we get there so that's a couple things. One is another analogy. And I'm rewinding a little bit in this conversation, a class you had said about piecing the different parts together and in talking with Christine yesterday one of the analogies that came up for me is like you're trying to build a rose window and what we have right now is a lot of people building individual little pieces of glass and then someone takes this ugly sort of the substance called lead and basically saw us together the different pieces of glass, and all of a sudden, you have the rose window which sort of comes into into being and I'm, I'm looking for for metaphors that work for people, I think OGM can play is like not necessarily building up parts of all these things but but helping connect the different moving parts in ways that offer local diversity and preference. Lots of autonomy and privacy, and yet high functionality and connectivity and sort of this this reusability of data the nurturing of the soil, which is the new the new comments the data. And then, going back to your, your what you how you were thinking about innovation brokers class that first when you describe the first mapping step of coming into a community. My first reaction was, my first reaction was OMG, this could be really like a whole difficult for anything because actually trying to map the politics of any local situation. People who don't want those dynamics, you know, visible or exposed who won't tell you who's who, or what's what, like getting, getting to the actual dynamics in a community is going to be like very, very difficult. Second thought was, hmm, could you crowdsource aspects of that map anyway, by surveying something by picking up data by looking at another sort of outside measures. And my second reaction was, hmm, what if there were what if we had a cadre of young community mappers, who were busy doing this all over the place, who then turn the soil for the next wave of people to come in to say okay, I'm a resource now I see the community map, and here's what's available in the world somehow so so I went from, oh my gosh this sounds impossible to hey could we hack it to I could see sort of layers of commitment of commitment or participation or entry into local communities building up. And that was just my brain riffing on the possibilities of how to, you know how to stand up in for innovation brokers locally. Go ahead, Pete. And the next thing on Silicon Valley again, they. It occurs to me I put this in the chat in in matter most. The people who you worked with, you know you went to your bank or you went to your IP attorney or you went to your patent lawyer or you went to an accountant, even you know whatever. They would be helping you fill jobs. They would be seeing a ton of what we would call sovereigns they would be seeing a ton of startups, and they would start to notice patterns. And often they were the ones who did innovation brokerage basically as not as a frontline part of their job, but as as incidental. But incidental to their main job right as I'm providing you patent attorney services. Hey, you should, you should bump into this person. And they know what's going on about the other part of the problem that you don't, you know you haven't figured out yet. VCs so VCs maybe do that as a part of it's actually part of their business model to be matchmaking and marrying up people to make a stronger sovereign. But a lot of other infrastructure providers don't have that as a explicit part of their business model right it's it's just that as a patent attorney I get more deal flow when somebody says oh, I got recommended to meet my co founder by this patent attorney and I want to use them again and I think you should use them again. So it reminds me of a pattern that we used to have in social text where what we learned often was that people didn't like go oh I'm going to put stuff in the wiki. It was a lot more like I'm doing work. And if I just have a little bit of extra work to do to get something into the wiki maybe not not perfectly. I'll do it right so it's a that that same pattern of sometimes many times maybe maybe maybe the right pattern kind of hunt for is how can the things that have to happen for sovereigns also do a little bit of matchmaking incidentally to the mainline part of their their work. So, it takes a lot of kind of in the overall system it takes a lot of calories to stand up a special purpose. So, maybe another way to say it is in Silicon Valley I didn't see. I'm going to go back on that now I was going to say I didn't see people who are explicitly just matchmakers.  There were actually specialists who would be mentors to baby startups like coach Bill Campbell.  But they could, they could be the it was like a tour guide or a river rafting guide, you know, we'll make sure that you get through the rapids okay. But even then, so they did matchmaking and stuff like that but even then it was kind of incidental to their overall business model which was really getting a big percentage of one sovereigns thing rather than trying to match make a bunch of sovereigns so. Yep. I'm Mark Antoine than Judy. I'll try to go fast. What strikes me I spoke of complimentary skills. I'm just a metaphor I'm reminded of when people were asking for somebody to do their website. And that meant, you know, the copy editing the graphic design, the server maintenance, the HTML coding the JavaScript front end coding it was ridiculous like the array of totally different skills that design. Yeah, it was all there information architecture. And when it's obvious that this is something that a good team can work on very well and in a, you know, limited time, and maybe it's a can we either form teams around the service of connection. We can not try to be hired but the do contracts as a team. And or can we find a way that our services can augment known existing established work in a way that we can become part of teams, even if we maintain this cross linking as a community of practice of connectors. I think that's it. That's a great thought mark on fun and that clicks really nicely into the reason I was trying hard to build guilds a word I'm now not sure we should use. But the idea of guilds is that we're in new territory here we're kind of in the new economy we're busy like mapping and context making and doing a whole bunch of things that are not familiar to your average sort of business on the street. Therefore, how we define these tasks and how we present them to the world matters a whole bunch, and drawing sort of definitions or not boundaries but but defining what this guild is versus this other guild was to me, important in what the new set of tasks and roles are, and then, and then that would help create teams of people who love collaborating to achieve those particular sets of goals, and they could form up and one of the nice things right now is that voluntary associations to go do a project are super easy right now and, and we all got shoved into zoomed during the pandemic so so geography didn't matter because it used to be, you'd form a little company with your buddies who were who were in the same city as you. So right now that's the even post pandemic that's just less interesting less less less necessary. So, you can form up into these little high performing teams, and we need a we need a vessel for high performing teams like if I were running LinkedIn. One of the things they've left on the table, for example, is the formation of high performance teams that love to do work together. They think of you know, LinkedIn eight the resume and now, like lots of people hunt for jobs, the old way through LinkedIn. So I think it's just like missing all these opportunities. Phil, then Pete. I think it was Judy next. Oh, I apologize, Judy. That's right. I've suddenly grown accustomed to little hands going out but it's Judy then fill in Pete. It's okay. Thanks. I'm still kind of on the wake up cycle I slipped in. But part of what I wanted to just emphasize is that what I have found richest about OGM over the last recent years dates clear back to you can but especially now is the caliber of the individuals and the collective expertise in any particular room call whatever just highly talented ethical people who are more than happy to help with just about anything. They don't want to be taken advantage of of course and everyone would like to earn some money if that's a possibility. And so it seems to me that one of our higher priority goals might be to really focus on the resource capacity that's latent everywhere and implicitly by setting up systems and connections and tools or whatever might be the case. Setting an example kind of the leading and walking by example model of good people helping other people do good things. Again, I don't especially like the term guilds because it has a funny tone to it, but, but I don't know talent agents talent contributors express special knowledge groups whatever we would come up with as a more awkward name. What I find really, really attractive is the wisdom that's expressed in every call and the ability on the drop of a hat to put out a query and say does anybody have time to talk about X and four to six people who are interested in and knowledgeable about that topic will usually show up. And that's a very unique trait. And I think that somehow capturing and taking the wisdom of all of the people in the things that have worked might allow us to actually include in the wiki or something similar, you know how to get started on blank. And, and what are the next stages, you know, sort of a, a simplified project management for individuals who haven't had project management training or other things, because I think if people get help without having to work hard to get it, they get inspired and they become inspired by that same model and I think the number of abusers of that was probably small. And if they wanted they could find some other knowledge in a different way. So, I know that's just kind of, I'm kind of into what is the process of being collectively wise and productive. And how might we model that share that and help other groups with less experience acquire those skills. And just one of the. One of the tasks of our community is to deal with bad actors one of the principles of design from trust is to try to deal with bad actors late, rather than design the whole system to prevent bad actors from acting bad.  And one of the things we haven't faced very much is sort of trolls or bad actors floating in here and either just trying to disrupt or trying to pilfer, you know, taking the role of property do whatever else and take advantage of the group we've been really lucky in that sense. We're still flying under the radar in that way. But I think that pieces of our maturity will show up and and we'll have to find new ways to do things when that starts happening more. But but again I think that doing it late is fine is good, and setting up, setting up dynamics that promote the building of the community and the connecting of humans into high performing teams and all the, the crusting into solutions, like, I think should work. So, Philip and Pete. Yeah, I love that point. I am thinking through this kind of Silicon Valley example, I keep coming back to y combinator startup school, and they have kind of this whole free process laid out so that you can get your idea from ideation on through to MVP basically. And the idea is that if it's good enough, you can apply to y combinator as one of their select startups that they'll incubate that they'll foster they'll grow. Obviously they're doing that model that leads to profit for them, but I think there are learnings from that that we can take and kind of bring into our own environment to bring a communal and shared learnings. The second group I think of is zebras unite, which is their core goal is is trying to, to create this new economy, but they have this whole network of people that you can put out calls to action you can ask for for help for resources, and help and I feel like that's a model you might want to copy a bit as well or at least taken to to some account. The one thing I would say with them is they do have this focus of creating this new economy. I do think we need some core focuses like the knowledge moving project like interoperability like we need to have OGM is a community for all this OGM is working on these things. I just kind of separate definitions, but yeah, that's. Thanks Phil, Pete. I wanted to pick up on the grouping formerly known as guilds. And it makes me think of a thing that we used to a guideline that we used to use an agile which is the highest performing teams were self sufficient work groups project groups. So self sufficient means that it can do a lot of stuff by itself. You know it's got front end back end design. Some project management, things like that. So a project team had a, it was, it had a variety of kind of specializations within it, and it could do a lot of work. The thing that makes it a high performing team is that it's not people who are all good at one thing. It's that it's people who love to work with these people.  She does product management and, and he does development. And we'd love to work together the love to work together is the important part of that, not that we, you know, and and actually we don't even necessarily need to understand each other really well as long as we have the patients and the interest in discovering each other together as a team. Right. The other, the other thing that we that we kind of another guideline in talking about scrum here in particular. There's this weird thing in companies where it's like, well, you know, I've defined the org chart and this group of people shall work together because you know that's what fits best in my org chart. So it's you putting you end up putting people together who work some worked well together and there's one or two duds who just don't work with that team, and they may work perfectly well with another team but for whatever reason because of departments or offices or whatever. You stick them in the wrong team. That's a real tempting thing for management to do. And it was always super disastrous for the team itself. You want scrum goes on like two week cycles right two week sprints, you really want the team to come together at the end of the sprint and reflect. Retros are also something that didn't end up people people didn't really understand how to do retros but if you do it right, you have this deep introspective team introspective of what worked what didn't.  Hopefully in some compassionate and loving way where they end up with some some other team that where they're going to shine. Everything is better right the team is more productive you can't you don't want to stick a team together that doesn't fit together you really want the team to be able to self select and weed out the things that are making them not work and sometimes that's a person. So, it. So then you end up with these project teams who work really well together and that's their defining characteristic, not that they're front end or not that they're back end but they work really well together. Then you need parallel teams adjacent to them. And you'll start to see that each of these teams has a back end person or each of these teams has a design person. So you do want to end up with something that kind of is like the organization formerly known as guild, where, you know, all the design people can have coffee together and say okay well I ran into this weird problem or I need a tool what what's that tool that you were using that you were using so effectively. So, into this I wanted to introduce or reintroduce a classic. I'm going to hit return on the matter most, and then try to share my screen as well. This is a picture. This is Nyberg's picture of scaling at Spotify and one of the things that whenever I bring this to a group it's like okay so Nyberg himself if you read down a little bit says that this is just a snapshot in time this is not the way to design an organization please don't be fooled by the fact that this looks attractive and wonderful. Do it your own way. You'll see that what he what I was calling a project team is what he calls squads. And then you'll see that guild thing. These are a bunch of people who are interested community of interest interested in databases or CSS or you know the design of stuff or information architecture or whatever. Another thing he calls chapters chapters for him are things where these people need to coordinate pretty closely together. They're doing kind of the same role in multiple squads and to help hold the squads together the chapter of design people or the chapter of database people will will coordinate and cross. Keep these squads kind of aligned and then as it happens he's got the tribe parts of this are big clusters of things maybe this left tribe is working on the back end and the right tribe is working on on the front end. Big clusters of stuff. Anyway, it so it occurs to me that along with the organizations formerly known as guilds. A more important even more important pattern for us to look for is people who work really well together. These squads and and help people understand that you put together a high performing team. It's got a lot of cross functional stuff it's not all of them can do the same thing it's it's actually the strength of that team is that they can do different things and so when you say, Hey, we need this new feature in Spotify. You know one of these squads can go, we can do that, you know, we're going to have to ask this other squad for a little bit of help but we can do most of it we can do the front end part we can do the design part we can do the back end part. We can do the database part. And our database person is going to coordinate with two or three other database database people as they do it, but we can handle the whole thing as a team, and then they take chunks of big chunks of work as a project, and they get them done. That activates also a bunch of human stuff when when you're in a small team like this, and you have a group commitment you say yes we can do this yes we will do this, and we can do it for X dollars in X months. Then those are the people that when push comes to shove they look across the table or across the zoom at each other and go. Okay, we need to pick it up people and it's the commitment to the team that activates their energy and not commitment to something larger that's puffier and harder to understand it's like, I'm going to do it because Emily is doing it because we committed as a small team that we're a team that delivers stuff and we're going to do it. So, I, we haven't I feel like we haven't been talking about this project team thing very much and, and that's not to say that we should talk about only that there's these other, you know, other patterns that you and not again not to say that this is the exact pattern that you want to use. But the things that I learned from this or the thing that I observed from this is, he's got these overlapping kind of fractal patterns, and they're, they're, they're orthogonal right so a squad and a chapter or have this orthogonality to it, and I think that's important when we're trying to structure these, you know, social social groupings that we cover a lot of axes, and also a lot of fractal scale. Briefly because I have to bounce at the top of the hour to a different call and I'm happy to pass the con to someone else. When they talk about guilds I had the feeling on first read of this that they meant something different from what I was hoping to intend which was, for me guilds are about craft a particular set of skills. Kind of like furriers and carpenters. And I think guilds a different subset in their model otherwise I really like the Spotify agile model. Again, I would not. I, you know, rename everything, group it differently, figure out different orthogonals. Don't take it as a little bit. But his guilds are communities of interest. Okay, so there was interest. Yeah, they were just run interest. Okay, cool. Michael then Judy then we're out of the call. I'm really intrigued by by what comes out of that chart and when I first saw Pete, I thought of different organizations, being the two, you know, parts of Spotify, and the way that peers in an industry. I mean, I just remember, you know, from my days in the magazine biz, how the, the clan of editors and art directors and production managers cooperated for their common good. They recommended freelancers and that kind of thing, and, and also set standards. And so figuring out how that looks for, for, or where our GM fits into that in terms of allowing, allowing people in different orgs to to come together. It seems seems critical and part of the kind of mission statement that we need to to get down to because it's more brass tacks.   Well, I was just going to add that that what this leads to actually would be the listings or collections of wisdom about particular needed skills and attributes and behaviors that allow the cross functional connections to occur. The team formation is an organic sort of thing. I recall once a team approaching me on the steps of a building saying can we eject a person from our team. And I said, Well, probably would tell me more about what's going on. And those dynamics are really critical to sort of the heart and chemistry of the working together. So we were able to develop some sort of correlation listing of individuals who behaved in certain ways delivered certain kinds of things had knowledge in certain zones, whatever, without making it prescriptive or prohibitive or elitist or whatever. And then it would be a tool for the community. And people would know that they could call person X and saying, I'm trying to put together a group of people to do X in the community or to accomplish why. And we need someone who would be able to help with this dimension of it or we need help just forming it because the groups not coming together like we'd like those sorts of expertise zones are really valuable. And that could be a very cornerstone, the connectivity of the talents of the guild is what I'm trying to get at the ability to resource to form the cohesive team and if the team forms and they find that they're really great at kicking out these kinds of things. You can just get the whole team to come do something because you know that team's going to get it done. They know how to work together, and so on. I'm not sure how we would do that but it's, it's a concept I'd love to pursue because that's how you get work done. A bad note and this call on but we could just bring someone in who knows machine learning really well and it's rolling zoom to just infer people's competence and behavior from our activities, and then to shut down their privileges as they act poorly, you know so you'd get less zoom time allocated to you. Anyway, thanks everybody I'm glad we're inventing our robot future and hope it's a future we all like. Bye for now. Great to see everyone. Same here.


Well the product pick of the week is the AMG 8833 infrared thermal camera. I have a pie portal and I'm running an Arduino sketch with the AMG 8833 plugged in over I squared C. It is using its 8x8 infrared sensors to measure the temperature using infrared of objects in front of it and then this program is actually interpolating that to the 124 pixels.  You can see pretty clearly me waving my arms here. As I get closer it'll detect the heat getting closer so there's my face. You can see my forehead is the hot part at the top my mouth down below. It's the AMG 8833 thermal camera.


So, we're going to talk about the nesting spec in particular, but since not everybody knows what the CSS process is for creating new specifications in CSS, I wanted to go real quick. So, the first thing that we end up with is like this crazy idea, and this crazy idea is called stage one of the specifications, first of all, stage zero is just a crazy idea. So, it writes it up in sort of like the spec format, but it is just some idea of what they want to do. Then we have editors draft, these are the first time it will actually show up on the W3C website, stage one is just editors draft is considered to be really unstable specification, then it will go to stage two, which is working draft, a lot of working drafts end up being implemented in browsers, sometimes with behind the flag, sometimes with like a browser prefix, and way back when working drafts got implemented just in browsers all the time, and the thing that we're most used to is stage three, which is the candidate recommendation. This is a full blown spec, and you're completely safe to implement that is in your browser, and of course, once it's in the browsers, we can start using it. The CSS nesting spec became a stage one spec last March 2019, and yeah, that's where we are. So, the really neat thing about this is that once I get a few more slides into this, I'm going to show you how we can actually use this nesting spec today, and basically we're going to be transpiling this future spec into regular old CSS you can use on any site. So one of the problems with CSS is you end up with a lot of duplicate selectors. If you've got a selector that you want to add some properties to it, but then you also need to modify that, depending on a conditional, like a media query, you need to rewrite the name of the selector inside your media query, and if you need to do hover and focus styles, you need to rewrite the selector again and again. So there's just a lot of duplication here, and this becomes brittle too, because if you're rewriting this file and change this class name from wrapper to something else, you may miss the focus line down here, and then you've changed all the other selectors, but you missed that one line. And the nesting spec aims to solve this, and it solves it in a way if you're familiar with SAS, it's going to look fairly similar. So the CSS nesting spec adds in a couple of new syntaxes, which is the at nest, which is here at the beginning of this second line here, and it also adds in the ampersand. People who've used SAS will recognize the ampersand, and they're not going to recognize the at nest. But the at nest basically says somewhere in this selector, I'm going to have an ampersand, and what you should do is take any parent selectors and take this whole thing and replace it where the ampersand is. So this at nest tells the browsers that I want to change this rule to be HTML.js, space dot wrapper. So it treats this line and this as equivalent. Can you see my cursor when I'm circling these things? Hopefully you are. I'll make sure that I do it relatively slowly so that there's a video lag that doesn't get lost. We actually don't see your cursor. You don't see my cursor. OK, so I will not refer to my cursor anymore then. You could describe what your cursor was going to do. So yeah, I was just saying that the second selector on the left hand side is equivalent to this second selector on the right hand side. So the browsers will treat those as equivalent rule sets. Now for media queries, you don't need an at nest here because usually media queries are at the root level of your CSS file. They're never nested in something according to the current specs. But when you put a media query inside another CSS rule set, the spec knows that you're wanting to nest it. You want to take the entire parent selector and move that inside the media query. So over on the right hand side where it says at media I'm in with 40m, since it's nested inside the dot wrapper, it's going to treat that as equivalent to the left hand side here where it says at media I'm in with 40m and then inside the brackets you have dot wrapper and that rule set there. And then last, I'm going to show you how the ampersand can be used for hovering focus styles. So earlier we'd use just the ampersand HTML.js space ampersand, and it just creates a new selector HTML.js space dot wrapper, that's the equivalent here because there's no space in between the ampersand and the colon hover, it just gets mushed together. So this equivalent of at nest ampersand colon hover becomes dot wrapper colon hover. So you can see on the left hand side the equivalent of old school CSS and this new CSS nesting equivalent on the right hand side. So it's fairly easy. Now, if you use SAS, and I love SAS, that is great, you're probably thinking, why do you need the at nest there? It's like in SAS, it's almost identical, except there's no at nest at all. It's like not needed. And it turns out that we do need it for CSS, like official CSS. And that is because of something called lookahead parsing that the browsers do for performance reasons. When a browser is reading the CSS file, the current way that it parses all the CSS is it only has to look one character ahead at most to figure out, what am I looking at right now? So as it's reading the file, let's take this SAS example and see if this would work in a browser. So my extra light fell over, I will. So let's look at this. This is standard SAS right here. This is not going to work for our CSS back, though. .wrapper, so when the browser sees the period, it knows, oh, this is a CSS class. So as it's reading the file character by character, it already knows it's looking at a CSS class, that this is a selector it's reading and it keeps going and it sees a space and a bracket and it goes, okay, this is the beginning of a rule set. And then it goes to the next line and it sees an H and it goes, hmm, that could be the beginning of a property that begins with H, I'm not sure. And then T and M and L and still it has no idea that this is a, in SAS, this would be a nested rule set. But in CSS, it doesn't know if that's a property, like there aren't any existing properties that begin with HT, but maybe in the future, we would have a new CSS property that does begin with HT and therefore the browser has to be compatible, forward compatible with new CSS syntax and it just has to assume that maybe there is an existing property that I don't know about, because I'm an old browser and there's a new spec. So it doesn't know, it literally doesn't know between whether this is supposed to be nesting or if this is a property and that's bad. So that's why we can't have this SAS style of nesting. We have to put the ampersand nest there so that when it sees inside dot wrapper bracket and it sees an ampersand side, it goes, oh, this is either gonna be a nested conditional or an actual like app nest or like app media or app nest, right? So that's why we have to have the app nest syntax inside prefixing our nested rule sets, right? So I've actually been playing with this for a while. Oh, but actually I wanted to slide in here. There's actually one case where you don't need the app nest and that's when the ampersand comes first in your nested selector, right? So if your ampersand is first, our parser can figure that out. I goes, oh, look, there's an ampersand there. I know that that is a special nesting syntax and it's gonna know that this is a simple app nest. So the app nest is optional in this case. You could put app nest space ampersand space span as your selector or in this case, you could just do ampersand space span, right? Because that ampersand is there, first we can use a simpler syntax. I've been playing around with this for a while in my CSS style sheets. Kind of like having app nests specifically there for all these cases, because it makes those nested rule sets pop out better for me, right? Because I've got like all these properties that are usually on the parent selector and then the nested selector with the app nest there, it really pops out and says, this is a new selector. It's not just more of the same properties from the parent selector. So I kind of like it, but you can use the simpler syntax for app span. And speaking of how do you use it? Let's take a look at this website. This is like one of my favorite websites now. It's called cssdb.org. It is a list of all of the CSS specs that are coming up and how far they are in the process of becoming a full-slash spec. I'm actually gonna jump over to my browser and show you this website directly. So you can see all of these different specifications. So there's an all property, there's break properties, break inside, break before, break after. And it says what stage of the specification process they're in. Then we always have color adjust property, all of the stuff that it lists. The nice thing is that it will also list ways that you can write this in your CSS right now if there's a plugin available to allow you to do that. So for example, the focus container pseudo class. This is actually really great. Really great selector that I like using focus within. It's supported by these browsers. So it already has the can I use sort of information right there. And then it says that if you need a polyfill, you can use this JavaScript library to polyfill for various browsers or this post CSS plugin. Post CSS, not everybody knows what post CSS is, but I'm pretty sure that 99% of you have heard of auto prefixer. This is the tool that will add vendor prefixes to your CSS. Auto prefixer is actually the very first post CSS plugin that was ever created. It was created before they came up with the name post CSS as a group of plugins. All of these post CSS plugins do is they transform your source CSS and transform it into real production ready CSS. So that's what auto prefixer and vendor prefixes to all of your CSS. These other post CSS plugins will take your source CSS files and transform into production ready CSS, right? So somewhere down the bottom here, we're gonna have level one and actually, there's the nesting spec, right? And it has a post CSS plugin that you can use that transforms this into CSS that all browsers can understand right now. Post CSS is pretty easy to configure. I'm using something like this right now on some of my projects, although I've moved my browsers list into a browser.rc file, pretty good file name as I just did that recently. But it's really easy to set up. There's a sort of conglomerate post CSS plugin that's called post CSS preset ENV. And it takes all the CSS specifications that are on track to becoming a real specification get bundled together in this one giant plugin called post CSS preset ENV. And then you can just basically specify in your configuration of this plugin, like I wanna support all stage one and later specs in my source CSS files, right? So this is super easy to set up and this will add the nesting CSS to your files already today. I set up a code pen. A code pen is really nice in that it actually will allow you to play with post CSS. So you can fork this code pen and start playing with the nesting syntax just right there on the websites. This is some simple CSS that I copied from another place. There's a listing from where I got the original idea for adding the arts. Actually, I mean, I'd copied it. I didn't come up with it. And yeah, you should be able to play that. And one last thing I wanna say, it's actually gonna jump back into my browser here. And that is, this is a level one spec. And it is not 100% complete, obviously. One of the things I'm not fully formed yet is that media query nesting. The media query nesting is a little more complicated spec wise because there's this whole other spec called the conditionals, the CSS conditional spec. And that's the one that controls media queries and at supports that is also controlled by that spec. And so we need to modify that spec a little bit to understand this nesting spec. And so that part of it just hasn't been worked out and it hasn't been fully flushed out yet. And there is a discussion group that I would love people to contribute to because there's been three comments in the last two years on this, Jonathan Neil, Amelia and myself. Yeah, we can get more people sort of looking at this and helping the spec move forward. That would be great. So yeah, that's all I wanted to say about CSS nesting. So yeah. Thanks.