Our next panel, though, is a group of folks who are consuming all this open source. So we'll probably have a good perspective from, hey, we're bringing this open source in. We're using it to build real systems and use it in mission-critical production work, and really can provide that different perspective, not from a supplier of open source but really from large consumers of open source. I'd like to invite the panelists up on stage.  We're adjusting. Oh, there he is. All right. Go ahead and have a seat. So we have Sabu Alamaraju, VP of Technology at Expedia. So you lead Expedia's cloud migration and enterprise data center, all the public cloud work that you're doing. That's a humongous job. Niti Gupa is with the SVP of Technology at Hired. How many people here know Hired? Oh, we got to change that. Yeah. It's like the change health care guy yesterday. He was like, we do like two-thirds of the health care financial transactions in the US, but we have a terrible market. I think Hired has better marketing on the front. And then Justin Dean, who works at a company I believe most people know, I end up hitting that refresh button constantly on Ticketmaster to get good tickets to my favorite concerts, but welcome all of you. So you all clearly are using open source, as Patrick mentioned. More and more, our systems are based on open source, it's sort of one. But tell us about what are some of the key open source technologies that you're seeing used in your stacks? What are you bringing in these days to move towards this sort of DevOps movement and so forth? And maybe we'll start on that end just because we always start on this side and we'll come back. Yeah. I mean, Ticketmaster at its core is, we've been open sourced since the beginning. Well, I say the beginning. We're a 41-year-old company, which a lot of people don't realize. But the culture has been very, very DIY. Our founders built the nucleus of the ticketing engine in 1978. Some of that software we still run, fortunately or unfortunately. But the culture has been very DIY. So that led into open source naturally. So we use probably almost all of the projects out there in some way, shape, or form. But the core of it in my world and the technical operations in our cloud and infrastructure spaces, Kubernetes and containers is all the rage for the last two years-ish. And it's really changing the landscape for us because we're using our container movement as a catalyst to improve software across the company in all aspects of it. So all of the, we're using these technologies that not just from a cloud computing perspective, but from a let's deep dive into every one of our applications and do the work of cracking open the code and making it more modern and really up-leveling on all fronts in order to get it to run into a container and then to get it to run into Kubernetes in a public cloud space. It has to be pretty good. It has to be instrumented. So we're sort of using it as the catalyst for an entire movement on top of the open source projects that are improving and becoming enterprise-grade. Yeah, Nity, it seems like trying to figure out what the right abstraction layers are to build these platforms is so different. Is it VMs, is it PaaS, is it containers? Which application framework are we coming in? It seems like that is such a tricky thing to figure out. And you want it to be maintained long-term. You want it to be sustainable. What are you seeing? What are those abstractions? What are those platforms? What is that that you're deploying? Yeah, I mean, I think our tactics. So let me just begin by introducing Hired, since most of you don't know Hired. Actually, even before that, happy International Women's Day, everybody. So Hired is an application that's purely built on open source. We're not just a web application, a mobile application. But in addition to that, we have a fairly sophisticated machine learning algorithm that presents job opportunities for highly skilled tech workers. As we've grown our infrastructure, and as we've grown our solution, our tactic is pretty much like what Justin said. It's about finding the right tool for the right job. We are based in San Francisco, highest. It's a very, very costly market for a startup that's getting off the ground, especially in this environment, which is so highly competitive. We are very, very cognizant of our human cost, and we're also very cognizant of our time to market. So because of that, we don't have the luxury. We were not born 40 years ago. And the ecosystem was very different. I started my career at Bell Labs, where we had an NIH syndrome where we had to invent everything within the confines of Bell Labs. And that's completely and utterly changed. So for us, our approach is not about figuring out the different layers. Even as we invested in machine learning and figured out what algorithms we should be using, we first go seek those solutions if somebody solved them. Only in, and then we enhance and build on top of them. There are very, very few cases where we have to sort of start from scratch, if you will. So our primary motivation and driver in making these decisions is around cost and time to market. Interesting. How about at Expedia? What are you seeing? What's behind staff? I think I actually echo some of the Nithi's comments on do-it-yourself versus open source. I worked at, before joining Expedia to lead cloud migration, I was at eBay building eBay's infrastructure, private cloud infrastructure for four years. And we embraced open source. In fact, we were, at the time, one of the largest successful stories of OpenStack, adopters of OpenStack at eBay. And subsequently, they moved on to Kubernetes and its open source, Docker, Meizos. They were all in the culture. And we do have similar mentality of embracing open source, being open, sharing all that stuff. But what I see happening is that as cloud has, the service-ification of problems has been growing very rapidly in the last few years, I think, from 2011 to 2012 onwards. Until now, we have massive warehouse-scale services offering very, solving real interesting problems that we were not able to solve as quickly in the data center. So that has changed from open source to a bit close source because I don't know how this service called Kinesis works, but it's solving that problem. So that is influencing how we are thinking about this open source in quotes because we have to take advantage of what exists there so we can invest in our time and money in where our business goes. So that's the change I'm seeing over the last several years. I could actually work with you, supporting you. Yeah, and we saw that yesterday in the serverless conversation, this avoid lock-in solves a super fast problem. I'd be curious to hear what the three of you, where do you land on this pendulum? Because I think those are tough decisions because it's so tempting to just say, I gotta get to market and just take that. And then five years later, you're going, wow, this is getting expensive. From the Ticketmaster's perspective, there's an interesting dynamic that happens when at a large company with lots of diversity of our product space and different teams and different cycle, like where they're at in the maturity of their particular product that they're working on, we have a lot of aspirations like, hey, we're gonna go and do whatever the thing is. We're gonna be all Kubernetes by next year. And then reality hits, and then you realize there's an entire spectrum of these different teams. So some of them take all the advantage of something new on serverless technology, and if it fits within, if it helps them either by speed, agility, or some reason, deliver some business function, and it's worth doing that that's not in the vanilla suite of sort of corporate offering type of a thing, then we encourage it, go do that, because there's some ROI that's important, but we try to be eyes wide open across the company that says by doing that, you may not get centralized support on all these things that are fairly, we can't support all Earth's technologies, right? So, but we've learned that standardize on the things that make the core bread and butter things, but definitely allow teams to operate like many micro-businesses, and they have their own drivers and motivations, and having an open mind to that works really well for us. On the flip side, it's challenging a little bit because it's easier when everything is one thing, right? Use this cloud, and here's the rules, and here's the menu in an out-program menu, right? It's just not super practical for large-scaled-out companies that have probably a diverse business portfolio. Yeah, yeah. I think to the point that specifically the lock-in point, lock-in can happen regardless of whether you're using open source or closed source, right? So, at some point, if you hold back on avoiding lock-in, you're going to sacrifice efficiency. You're going to sacrifice, there's a cost component to it. And no matter how much you try to avoid that lock-in, even if you sacrifice efficiency and you incur additional cost, you still will not be able to. So, our personal point of view is go all-in, and if you need to change down the road, you change down the road, right? Yeah. Can I make one comment real quick? Sure. A lock-in comment? Since we did have a DIY spirit, so we built our own cloud 10 years ago, and it's really, really useful for developers, it's easy to use and all that, I would argue that we have built the most lock-in machine in our private cloud that is really challenging. You can lock-in yourself. You can literally lock-in, and then you have to staff it, so it's challenging. So, it doesn't just go on the bender side of things, it's you can lock-in to your own stuff. Right, absolutely. Sure. Where are you? I couldn't agree more. I think the moment you pick something, build some tools around it, build some operating procedures around it, and culture around it, you're locked into it. Whether that is an open-source software or a closed-source appliance or a cloud service, lock-in is here to stay, it's part of our, it's actually a cultural artifact, because I do believe that the process of maintain, the act of maintaining change, having the culture to, yes, we can change anytime we need to change, I think that is much more important than, but then the fear-driven mindset of, okay, I don't want to embrace X product because the X is closed-source, I don't like that vendor, he might mess my things in future, that's fear-driven approach, I would definitely not take that fear-driven approach, instead I would look at the opportunities that exist for me, for my business, for my customers, and go after those, and the lock-in is a process of I have to deal with it. Yeah, it's funny because on Tuesday, I kept saying these black-and-white, lock-in versus not lock-in, it's, we're past this, now it's this degree of subtlety, of managing risk somewhere on that spectrum, which is what you're all talking about, and that subtlety truly matters. What's interesting to me though, in terms of you three being here, is we have a lot of folks in the audience that work at companies who build commercial implementations of a lot of open-source, and that could be intentional as a pure kind of open-source-based startup, or it could be just because, hey, we gotta get to market fast and our products just so happen to use a lot of open-source components to do that. But, and so they have program offices, they have people inside of the company who manage the intellectual property sharing, that work the tool, the development process, to pull code in, modify, share back rule, so on and so forth. And we hadn't seen that as much in what you all represent, which is not necessarily, you obviously have a service you're providing, but we think much more of this end user, these type of groups being formed. What, in each of your companies, do you have like these policies? Are you building competencies? Is it something to build right into the engineering team? Like, how do you approach open-source in your firms? Yeah, like I'll start over there. So, it's interesting because one of the first things I noticed being here and talking to people, and on day one, I sort of had a little bit of open-source FOMO, maybe? I was like, you know, everyone has these open-source program offices and we don't have that. And part of me is, you know, going and rationalizing like, well, because in our DNA, but then part of me is like, we're probably missing the boat a little bit on like doing it in a structured way. But, you know, we definitely encourage in just the fabric of our engineering culture, obviously using open-source, but contributing as well. And part of it is we want the highest caliber talent working at the company, and we want them to be happy and excited about what they do, and we want them to be part of the open-source community. And normally that's where we find them and we recruit them, so they're naturally inclined to want to participate in that, and then we support it in every level that we can possibly do.  Because we're super secretive and keep it all locked down, right? So we're changing how we think about the value we provide as a company, and it's not our secrets, right? It's what we provide in the platforms that we offer, and there's almost an interesting corollary. As a company, we're opening up our platform, meaning not the people who own all the ticketing inventory, but now we're becoming a platform for a marketplace, essentially. So there's almost this company level open-source mentality that's happening and permeating, so it's, yeah, so the takeaway that I have from this week is to really start investigating, you know, do we need an open-source office to take advantage of some of the work that I'm seeing a lot of folks in the audience do, and put a little more structure and rigor behind it, because we probably can increase our horsepower and velocity and contribute more. Yeah, interesting. How about at heart? So some of the things we do in terms of adoption, so our application is built using Ruby and Rails, so there's a fairly large community of gems, community support around gems that's available. So for anything new that we're looking at, we first hour to look for any gems that we can just adopt. In terms of contributing back into the community, because so much, I mean, literally, I could count on my fingertips of things that are not open-source in our infrastructure. So given that, we sort of make a conscious effort to contribute back into the pool, some of the rigor and process that we've introduced, which has been very interesting, is as part of an engineer's growth ladder, one of the, as they become, as they grow in their career, they need to, there's a leadership aspect, regardless of whether in the management track or not, as an IC, there's a leadership aspect and there's a community aspect, and that community aspect is giving back to the community that you've gained so much benefit from. So that's been helping. Yeah, I think we take a similar approach. In fact, I was thinking, Justin was thinking like, we don't have an office, program office, but we are practicing learning, we are practicing sharing, we encourage, in fact, one of the norms we set for our engineers, like you had talked about, is that learning and sharing are part of your norms. We expect each engineer to adhere to. So you cannot say, I won't share, I won't talk, we expect you to do that as part of exhibiting growth mindset, taking feedback from others and leveraging. So we have this question like, yes, you're doing this problem, but are you leveraging something that exists in a different team? We try to look for that to an extent, as long as it doesn't impede that person's drive to do some things on his own, because there are teams that want to do it and we don't stop that. But then more important, the leadership aspect is are you able to, as you grow as an engineer or individual, are you able to promote these behaviors, learning and sharing and demonstrating? Will you encourage contributions in open source, but we don't have a program office as such, and actually learning from others and how they approach that problem? Yeah, I mean, because the question I have is, what I hear a lot, you heard this from Home Depot yesterday, right? Very traditional company. And I think they said four or five times on stage in their keynote. A, we're hiring. B, we love open source developers. Did we mention we're hiring? We love open source. We're hiring, open source developers are awesome. I mean, clearly that is a huge motivation to let your employees go work in these communities because that's what they want. That motivates them, that helps you and so forth. What are some of the, but then I talked to, let's say, a financial services company that'll say, whoa, we're not, we're regulated, we're not sharing. What are some of the road, can you give some examples of road bumps that you've had in terms of, we're not quite sure how to share. We have white and black lists of licenses or we're not, we don't know how to pick projects. What are things that you struggle with that maybe this community can help you with? So I can speak for us exactly the example that you gave.  They ask for a disclosure on, when we get the InfoSec request, they ask about open source software and sometimes they ask for us to share the list of open source and that list is really, really massive. Do you have a good list? I won't put you into it. We actually do have a good list. Yes, we use this to, we use this gem thanks to the Ruby ecosystem that actually discovers it and also actually very easily picks up as to what the licenses are as well. But yeah, it's a big challenge in terms of not just educating our customers, but also their legal teams and their security consultants that is to the process with which we've gone through in terms of, through which we've gone through in terms of evaluation. We have this constant conversation with our legal.  So several years ago, it was a huge struggle in working with our legal department, but I think the industry is catching up. Yeah, I would say we're in a similar boat. The thing that I think, I guess the biggest unlock for us in that space was starting to educate the folks in the company who manage those risks like our legal, our PR teams like those are the two big ones to get anything done or approved. And the closer they are to understanding the value of being a company that is embracing and adopting and contributing back in an open source community, the more they can help enable us to do things and approve things versus just look at the risk side. Cause there's not a lot of upside when you send an email and say, hey, we're thinking about doing this thing. Can you approve this? And it's just some legal doc, their default is no. Why would I do this? Hey, this is why we're doing this and encouraging this. And then if you get them connected to the financials of it, like, hey, we're trying to recruit just as a basic example, recruiting costs a lot of money. We need top talent to do blah, blah, blah. So if you can somehow tie it to, this is super beneficial and important for us and we need you to help us be an advocate to sign the papers or whatever it needs to happen so that it doesn't get stopped in sort of like email risk and or I don't really know. And definitely in the, I don't know. I've had a lot of those. It's something that should take two days, takes two months because no one's comfortable just putting their name on it because they're confused. But you've been through generations of sort of, OpenStack, the Mesa, to Kubernetes and sort of, what were the, did you experience similar roadbalics? We're like, whoa, we're going to rebase our platform on this thing and legal risk or like, what challenges do you see going through that problem? We actually were fortunate. We did not go, I did not go through the roadblocks in terms of using open source, adopting open source and operating at a larger scale because we actually benefited a lot from that community and we were able to scale, introduce tremendous financial and agility gains for the companies. So that was positive. I think the roadblocks are sort of subtle roadblocks that I have seen in my career in every company I work for because not every engineer is willing to stand up and say, yes, I have this small contribution. I'm going to make it, tell me how to do it. Oftentimes the, there is a reference, oh, now I have to do this. Why do I do this? So that culture, mine shift is still happening, has to, teams are going through that. I think there's a lot more mentoring and this practice of growth mindset needs to continue so that you're sharing and you're encouraged to share, you become more comfortable sharing. A lot of us still have the discomfort, oh, I need to commit. Now it's part of my resume. And is it that they're too busy to say like, ah, you know, you're already, I'm already working so much. Now I got to go commit this thing to a project and they're going to give me a hard time and they might not like my code. Do you experience this a lot? There is that. There is certainly some of that because teams are, in every company I work for, there's a lot more work to do than a number of team, the number of people that have to do the work. I think that is by playing a pit of four. So I've seen, unless you have a dedicated effort to reward teams, to encourage the practice, to show them how to do it, I don't think it's naturally going to happen. I'd love to get your, all three of your advice on, you know, one of the things we said early on this week is how do you, how can you be a really good upstream for this kind of downstream consumption? And one thing I just heard is like, man, if you make it hard for me to go submit patches and you're raking us over the coals all the time or it's an unclear process, probably not going to get that code back and starts to kind of deteriorate. Well, what are things you would advise upstreams to do? So one of the things that's worked really well is, you know, when we started down our Kubernetes journey, one of the things that we did immediately was realized, hey, we do not have the, you know, talent internally to really say that we can operate it at scale production grade. So we partnered with CoreOS and through that partnership, we've jointly built things that were very specific to an enterprise, things like detailed cost and charge back inside of Kubernetes itself, right? So things that probably the upstream doesn't really deal with, but for me, I have to build this stuff back, you know, a million internal users. So we worked with the product teams and we came up with, hey, you know, sketched out what to build and then we jointly build it and then they helped us push it back upstream, those sort of things. And it, they know better, you know, how to get something back upstream than we do or one of an engineer who doesn't do that professionally all the time, but it was just like the support harness that you partner with companies that have a vested interest and it makes it easier for us to jointly solve these problems and they take some of the friction out of it for us. So I thought it's a really good example of how to take a company who's, we have all the problems that, you know, a lot of the upstreams don't deal with. So we have a lot of knowledge and we can offer that and some hands on keyboard horsepower and then they have the knowledge of how to get it upstream. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting because you, you know, in any user driven innovation cycle, the end user requirements are obviously critical to this and you know, a developer, you know, maybe working in isolation isn't going to see the scaling problems and the, you know, that you gave a billing example that, you know, you would, but what you're saying, and I think we all talk about is that having a upstream that has a support ecosystem of organizations that can act as essentially commercial intermediaries to that project is highly valid. Do you look for that media? We don't necessarily look for commercial intermediaries, but we do look for open source software that's well supported and has a community support behind it. But is that supported in a commercial sense and that like others, 10 vendors there or is it like? May or may not. Okay. It depends. So for really large pieces of infrastructure, yes. So that's a backup option, right? We may or may not call upon that commercial, that support infrastructure, but we know that that option exists. But as it pertains to smaller pieces of software like Gems, we don't look for commercial support. We primarily look for, look to make sure that, you know, again, like tying to this previous conversation around security and making sure malicious software doesn't get into our infrastructure is making sure there's a history of changes. There's a good, a fair bit of community support around there, around those Gems and making sure that this is not just something one developer setting somewhere has just shipped.  So it's hybrid for us. Yeah. I think going back to the question you asked, I think what I look for in off stream based on my experience in infrastructure open source projects like Kubernetes, OpenStack and Mesos, I think in the community, we tend to underestimate what it takes to run any software at scale. There is a service aspect that we sort of miss in the way we architect and build systems. I remember when I was doing an OpenStack, the number of, we had about 30 engineers. I remember, I think the number of contributions we made to upstream was handful. Where our time was spent is in actually operating the software at a certain scale and we were increasing the scale systematically month after month after month and that took a lot of work. And I think we tend to underestimate what it takes to run software. And I think operational operability is a fairly complicated task. And that's where I feel that the cloud is winning and open source when you compete on the same terms like the same feature open source versus a cloud provider. The cloud provider is winning because they're able to focus on automation and operability much more than the community is able to and there is that, we have to consider that a lot. I do feel that it's time coming, we're coming to a point where the community probably needs to move up a bit on the stack. Don't try to solve the same problems. Don't try to solve Kubernetes problem. Don't decide to solve infrastructure problems, move up. Then you can create more innovation and let the providers operate the service and they can add more value to us. Yeah, I think one thing that's always been interesting is that there's ethos of scratch your own itch, right? Like if you come to me with a requirement as an open source project, you better come with code, right? And I think Greg, Carl Hartman from the Linux community and Linus and I have had these conversations where years ago, I would say to them, hey, these banks, they're all using Linux and we're not getting to come and give code and scratch their own itch. And surprisingly, these guys saying back to me, we'll just take the requirements. We're just not operating those environments, right? We really want to understand. And so it sounds like just projects that have a healthier way of at least just even hearing you, even if it's not directly with code, it is something that you value there. Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, I get it.  This is something that I think we're just all going to have to deal with and live with and improve. And we're at the beginning of a long journey of how to fix that. What is your perspective on some of the concerns that Patrick raised? Which is, oh my gosh, is this stuff more or less secure and whatnot? What were your perspectives? I think I should touch upon one point. I do agree with the Patrick that I think it's time to move on from whether it's multiplied from the source versus proprietary. I think what I'm seeing as a bigger challenge in corporations is that in the last five, 10 years, we have sort of broken the walls between dev and ops. There's more feedback. There's more awareness of what happens in the site when things go wrong. So that feedback loop helped engineers to build better systems. That's happening very healthy trend, I see that. But when it comes to security, it's not so because teams don't understand what security is doing and security sort of has this glasshouse mentality. We are in ivory tower. We tell you what not to do, but we don't tell you why. We don't educate you. So there is that culture gap a lot and consequently teams don't make mistakes because they don't understand what the risk vectors are. I think that DevSecOps model where it's not just about tools, it's about the culture. How do you incorporate this mentality into your way of thinking and your way of doing. So you're aware of, you make better choices. You teach each other and that's neat. That needs to happen. Yeah, go ahead. So it's an interesting time for security for everyone, right? Because it's now in vogue, it's now a topic, it's now on the daily news. It's a thing that more than it used to be, even though the landscape hasn't changed, we're talking about it now. We are constantly reevaluating our practices, procedures, the culture around security within the company. I'm finding now it's a little easier to reevaluate because usually reevaluate probably means spend more money on it to some level, but now the company puts it as a number one priority. Clearly, at the C suite is securities number one, whatever we need to do to do it correctly, which makes it a lot easier than it was say two years ago. So that's giving us the bandwidth and the resources to really invest in the tools, the teams, put the right policies and procedures in place. So it's a constant evolution, I would say, and we border the different aspects of, securities, everyone's job, but then do you have people that are security in their title and balancing that, right? So you have to have the security team that has security in their title to enable and teach and get the requirements that you expect out of all of your engineers or all of your developers so that they know what to do and they know if they're winning or not. So I would say for us, it's just a constant focus of ensuring that we're continuing to double down. I think similar to what Subu said, I 100% agree. We've sort of broken down the walls between Dev and DevOps, but performance and security are two categories that are still an afterthought, right? So we had hired to have a very sophisticated CICD engine. We don't have, we hardly have any tech op staff, we hardly have, we don't have any QA. We've automated the heck out of our pipeline. We're now starting conversations about not just functionality, but also plugging in tools in the right places to make sure that in our CICD pipeline, we're measuring for performance and security. Today we evaluated in production that our third party software that's running, that's evaluating it, but to what Patrick said, we need to put that in place in our CICD pipeline. What I hear is unanimous consensus here on DevSecOps. I thought we were just talking about DevOps the other day. That was a new thing. There's already it's ruined. One of the dynamics around that is, so I like to say that we DevOps hard over the last like three years or so and when we're delivering product to market at crazy fast speeds compared to what we used to be. But part of that evolution is putting control and autonomy out to the edges, right? To thousands of developers. And then when you start the security conversation, it's usually the mindset is, well, we need to centralize the control. So it's like, where is the control? And when you give autonomy, you have to give accountability responsibility with it. You don't get autonomy without those. And that's where the DevOps stuff got a little off the rails, I think for most companies is here's the autonomy without the rigor behind it. All right, so next year, we are at all week, I've been hearing security is everybody's responsibility. DevSecOps, we have to integrate this in the process. We have to have a culture around this. I mean, next year, let's check in on how much progress we've made on actually doing that. I think that would be an interesting thing in retrospect if we look back on. So I wanna thank all of you for coming and sharing your insights and let's give them a quick round of applause. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.


Hello, and let's talk about Kashmir and the Public Safety Act. This is a law that allows the state to detain people for up to two years without trial. On the night of February 6, just hours before their five-month-long preventive detention was to end, the Ministry of Home Affairs slapped its provisions on two former Chief Ministers of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti and Umar Abdullah. Before we talk to Gautam Navlaka about the latest developments in Kashmir, here is the story so far. On August 5, the Indian government abrogated articles 35A and article 370. Article 370 and 35A had granted Jammu and Kashmir autonomous status. Announcing this decision, the Home Minister Mr. Amit Shah had said that he was correcting a mistake made 70 years ago. The abrogation was passed by two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha and also got the President's nod. The Congress Party had opposed this bill in the Parliament. Recently, on 5 February, the former Chief Minister Umar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti were detained under the controversial Public Safety Act with charges such as glorifying militancy and promoting separatism in Kashmir. A dossier has been prepared on them, in which Mufti has been, in particular, called dangerous. And the dossier also said that she participates in insidious machinations and that she has an usurping nature. It calls her names like Daddy's Girl, Kota Rani, and so on. I quote from the dossier, the subject, meaning Mehbooba Mufti, has a history of making provocative speeches and charged statements leading to incitement of violence on several occasions in her political career. The same dossier says that she's a potential threat to public order in view of the prevalent security scenario. Of course, the dossier also acknowledges that Mufti was a vocal voice against the center's dilution of both the articles 370 and 35A, and that she'd supported unlawful groups like the Jamaat in Kashmir. So the government has also made similar charges against Umar Abdullah, the other former Chief Minister. In today's episode, we will speak with Gautam Navlekhah about the PSA and what this means for the political representation of the people of Kashmir. Gautam, firstly, were you very surprised by the re-imposition of the PSA? And you know, it comes in the context of... Why is it imposed on Kashmir again and again? Well, PSA Public Safety Act has been in operation since 1978. And since 1988, it's used. I mean, when it was brought in, it was supposed to be meant for tackling, timber smuggling and things like that. And that is how it was used. But right from the very beginning, it had been used against political dissidents. But the scale of its use increased enormously since 1990. According to an estimate, in the last 30 years, no less than 17,000 people have been detained under Public Safety Act. So keeping that in mind, it's a handy tool for authorities. Since they picked up, I mean, once they charged Farooq Abdullah with PSA, I think it was just a matter of time before they did the same with Umar Abdullah and Mahmoud Mufti. And with the Prime Minister making on the floor of the parliament, attacking by name Umar Abdullah and Mahmoud Mufti, deriding them, ridiculing them, actually reviling them, where they were not there to defend themselves. It was an act of, it was clearly indicative of what was in the offing as far as these two personalities of two former Chief Ministers were concerned. So this was something they have done. The interesting thing is that the dossier itself, in fact, this is not the first time that the dossier has become an issue. This has been the fate of PSA since it has been, I mean, since it's a routinized manner in which it has been used. The charges which the authority is level against a person on, even on a Prime Office reading, I mean, even just the face of it doesn't make much sense. Why is that? Why does it not? They could be, they could be referring to, for instance, in Mia Kayoom's case, his lawyers have claimed that the charges that have been framed against him, I mean, for the reasons why he has been booked, pertains to something he did or said in 2008 to 2010. We are now in 2020. He was picked up in August 2019. What was it that happened immediately preceding that or to have figured in the dossier? That doesn't happen. It's there referring to that he had been placed under the FIS against him and things earlier. Other important thing, Pragya, that you must keep in mind is that Public Safety Act, although it was enacted by JNK assembly in 1978, August 1978, the remarkable thing is that for 40 years of its operation, no rules have been framed and no standard operating procedure has been laid down for enforcement of Public Safety Act. So it seems to be an arbitrary act, devoid of any rules or any procedure, laid down procedures, which is mandatory under the law and it has been used as often as possible. So whenever the government imposes the PSA, does it have to actually have a justification for it? Does it have to, when there are no rules and how do you decide who gets booked under it? Well, if you go by experience in 2017, out of an estimated 1,004 detentions, this is from April 2016 to December 2017, a study showed that out of 1,004 detention orders that were issued, 998 were approved by the advisory board. Now, it's an interesting history even of an advisory board. Out of them around 941 cases went in appeal to the High Court where they challenged PSA. Remarkably, in 81% of cases, that is 764 cases, the High Court cost the detention orders, which meant that whereas the advisory board upheld all these, the same cases when they were referred to High Court, they were found wanting and in 81% of the cases, they were cost. The other interesting thing Pragya that one has to keep in mind is that while the number that people get picked up and the High Court cautious him, what various reports of, I mean, studies of public safety act shows is that it's a revolving door kind of the thing. So, you get detained, you get booked under PSA, then you move your appeal after the advisory board rejects your and upholds the detention, you move the High Court for cautioning it, High Court cautious it. No sooner the High Court cautious, the same day or the very next day, another new PSA is invoked and the person gets booked under it.  This is exactly like a revolving door. This is exactly what has happened to the two chief ministers in this case. Not just the chief minister, there are many people who have spent more than 20 years under detention without being charged. The remarkable thing is that in Mia Kayoong's case, the High Court judge said that if there is suspicion and apprehension then the court has no mandate to look into that. So, the court has also, I mean, refusing to apply its own mind and look at the detention orders to see whether the grounds mentioned or the dossier that is provided carries something which is above board. So, the court is also abdicating its responsibility by saying that we can't do anything now because if the authorities have this suspicion and apprehension, then we have no reason to question them and therefore it can't be cost. How would people in Kashmir actually view this? It's been months of lockdown. Well, PSA has been used against political dissidents in the last, more than 30 years, I mean since its invocation, but in the last 30 years even more so. And despite the fact that the High Court in so many orders and it's the percentage of, if you go by the numbers of PSA persons who have been charged have been charged, you'll find that in 60 to 70% of the cases when the matter has been referred to the High Court, they have costed it. Which means that in a high, overwhelming number of cases, there are no grounds for detaining a person. And in fact, if there are serious charges, then I think the best way is that you charge that person, prosecute him, let the trial establish his guilt or his innocence and then let the law follow its course. Detention becomes a way of shutting somebody without, I mean without rhyme or reason it seems and keeping them behind bars for months and years together. Indefinitely. Now look at in Omar Abdullah's and Mehboor Mahmoodi's case, they were picked up and detained under section 107 of CRPC. There is a limit beyond which they can't be kept under 107. Just when it was lapsing, the government needed to keep them, they don't have any charge sheet, they don't have any case against them. All they can do is to keep them under detention. Once that course had run its course, they decided that well put them under PSA. Now it depends, right now they are saying that they are a threat to public order. Public order means that under PSA they can be detained for another up to a year. If it's a threat to security of the state, then your period of detention can increase to two years. If this detention is also coming to an end, it's quite likely as it has happened in the case of others that they may invoke threat to security as an argument to keep them again under detention. Going by the dossier, the language used on it, that does seem like. The more important thing is that why is it that the government is taking recourse to detention of political activists and leaders. If they are so confident that the people are with them, that they are happy with the abrogation of 370, this government claims that they are doing everything for the benefit of the people. Instead of being cowards, let them free these activists and political leaders. Because if they are so confident of themselves, you have such a huge deployment of forces. You have access to draconian laws that you can use against anybody in Jammu and Kashmir. There are no rights that exist, no constitutional freedoms. Let these activists and leaders be allowed to be amongst the people and let's see what happens then. You know Gautam, one of the things we see off late especially is two strands. On the one hand you have these draconian measures, on the other hand the government is talking about development, industrialization. So you know these two things, why are they proceeding on a parallel track? They seem so contradictory. Well it seems like it's a cruel joke. You know there is this news item in the Hindu which basically talks about exactly this. That's what I said, it's a cruel joke. Just when you are picking up people, the detention of and the number of people who are under detention is unprecedentedly, it's very high. More than 450 people continue to be in detention and they have no chance, no escape, no hope of coming out. Because judiciary also seems to be abdicating as a responsibility. But at a time like this when nothing is happening, no constitutional freedoms are allowed to the Kashmiris. Everything has been clamped down, no political activity is permitted. Journalists can get picked up for filing reports which are completely normal and above board. I mean without any just news worthy news items they can be picked up. At a time like this to come out and say that we are now going to announce an industrial policy which is going to attract investments. And in that the pride of place is being given to internet, IT based industries. Now the existing IT based industries in Jammu and Kashmir have been knocked down.  Investors who had invested in this or entrepreneurs who had started these enterprises. I have been bankrupted. You come out with a policy which says to outside investors that you're going to be that we are encouraging people to come and invest in IT based units. That they'll be uninterrupted power supply that broadband access would be and transmission of material and data would be without any interruption. It's a joke.  The internet operates at 2G speed. There is no broadband. The white list has only 350 odd websites that are accessible. More than a million including websites of Jammu and Kashmir, Home Department, Raj Bhavan, IT, even these are blacklisted. So my point is when this is happening, power supply today in Kashmir during the winters, there is a lack of power for up to 12 hours. So it's a joke when you tell investors that you're going to have uninterrupted power supply that there will be, you know, IT would be without any interruptions or without any blockage and bands. All of this happening with detentions going on in parallel. Exactly. And this is the cruel reality that Kashmir is going into. So you can talk on the floor of the parliament and claim and boast about a lot of things. Reality doesn't match that. Reality doesn't reveal that fact. Just a simple thing I'd like to end with. Just the fact that a single news item saying that they should be banned on occasion of Afzal Gurus hanging. The same Afzal Gurus hanging now which is a question mark after the arrest of the winters. Right. The government, despite its crackdown and all the control it had, it could not prevent the ban from being successfully enforced. To mark the anniversary. What does it say? That people are not with us. People are not with government of India. Right. They don't approve of government of India's policies. Right. So there are simple ways in which they express their opposition. Right. Thank you, Gautam. Thanks for joining us. We are two months into the Shaheen Bagh protests. The women have shown no sign of giving up their agitation. The Supreme Court has said that the protesters cannot block the roads. Before we discuss this issue, let's take a look at a video from the protest site where people have been sending one lakh postcards to the Supreme Court to ask the court to listen to their plea. This is to the Supreme Court, to the honorable judges, uphold the constitution. We, the people, are counting on you. Don't send me. I'm a citizen of this country and I don't have to prove this to anyone. This country is a part of India. Don't send this country to casteism, religion, or religion. You won't be able to distribute it. The people of India are totally rejected by the Nazis. They are the same president of this nation. India is a part of India. Your government was saying that these people are not mad. You are saying that these people are not mad. These people understand everything.  These people are not mad. So, we have with us Tariq Anwar from NewsClick, who's been reporting from Shaheen Bagh. Welcome, Tariq. Tariq, today the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal on the protest in Shaheen Bagh. Can you give us an update? You're coming straight from there. What happened today? Yes, the petition was filed by two lawyers, Mr. Sahani and Mr. Gurg, who have challenged the earlier Delhi High Court order, which refused to pass any order to the Delhi police for vacating the stretch which has been blocked for the past 50 days. So, saying that it was an SLP, a special leave petition between the division bench of Supreme Court, Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice S.K. Kahl, and the petitioner sought the prayer. The main prayer was before the Supreme Court to pass an order so that the entire stretch of Kalindi Queen Sarita via highway, which is blocked for so many days, can be cleared and the traffic is can be provided to people. But the Supreme Court refused to pass any interim order saying that they can't go ahead without hearing the other side of the argument. When the petitioners insisted that the court must pass an interim order, the court said that protests have been going on for the past 50 days. It can go a bit longer, but they cannot go ahead without listening to the other side and issued a notice to the center and adjourned the matter for February 17. So, this was the case. Two or three important observations were, this was of course oral observation, not part of the order, which was made by the bench, mainly by Justice S.K. Kahl, who said that there cannot be a definite protest in a common area if everybody starts protesting everywhere what will happen. You cannot incriminate people. At the same time, he acknowledged that there is a right to protest and those who are protesting should be provided in an alternative place, a designated area, where they can go and lodge their protest. So, this was oral observation made by the Supreme Court. So, tell me, Tarek, the issue is that we have seen in Delhi that there has been a slowing down of the traffic because ever since the Shaheen Bagh protests started, is there a way to ensure that there can be a protest and the traffic is not blocked? There have been various things have been said about this, that the police has blocked too long a stretch of it is one of the things we keep hearing. The Shaheen Bagh protesters are also, I think, they are not keen to move to any other place because they are rooted in the whole Jamia and Shaheen Bagh are interconnected, organically connected. So, what do you think can be the way out? You've been speaking to people there, what do they really say? See, there is no denial that there is traffic inconvenience because the stretch which is blocked for so many days is being used by around over 3 lakh people every day. It is in fact backbone after no entry ends in the evening that a stretch becomes a hub of business because commercial vehicle pass from there, that stretch connects not only Delhi to UP but also Haryana via Fridabad. So, that is a very important road. But what actually happened? The government tried it best initially when this problem could have been very easily sorted out. When they staged a protest, the government representatives should have come earlier, talked to the protesters, at least they would have taken them into confidence that your problem will be addressed. The government is ready for a negotiation. You please vacate the road, come to negotiation table. But it did not happen from political leadership. What was done? The police was pushed forward to talk to the protesters. We generally don't work in this tense situation. People don't believe police because for people or protesters, police is the real level for them. So, the police was initially used. Again, when the election drew closer, the government used that protest as main election plank. You are talking about the central government. Yes. So, the entire campaign of the Delhi election centered around Shaheen Bagh. And it worked to an extent for the BJP and it encouraged it very well. Currently, when the protest had started initially, see I know what had happened at the time. There was that road is divided by, there are two carriageway. One which is close to Shaheen Bagh, which is towards Shaheen Bagh was blocked and maximum stretch of around 700-800 meters is still blocked. The other carriageway was opened, but initially it was blocked by the police. And the argument was given that it has been done to avoid any towards situation. They cannot allow any vehicle to ply on the other side because there will be a law and order situation. Then how real do you think this apprehension of law and order situation is? Is it a likelihood? It is very convenient for the police. They play with law and order situation argument. They don't need any permission to barge into the Jamiya campus, but they need permission to intervene when genuine campus was being attacked. The police across India don't need permission. They enter houses, they vandalize property in the name of anti-CA protesters. They do whatever they want. They damn care about what the court says. So Tariq now, tell me something. If the protest is moved to some other site, would Shaheen Bagh lose some of its relevance? Are the people willing to move somebody? If you are given a designated site for protest, would it be no test? Because that's very important. That is the problem when you go and talk to people there and ask about an alternative site for the protest. Their first argument is we are being noticed just because we have blocked the road. Simply. Is that actually true? Are they being noticed just for this? Yes, of course. So many protests happen at Jantar Mantar. What happens to them? But it can't be any argument. It can't be a solution should be reached because there is a traffic problem. Additionally, there are so many outlets on one side of the road. Big company outlets are there and they are facing huge loss. The entire one season of winters went so all the shops are closed. So there should be a negotiation between the protesters and the administration, political administration, police administration and we should be find out. And that's what the Supreme Court is trying to do. Did you get that impression? No, it can't be said what the Supreme Court I cannot predict what the Supreme Court is thinking. Supreme Court made it very clear that yes, you have rights, you can protest but you cannot create inconvenience for others who are not taking part in protests. Has any kind of committee or body been set up which would decide what happens next? There are people, there are organizers they should be reached out and there should be a solution for that. Thank you so much, Tariq. So we all know now who did what and said what at the Oscars. What we are most excited about is of course Parasite, the first non-English film to win the top award at the Oscars. My colleague Upasana Hazarika is a major film buff and she's watched the movie. We spoke earlier about what she made of Bong Joon who's offering. Okay, Upasana, welcome. So let's talk about this film which has swept the Oscars this time, Parasite when you've had a chance to see the film. So when you saw it, could you really tell why it's called Parasite? Yeah, I mean the name of the movie is very important because it makes us think who is the Parasite and I think in the movie when we see the movie we see that it's not just one particular class of people who are Parasites but it's all of us who are Parasites dependent, interdependent in a capitalist world where not just the poor family who goes and starts working infiltrate almost, if I can use the word infiltrate the rich family's house but it's also the rich family which is completely dependent on the people who are serving them for their most basic things for their day to day things as well. So one very interesting thing is that even the poorer sections depicted in these three families in the film the two which are not so rich were they able to when the crunch time came were they able to put aside their differences and look at each other as poor? No, that is one thing that even Bong Joon who has also highlighted in some of his interviews is that the solidarity amongst the have-nots is something which is not there in the movie and which he tried to highlight because when it comes to a crucial juncture we see these families turning against each other without giving the spoilers I would not... So there is of course even amongst them there is this thing of looking down upon somebody who they consider as below there And when you see the film did you feel that you could it could relate to every audience because here we have a Korean film and this is a sort of landmark film now for being in the Oscars I think the way the movie has been made and the treatment that it has got it has got an international feeling it's not like you know even though it's based in Korea it's a very specific situation where they are there but then the class divide which they are portraying is something people from all across like you know from different parts of the world can relate to You were telling me about the metro that was very fascinating Yeah so there is this particular scene in this movie where the rich family they are talking about you know a smell of the subway of the people who travel in the subway so they are kind of they talk about it like you know the smell of the poor people very averse to it and they don't they try to remember how it used to smell like travelling in the subway but they are not ready to do it now not ready to do it now so that's one thing which I think people can relate to and other things as well alright thank you so much Upasana that's all we have in today's episode let's talk Catch us live Monday to Friday at 3pm Thanks for watching


Okay gang, we talk about Iran, we talk about Iran. Where do we start? Where do we start? Let's pick up from where Elder God just said, right? Elephant in the room, Muslim in church with a kitchen knife. Okay, now, a lot of people are talking about, we'll talk about the Iran attack, right? But the main topic of conversation now is the Israeli response, because Iran's attack was really retaliation for Israel assassinating Iranians in the Iranian embassy or consulate in Damascus, Syria, which goes against every international rules there is, there is. And Iran had come out to the Security Council and said, as long as the Security Council condemns Israel attacking the Iranian embassy in Damascus, we will not retaliate militarily, right? And the Security Council, because the United States has a veto on it, did not, was not able to condemn Israel's attack on Iran. So Israel attacked Iran directly, right?   That's a declaration of war. But they weren't able to do that condemnation at the UN level, because the United States prevented it from happening, right? So Iran retaliated, and we'll talk about it. Now the question is, one of the main questions is, what's the next step, which is, what's Israel going to do? In my humble opinion, what Israel's going to do may not be a direct attack from Israel to Iran. And if it is, it's going to be a very minor one. What Israel's going to do is going to do the Manchurian candidate phone call, right? Press that button, the MK Ultra, agents, and they're going to mobilize their proxies to attack Iran, to create divide in the Western world, to create a little chaos in the world, because they do have agents around the globe in key areas, right? So what they're going to do, they're going to mobilize ISIS agents that they have in Iraq, Syria, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan. They're going to call in the card that they have with Azerbaijan, right? Because Israel, the only reason Azerbaijan and Turkey were able to displace, commit genocide, ethnic declense, Nagorno-Garabakh region recently, is because of Israeli technology, Israeli weapons, Israeli soldiers, IDF on the ground advising, and most likely directing some of the strikes, right? And Israel didn't do this of the goodness of their heart, because they believe that Nagorno-Garabakh, which is, which was mainly Armenian, people living there, that that should really be belonging to Azerbaijan. No, they did this because that's a card they're playing. Azerbaijan is a proxy of Israel, same with Turkey, Erdogan, but not as obvious, right? So they're going to call in the Azerbaijan card, they may call in the Turkey card, and they're going to put pressure on Iran on multiple fronts, one of them being terrorist attacks in Iran. Another one might be a war flaring up again in Armenians, or by John Regent, attacks in Iraq, in Syria, right? And in my opinion, what they're going to do is they're going to call in some of their proxies, the low IQ red rats, or direct CIA, Mossad, MI6 agents to conduct terror attacks in the Western world, specifically those who are supporting Israel in their genocide, so they can create a divide and still have some kind of base support for Israel, because right now, Israel is a prior nation in the eyes of the global majority, right? Even in the eyes of the majority in Western countries, they regard Israel to be a genocidal society, right? Except for the Christian Zionists, which outnumber Jewish Zionists, Israelis, like, 10 to 1, right?  So that's what's, in my opinion, going to be Israel's response to what happened. They're going to call on the proxies, right? So expect things to flare up, and the market is behaving exactly like that, that they're not, they don't think this is died down. No one thinks this is going to die down, right? Because they're army-getting this, and a lot of different factions that are interested in expanding the wars, right? Continuing the expansion of World War III, okay?


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com doing a quick little cello pack break of a Mosaic basketball. Number 168 with a chance to win a few spots in that Hoops mixer. Big thanks to these folks right here. And now as always, we're gonna do the break itself first. So let's do that. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it, two and a six, eight times for each list. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. After eight times, we've got Oliver down to Matthew for the break. Two and a six, eight times for the teams. One, two, and eighth and final time. After eight, we've got the Dallas Mavericks all the way down to the Los Angeles Clippers. All right, there's the first half of the list right here. Shawn Matic, Palakins. Just a little cello pack break, but we've seen crazy things happen in there. Nick, Grizzlies. All right, no trade windows and stuff like this. Then we'll re-randomize that list and see who gets those mixer spots. That'll be a lot of fun. Got a good chance of doing that tonight too. Check it out. The official printout right here. Ooh, green Ja-Marant, nice. A silver John Collins and a Kendrick Nunn MBA debut. Nice, that goes to the heat. Joel with the heat, with the Kendrick Nunn and the green Ja-Marant goes to Nick. Nick F with that one, nice. Should cover the spot. Pink Camo, Marcus Saul, Steven Adam and Pink Camo Hachimura, nice. That goes to Adam Cupperman and the Wizards. Not bad, not bad for this little cello guy. We'll retail pack, hanger pack, cello pack. All right, let's flip back to the screen right here. From Patrick down to Adam and everybody in between, you've got a shot at those three mixer spots. Name on top, three names on top, after seven, six and a one. Good luck, one, two, seven then final time, after seven. Big thanks to four through 30. I appreciate you getting in. We'll get them next time. Congrats to Nick. Wow, got the Ja-Marant and a mixer spot. Adam Cupperman, you're in too and Sean Matic. There you go, congrats to you three right there. I'm Joel for Jasperjasecasebreaks.com. We'll see you a little bit later tonight for the mixer. Bye-bye.


Welcome to Toffey TV, here is my three things, Everton 3, Bournemouth and Nill, that sounds lovely, sounds lovely to talk about Everton winning a home. Good performance from Everton today has to be said better than Bournemouth at everything. Today's intensity was there and a great result. The first thing I want to talk about is that intensity at home. That is what we're talking about when we're talking about home games. We can look at it and we can talk about XG and we can talk about missed opportunities and things like that. They have been the case that they're all factual but none of that stuff gets you points at home. Our home form is key. We have to win our home games. We have to win more than we won of late. We have opportunities in that but we just haven't had any intensity I don't think in any of the home games. Not like we saw today, I thought. We saw it at Bastonville, where we saw it at Brentford in particular. There was a real intensity about our evidence game getting off the teams and I thought we did that brilliantly today. Clearly they've done some work at Gouldersham Park this week, the team on the pitch. That's good to hear, looking for those small margins, training at Gouldersham. Get used to playing there, get used to what the pitch is, what the grass is like. But when you go off the teams at home like we did today, that's what I want to see from my evidence side at home. That's what we as Evertonians, I feel, really connect with. You could hear the crowd today, they connected with it. Everton went off the Bournemouth. They went after them trying to play off from the back, snapping into tackles. When there was a lull, that's when they come into the game. And I don't think that intensity was there in any of the previous four home games. Yes, we've had chances. Yes, the XG was all right. Yes, we should have more points than we've got. But ultimately, at the end of the day, it only comes down to results first and foremost. And I think if Everton go off the teams like they did today with Bournemouth, they will get far more joy than playing in a contained way. Away from home, I don't have any issue with, I'll turn dice at heaven up, zero issue with it. We can sit in and hit teams on the counter, it's like on board. It's all fans of other clubs away from home, doesn't bother me. But at Gouldersham, we have to be from foot, we have to be intense, we have to get off the teams. It's exactly what we've done today. Yes, the goals have obviously helped with that. We've done today what we haven't done in previous games, and that was a score when we were on top. And particularly the second goal was come at a period when there was, we were building attacks and keeping the pressure on. We ended up putting the ball in the net with a brilliant goal from Jack Harrison. That was great, but that is how it has to be. I said this the other week, they put the market now. That's the market today, that's the template for home games. I get against Manchester City. I'd argue Liverpool, Liverpool has to be intense when you play them, even though they're a top share. Manchester City is a different game. But most other teams at home, we should be playing like that with intensity. Crossers, shots, getting off the teams. If we do that, we'll have far more success than we have been having at home. And the manager can improve his home record. It was the first time today we scored more than one goal at Godderson Park, under him, since he took over. So that's a positive and that's something to build on. We're going into an international break now. So we've got two weeks for the next game on the back of a win, on the back of a good win with goals and with a clean sheet. So that's a good place for Evertonians. And for the manager to be in, to the next phase now, which is we've got three really tough games when we return. So that at the moment, it's about today. And they did really well, not intensity. If they play like that in most home games, they will get positive results in most of the games. Second thing we want to talk about today is James Garnett, who was brilliant. He was my man at the match today. He has put a marker down himself today. Not only was he pressing well and putting tackles in, he's added a goal to it. And he's added another volley which got blocked as well. He's done really well. And he's shown the manager that he can play in there with, you know, om nana. Who I thought was excellent as well at this. He's out to side through injury or illness, I've not heard. The manager's comments on Garnett. I don't know why he was missing. I know he's in the start 11 and then wasn't. But we took that on James Garnett, who I know was in the start 11 anyway, but I took that on. And he's set that precedent. He's putting a good run of form. I still stand by him playing wide. Doesn't work. And I'll stand by that, I'll argue with anyone over that, including the manager. It doesn't work. Doesn't get the best out of him. It doesn't help us with gooderson. The width today of having Jack Harrison on one wing and Dwight McNeill on the other. And then having Michael Enco trying to get on the outside, stretched the game. But James Garnett's much better in field. And he's proved it today. And he's put a market down to address the Garnett again on to get back in. How do we get back in? Gotta move me. I'm here. Hopefully he continues and follows that up. And I do own Garnett. It was brilliant today as well. They very much liked the performance of Aston Villa. Today I thought really on it intense, won the ball back, kept me slightly broke forward the pair of them. But James Garnett in particular was excellent. Real positive display from him today. And hope he can build on it. Really do. He's ever thrown me in like him. Which is great. He's a young lad. Throwing these really good opportunities and nail down that position. Or at least make other players have to play out of their skin to move him out of that side. So that can never be a bad thing. I thought he was excellent today. And the final thing I'm going to talk about today, I could go on about Jack Harrison. He thought it was excellent and gave us the wit and helped us. Absolute shoulder brilliant goal. And he's going to be a big asset to Everton. He's made two and a half points. Jack Harrison, he showed what an important player he could be come for Everton today. But Dom is looking absolutely tremendous at the moment in terms of his fitness. He looks like he believes he can run people again. Great near brilliant hold up play. He's not scored a goal today. He should have. For me, he hit the bar, didn't he, with a header. He hit the bar. He's had one where he was one on one and he's dinked it over the keeper and the second half. I think he's trying to get round the keeper to tap it in and just run away from him. But his hold up play superb. Bringing other people into the game superb. A focal point for the team. Brilliant running in behind. I'm on great running the first. I've passed a couple of people on the byline and fired a ball across. Constant threat all day and shows that as he's getting fitted again, he is a top class striker in the Premier League. He's huge for Everton. He's said it for a while and when people were telling me I was mad to still keep referring to Dominic Alvertloon. This is the Dominic Alvertloon I'm talking about. When he's like this, he's superb. We've got to keep looking after him. I've come off probably 10 minutes earlier than we did today. To be honest, he looked tired. He doesn't put a real shift in on a hot day. He's played a lot of football lately given he hasn't played much. But I thought he was immense today and a real focal point for us. And one that I think we can carry. We can take as a real positive and move forward. He's a starting point for Everton. Beto, come on. I'm not convinced he's a great sub, to be honest. I think he plays at his own pace, which is fine. But he struggled less in games he started in than games he's come on as a sub in. That's something for the manager to keep an eye on. Out of two, Dom is a better player. But Beto is a good option. He's a big lad. He probably should have had himself either a goal or an assist today. He took the option to smash it into the side net. And I think if you're doing that, you've got to score. If you just squeeze it across the box, there's Michael Enco and I think it might have been James Garner. Just a tapping for Fornill. He took it on. He's a striker once his first goal at Gerri. But for Dom, just to have him fit and firing, again, he's brilliant. And I've talked him up a little bit in the last couple of videos over the last few weeks. But he does make such a difference to this team. He's playing with a smile on his face. And to see him, there was one in the second half down the touchline. Just brilliant, absolutely brilliant. The light of the years back. And if we, again, as we move forward and he looks fit and strong, if we keep him in Beto already, and we've had Chimity on the pitch as well today, we'll do okay. We've got to be on the front foot. But if Dom can stay fit, he'll get us goals. So he's got three already. So it's great to see that. There are three and a half points this week.  And why don't you do the same? Thanks for watching. Give the video a thumbs up. Subscribe if you haven't. Have a great weekend. See you later.