Hello, can anyone hear me? Yeah, hi, good morning. OK, great. Just wanted to make sure my audio wasn't messed up. OK, let me put the link in. Hi, I've dialed in. Do once again just doing problems. So. Oh, good. I don't see Matthew on yet, so I'm going to make a new meeting thing on the dock. Give me one second. All right, I've created the notes for today's meeting. I'm going to put the link in the chat. I guess Matthew isn't here today, so I'll facilitate. OK, so if anyone would like to scribe, it would be good if we can get at least one. OK, so today's going to be a working session, and next week is going to be a presentation. We're having the folks from PASAC do a presentation. They are submitting their project for Sandbox, and the project revolves around kind of an abstraction layer for hardware, security, device, sensations, CPM, stuff like that. So that will be next week. So next week is going to be a presentation. So today, it seems like there's only one thing on the agenda, so we're going to do check-ins. And then if you have any other things that you want to discuss, please put them in the meeting notes. So no updates. Seems like we have no updates today. OK, great. If there's anyone that can help scribe, that would be great. All right, I think we're still looking for a scribe. If there's anyone that can volunteer, that would be really helpful. I'll give it a try, but my audio quality is not great. OK. All right, thanks so much again, Ash. As usual. And Justin, thanks. OK. So it looks like there's no updates. So we're going to scribe check-ins here. Checking in from other six, policy, workgroup, NIS, workgroups, so on. Mark, anything from your site? Nope. Put out the call again for anybody interested in analytics as a service and standards around that to support cyber security. We meet every other week on Tuesdays, so ping me if you're interested, but a standing offer until we get this thing launched later. Gotcha. You mentioned that at some point that there'd be something that you guys could present at the group. Yeah, this is a professor at Indiana University. And when they went virtual, he had to go underground playing catch-up. So, Justin, I don't know if that happened to you, but he got too busy at that point. So that's on hold. OK, whenever that's ready again. Yeah, thanks for remembering, though. Yeah, all right. So the only issue that we have today, and this is something that I brought up. Sorry, Brennan, one quick update that we did have our policy workgroup meeting this morning at 8. That's on every other week meeting. And we posted the notes from the quick call, if anyone's interested. And we're just talking about a policy violation CRD for Cuban Indians. Cool. By the way, is there any chance that, I know we haven't done an update with the policy group in the wall as well. Is there a way you could do a couple, maybe 10, 15 minutes, just talk a little bit about one of the next working sessions, to just talk a bit about what's new over there, and then at least keep up to date on that? Yeah, definitely. I think we're going to post an update probably in two weeks to the CRD proposal. And so I think that would be a good time to present to this group when we have that proposal ready. OK, great. Can you also add a link to anything from your meeting, or you mentioned some reference material or something like that. There's a, I left a spot in my scribe notes for a link in case people want to go and follow up. And I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name either. I'm called in so I can't see who's talking. Can you say your name? Oh, this is Robert Ficalia. Oh, OK, OK, great. Yeah, if you can just add a link below for people that want to look at it, that might be helpful. Absolutely, we'll do that. All right, thanks, Robert. OK, so one of the issues that I started working on again is the security landscape iteration too. This is something that Jess and I started working on. And so we made a lot of progress on that. And for those that were not around the first time we talked about this, the main motivation for this was that we found that our general landscape wasn't really that useful in terms of consumption. It was just a list of categories and a list of projects. It didn't really give a lot of information on how to use it. So if you want to take a look at the, this is the current landscape. We've created categories. And we said, OK, here are some of the different technologies within the categories and so on. But a lot of the time, some of these things were like, we had a huge discussion on this, which is identity access control isn't really a specific technology on its own. It's integrated into multiple technologies. How does it, is it a category on its own in the landscape? Or should it be part of, basically, a broad category that spans across every technology? So while back, Jess and I started working on this. So Jess and Keppels and I put in together this kind of first cut on how we wanted to see the security landscape. And the thought was that we would break it down into how to use cognitive security based on the processes. So one of the first things that we tackled was application security. So how do you create and deploy a application in cognitive security? And the idea of that is there would be a process. So we wrote down, basically, here are the steps in which a developer would deploy application. So you write the code. You commit it to GitHub and so on. And the idea is that at every step of the way, you would run into several threats. And we want to map these threats onto the possible preventions or mitigations. And that way, a developer can come in, take a look at how their process maps onto the landscape that we've provided, and then look at the specific technologies that they can use. And on the micro level, the idea is that we will be able to provide the details of the threats. The technologies referencing the technologies and projects and CNCF, they help to mitigate these threats. And on the macro level, we want to be able to provide a process which we can follow, which people can use to maybe bring to their managers or executives to say that, OK, here is kind of like a model that we can follow. So the details are just one aspect of it. One thing that we talked about quite a bit was being able to have kind of like a bird's eye view on this. And so we created the mock-up. And the idea here is, if this loads, OK. Let me try this later. The idea here is that we want to be able to create kind of like an overview of here the various kind of processes that we have in regards to CODNATIVE. And then here, if you're interested in, in this case, building a CODNATIVE app securely, we can look at this process. And the idea is that this will be kind of like exploratory interface. And then if you click on one of these nodes over here, it's going to give you kind of like a more in-depth view of here the threads. Here's how you mitigate them. So this is where we are at currently in the process. We've done the mock-up. And I think the next step here is to kind of create an example for this and create some kind of interactive web page so that we can try this out. And then on top of that, to start building the content for different types of processes. So the next step, I think, for us here is to actually create a website or a mock-up. I have some HTML to do this. I'm going to try and take a stab at this myself, but I am not a web person. So if there's anyone that would like to work on this as well, do leave a comment here, any expertise in this, or whether you're just interested in creating more content and giving feedback on this, that anything would be great. And I think the other issue that we can talk about here is the one-on-key cloak. I guess both of us, if we have a review team ready for this, when would you kind of see the window for doing the review would be? Time. I can get necessary people from team involved shortly. OK. So Justin, do you think that this is the next project in the pipeline for assessments? Or is it? Yeah, I mean, we have a couple of assessments that are sort of stalling, but there's no active assessment going on right now. And I would like to ask Ash to leave the assessment. Are you comfortable with that, Ash? Yeah, sure. I just need some hand-holding at the beginning, but yeah, I'll be happy to lead this one. OK, great. So what I'll do is I'll note that on the documentation here. And really, then the question is, for you, you feel like you're ready to go and start. You've got three other reviewers here that have volunteered to participate. Have any of the other reviewers done a review before or shadowed or anything like that? This would be my first time. OK, that's fine. If someone else has done a review and would be willing to participate, it's not too late to be added in. I think everybody, from what I recall here, all of the reviewers have already gone and put their conflict statements in. So that part's been done. And now I think we're just waiting on the chairs to sign off on reviewer conflicts for the top part to be done. So I'll go ahead and start this process a little bit like I'll make the Slack channel and stuff like that and ask you should probably start taking a look at the document to do the, I guess it's technically clarifying question phase or something we changed the name slightly, but just to start that part of the process. OK, cool. Awesome. All right, so I think that's all that we, at least, that was in the agenda for today. Any other discussion points? Just a quick question about that. So do we need the approval from the chairs before we start looking at that or can we start with the question phase? You can go ahead and start. It's just we don't want that to be a blocking thing. It's just that they need to do that sooner rather than later. And I assume like a bull slot, will it be on Slack? Is that more comfortable once you create the channel? Do you do? Yeah, I try to be, I try to monitor Slack and I don't see it as Slack and I will get project leads to join as well. So either Slack or just via email is fine as well, but we'll try to be to monitor Slack. Yeah, perfect. Do you have access to add everyone's, I don't know if you have added access to change the issue thing at the top. I think you probably do. But if so, can you add in, so I just added you in as a project security lead, can you add everybody else in who should be contacted or I guess I can just invite you to the Slack channel and then you can like add him ever. But okay, sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, that sounds fine. I can add people like I think I can add Krishna and the rest of the viewers on the Slack channel and we can start a conversation there. Does that work? Yeah, I think that sounds good. Okay, I'll ensure that necessary people get out of there soon. Is the channel ready to create it or do we need some other privileges to create on? I guess you don't need privileges to create it. I just created it and I'm adding people now. Okay, all right. I'm struggling with the, what is someone's real name given their GitHub name or what is it by name, but I'm getting there. All right, sounds good. Okay, any other issues that people want to talk about or just like ideas that people have any thoughts if there's anything that you're working on that you would like to share, anything. It's under way here. Just a short question for the surveyors that are doing some of the reviews. Do we call out assurance tasks? For example, if somebody says we have feature acts and the reviewer kicks the tires on multi-factor or something and says, okay, they did that. Is there any call out for assurance tasks to automate CICD pipeline to assure that the features are still working after future revisions or deployments in new environments? So I think the, let me see if I understand this correctly. So we are talking about the security assessment, right? Okay, we do review the aspects of having a process. And right now our benchmark is the CI badging system. I don't think we go into specific details like whether something necessarily is said to be that, but isn't that? I think we generally take the, we trust that the project says what it does. I think if not though, it's just that the scope would just be too big. I know argument with that. I just want to offer the use case of what we've run into in big enterprises. There's potentially conflicts with other tools when you deploy these things in the environment and features that worked when they were being tested in standalone stop working. So having these secondary, if you want to think of them as secondary or subsequent assurance steps available ends up helping you untangle some of these conflicts that occur. In fact, I don't have any official statistics about it, but as many as I would say, as many as a quarter of the issues that arise in a major security shop like ours and a Fortune 500 company might be associated with what version to version conflicts or apparent conflicts between tools which interrupts the telemetry stream. So, cloud native is a forward-leaning organization. It's something to think about. So if the projects come through with those kind of features, it will be a plus if not a necessary feature. I would add that, so I never look at the versioning conflicts that could occur or the interactions for when I looked at OPA, FALCO, but Brandon, just a comment on what you said. I did trace back what was on the CII badging documentation and Ash can attest to this. I did actually go through and at least spot check that if they said they had a notification process that there was some evidence that that process had actually been demonstrated in their change log or in their patch releases or whatnot. But that's about the level. I mean, I consider that fairly superficial, but that was about, there was some, at least the first layer, I tried to scratch the surface of everything presented with CII evidence. Yeah, I understood. Test automation, it's a problem in software engineering writ large, not just in security, but sometimes we have to lead instead of follow. It's a kind of like framework of particular projects that do this well that we can have as a recommendation. Yeah, that's a subject of considerable debate. You know, the DevOps community wants you to build it in the pipeline with an embedded test tool like cucumber or something that, you know, looks at the results from the tool and says, okay, it's still working. And if it fails, it automates notifications to the developer, but other people think that's not sufficient for complex environments where you're running multiple tools because, you know, the CI CD pipeline is a necessarily pristine one with a lot of segregated namespaces and test data and so on. And that's not the environment it gets deployed into. So I don't know that there's a consensus around doing that. So I think we're consigned to sort of a checkbox kind of approach, but, you know, getting, often as you tell the developers, they need to do this, it kind of changes their behavior because they think, oh gee, I got to stand up a dev environment now that provides telemetry to do automated testing feedback. And that changes the way they code in an ideal circumstance. So, but yeah, I don't think there's a standard around this yet that anybody has been satisfied with.  Oh, one more data point having had this conversation yesterday with a fairly large organization. You know, they're trying to figure this out as well. So at that scale, scale, you know, large cloud provider level, discussions around how you trace CI CD execution, specifically for dev and QA environments pre-production to your policy framework, your risk assessment framework, you know, not even scratching down to the level of reversing control on all of those risks. It's, you know, bleeding edge. People are thinking about it, but no one has a defined or even standard framework or tooling for that. This sounds like it could be an addition to the security landscape application creation on development process that Justin Capilson and I are looking at. Yeah, I think I could share, yeah, I could do a short deck on this at some future meeting if you like to stand up kind of the approaches that we've seen and some of them that we tried. Again, I don't think the result is super compelling, but we do, we have seen, for example, embedding security people in the Agile teams to get the assurance tasks built into the sprints. That works for the teams that operate that way, but also it depends on the kind of security feature that it is. Some of them are just are not amenable to that. Also there's the sort of high profile or high privileged access problem of, you know, what level of security, you know, in an RBAC kind of framework do you need to have to run the test in and is that compatible with the one that you find yourself running in production? And if not, how does that look? Then there's the data problem of getting representative data to exercise the thing. That's similar to the one you run with dynamic testing, people would say, why doesn't CNCF do dynamic tests with commercial tools to kick the tires on the products? And I don't know if you do that or not, but that's hard to do too, even if you have pretty good tooling around it. So I just wanted to comment on that. This was something that I brought up when we did the Harbor review. And I had suggested that, you know, because a lot of the artifacts are containers and images, et cetera, you know, at least why don't we, as we, one of the, I don't know, considerations, if you will, should have been like a complete reposcan of all the images, et cetera. And the response I got was, we don't want to be too prescriptive from that standpoint. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, but the response that was given was, we don't want to be too prescriptive. We don't want that to be a gate, as well as the fact that in the case of Harbor, we had actually, they had actually done security testing, tent testing two, three times from different organizations at different points in the whole process. So I, and personally I'm all for being a little bit more prescriptive to say, hey, as security, you know, can we have the opportunity and should we start instilling these kinds of capabilities? And I think Mark to your point, I think some tools exist. It's very low hanging. And we have the opportunity to define that and bring it in as we perform these security assessments. But at the same time, I think Dan, I just paraphrase and I'm probably gonna butcher it, but I think we just want to perform the assessment, but I forget the right term, his verbiage, but it's there in the documentation. But I think we don't want to be gators. I think that's the overarching position, I believe. I would like to chime in here a sec. I think that there's a real like danger or risk if we start to go too far a field there. The concern is most of us don't do pen, like pen testing and these like detailed security audits regularly. And the firms and groups that do this well, it's more than obviously just running tools and reporting back and looking at real low hanging fruit. So Harbor's been through something like three different real security audits, including one by cure 53, which was very detailed. And so I feel like starting to do things that have us run tools on code basis starts to make us look like a really bad audit. And I think we're better off looking like a really good assessment than a really bad, than a good assessment and a really bad audit. So if we were going to build that capacity, I think we would need to get trail of bits for cure 53 or some other group like that to partner with us. And then for us to do some kind of like combined assessment audit, but I definitely don't feel like, just to use an example here, like I kind of just tapped Ash on the shoulder and said, hey, please leave this assessment. And I have some degree of comfort from that because of the great job he did on the other side of this on the recipient side from the OPA thing. The other reviewers on the assessment, I don't really know. I don't know that I've interacted with in any great detail before. And so for us, like, for me to just say, oh yeah, now you guys go like do what's basically a lightweight audit is I think scary. It's already mildly scary to do the assessment part like this, but there's some degree of comfort with having worked with Ash. But I think the further we go in this, the harder it's gonna be to get qualified people and the worse our work product will be. Actually, I agree. I think the key words from what you mentioned to me for me was an audit versus an assessment. An audit is far more, you know, greater in depth and provides obviously far more introspection as opposed to an assessment. And given that these are assessments, I think what we are performing right now is, is suitable, at least correct me if I'm wrong. It does seem like this version testing stuff is also kind of questionable whether it's on the borderline or the project responsibility or whatever you're integrating with because usually the projects can be used in more than one way. And I don't know whether it's really on the oneness of the project itself to maintain all integrity integration compatibility. Yeah, I would say, you know, I look at the assessments as prospective whereas audits are retrospective. So I would say if in the assessment process, we thought, you know, there was a consensus around that there's interactions and version control and all that was a key element of the risk model for that particular project. I'm not, I don't have a hypothetical where that may be true or false, but if for whatever reason the consensus was that that should be done, I don't think that the assessment should, to your point Justin, I don't think just that we should do that work with tools and the specific output. I think the assessment recommendation would be that that should be done by the project at some future time to address that risk. Yeah, these are all good points. And you know, some of this I think is nudging, not auditing. And I think there's a useful distinction to be made here between software engineering practices and the extent to which they become ubiquitous. And in our organization, and you know, I'm in a fairly narrow world of dealing with DevOps adoption and standardization. And that, you know, maybe doesn't reflect the whole world very well, but the Jenkins and the Jenkins-like model for co-development is so ubiquitous outside of security that to not have that built into part of the assessment seems like a miss. Well, we do have a spot assessment as part of like make sure it's that kind of do a certain level of like surface level checking. I'm not sure what you would mean in that case. Like in the self-assessment, would we have additional question about like the types of integration tests that you have? I don't know what we could ask as a broad question. And the other thing is, I mean, quite a few of the things that we have around process come from the CII staff. And I think it would be worth talking to them about potentially adding things, but I think that's been a, I think the CII badges has been very helpful for in terms of looking at materiality of process and projects. And I think encouraging people to go along that path, which we already have some requirements around and CNCF and things. And we've talked to projects about, I think is a good way of approaching that. Yeah, well, maybe I'm sorry I brought it up. It's a good morning. You know, the easy example to use is if you take encryption, you know, because we're, I'm dealing in PCI settings, you know, we wanna make sure that the encryption still works at the other end. So, you know, you can check it at a point in time, you can, but you can also have it checked to see whether the encryption occurred using an automated task. That's got a lot of value beyond the claim that there's encryption happening in the product, you know, in a certain path where there's data in motion or even for data at rest as well. So, it probably depends on the use case and for a product that's, you know, as mature as Harbor was, you know, and has already been through a lot of testing, it seems kind of silly. But on the other hand, if you look at a mature product like Prometheus, which is embedded in a lot of other products and there's a lot of dependency on the robustness of certain features of that tool, you know, I would feel safer if I had a pipeline that was doing builds that was doing assurance testing on security features Prometheus at the same time. This sounds like a kind of, I think the suggestions are good and it seems like for specific cases like you talked about, like for crypto, there are certifications that can be done, right? And I think that's generally how these are enforced is that there's a specification and then you can get certified by somebody. I think this would be good scope for kind of like if we were to do like a white paper or as part of the recommendations. But I think definitely we can be kept in mind for assessments if a reviewer thinks that, okay, this is a project which is used at a certain production level standard and we can make the recommendation to the CNCF that, okay, perhaps this project should, you know, spend some money and that this project will choose a certain level of certification, but it seems, like I said, very case-by-case dependent. Yeah, well, and just to extend your hypothetical, we're running, I mean, and this may be germane to the Parsec discussion because in hardware environments, especially certification for payment and whatnot, that is exactly what happens. You have to recertify if your firmware changes or revs. And so, you know, that might be a special case where, you know, version controls is far more relevant to the risk model. It's not, it doesn't really fit into your Jenkins software CICD case mark, but that may be a case where the assessment says, you know, you really ought to be doing things, every version rev to retest or recertify or whatnot. But again, I would say that the assessment should make that recommendation based on a particular risk, not necessarily perform that certification. Right, understood. Why do you put this on too? I agree, that's not a bad idea. Yeah, I see the value in this. I think maybe we can kind of like add it as a question in the self-assessment to be like, okay, is the project a lot skill enough that it requires a certain level of certification? You know, it's also the ecosystems evolving with a lot of dependencies. And, you know, that's for those of us that are adopting some of these tools directly or indirectly through our tools, it's a cause for some quite insecurities or anxieties. You mean you wanna sleep well at night? Yeah, there's that. I don't know why I joined this field. It seems orthogonal to good sleep. All right, great. Thanks for bringing this up. This was a good discussion. Yeah, thanks Brandon. All right. So before we close out, we have Justin Cormac. Do you wanna give some comments announcements? Yeah, I just wanted to say that the public comment period for the SpiffySpy incubation is now open. So please comment on the mailing list. There's actually accidentally two threads, either of them will do. But really thanks for everyone who outwork on the assessment and another due diligence work in this group for SpiffySpy. It was really helpful and thorough. And so that was really, really good work and very helpful. Thanks very much. So I noticed on the thread before, maybe I misinterpreted this, but there were a lot of people that were just sort of saying plus one to a lot of the threads without really adding any value. And I think someone at some point was like, stop just saying plus one, right? Is it valuable for us to weigh in and say, yeah, we've really done a thorough look at this and it's a really strong security project. Is that useful to say in that thread? Cause I've been kind of loathed to just weigh in and say that about SpiffySpy or to comment on Harbor or things like that because of it. Yeah, I think it, I think, yeah. I think a comment that's got, that isn't just plus one is actually substantive and in real sentences is valuable. I've said the public comment pairs recently have been on the actual main list have been totally at the one for Helm. No one said anything at all, which was kind of weird. So I think that, yeah, supportive comments that are actually have substantive are great or obviously unsupposive comments if people like actually have an issue that's not been addressed at this point, but yeah, I think it's good to comment. So question about the public comment stuff. So I'm, you know, my organization's not a CNCF member, so I'm sort of lurker in that respect. This is an open meeting regarding those public comment or is that truly public or is? Yes, that's truly public. Yeah, yeah. I mean, from my point of view, I think that, you know, Spitfire has done everything that you could expect a sandbox project to do and I'm really, you know, they've got integrated in lots of different places and having those sort of conversations with other projects and the way we'd like to encourage. So I think it's been a very positive, you know, I think it's very positive for them to move into incubation. I agree, but also I just want to point out, I don't think they've actually completed their assessment, have they, the assessment process? So they've completed the assessment process. The only step that we don't have the check mark on is the optional presentation to the TOC, which I don't think we've got the request for that and also because I think since you've done that presentation before, I don't think there has been that request coming in yet. I see, and also somehow the sign-off by the chairs hasn't happened. So should I move this to completed or anyway, I'll flag the chairs and we'll see. Yeah, sounds good. Yeah, but in terms of content and everything else, it's everything set. Okay, so if we don't have any other topics, then we can wrap up for today and we will have the PASAC presentation next week. That's good, be safe everybody. All right, thank you everyone. Thank you.


The Supreme Court has restrained the Attorney General of the Federation, the Emo State Attorney General, and others from taking any further steps in relation to the boundary dispute between rivers and Emo State that touches on the ownership of the Akri and Embedded Oil wells. The apex courts in a chamber sitting on Wednesday granted the order contained in an expert emotion filed by Emmanuel Ocala, S.A.N. for the Attorney General of River State. The court specifically made an interim order restraining the first and second defendants and their agents, including the Revenue Mobilization Allocation, the Fiscal Commission and the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation from giving effect to the letter from the Office of the Chairman of ARMA FC.


So, what kind of pellet gun do you have there? This pellet gun is an American classic model 1377. Great. How does it work? So it's a 1.77 caliber pellet gun To load it open up this bolt handle here Press it back and that'll cock it open You would place one pellet right there with the flat end forward and you have to push it into the Into the chamber or does it? Rest it into that. Okay Then close that and lock this bolt down to pump it pull this down Bring it all the way back and you can repeat that one pump will give you a really low power shot Three pumps is usually what you would want to use and I think you can go up to five to ten pumps on So it wouldn't exceed ten pumps. Okay. Now if you pump it just once is it safe to shoot it at other people then? Absolutely not. Okay. Well, thank you very much Tony and then just so you know the safety is right here behind the trigger guard. Oh wonderful And you'll be ready to shoot. All right. Thank you


OK. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk here. I'll talk about this FETIFIL theory or LASHA structure. Let me first review and second what is planned down to the theory of the early universe. So I think ideally experiment of those which led to cross theoretical thresholds. For example, LHC crossed the TV threshold so that any result for LHC is changing the theory because we crossed something very important threshold and, therefore, something whatever comes from LHC is interesting for us. Planck actually crossed the theoretical threshold of the tilt, which was supposed to be about percent level. In fact, we moved from the double map which barely touched the threshold to a very strong detection of the tilt. Now, in inflation, new physics, a case like the scale of the Hubble scale during inflation over the scale of new physics in square, absence of new physics, for example, means that the scale must be larger than something. With the blue map, we knew that there was a minimal scale and now we moved, since the minimal scale just by factor 3, because Planck improved the number of modes with respect to the blue map by factor 3. Now, given the absence of any nearby threshold for the new physics, this is not much. So Planck was a great experiment, as we just heard, but its amount of information is not good enough to change the theory in the absence of a discovery. So, on the theory side, little has changed with Planck. But cosmology, after Planck, has radically changed. Because in the last three decades, from the beginning of experimental cosmology, tremendous progress has been made through the observation of the primordial fluctuations. We have probably made statistical distribution cosmology and therefore in order to increase our knowledge, which are the primordial fluctuations, therefore in order to increase our knowledge of inflation, we need more modes, because the error bar on everything goes like one over the square root of the number of modes. So cosmology is really like a luminosity experiment. It's not an high energy experiment. We need a lot, a lot larger luminosity. And Planck has just observed practically all the modes that are not dominated by the structure from the CMB. And then what we do? Unless we are lucky, for example, we get a bit more detection, something that is not guaranteed, but we will know for three decades the more it is over. It is not going to come a big improvement any longer. The only way to find new modes and so to shrink error bars relevantly is understanding large structures, which are the next big experiment in the field, and we are compelled to understand them. And I don't think now we understand them so well. In fact, the next big experiments in Europe or in the US or even in South Africa are large structure surveys that map the distributional galaxy in the sky. The distributional galaxy in the sky is nothing but the time evolution of the fluctuation that we see in the CMB all the way to the present time. Now, the number of modes that are available, or cosmological modes, primordial modes that are available to this service goes like the maximum number that we can access over the minimum number to the power cube. Now, the minimum number is the longest scale provided by these detectors. Basically, it's the Hubble scale, which it's hard to change. However, the shortest scale is how much we understand the short distances, which you can see are affected by non-linearities, gravitational non-linearities. But if you understand them, we can gain a lot of number of modes. So we need to understand short distances because there is a lot of treasure there. And this is a bit like passing from a leptonic to a hydronic collider in particle physics. It's much more dirty, but potentially much more powerful. So the 50-year relationship structure is a well-defined perturbation theory that tries to understand the cluster of the Darmetta working out from the long wavelength point of regime where if you look at the universe along wavelength, the universe is very, very smooth. And as we go to short and short wavelength at about 10 megaparsec or so, the universe has clusters and so it's very homogeneous. So it's very tempting to, and it was tried for many years, to develop a perturbation theory that was starting the physics expanding in delta rover rho along distances. Now, the program I just mentioned will achieve the following result. If this is some aerobars of something that we think we can do now, with this program we think roughly speed we can do something like this. This is preliminary, but the dot is very small. So if this holds and this program it just started, so many things are still to be proven. This is a revolution of our expectation. It really changes what we think we can do. Also, useful or not, the theory that I'm going to present should be thought as the correct theory of the long wavelength, long distance universe. For example, when we try to describe water, waves in water, we don't say that the universe is the water is a lot of H2O particles. We use the Navier-Stokes equation, which is simple. Similarly, the universe and long distance is the system I'm going to present now. This is not the way normally things are done in cosmology. The standard approach is based on numerics and is just using large body simulation where we put millions of particles and we solve numerically. This is like trying to explain wave of the sea by doing simulation of the collision of molecules in water. Clearly, it is interesting, but it is not very easy to manage. In fact, the success has been tremendous, but also limited. In fact, even though, at least maybe in principle, we can do the simulations, the simulations are very slow and have limitations. For example, we cannot simulate the star formation physics, which affects the formation of the structure. Also, for Darmetta, which at least in principle we are able to simulate, it is very hard to get 1% precision simply because the code is very slow. In fact, the theory that I'm going to present is more precise in long distances than the simulations. As a proof of this fact, the best experiment we are now, which is called Sloan Digital Sky Survey, stop analyzing the data in some long wavelength simply because the theory doesn't have control beyond this one. So it's not data, it's the theory that stops in the analysis. I think also intellectually, so even though they have simulations for 10 years, apparently they was not enough. And also intellectually, as I said, a simpler description should be possible when the physics is simple. So let's build this effectively theory. Let me just give you two quick ideas about that. Remember that the electric materials, the electric materials are very complex systems, but if you are interested in propagation of light, arm scales much longer than the atomic distance, it's enough to parametrize the material with some gross characteristics, like the dipole induced by an electric field, which is proportional to the so-called polarizability. And then we do this kind of construction and we are led to solve for wave propagating in the electric material, we solve Maxwell's electric equations. We do not solve vacuum Maxwell's equation with 1024 atoms. There is a radical simplification. Now in other languages, the electric is nothing but the effective theory of composite objects subject to the long range force of electromagnetism. Now there are two long range forces in the universe. One is the electromagnetism and the other is GR. And there are composite objects affected by generativity, which we call galaxies. So if you replace the electric with galaxies, you get the universe, and GR, electromagnetism with GR, you get the universe and this is nothing but the effective theory I'm going to build. Another intuition for the particle physics-oriented part of the audience is to remind ourselves how the QCD Karala Granja works. The Karala Granja described the physics of pi in between energy over m pi and 4 pi f pi. And described the physics in expansion in energy over 4 pi f pi. If we go to very low energy, the physics is very weakly coupled, and as we put i, i, i to 1 gv, at some point the physics becomes quantum strong coupling. Now the universe is very similar. If you look at very, very long distances, the perturbations as I showed are very homogeneous, are about 10 to minus 5, very small. But as you go all the way to short distances, we get clusters, galaxies cluster, so the physics is strong, perturbations are strong. So the physics is described by energy where long distances perturbations are small and then we build up to some non-linear scale, which is about 10 mega parts, where the physics is strongly coupled and at a non-linear level. Now, so these are to give some intuition. Let's immediately construct this effective theory. Now in the very, the essential definition of the theory we are trying to describe is the description of point like particles. Each particle is q1, q2, qn and it will have a position q1, q2, q3 and they move under the force of gravity and under gravity the cluster density in one position is the sum of all the particles q1, qn all the particles that ended up in position x and when they cluster the source gravity from Newton equation. Now we need to solve this system but we are not going to solve it exactly on short distances shorter than a non-linear scale because on those distances we cannot have analytic control. So solving this equation is not correct because we are not going to solve for scales shorter than 10 mega parts so assuming that the particles were point like it was wrong for our point of view we should assume that the particles have an extension whose typical size is 10 mega parts which is the non-linear scale and therefore this particle with an extension have for example quadruple which affects how they move under gravitational force because they can fill the total tensor of gravity. Also this particle will cluster so there will be a number of density but also since they cluster they carry each one a quadruple there will be a quadruple like a space density which is the sum of the quadruple of all the particles that are given in location x. The way this particle stores gravity is not just so laplacian of phi is not just how many particles are there but also how much energy each one carried through this quadruple and so on so forth. This is similar to what we have for in electrostatic materials where energy in an electric field is q times v but also the dipole dot the electric field. Now these are the questions we want to solve. Now yet another derivation of these equations is the following. In the history of the universe Darmettar moved for a Hubble time and since he moved very very slowly it only traveled a distance which is 10 to the minus 3 Hubble which is 10 mega parts. So it's pretty clear that the system is described by a fluid-like system with a mean free path over the 10 mega parts. There are a few subtels here because the particles do not interact so the mean free path is actually infinite but if I skip subtleties the fact that there is this scale which is 10 mega parts and the fact that there is interaction of the conserved matter and momentum tell us that the system will take a fluid-like equation so satisfy some fluid-like equation for the long wavelength fluctuation this is a metal conservation this is momentum conservation but short distance physics affects the dynamics in long distance entering through an effective stress tensor which is a very simple form this fatty stress tensor due to short distance physics is basically the sum very intuitively or the kinetic and the potential gravitational potential energy of the short distance physics a galaxy from far away looks like an object which has a mass given by the mass energy of the planets and the binding energy that they have so this is quite intuitive but this is not quite an effective theory because you can see that to solve this equation you need to know what this is and the point of this effective theory is that we cannot describe the short wavelength dynamics because the nonlinearities are very, very big however if we are interested on wavelength much, much longer than the nonlinear scale on a given wavelength under a given wavelength kind of independently evolving so whatever I get from this stress tensor on a given realization for a given background of the long mode is more or less what we get on average so I can take the expectation value of the stress tensor of the short modes for a given long wavelength configuration and write down everything that it can depend on the long wavelength mode for example there is a zero order pressure there is some speed of sound some viscosity, some squared over density, and so on so forth once we substitute this expression here now this equation contains all the long wavelength fluctuations and these long wavelength fluctuations are small delta over rho is goes like a k over k nonlinear is small a long wavelength so by staying a long wavelength we can tell, we can even though here there is an infinite series each term is smaller than the next one is bigger than the next one so I can tronkate the series and at a given order in k over k nonlinear is a equation in filter this is called integrating out what we did now is just integrating out the galaxies now there is a subtlety for the aficionados now two things for the aficionados first is that the fatty field theory is not local in time now when we build a fatty field theory we integrate out we get a locally space and time field theory if there is an hierarchy between the modes we are integrating out now on space we are ok because the universe is much longer than the galaxies which we are integrating out so we obtain a locally space field theory however the time scale that takes two galaxies to go around in a cluster is about an upload time which is the same time scale that the long wavelength mode is Hubble is the scale of the universe so the fatty theory that we are going to get is not really fluid because it's actually no locally in time it's locally space but no locally in time so and there is something here for the technical oriented people that tells that this is not a disaster for the theory it just complicates it a bit makes it interesting another interesting fact is that this theory has a normalization theorem now a few years ago people was actually wondering if the universe made of the metal collapsed is very linear on short scales can create an effective equation of state for the long wavelength universe that curve acceleration even without any cosmological constant we can answer this question because even before taking the expectation value of what the short modes do on average, on a given long wavelength fluctuation we can look at what the stress tensor was and as I said before the energy of the short modes a lot distance looks like the sum of the mass of the kinetic energy or the short modes the special part which is the pressure is actually 2 times the kinetic energy plus the gravitational potential energy and this combination 2 times the kinetic plus the potential energy is just the quantity that for viralized structure becomes zero so this tells that as soon as the structure collapses they use an effective pressure a long distance but this effective pressure stops being generated and as soon as the short modes are realized this is very intuitive that the galaxy going around another galaxy very fast a long distance should just look like a set of one particle but we see this in the question and this is important because first of all kills any possible back reaction for short distance dynamics but notice that this is a non-renormalization theorem why? the fact that short distance modes affect the long distance theory as the coefficients of some operators is what we call the coupling the fact that above a certain energy scale which is the viralization scale they do not affect any longer the coefficients of the low energy theory it is a non-renormalization theorem it is like in SUSE above the SUSE scale we don't renormalize anymore the coupling cost this is even more interesting than SUSE because this is a non-perturbative theorem viralization is a non-perturbative effect so you cannot be seen in perturbation theory it just happens non-perturbatively how do we do perturbation theories with this effective theory? ok, as I said we should solve these equations which are just fashioned along with the perturbations and the perturbations are all small so we iterate the solution of these non-linear equations we get the linear solution then the second of the solution will be some gris function times our source non-linear solutions evaluated on the lower-order solutions for example a quadratic level the quadratic order solution will be some convolution of the linear order solutions now when we square to get to ask what this typical size of the two-point function of these fluctuations by moment of conservation there is a convolution integral which can be represented as a Feynman diagram a loop where the short modes go all the way to infinity and because the product of two short wavelength modes can become a long mode this is the diagrammatic way of saying that short distance physics affect long distance physics and this is a Feynman diagram because Feynman diagram has nothing to do with quantum field theory just to do with field theory now when you compute this diagram you find that the result is actually divergent you get the first term which is infinite and we have to cut it off plus you get something finite now the fact that we get infinite result is that we did the calculation wrong the reason why we did the calculation wrong is because we trusted these equations where we could not trust them any longer a very short distance is the universe is galaxies, is cluster, is not a fluid so we should... we did a mistake but the fact... the way short distance physics affect long distance physics is through this stress tensor which means that the fatty stress tensor should be able to correct any mistake I do from my theory and give me the right result in fact if you insert the fatty stress tensor in the two point function you find that it contributes exactly in this way to the two point function which is the same functional form as this term so by choosing this combination we can say that the one loop expression plus the counter term give something finite and the something finite is smaller than the linear power spectrum one by a power of k over k no linear much smaller than one because in theory spanning k over k no linear much less than one this is what in quantum field theory we learn renormalization, it just is nothing fancy we just redid it when you see that at each order after renormalization the theory goes like k over k no linear to the L so smaller and smaller and smaller this is the crucial difference with all the former approaches that were tried before because renormalize, then you get lambda to the L and the result is always larger large now this that since the theory is very norativistic there are some non-analytic terms in the result like a cube p o k that is non-analytic and therefore is not degenerate with any counter term and so it is calculable in the fatty theory cannot be, it is not degenerate with any counter term this is analogous to the beta function in relativistic quantum field theory which are the only calculable quantity can be computed in the fatty theory because it is also an analytic but in the theory norativistic the structure is richer now when we expand in these parameters much less than one, we are secretly expanding in two parameters we are solving how some region of space can move around and gets deformed by the nearby forces so there is an effect proportion to the tidal forces of modes to nearby modes and also there is another parameter which is how much the mode has been put around moved around now if the universe had no scale it would be all these parameters would scale the same but in the universe we have some scales like the body and acoustic oscillation that was mentioned before briefly and actually one can find that the parameter associated to how much things are moved around which we are naturally telling or responding on it's big IR effect dominated by the long wavelength fluctuations actually it can be resumed and it's been done so bottom line is that in the current universe after IR resummation so that one is not expanding in the displacement of the particles and after renormalization each loop in perturbation theory goes like the tidal forces to the L so this resummation is very similar to the soft photons in QID let me just go quickly through the results now this is the result of the calculation this is the ratio of the power spectrum predicted by the theory over some nonlinear power spectrum that we take from simulations you can see that getting one is good because you agree with the linear data and notice that this is a super precise plot we are talking about high precision until one year or two years ago the normal plots here were log-log plots but if you want to do better than Planck we better do these plots and not log-log plots now this is linear theory that fails at this scale and this is the former theory all former theories are more or less failed here at point of five instead this is the fact it is linear one loop and two loop you see that order by order we improve also we can estimate the theory error and we can see that more or less we fail where we should now when we do the two loop calculation we want to do a bit more careful that is in one loop there is a counter-term that enters which is the speed of sound of the universe now when we go to loops there are additional counter-term that enters for example the quadratic dependence of the stress tensor on the tau a j all higher derivative it helps very much like in the Karala grande one can check if these terms are important but computing physics that we don't understand induces this term this can be estimated by computing the loops of the theory with two cut-offs for example we lambda equal to mega-parsec which is for us a very high energy scale and maybe five actually infinity doesn't matter the result if you just do these two cut-offs of the loop the two loops are very different but all the cut-off dependence that is manifested by the fact that the loops are different so by adding these counter terms that makes them the ratio these two result identical this gives us an indication how much these terms are generated by the UV and actually we concluded that in the two loop calculation we need to include them after you include them the two loop calculation fails at about 0.4 h inverse mega-parsec which is for us a very high energy scale our analogous of 14 TV for the hc and 16 TV even better this is a very high precision and it's very good because it means that there is a huge gain with respect to all former theories that were failing more or less here remember that the number of modes goes like the cube of this gain in theory so we'll talk about a factor of a thousand more modes available now when we do this calculation we are adding three counter terms and the least irrelevant one but the least irrelevant one is this one which is the speed of sound of the universe now this speed of sound of the universe is an emergent phenomenon that is not intrinsic in the UV theory the UV theory is harder matter particles they don't have a speed of sound they are particles just freestreaming it's an emergent one now we can solve for this theory the speed of sound of the universe a short distance, we know how to solve it we just do small embody simulation so we can run a small embody simulation we can extract this parameter and see so that we don't need to fit it to the data but we can measure directly so this is the analogos in QCD Karala Granja for example we can measure f pi from lattice QCD by measuring q bar q and analogos here we can measure this speed of sound of the universe in the UV theory by using the particles it's velocity, it's potential energy very complicated formulas for this speed of sound so what we did we took a region of a small embody simulation and defined as a fatty stress tensor of the particle using the UV degree of freedom and we found this number here now we changed the box size we find this other number here the reason why these two numbers are different is that as I said the fatty stress tensor encapsulates all the information on how short distance physics so if I have defined a stress tensor energy scale the theory at long distances must be done with the cutoff because a factor of shorter modes is already encoded so then if I change the size of the box it's how much it changes the loop factor in the theory so the brown curve here is how much the loop factor changes as I change the scale and you can see it goes perfectly through the data so this is a fantastic check in fact we just rediscovered running so running is not fancy as this and this is actually lattice running because it's a lattice computation and the number that we get actually agrees with the number that we get by fitting to the data the long wavelength data so this number in principle doesn't need to be measured we can measure the embody simulation just use it directly and check out the theory so the formulas are very complicated and you get very tired but then you realize that the number that you are getting for this speed of sound is actually the same as you get for chocolate syrup and this is for us was a very important result because it told us that we were on the right path I mean we like chocolate so we went fine, we continue then at least when you are tired you find this funny so we found it very funny now the fact that this is a theory and not a model means that these counter temps enter the same counter temps in many many observables for example we computed the free point function which is a very rich function of many variables, free variables we computed the momentum to point function which is a different function of one variable the vorticity spectrum everything works as it should so this seems to be the correct theory now this is the correct theory so far I focus on that matter now as the matter clumps the barions follow and at some point stars get formed and they explode and they hit the barions, they don't hit the matter now due to the fact that stars happens on very very short scales this star formation physics cannot be simulated, it's out of the question that we can ever be simulated but for the fact that theory is very simple to describe these effects because the main intuition that drove the formulation of this effective theory is the fact that in the history of of the universe the matter moved only about 10 megaparsec and therefore it's an effective fluid like system not local in times and subtlety but it's an effective fluid like system with the mean free path over the one over kano linea now when the stars explode let's think about the barions when the stars explode the barions get heated but they don't move around so in the history of the universe there will be a parsec and therefore there will be another effective fluid fluid like system with the same mean free path and the same cutoff so the universe with the codal meta plus barion is an effective theory with two species and there is a stress sense of four barions which is it has the gravitational induced speed of sound but also the star formation induces speed of sound that's why we call this star once you have the theory in which barions effect the power spectrum of barions is by this star which is a sticked form this k square power spectrum and all star formation models active galactic news kliai supernova black hole who knows is gonna be encoded in the different values of the c star like every dielectric material is encoded simply in the dielectric is property encoded in the dielectric constants this is a comparison of the effective theory with data from simulations models of star formation physics people some model people call them toy model but you can see that as you change the toy model the physics that you get is the same the functional form is the same and all the difference are just fitted by matching this c star same story applies also to distribution of galaxies and and we can do the same story for the distribution of galaxies the galaxies are a tracer of the darmeta field it's an effective theory which is not local in time you have to put all the terms compatible with the symmetries you have to do the normalization you compare with the data and you find again it works there are many parameters but the parameter enter in multiple observables you have many many observable and the theory works so just to conclude I briefly presented this novel effective theory for large structure which is a well-defined perturbation theory in an espacio there were a number of the nonlinear scale of the universe and each loop was like to the other the k-reach is much larger than former techniques so there are at least 10 to the 2 more vaseline are more than previous abilities which can have huge impacts on what we think we can do in next generation experiments for example FNL, the neutrinos if this works we are going to discover neutrinos not in 5 years but much sooner so of course this is just the beginning and very few people have been working on this subject so we are not done and more checks, more calculation needs to be done but this is telling us that there is a huge opportunity in the end of the round so we should see this as a challenge there is this opportunity, can we grasp it so the effective theory is a novel and powerful way to analytically describe the large structure of the universe it disguise something true this is not some physics beyond the standard model which is interesting but maybe it is not true this is true in fact it has many applications for astrophysics but very interesting, it uses novel techniques that come from particle physics and are totally new in these settings loops, divergences, counter tebronormalization IR divergences, neuronormalization theorem measures in simulation running, lattice running most of the things you find in textbooks you can apply them here and it is just the beginning there are many things to do this is a huge opportunity and if success continues as it has been so far this is a real revolution of the expectation of what it can do in the next 10 years in premodel cosmology ok, thanks for the attention questions? thank you, so what about massive neutrinos? we are working on them in fact since you are asking this question let me just say that it is very trivial in the fact theory to modify it and to include new stuff that is, when people deal with body simulation if you run, it takes a month great, then you say let me change this parameter ah, now I have to change the code run again, it takes a long time wait a month, takes a long time this is very simple actually we are just doing this in mass in neutrinos the bottom line is that mass in neutrinos will have an effect similar to what has been studied but now we will be able to push the understanding of the theory to a much higher number where the robar is much smaller and so the signal is going to be much larger that is what is expected but we haven't yet computed the effect if you want to help ok, anything else? that is the question why is the theory error unidirectional? why is it all on one side? the theory error is very hard to estimate the theory error in fact if you look people always say the theory error is estimated as an order among the two levels so this theory error is obtained by renormalizing the theory at two different scales roughly factor of two different unfortunately you would like to renormalize as much in the UV as you can because the robars are small but as you renormalize in the UV you are sensitive to higher order terms so a reasonable estimate a theoretical error is to do renormalization scale at two different energy scales and this is the result we get so this should be thought as the uncertainty in the calculation is the curve that you obtain with two so sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down but sorry so we plot the curve and we shade in the middle you should think this as as opening up but anyway sometimes it's up, sometimes it's down ok thanks I have a very naive question concerning how reliable you are integrating out of UV degrees of freedom so if I have you said something verilizer then I can forget about it, it will be irrelevant but now imagine this heavy stuff somehow decays in lighter particles which for a certain time are relativistic it seems to be unclear how your system even sees such an effect hidden deep in the UV which nevertheless can influence something no, no, you are absolutely right when you build a fatty filter it is always on a shampson which is what are your infrared degrees of freedom in a fatty theory we have to declare what are the infrared degrees of freedom here the assumption is that there is something on short distances that doesn't move beyond the short distances so if one in the case of Darmetta decay in fact we don't even need to talk about Darmetta you might wonder why I don't do this for photons emitted from stars I could do the fatty theory for photons emitted from stars the reason is that Darmetta free path is relativist is all the Hubble and I mean the travel really over the Hubble because they are relativistic and we cannot do it so if Darmetta were to decay into relativistic species there would be depends on the size of the effect but it would be the mean free path although the sun will become very long then it's fine if it's relativistic then it doesn't scatter any longer that is decays but then the theory will fail if it becomes relativistic but doesn't move it's okay there will be this mean free path scale the question so here you have to put I'm not sure about if they are relativistic I'm not sure about this I don't think if they are very relativistic they are not going to cast they are going to come out maybe the example is a bit complicated but the bottom line is that this parameter the trajectory is so the parameters are time dependence so for example if this particle decay into again two relativistic particle then mean free path will change so canolina will change with time maybe we will have a step all these things are measurable I'm happy to talk about three key examples but that one I think it doesn't apply in this vehicle gang


Exactly once, which is going on at this lock. There it is. Persistence pays off. And we're recording. It was only eight minutes. We've raced open a lock made in Taiwan. Anyway, this is a GLCMW, whatever the hell that is. Massive brass pad lock made in Taiwan. Sent to me by Jeff Moss. Jeff Moss 26, and probably up here right there on your screen. Here's the key for it. And it's a little funny, like there's two keys, and one of them is a little funky to kind of depress in. And then the other one is a very old Schlagg-looking key, SC1, looks old, maybe it's just rusty, I don't know. But that one works as well. So anyway, thanks, Jeff, for the lock. Not a single security pin in there, as far as I can tell. But a challenging pick nonetheless. There he is. So thanks for watching. And as always, have fun and keep it legal. Cheers, guys.


As we explore the different martial arts of the world, we would like to take a moment to stop and appreciate some individual techniques. And in many cases, we can break them down, talk about why they stand out, show some pros and cons, and maybe even explore how those techniques exist in multiple different arts, sometimes in different interpretations. So that's what we're going to do today. Today, we're going to take a look at the Muay Thai leg kick and why you should have it as part of your regimen. The Muay Thai leg kick, also called the low kick, is a very common, very powerful technique used in Muay Thai competitions, and as a result, you'll see it implemented in the UFC and other MMA fights. But it's a very powerful kick, delivered to your opponent's leg, often to the outside of the leg, but there are different versions. So you can go to the outside of the leg to kind of beat up the big thigh muscle, or sometimes it's delivered to the inside of the thigh. It can be used to sweep, it can be used to block, it can be used to check. So there's several different variations that can be applied, but it's a very common technique used in Muay Thai. It's also often underestimated by those who aren't familiar with it, which I think is very unfortunate because, in my opinion, the leg kick is one of the most effective kicks. For starts, you don't have to kick very high, so unlike a lot of body shots and head shots, you don't have to raise this kick that high up in order to deliver it. And as a result, your balance isn't as compromised as you would be necessarily kicking in head level. It can also be delivered quite quickly and be hard to defend against. If you encounter somebody who's well-versed and will practice in this kick, they can be extraordinarily powerful. In this kick works great both in self-defense and sporting competitions. You see a lot of variations of the leg kick across different martial arts, but it's a staple in Muay Thai, and I personally feel that Muay Thai represents it the best. Maybe Kielkschen coming in at a pretty darn close second. But if you come across or encounter somebody who's really spent the time to develop this kick, this is not something that's going to be fun to be on the receiving end of. My previous instructor taught MMA classes, and he also trained local MMA fighters. As a result, we had classes that were Kemple classes in the gym and we also had MMA classes, and quite often ideas, you know, cross-reference and cross-training and we mixed a lot. And he brought the leg kick into our Kemple training, which was great, and by doing that, I learned a few different things. The first thing I learned about it is these suckers can really hurt. Even if you are conditioned and expect them, they can still sing. If you have not practiced against them or if you've never really received one or are conditioned for it, you're in for a surprise, especially the kicks on the inside of the thigh. If you're not conditioned for that, that sucker smarts like you wouldn't believe. I also learned how it differed from the different kicks that we already had in Kemple. Kemple has low kicks. A lot of karate styles do, but they're implemented differently. This Muay Thai kick, you know, is kind of thinking of like an axe chopping down a tree. You're literally chopping down your opponent. And in many cases of Muay Thai practitioners, they literally do chop down trees with this kick. So as with any martial art or technique or school out there, there are pros and cons. So let's look at the good and the bad about the leg kick. The first is one reason this kick is so powerful is that it has the opportunity to utilize gravity when delivering it. A lot of kicks of their body level, like torso or head level, you're actually kind of rising up. You're actually kind of fighting against gravity. You're using torque to deliver a powerful kick or you're propelling your body weight forward into the kick, but you're still going against gravity. With the leg kick being the target being so low, you can actually use that gravity and implement for a stronger kick. So it's one of the few kicks that actually can use gravity. The second thing is, in my personal opinion, I feel this is one of the better kicks to use against a BJJ practitioner. I'm going to say this again, my own personal experience, those of you who are grapplers, you already know this. Those of you who are not grapplers, please understand this. A BJJ or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu or Judo or any grappler understands how to counter kicks because the big thing about kicking is when you throw a kick, especially a high kick, you are compromising your balance all your way is on one foot. A good grappler will know how to take advantage of that. And if you're kicking high and they know what to do, they can grab that kick and take you to the ground really, really quickly. The leg kick is a lot harder to do that with. It doesn't get that height. Like we said, it doesn't kick as high, but it's hard. It's not the type of kick you can really grab and pull and take someone off balance. And they're off balance a little bit less than the standard kick. So I feel if you're going to kick against a BJJ practitioner, this is one of the better ones. And especially if they have not practiced or conditioned against it, it might be quite effective. It can also be a fight-ender. A properly executed, powerful leg kick could stop a fight. There's lots of footage of it in competition. It happens in real life, especially if someone's not expecting it, that kick alone could end a confrontation. And I want to repeat how effective this is against those who are unconditioned towards it.  And we saw this from time to time again in our school when new students would show up and we would do that pad drill, we would do this leg kick drill. You know, we'd get into our stance, you'd put the pad on the side of the leg and then we would deliver it to each other. Well, with somebody who hasn't done it before, almost every single time that first kick, whoop, their legs would be swept out from underneath them and they were on the ground. Now when it comes to the cons, there aren't too many, but they're worth taking a look at. So first of all, and going back to what I said about how hard it was to defend against, doesn't mean it's impossible to defend against. It is possible somebody who can read the kick coming, they might be able to step back and move out of the way. But one of the most common checks is a leg check or shin block that you see a lot in Muay Thai and MMA.  Those shin clashings don't feel great. And there's actually been several occasions where the person throwing the kick has had their leg broken just by it being blocked. So just to keep in mind that just like any other technique out there, there is an inherent risk to throwing it. Secondly, it's a very destructive technique. And yes, that could technically count as a pro, put that in a positive column for that, but with that destruction comes accountability. If you're going to use this kick, first of all, when you practice it, you need to practice it carefully, start slow when you learn it and work your way up. Don't just go blasting people in class because you can do damage. And if you're actually having to use this in the competition or in a self-defense situation where you're gonna throw it full power, understand the possible destruction and damage you could do to that person's leg, especially their knee. If they are not expecting it or they're not ready for it or they don't even know how to defend against it, this thing can blow out knees like you wouldn't believe. And this was something I wanted to bring up. When we did this in class, my instructor actually pointed out that our stance, like the traditional Kemple stance and the karate stance is they're not always in position to defend this kick. So he would actually sometimes have us practice with a modified stance, much like you would see in MMA, just so that we could lean into the kick or we could deflect it if we had to, at least to expect it. So just understand the responsibility you have of throwing a technique like this if you're in a situation where you ever have to use it for real. Also, you can easily hurt yourself by throwing this kick. That's why the conditioning is so important because basically you are throwing a full power rotational kick, impacting with your shin bone that if you're not practiced or well versed in that, you can easily break it or hurt yourself severely. And even the high-end Muay Thai guys, I mean, with the condition they go through, some of the objects that they break and even like kicking down trees, you can see that sometimes even just the wrong angle or the wrong impact or sometimes even there's a hard surface, it can still hurt. And piggybacking onto that is the long-term effects that you might have. It's not uncommon to hear about, you know, Muay Thai professional fighters who did kick the trees and the metal bars and the bats that later they had arthritis and other long-term problems and damage to their shins and their limbs. So something you just got to keep in mind that you are bludgeoning something with part of your body. So there's a lot of risk that comes with that. But the cool thing about this is that you see the leg kick across multiple different martial arts and many times they're done differently. So you've got Muay Thai, like Kyokushin where it's more of a chopping, let's cut your opponent down. In other arts, they could have different purposes. So you see it in Thai Kwon Do, you can see it in Krab Maga, we have it in Kempo. In Kempo, we use it a little bit differently. We're usually trying to achieve a specific reaction. So say for example, we're kicking them on the outside of the leg, we're probably trying to collapse that knee trying to bring our body height down. So we're trying to cancel a body zone height with depth. Usually a kick to the leg tries to bring their height down. Alternatively, if we're delivering the kick to the inside of the thigh, we might be trying to open up their stance, disrupt their balance a little bit, maybe set up a hook on the way out if we're gonna cover out of a situation or set up for a leg buckle or open a target or open up their centerline. So there's usually an intent. So they're not the same high-powered kicks that Muay Thai would use them, but they're similar kicks, but they have different goals in mind. And I think that's the mark of a great technique. When there are so many applications, when there are so many interpretations and you see different practitioners using it to achieve different goals, I think that's fantastic and worth stopping to take a moment to appreciate. I personally feel that this kick should be in everybody's regimen. It complements most martial arts, especially the stand-up arts. It's quick, it's powerful, it doesn't require a lot of flexibility or acrobatics in order to deliver it. And it's quite effective in both real life and competition scenarios. So I use this as a cautionary tale for anyone out there who either has ignored or blown off this kick or has just not practiced or conditioned against it. I'm warning you right now, if you are not prepared for this kick and you come across someone who is very well versed in it and they can deliver a good one and they do one on you that seriously compromises the chances of you walking away from that fight. Quite literally. And for those of you out there who do train in Muay Thai and MMA and are very well versed in this kick, I invite you maybe step outside your boundaries as well. Take a look at a couple of other arts. Look at Kyokushin, look at Kempo, Karate, Krav Maga. Look at how they implement their leg kicks and see if there's any ideas that could spark that you could use into your own training. You know, it's great, you don't always have to chop down that tree but sometimes you might be able to use it to set up another combination or you never know what you might learn. And that's today's moment of appreciation for the Muay Thai leg kick. Guys, thank you so much for watching and as always, I encourage any feedback and I would love to hear your experience with this kick or if you train in other arts, how do you use it in your art and style? Do you have different goals for it? And we're gonna try to show more appreciation for individual techniques and how they apply to different martial arts and if there's any specific ones that you guys like to see, put them in the comments as well. We'll take them into consideration. Thank you guys so much for watching and we'll see you next time.


I think the Kidney Cancer Association Planning Committee for the opportunity to present today. So I wanted to address a couple of questions related to toxicity in the context of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. And I have a little bit of a game plan in terms of this 10-minute time limit here. So I'm going to very briefly go over what comparative data exists to date. And what I'll suggest is that we really don't have enough comparative data as it stands right now to really address therapeutic selection. So then I'll move on to the next portion of this talk to discuss who will develop toxicity. Whether or not these toxicities can be prevented. And finally, whether or not there are certain settings in which toxicity considerations might be more relevant. And then we'll wrap up by talking about whether or not certain toxicities are associated with response and whether or not dose adjustment, which Dr. Vaishan Pye highlighted to some extent, is actually relevant and can potentially optimize therapy. So the first question at hand here is what comparative data exists? And I'll suggest that in the context of clinically relevant decisions at hand, we really have one trial that addresses this. And this is the Kampars trial. We're all familiar with this design and treatment naive patients. Patients were randomized to receive either synitinib or posopenib therapy. There were several toxicities. For instance, hepatotoxicity that favored synitinib. We saw several toxicities, 50, can foot syndrome, et cetera, that favored posopenib therapy. So I actually find this data somewhat useful in terms of counseling patients from day to day in the clinic. Now what we need, I would propose, and these are the NCCN guidelines, are trials that really address relevant comparisons that we also face from day to day in the clinic. For instance, in the first line setting, we really don't have toxicity data putting posopenib and buvacizumab side by side, for instance, and in phase three trials. And perhaps even more pressing, we actually don't have comparisons in the second line setting. For instance, between exitinib and neverolimus. And this is certainly a decision that we still struggle with. We do have, for instance, the 404 study comparing seraphinib and temserolimus, but I'd argue that those are distinct agents. So that's what we need. And what we will need down the line is actually the data emerging from ongoing clinical trials that were highlighted earlier today. Dr. Gore presented the randomized trial comparing everolimus and nivolumab. Dr. Chewary presented the Meteor trial comparing everolimus and kabalizantinib. I think just as important as comparing efficacy across these trials, if we can potentially do that, we really need to take a long, hard look at toxicity. So again, I've suggested here that we don't really have enough comparative data to guide therapeutic selection right now in the clinic. So in light of that, what can we turn to next? Well, how about prediction of toxicity? Who will develop these toxicities in the clinic? And for that, I would suggest the preponderance of research to date has focused on single-ducleotide polymorphisms or SNPs. I've highlighted this very nice paper from Jenny Kim and colleagues from when she was at the Cleveland Clinic in which they looked at 63 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with synitinib. They identified one VEGF SNP at position minus 634 that was associated with the prevalence and duration of synitinib-induced hypertension. I'll suggest that this particular SNP was not associated with clinical outcome, although they did find a pairing of a VEGF SNP and a VEGF R2 SNP that was associated with overall survival. I'm giving you a bird's-eye view here of several relevant studies that were done associating SNPs with certain toxicities. I've summarized several trials here looking at toxicities associated with SNITinib and various SNPs in both clear-cell metastatic kidney cancer patients and just patients. We see several distinct SNPs, I'll point out, associated with hypertension, others associated with hypothyroidism. In the context of bevacizumab therapy, relatively large cohorts assessed with breast cancer and renal cell carcinoma, where again we see distinct SNPs associated with hypertension. In the context of seraphonib therapy and amongst metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients, we see that UGT1A9 polymorphisms can predict the onset and frequency of grade grade and are equal to 2 diarrhea. So a heterogeneous array of agents have been assessed across a heterogeneous array of diseases for a heterogeneous array of outcomes. So right now I don't think that SNPs are really ready for prime time for prediction of toxicity in the clinic. So we can't predict toxicity. How about preventing toxicity? And very oftentimes when I get referrals from my community based oncologists surrounding me, the question center around management of SNITinib related toxicities or seraphonib related toxicities, and there are just outstanding peer reviewed articles in the literature right now that propose how we might actually address some of these toxicities from day to day, many written by some authors sitting here in the room right now. But in terms of toxicity prevention, I really don't have a lot of great resources. So I wanted to just throw out a proposal that we're working on at City of Hope that might potentially address this issue and perhaps other studies may come in the same fashion down the line. So Dr. Porter and colleagues have put together a really outstanding piece. This was an expert consensus panel that convened to address toxicities related to everolimus therapy. I'm throwing up here a table from their outstanding piece related to management of mucositis. For grade one mucositis, for instance, they've proposed using non-alcoholic mouth washes or saline solutions. For grade two through four disease, they've proposed using topical analgesics, corticosteroids and antimicrobial agents. So one thing that we're actually working on at City of Hope is actually using some of these regimens in a prophylactic fashion. I'm working with my breast cancer colleagues on a concept in which we'll randomize patients in a two by two design to either no prophylaxis, to budesonide, neural corticosteroid, minocycline or neural tetracycline or the combination of these agents. And our primary endpoint in this study is the incidence of stomatitis of two months. This actually comes from that same piece from Dr. Porter and identifies that the bulk of these toxicities actually occur within a two to three month span. Okay, so if we can't prevent toxicities, how about identifying settings in which toxicities are most relevant? Dr. McKay actually presented an outstanding case earlier of an older adult with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. I think many of us would agree that that's a setting in which toxicities related to therapy are particularly relevant. Also those with extensive comorbidities, we've had some presenters here today outlining cardiac toxicities. I'd also argue that toxicities are also very relevant at the extremes of therapy. Our patients with localized disease who are contemplating adjuvant therapy and those individuals who are heavily pretreated. So I just wanted to throw out a couple of examples of data in this regard. I presented this at the KCA meeting last year and it's since been published. This is an institutional series of 220 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. What we observed is that patients above the age of 75 actually did far worse than those patients below the age of 75 in terms of overall survival. And I wanted to highlight one particular element of this report in that patients age greater than or equal to 75, discontinued therapy less frequently due to progression and actually more frequently due to toxicity. That's highlighted in this table here below. I had some communications with Dr. Haas and I think this is a great reminder of the relevance of toxicity in the adjuvant setting. This is the Assure trial in which patients were initially randomized to synendobitful doses, seraphonibitful doses, or placebo. And as many of us are aware who participated in this study, these doses actually had to be modified due to poor tolerance in the adjuvant setting. Patients ultimately received synendobit 37.5 milligrams seraphonibit that actually halved the standard dose and they were escalated if they didn't incur toxicity after two cycles of treatment. I think this is gonna be especially important as we really sort of take on this barrage of adjuvant clinical trials that are ongoing. So far we don't have efficacy data from any of these studies outside of a riser which was presented at ASCO this year. But as these studies emerge, I certainly think it's gonna be important for us to weigh in efficacy data but also consider toxicities associated with these therapies given the lower threshold in the adjuvant setting. In the last couple of moments here, I wanted to turn my attention to whether or not there are certain toxicities that are associated with clinical outcome. We've seen a lot of really outstanding data over the past couple of years relating systolic and diastolic hypertension to clinical outcome in patients receiving VEGF TKI therapy. What I've highlighted here are two studies looking at synendobit and tyrosinib. These are two amongst many that have associated systolic hypertension with benefit and progression-free survival and overall survival. We see that with synendobit and tyrosinib, two studies here identify a similar benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival amongst individuals who incur diastolic hypertension. But rather than focusing on hypertension, I wanted to just call to some other side effects that we don't focus on too often in the context of these sessions. First, hypothyroidism. Dr. Donskow, who's in the audience today, has participated in a study associating hypothyroidism. Associated with synendobit-treated patients with clinical outcome, progression-free survival seemed to be higher in this population of patients. In a series of 770 patients receiving synendobit therapy, fatigue was actually associated with improved progression-free and overall survival. Certainly this may simply be related to longer drug exposure. In the same series of patients, hand-foot syndrome was related to clinical outcome. Overall's response rate improved in the population of patients developing hand-foot syndrome as did overall survival. Turning our attention to mTOR inhibitors, what we see is that in a small series of patients, the subset of patients who develop pneumonitis actually had a lower rate of progressive disease's best response. And what I thought was a very well-done study based on the pivotal temporal misdata, cholesterol increases seemed to be associated with longer survival and progression-free survival. So a couple of toxicities that we don't traditionally focus on that may potentially be associated with clinical outcome. So if certain toxicities are associated with response, can we actually dose-adjust to optimize therapy?  Dr. Renian colleagues have taught us a lot through the AXIS trial. These are the criteria for dose titration within AXIS. And ultimately we saw that 17% of patients were titrated to seven milligrams BID, 23% of patients to 10 milligrams BID. And ultimately what we saw is that patients who were at higher doses of exitinib and lower doses of exitinib had relatively similar progression-free survival, certainly this may be a phenomenon associated with the AUC of these agents and patients that were titrated upwards. I think Dr. Vaishanpayan hit on some of that data. This is one example amongst many of studies that are ongoing to assess the effectiveness of dose titration. I wanted to highlight a study done by my colleague Dr. Bjarnsen at Sunnybrook. This is a really innovative trial being run at 11 centers currently with 56 patients enrolled. He's randomizing patients to receive varying schedules of synantinib therapy. And in patients who don't incur toxicity, they may actually be titrated upwards to 75 milligrams on a 14 day on, seven day off schedule. So we've taken aim at a couple of questions related to toxicity and metastatic renal cell carcinoma because of this very stringent time limit. We really haven't gone over toxicities with some novel agents, PD-1 inhibitors and vaccine therapies. We really haven't delved into the biology of toxicity as much as I'd like. And we haven't talked about some patient preference designs such as in Pisces or Gemini. But nonetheless, I hope we've provided some framework in which to assess toxicity in the context of therapeutic decision making. Thank you.


Hi, I'm Dr. Gautam Kumar. I'm the multi-organ transplant surgeon at Manipal Group of Hospitals. So when I get my patients, these are usually type 1 diabetes. Young patient who's not eaten any sugar sweets in their life. They're always worried about their insulin requirement. They do not play intense sports so that, you know, they can avoid hypoglycemia. Their quality of life is not good. Once they undergo pancreas transplantation, life changes dramatically. They do not eat insulin. They don't have to measure their glucose. The lifespan increases and they can do all the things a normal individual can do.