For my doctoral research, I'm exploring higher education students' experiences in the UK, and in particular, I'm trying to critically impact the metaphor of the student as a consumer. By this, I mean that nowadays there is this idea that higher education is a commodity, like any other, and that students are consumers of higher education, so faculty would be the seller of this good. And what I'm trying to do is from an identity studies perspective to find out if this is really how students feel about their own identity. And I think this is particularly important because so far no one has done it. It looks like a simple idea, go to students, speak to them, ask them about these things, but no one has done it. You will find lots of articles, of papers, of studies that explore this idea, but always from the academic point of view. And I thought that it was only fair to give students a voice. What do you really think about the way you are being constructed, portrayed? The reason I'm passionate about this research is because I really believe that higher education is a basic human right, which should be accessible to everyone. But the fact is that we are in the UK in the 21st century, and it is still not accessible. If you come from an underprivileged background, you will not have the same opportunities. And so I think it's really important to explore everything that is connected to higher education, everything that is around it, and try to figure out a way of changing things, of trying to make it something that is really a right, and not just something that is accessible for some, for the privileged ones. There is a longitudinal aspect in my research, so I have spent the last three years, four years actually, interviewing higher education students all over the UK, mainly in England and in Scotland. And I started interviewing middle class students, upper middle class students. And at some moment, I was trying to get access to students coming from less privileged backgrounds, students coming from state schools.  You ask students, do you have any friend that has studied in state schools and no one, no one had friends coming from state schools. And I start to realize that there is this split at uni. And I went, at some moment I found a way to get access to these students. And what I found out is that you have two different realities in the UK. You have students that come from privileged backgrounds and aim for Russell Group universities. They aim for Oxbridge. And they go to uni. They can have a part-time job, which is something they do to support, to have some extra money for partying and to travel. But then you have these other realities. You have students coming from under privileged backgrounds that need to work to support their studies. I think that right now there are lots of assumptions about what higher education students expect from university. But some of those assumptions I found out are not correct. So I hope this study informs higher education leadership to realize that you cannot treat students as a stereotype. There is no single type of student. And so treating students just as mere consumers, assuming that student is buying higher education as you go to McDonald's and buy a burger is not correct. Since now I'm listening to them, I'm trying to give them a voice. I hope that this serves to inform higher education leadership. At least.


So Stone is going to be a beginner talk, kept it quite simple. I'll talk about the basic concurrent and distributed programming constructs which I will do in Julia out of the box. So we have Stefan talked about this in the morning. Tasks also known as core routines or co-operative multitasking is present in Julia. That's one set of API which I'll cover. And the second is distributed workers, some examples of which can we just talk about. The thing is with Julia, the base distribution comes with reasonable amount of support to run Julia code across many machines. The packages which enable you to run on Amazon. We have had demos where we have spun up thousands of cores in a matter of minutes to be able to release it to the cloud again. So I just cover both of these approaches. Yeah, so tasks in Julia back by a single OS type of execution. There is work on multi-claring, which is a work in progress, is work on by branch. At this time, I don't know how to map on to the task infrastructure itself. What we have today is basically a new UV back event-driven IO mechanism, which multiplexes all your IO tasks. That's network, a file, and the other useful thing for tasks is implementation of timers or background tasks. Since it's cooperative, I'm not asking there's no preemptive scheduling. So if your task is CPU bound, nothing else works. So it's good in a lot of ways. It simplifies your code. You want to deal with blocks and a whole bunch of that kind of stuff. High level API, again, the morning that's seen at async at sync. I'll just talk about it a little more. So typically, the at sync block takes an expression. So as an example here, you want to collect the results of some URLs you want to download. So the at async block can do the actual fetch, which is a network call which allows other tasks to run. And then you process it. The processing, of course, prevents any of the tasks from running. And then you push the results and collect it. So in the task communication, there is the order model of produce slash consume. So two or more tasks can sort of work in lockstep. The producer tasks could be reading of a database or network or pie system. And it could be generating jobs within the same Julia process. So produce block still a consumer to lose a value. It is like a queue of length one. And you could have one or more consumers who would consume whatever value is produced from task T. And that block till a producer has a value. So it is sort of a synchronization mechanism in that sense. Julia 0.4 has support for channels. The channels are type aware. As an example here, you create a channel of inch 64 of size 1000. So this channel can store objects of type integers or 64 bit integers. And the maximum size is 1000. So some of the calls will block if the size 1000 is reached. Anybody trying to add to a channel using a code call that task will block. So that was about tasks. So the multi-processing, we have the same model called leveraging multiple cores on a machine or distributing computation across machines. The user API in this case is more of a remote function execution as opposed to message passing. If people are familiar with MPI, they are sort of shipping data and the same. The different programs sort of done at the same stage. Whatever data it receives, it works on it. In this case, it is more of a... So the APIs, the low-level APIs are like a remote call on a particular processor. They execute function F with variable number arguments. The function F can be a closure which you create here, an anonymous function, or a function in a module which I wrote it. So a remote call basically just executes a function and gives you a handle to the result. It's like a future. A remote call fetch would block till the function finishes the execution and returns the result. And you've got a couple of macros. AdsCon expression takes an expression and runs it on a worker. It just cycles through all the worker processes. AdsCon add runs the expression at the particular process which are indicated in the pit. Both of these return a future, which we call the remote reference. So the multi-processing model which set up is the initial process. If you start with really a little, that has got a PID of 1. We call the master process or the driver process. It launches worker processes via cluster managers. The Yarn cluster manager is something Tanmay just demoed. So a cluster manager is responsible for launching workers and providing information on how to connect to those launch workers. This is only two main things it does. So in this case, we're using Yarn. Yarn has got ideas for starting Julia processes. So you leverage that and then you provide information on how to connect all these Julia processes into a cluster back there. So by default, all the Julia workers are connected to each other. But you can specify in the ad cross API that you want only the master to connect to all the workers. The problem in the first case is if you have a thousand nodes, it's about 5,000 PC connections. And you start adding some of the limits like the number of open file items and you're going to read those system limits and all that. And in some use cases, we don't even require the workers to communicate to each other. If you have a problem statement required that the master generates jobs for the workers to work on, you can just opt for a master slave connection. So ad cross is the API which adds workers. There are two cluster managers that shift as part of base. The local manager adds processors on a single node. So if you use ad cross with just an integer value, that'll add that many workers locally. And an SSH manager uses SSH to remotely connect to a list of posts that you specify and launch workers on those machines. So both these are available as part of base. There's a package called cluster managers.jl which has got support for various clustering technologies like a sun grid engine or something called slow that you use a little, not much. So the API is part of the API. So the distributed API we have, the higher level API is the matter called ad panel 4 which is typically used to distribute a large number of small tasks and team app would distribute very compute intensive tasks over your workers.  So I'll just show you one. So here I have what I'm doing is I'm just doing a point loss and list a point loss. I run it for 10 to power 8 times. The ad panel macro takes in a reducer in which case it's just an addition function and it splits it up as workers. So if you go line by line, if I have got more than one worker, first I'm removing all the workers. Just so that I can run this for multiple times. And we run it without adding any processors. In which case this code runs on the current master process. The first one is just to prevent compilation of code. Any benchmark you do in Julia, this is one thing you need to be careful about. You just run your code once so that all the code parts get compiled and then you do the actual time. I just run this. I took around 4.3 seconds. I've done the same thing again after adding four workers from one. That's a pretty good speed up. This is about four code with eight hybrids. Hybrids in usually don't have too much effect on really CPU-bound stuff. And we can try it out. Yeah, there's no change. So four real codes and that was a pretty good speed up. There will be a lot more examples due to workshop tomorrow. Just run through a lot of good examples. So that was that parallel for that would take the range and then split it up as workers. So pmap is like a parallel map. It takes in a function which will execute all the workers. And you can pass it lists of the data you want to work on. So for example, pmap, just few lists that we would call function with parameters 1, a, 2, b, 3, c, and so forth on each of the workers. Remote call would execute functions with the various parameters on KID. So remote references, when they returned from the remote call function, they're more like future. So typically a remote call would execute a function on a remote process and store the value in the reference. And a handle to that value is passed back. So by default, all these APIs return a handle to a channel of size 1. At the time, it can hold only one value. The remote references themselves can be serialized across processors. They're pretty small. The actual data is not set. So the calls for remote references, the API is wait. So you could execute a bunch of functions on remote workers and then you can wait on all of them. It just tells you where the data can be fetched. It's a possible race condition because if you've got multiple processors, testing for is ready, and then you do a take or a fetch, somebody else would have removed it. So you need to be careful about that when you're using it in the context of distributed computation. It sets a value to the remote reference. It blocks if the reference is full. It removes and returns the value when it blocks if it's empty. And fetch just returns the stored value and it blocks if it's empty. So there are two types of synchronization which you can do. Condition variables which have basically wait and notify calls. So once you have a condition variable, and this is then triggered in the sense that only tasks that are waiting on a condition are notified. And if you want an event triggered, you need to keep some state in which case you can use the channel type. It can be a size of size one and you can test if there is data there. So those are two types of synchronization mechanisms available right now. With 0.5, it's not the threading I'm sure we'll have quite a few more. The other relevant packages are MPI.jl for additional MPI-style parallelism. The one nice thing, interesting thing about this package is you could also use MPI transport, MPI transport for regular GUI, MPI calls. Let's add parallel form and team app. So the typical setup is we use these three sockets. But some of these MPI clusters have their own high speed interconnects and other technologies. And we can use MPI for shipping our messages. Shared arrays, the leverage, shared arrays are single node. The arrays have to be of bits type. Distributed arrays are for working on arrays which quite large and can't fit into RAM on a single machine. So that would span multiple nodes. Each worker creates the local part and you would use team app or some mechanism like that to work on the local part and then fetch the work itself. The package for database.jl which has an API for launching machines on EC2 and starting workers on them and that. Once your work is done you could release resources. And that brings me to the end of my presentation. Any questions? I think we can maybe connect the class. So there's this low level yield stuff for tasks. And then we have like photographs of channels and produce and consume. I think the producer consumers is more historical. So that we can probably have a debate and do a little bit. The remote production channels, again the 0.5 I think there will be some amount of work towards nationalizing that part. But I think at a fundamental level the in process stuff, whether the tasks and the distributed computation, just sort of two different models and each will have their own vocabulary. But certain amount of simplification, yeah, I guess we can have it. My understanding of online is it's a whole lot of message passing, right? And it's slow. So online has its uses in the telecommunication world. No, I'm saying as in, I mean there's a benchmark I had done quite a while back. For the same task, when I, for the same load, what could get done using one code, C code, I might look around 12 codes. Everything else was the same. So the whole one thing, one of the background of Julia is its high performance in terms of for numerically intensive tasks. So we can, I'm not saying we can't take the good ideas from online, but I'm saying there will be some. It becomes common for everybody to use. I hear you on that. I'd also like to just say the MPI crowd, right? The traditional human computing crowd, their concerns are all quite different. The kind of optimizations they look at is when there's network calls going on, can I load my CPU? So the direction from which they come from, probably it will be different. That's fine. When the cloud has got a different. And for a lot of enterprises stuff today, this model is definitely a smart phone developer friendly. I think the key is flexibility, right? To be able to support different models in Julia itself. But the problem is if you have too many models, then it becomes a question of what choices you made, right? And if you have one single model with two as a developer, then the framework can be different or the library can say you can go and look at it. The developers don't have to worry about that. Depending upon my problem statement, depending upon my domain, I make a selection that basically becomes a work of like smart things. Yeah, to add on to that, right? You already have like tasks which are run on the same machine. When you add in threads to that, then you add in the worker slave model. So as a developer, I have like four or five options. But the thing is that you have a task, it doesn't matter if you run it on this machine or somewhere else. So Stefan already introduced the idea of tasks. In case it takes the same task, run it on my machine and if I have to, run it somewhere else. So that is how maybe you can just let me know. So there is a package called message utils where I implement in nail tasks. So Julia 0.3 for channels or not in code distribution. So I think some concepts from that, either a very online kind of thing. Yeah, so we can look at having that kind of structure in base. It will be great if you guys can get on and get out, get in on the discussions. It's always useful. How does the scheduler decide to switch from one task? So it's not preemptive, right? So it has a queue and I think Jeff can talk a little more about it. But it's basically just runs through that you see which task is available right now and then executes it. And the underlying UV layer notifies the scheduler depending on the events. So UV is the event-driven IO engine, including timers. So that's IO or you want to sleep for a couple of seconds. So all the good tasks are just done. And if any of them take control of the CPU and input an intensive task, other tasks don't work. It's not good. These are all switches. It's not preemptive.


Okay, it's time. Hello everyone. Welcome to this new Edge Functional Group Update. I'm Remy Koutable from France, it's 5 p.m. And we'll get started with some achievements. So in 10.3, we merged 45 merge requests from the community and in 10.4, we merged 42. As you can see, the number of merged community contributions is declining. I'll get back to that in the concerns later in this presentation. Let's focus on achievements for now. Then, regarding the community contributions, I highlighted a few ones here. Oops, yeah. So yeah, we've had great contribution from Blackstone to actually limit the labels that are displayed in the auto-completion when you have an issue of merge request that already has labels and you type slash a label, for example, it will not propose you the labels that are, I mean, it will only propose you the label that are already set and so on. So that's really a small thing, but really great for user experience actually. It was long awaited. Thanks, Blackstone. Another one from Blackstone. He submitted a merge request to improve the empty state for merge request changes tab. So instead of having a white area, we now have a nice image that is more engaging, sorry. Then we have a contribution from Marcus Kohler, who is a regular contributor now to be able to add custom text on the new project page, like if in your company you have specific rules for projects and you want to highlight them at project creation, that's a cool feature. Thanks Marcus for that. Then we have two API improvements that basically adds ordering and sorting for project contributors and tags API. Thanks Jacobo, Bessie and Asib. And we also have another one from Mario De La Hossa to be able to quickly pose or resume project runners instead of having to go in the edit page and set the runner to active or inactive. And then the last one is to expose participants in issuables, so merge request or issues in the API. So that would be really useful. So that was for the community contributions. Still on the community side, we now have James Lopez from the team that is now a new merge request coach. So it will help crushing the backlog of community contributions we have. Thanks James and welcome. And then on two performance improvements. Last time I told you about a first pass of improvement from Genshin and the branches page. And now I'm happy to report that compared to 10.1, 10.3 is two times faster on this page. So from 4.6 seconds median to 2.3, as you can see, you can also check out the live graph. So thanks James and for that, and we'll continue improving the performance of GitLab for the upcoming quarter. Then regarding quote quality, we extracted the Rubikop configuration. So Rubikop is a static analysis tool to enforce consistent styling in our code base. So instead of duplicating all the roles per project and also enabling different roles sometimes, we extracted the GitLab CE configuration into a new gem, GitLab styles. And we are now using this shared configuration in GitLab CE, GitLab QA and Gitali with a few specificities for this project, of course. But that's great to share a common base for that. Another big one from Blackstone again is to replace a method to add a user with a role to a team. We deprecated the double bracket in favor of add role and add developer, add master, add guest, et cetera, methods in tests. So that was a big one and a longer way to do. That cleans up our code base a lot. And that's great to share a common base to help our code base a lot. And the last one I highlighted here is from TM Lee and he submitted the refactoring of some views, member views by using presenters. So that's always great to have contributors caring about our code base quality. Next up, documentation. So we had a new documentation from Genshin suggested by Robert to document some utilities that we use in our code base. And GereGorge also submitted, contributed a doc about end-to-end testing and GitLab QA tests in our public documentation. And speaking of GitLab QA, we started implementing a scenario to test deploy keys. So the first iteration was to register deploy key and then the next iteration will be to actually generate a dynamic path of key and actually use it in a CI job. So to ensure that this full scenario works as intended. Another achievement. So last time I told you about the automatization of the CE2E merge requests. So last weekend we've had a few merge requests automatically created and I was really happy because a lot of them only had like two conflicts, one or two conflicts and there was even one on Sunday, but don't worry it was automatized, no one worked for that. The one on Sunday had no conflict as you can see. So it can happen sometime and that's the goal to have fast merge cycle from CE2E so that we have as less conflicts as possible and yeah, that's reaching the plan. And yeah, we also had an improvement submitted by Jenshin to assign the automatically created merge request to the most mentioned person and then each person that have to resolve a conflict should assign the next one in line so that the goal is that the CE2E merge request is never forgotten and moves forward and can be merged as fast as possible. And then yeah, an improvement to come is just to post a link to Slack to get attention on this automatic merge request and yeah, that's almost ready. Last achievement about testing, it's actually something that Tomas did, basically he improved our runners to basically like gave them more, gave them more CPU and memory and the end result is that our pipelines are even more faster as a result, as you can see. So there was some discrepancies as you can see but it was while Tomas was fine tuning the settings. And now the whole test parallelized take, as you can see in average, less than 30 minutes. That doesn't mean the pipelines take less than 30 minutes. I will come to that in the occasion. Now some concerns about communities. So last time I told you, and this time too, I told you that the community contributions are declining a bit. So I've created an issue and we started to ask why is that? So I've also extracted some data. And so we have backlog of around 190 merge requests from the community that is pretty stable over time. And we see that the number of community contributions that we merge declines. So that only means that we get less new community contributions basically. So Connor suggested to actually send a survey to our community to understand why they contribute less than before or why they don't contribute as much as we would like, at least. So I think that's a great idea and I will follow up on that next time. As you can see, I've also contributed the ratio between community merge requests and compare to the total of merge requests. I've just refreshed the page to see the graph better. So as you can see there, we were quite consistent at maybe 18% in average from 8.12 to 9.1 approximately. And then we had a drop in starting at 9.2. And now we are more around between like 10 and 15% of community contributions merge per milestone. So that's, and since it's now stable at this lower ratio, it means that we actually also merge less merge requests in general. So that's maybe another problem, but I think that this data was interesting. And yeah, so now on to the OKRs for Q1. So we have a few of them and I will let you take a look what's the OKRs that I'm the most excited about the run to reduce the average C pipeline duration to 30 minutes or less. Right now they are more about 40 to 45 minutes in average. I'm gathering data on that too. So next time I will have more data. And another one that I'm very excited is to have 90% of the CE2E merges with less than five conflicts. So that means that the CE and EE code base will be well separated and developers take care of doing a good job at avoiding conflicts also. And yeah, so and a few other key results like about GitLab QA of course and performance improvements as always. And the last point in today's presentation is about hiring. So BJ is focused on hiring these days. So we have two world's open automation engineer and test automation manager. So tell your friends, we already have some candidates in the pipelines and yeah, we are building and making a strong process currently. So we will start technical interviews next week. Actually this week even. And yeah, so yeah, tell your friends. There's some cool position. And yeah, that's it for today. I will open the chat. Lower test times. Yes, that's always better. Do we have less issues accepting merge requests? That's a good question Bob. Actually I don't think so. Last time I checked, you can check right now. I think we have a few hundred issues to work on open for community contributions. So I think, I mean, we should ask the people if that's the problem, if they don't find issues to work on. But I think we have plenty of issues open. So I don't think that's the case. But I don't know if we do a survey, we will for sure have more definitive answers. Yeah, so I didn't read Mark's answer, but yeah, we try to open more and more issues to community contributions. Did we measure the time it takes for us to accept a merge request? So that's interesting question, Christian. I try to extract data on how many user notes. So comments we have per merge requests. And my idea was to maybe find a correlation between when we merge many community contributions and if these contributions have less comments than when we merge less. Like meaning that when we merge less, it means that the merge requests were bigger and have more back and forth and feedbacks from reviewers and maintainers. But I didn't find a good correlation. Let me give you the link, I have the data somewhere. I just gathered them yesterday and today. So you can look for yourself. I will give you all the link, this one. So you can look for yourself and there's a few data. What I really wanted to extract was extract the size, like the number of changes on average per merge request and because maybe that will give us a better correlation between how many merge requests you merge and the size of the merge request compared to the number of comments. And I mean, is there a correlation between how fast we respond to the merge request? Like if I do a merge request to get lab now, do I get a response within a business day or something? That's a super cool question. And the thing is, yeah, we could probably extract the first reply to a merge request. So I think just to be more concrete, yeah, I think we reply quite quickly to the new merge request. So I don't think that's the problem. But what is, I didn't see anything in the plans about moving all the EE code to the slash EE sub directory. Is that something we're gonna do? Or is it not a, is it not an equality team or what's happening? Yeah, yeah, that's something we already started and that we will continue doing. Actually, it's related to having the CE to emerges with less conflicts. It's one way we will do that is to better separate the two code base. And yeah, we are doing this actively and that's something that we are doing and that is moving forward quite good. Okay, is that something that's gonna be achieved in this quarter? Yeah, I think we are not so far from achieving it. Right now, I think we still have some JavaScript files to extract code base. That's probably the oldest one. But yeah, I think that's possible to do it this quarter. Yeah. Cool, sorry, you talked maybe you said it, but the self-service metrics generator, I don't quite understand what that is. Yeah, so basically that's something to be defined but the goal is to, so yeah, I've linked the issue. There was another issue where there is more comments. The idea is to get insights of our projects like as you can see, it started about the issues and merge requests like as you asked like how fast are we to reply to incoming merge requests? What is the burn rate of closed issues with open issues and a bunch of other metrics? So that's still something to be defined. The goal is actually to define that and to start prototyping something. I'm not sure if this, I think that probably should be a GitLab feature at some point, actually, so that's something we need to figure out basically. Yeah, I agree this issue could just be a feature in GitLab. Yeah, I think so. Cool. Okay, so by the way, today someone who works on integrating Mercurial into GitLab, you wonder if we will accept these merge requests. Okay, Christian, don't hesitate to give me the link if she wants. Cool. Thanks everyone for the questions and attention and I will see you in the team call. Bye-bye.


He's like to goers, do you have a sneaking suspicion that a particular person likes you? And yes, in that like-like kind of way? But wait, does the thought of being completely wrong hold you back? You just don't know how to be sure, as it can be super embarrassing in case you were mistaken. When someone likes you, they often act differently around you than they do with other people. It's all in an attempt to seek some form of validation or approval from you. How And they have many different ways to go about it too. Some overly obvious and others entirely too subtle. So here are some things one will definitely do when they really like-like that special someone. Number one, the social media stock. This is a big one. Say you meet at a party, you add each other on social media. A few days pass and you still haven't heard a word from their end. How could this be?  They like to photo of yours from four summers ago. Whoops. While you were waiting for what seemed like an eternity, they were busy searching you up. Where? On every single social media platform. They're going through all of your posts just to get a better idea of who you are. If they're really interested, they'll want to know more about you before sending that first text. While waiting, it's not a bad idea to think of a few jokes you can send back their way. Once they do. Or have a stockpile of gifs prepared. Those who gif together, stay together. Number two, obsessively re-reading your texts. Speaking of texting, when someone likes you, they may struggle to not be super obsessive about it. What's the proper amount of time to wait before texting back? Do they seem to have memorized all 11,997 text messages you sent back and forth to each other over the last two months? If they're unsure how you feel about them, they may go to the very start and re-read every single message. They may want to track the narrative arc of your connection. When someone likes you, they may double or triple check the messages sent back and forth. Is that little dot dot dot notification driving you totally mad as you wait for them to respond? Only for them to type nothing? If they reply too quickly, they may be worried that they're coming off too needy or overbearing. Although if they reply too late, you might find yourself losing interest. They may text back almost immediately because they don't want you to be kept waiting. If you write in short, quick bursts and they really like you, they'll probably write back in the same exact way. Number three, copy your speech patterns and mannerisms. Do you have keywords or catchphrases that you say all the time? Have they started saying them too? If you talk a lot with your hands, do they now just articulate widely back to you? If a person really, really likes you, they may seize every opportunity to be in your company, and it's natural for them to want to spend more time with you. Okay, a lot of time with you. And the more time they spend with you, the more likely it is that they'll start mirroring you. They're probably going to start speaking in a similar rhythm and cadence. As the saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Number four, trying too hard in your friend What is a big hurdle if not the biggest one they have to pass if someone really likes you? Your friends. I mean, yeah, your closest group of friends know everything about you. They've probably known you for a longer time period and your social media and texting history can only tell a person so much. If a person likes you, they'll want your friends to like them too. Hanging out as a group in a social setting can be really beneficial for this reason. They are more receptive to your friends when they are recalling mutual adventures from the past. They ask your friends a ton of questions about you. If they come off as really awkward in front of the group at first, that's not necessarily a bad thing. They might just be super nervous. But if the other person puts in the effort to listen to those around you, that's a good thing. And number five, they do things you like that they have zero interest in. Do you enjoy quietly looking at artwork in museums or strolling casually through the park on a bright sunny day? Or is it more of an intense jog? If someone really likes you, they're also more likely to join in on activities that they don't normally partake in otherwise. Take exercise, for example. Are you often getting out there and working on that cardio? Does the other person never go for an intense run? Or even a casual jog? If someone likes you, they may be more likely to say yes to do something like this, even when they're not used to such physical exertion. Do you want to share your interests? When they're going way far out of their comfort zone for you, that says a lot about them. Attraction is often complicated. Relationships can sometimes be even messier. Signs that someone likes you can be very confusing for sure. Signals can also be misinterpreted. How one person reacts to a situation can be totally different from how you would yourself. If you're the one who's obsessively checking the other person's socials and rereading their texts, it's totally okay. Here, not alone. Just try to avoid accidentally liking one of their old vacation photos from four summers ago. Do you know someone in your life who's exhibited any of the signs mentioned here? Or on the flip side? Have you exhibited any of them? Feel free to leave a comment with your experiences, feedback, or suggestions. If you found this video helpful, be sure to hit the like button and share it with others too. Don't forget to subscribe to Psych2Go and hit the notification bell for more new videos. Thanks for watching.


Patriot Prime Reviews is a channel for adult collectors and may not be suitable for children under 13 years of age viewer discretion is advised Hey, what's going on guys? Patriot Prime here once again with another video review But before I get started I need you guys to do me a favor if you're watching this video right here and are not a subscriber to Patriot Prime Reviews Please hit that subscribe button right now. It won't cost you a thing will help me and my channel out Tremendously. Also, make sure and check out my sponsor toy hacks comm toy hacks provides label sets Upgrade kits and display backdrops for transformers toys of all types and generations New for 2020 toy hacks is introducing the toy hacks armory where they'll be offering a variety of weapons for your favorite bots in multiple colors Also, this year toy hacks is introducing robo points for every purchase you make You'll earn robo points that you can redeem towards a voucher for future purchases Toy hacks is a company run by collectors for collectors So check out toy hacks comm and make your collection stand out from the rest and tell them Patriot Prime sent you now onto the review The featured bot in this video is transformers war for Cybertron Earthrise Grapple and I want to give a big shout out to fellow youtuber Adamantium Matrix Who also runs the online toy store colossal toys for hooking me up with this guy? You can check him out right here. Now. Let's take a quick look at the packaging You've got grapple in robot mode Transformers Earthrise on the side is some fantastic artwork of grapple with his big claw On the back you've got grapple in robot mode vehicle mode and hoisting up the mighty sound barrier on this side You've got more transformers Earthrise artwork. I love the art for these new packages So without further ado, let's get this guy cracked open so I can get my claws on him and welcome to Patriot Prime reviews Okay, now before we get started I want to point out that this is the first Transformers figure that I have bought in years that does not have any of those little plastic Ties attached to it. I mean grapple is inserted in this in the plastic bubble and that's it No plastic ties whatsoever Hasbro keep doing this Now once you get grapple all open to now the packaging you'll see he does come with a sheet of instructions And these are those great Earthrise instructions that are very well illustrated and very easy to follow I love these instructions. He also comes with a rifle and a claw attachment Now taking a look at the figure himself grapple is very blocky very G1 I really like the looks of this guy Up close on the face sculpt very good face. I'm not a big fan of the eyes They've got the eyes painted a very very light blue and they kind of blend into the face I wish the eyes were darker, but other now it looks really really good He's got translucent blue windshield right there along the chest with Translucent blue lights Tampagraft Autobot symbol right there in the middle. I like the wipers molded in wipers there Lots of nice molded details all over. I mean, he looks really really good. Got a little silver up there on the shoulders paint applications he's got hazard stripes there and On the crane on his back and surprising he really doesn't have that much of a backpack Figure looks really really good. I do wish the helmet Was painted black like the original generation one figure, but oh well now as far as articulations Concern his head is on a I guess it's a peg. It's not a ball joint So it came to a complete 360 the arms can go up and down There is an elbow bend and a elbow rotation No rotation with the hands or the wrists. There is a waist rotation Legs can go up and down all around. There is a knee bend and an ankle tilt Now what's really cool is grapple can actually flip his hands around and you've got a little port And on the back of grapple right there attached to the crane is a little missile or blaster and that can actually peg into the Socket right there and that gives him his G1 look with his I don't know if that was a weapon or not in G1, but we'll say that's a Weapon this go around now you can also remove the Blaster here and attach the claw so he's got That going on of course you can do that with both wrists if you so choose Now you have a Blaster claw battle mode if you will Now let's get grapple transformed into vehicle mode and it's actually pretty easy the first thing you're going to do is Unpeg this whole section actually pops off right there at the top and Extends out so there's a lot of Back kibble that was hidden in him and you're going to take the section with his face and Completely flip it around so it looks like that. You're going to take the fists Fold the fist in on both sides Then you're going to swing the arms around they will untab from the cab Make sure the silver sections fold into the cab like so see Get the little peg right here on top do the same on the other side There we go in those two sections will peg together So that is more or less the top of the vehicle you're going to take the feet extend the feet out and Down just like that.  You're going to bring the feet together Fold this down and then right here you've got these two pegs underneath the crane that peg into these holes right there Be very wary of this I have seen many grapples that have an issue with those pegs getting stuck in these holes and They snap right off, but mine I lucked out Mine snap in perfectly.  It's on a soft ratchet bring that up and around flip this section down Let's see make sure he gets pegged in you've got these little holes right there that go into those pegs If those pegged in nice and tight will snap into place get everything lined up extend this portion of the crane out and There you have grapple in vehicle mode Grapples crane truck mode looks really really good a lot of nice molded details carry over. I Love the looks of the cab. It is very 80s very generation one He's got great pegged in wheels or pinned in wheels. Excuse me not just clipped in I love the details on the back wheels better than the front Let's see. You've got the little stabilizers molded in there the hazard striping Side windows this time mean everything's clear. You can kind of see right through the cab Back of the vehicle. You got a big gap right there now as far as the cranes concerned It can go up and down as I said it is on a ratchet, which is really nice and Can rotate around got a little hook up here up top Unfortunately, it's molded closed so you can't really hook anything to the hook There is a five millimeter port right here on top of the crane so you can attach the claw if you so choose so now he can reach down and Pick up boulders or anything else. He may seem fit maybe a stuffed animal like a claw machine or Pop the claw off face the pork forward Take the blaster attachment and now he has a Laser blaster Or he can art down and There is a welder so some pretty cool options. You can utilize with the crane mode Also this piece can go in and out all in all a very nice Looking vehicle. I I love it. It is so Generation one now for the quick size comparisons here is Transformers War for Cybertron Earthrise grapple with Generation one Optimus Prime Generation one grapple see what I mean about the black helmet and His partner in crime Transformers Earthrise hoist Transformers War for Cybertron Earthrise grapple is a fantastic toy This figure is just G1 through and through and I love it My only real complaints with the figure I wish he had a black helmet and he really needs a little bit more paint applications If you take a look at him beside the generation one version lots of color on this guy This one is a little plain though. I hear toy hacks has a set for him that really fixes those issues So there you go guys war for Cybertron Earthrise grapple So does the Transformers War for Cybertron Earthrise grapple belong in your collection? Absolutely. This is a fantastic toy. I absolutely love this figure He is so much better than I originally thought he was going to be and I got to give another shout out to my buddy Adamania matrix for sending him to me. I love this toy. This thing is awesome But be warned I've seen many youtubers and many a post on Facebook Where they're showing the pegs that go into the feet are getting snapped off So when you first get one of these make sure the pegs fit in properly and they're not too tight Some people just been sanding them down so they don't break off and ruin the figure But if you happen to have one that's okay like mine is you're gonna really love the figure So yeah, you see this guy on the shelf. Don't hesitate He is awesome and guys. I want to thank you for stopping by and checking out my video Don't forget to like don't forget to subscribe and don't forget to hit that bell icon to get notified when I upload new reviews I hope each and every one of you are taking care of yourselves during all this pandemic mess and we will get through this This is Patriot Prime signing out


Hello, and welcome to the launch of the IEA's new report, World Energy Investment 2023. I'm Jethro Mullen, Chief Editor in the IEA's communications team, and I'm joined here today by IEA Executive Director, Dr Fatih Birral, and our Chief Energy Economist, Tim Gould, who led the analysis of our new investment report. And I would note that our new report is free to download and read on our website. So do take a look after the presentation is over. During today's press webinar, Dr Birral will make some opening remarks, and then Mr Gould will present the key findings of the report. We'll then take questions from journalists. For the journalists taking part in this press webinar, we invite you to submit your questions via the Q&A function in the Zoom. You can do this at any point during the presentation, and we'll also take a two-minute break right after the presentation for you to submit your questions. And with that, I'll hand over to our Executive Director, Dr Birral. Thank you very much, Jethro, and good morning to all of the journalists and the other colleagues and friends following this webinar. The colleagues, last weekend, I had the opportunity to address the G7 leaders in Hiroshima on energy and climate issues. And in addition to the G7 leaders, I think Japanese government took a very good decision. They have invited the leaders also from India, such as Prime Minister Modi, such as the Lula from Brazil, and Joe Quevedo from Indonesia, and other leaders. In my speech to world leaders, a lot of things. I share with them, but the main idea was that a new clean energy economy is emerging and emerging much faster than many realize. I gave some numbers from the IEA analysis in terms of how many gigawatts solar, how much heat pumps, how much nuclear efficiency hydrogen, and others. Now, today's report we are releasing, World Energy Investment 2023 reinforces the message I share with the world leaders in terms of investment flows. And I am very happy with the results, as they are very clear, and reinforcing the message IEA has been sharing with the international audience since almost two years. Let me start with, in my view, a key finding. Five years ago, in terms of the energy world, it is almost yesterday, five years ago, global energy investments, the total amount of money invested in the all energy sources, five years ago, it was about two trillion US dollars. And out of these two trillion US dollars, one trillion went for fossil fuels, and one trillion for clean energy, so it was one to one. And now, this year, according to our World Energy Investment Report, the amount of investment going to fossil fuels is still around one trillion US dollars. And for clean energy, it increases to 1.7 trillion US dollars. So five years ago, the ratio between fossil fuels and clean energy was one to one. And this year, it is one to 1.7 in favor of clean energy. In my view, in the view of the colleagues who made this analysis in a perfect way, this is a dramatic shift in the world of energy. Why it is happening? It is a powerful alignment of three major factors. Number one, cost. The cost of mature clean energy technologies, such as solar, such as wind, is becoming competitive almost everywhere in the world. The cost is one driver. The second driver is policy, government policies. After the global energy crisis started on 24th of February, we have seen the government's support for clean energy technologies was much stronger and much faster, because many governments considered clean energy as a lasting solution to their energy security challenges in Europe, but many other countries as well. And this policy support came on top of the support of the climate change-related policies. Therefore, we understood that the government policies really do matter. The policies were the second driver after the cost. The third one is the industrial strategy. I think it is a very clear fact that the future of industry sector is the sector of clean energy technology manufacturing. So many governments around the world are coming with major incentives in order to foster their domestic clean energy technology manufacturing capacity. United States Inflation Reduction Act, Europe is also coming. It is Green Deal Industrial Plan, Japan, Green Transformation of Japan, China already making big steps in that direction. India with the production-linked investments. So this is a big, big, big growth coming as an industrial strategy for those who want to have a strong foothold in the next chapter of the industry sector. And where is this investment going? All this investment going, it is mainly going to electricity. When I say electricity, of course, a significant chunk goes to electricity generation, mainly renewables, but also we see a strong growth also in nuclear power. So one is electricity generation. The other one is the Greets storage, but also we see electric cars and heat pumps are getting a handsome amount of investment from this wave. One shining example, solar. When I look at our numbers, the numbers of Mr. Tim Gould and his colleagues, I can easily say solar is the star of global energy investment landscape. What we see is that each day more than one billion dollars is spent for solar energy in the world. And as such, the amount of investment going to solar in annual basis is higher now than the amount of investment going in the oil production. This is, I think, a very impressive way to look at the growth in solar investments and the appetite. Now, of course, when we talk about the energy industry, oil and gas industry has a very important share. And when we look at the investment in the oil and gas industry, we get the following picture. This year, according to our numbers, oil and gas industry revenues reach about four trillion U.S. dollars, four trillion U.S. dollars, all the oil and gas industry, international companies, national oil companies, and others. When we look at the recent averages, this is two times higher than the averages we used to see. So what do the companies do with this four trillion record revenues? So what we see is that, and we look at these numbers, and again, big congratulations for our excellent investment team looking at all the numbers, company by company, sector by sector. And what we find out that more than half of this money for oil and gas industry revenues went to dividends, share buybacks, and debt repayment, more than half of it. Less than half went to investments. So this is something I think we all need to highlight. In terms of the, if we hear that the companies are not investing here and there because of lack of money, this is not true. It is their choice, which is legitimate, of course, they have the revenues, they can do whatever they want with their revenues. But the choice, the big part of the choice of what to do with this windfall revenues was the choice of paying back to dividends, share buybacks, and also debt repayment. So we also look, another aspect when it comes to oil and gas companies' investments, both international and national oil companies, because we were very happy to see that many of the leaders of the oil and gas industry announced that they would like to be part of the solution of our climate change problem, which is, of course, a very welcome news. We would like to see all energy stakeholders to be part of the coalition to address our common challenge of climate change. So therefore, we welcome the willingness and the statements made by the leaders of the oil and gas industry. Having said that, when we look at the numbers, as we always do at the International Energy Agency, we see that the amount of money going to clean energy investments in the total investments of the oil and gas industry is, unfortunately, less than 5 percent today. So there is a need to calibrate either the numbers, to increase the numbers and see higher share of clean energy technologies in the oil and gas industry, or maybe to calibrate the statements. So dear colleagues, I would like to finish by mentioning one final issue, which is the natural gas markets. After the Russia's cuts in pipeline gas supply to Europe, we have seen that the policymakers and investors reacted strongly. There is a wave of spending in new supply and also LNG infrastructure. In many important countries, mainly in Europe and Asia, we see a new wave of regalification capacity. And this will be followed in a few years by a major new liquefaction capacity coming in the markets. Our numbers show that between 2025 and 2027, in two, three years of time, we will see an unprecedented 170 BCM of new LNG export capacity is coming into operation. This is, of course, a very important aspect as we deal in Europe and Asia, the absence of Russian gas exports. So here, of course, for the gas industry, for the policymakers, it is not an easy task because we know that the gas business is a long-term business. And the key challenge, key dilemma for the investors and policymakers, how to reconcile and short-term strong demand pressures and long-term uncertainties in the natural gas demand while we want to keep our climate targets alive. So last two points. One is that I have an RSEE, as an energy expert organization, just to share with all policymakers and the investors a small advice. Please do pay close attention to the trends in clean energy investment that I tried to give you some highlights. If this trend continues to grow as we are seeing now, and if it can be broadened more and more to the emerging and developing countries, we will soon start to see a very different energy system, global energy system emerging. And as such, we can keep our 1.5 degrees target alive. And my final point is I would like to thank sincerely our chief energy economist, Mr. Tim Gult and his large, able, committed team of experts who made this study for the IEA, for governments, for investors, for anybody who is interested to understand how energy investment is developing around the world, how much money goes where, countries, sectors, and others. It is a very difficult business, but they put this difficult task in a very nice report, as my colleague Jethu Mellon said, it is freely available in our website. As I told to Mr. Gult, it reads so well, it doesn't seem like a report on energy, it reads like a poem. So with this, I would like to thank once again our chief energy economist, Mr. Tim Gult, and give the floor to him to elaborate some of the points that I tried to highlight. Mr. Gult. Thank you very much indeed, Executive Director, and it's a great pleasure to talk a little bit more about some of the findings that we've had in this year's World Energy Investment. And as we've said already, this is a report where we don't talk about kilowatts or kilowatt hours or barrels of oil, we're talking about flows of capital into the all aspects of the energy sector, whether that's new energy supply or demand side investments in efficiency and electrification. And we try and think through what that means for important policy goals of security and sustainability and emissions reduction and so on, particularly at a time when we've had so many disruptions in the global energy sector. And as the Executive Director's words made very clear, this has been an incredibly dynamic period in the investment space. But it hasn't always been so dynamic and it's probably worth casting our minds back to where we were a few years ago. So investment in fossil fuels had been sharply down from the levels earlier in the 2010s. But investment in clean energy wasn't picking up even after the conclusion of the Paris Agreement. Now, you were getting more for your money each year because the costs of those technologies was coming down. But we weren't seeing the sort of expansion in capital flows to clean energy that we needed. And as a result, we were worried that we were simply not putting enough capital into the energy sector. We weren't investing enough to change, to get onto a more sustainable track. And in the absence of that pickup in energy transitions, we weren't investing enough to maintain the reliable operation of the system that we had. So we were vocal in warning of the consequences of this sort of indecision of this impasse and pointing to the way forward. And the way forward in our view was a surge in spending to boost deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure. And then came 2020, the disruption caused by the pandemic and then the global energy crisis that we're all acutely aware of. And for fossil fuels, that meant an immediate slump and then a recovery. And now we're back around that $1 trillion in annual investment that the executive director referred to. But the picture for clean energy has been very different. It was more resilient immediately. And then we've seen this sharp pickup and double digit annual growth in recent years. And that's the backdrop to the conclusion that the executive director expressed. Something has shifted. The recovery from the pandemic, the response to the global energy crisis, have provided that major boost to clean energy investment, responding to those three factors that were mentioned, costs, policies, industrial strategies. And there's that sharp illustration of some of those investment dynamics here in the comparison that we can make between the money going into upstream, oil production, and the money going into solar. And solar is really is the star of the show in our new report. And so it's useful to reflect on just how far we've come in terms of those investment flows. So this is the comparison from 10 years ago between the amounts respected in those two areas. Back in 2013, oil costs were high. But solar was relatively expensive at that time as well. Since then, the oil and gas industries become a lot leaner. But solar has transformed even more quickly. And it's not just that investment has tripled, but you get well over six times the amount of capacity for the investment that goes into the system because of lower costs, because of economies of scale. And we expect this year that more than $1 billion per day will go into solar investments including utility scale, distributed generation, and other technologies. Solar is the center of this dynamic, but it's not the only part of the picture. This is really a broader story about growth in a range of technologies associated with what we might call clean electrification. So that's clean sources of generation, investment in some countries into upgraded smart modernized grids, battery storage, and then of course more electrified uses of that, so electric vehicles, heat pumps, and so on. And this has been moving fast, and we are expecting as you see on the slide continued growth in 2023. So lots of positive aspects, but we shouldn't pretend that everything in the clean energy garden is rosy. There are headwinds. There's policy and price uncertainties in many markets. There are challenges with supply chains. There's issues with permitting that are very much part of the energy conversation nowadays. And there are higher borrowing costs, which make life difficult for technologies that require high upfront spending. And those issues are all affecting the pace of deployment. And if I had to highlight one thing that we need to be paying very close attention to, which doesn't always get the attention that deserves. And that's this question of grids, this question of electricity networks. So in a world where you can build a new utility scale renewable project in two years, but a new grid projects typically takes at least double that. It's clear that your network planning needs to be running ahead of the curve in order to avoid being a constraint on growth. And that is often not the case. So if we cannot expand grid infrastructure in a timely way, this can be an important limiting factor for renewable investment in the future and it's a big preoccupation here at the IEA and you'll be hearing more from us on this topic. Very interesting dynamics also if we look at the geographical allocation of that clean and early investment. What you're looking at here is where have we seen increases between 2019 and today? Very impressive growth, but it's really concentrated in a handful of major economies. China, as I think we're all aware, is a clean energy powerhouse leading investment trends in many areas, but new policies are accelerating deployment elsewhere, notably in the European Union and in the United States. And there are positive stories in other countries. India's solar deployment, renewables are picking up in Brazil. There's also some major investments planned and underway in parts of the Middle East, but overall we do have quite an imbalanced picture when we look at the geographical spread of that clean energy investment. Almost all the growth has come from advanced economies and from China and we really need to see that takeoff in clean energy investment elsewhere. There's an awful lot more to be done there, including by the international community, to facilitate that growth in clean energy investments and we're shortly going to be coming out with new analysis on how to finance an acceleration in clean energy projects in emerging and developing economies at something we're doing jointly with the International Finance Corporation and that'll be out in a few weeks' time. Let's broaden this out. Let's look at the whole picture and across all of the major categories that we track and the first element of that is the investment that's going into different parts of fuel supply. And as was mentioned by the Executive Director, the oil and gas industry saw record revenues during the energy crisis in 2022 and some of that is going back into what you might call traditional elements of supply, but it's striking that even with those record revenues, only a handful of oil companies or oil and gas companies are investing more in the upstream than they did prior to the COVID pandemic. So these are mainly large national oil companies in the Middle East. And by contrast, you'll see that investments in coal supply have been growing relatively strongly and are already well above 2019 levels. And it's quite difficult to see, but from a very low base, there's a very dynamic picture emerging around low emissions fuels. There's a lot of policy support coming through for investments in low emissions hydrogen, for CCUS, for biogases, for biofuels. And I expect that we'll see that pick up much more strongly in the years to come as well. We've already talked a lot about power, but you see immediately the contrast between the power investment side and the fuel supply investment side. So in power, already 90% of investment is going into low emissions technologies, so renewables and nuclear. Investment in new fossil fuel fire generation has been flat or declining, although there was one warning sign in 2022 when we had a relatively large amount of new coal fired capacity approved. The vast majority of that was in China.  We've talked about electrification, that surge in EV sales and a really strong pickup in heat pump sales as well. The picture for efficiency is more mixed and we really need to be paying attention to that area as well. Because we need huge improvements in efficiency to get on track for our climate goals. I'd like to say a few words now about this question of what happened to that large influx of revenue that accrued to the oil and gas industry in 2022. Because that was one of the big questions that we needed to look at when we were doing this analysis, where would it go? Would it go back into the energy sector? Would it go somewhere else? And as the executive director explained, when we look at the cash spending by the oil and gas industry in 2022, more than half went to dividends, share buybacks, debt repayment. And then the things that were put back into energy investment, the vast majority of that went into, in a sense, traditional areas of oil and gas. And there, I think, as the executive director mentioned, we think that there is an opportunity there with these revenues, for the industry to move ahead with, not just with the transformation of its own profile, but also to support the overall transformation of the energy system. One other major factor that we needed to address with this analysis was what are the implications of that shortfall in Russian gas deliveries to Europe following Russia's cuts after the invasion of Ukraine? And this has had implications across the board. It gave additional impetus to clean energy deployment in Europe, but it also spurred new investments in gas supply and infrastructure. And in a way, we're seeing two waves of deployment coming through. The first wave, which we're already seeing today, is on the import side. So investments in new regasification infrastructure, and that's visible in Europe, but there's also a lot of activity there in other parts of the world, in Asia, notably in China. But we've also seen how the crisis prompted additional investment in export capacity, that's the most expensive part of the gas value chain. And around 60 billion cubic meters worth of annual export capacity has been given the green light since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And that's nearly double the rate of new approvals on average over the last decade. And that takes time to come to market, but it does mean that if you take that together with other projects that had already been approved, we do have that extraordinary surge of new liquefaction capacity coming onto operation between 2025 and 2027. And that's going to have huge implications then for markets. And I think the dilemma here is how in a long-term industry like the gas industry, do you invest in ways that deals with a really near-term need for additional gas, but also uncertainty over the long-term outlook? I'd like to say a few words also about investment in supply chains, because that's a major issue for policymakers, for investors, and a major issue also for the IEA. And we wanted to take the example here of batteries, because where we have record sales of EVs, strong investment in battery storage for power, and a push from policymakers to scale up domestic supply chains. You know, we have that, if you look at the manufacturing plans, there's a prospect of a large new wave of lithium-ion battery manufacturing projects around the world. And for the moment, China is the main player at every stage of global battery manufacturing, with the exception of the mining of critical minerals. And the announced manufacturing plants, as you see on the screen, would somewhat erode this position. But one of the really critical questions for battery manufacturers is also about the inputs that they need, the battery metals, the cobalt, the nickel, copper, and so on, that are so important to a more electrified system. Lithium as well is an incredibly important part of that picture. So investment in new mining operations for nonferrous metals is picking up. We also see new exploration amongst a quite a diverse group of countries, like Canada, Australia, Brazil, resource rich countries in Africa. But moving from exploration to new production can take more than 10 years. So they remain concerns that critical mineral investment will become a constraining factor for clean technology manufacturing and deployment. And that's why it's very much on the agenda here at IEA, and that's why we are convening a major clean energy and critical mineral summit at ministerial level in September of this year. Finally, what does this all mean for the future? What does it tell us about the direction in which we are heading? If clean energy investment keeps growing to 2030, as it has done over the last two years, then overall spending on clean electrification in particular would get us beyond the needs of an announced pledges scenario. So the APS is one where we give governments the benefit of the doubt and all of those national climate and emissions reduction targets are met in time and in full. And some technologies, notably solar, are growing at rates that would match those required in the net zero emissions by 2050 scenarios, so the NZD on the screen for 2030. But maintaining those high rates of growth is tough, and as I've mentioned, some elements of the picture, including grids, efficiency spending, low emissions fuels, risk lagging behind, and then there's that big open question about accelerating deployment in emerging and developing economies. But what happens on the left-hand side of the screen will then determine what the needs are for on the right-hand side of the screen. So how clean energy spending evolves will determine then the way that clean electricity starts to erode some of the markets on which fossil fuel suppliers have relied. And that then leads to those differences in future requirements for fossil fuels across different scenarios. So there are risks there, but if we get that surge in clean energy spending on the left-hand side of the screen, then you can see that the requirement for fossil fuel investment would be considerably lower by 2030 than it is today. So our overall message, we are in a significantly better place than we were a few years ago. We've broken that log jam in investment that I described at the start of this presentation. There's still a very long way to go, but there are finally some encouraging signs for us all to work with. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much for the presentation. We now have time to take some questions from journalists, so we invite the journalists in attendance to send your questions through the Q&A function of the Zoom if you haven't done so already. And please mention your media outlets along with your question. And so we're just gonna take a two-minute break to give you a chance to answer your questions and we'll be right back. Hi everyone, welcome back. Thank you very much to all the journalists for the questions. We've got some very good ones and we're gonna try and get through as many of them as we can in the time we have left. Starting with Stanley Reid from The New York Times. He says, a lot of oil and gas leaders, especially in OPEC Plus, say there is an ongoing shortage of investment that could lead to future shortages. What is your view? And an additional question is, whether tax is included in your calculations of oil and gas revenues. Link to that, we have a question from Claire Pennington, who I believe is from ICIS, asking, has Europe invested too much in LNG terminals and extended global reliance on gas? How could this impact meeting climate goals? So a recurring question here, I think that Tim will take is, too much investment in oil and gas or too little? And we also have one about the G7 for Dr. Birrell, just asking what your key takeaways were from your conversations with leaders from around the world, G7 and beyond in Japan. So maybe I'll pass the first question to Tim, sorry, questions, and then to Dr. Birrell. So thank you very much indeed for the questions. Analysis shows that oil and gas investment has been rising for the last few years after that slump in 2020. The adequacy of that investment really depends on your view about which world we're in. Where are we heading? And I think we've illustrated during this presentation and discussion that that really depends on how quickly we start building up alternative ways of meeting the demand that is currently met by fossil fuels. And so the flows of clean energy deployment, particularly in fast growing emerging economies become then a crucial indicator of where we are. But the overall benchmark, if we look at the volume of investment going into new oil and gas supply, then it's broadly aligned with the 2030 needs of our stated policy scenario. So that's a scenario based on today's policy settings. I would though underline that today's policy settings are not set in stone and that steps is not in the same place every year. So investing for that scenario, by the time you arrive there, it might not be where you think it is. And so that's why we encourage all participants, all investors to keep a very close eye on some of those clean investment dynamics. And the other thing I think to have in mind when it comes to oil and gas investment is that relationship between investments and costs because some of the increase that we are envisaging for this year, roughly half of the increase that we're envisaging this year is to accommodate cost inflation for different parts of the oil services and supplies for the industry. A more specific question about whether tax is included in some of those revenue calculations. So the net income calculation, that four trillion number, that is just revenue minus costs. So it doesn't include tax. However, that slide showing the cash flow and the allocation of cash flow, that is post tax. On the question about whether Europe has invested too much in LNG infrastructure. Well, we've had a very dramatic reduction in Russian pipeline deliveries. And those need to, at least in part, be replaced because even as Europe accelerates its efforts to build up alternative ways of meeting those demands, there is a need, at least in the short term, for alternative sources of supply. And the ability to get those in from alternative pipeline routes is of course limited in the short term. And so a lot of investment has gone into regasification facilities. I think the thing to have in mind when you talk about whether that really locks in consumption for the future is a lot of that investment has gone into floating regasification facilities which are much easier to of course redeploy to other parts of the world. And the other very important aspect there is if you're investing in onshore facilities, to what extent can they then be used to make them more compatible with a changing energy system? So can some of those facilities be used one day also for handling low emissions gases? So you could import LNG but then turn it into hydrogen or you could potentially use some of those facilities to import green ammonia or other hydrogen rich fuels. So that's the way I would respond to that question. I think I replied to the G7 question. At the G7 last weekend in Hiroshima, I think as I mentioned the Japanese government followed in my view a very sound approach. And in addition to the G7 leaders, Prime Minister Kishida invited the leaders of India, Prime Minister Modi, Lula of Brazil and Jokabedot of Indonesia, Australia, Korea and several other countries. Why I'm saying this is it was a very diverse group of leaders from a political perspective, from an economic perspective, economic development level perspective and also from a different continents of the world. Now, if I have to pick up one key takeaway is that I was very surprised, positive surprise that such a diverse group of world leaders all agree on the clean energy is the future of the world. They were all agree on that and they all made their commitments from their country's perspective. They all expressed their expectation that the world goes in a clean energy direction. So if I have to pick up one takeaway, it is this and of course as the head of the IEA, I should mention that we were and I was flattered to see that in the world leaders there in Hiroshima, but also after they communicate, recognized the IEA's global leadership role and gave additional responsibilities and mandates to IEA to lead the global clean energy transition. Thank you very much, Tim and Dr. Birrell for those answers. We've got a few more questions we're going to try and squeeze in, a couple of questions on coal. One from Ronald Kim at Argus saying, we saw coal producers posting large profits last year owing to elevated coal prices, but coal prices have been coal prices have been falling this year towards the break-even point of small medium scale producers in some regions while inflation has pushed up production costs. How significant would this be on the investment in coal supply? And then Rafiq Latta from Energy Intelligence on coal says your report shows strong gains in coal investment. Do you see this being sustained? And if yes, has there been any analysis of what this means for climate targets? I think Tim will take that question. A couple of questions on ratios and numbers from junior aisles at the energy industry times. He's talking about the one to 1.7 ratio between investment in fossil fuels and investment in clean energy. So what does that ratio need to change to by 2030 if the world is to keep the 1.5 goal within reach the 1.5 degree goal? And then also from junior aisles, I get the impression that the IA would like to see oil and gas companies increase clean investment from the 5% average currently. What kind of percentage do you think they should could or should be making? And then we have a question related to oil again, I think. What is your response to the comments earlier this week by the Saudi energy minister about the IA's projections and analysis? I think Dr. Birrell will probably take that one. So maybe Tim first for coal and the ratios. Yeah, thank you very much indeed for those questions. And the first question on coal, indeed, we have seen an increase in coal supply investments over the last couple of years. That's been rising at around 10% per year. 90% of the investments in coal supply are in the Asia Pacific region with China and India being the key players in that space. And then when we think about the profitability of those supply investments, we really need to quickly move across to talk about demand. And what will happen then? In the near term, that's obviously related to broader economic factors, the rate of overall economic growth, but it is also related to how quickly we can scale up some of the alternative ways, particularly of meeting electricity demand. And just to give you a sense of the compatibility of those levels or current levels of spending with a 1.5 degree scenario, current spending on coal supply is around six times higher than we have in our net zero emissions by 2050 scenario in 2030. And then I think there were two questions from Junior Isles about sort of different aspects of the ratios that we had. So we have this one to 1.7 ratio. So one, at the moment, there's one, for every dollar of spending on fossil fuels, there's $1.70 going into clean energy. What would that look like in a net zero emissions by 2050 scenario? So by 2030, that ratio has changed quite dramatically in a 1.5 degree scenario. So for every dollar going into fossil fuels, there would be $9 going into different aspects of clean energy. So there's more information on that also in our World Energy Outlook publication. And then the impression that the IA would like to see oil and gas companies increasing clean energy investment from above, from that 5% average, what kind of percentage do you think they could or should be making? Well, there's clearly a variation already across different kinds of oil and gas companies. Some are considerably lower than that 5%. Some, particularly some of the big European companies have already well into double digits and they have quite strong ambitions. So it is possible for that already today to be considerably higher than 5%. What you sometimes hear from oil and gas companies is that they don't see the projects out there that generate the required returns for them to invest. But I think in that context, you need to be also aware that policy is creating a lot more investment opportunities, particularly in areas like CCUS or in low emissions hydrogen or in biofuels that seem to be a good match for the capabilities and expertise of the oil and gas industry. So there is an opportunity there to scale that up also from a policy perspective. But in terms of what percentages would be compatible with our net zero emissions by 2050 scenario, I would encourage you also to await some analysis that we're gonna be releasing a little bit later this year in advance of the COP28 in Dubai, looking specifically at the role of the oil and gas industry in net zero transitions. And we'll go into that in a lot more detail then. Thank you very much, Tim. And so just time for one last question, the one I mentioned briefly before for Dr. Birrell, which is what is your response to the comments earlier this week by the Saudi energy minister about the IA's projections and analysis, Dr. Birrell? Thank you, Jethro. Yes, I read the comments of Mr. Minister, but I wouldn't like to comment on those. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much, Dr. Birrell. That's all we have time for. Thank you very much for the presentations and for questions from the journalists. If any journalists don't have questions that didn't get answered during the Q&A that you'd like to follow up on, please do reach out to the press office and we'll get back to you as soon as we can. So thank you all for taking part for your questions for listening in from around the world. And a reminder that the full World Energy Investment 2023 report is available for free on our website. So do please take a look and that's all. Thank you and goodbye.


Hi, welcome to Teens On Topic. I'm your host, Emma Arnston, and today we are joined by... Hello, my name is Ramiro. I'm Andy Knox. My name is Anantamashiana. And today we're talking a little bit about self-driving cars, so let's see what people in Davis have to say about it. Let's do it. So our question this week is, what kind of impact do you think self-driving cars have had or will have on either our daily lives or society as a whole? Self-riding cars. I don't live around here. Actually, I live in Japan for the most time, so they don't have them over there. So I haven't really experienced them, but it seems like that's where we're going to go and that's the wave of the future. And for sure, they're going to have a huge impact. I can see it helping reduce incongestion and kind of making certain aspects of life easier. The only big concern I have is potential job losses. Self-driving cars and trucks would mean taxi drivers and truck drivers would be put out of the job. But for my personal day-to-day life, I think it would actually be more convenient. I think that it's an exciting new technology, but maybe in small towns like Davis where it's such a walking-oriented town, technology maybe needs to develop a little bit more before it's implemented in small towns like this. I kind of feel the same way like he said, but I think that that's just where we're going with our technology and the goods can outweigh the bads. But it is definitely a safety issue right now. I've been in places before where people have been killed by self-driving cars, and it's scary, but it's also exciting at the same time. Times are society as a whole. I think overall humans are generally really bad drivers. I think we get easily distracted and a lot of people like to fixate on the number of accidents that self-driving cars have had, but they're still statistically significantly lower than human error. So I think it would actually be safer in the long run. Anything to add to that? Okay, well, we're back. I think people in general were pretty pro self-driving cars. I mean, they brought up similar cons, which was possible accidents and then also job loss. So what do you guys think about the cons of self-driving cars? I feel like most people, at least in your day list, tend to put more weight on the pros than they do the cons. If I were to think about it, I think traffic. We have a huge traffic problem in America right now. If we have self-driving cars, people are going to feel more accommodated and they're going to be able to travel further distances to their jobs, therefore increasing traffic. So I feel like driving cars should be a thing. I feel like we shouldn't have driving cars. Sorry, how would self-driving cars increase traffic? Say you take 45 minutes to commute from Davis to Roseville, correct? And the commute sometimes takes an hour because of traffic or self-driving cars. You wouldn't even have to worry about that. Actually, it's more of a headache. It's more of a personal kind of thing. Do you see what I mean? Personally, I don't like having to drive in traffic. If I had a self-driving car, that would take 15 more minutes, but it would drive itself to where I want to go. I'd totally do that. I'd go for that. So you think it could result in increased car usage overall? Exactly. I mean, I see what you're saying. I feel like in terms of traffic jams, though, you would see a lot less of that. I mean, as it currently works, cars, people can't really trust each other and they have a certain reaction time between the person ahead of me going, okay, now I'm going to go and I think that wouldn't be as much of a problem with self-driving cars if they detect that a green light's on and they can go ahead. So I mean, I think in terms of time, that would be overall beneficial, but I mean, I agree that it would probably result in more people using cars because there's less of a disincentive to do so. So I mean, I think that could actually have some potential effects on the environment. So hopefully that kind of technological progress goes hand in hand with environmental progress. Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the idea of self-driving cars, mostly because I agree with what the one person who talked about the accident issue. I think it's a safety issue. If I, me as a person, if I'm taking an Uber, I want a human to drive me. I don't want a robot driving me because even if there's a small chance that the robot is going to malfunction, I don't feel comfortable with that at all. Or if you're going to have self-driving cars, it should be easy to override the self-driving function and start driving yourself.  But if there's a self-driving car that kills someone, I think the company is absolutely going to take the fall for it. So I think companies are going to try to make them as safe as possible just to avoid liabilities, which I think is helpful. I agree, but there's also that, you know, little room, that little space or that little chance that an accident may happen. Say you're driving in harsh weather conditions such as snow or heavy rain, are these cars also going to be programmed for these tropical storms or thunderstorms or winter storms? You see what I'm trying to get at? If it's snowing like crazy and well, a human has more experience driving through snow than a robot, well, then what would be more beneficial, you know, a self-driving car or a human?  But I don't think that's any different than what they do today. I mean, people make normal cars. They obviously want it to be as safe as possible today as it is. But my point is, like, it's a lot more reliable that a human is not going to malfunction than it is that a robot is not going to malfunction. I don't think so because I feel like the likelihood that a human will, like, malfunction or just kind of go crazy and fall asleep at the wheel and come into oncoming traffic or just happen to ram into someone who's crossing the street when they're not paying his close attention, right? The fault of that in the eyes probably of the justice system, which would be like oversuing some kind of lawsuit in this case, right? The fault of that would be put onto the human, whereas I think the fault of the crash, when it's done by an automated vehicle, I think it's going to be put on the company. And so if you notice that there's a company that, oh, wow, they're like five times as likely to kill someone as just someone regularly driving a car is, probably A, not a lot of people are going to want self-driving cars because they'd be afraid of killing people, and B, the companies would immediately do everything in their power to make it safer because they don't want to get sued again.  Like, I think that sensors can mess up, and there's always a chance that they do mess up, and I don't feel comfortable with it. That's just how I am. Yeah, well, I mean, I think that also kind of shows that there's probably going to be a market for non-self-driving cars for a long time because there are going to be people like, this sounds kind of rude, but people like you who are just untrusting of self-driving cars, which is understandable, that's probably going to be something that lasts for a long time. I mean, but also, I'm sure there's a lot of technology today that when it first came out, people were either untrusting of it, they're like, this isn't safe, this isn't going to work, this business isn't going to succeed, but I mean, look where we are today, and I would definitely be willing to change my mind if they would run trials, which I'm sure before they put self-driving cars on the road, they're going to have to run hundreds of thousands of trials, but I would want to see the data, see the accident rate, malfunction rate, and I mean, you're right, a human can fall asleep while driving or get distracted, go on their phone, that's things that a robot doesn't do, so I'd like to see the statistics. I think there's already some examples of that nowadays. Tesla, I believe, Model X, if I'm not wrong, also already has these driving cars that they're not 100% automated, but they do help you keep yourself on the lane, say you're driving and like you said, you become sleepy or you just kind of swerve off, it'll correct you and get you onto the lane. I totally agree with that, yet self-driving cars, like 100%, you get in it, you get from position A to B, I don't know, I just don't feel comfortable with it, and it's also just, it comes to tradition, you know, I genuinely like driving that car and I feel like hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions of people, also like that feeling of having control and losing that control kind of, you know, this is scary for some. What I'm going back to what you were saying earlier about the Tesla ones that are partially self-driving, I'm kind of most worried about the middle ground in between that and ones that are totally self-driving because I feel like there is where people, you know, even if the instruction manual says be paying attention the whole time because, you know, you still have some control over the car and there's potential that it could malfunction. I think probably a lot of people would kind of ignore that warning and there may be like an increased rate of people going on their phones in those partially self-driving cars that then, when the human is needed for whatever reason, they won't be there. Yeah, I mean, I know, I think it was, I don't remember who it was, but I think it was Uber that they're developing their self-driving cars and then there's already been like an accident that, I think it was an old woman that was killed. So I mean, I think the issue, at least in my opinion with self-driving cars is like there's a big difference between like when you're initially developing the technology and when I think it would be safe for people to use it and there's obviously like a time in between that you need to test stuff out and then if you want to test in like actual conditions where it's on the road there's just, I think there's a danger that you have to assume of like, for example, like the woman dying and I mean, I think it was at least, I'm not sure the total story, but I think it was at least the issue of like both people I think the person behind the wheel wasn't paying attention so like even though they should have, like what you were saying that you know they should have been paying attention, they weren't. Because 99% of the time you're probably not going to need to. Yeah, yeah, like there's just, there's always that 1% so I think at least my issue is until it's like 100% safe and tested so much that I just rather drive myself. Yeah, like Andy said the thing about it's going to tell you to pay attention but people aren't going to, I mean I read a news article a couple years ago about a guy who was in his Tesla, put it on autopilot and I'm pretty sure Tesla's tell you that even if it's on autopilot you're supposed to continue paying attention but I think he started either reading a book or he started watching a movie on the screen and he crashed, so. Yeah, it's inevitable. But another, something I was just thinking about right now what if you have to go off-road or drive on a road that the GPS hasn't mapped yet? You see what I mean? Well how would you control that car and say go left, go right, go at these many miles per hour, et cetera, et cetera. I feel like it's very controversial, very hard to manage. Well I feel like a self-driving car would probably be fairly different from like a GPS where it like freaks out when it thinks you're going through a river when you're actually going through a bridge. But I mean it's probably going to be able to adapt to its surroundings. So sure I mean you'd probably have to pay some more attention when you're like driving on some country road and like turning into some rather new bridge that's like not on all the maps or anything and to like get to some mountain to go climate. But I mean I don't think that you really would have to worry about it thinking that there's not something there when there is, I mean thinking that there's not like a bridge there when there is. Well until then we're going to have to just wait and hope for the best, right? I mean, I guess that's true, I think it's kind of inevitable. It's a technology that's going to come out.  I think it's like, I mean it's already in development, there's like already things happening. So I think like the issue with now is just figuring out how we're going to implement it and what's the safest way to do self-driving cars. Absolutely. Well thank you all for being on the show. This is a really fun topic to talk about and I hope you guys come back at some point and tune in next time. It'll be next year, so 2019. And when we're going to talk about foreign intervention. Happy holidays. Happy holidays. It's been a pleasure, thank you. Yeah, thanks for having us. Thank you.