I could just ask for some comments first and then we could ask you all to identify what priorities would you see there being in both the epidemiology and genomics fields for future research. So who would like to go first? Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, I'd like to continue a discussion. I started with people in the audience earlier. Many geneticists are planning studies that will use opportunistic controls. So basically, you know, given X number of dollars, you could do a case control study of a certain size or you could double your case sample and pick controls off a website. And I think epidemiologists have a lot to offer to geneticists planning those kinds of things and I'd love to see more discussion of that, more written that's going to be in genetics journals about these kinds of strategies. And I would just curious, you know, sort of to get a take from the audience on those kinds of approaches and when they're beneficial and when they're just dead wrong. So it may be a little late in the day, Mike is going to rise to the challenge. Thanks. Well, just a quick comment as one of the few epidemiologists on the AMD, the Klein AMD paper, which you just nicely showed. I think part of the reason that was a successful paper was that the control group, well, first of all, the phenotype was highly specified, but the control group was also very carefully defined as well, taking advantage of the fact, of course, it all came out of a randomized trial database. So I do think there is a lot to be to be gained, as it were, by the by having by thinking through controls, if you don't have access to these 3000 common controls, which certainly seem to work in the recent papers, but if you're sort of starting a new a new project and thinking about defining control groups more carefully, as well as defining phenotypes more carefully, I think that that can have a huge impact on on power in these studies. Can I just argue against that? So so the AMD association is so strong that I don't think it was seen at the level it was in that first study entirely based on a very well curated set of cases and appropriately matched controls, particularly not with that sample size. So I just want to propose that that in fact actually for many of the phenotypes where we now have hits, the genetic association and strength of association is actually going to tell us a lot about the quality of the phenotype and that actually the genetic association if it's seen at the same level as the moving average meta-analysis may be more informative about the quality of the phenotype than what we used to think was informative, which was, you know, was it measured in a clinic by a specialist, et cetera, et cetera. And so this this might be of enormous value in epidemiology in terms of really distinguishing what it takes to phenotype certain outcomes and particularly diseases, whether you really need so-called gold standard clinic based invasive testing based phenotypes or whether lesser degrees of phenotyping or phenotypes are considered as lesser degrees physician diagnosis or, you know, not having all of the tests, you know, may be appropriate. And for some phenotypes, this all shows that you really do need, there is a kind of hierarchy of phenotypes it seems to work okay. So in the diabetes world, for instance, if you look across the quality of the phenotypes in the studies so far, you know, most studies are getting most hits and the case groups have been assembled based on everything from registry-based information all the way to OGGT administered in a single institution. Yeah, well, because I would argue that one of the reasons the audit ratio was so high in the AMD study was that the phenotype was so well characterized. And I don't think things like doctor's diagnosis is actually a very good way of defining a phenotype or severe disease. I mean, severe asthma still is a very heterogeneous mix of different diseases, even though it's severe and doctor diagnosed. So I think we need to go into the phenotype question from a biological perspective rather than a clinical one if I could make that distinction. But I don't think, I actually don't think we're disagreeing. No, it doesn't sound like it. And in fact, the idea that we might be able to use genetic associations to, if not refined phenotypes, at least identify the phenotypes that are more genetic-y might be, you know, a nifty thing. And it's kind of a novel way of thinking about them. But you're right. I mean, epidemiology is all about methods. And it seems that, you know, the geneticists have just sort of discovered phenotypes just recently. And it's a challenge, I think, to be able to address. Can I follow up on that? Please, and then we'll have Boston. So there are two groups here that are phenotyped, right? You have the phenotyping of the cases. And then you have the phenotyping of the controls. And as geneticists, there's somebody who wants to find genes, right? What I want, or in theory what I want potentially, is a group that's a very cleanly controlled group. So in diabetes in the fusion study, we didn't just take everybody who was non-diabetic. We took people who had normal glucose tolerance, who truly had much less risk of developing diabetes. So that, in theory, is going to increase our odds ratios, because we've cut out the people in the middle, right? So it might look like our phenotyping was better when, in fact, we have a different set of controls. It also means that if we go to combine data across studies, we really don't have a good population-based estimate of the risk of getting type 2 diabetes. What we have is a study constructed to get the maximal risk. And I think that's a place, as you had said, Terry, where epidemiology can really contribute, because a lot of the studies that have been designed to be genetic studies have been designed for just that. And there's a very big place for folks who have good population-based studies and who have knowledge on, if you don't have a population-based study, how to get a population-based estimate will be very useful in terms of what is actually the effect of the disease. Can I? That's confusing to two issues, because even in a very well-designed case control study, you're really not getting proper population-based estimates. Your triplicable fractions are always overestimated, because you're actually using odds ratios rather than relative risks. But so I think we need to be careful not to mix apples and oranges here. Sure. And one way to answer many of these questions would be a database way, where you could actually look at complement factor H polymorphisms in the whole spectrum of basically a population-based sample and ask the question, if you pulled out, or if you just compared to a cohort and a case cohort design, would you see the same kinds of associations? Given how strong this is, I bet you probably would. But you might not have picked it up with 100 cases and 50 controls. Vasant. This is probably a futuristic comment largely, because what we have heard today is about associations. And as cardiologists and epidemiologists, we have learned the hard way that the highest hierarchy of epidemiological evidence is a randomized controlled clinical trial. So where this field is headed is you have to demonstrate using a randomized controlled clinical trial that a set of biomarkers or genes, a strategy or management based on using a set of biomarkers or genes, is superior to either conventional management or to, you know, we already have what I would call a million SNP scan. It's a simple question called, do you have family history of cardiovascular disease? So you ultimately end up with a situation where you have very many small genes and modest effects. So it's a great opportunity to learn, to understand the biology, to identify molecular targets. At the end of the day downstream, you'd have to have evidence from a randomized controlled clinical trial that if you show an association, that actually a strategy based on treating that association is superior to conventional strategy. So can I take the contrary view to that? Please do. So we've discussed this a lot as it relates to coronary artery calcium. And there's clearly strong opinions in both directions. But I would make the contrary argument that if we can show that the evidence is very strong that you can identify people that are greater risk in this example for coronary artery disease, we have proven interventions that reduce risk. We all know that statins reduce risk, aspirin and selected people, clearly lifestyle and modification. And that identifying people at greater risk we can implement proven strategies and doing randomized controlled trials, sometimes it's not gonna be feasible because you may not be able to randomize people due to ethical reasons. And the costs are just absolutely prohibitive and the amount of time it takes to get the results. By the time you get the results, the technology is gonna be out of date. So I would say that I think we need to be careful since we're sort of on the record of what we're saying here that that's an absolute, it's something that still needs to be figured out and it's clearly not that there's only one answer to that question. I actually agree with that. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I was just taking your position which was on one end of the spectrum. The realities have learned time and again that for example asymptomatic arrhythmias, it's intuitive that they are bad but intervention is worse. So time and again epidemiology has taught us that often our first thing is first do no harm. And while we can predict disease that does not necessarily mean the prediction tools end up in better management. One hopes to do so but probably I think it's worthwhile to have an element of caution in terms of all these associations which are being described. Hopefully they'll result in personalized medicine but that has to stand up to the scientific evidence based on randomized trials at least in some ways as feasible. So one thing we haven't really discussed in this forum much is translation and I was gonna bring that up when you called on me if you did. So I think it would be helpful for us to also talk about, now that we're getting this wave of data what we're gonna do with all these data. We talked about whether we're gonna give it back to individual research subjects but what are we gonna do now as a clinician scientist to try to translate this work into clinical practice. We have funding from the Reynolds Foundation and their strong mandate is for us to do research that's gonna be easily translatable in just a few years and we kind of all went whoa, how are we gonna do that? And I think it's our challenge to try to figure out is one to get the data out to the scientific community as rapidly as possible but I think it's also our obligation to get the information in a way that it can help our patients as quickly as possible and maybe we should have another session to discuss how to do that. Now that's a good point. Next question. On the same lines I suppose. In humans, in any organisms as a matter of fact, these are hierarchically organized. There are individuals, there are families, there are populations and then we know very well disease is individual based and then there are in families but unfortunately all the GWAS studies and all the association studies and most epidemiological studies are concerned with population average, taking average and then. So now the question is with all the GWAS studies and all the insight that we have obtained so long, how can we glean into say families and individuals? How can we decouple these things from the information that we have obtained so far? And I'm sorry, how can we decouple? Yeah, for individual level. For example, say in medicine, individual is the unit of treatment. Similarly, when we look at from population genetics perspective, individual is the unit of selection, meaning individual is the one who gets the disease and he probably, he or she dies. So from all of this enormous information that's available, how can we boil down to take care of one individual and two families because that is where the disease is, the individual and family because diseases run in families. Any quantitative character that is meaningful runs in families. Right, well I think that was what Wendy was alluding to that the translation of this is going to be very difficult and is probably years worth of discussion and work in itself. I think though what you may be alluding to is the fact that genome-wide association now allows us to look at individuals where it wasn't so easy to do that in the past. Although we were doing it in family-based studies, identifying genes and then looking at those in individuals and unfortunately those didn't hold up quite as much as we might have expected. Maybe Nancy or Laura or Wendy would want to come. I was just, so I think he's more addressing the point that we get these averages across populations and then how do we apply that in individuals for something like personalized medicine. But I would argue that we've been doing that for years. If you think more of the risk factor paradigms from cardiovascular disease, we learn about the risk of high cholesterol in the Framingham Heart Study and translate that to recommendations we make to individuals. And I think doctors have internalized those kinds of models pretty well. The population at large understands cholesterol, for example triglycerides, understands pretty well. If LDL's too high or HDL's too low, triglycerides are too high. It's a risk factor. They try to modify lifestyle diet, maybe take medications to lower those. And I think the translation of the genetic risk factors that are identified in these kinds of studies. Remember, so the outlier so far is really TCF7L2 with a 1.4. All the rest of them, we're talking about mostly 1.2 and less. So these are modest risk factors that collectively will improve our ability to identify risk and characterize it for subjects and maybe help classify people who are gonna respond differently to medications or so forth. But I think it's gonna be very much within the paradigms that have already been set up. I think. Yeah, I would agree with Nancy. As she said, the TCF7L2 is really the, looks like the tip top of the. For diabetes. Association in diabetes. 1.4, I mean that. And if you put together the kind of top nine or 10 genes that appeared to be replicated and associated with diabetes and you try to look at your ability to predict people who are going to get diabetes, you can get some stratification. But in fact, if you stick BMI into the model and you stick the genetic risk factors in at the same time, you really haven't changed how well you can predict because the genetic factors that we've identified, at least for diabetes, don't account for very much of the risk. And so I think that the interesting things are going to come in much larger scale studies and starting to look for interactions and starting to look for combinations of genes. And at that point, perhaps you'll get to a place where you can actually use these in prediction. But I think in the state that they're in right now, as marginal effects, they're really not of much use to clinicians. Yeah, I'm talking about what is the amount of variance that is explained by all of these genetic factors. Take the best scenario or give me the amount of genetic variance explained by many of these so-called risk factors in any disease. It's not even 10% or 15% or 20%. Oh no, it's not even 2%. No, it's much less. No, when you put all of these things together. No, that's right. So when it is 2%, you know, consider it. That's right. But it may never, at the last be true that any one of them could be quite informative in therapeutic decisions, for example. 2% with 2%. Look at the oversight. Because it may be a different kind of specificity. I mean, I think those clinical trials have yet to be done. And also on the other hand, what is the, when you look at the genetic effects, so you said marginal effects and then interaction, so far, you know, one sort of, you know, genetic effects, is it additive or dominant or epistatic or additive, additive, additive, dominant, additive, epistatic, what is the most overriding genetic effect that you, that so far, people have explained, have discovered. So when we looked at the data in our study, almost all of the effects that we saw were consistent with a multiplicative model. I think there are a couple that looked otherwise. Certainly if you got bigger sample sizes, you might then. Meaning, I would try to. I'm sorry. We need to allow other questioners to explain things. Let's let Laura finish her comments. Were you finished, Laura? Sure. So most of them, when we looked for interact, so the loci themselves looked like they had multiplicative effects, most of them, not all. When we looked for interactions, there were very few interactions that we could detect statistically. So I don't even know whether I would hazard a guess as to what those interactions looked like, if I believe them. Great. Thank you. Betsy. My comment is from an epidemiologic perspective here. So I'm listening and I'm thinking, well, genome-wide associations, we're discovering associations with SNPs. So we actually don't know gene, gene function, anything like that at all.  And then what's gonna happen is what we're gonna be able to do next. And so I think that what's coming next is really able to use these genome-wide associations to improve our epidemiologic study designs to go after candidate genes in environmental interactions based on what we can do in the future. We're talking, everybody's talked about very, very small effects and for small effects, you need to use sample size. From an epidemiologic perspective, that means we're pretty far away on the causal pathway from the outcome. That's the way we think.  So that in fact, if we really knew what that gene was and we knew what its function was in an individual, if it was doing what it was supposed to do, the probability in that individual would be close to one. So it would be a very large effect. So it seems to me that that's the promise of genome-wide associations is sort of giving us sort of the cartography of our genetics so that we know where the peaks and the valleys are so that we can better design studies. We won't need enormous studies, we will need well-designed studies and that take into account these things that we know just like now, you go for high-risk populations to try to, because you have a high probability of an outcome. Well, if you knew what that high-risk group was, then you could take them, they would be homogeneous with respect to these groups of genes and then you could look for the environmental effects if you can get there. So that's sort of my take and I appreciate the correction if I'm wrong. Well, I might like to comment and then perhaps David or others would as well. I think while we recognize that genes of small effect are sobering to say the least, that how much can they explain on a population basis? Let's not forget that we've found many things that are really quite rare that have had tremendous therapeutic implications, one of the best examples being the LDL receptor variants which were found in a very small proportion of the population. I think you misunderstood me, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that we are detecting genome-wide associations SNPs. So in fact, we don't know the function of those individual genes, which means that you basically have a marker for a causal pathway and so that you have a marker and if we could get closer to what that really was, then we would have a much stronger effect. Well, there are a couple of reasons you could have a small effect. One is that you're far away from it and there are lots of other things contributing and another is that it only acts in a small proportion of your population. That's true, but so my point was, is if we knew that we could use genome-wide association stuff to enrich our samples to address the second one or to post-wave to get closer to what the effects were, the genes were, so either way we could increase the power to detect an effect if it really is there. Martin, would you like to comment? Yeah, let me comment on that as well. I think I understand what you're saying, maybe I do, and I think it's actually quite similar to a point that Bob Hoover made in his remarks and that is that really what we're doing with genome-wide association studies is we're looking for candidate genes. That's the purpose. You just said you pick as opposite a control group as you can find because you wanna find the genes. So the purpose of the genome-wide association study is to find the genes. To measure the contribution of particular variants within particular genes, within particular populations, interacting with particular environmental factors, it takes a different kind of study. In fact, it takes a whole series, there's a whole research area there that's between, and that's really what I meant to say, although I didn't say it very well, by showing that slide from the DOE, gene chips show susceptibility. No, the gene chip doesn't show anything except the gene chip. There's a whole body of research that extends from that finding to something that can be used in public health. So I think that it's a wonderful tool. It's fantastic just by showing those little histograms that describe the natural history of association studies in those two conditions, Crohn's disease and macular degeneration. I mean, these genome-wide association studies have triggered a whole flourishing of additional studies to zero in on the potential pathogenesis, the pathways, the intervening environmental factors, and so forth, and that's really where their value lies. And I wanna get back to Nancy's original comment also, her question, which was what about the control populations? Well, if it depends on the purpose of the study, what is the research objective? If the research objective is to find SNPs, find genes, then you want the as far apart as you can get, which was what Laura was saying. If your research objective is to measure the population attributable risk of something, then you need a population-based study. And actually both the Crohn's disease and the macular degeneration examples are interesting not only because they've been replicated numerous times in genetic association studies, but because they appear to have substantial population attributable risk with the macular degeneration. I mean, it's something like, I think in this study that looked at E-Mind smoking, it was about 70%. So that's a lot. So I think everybody wants to jump straight from the gene chip right to the bedside. You cannot do that without the necessary intervening research, and a lot of that makes use of epi-methods. I have one quick question for Laura. Back to this control issue. Fusion was one of the first large-scale studies with the Illumina product. You were gonna have to have controls. So yes, if you have to type controls, you want to get the best that you have. But if you knew that there was a bank of people from Finland, cord bloods from Finland, so largely matched to your set, and you could do twice as many cases and draw from that free set, or the number of cases you had, and your well-phenotyped controls, what do you think would have been better? I mean, so this is, you know. Right, so this epi-101. This is the question of ultimately trying to figure out, from a genetic point of view, how many of the controls in that random set would have become diabetic? And then using that information, I guess my intuition is if it was twice as large, I probably would have gone for the twice as large sample. There's some point at which I wouldn't have, and I don't know exactly where that is, but yes. Maybe in the last 10 minutes, we'll let you ask your question. We may finish about 4.30 or so, and we'll ask each of the speakers maybe starting, and with short responses from Marta, and then just moving down, what they see as being the most important major step we could take in bringing genome-wide association into epidemiology and really clarifying which associations are real and are important for translation. So while they're thinking about that, your comments, sir. Short question to Jim Ostrell. Jim, whether there is such a function, or will be such function to look for specific SNP, let's say in D. Bigup, let's say in Framingham, with several phenotypes, to see whether a SNP is associated with several phenotypes, not with one, but with some subset of phenotypes. And the larger question to the panel, whether this knowledge will allow us to provide epidemiology with some new clever uses of wasps such as redefinition of phenotypes, whether or fighting some new associations between phenotypes that we would not expect, or to redefine some more biological phenotype. Yes. It depends on how many associations are deposited because that's obviously the key between the SNP and the phenotype. Others want to comment on that? Martha, maybe you could make a suggestion as to what you'd see would be the most important thing that we could do, might it be synthesizing knowledge, meta-analyses, sharing data, whatever, in order to use epidemiology to really bring forward the identification of genes for health and disease. Well, I think I already had my chance, but I'll take it again. And that is that the value of collaboration has been the theme of everyone's comments, but there's a cost to collaboration as well, and that's also been discussed in some depth. And I think that funding agencies, in particular the federal government, which I'm also a representative of, I think has a unique responsibility because I think we're the ones who can actually provide the support for activities that often are not reimbursed very well, like, for example, meta-analysis. People don't get grants to do a meta-analysis. But also to build the infrastructure that's needed to support collaborations, because especially when you're talking about a very complex field like this that's really technology-intensive, their collaboration does take resources, the money to bring people together, the money to have consensus conferences, and so forth. So that's government's role. Great, thank you. Okay, Laura. So I think what epidemiologists bring to the table, perhaps as opposed to at least some of the people who do genetics, is a real interest in health and figuring out what are the risk factors that make people well or sick for particular diseases of which they have a pretty good subject matter knowledge. And so I think where epidemiologists are gonna be able to play a very strong role is in investigating and being just curious about what are the interacting factors, what happens when you have multiple SNPs, how do multiple SNPs taken from all different diseases inflect, affect overall mortality rates? How does all this combined knowledge really play into what people die of? Great, thank you. David. So I think as epidemiologists we sort of started with an interest in health disease and studies. And if we conclude on the basis of the story so far that we have been quite successful utilizing prevalent epidemiologic resources for the major causes of morbidity and mortality, we should also recognize that there's plenty of diseases and phenotypes that are important that actually we don't have adequate size sample sets for. So in cancer, once you get much beyond about the fifth or sixth most incident cancer, the entire world's database, if everybody collaborated and everybody shared openly, there might only be four or 5,000 cases collected and ready to go, which would barely support the sort of analyses that we're talking about. And once you get beyond heart disease into subtypes, once you get beyond rheumatoid arthritis into scleroderma, we actually are very underinvested in putting these sample sets together. So I think we've really gotta show the strengths and limits of the technology and then really circle back to the less common diseases and work out how we can collaboratively address these using these new technologies. We also, I guess, waved hands today at how this works, particularly for people of African ancestry. And again, when you look around, what sample sets are available once you get beyond prostate cancer and maybe a couple of the most common cancers, we don't have enough samples. So how are we gonna address that in a meaningful manner to assess both generalizability of results derived from European population, but also discover if there are private polymorphisms in other ethnicities that are important for those other ethnicities? Thank you, Wendy. So I'm thinking about a practical aspect which is funding. So when someone comes to you and says, well, we found this result and we'd like to collaborate with you and see if you see it in your study. Okay, well, I'm gonna write an R01 and that'll take me, as long as it takes me to write an R01, submit it, get it rejected the first time, submit it again, fund it, and that, I mean, I don't have to explain to the audience about that. So that's clearly not feasible. So usually we have some funds we can try to use, but that's really not a very practical way to do science. And so it seems like there should be some mechanism whereby you can apply for grants to have available money to do these replications, validations, when they come up without having to say in the grant what it is exactly you're gonna do. So I'm thinking of that as sort of a maybe practical thing that NIH might be able to help us with. Great, I have to say money too. I was appalled to learn recently that most of the clinical trials being run now, they don't even collect blood samples.   There's a cost to that. And they've got no extra money. And if they just collect the blood samples, they'll have to reduce the size of their clinical trial, which they can't do because they have to be powered to obtain a certain level effect size. So clearly to do this in any way, there has to be more investment in some sample collections. And I appreciate the pie is not growing, but it ought to given where we are with the, you know, with the genomics infrastructure. If we want to take advantage of all of the information that we've spent all these years investing in, more money has to be put into it, especially for sample collections that are already occurring. I mean, these data are being collected. It's a trivial additional investment to collect the blood samples that will enable all of these downstream things to be done. It's criminal not to do it. I agree. Good job. I have to really support that. I was going to say something else, but that's certainly the most important thing is that if you don't have the sample, just forget the rest of it and we don't need to talk any further. But if you do have the sample and you get the data, I guess the one thing that I would comment on is as a positive side, it's not, there's upsides to sharing data too. And the one thing I was going to say was over the 20 years that I've been at NCBI and sort of taking different data sets from different communities as they have set up resources like the genome resources, even with excellent groups, almost 100% of the time that we transformed the data from the way the PI had it to the way we were going to store it, we found problems with it. And we were able to work sort of quietly with the PI and sort it out. And it's a simple effect of the more eyes, look at something the more different ways, the more things you see. And so it's actually benefited everyone to do that. Great. Yeah, so having more than one set of eyes is really, really very important and I think it's been very useful in many data sets. I think I would obviously agree with everything that's been said here. How we make this happen is sometimes a little more challenging than coming up with them, but we have to come up with the good ideas before. We can actually move forward. I think if I would suggest one thing, it might be finding some way of identifying, we heard earlier that there are many, many efforts going on in the sequencing area. And sequencing costs a lot of money still, even though we are moving toward $1,000 to sequence an entire person's genome, but we're not there yet. And yet there are lots of groups that are going into specific areas of the genome, candidate regions, et cetera, sequencing them in various kinds of individuals with such and such disease or not. And probably many groups sequencing the same areas over and over again. And there must be some way that we could identify what those efforts are and annotate somewhere. We could have a database of sequence efforts or something that basically said, yes, this group did 100 people with these characteristics. Because when you look at anyone, almost any one of these genome-wide association studies that many of them will say, oh, and then we went back to the lab and we sequenced these people over this region and we found these 14 additional SNPs. And so to try to keep others from overlapping that and then we might have the money to do the blood collection that Nancy's referring to and the support for infrastructure that others have commented on and the support for young investigators. So that would be my suggestion.


very venerable viewers. We are going to share physical fitness. It is very, very important in the life of children as well as the elder. Why we talk about it? Because it is related with our movement. It is related with our body gestures. We involve in the different activities. Or if we are very fit, if we are keeping on movement. So, in this yoga, especially children they can maintain their weight, they can maintain their activities. And if the children have eaten too much, their movement stops. And then they become aggressive. That is, the discussed problem is the offset leading towards the offset in the movement of the body. And they want to sit quite, they want to sit more, because of their activities, their weight increases. And this is really dangerous. We should be conscious of the weight of the children. And the exercise or the movement, to give them a small job, to give them a chance of movement, this is very important. To what extent we are giving them the opportunity to move from one place to another. And they should be given small tasks. In this house or in the institution or wherever we are related to the children. Similarly, in physical activity, the health of the children is very important. Overall, if the child has eaten less and the child is less, then sufficient food. And not more than that. If the child is not given more than the need, then overall the well being, that is also well monitored. Then the physical appearance of the child and the physical appearance of the child is very beautiful. And in that, even in the future, his chances are very bright, that he is with a strong body, with strong bones, with strong muscles, he is young. And similarly, in his strength, we see that his bones, the rest of his heart and lungs, these are working very properly because that is well fed by the blood. And the blood that is well enriched with the full ingredients. Or is it that our lungs are properly working because blood circulation is also continuing and oxygenation is being organized in the blood and inserted in the blood through the body movement. And frequent oxygenation refreshes it even more. And what we have to see in this is that there is a coordination within the children, a balance, how it comes. It comes with the fitness of the body and positive gestures are needed. And there is flexibility in the body, movement. Because they are moving their body. Or if they are not moving and body posture are not changed with the passage of time more frequently. So this is for them that there are more problems to be created. In this, weight gain problem in the children is later on uncontrolled. And on this level, that is, in childhood, in childhood, we try to balance its food and nutrition. So it will be helpful for maintaining the weight. It is the same like there are certain different diseases. These are related with the food ingredients. Definitely. Sugar items. These are chemical chemicals. Those are not very useful and helpful for the health even. The cancer that is very dangerous, it is happening, occurring in the body due to non-efficient chemicals. The product is not good. And it is also good for the company to use standardized materials to use those products. And we also see that if well-being is boosted up, it will boost up the well-being of the body. And there is one important thing that we must take care of at the end. That we should keep the children relaxed. We should keep them safe from tension.  These children have this problem these days that they are not taking full time sleep and they should be able to sleep with complete rest. Thank you very much for being with us.


What's going on everyone Sam here late in sports cards ripping one box of 2021 22 penini revolution hobby for Ronald G. It's good luck here Ronald. See what we got my friend Let's do it See if you can pull a galactic out of here. That'd be pretty cool nice auto maybe Not guaranteed an auto out of this of course, but the parallels are very nice as well revolution Chris Paul true holiday. There's a Charles B. Charles Bassie on the Fractal and liftoff Zion On the groove for the pelicans nice die cut there. There's Jalen Suggs astral rookie And a base rookie Alfred Shenoon for the Yeah, I know I There's astral Draymond green for the warriors And shockwave josh giddy rookie nice one there one of the nicer parallels in my opinion for Revolution Most of them yeah Groove is luka donchich Groove as well Nicola Yolkish and we have an extra card in this pack and rookie JT Thorpe I couldn't if I see one that's numbered. I couldn't tell you which one it is outside of like lava Galactic and like anniversary love is the 10 galactics the case hit and then the anniversaries to 75 I think And there's like sunburst and you know fractal fractal. Yeah fractal. It's like 150 Ooh redemption, okay I don't hate that Uh followed by a killian haze like I have no idea what this one is that is anniversary to 75 just kidding I guess I don't know what anniversary is. Oh, yeah nice one there I know it's a 75. I just don't know what it looks like Uh, Dave yon michel on the rookie revolution See what we got on the redemption. Good luck here, uh rottled The autographs card number 16 is gonna be kai jones. That's a hornet's hit right there Nice kai jones on the redemption There you go tiktok Very nice. Take that again. You're not guaranteed an auto at a revolution. So hitting one is always a big bonus Big time bonus Base base. There's a groove jericho sims rookie and jaylon johnson rookie for the hawks Stop we've got stef Levine erin gordon. There's an astral parallel of kyle lauri And vortex ja marant on the groove And last pack for you here ronald. Good luck buddy. Collin sexton. John collins. There's a syrief cooper sunburst impact to 149 Nice rookie there syrief cooper and look at garza base rookie for the pistols That'll do it for your break there ronald's congrats again on the hits man. We'll get them right out to you. Thanks buddy


Hello everyone it's Missy. Thank you for watching. Today's tutorial is a style that I saw on Instagram. It was a more bridal type style but I think this would be so fun to wear for any occasion even if it's just say girls night out. So let me know what you think down in the comment section. Make sure to like and subscribe. Click that notification bell so you never miss any future videos and let's get started. For today's tutorial I'm going to be doing two Dutch braids along the top of my head. So since I want them to be about the same size I'm going to have my part slightly off-center. I just prefer this over a direct center part. So starting on the right side I'm going to pick up a small section of hair to use for my braid and I am leaving out some hair to frame my face. So this section is next to the part line about an inch or so back from the hairline and I'm going to divide it into three smaller pieces and since I'm doing a Dutch braid I'm going to be crossing the side strands under the middle strand and as I go I'm also going to be incorporating new sections of hair into the braid. I'm only going to bring in about three sections on both sides of the braid one side from right along the part line and the other side from directly under the braid. I want to leave out most of the hair on the sides of my head because I'll be using that hair later on for a different part of the hairstyle. So once I've brought in my sections I'm going to stop adding in additional pieces and just braid the section a little further down. Then I'm going to go back over the braid and carefully pull on the sides so the braid is wider and looks bigger. Then I'm just going to slide a couple bobby pins over the bottom so it doesn't come loose. Now I'm going to repeat the same steps with the hair on the left side of my part line so I'm picking up a section about an inch or two back from the hairline and I'm going to braid a Dutch braid along the top of my head next to the part. So I'm just crossing the side strands under the middle strand and as I go I'm also going to be incorporating new sections of hair into the braid and I'm going to be bringing in about three or four sections one side from right along the part line and the other side from directly under the braid. I want to leave out most of the hair on the sides of my head working my way along the top of my head and then I'm just going to braid the hair down a little ways without adding in any additional pieces and then I'm just going to go back over the sides and pull on them carefully to make the braid wider and then of course slide a bobby pin over the bottom of the braid so it doesn't unravel. Now that the two braids are done I'm going to pin them against my head so I'm going to lay the right braid over the left and pin the braids in place. I like to slide my bobby pins into the middle of the braid grabbing only a few hairs with each bobby pin and then slide them upwards along the braid so they're hidden underneath the hair. I slid a couple into the center of the crossed braids one on the top part of the left braid and the bottom and another on the bottom of the right braid. A good rule of thumb is to pin wherever you're holding the braids and I just keep pinning until they feel nice and secure and aren't going to fall loose. So once that's done I'm going to remove the bobby pins that were at the ends of the braids and then unravel them up to where they're pinned.  I'm going to go back over the twist and pull on a few pieces so the twist is fuller. This will help make the twists look bigger and it will also help hide any part lines that are underneath the twist and then I'm just going to lay it over the braids and pin it on the left side. Then I'm going to take a similar sized section on the left side of my head, twist it upwards and add in some additional hair as I twist it back towards the back of my head and then to make the twists bigger I'm going to carefully pull on the edges of course and then I'm going to lay it underneath the first twist and pin it on the right side so I'm just sliding a bobby pin into the twist so the hair stays in place but the bobby pin will be hidden underneath the hair.  Then I'm going to gently pull on small pieces of the twists so they're two to three times bigger. I pull on the sides as well as in the center of the twists. I literally pull the hair back out of the elastic so don't be afraid to pull the hair a lot. If it becomes too much or gets too big you can always take the elastic out and redo it again it won't unravel the whole hairstyle if you have to do that. So once I like the way that it looks I'm going to wrap a section of hair around the elastic band so I'm just going to divide off a small section of hair and wrap it around the elastic band about three times and then I'm going to slide a bobby pin over the wrapped hair so the elastic is going into the bobby pin and this will hold the wrapped hair in place while making sure the bobby pin will also stay in and then I'm just going to go back over the wrapped piece and pull on it so that it's as big as the twists above it. This will add another dimension to the hairstyle while hiding the elastic band at the same time. That's it for today's tutorial. Be sure to let me know what you think of this hairstyle down below in the comments section and make sure to click the thumbs up or the thumbs down if you want to see more half-up hairstyles. Be sure to click the notification bell as well so you never miss any future uploads and I will see you next time.


Hello again everyone, I'm Ray Gilda, host of Lakeland Currents. Join me this week as Ron Bratley, the superintendent of schools from Staples Motley and I, talk about a referendum coming before the voters of Staples Motley.


From around the globe, it's theCUBE with digital coverage of IBM Think 2021 brought to you by IBM. Welcome to theCUBE's coverage of IBM Think 2021. I'm Lisa Martin. Terrence Wampler joins me next. General Manager at Workday Financial Management at Workday. Terrence, welcome to theCUBE. Well, thank you for having me. It's great to be here. I appreciate it. Nice that we can still do these events virtually even though we are quite socially distanced. So the last year has bought lots of changes, one of them being IBM Think and theCUBE being virtual. But I'm curious to get your perspectives and your observations. We've seen many finance organizations have to rapidly pivot and accelerate their digital transformation, making it a priority. What are some of the key priorities that you've seen that the C-suite, the CFO are dealing with? Yeah, well, I think what's happening is what we've seen are new ways to work and using remote access, having to do mobile technologies. What's happening is that's actually driving more risk for companies. And so as companies get more risk, that's driving the needs to have more scrutiny on those business processes. And that's forcing them to want to accelerate what they're doing in terms of a digital transformation, other stuff like that. It's also forcing them to think more about the data they have and the information they have looking forward and how they're doing planning and how they can do planning in terms of bringing people back to work, in terms of new business models, in terms of what may be next, in terms of opportunity for them, or even doing catastrophe planning as they work through this stuff. And as they start to look at that, they're really thinking about how to make their business process and much more agile. And so it's kind of a complicated thread that you start to pull as people start to change how things work. Yeah, that risk is a big factor and that pivot was so quick for so many businesses where suddenly so many of us and so many of us are still remote. I'm curious what some of the things are though that you're hearing with respect to organizations looking to start opening things back up and bringing some of their folks back on campus. Yeah, it's a very interesting dilemma because what's happening is people have learned how to work remotely now. And so they're trying to figure out how they're gonna bring people back to be more collaborative. But at the end of the day, the first and most important thing they've learned is that especially for a finance function, they no longer wanna be transaction operators. What they wanna start doing is pushing that work to more automated tools to have that be done for them and try to promote themselves to be more like analysts or even advisors to the business or even a partner to the business. And as they go through that evolution, what they're really trying to do is unlock all of the potential of the people they have, of the processes they have and of the data they have. So what it's really made companies do is look at everything in its entirety and want to change all of it. But they have to go at different paces. Definitely, talk to me about what Workday and IBM are doing together to help customers tackle these challenges, adjust their priorities and accelerate that transformation. Yeah, certainly. So one of the things that we've done is gotten together and created this go-to-market strategy called enterprise finance. And what enterprise finance does is it really tries to meet the customer where they are. So while all of these customers are looking to accelerate their digital transformation, they come from very different places, right? And their journey to that transformation is gonna be very different. And that means that some of them are going to want to be able to do a full transformation right away and do it globally and make a big change because they've just been hit very hard by this or they see it as an opportunity to grow. And others are gonna come from a very complex environment and that complex environment could include complicated manufacturing components in their solution. And they need to look at something like just a corporate finance layer that has kind of an integrated planning solution, consolidation, close capabilities for them to be able to run their business and be a little bit more agile at the top line. So a spectrum of you said meeting them where they are, there's a lot of customers in different places. I'm curious what some of the things are that you've observed over the last year that really are kind of unique ways that finance leaders are approaching this new way of working? Yeah, so there's probably two examples I can give you. One is a generic example where we have customers that have participated in merger or acquisition activity over the past year as it happens to be or customers that have even spun up new divisions with new business models trying to introduce new services or think about things that they can take advantage of or even shifting away from all this months that have been impacted by what's happening. And as they do that, they will look to do a transformation around finance in that function only or for that subsidiary or for that division. And so that's probably the first example. The second example that I'll give you is companies having to do something they never thought they would do before. I'll give you a simple example. We have a large number of insurance companies here in the United States as customers. And we all probably got our rebate check from the insurance company for our automobiles, right? So what happened is most of the large insurance companies identified that, hey, we actually don't have much risk because people aren't driving and they're paying us these big premiums. And so the insurance regulatory bodies put pressure on those insurance companies. So they had to figure out a business process model and a mechanism by which to go out, forecast what the premium reduction should be, what the business should look like, what that risk should be, do all of that planning and then think about it for their future actual or early old stuff and then figure out a process by which to get those rebates delivered out to customers. So there's interesting things like that happening in process and if somebody wasn't running a remote system that didn't have good agility, they wouldn't be able to make that quick pivot and get us all those rebate checks that we were so happy to have. Yes, very happy to have that. It sounds like that was done in a pretty fast turnaround time. So I imagine you're also dealing with customers who have sort of a TBD time schedule where there's still so much dynamics going on in the market today. Well, that's exactly right. Because you're looking at different business models in different industries. I picked insurance there, but you can pick other extremes like how are retailers reopening? What are they thinking? You can look at hospitality places. How are they going to reopen? How are they going to generate revenue? How are they going to do planning? How are they going to account for things? And it's a range. So what's happened is everybody's looked at this as it's now an opportunity to not think in terms of years or even longer range plans. It's really an opportunity to be much more agile and think about being able to dynamically move in quarters or half year kind of increments. Yeah, we've been having a lot of conversations about how that timetable has shifted and it's getting smaller and smaller because there's been so much flux and so much change that these organizations are really figuring out, how do we actually shift? And not just organization but culturally as well to be able to adapt to these changes that can be pretty sudden and pretty significant. I am curious too, Workday has historically focused its financial management solutions on really very much people intensive industries but you do have customers that are outside of that in the services. You talked about insurance, getting value from Workday. Talk to me about some of those other expansion of opportunities there and the more services oriented industries. Well, that makes a lot of sense and so I'll call it product based industries but you can think about it as manufacturing your other components but it's people that have systems around product. And while they might have complex supply chains that Workday isn't able to support for them right now, they are looking at doing either that corporate transformation layer or they're looking at a solution we have around accounting center. What accounting center allows them to do is bring in high volume of data from those source transaction systems and then generate accounting from it but it gives them the ability to mix that operational data with that accounting data to do exactly what you're describing be able to pivot more quickly and do more planning because they have a better foundation for their data accuracy than the consistency of that data. So they may be running multiple ERP systems and as they're running those they can bring that data together through accounting center kind of in a federated way and get better insight into what they need to do to plan more rapidly to roll things out. So they can kind of keep that execution system of record system and then they can basically promote this more of a operational planning and analysis type function. Have you noticed in your conversations with customers the financial management changing in terms of being elevated up to the C-suite or a board level conversation with businesses now suddenly being very laser focused on understanding that reducing risk and did that any of that change and shift in terms of visibility in the last year? Yes it did and the primary reason is because finance has always been the stewards of that information really curate the data they do all of that work and then other people take it and do analysis. The finance department has taken more control of not only being the curator of that information but also being the team that does more of the analysis and has engaged more with corporate strategy or the chief revenue officer or something like that and trying to bring forward the ability to do analysis and have a voice in terms of what are the business models we should be doing what are the strategic growth initiatives we should be doing how should we be looking at running the business not just doing a finance function but really doing that advisory role and it really has become because the data is so important to make those decisions so everyone wants these data-driven decisions and they are the curator of that data or the steward of that data so they've kind of helped promote themselves to do that. What are some of the things that if you look out into your crystal ball for the rest of 2021 what are some of the things that you think we're going to see in some of the key industries that are working hard to return retail manufacturing the supply chain, we just had that big traffic jam in the Suez Canal and a lot of challenges there what are some of the things that you think are opportunities that we're gonna see unfolding this year? Yeah, so I think it's going to be first around getting back to work so it's back to office stuff which we'll start on the HR side but it's going to lead to facility costs it's going to lead to work or safety stuff and reporting it's going to lead to how you manage healthcare or other tracking of things it's going to lead to how you engage with customers remotely it's going to be a number of factors that are related to how do we transition back into real life because what we've started to see is in different parts of the country or the world even parts of retail open up but we haven't seen mass return to lots of offices like here in the United States and I think that will drive a lot of different processes in terms of about how people do working shifts how they do meetings, how they do analysis and there will be a desire then to have those business processes automated the results of the transaction that comes from that et cetera. That's a good point that you bring up that there's so many things that I hadn't really considered in terms of what it's going to take for businesses to return and have folks come back to campus the extraverted me just wants to go back but you bring up a great point that there's so many other facets that they had to deal with rapidly last year that have to be reconsidered and so it makes sense that automation is something that they're looking at is coming in and really helping to automate certain processes to help reduce risk, reduce cost. Last question for you Terrence working customers go if they are looking to get back on the track, how can they engage IBM and Workday together to help transform? Yeah, so the best and easiest way is we have some joint blogs that we've worked together but first there's this cube and then there is the joint blogs that we've worked together to talk about enterprise finance and how we're going to market and then enterprise finance talks about the spectrum of a full finance transformation to a division to a corporate layer. Excellent and I did see your blog it sounds like you've been very busy in the last year which is excellent but thanks so much Terrence for coming by and sharing with us all the dynamics that are going on in financial management and beyond and the acceleration of elements of transformation that organizations have to look at now it's very interesting, we appreciate your time. Well, thank you for having me. For Terrence Wambler, I'm Lisa Martin you're watching The Cube.


I'm Steph from Six Sister Stuff and I've dressed up to share with you our spooky seven layer dip. So you're going to need four of your seven layers, refried beans, my favorite are the black bean variety, and then chipotle sauce, whatever kind you like. I use Taco Bells because I think it's delicious. Locomoli, salsa, olives, cheese, and sour cream. So you're just going to find a circle plate and you're going to want to make it a circle because we're going to make it into a spooky spiderweb. And you're just going to spread on your refried beans, probably not going to take it all the way out to the edge just because it might over. Then once you've done that, you're going to want to take your salsa, whatever kind you like. You can use your favorite homemade canned salsa, just whatever you like best. So you're going to spread that on top of the refried beans and then take your chipotle sauce and you can spread it or drizzle it, whatever you would like. The edges here, don't want to leave anybody out. Then you're going to want to cover the top with your guacamole. Sometimes you will probably want to use a little less chipotle sauce and probably a circle pan that has probably a bit more of a lip on it, but this will have to do for now. So we're going to sprinkle the edges with our cheese as much as you would like. I'm a big cheese fan so I never skimp on the cheese. I can make it cover up those scary edges there.  Now for our seventh layer to make it spooky, you're going to want to put your sour cream in a little baggie and then just cut the very corner of it so that you can use it to squeeze. You're just going to want to put some in the center and slowly make circles around it because we're going to make it into a spiderweb. So once you've made your circles with your sour cream, you can take a knife and just drag it through the circles to make it look more like a spiderweb. You can top it with a scary spider and serve it with your favorite kind of chips. And there you have our spooky seven layer dip. For more Halloween recipes, be sure and visit SixSistersStuff.com. Thanks for watching.


Coming up on DTNF, Last Pass makes some free tier restrictions. Roku makes original content, money moves, and how remote work has been with us the whole time. This is the Daily Tech News for Tuesday, February 16th, 2021. From Studio Redwood, I'm Sarah Lane. In Snowy Cleveland, I'm Rich Trafalino. And this is Allison Sheridan from the PodVit Podcast. And I'm the show's producer, Roger Chang. Before the show, gosh, what were we talking about? Plain paintball in space, whether or not water guns are allowed and all sorts of other things. If you want to know what we talk about in our wider conversation in our expanded show, Good Day Internet, you can do so by becoming a member at patreon.com slash DTNS. Let's start with a few tech things you should know. All right, Nintendo announced it will hold a 50 minute Nintendo Direct live stream on February 17th at 5 p.m. Eastern. That's tomorrow if you're watching live, the event will feature updates on already released games like Super Smash Brothers Ultimate, as well as new games coming to the switch in the first half of 2021. Motorola's budget G line added two phones available in the UK now and rolling out to the EU in the coming weeks. The £129 pounds as in currency, G10 and the £179 at G30 both offer a 6.5 inch HD plus LCD display, a 5000 mAh battery and rear fingerprint readers. The G10 has a Snapdragon 460 system on a chip, four gigs of RAM and a 60 Hertz refresh rate. The G30 bumps up to a Snapdragon 662 chipset, up to six gigs of RAM and a 90 Hertz refresh rate. Microsoft will launch a $99 Xbox wireless headset next month, which connects to consoles. I'm assuming they hope it's an Xbox, PCs and mobile devices over Bluetooth with support for pairing to multiple devices at once. It features rotating earcup dials similar to the Surface headphones, supports Windows Sonic, Dolby Atmos and DTS headphone X spatial sound technology, offers dual beamforming microphones and has a 15 hour battery life. It's like my headphones, but no wire. Like the look of them. Microsoft updated its unified office mobile app to now support iPadOS rather than running as a Windows iOS app. This provides access to all of the regular tablet variants of Microsoft's productivity suite within the unified app, although the standalone Word, Excel and PowerPoint apps are still available and updated regularly. One quick interjection on that, I tried to get it on my iPad, but I had accidentally downloaded the iOS app version first. So when I went to look at the iPad version, it was still the iOS version. So you've got to get rid of the regular iPhone version. And then so you got to uninstall and reinstall the exact same thing. And now it'll be the iPad version. A good tip. A filing with the UK Intellectual Property Office shows that Andy Rubin signed over ownership of Essential to Carl Pye's new startup, Nothing on January 6th. This provides nothing with Essential's brand intellectual property, but it's unclear if patents were included in the transaction. It's like they did this just for Twitter jokes. You know, plays on words. Oh boy, I had that all weekend. All right, let's talk a little bit more about how last pass has upset some folks. I would include myself in those folks, but we'll talk about why. The company announced changes to its free tier starting March 16th. About a month from now, you free users will have to set an active device type choosing what type of device they can access their password vault on between desktop or mobile, not both, which also includes access on tablets and smartwatches. So you either have kind of your mobile life or you say, I use my desktop, but not interchangeable. Currently, free users will set their active device type by the first device they log into last pass with after March 16th, after which time users can change the active device type three times before being locked into the choice. So definitely more restrictive. If you're on the free tier, things will change. And it's particularly for new users. The company is also limiting email support to paying subscribers after May 17th with free users directed to last pass support center for self help resources. Well, I'm sure this gets people upset because people love the fact that it was free and why a lot of people chose the last pass. And it's great that they were using it. But last pass premium starts at three dollars a month. OK, you know, come on. This is all of your. This is the crown jewels you're talking about. I mean, I should be more sympathetic, but I have trouble being sympathetic to people using such an important service and not wanting to pay three dollars a month for it.  You know, there are a lot of folks who talk about not wanting to pay even one dollar a month for something when they've been used to it being something that they had for free, I will pay for premium. I don't have a problem with that. It's it's yes, it's less than a cup of coffee, which is always the comparison that people make to, you know, make you think, I do more than that per month. Not a huge problem. What I am in the midst of. And this is something that I actually I didn't use last pass until I started working at DTNS, because we have a fair amount of shared passwords, certain accounts that we all log into collectively, and that's where they're stored. And so I had a last pass account and I also had one password kind of phase things over to last pass. But I still had a lot of passwords out there in the world that weren't part of the last pass, you know, ecosystem. And I have slowly but surely tried to take it a lot more seriously. And it is a bit of a slog. It really is it sure last pass does its best to try to, you know, delete duplicates and that sort of thing. But but it is not just, you know, a one button. OK, now this is just, you know, all my passwords are changed type of a thing. So when I heard this news today, I was just particularly like, oh, man, come on, you know, working so hard because it's because if it wasn't three dollars and it was thirteen dollars, I'd still pay because now I feel locked in. And I think it's really more the principle that upsets people not so much the price tag. Well, yeah. And for some context, through November 2016, up until then, you could only sync a free account to one device total. So just one laptop, one phone or something like that. You couldn't even do like one category of devices. I think part of the reaction is this is a change that does not like there's no silver lining to this, not like, OK, we're limiting the free tier, but we're introducing a one dollar a month, you know, more limited, you know, plus tier or something like that. For me, the bigger story here is, you know, as a business move, OK, I get it. They want to, you know, move more people over to the paid tiers, make sense as a business move, maybe not the most consumer friendly. As a security move, as like a security company or, I guess, they're a privacy company, whatever. As a security move, this is introducing inconvenience to users now because I mean, theoretically, regardless of which tier you use, I'm assuming you can still get browser access, even if you have to emulate a mobile agent or a desktop agent on whatever device you're using, you should still be able to access it from the web. If you really, really, really need to get a password and all you have is your phone or your laptop or something like that, but it's inconvenient, right? Any time you introduce that, you're going to cause people to either write down passwords so that they remember them when they're not on that device, have sloppy or password etiquette, you know, not use the strong password generator if they're on their phone and they only have the laptop support and stuff like that. So for me, the curious move is how you justify that introducing that inconvenience that kind of we all know is going to introduce insecurity to your users. So that would that would be the case. I can see that, but I look at services that are free and look very suspiciously at them, you know, where follow the money, what is going to happen to it? And if you look at services, even if you take the privacy angle away from Google, you look at services that are free and then they disappear, I wouldn't want last pass to disappear. Would it be worth $3 a month for me for them to stay in business and keep having a good business model? I would absolutely say yes. So I'm sure they'll lose a few customers, but if you've been using it for a while and you've invested the time like Sarah has to get her password secure, you're going to stick with it.  I mean, I think it's, I don't know, depending on how you slice it.  My computer's at the house. I got my phone. Yeah, I just open the last pass app. Great. Good. Copy, paste. Great. But as soon as that goes away, it's like, Oh, this is not seamless at all. But I think Rich, you make a very good point is I can either say, all right, you know, cough up a couple bucks. That's, that's what I need to do. Or I go, I hate this. No, this is even worse. This is hard. This isn't seamless. I don't want to use this anymore. I'm just going to use one, two, three, four, five, six as I've been using for the last 10 years. A new report from trend micro details and unpatched vulnerability in the Android version of the file sharing app share it, which could allow for file access or installing other apps without permission. Trend micro discovered the app did not have adequate protections over who could access the app's underlying code, notifying shared of the issue three months ago, but got no response. Rich, I know at least what I read about this this morning was a lot of three months, no response from, from certain articles. Yeah. And that's a pretty standard disclosure window. I mean, there's been some, you know, discussion in the security community over whether that's adequate and what you should do if a company doesn't respond to that. But usually if they would have even gotten a response, hey, we're working on it. Don't go public with this. We wouldn't be seeing this today. I mean, the fact that they've gone totally in communication, you know, with no communication, not exactly great for share it and to put some context around this, this vulnerability in share it does require a malicious app to already be have a presence on your device, right? So you're already in a kind of a compromised security situation here, but it really is exploiting kind of how Android treats external storage. And you may think, OK, I don't have an SD card on my phone, no big deal. It can actually be a partition on your actual internal storage is considered external storage. It doesn't do the sandboxing really well when you do that, doesn't have the same protections as internal storage. And essentially from what the security researchers found, they can do what's called a man in the disc attack. It's like kind of a variant on a man in the middle attack. Basically, because that storage is not as locked down, you can a malicious app can then kind of see everything that's written to and from that external storage and then go ahead and overwrite it as well. So that opens up the door to installing third party apps without your knowledge, running apps and that kind of stuff. So it's it's really, you know, again, the surface here for this is not huge.  But once that's there, that's kind of something you want to get locked down right away or at least talk to security researchers that you're working on it. All right, next up here, the European consumer advocacy group BUE, excuse me, B-E-U-C. I knew I was going to do that as filed a complaint against TikTok with the EU's network of consumer protection authorities claiming the app's vague and frequently changed terms of service, violate GDPR and for tracking users regardless of age or preferences and failing to adequately protect children. TikTok told Reuters it contacted the B-E-U-C for a meeting to listen to the group's concerns and has developed an in-app summary for its privacy policy to make it easier to understand. OK, we want to listen to your concerns and we appreciate that TikTok, but I guess not surprising to see, you know, the EU going after this. My question is, you know, is this just, you know, Sarah, from what you've been reading about this, is this just lip service by TikTok? You know, what what is the scale here? You know, this is 15 different consumer advocacy groups. GDPR has some hefty fines to it. Not exactly a trifling matter for TikTok here. No.  We are willing to listen. We are willing to work with you. Is step one in a many step process of, you know, making sure that folks are happy and also the company doing what they need to do without doing something that they don't want to do, right? It's it's it's a it's a back and forth type of a thing. Having an in-app summary of a privacy policy that's easy to access, not bad. Wish all apps had that somewhere. At the same time, the complaint that frequently changed terms of service on an app that we all know is heavily used by the younger sets, and it's very easy to set up an account and claim that you're an age that you're not. Easy to do that on a lot of social networks. But TikTok, you know, has a lot of young people on the app and there have been some issues with with tracking users that are of a certain age and and TikTok at least being seen as not adequately protecting those younger aged users. I think there is an issue here and I don't know if it means hey, you can't change your terms of service too often because people aren't reading them anyway and it's going to get really confusing really quickly. Sure, we still blame the user for not reading in terms of service when the user says, well, wait a second, I didn't know that. So but but again, there's it's almost a little bit of a bait and switch. At what point is it does it start to be kind of a bait and switch? So it does sound like TikTok is addressing some of the other things. There's the changing of the terms and conditions. But it sounds like TikTok had a problem with clarity. So they they didn't detail the ways that personal information can be collected. And it was kind of ambiguous and they said that they felt the obfuscation of the apps advertising practices were it was again a little difficult to understand. So it sounds like they are in their response that they are responding to exactly what they were asked to work on. It's not like they said, well, your privacy policy says you're going to track children in their homes and turn cameras on them. It was that it was difficult to understand what they were doing and they and it was kind of a moving target. So it sounds like they're going down the right path to me. Yeah, the report was entitled that this is all these complaints are based on confusing by design. So, you know, that's kind of the core of it. But some of the other issues I think will be a little bit harder for, I guess, TikTok to get around or maybe avoid fines on, I mean, you know, it was things about like copyright of content, you know, basically TikTok saying, you know, they have a copyright and everything. There's no really way for users to monetize that. Some of the consumer groups are taking issue with that. The other thing also having involved with microtransactions, effectively, I think it's coins or something like that, that you can buy virtual gifts for other creators and stuff like that. And we know the EU has come down pretty heavy on those kind of regulating those kind of microtransactions, especially when you're dealing with minors. So I would not be surprised if we see, you know, some kind of punitive action in the future, even if TikTok takes, I mean, I'm assuming TikTok will take steps to be more in compliance. But, you know, probably the first in a series of updates that we'll have on the story. If you want to hear us talk about something in particular, something that's moving the needle for you, one way is to let us know in our subreddit. You can submit stories there. You can also vote on other stories at DailyTechNewShow.Reddit.com. All right, recently we talked here on the show about Salesforce being yet another company to allow a lot more of its workers to be remote in fact it proclaimed the nine to five work week is dead. Some still have to work their full time, but most employees are being given the option to work remotely or a part-time situation. Alison, we're glad to have you on the show today because you used to manage a very large team. Not everybody was in the same place. So you were managing remotely all the time. So what is your take on this trend of work from home or work remotely work somewhere outside that office you used to go to from really big companies like Salesforce and smaller companies as well? So I managed 170 people in eight different locations. Not some of them. A lot of them were fairly close together buildings, but some were pretty distant, you know, a couple of hours away by drive. And I developed some interesting observations about that. And earlier in my career, I had a really interesting piece of advice. And I was thinking about both these things in the context of Salesforce. So what Salesforce said was we're going to have people who work always in the office, people who never work in the office, and then people who are flexed where they work two to three days in the office.  And I thought that was a dopey thing to say at the beginning. But then I started watching as I walked out of my office, I would turn into the first office next to me and talk to those people. Those people always knew what was going on. They had their fingertips on what I was worried about, what I was thinking about, what I saw was important. So now picture, you've got people who've got choice. So Sarah goes to work and she sits right next to Rich and I choose to work from home. What's the impact on my career as a result of that? Having a mixture I think is actually a little bit dangerous. I think it's sort of like ideally you would all either be there or not be there from that one perspective. And I think that's part of the complexity of the problem is there are so many different things to think about. I mean, the great thing about everybody, people working from home is you got fewer cars on the road, less traffic less pollution in the office, buildings are no longer necessary. People gain all those hours of their life back by not commuting, but there's impacts that are hidden like that. The other side effect that I looked at was we used to do ranking rack and stack of all the employees. It was a horrible, horrible process. It was just terrible, but you had to fight for your people to be put in one to, I mean, I worked in a site that was 6,000 people and all 6,000 people got ranked one to whatever within their salary grade. It was a nightmare. It was a big one. Well, it was one to what? So if there were say a thousand level fives, all level fives would be one to a thousand. You would have a number associated with you. And the process. Sounds horrible. It's horrible. Well, think of the process because you got a little group that decides their group and then that group merges with a bigger group and it's basically was like four months of activity to do this. It was horrible. But what I realized was the person that worked in the office that was two hours away by drive was at a huge disadvantage in fighting for his people. So I actively made the decision that no one got to be in the room with me during these meetings because those people could lean over and whisper, pass me a note, have little discussions with the other people in the room. So again, one of the advantages, one of the ways you can make this work is if when really important decisions are made, don't let anybody be together. Everybody's got to be disparate. And I think you can kind of make this thing work. There's a lot of these little side things you don't think about when you think, oh, wow, it's gonna be great to everybody working from home or partially working from home and some not. I know when I was, well, I mean, I won't mention any company specifically, but I have been in roles where it was office-based. You know, you go to work in the morning, you come home at night, very nine to five. And if you left early or you kind of, you know, you sort of read the room and no one's really getting up to leave at 6 p.m. Maybe you got somewhere to be and you leave. It's maybe you don't get in trouble for it, but it's something that's noticeable if it happens a lot.  I've worked with people where I'm like, how do you even do it?  I have an advantage over you. It's easier for me to get here in the morning and make the morning meeting kind of a thing. But it's like, if you've got the boss who cares about the comings and goings of people and time, and some people are remote and other people aren't, then like you said, it gets imbalanced pretty quickly, even if a lot of that is subconscious. If everybody's remote, then it's like, okay, we've even the playing field. But again, schedules are different, you know? It's like, do you still all take lunch at the same time? You know, are you the one person who's kind of always unavailable when everyone else is? And so certain things get passed onto people that you should have maybe been working on. I'm sure a lot of this will present itself as more and more people try to navigate this new world. And I think part of it is in terms of like, oh, well, we treat the remote workers just like we would treat people in the office, and it becomes an issue of equity versus treating everybody equally in terms of like, okay, how do we, Allison, as you've been alluding to this entire conversation, how do we think about office and work culture and all these weird little knock-on effects that kind of impact how we see people, how we maybe view conversations as adversarial versus consultive versus remote versus in-person or something like that, I think is going to be a very interesting development as we see Salesforce and other companies really engaged in. There's another piece to this, and it's to think about the relationships you build that when you're there in person. I mean, Sarah, you guys talk how many times about tech TV, right? How many people associated with the show we're working physically together at tech TV at some time? The people who never worked physically there are at a disadvantage. It's much harder to get to know those people when you have never been part of the office environment and enjoying Bagel Friday or whatever. Yeah. We have Bagel Friday? That sounds vaguely familiar, but yes, I totally get what you're saying. Yes, it's a context you simply don't have. Yeah, I do want to say before we cut out that if you found this discussion interesting next week on Chichette Across the Pond, which is one of my podcasts, I'm going to have Lindsay Tondi on as the guest to share her more modern views on the way this works. She happens to be my daughter, but she and I talk about work stuff all the time and she's got a whole different perspective because she's less than half my age and much more recent experience with how this kind of thing works. Yeah, definitely we'll have to check that out. And speaking of remote work, the productivity app Trello announced a redesign and new features to help businesses manage third-party integrations like Google Drive, Jira, and Slack, plus better previews to third-party services like Dropbox, Google Docs, and YouTube. Trello, which Atlassian acquired in 2017 now has more than 50 million users. And some of this redesign is really about, I think, Sarah, you're familiar with the platform is really about kind of moving from a task-based kind of emphasis with the platform to kind of taking a more people-centric kind of view of where people are and how to manage their time like that. Yeah, that's what it seems like to me. I have not given the new design a whirl and I'm not actually actively using Trello. Although in the past, I was always frustrated because Trello and Slack at that time was fairly new. It was very new to me. And where I was working at the time, they were both task management tools that people were using. And there was a lot of like, ah, where did you send me that note? That's not where I am right now. Where is it? Oh, it's in Trello. Oh, got it. Oh, I forgot to look at Trello. Now it looks like my task has expired kind of thing. So having better third-party integration, again, haven't taken it for a whirl yet, but I think that's something that frustrated a lot of Trello users in the past. Yeah, and what's interesting to me about this redesign is it's not just about, okay, you have this many tasks assigned to you and these are assigned to these cards and these are assigned to these projects, but it's really trying to give a better view of what's a person's bandwidth look like. I know it's a very kind of buzzwordy kind of phrase, but looking not just at how many tasks are assigned to someone, but like, okay, how many meetings are there in a day? How many different projects are there on stuff like that? So again, putting more of a people focus when you can't necessarily be with someone and just kind of checking and being like, hey, do you have too much on your plate or something like that? And at least giving you, it can't fully replace it, but using that redesign to show that in a more graphical way I think is really powerful. Well, all signs point to Roku perhaps producing its own original shows and movies and you might say, doesn't it? A lot of people use Roku, doesn't that what all the companies do? Well, not yet, not publicly anyway, but the company did publish a job listing for a lead production attorney to, quote, serve as lead production attorney for Roku's original episodic and feature length productions. Okay, sounds like that's what they're working on. Roku acquired Quibi's content library last month. The job listing was first spotted by data provider Revealera and though a Roku spokesperson declined to comment, the job description also includes handling, quote, option purchase agreements, script acquisition agreements, life rights agreements, agreements to hire writers, actors, directors and individual producers, production service agreements, below the line agreements, including for department heads, location agreements, clearances, prop rental agreements, likeness releases and credit memos. Now, I only mention all of those because it sounds like Roku is very much not just saying, hey, let's acquire some independent productions because that is also a very common thing that Roku's competitors are doing now as well, but definitely creating some original productions from scratch. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long given what slice of the market Roku has. It's a very popular way for people to watch content of all kinds and knowing that really, you know, whether you're Netflix or Apple TV Plus or Amazon or Roku or Hulu or, you know, the list goes on, you just need a couple hits, Disney Plus, right? And then all of a sudden people are like, this is awesome. You know, I don't need necessarily a hundred hits, but just the two helps get me hooked and take my money. Well, and especially with the Roku channel, you know, kind of following Peacock and Pluto, I mean, not following, it was, you know, it came before them in some instances, but like Pluto TV, Peacock Now, all offering this ad supported and now adding in, you know, the component of originals.  You know, you can get the app, you don't have to have a Roku device now to really, you know, buy into what is effectively an ad tech play to expand that business line for them.  I wonder, you know, what the math looks on the back end for Roku, right, of being like, okay, we need to expend this much money to get this many more viewers. Is there a Roku Plus channel coming?  Will they keep with just the ad supported? It seems to be where they're making their major technology investments. So interesting science. Also, shout out to all the interns and cub reporters that look through job listings for Roku and all these other companies because that's gotta be a tough beat. I just gotta say.  Because, you know, someone gets tired at Roku before Roku's even ready to make an announcement about their original content. They're like, I guess we better do original content. We're hiring for it, evidently. Yeah, no kidding. All right, in the mail back today, Johannes wrote in speaking of original content, for those that don't have Apple TV Plus and wanna know what For All Mankind is about, because we talked about their AR iOS companion last week. Johannes says, the first two episodes are available for free, at least in Germany. I'm guessing it's the same around the world. Apple does that for most, if not all of its shows. Just doesn't advertise it. Greetings from Snowy Munich. Hmm, I didn't know that. I mean, I think I watched a couple things for free, but that was not recently. I think I watched the morning show first episode for free and I went, oh, I kinda like this. And then I've watched it up until the most recent episode. But yeah, yeah, it's good to know, especially if you're on the fence about whether or not you wanna pay for something. If you're hooked, maybe you will. If you have questions, comments, ideas, feedback at all, feedback at dailytechnewshow.com is where to send that email. And of course, we wanna give a shout out to our patrons at the master and grandmaster levels, including Ali Sanjabi, Paul Thesen, and Kevin. Thank you to all. And also thanks to Alice and Sheridan for being with us today, working remotely. I mean, how do we do it? Ace team, Alice and where can people find the rest of your work? The best place to go is podfeat.com. You can find all of the finer pod feet podcasts right there. All right, if you want a DTNS hat, maybe a hoodie. It's been kinda chilly in a lot of places. Might want a hoodie, maybe you wanna mask. Mouse pad, we have all that and more. At the DTNS store, check it out, dailytechnewshow.com slash store. Thanks to all our patrons who help support our show. We love you, we couldn't do it without you. You can always support the show at any level at dailytechnewshow.com slash Patreon. All right, we are live Monday through Friday at 4.30 p.m. Eastern 2130 UTC. Find out more at dailytechnewshow.com slash live. We're back tomorrow with Scott Johnson. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Frog Pants Network. Get more shows like this at frogpants.com. Diamond Club, hope you have enjoyed this program.