I think you should have said it a lot earlier. Good morning. And welcome to this presentation of the DRI, which stands for Debian Don't Review Yourself. It's a tool I made for semi-assisted automatic Debian packaging, which sounds really cool. The idea is that Debian maintainers should focus on not on paperwork, but on actual maintenance, talking with upstream, fixing bugs, replying to people on bug reports, and that sort of thing. Deb Helper did that for Debian rules, in that Debian rules is just do what I mean, accept, do what's usually done, except for these two overrides because there's something wrong in upstream packages that does not cover everything. And the idea is to do exactly the same, but for the whole Debian directory. So the DRI is the Don't Repeat Yourself principle, which is the opposite of wet, which is write everything twice. And when I package Debian packages, I do write everything twice, especially because I'm off in upstream. And so I need to put dependencies in setup.py and then in Debian control, I put a description in setup.py and then in Debian control, website in both. So yeah, I got bored. And so I wrote that DRI, which works like this. So you maintain the Debian directory as usual, but you only write the important things on it, like package name or change log or copyright file, unless you maintain Askel packages, in which case you don't have them, because they can write their own copyright file. So it takes what you written and moves it out of the way. It runs some automatic Debianization tool, depending on what's the source package written on. If there's a setup.py file, it will run Python STDep. If there's Ruby, Gem, things, it will run DH make Ruby and same with Perl and so on. And then so you get a standard baseline packaging. Some things are obviously wrong, like the maintainer name unless you are upstream. So it takes what you've written in your original Debian thing and puts it on top to make the final source package. And the original Debian things are saved in a sub directory, so you can undo the process, because otherwise, then you need to re-simplify the package every time. I looked around at what tools are available for each package. Actually, I know Haskell. It's ready supported. If there's anyone at the conference that knows DH make Perl and NPM to Debian or that knows tools for some other kind of upstream code, we should meet for a moment. And I need to write two or three lines of Python to add support for it. So yeah, that's the idea. It would be nice. Last year, at last year's DebConf, one of the things that came out in the unofficial lightning talkbuff is that one thing that a Debian developer could do and would be really nice is to have dinner with upstream once a year. And that, I think, should be way more important than copying the home page from setup.py to Debian control. So I would like that Debian maintenance goes towards actual interaction with upstream, actual interaction with users, taking responsibility for the package in Debian, testing, all that sort of things. And I know from my experience that when I maintain a package, I end up spending way more time than I want in, oh my god, this weak Python switch from PySupport to PyCentral. No, actually, it's both. But which should I choose? I don't know. Depends who I ask. But now it's PyBuild. Don't to, but then PyBuild is coming. And then there's a policy change that means I can wrap my fields. And there's a lot of bookkeeping. So I would like to focus on the things on top rather than the bookkeeping. And also, the situation with upstreams has changed since Debian packaging was introduced, which was about 20 years ago. Upstreams are now quite, many upstreams are metadata rich, so especially for the new programming languages like Perl and from that point on, there's a lot of metadata that we can use in upstream packages. And yeah, it would be good to make sense of it. There's a lot of cases in which making a Debian package is essentially auto-debianizing and then changing the maintainer field and writing the copyright file. So yes, that's what all Debian work should do for those packages, which also means that we could think of being able to maintain a lot of trivial packages so that, I don't know, if this could be applied to browser plugins, it means that we wouldn't need to go to some full bar market for whatever full bar browser that we have, but we could package in Debian the plugins and have them with our own cryptographical signature verification and everything. But obviously, if it's trivial to package such a thing, then it can be done. If it's not trivial, then it won't be done. And I still have calibre that wants to download plugins probably over HTTP and run it on my system, or VIM plugins, which usually get pulled from GitHub from random branches maintained by random people over HTTP and run as my user whenever I run an editor, which is always. So yeah, let's make it simple to maintain things so that we can maintain more things. And we have Debian patches. So if upstream got packaging wrong, we can patch upstream and send the patch to upstream and give back to the free software community. So that dry works on the assumption that upstream is well-made. OK, I hear giggles, but we can help upstream being well-made, which is, I think, a worthwhile goal. And if upstream is not cooperative, we can patch. And if we patch, then we document what upstream is doing wrong. And we give it back. And also trivial things should not be outcoded. The Belper 7 made it right. We need to add a compile switch to all Debian packages. Then we just implement it in the Belper and VH auto build. We'll know how to add it, pass it to dot slash, configure, cmake, and what have you. So it's a bit of a proof of concept, more like to show the idea. But it kind of works. I did not want to introduce a new syntax. I was not interested in creating the Debian spec file, although it would have been fun. But it's like just write Debian slash things with the syntax we already know only omit the obvious. It's not about handling corner cases. If anything is out of the ordinary, we've been having a way to deal with that for 20 years, and that's still good. But yeah, the point is to weed away the routine. I'll show you how it works. So this is Debian directory of Debian and that's Debian control, which whatever. OK. That's Debian control. Seems a little redundant. I have missed the pens and Python events. We know it's a Python package. I know. I have not implemented partial merging of the pen lines. I'd like to. But that is introducing new syntax. So I would like to be able to say the pens colon dots comma this. But those dots is new syntax. And I'd like to have some peer review before that. Yeah. Seems like the source and package lines could potentially be inferred as well from the fact that you're in a directory named DevDry. You could override them if you need to change the name of the package. But if the source package could default to source package and source package could default to, while I'm in a directory, food-version number. Agreed. At the moment, I'm having source and package there because they are identifiers for the Debian control standards. And if I remove this package DevDry, then it's not obvious to which binary package it applies. But then we only have one. So we could be smarter. Yeah. Martin, Joey, Gunnar? Just quickly, please don't rely on the directory. The current directory would be called DevDry minus 1.0. And then infer from that. Because if you check it out from gate, if you check it out from somewhere else, you might not want to have that sort of parent information. Yeah, but I can rely on this. So upstream has the package name. You don't actually need new syntax for the depends. What you can do is introduce a new control file field like x, DevDry depends. You can put the Python 3 app in there. And then it's automatically pulled in. Along with this depends. And Python depends. As long as you don't mind those being always added. I like that. Or the other hand, going back to this control you were showing, well, if DevDry understands semantically what is with each thing, source packages build depend. Binary packages depend. So finding the depends line means it's in the package field. Sorry, yeah. Yeah. The source part of it is the only part that build depends. The binary part of it never build depends. It only depends. Good point. Yes. Nice. And I like the x DevDry to add. There could also be some x DevDry remove things to remove fields. But it goes into a territory I'm not comfortable with, because it tends to start to introduce more abstraction. On the topic of dependencies, if you were to come up with a reasonable proposal in some namespace that was meaningful to upstreams, for example, package config files or something like this, I would love to put that information in my packages, speaking as an upstream maintainer. We have dope files, for example. It's an XML format. Maybe you could come up with a reasonable way to extend that. And I'd be very happy to give that information to you. Oh, yeah. I would like DOAP upstream, whatever else, whatever other kinds of metadata upstream has to be brought in. Although I think that would be a job for the auto debianization tools, rather than DevDry, because those are the ones that give the baseline Debian. But what I would like to happen is, since this gives more dignity to the auto debianization tools, then auto debianization tools starts to have a motivation to be smarter, which I think is a good thing. For example, the DH make Ruby is a bit insecure. It will get the version control system headers correctly. But it will comment them because it would like you to double check them. And I understand that that makes sense in a system where you generate a baseline for somebody to edit by hand. But we can be bolder in this case, because there's a way to override them if they are detected wrong, or patched upstream if they are wrong upstream. Anyway, let's run DebDry. And we have DebianSource. This DebianSource option is something that I would regularly forget to add to my packages. So yeah. And if this gets uploaded, there's also a Debian.DebDry directory, which I get the source package from Debian, run debdry-r, and get the Debian maintainer maintained simplified Debian directory back. And I can work on this. So essentially what DebDry is is also what DebDry is. It's an auto-detector of auto-debianization tools. So it looks at the upstream directory. If it finds any file.gamespec.gen file, then it's a Ruby. And that's how it's auto-debianized, simple enough. There's a proposal when Joachim yesterday pointed out that it would be nice to add a Debian slash DebDry as a configuration file where one could say auto-debianize with this command. So one could pass extra options to the auto-debianizer, which at least in the case of Cabal-Debian for Haskell, makes a lot of sense. Because it does support a lot of things. In the case of Python ST-Deb, it's quite nice because there's an ST-Deb.cfg, which could be included upstream, that customizes the auto-debianization, which is an interesting idea. A lot of Debianization could actually happen in the auto-debianizer configuration file. So that ST-Deb CFG could actually be the way Python packages are Debianized and the Debian directory is essentially a changelog, microphone. So the changelog seems like another example of write everything twice, especially if you're upstream. Could you just auto-generate the changelog directly from, for example, a git changelog or worst case scenario, a changelog file from upstream? And then you don't need to write that either. And ideally, upstream changelog is different than Debian changelog. Less so if you're upstream and doing most of your work in upstream. But I'm more thinking of the git history of the Debian directory, for example, where that should tell you everything you've changed. And putting it in a file is just automatic. The way I work is the other way round. I write the changelog in Debian changelog, and then I use that comment, which will. But yeah, definitely. Good point. There's already tools that do that. Build package comes with a git dhc command, which will do exactly, basically exactly that. Use your git commits and generate the changelog file from them. So you could integrate that into something like this if you want. Yeah, the one of the problems that you run into is that those are two files that have different formatting conventions. So there's kind of a way that we all sort of write changelogs, particularly if we read Aplis changes output and tend to copy the way everyone else writes changelogs. And then there's a convention for how you write git commits. And those two things are not as compatible as you would like, mostly because the changelog file is intermediate in descriptiveness between the first line of the git commit on message, which is usually not enough information, and the entire git commit message, which is usually too much information. So it's this weird intermediate thing, which has always been my problem with automating and creating the changelog entries. One really quick comment, though, on something else. I spend about, out of the total effort of 10 to create a new Debian package, I usually spend about one or two of that on most of the Debian directory and eight of that on the copyright file. So that's the hardest problem here, I think, for a lot of, I mean, for simple packages where everything's under the same license, then you can hopefully pull that out of the upstream metadata, create a very simple copyright file, and move on with your life. Unfortunately, I find that that's often not the case, even if upstream thinks that's the case. There's some random files under some other license that's compatible or something. One of the things that I'm wondering is if we could, I'd been wondering this for a while, and it's sort of ancillary to this, but it would help this process a lot, is if we could start getting upstream to adopt copyright format 1.0, and actually put that in their own license files, then it becomes really, really easy to write copyright files. And if we could get, for example, the FSF to do that as the upstream that cares the most about this stuff already, that would drastically increase the number of things where we could completely automatically create a copyright file. As an upstream, if somebody told me that I could write one Debian copyright file, Debian-style copyright file, and not put license headers in my files, I would do it now for everything. Can I? Is it kind of legally OK and stuff? It's legal in my opinion. I've done it. Ah! Then we may have an innovation here. What I was going to say is, I think the obvious question here is, what happens if your package is being an emu'd or something, and somebody goes in and edits your control file or something, the auto-generated one? Then that being an emu would work well. It'll work well, but then you have to go manually read. Yeah. I can't think. Well, one would review the emu patch, and. You might want to put something in the files where you can put it that says this file was generated by DevDry. You might want to go edit the .devdry file instead. On every single file. Like a comment in the control file, if there is a way to do that. Right. But then the Debian combat. Obviously, the other files you can't. Yeah. Readme.source, like readme.devdry, yeah. It's actually convenient the microphone came to me, because I didn't have a question. From the point of view of reproducibility, are you recording the versions of DevDry and the auto-debianization tools that you're using when you run it? So I think that beyond just recording the version, I think if we think about what happens with DevDry, suddenly these people who are maintaining various things that do automatic devianization have a new problem, it's basically the same problem that I've faced with DH and complained about the last DevConf, which is any change that I make can go off and break some random package. Now, it's only going to break it when, in your case, when a maintainer is running DevDry to update their package. But it's still, I think, something that they might have to start worrying about. They have to formalize their interface more or their output to make it more stable. I completely agree. And I don't think it's a bad thing. I would like them to do the work for me. That's kind of the point. And for everybody else in Devian, so possibly getting help from other Devian developers as well. Just not me, yeah. You showed how you're running today where you just auto-detect which Debianizer tool you should run and run it. How do you think DevDry should handle cases where you need to run four different helper tools because you have different pieces of your package? And what about the common elements that they currently all tend to handle themselves? Do you need a pluggable system similar to DHS, drop something in and handle that? No, I would think such a situation maintains Devian directors by hand. Please don't. I'm mostly thinking of things like, well, I need to run this tool because it's a Python package and this tool to auto-generate the copyright file and this tool to auto-generate the change log.  Then I would say let's change Python as DDEB so that it runs fair enough. So I think you had earlier mentioned maybe allowing people who use DevDry to have a config file that specifies what program runs or what options are passed to it. You could always extend that to having it be some kind of a little program that uses the DevDry as a library and then says, oh, run this here, run that there, whatever, to put it together. And I think this is kind of a core tension with what you're doing is that you're using declarative files but you also want the escape patch of being able to run arbitrary code. Well, not too arbitrary code, but useful code just as we have in the rules file. So maybe you should think about that and I'll also put in a plug for my talk tomorrow which is gonna touch on this in a slightly more abstract way. Okay, I'm not sure I can visualize the problem you have in mind because so far I intentionally limited myself to trivial packaging and everything that is non-trivial bail out to maintain Debian directories by hand. Yeah, and at that point, yeah, I'll look at what's the difference from 70 to 90, see what can be added. Luca? Yeah, have you been testing upgrading packages from DH, make Ruby version 0.6 to DH, make Ruby version 0.9 or ZBAs? That would be really, I think that's the main use case that I see for this tool. It is, we tend to have BitRot in our Debian slash directory and it would be really useful to have a way to automatically upgrade packages in a reliable way. For example, we are working on adding automated auto package test and we need to go through every package for it. If we had such a tool to help with that, it's really nice. I have not tested anything like that. My general intention is that this would hopefully move from a hacky patchy thing to something that essentially says the maintainer's this person, not upstream, the rest is fine. It's kind of a more abstract standard and at that point, migrations should kind of be ideally trivial because I'm representing what I mean and there are tools that implemented in what is run on the system. Only I've tried to not create tools that are too smart introducing new layers of abstraction but just ditching bits of Debianization that are usually redundant. That reminds me of something that might happen. For example, you start adding auto package tools to the output. Then as a maintainer of the, what was it Ruby package? I don't change anything, but I get a different packaging. So what do I put in a change lock? Do I put in, didn't do anything but lots of things have changed or do I review the diff every time and manually figure out what has changed to put in there? Or do we expect maybe the automation tool to have some kind of change lock fragments and then you record what was the previous version of the automation tool that was recording it and you pick all the additional points that was added there added to the change lock so that you can basically get the effective changes there. Open question mark, I guess it's, don't need to keep in mind. If I have to think about what I would do right now today and like making a new, thinking of a new version of that dry is about to be released, I would look at the depth diff and figure out what happened because ultimately I am responsible for what goes in the archive and not the, it's me responsible for what I upload and not the upstream of Python STDep. So it's something that at the moment I would still feel like I need to do. The other, only it will be easier for me to review, A, this change looks all right and maybe add a few lines to that in change lock rather than having to figure out what are the trivial changes that are needed this week. But yeah, the responsibility is still on the developer. If tomorrow or in a few months, we can move to a model in which like happened with the developer, there's tools to do the right thing and I don't need to double check the sequence of commands, sequence by the developer, then yay, it's another step. Did I see how? Yeah, actually just have a thought about this, is that, so what you are doing is you are using the output of auto-debianization tools as a basis. I wonder if that's not a bit backward and if the right thing to do would not have been to have some kind of preceding for auto-debianization tools like a config file for DHMAC Ruby that makes it output what you really want in the end and by default it would put a package that is broken but if you configure it correctly, it just works. Yeah, a bit like the STDep CFG. In that case, you will have an empty Debian directory or maybe with a change lock and then some configuration there. Yeah, but still, I think the main problem currently is that each Debianization tool does different things like the Ruby one, generate stuff for tests. I suspect that each one is doing something different in that regard. Yeah, it seems that if right now we could have most of the Debianization happen in a five line script language specific to control the language specific Debianization tool and that gives us empty Debian directories, I would like under sign that plan any day. It would be a gigantic step forward. If further down the line, we end up with a single kind of control script for auto-debianization tools, then yay, even better. I think that's already quite a nice step forward. Yeah, there's another question. While the microphone moves, there's a readme file which is actually documentation for that dry including the description of the merging process. So it has some documentation which is unfortunately not auto-generated. Have you thought much about how this might work with packages that are of the package name dash X dot Y variety that or Emacs 24 versus Emacs 23? For me anyway, there are a lot of the files that I automatically generate from essentially foo.in files. I have a lot of Emacs XY whatever files that get automatically transformed into the right major version whenever that changes upstream. I don't know, I mean, for me, I just treat it as a pre-processing step which would be a little cleaner if we had a pre-processing step more formally, but I didn't know how that might fit in with what you're talking about, if at all. Right, okay, the Debian slash foo.in files, I would not know how to, I've never used them and I would not know much about the actual use cases to do much planning on it. It probably makes sense to add the pre-hook to that drive so that there's one command to run the whole thing. Yeah, but I don't know. Yeah, more generally, I think that the common use case when modifying packages that because package name, end codes, version, SO name or something that you have to modify it at many different points in the packaging scripts and having something that automates this would be really nice. For example, you also have it sometimes in a list of files and I agree that yeah, you have the STD type thing but that's not everything. I feel like taking up this slide again. My point was that I should do less work, not more, but those are all great ideas for tools that we should have in Debian.  But yes, I like this discussion. I like the fact that we are discussing ways of making Debian maintenance more focused on actual maintenance and not trivialities. Great, I'm really happy about that. Let's keep it. Speaking about the pain of writing copyright files, what if I have a perfect upstream so I don't have to change anything in the Debian? Am I allowed to skip adding a files Debian slash star stanza to the copyright file which I find mostly useless? A Debian slash what? In the copyright file, often you find the files colon Debian slash star and then this is me, but I have the same license as upstream or some other thing. If I don't have to write anything in Debian anymore, there's nothing I can copyright, so I can just skip that, can I? I mean, the change lock is not copyrightable if you see that there's names anyway. I would hope. So in the new copyright format, you have globs which apply and essentially override one another. So if in the end, we're gonna have a Debian copyright file which has a stanza which is file star, it will cover Debian stuff anyhow. Right, but there's nothing in Debian that... What I'm saying is that hopefully at the end, there's nothing in Debian that is copyrightable so we can stop worrying about it. And yeah, okay. Well, and there's also the default seems to be that the Debianization license is the same as upstream. So if upstream has a copyright file that we can use as Debian copyright file, then we can also trivially add a line to extend it to Debian if needed. One thing that could help with this is Debian 11 which enables us to map between upstream package names and Debian package names. So you could tell that install Python module foo and it would install Python three dash foo, for example. Another thing is that tomorrow there's the upstream guide bof. So it would be helpful if you could come to that and tell us about what Deb driver lies on in upstream so we can recommend that to our upstreams. I don't know if that conflicts with another talk of mine but otherwise I can do my best to be there. The remaining, well, if there's no copyrightable material in Debian at all, then obviously you don't need to add anything in Debian copyright but even if there is copyrightable material in the Debian directory, one thing that I've wanted to finish doing for a while is just to automate adding the statement about that because if you're happy for the Debian packaging to be under the same license as upstream which most people are, then the only thing that's left that would go into the copyright file would be the copyright statements for the people who worked on it and whether or not you really care about that is arguable but the thing about that, of course, right is that we can generate that automatically because we have that information it's in the changelog. So it does all it would require is parse through the changelog, find all the names that are in the changelog, associate them with years, generate a bunch of copyright statements, throw them into Debian copyright and you're done and you could completely automate that process. Okay, that requires also changing the habit of using only first and last name in square brackets in Debian changelog because we do have Debian developers that have the same first and last name. Well, so remember that your goal here is to generate copyright notices that you may or may not really need anyway. Then being ambiguous between multiple people in Debian is now we're into problems that I don't think anyone's ever really gonna care about. Anyway, I've already submitted a wishlist bug against Debian change. I will promise that my next upload to new you will contain the line. The contents of the Debian directory is copyrighted by the people mentioned in the Debian changelog and if it goes through new you, then I'll let you know. Because I don't see any point in copying the data out of one place in Debian to another place in Debian just for the sake of nobody using it at all. Did you think how to maintain a package like that in VCS because what do you keep in the VCS? The clean directory or the generated one? Because if you have to create the generated one before building then git build package will complain because you have uncommitted change and I think all other VCS helpers will complain as well. I agree. When building Devdry at the moment, like when playing with it, I did hit that and I created like a branching it where I committed the Devdry generated thing so I could run git build package on it to get the source package and it's annoying. Or it could be automated by Devdry, I don't know. I'm not the best in thinking about package maintenance workflows. I would welcome somebody to fix that problem for me. So this sounds kind of like the old auto generated files problem all over again except we're inflicting on ourselves. And I wonder if you've thought, well, maybe if we get 90% of the archive using Devdry, would it then make sense to say de-package dev should go run Devdry in using this interface if it is used and then we can just throw away all the auto generated stuff as far as the source package is concerned? I believe, yeah, that's entirely among the scope of possible future developments that this goes. I'm being told it's minus one seconds to the end of the talk. So my only concern on that one would be that now to unpack an arbitrary source package, I need all the auto generation tools because I have no idea what's gonna happen until I try to unpack it. The. Okay. Well, I guess time to wrap it up. So further development, slides, there you have it. I hope I don't need to explain it. And thank you very much. I hope this kind of direction will keep being pursued after the end of this talk because I'm excited that we can even talk about something like this now. Thank you very much.


Aloha, and welcome to Business in Hawaii with Reg Baker. We broadcast live every Thursday from 2 to 2.30 from the downtown studios of Think Tech Hawaii in the Pioneer Plaza. Normally, we have beautiful weather in Hawaii, but the last few days have been rainy and almost like wintertime. Imagine that. Winter weather in December. This is the last show of the 2017 year, and it's a quarterly commentary, and I've got a guest today by the name of Ray Tsuchiyama, who you've seen probably many times on Think Tech Hawaii shows, and is including my own. He comes with a very interesting perspective that he's gotten over the years from a lot of experience domestically and internationally, so it's always refreshing to hear a different perspective, and we're going to have a little dialogue and talk about some of the main stories that occurred during 2017. Ray, welcome back to the show. Thank you very much. This is the end of the year of the rooster, and next year will be the year of the dog. The dog? Yes. I hope that doesn't mean it's going to be a bad year. No, no, no, no. But we're coming to the end of a year that's been a very exciting one for the state of Hawaii. Business is booming. It is. It's doing very well. And I've been very excited about some of the recent announcements that have just come out in the past week. All the different banks are coming out with bonuses to their employees and pay raises. It's exciting times. I think it was Hawaiian Airlines just a few days ago, and the headlines in the Pacific Business News said that we're booming, that the economy is doing very well. So it's been a good year for us, and I guess there's a number of reasons for that, and we'll get into some of that here shortly. But I guess one of the things that I think has been in the news a lot the last week or ten days, particularly in the last ten days, but even more so during the years, tax reform. It's been an interesting process.  When I was going to college back in the 80s, and I was going to accounting school 101, they were talking about tax reform back then. So it's taken us about 30, 35 years to get to where we're at today. And we finally have, I don't want to call it tax simplification, because there's nothing simple about this, but it is a new way of approaching taxation. As a layperson, and I'm a CPA, so I've got a little bit more insight into this, but as a layperson, what's your thoughts on the tax reform? Well, I think that's a very significant perspective that you just brought in, because very few people know that taxes and the structure of taxes, paying taxes, have not changed that much since the 80s. And of course, one of the things that we look for when we look at economies globally is what does tax rate for corporations or individuals? That's the first thing you ask, is it high, like 30 something percent or more for individuals similarly, or is it lower? Like in Hong Kong, there's a 15% flat tax, for example. 15%. Yeah, 1.5, 1.5. So in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Gulf, very similar tax regimes. And so you get a sense that, wow, they're focused on growing their economies and growing business. And it's worked very well for them. That's right. Ireland has a very favorable tax environment. Correct. A lot of companies are set up over there. And of course, there are other countries that set up specifically like some places like the Bahamas or even states like New Jersey or Nevada and so forth. So you're correct that this is the foundation of a business climate. And I think what's significant to put it into perspective in case the audience or the listeners haven't seen this yet is that the corporate rates have dropped from 35% down to 21%. That's a huge drop. And that does put us maybe not at parity with other countries, but certainly moving us a lot closer. And so that's one of the reasons is because now all of a sudden the taxes are 30% to 40% less than what they were before starting in 2018. That's why the companies are coming out and they're doing a little happy dance and they're giving bonuses to people. And of course, what should happen is that corporations with extra cash or money invest in innovation to make better plants, to expand and hire more people overseas to sell more of their products and to have more product development all the above. Right. Now, it's a great opportunity for the businesses in 2018, but it's also going to be beneficial to individuals. The individual rates are dropping. The brackets of when the different rates kick in have expanded. There's in some, this is a component that gets a little complicated, but the standard deduction has almost doubled. And that impacts a lot of people, particularly in the older retired group and those that are just starting out where they don't have a lot of itemized deductions and they always take the standard. When now all of a sudden, instead of taking say $6,000 or $12,000 standard deduction if you're married, now all of a sudden it's $24,000, so it just doubled. So people could save potentially $2,000 or $3,000 a piece just from that one component of the report. In the United States, one of the things that distinguishes the United States from other countries like Japan is that people don't save or can't save because of taxes. Now we hope that it leads to higher rates of savings and also people have more cash to buy things, to invest in their futures, education, more house renovations and cars and so forth. And that also accelerates the economy. It does. There's a multiplying effect in this that you give people more, they get to keep more of what they're making. They've got really two options, either they're going to save it or they're going to spend it. And for whatever reasons, we have a tendency to spend it more than we save it. So that's really going to accelerate the economy and get things going, not only in Hawaii but throughout the entire country. And of course Hawaii has a major tourism industry where people on the mainland throughout the world, Japan and China and so forth, hopefully people will come more to Hawaii because the tourism has had a banner year, maybe over 8 million this year. Well particularly when the companies that are in the business are generating higher profits now because of lower taxes, now all of a sudden maybe they can do some more renovation work, maybe they can do some add-ons to their properties that's going to make it more attractive for people to come, which could trigger a little bit more tourism, which would be a good thing. We've got really two primary economies or components of our economy here. One is going to be tourism, the other one's going to be the military. And that's pretty much what drives our state right now and we've got to keep both of them as healthy as we can. So what you're saying though is the recent Trump initiated tax reform is a good thing. It's a positive for Hawaii, generally speaking. I think it's good not only for Hawaii but for the entire country. I think it's going to put more money into the company's pockets, which they've already begun to share with their employees, which is very positive. But as you mentioned there's also going to be now resources for reinvestment, for expanding product lines, for growing the business and maybe even moving the employment scale up a little bit to higher paying jobs. I think it's going to be positive all the way around. Because one of the things that people talk about tourism, it's a great industry but there aren't that many high paying jobs as opposed to software or e-commerce or other industries of finance in the United States. Unfortunately the nature of the business I guess, not a lot we can do about that. But as we add on to some different maybe venues it would be attractive to the tourists. Maybe there's an opportunity there for us to move those average wages up a little bit. I know this may be a silly analogy but I think Disneyland or Disney World are the different high tech type of experiences that people can have. We've got one of the Disney properties out here and there could be some opportunities to have an experience that people can't get anywhere else. There could be an interactive type of ocean experience that could be very high tech. There could be things that we can develop with this extra money. What you're saying is that with extra cash they can do more R&D, more innovation in our tourism plan. Which is when you look at Waikiki it is old, it is aging and there hasn't been a major property there for many, many years. It's so small, the land base, you can't really build any major projects anymore. Yeah and it's hard to go much higher than they've already gone. It's going to be interesting but we've got I think an exciting 2018 looking forward to. The tax reform I think is going to provide some opportunities, it's going to give individuals and businesses some extra money. What's interesting that for the state, the Department of Taxation, they've had some particular challenges in their IT area that I think is pretty pumped in common knowledge. They've had three I believe different tax systems they've tried to get up and running. They're working on the third one. I think they're starting to get close but they just changed the rules. For those that don't know, a lot of the rules at the state level mirror what's happening at the federal level. So that's how they try to keep it in sync and so if you're preparing certain tax forms one way at the federal then they try to make it consistent at the state. So now the state's got to go back and re-examine everything to make sure that as soon as we finish 2017 under the old rules we better start changing things for 2018 which is just going to be another layer of complication for the current software that they're working with. It's going to be interesting to see how that has an impact in our state. Well it's also coming back to a project management which is is it a taxi department initiative or a technology IT initiative or is it both? And having said both, then you really have to work with the people who are going to be using the software, people at the taxi department and also people who are going to be customers of that also and the people who are going to implement the coding. So it's a very complicated project wherever you look at it. Well and it's also important to remember that there's nothing easy about taxation. You know this bill that they just passed is 500 pages thick and all that does is set a direction. It doesn't tell anybody how to get there. So now they've got to write all the regulations for 500 pages. So it's not complete. Well it's complete in that they know where they want to go. But how they're going to get there is going to be the regulations. So now the IRS has got to come out and write the regulations which could be another three to five thousand pages. Now once the regulations are written and I don't know about you but I'm not that good at reading Regulation Ease. So there's going to be rulings and interpretations on this and that's going to add another test cases like this or that. And every jurisdiction in the country and I think there's about what 12 of them every jurisdiction can have a challenge and have a different finding or result. So depending upon the jurisdiction that you're in you can have different ways of doing the same thing which is again another layer of complexity. And all I'm saying is that they've got the bill now they've got to do the regulations and they're going to do the interpretations and the rules. It's going to be a while before this all gets figured out and then the state has to stay up to speed on all of this to make sure that what they're doing at a state level is consistent with the federal level. Now some of the news reporting last week when the tax reform bill was going through was that it will impact high tax states, Hawaii included, California, New York, others. And that it's going to be a mess dealing with this and it will be less of an impact with states that have no tax or very little like in Nevada or Washington state. What do you think about that? You know it's a very good point. I think they're correct but it may not be as bad as everybody seems to think. And let me, we need to take a quick break right now as soon as we come back from break then let's reopen and we'll go into that in a little bit more detail. This is Business in Hawaii with Reg Baker. I'm here with Ray Tsuchiyama and we're going through a quarterly commentary. We're going to take a quick break and we'll be back in about 60 seconds. It's RB Kelly. I'm your host of Ad in the Comfort Zone where I find cool people with cool solutions to problems that all of us face. Now the thing is we're really cool and I only invite really cool people but the thing is I think you're kind of cool too so I think you should come and watch. That Thursdays at 11 a.m. here on OC16 television with Think Tech Hawaii. I'm RB Kelly, host of Ad in the Comfort Zone and I will see you next Thursday. It's going to be a long time before it gets all sorted. Hi, I'm Ethan Allen, host of Eligible Science on Think Tech Hawaii. Every Friday afternoon at 2 p.m. I hope you'll join me for Eligible Science where we'll dig into science, dig into the meat of science, dig into the joy and delight of science. We'll discover why science is indeed fun, why science is interesting, why people should care about science. They care about the research that's being done out there. It's all great, it's all entertaining, it's all educational so I hope you'll join me for Eligible Science. And welcome back. This is Business in Hawaii with Reg Baker. We're doing a quarterly commentary today with Ray Tsuchiyama. Talking about some of the big stories of 2017. This is the last show of 2017 so I want to wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year and let's get right back into a really exciting topic of taxes. Ray, you had mentioned before the break that there was some discussion out there about high tax dates, getting hurt a little bit, a little bit more maybe, and the lower taxes. It's an equal impact, let's say, and it's true. Well, there is some truth to it but as in most tax questions, it's not always going to be an easy answer. If you're talking about businesses or individuals, you might have two different answers. Individuals, one of the components of reform is that the income tax and property tax, that piece, those two components, are going to be capped at a $10,000 deduction. So you're only going to be able to deduct $10,000 of income tax and real estate tax starting next year. Now, there are some states that that's not going to be an issue at all and the individuals are not going to be hurt by this at all. So that's okay for them. For the states that do have high property values, high real estate taxes, and high income taxes, it adds up, it adds up. I would think that there's only going to be a few states that are really going to be in that area where you've got very high property taxes and high income taxes, Hawaii, California, New York, or probably the two that come to mind the quickest. They may have some issues for the individuals. Now, one thing to keep in mind is that for people who have taken these deductions before, okay, they're capped out at $10,000. There may only be $1,000 or $2,000 that they lose. But if it's not enough, if it doesn't exceed the standard deduction, which now goes up to $24,000, they still may end up okay because there's a lot of retired individuals and maybe people that are just starting out that they don't have big mortgages. They don't have high value houses. They don't have a lot of income tax. It all depends on your circumstances. Exactly. So for those individuals where these things only add up to maybe $5,000 or $10,000, they're not going to get hurt because now all of a sudden their standard deduction is $24,000. So it's offset by the major element of the Trump tax reform. I don't want to use the fake news phrase, but there is some misinformation or misunderstanding out there that there may be some isolated cases where people are hurt by it. But there's also other components that's going to offset some of that. The standard deduction being one, but also income tax rates themselves are coming down and the brackets where the higher rates kick in are wider now. And so there's some offset and not everybody is going to be hurt by this. So you have to focus in and not be kind of misguided by what you hear. Well, and that's probably my most important message that I want to send to people is that get engaged in this because the savings can be huge. You can save a lot of money if you have just a little bit of awareness of what's going on. Stay on top of it. Communicate with your preparer. Make sure that they're giving you the straight information, not necessarily what you're hearing around town because people have different agendas. And so talk to the preparer. They have only one job and that's to take care of you and your tax situation. And they're going to be doing it to the best of their ability. So make sure you've got communication with them and that you're staying on top of this. And the savings could be quite large. So let's move on. We've kind of beaten the taxes up a little bit. One that you have, I think, some experience with, at least conceptually is the Amazon situation. We had heard that Amazon was looking for a new place to build another headquarters or a new facility. Share some thoughts with Amazon. For the last year, Amazon has been on a hiring spree, first of all. It's been hiring hundreds, maybe thousands of bright young MBAs to really work in e-commerce. Also, because Amazon is not only software, it's also about delivery. They have to have warehouses, product, all kinds of things. They look to establish what's called fulfillment centers. And they've been establishing them by the dozens all around in regions, North, East, West, Southeast, Midwest, and so forth. For example, there's five in Ohio. But the biggest news was that 283 cities and regions proposed to Amazon to be their place to be the Amazon next headquarters. As you know, Amazon grew from Seattle. That was their birthplace. Now they're looking for a second one. It may be in the middle of the U.S., it could be in the Northeast, it could be in the Southeast. Wouldn't it make sense for them to not have them too close together? That's correct.  But they need a lot of land. They need a lot of people. Because they're going to invest $5 billion and hire maybe 50,000 people. 50,000. That's right. Well, that rules Florida out. They'll sink the state. But this was the biggest, I guess, economic opportunity for many, many cities. Well, nearly 300 that they applied for. This was the biggest news of the last year. Now, real touchy question, but I'm going to ask it. Did Hoy ever have a chance in this at all? No, not. First of all, it needs a hub, a major airport hub, like in Atlanta, like in Dallas, like in Chicago, and so forth. The hub is the key to it. And also, they need a lot of land near the hub. Right? Because they can't be 100 miles away from the hub to have the warehouse. It has to be near somewhat. And they also want to have trucking capability. That's right. Not just airport. And it's all about logistics. How to get something from here to there in the quickest amount of time, very efficient, and so forth. And then you have workers who look at this, computerized, and so forth. Right. It's just, it would be great to have them here, but it just wouldn't make sense for them to do that. Because logistically, they need to have the hub near an airport, near rail stations, near trucking roads. All the above, all the above. It just doesn't work here. So, you know, but a great opportunity. Maybe someday we'll have another opportunity to diversify the economy. But, you know, we still have the Department of Defense. We still have the visitor industry, two very strong components of our economy right now. What sort of diversification do you think might be possible? Well, that's the $64 billion question. And there was a recent Hawaii News article that said the Hawaii economy is booming. We have 2% unemployment, which is the lowest in the U.S. Tourism has brought in year on year, you know, $14 billion in 12 months. So, what's there to worry about? But there are people who have been thinking about this for the last three decades. Well, to have everything in one pot, to have a three-legged stool that we had in the 80s, agriculture, tourism, and military is now down to two, plus government. The rise of local city-state federal government. Government doesn't create anything. They don't have revenues that bring in customers. But it's a hiring center of its own, also. So, that part is still has become larger through the years. You were saying that a third of our unemployment... Probably, you know, one out of three, maybe 35%. So, this is unlike any state in the Union. Look at Washington state, or Oregon, or Nevada, or even California. They have far more private sector jobs. And even parts of China, communist countries, have more private sector jobs. Percentage-wise. So, we are unique, and it's scary for some people to go look at the future and see only tourism even grow larger and larger. But, you know, back... I was on the board of directors for the Chamber of Commerce 25 years ago. And we were wrestling with these issues back then, too. So, you know, not a lot has changed over the years. But I believe we missed two opportunities. And I'd like to share your thoughts on this. But the two areas that I think we could have done better if we had started 25 years ago, or maybe even longer, education and healthcare. I mean, I think back in the 50s when we just got statehood and into the 60s, if we had identified healthcare and education as two primary sources for us to focus on, we could have set the bar very, very high and really benefited not only Hawaii, but the entire Pacific Rim if we had done that. What's your thoughts? Well, you're correct that some opportunities like medical tourism would have been... People paying, you know, five, ten times more per person coming here for, you know, the first class global medical treatment would have been another industry for Hawaii. You're correct. Now, we have people flying in from Maui to Oahu, and people from Oahu and Hawaii flying to the mainland for medical care. That's one area that we still have to work on. And because of the lack of diversification, we've had outright migration. Younger people, especially on movies from mainland, we are one of only eight states in the Union that has population decline. And as you lived in Vegas, there's probably 80 to 90,000 former Hawaii residents living in Nevada, working at hospitality, hotel jobs, maybe some same salary, but because of lack of state income tax, you know, 30%. A lot of retirees. Retirees also, and excise tax, and things are cheaper there, real estate, gas, milk, and so forth, groceries. So it is not a good statistic to have. No, it's actually, I think, depressing in a sense that, you know, I mean, I've got three sons. One opens on the mainland, two of them are here, so I'm very fortunate, but one of those two is thinking about going to the mainland. You know, and primarily because they can buy a house. You know, in this scenario, is that they go to the mainland, they increase their salary by 20 or 30% because they pay better, and they can buy a house for half or less the cost, and the cost of living is 20 or 30% less. It's hard to argue with the logic of that. And, you know, it's just, we need to just accept the fact that, you know, things are going to be more expensive here, and there's more benefits than negatives, but there are people that will never buy into that. You know, and so it's a problem that I think we're just going to have to learn to deal with. But like you say, it's not a new discovery. Chamber and others, and people in the business community, I've been wrestling with this for 30 years, and it's something that, you know, they're really a change, and of course, we're losing a lot of people in high technology or biotech or finance who want to have a career in those fields leaving for the mainland. Well, you know, believe it or not, we have just finished our episode this week. We're going to wrap up, but I would think it's fair to say that 2018 is going to have some interesting challenges ahead of us, just like 2017. That's right. There's this rail project we didn't talk about that we got to figure out how that's going to progress, and then it's the implementation of tax reform that just got started. So it's going to be an interesting year. Well, maybe President Reagan is right. A rising tide lifts all boats. Well, that's the theory. I just hope my boat doesn't have a hole in it. But this is a business in Hawaii with Reg Baker. I was here with Reis Uchiama today talking about some of the issues that happened during 2017. We broadcast live every Thursday from 2 to 2.30. I sure hope to see you next week. But until then, have a great happy new year and be safe. Aloha.


Dear Mr. President, in those seven countries, children can't even go to school. And here, we have the audacity to sit in class and drool. So many children wish for an education with no limitation, but they live in a nation where little boys learn about war way before they learn their ABCs, while their families are thirsty and dying of disease. And when those bombs hit, there's nowhere left to flee. Are you too blind to even see clearly? Little girls are forced to learn how to cook and clean, but they don't even know how to read. Bounded to child marriages, well, they will never be free. Our countries are starving, and our blood is oozing down the street. Mothers lose their children to conflict and violence. Mainstream media turns their head away in silence. We see their cries for help as a sign of defiance. Their bones are breaking from all this burden. Their skin is glassed from all this hurtin'. For us, one plus one equals two, but for them, one bomb plus one bomb equals destruction. One missile plus one missile equals massive reconstruction. One drone plus one drone equals more obstruction. They are stranded alone. No one who will avenge. They hear loud explosions again and again. But all these children are wishing for is a paper and a pen. My name is Syeda Dahir. I'm an 18-year-old student, living and going to school here at UC Berkeley. I started writing poetry when I was seven years old. I'm from Somalia, and Somalia is called the Land of Poets.  And prose. When I was seven years old, I really got introduced to it by my siblings and the rest is history. After the Civil War, my family fled to a refugee camp, and that's where I was born. I moved to Salt Lake City, Utah, when I was around three years old, and it's been my home ever since. I don't really know anything besides Salt Lake City, and it's a very homogenous place. Everyone looks the same. Everyone acts the same. Everyone is the same. I remember being very badly bullied as a kid because of things that I couldn't change, because of my skin, because of my hair, because of the way that my family was different. But I guess that really made me wake up. Everything about me as a minority is perfectly fine.  In 2016, Donald Trump released that he was proposing a Muslim ban on seven countries. One of those seven countries is Somalia, and I'm from Somalia, which means if that travel ban had been put into place 15 years ago, I wouldn't be standing in front of you today. I wrote paper and a pen talking about why people choose to leave their countries in the first place. Because no one voluntarily leaves their home, their culture, their people, their language, their lives, they're pushed out. And a lot of these people that are affected by this directly are children. So I talk about why people choose to leave for education, for life, for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness. Being a first-generation college student has really been an amazing opportunity. Although Muslim, my poems are about things that I want to see change, you can also criticize and be very grateful. And I'm very grateful for the opportunities I have, but I also am very aware that there's things that have to change, that need to change. I'm really looking forward to things that I can make happen here in this institution and in the world in general. There's so much power that's behind your voice, so it's really important to speak out and speak up.


If you're asked to leave or decide to leave your home, generally you're going to want to shut the water off to the home before you leave. Go according to the local guidance that is provided by the local authorities. But it is important that you know how to shut that water off. What you're going to need to do is to find where that main water shut off is in your home. Generally what you're looking for is the place where the pipe actually enters the home. In this home, the water line comes in through the floor, comes up through the valve, and then goes to the water meter. The valve can either be a valve that you turn just a quarter of a turn, or it might be like a regular faucet. And in this case, the valve is kind of on the backside of the pipe. And what you want to do is right now it's in line with the pipe, indicating that it is open. And this one, what we need to do is to come in behind and grab that valve, and we will turn it then until it is perpendicular to the pipe. And there's actually a stop on that valve.


So, just make a note here that coefficient of static friction is different between the rope and the horizontal pipe and rope and the vertical pipe. And what we have to again do that we are trying to find out what is the P for which equilibrium is maintained, range of values of P. So, again we are trying to you know figure out that P is going down that means impending motion downward and impending motion upward ok. So, these are the two situation we have to look at. We just need some number at least the one part let us say we do the impending motion upward that is just to let us say hold the 100 pound load. If we just want to hold the 100 pound load that means P is trying to go up ok. So, can we just solve that part. So, it is clear that that answer again it is the similar problem we have solved that when it is trying to when I am trying to hold the load P will be less and when I am trying to pull it down P will be large ok. Contact angles are very easy in this case one would be just pi over 2 that is the horizontal contact angle and vertical contact angle is with the vertical pipe you know pipe is pi. So, one is pi over 2 one is pi and make sure the friction you know tension will change. So, you take the horizontal pipe right immediately once it is crossing the horizontal pipe there is a change in the tension. Then again when it is coming back right rounding up and coming back there again we have a change in the tension right. Sir, 156 lb sir. No, I am not getting the correct answer yet. 156 lb? No, so many answers, but nothing is actually correct so far. One answer is correct that is 411 is the upper range that is one answer that means that is actually impending motion downward. When you have impending motion downward we expect the P to be the largest ok 24.3 that is the lower end answer ok. So, two answers are 24.3 and 411. In any case so this free diagram will solve the problem in any case. So, you have P and Q right then again you are looking at Q and R and then R and 100. So, if I do impending motion downward then which one is greater which one is T2? T2 is going to be P right and then the lowest will be 100. So, it goes sequentially like this. So, impending motion downward answer is 411 another is 24.3 is that clear? This is basically the free body diagram that will control everything and we just have to understand that for impending motion downward P should be greater than Q, Q should be greater than R and R should be greater than 100. Then we reverse this when the impending motion is upward ok. So, let us move on to the next problem. The second problem is that of a bell drive again, but what is done here that let us say one side of it gets slacked ok. Then we are going to use a idler pull it is very often commonly used actually to tighten the bell back because it will increase the contact angle and once the contact angle is increased therefore we are going to get the torque carrying capacity will also be increased. But remember the idler pulley that is a very small mass first of all and it is free to rotate. So, you make it frictionless ok. So, therefore now you can start thinking about it. If it is free to rotate or the frictionless surface then the tension in the both sides will be same for that particular pulley idler pulley ok. Now that is also used for various different applications because once you want to you know kind of channelize the bell in different directions we just keep using different types of you know idler pulley in various places ok. So, in serpentine belt it is more or less used. So, just see what is given here it is said that the slack side is 1000 Newton that is the tension. So, slack side is going to be upward right the upper one is the slack side and this is actually the tension side is the bottom one. And remember if the you know all the balancing is happening correctly or not that also you check because I have applied torque right the torque is shown here that arrow right. So, that is my driver pulley answer again. So, what was the answer I am on side from the back. So, answer is 234.9 Newton meter that is the torque transmitted from A to B. So, which one is under impending slip in this case impending slip condition where we have to invoke which one has the smaller one right ok that has lesser contact angle. So, answer is 234 Newton meter I repeat 234 roughly Newton meter rather 235 actually is that clear. So, this is the larger tension side T and that is the slack side that is already given 1000 ultimately one impending surface we have to find where the slip happens that surface is actually the lower you know smaller pulley right because contact angle is less over there. We just apply T over let us say 1000 equals to e to the power mu s of beta let us say that pulley is B right smaller pulley is B then beta B ok. So, that is how we solve the torque tension on that side in the larger tension side and then we can just do the T minus 1000 times r ok. The important thing to understand that impending slip happens on B ok that is the driven pulley any question on this ok this one is actually combined point friction as well as belt friction problem whatever we have you know learnt in the morning session that also coming into play here. So, I will just explain the problem. So, this crate is being lowered and we can see that arrangement. So, there is a pulley that pulley is free to rotate and then it is going to that rope is going to a cup stand here ok. Now, once it is being lowered down observe that there is a weight that is the mass center ok and this gap is given very small. So, that gap is very small gap ok. So, ultimately what is happening if you look at there is a know my unknown is really the tension in that cable I have to find out the tension in that cable that is the target ok, but what is happening in the process can anyone tell what is happening in this case Cg is not matching. So, therefore, what happens it is going to rest on this wall as well as this one now what are the contacting points here the contacting points are going to be a and b right a and b are going to be the contacting points. So, it is going to now we are just assuming this gap is very very small ok. So, now you start your problem. So, this is you know from the morning session how many contact how many unknowns you have once you draw the free body diagram of the crate how many unknowns do I have how many equilibrium conditions are there what are the number of contacting surfaces involved and how many you know law of friction I have to use. So, first let us try to just solve the tension in the cable from the session that was done in the morning there is no bell friction to do that ok. So, very nice problem to look at remember there is a you know we have already said that kinetic coefficient is going to be taken into account why because why it is so because this is always going to be slipped over the wall right and remember that everything is happening at a very slow speed that is the key ok. So, we are again going to use the static conditions everywhere. So, as long as we solve for this key right here just give me that number. So, let us this is another tutorial from the morning session and then we can just use the bell friction on the top. So, how many unknowns 5 right if I just take the equilibrium of this is it 5. So, I have a tension here that is 1 then I am going to have a normal reaction here and the friction force which direction friction force upward similarly here normal reaction plus friction force. So, total unknowns are 5 how many contact surfaces I have 2 contact surfaces right. So, friction law now they are remember the kinematics of the problem suggest that I have to invoke the friction law at both surfaces because they are not independent surfaces right because it is just going like this. So, both surfaces slip has to take place simultaneously. In any case in this problem we are just you know going to use the e to the power mu k times 5 right. So, 3 equilibrium conditions are already coming into play from this and we can use the friction law here as well as here right. So, total 5 equations 5 unknowns and solve for the t. So, I need the number is that clear the final answer will be 10 kilo Newton ok. The final answer means the t that we are trying to find out. If you want the intermediate steps that means what is the tension in this cable right here that is link to the crate anyone got this answer ultimate answer is 10 kilo Newton anyone got 434.78 yeah that is 435 let us say ok and that tension down there will be 10 kilo Newton once we apply the belt friction it is wrapped around 2 times. So, look at the free body diagram here. So, again I repeat there are 5 unknowns there are 3 equilibrium conditions for this crate there is a slippage surface is only 2 slippage surface has to be there. So, invoke the friction law.  So, friction law is taken care of now in this body you have actually 3 unknowns to solve for e r r a and r b this needs to be solved. So, ultimately we solve for the t 1 here that is 434.78 kilo Newton and then we go to the belt friction right here. So, 2 terms where they are beta equals to 2 times 2 pi t 1 must be equals to t 2 ok. So, we apply that and we get the value 10 kilo Newton. Any question on this because gap is very small that was the condition. Gap is very it is just slightly I mean you can think of it in finite similarly small you know it is just trying to go down, but there is a you know slippage here that is not it that was already given in the problem it is just you know very small gap it is trying to adjust ok it is little bit tilted, but. . Tension is given in the right side already right side when you are going to lift with the help of the fourth applied at d it is eccentric now it will be touches surfaces at c and also the d no no there is a geometric center no it is tilted no so it will be tilted like this only no which way you have the no which way you have the carpal look at the carpal no we are applying tension in the upward direction no if it is freely suspend that is the case so when you are applying the tension at the top side the whole body will be tilting towards this side only ok look at this there is a t 1 this way and 500 this way so tendency of tilting will be counter clockwise that it is shown here there is a couple here right we can't say it's a couple actually because they are actually different value because we have friction so the moment here the whole body is tilting counter clockwise done whole body is tilting counter clockwise like this no no that diagram is done ok this this tilt line you are saying it is ok these are all straight line assume all straight lines ok vertical straight lines that is not an issue but ultimately this is shown no tension t 1 is I think lesser in comparison the tension t because the block is moving in the upward direction so the ratio t upon t 1 will be e to the mute again you are lowering it's a lowering you are trying to lower it down no you need to give a very small force compared to your 500 kilo Newton you are lowering down everything why do you once once they say lower it down how can tell me how can t can be greater than 500 kilo Newton are you expecting that are you expecting that once are you expecting that tell me no ok


So for us, gender equity is a non-negotiable human right, just like when we look at markets, we look at the whole audience, we need to as a sector look at the whole audience. Unfortunately, that has not happened in the past. When we design infrastructure, service delivery, innovation, we always forget half of the population. Women are not at the centre of decision making, they don't have the agency and their voices are often very subdued, if at all heard. What we are asking for is a very level playing field. It makes sense from markets, it makes sense when you think of your consumers and it makes a lot of sense when you're thinking about human rights. So if we are talking about a global world where we want equity for all, then women cannot be left out of any part. They have to be in the boardroom, they have to be at the centre of decision making, how resources are allocated and the value add will be 10x. It's already been proved. Where women have a strong voice in boardrooms, companies perform better. Even from economic sense, it makes sense. From human rights, it's a non-negotiable. It's not easy. We all live with those biases that we have grown up with, they are 5000 years old or more. We have to break down those barriers, make the world equitable. That means in our sector, more than anywhere else. They suffer the most when they don't have it. The problems are magnified because of our biologies and the socio-cultural impact of when we get it right is so worth the effort. So there is now in 2019 a non-negotiable. As I hope, in 2020 we shouldn't be talking about gender equity. It should be taken for granted in our sector. And I believe water and sanitation can be the exemplar in this.


Obviously, it's another challenge this week.   Does that change, like some of the principles of your passports, you know, when you have a quarterback like that, to just step up and run?   Ryan, I guess, talked earlier in the week just about, I guess, before he played 60-61.  And he said you're kind of welcome to get yourself in the shape you possibly could to take that on. What is your kind of mindset? You know, if I'm dressed, I want to be out there? Or how do you kind of approach a game where you want to get the best out of yourself? Yeah, I mean, like I feel like I said the last time, like I feel like, you know, we put so much into training and like getting your bodies ready for the season.   And I feel like, you know, I've handled it well. And I feel like, you know, if I just keep handling my business with everything that I do, you know, I'll be fine the rest of the season doing that. What do you do leading up to training camp to get yourself in? Is it on the bike a lot? You're running a lot? What's your conditioning program like? Nah, I mean, I don't need to get into specific. I just train hard just to get ready with everything, nutrition, recovery, and then obviously the training part. But no, I mean, a lot goes into getting prepared for the season.  Take a snap or two off that ever happened? Uh-uh. I mean, it might have, but I was probably asking to go back in.  Or how do you kind of gauge where you are from a conditioning standpoint at the end of games?   But in the heat of the battle, like, you're out there trying to win.  So I mean, I don't really think about it during the game. Speaking about Trevor and maybe one of the concerns when you face a guy who's capable of maybe tucking it and running a little bit too. Yeah, nah, I mean, they've shown off him that they're willing to run him. And he's an effective runner too. So that's why I said, you know, it's just another challenge as we're going against a mobile quarterback. They'll use him in the run game and in the pass game with his feet. So I mean, it'll just be a challenge for us. But I think we prepared for it. I feel personality and off the field personality. It's very different. Like in front of us, you're nonchalant, very reserved, relate back. You're aggressive on the field. So what is it for you that kind of, like, how do you flip that switch and take on that personality, that aggressive mindset, that aggressive approach to you? Nah, I mean, I don't know to be honest with you. It's just natural.   And that's what it's about. All of y'all just eating together and having fun. And I don't know. That's just second nature for me. Like, when I get on the field, like, I'm different than obviously what I am right now. Is there anything like you have a routine, you have music you listen to or something you do to get into that zone? Whatever the DJ in the locker room put on the, put on the speaker, I'm listening to it. Have you ever changed to talk to Rashad Libertal since injury? Oh, yeah. He was actually in here today. Nah, I mean, he's a cool dude, man. I'm sure he'll bounce back fine.  What's that loud? You know, how's he, as you're dealing with it? I'm sure it's obviously very frustrating, especially for a rookie, I would think. Yeah, nah.  But nah, I think he's handling it fine. I mean, he was in there today and we were chatting up in the meeting room.  What's the feeling as a pass rusher when you get your, you work so hard to get there and you get your hands on the quarterback? What kind of goes through your mind? Taking to the ground. I mean, I don't know. Nothing really goes through my mind. Like there's not really a lot of thinking that goes into it. It's just all like muscle memory and second nature, just, you know, when I get my hands on, I'm taking, trying to take it to the ground.  Oh, it kills you. Yeah, you definitely, it definitely makes you tight for sure.