From around the globe, it's theCUBE, presenting, Cube on Cloud, brought to you by SiliconANGLE. Okay, we're now going to explore what it's like to be the CIO of a fast-paced growth company in Silicon Valley and how the cloud, however you want to define the cloud, public cloud, on-prem, hybrid, et cetera, how it supported that growth. And with me is Cathy Southwick, who's the CIO of Pure Storage. Cathy has really deep experience managing technology organizations. Spent a number of years overseeing AT&T's cloud planning and engineering. And another few years overseeing a team of a couple thousand network and IT engineers working to break the physical stranglehold of fossilized telco networks, implementing network function virtualization and a software-defined methodology for the company. And of course, you spent the last couple of years as the CIO of Pure. So Cathy, it's great to see you again. Thank you for coming on the program. Thanks for having me. It's good to be here. Yeah, you're very welcome. So given your experience with cloud, dating back to really the early part of last decade, how did you look at cloud back then and how was it evolved from your point of view? Yeah, you know, it's an interesting question because I think that we've, there's some things that have moved very fast and there's some things that are very much the same as they were even a decade ago. I think that all companies are very focused on how do you think about cloud? Do you think about it as on-prem? And when I started, we really were focused on an on-prem solution. And I'm building an on-prem private cloud to help modernize our business. So I think that with that, all companies are still in that same mindset of how do I want to think about cloud and how do I want to think about that on-prem versus public versus combination or some type of hybrid solution? So I think all of us are on that journey. It just seems like it's taken us probably a little bit longer than most of us probably thought from the beginning. So as a CIO, thinking about that evolution, how has that informed the way you think about applying specifically the public cloud to Pure's business? You know, I think that we've been a, for Pure ourselves, I think we're in a really unique position. We were essentially born in the cloud. So we're a company that's 10, 11 years old. And if I give the contrast of that of AT&T being 130 year old company and having a lot of applications that have lived historically on-prem, there's very different issues and challenges that you have. Pure has had, I think, the advantage just like many other companies that are born in the cloud who can see what the advantages are very quickly. And we made decisions early on that said that we were going to actually do both. We were going to look to say, how do I put those applications in that data whether it was on public or on-prem and be able to do that both in the IT side as well as within the product side. So how do we develop our products? Now, as I mentioned upfront, you have obviously a lot of experience managing large technology teams. My question is when you first saw the emergence of the modern cloud, how did you communicate with your team members? I mean, you mentioned you were kind of building your own private cloud. So I guess that's less threatening to people, but what was it like? Was there a concern, were they eager to jump in? What was that dynamic like and how did you manage it? You know, it's really, it's different depending on the different part of the organization. So I'll give you kind of two things I learned. One of them was that our teams in the operation side, they saw it as a huge advantage. They saw it as an opportunity to really modernize, to really get themselves both their own individual skill sets advanced, as well as provide a better level of service for our internal, you know, customers, so to speak. Our application and our data partners that we had to work with, they saw it as an opportunity to bring agility to their applications, quicker speed to market, a more currency of their application. So they actually got some benefits that they weren't actually all called planning for. They were, they had the opportunity to get investment in their applications without having to put that investment on themselves. I would tell you, the thing I learned from the teams, this is probably, might be a little bit surprised, but often, you know, leaders believe like you gotta have all the answers, you're gonna drive everything, you're gonna make sure everyone knows what needs to get done. And what I actually found, this was actually one of my big moments, I think was our individuals, our employees, our teams, they are so brilliant and so bright on driving change. And a lot of times leaders, I think, get in the way of it. So for cloud and adoption, it was really about me getting out of the way. It was really about setting that North Star for where we want to go from the ability to deliver fast and quick for our business, and then get out of the way and let our teams actually drive. So it was a great, it was a, we actually, I actually saw the reverse. I saw more of our employees wanting to drive and I needed to like back out and just say, here's where we need to go, let them drive us there. So I got to ask it, don't please don't hate me for asking this question, but was your gender an advantage? Was it a disadvantage or was it really irrelevant in that regard? It was irrelevant. I think that it was, I actually, I truly believe it's irrelevant. I think it was literally recognizing that leaders need to set vision and what we want to achieve and let our teams help us drive to get there. And I think that that is gender neutral. I think it's really about, kind of checking your ego and everything. And I think that that's a really important part of what we're trying to do is we're trying to get our team and our team to be able to get to the final set to the side. And it's really about empowering people and our teams to help drive us there. So thinking about that, that learning specifically, are there any similar tectonic shifts that you're, you're seeing today where you can apply that experience? I'm just like, for instance, new modes of application development and requiring new skill sets or maybe another that you can think of. And whether you're in a high growth company like Pure or you're in a company that's trying to take costs out of your business or trying to do things, I think that it really is a matter of leaders needing to set the stage. And so if we're trying to drive change in a business, it's really making sure that we're doing, I'll call it more empowering of our employees. And because they will see the way that we can get there. It's just a matter of letting them have that ability to do it. So you joined Pure around two years ago and obviously growing very quickly. I love pandemic has changed the trajectory of that growth, but still a good outlook. But Silicon Valley, fast paced company, you know, I kind of put it in the camp of the work days and the service now is it could have similar, similar cultural patterns there. So you talked a little bit about this, but I wonder if we could come back and more specifically how you're leveraging cloud, how you're thinking about it, you know, on-prem hybrid, now the edge and how did that contribute to Pure's growth? Yeah, that's, it's a great question because I think that while I shared earlier, you know, we were essentially born in the cloud. I think that what it's really driven us is to be thinking more forward about where customers are going and what their challenges are. So whether it's for the IT teams on what we're trying to do to deliver for our business and you know, innovation, they're obviously trying to make sure they can hit their revenue goals and all those things that are important that every business deals with, but we also have that same mindset on how we develop our products. So it's really all driven by where the customer is going, that they need data mobility, they need application mobility, they need and really portability. So the moment that you have that ability where you can kind of control your destiny and define it and you only can get that by having, you know, applications that are portable and data that is mobile and secure, that you have that kind of flexibility. So I think for Pure, we've been definitely in a great position to drive for our customers or drive where our customers are going. And so we've defined our entire product set. So not just how we operate as a business and run our business, but then how we define for our customers, same mindset is, if our customers are going to the cloud that we need to have products that can help them to be in the cloud or be, you know, on-prem and let them decide what that looks like. Well, it's interesting, you mentioned that and I harken back to the Portworx acquisition which is an attempt to really change the way application development is done. It's another sort of approach to sort of modern data architecture. You as the CIO of a technology company, most CIOs that I know inside of tech companies, they're sort of the dog-fooding or champagne drinking, you know, testing. So had you already started to sort of use that tech, are you starting to, you know, does it support that vision that you just put forth? Maybe you could talk a little bit about that. Yeah, it does. So we had not been using Portworx as a product. We were just starting down that path of looking at how do we do containerization for the applications that we do have on-prem that's both on our engineering side as well as with an IT. And so, but we quickly have recognized, just like, you know, and part of that acquisition is applications or companies won't have the ability to have that portability of their applications and have that flexibility that they're all striving for unless they've done things like containerizer applications, made them that they're able to move them across different cloud environments, whether that's on-prem or off-prem or some hybrid. So for ourselves, you know, Portworx was a really critical acquisition that will help us on our own journey of doing the application modernization and putting those capabilities in place, but it will also enable our customers to have that same flexibility. So again, going back to the, we've adopt these things aren't like a, this is for this group and this is for this customer. It's really about how we operate both internally and then what we are providing for our customers. So that portability and being able to have control of your own destiny, that's really to me what Hybrid Cloud is all about. And you can't really achieve that if you don't have some of these capabilities within your, you know, within kind of your toolbox. Great, thank you for that. So I'm interested as the head of a technology group at a tech company and what are the meaningful differences?  Yeah, you know, it's, I meet with a lot of CIOs across Silicon Valley and we kind of joke that when you are working in a company that is a technology-based company, you know, everybody knows how to do, you know, because you do have brilliant engineers and they do know. I think the difference that you start to see is that, you know, IT is required to make sure that availability is there inherent in what you're doing on immediate rollout with like, you know, an application that's occurring. That's very different than how you do product life cycle management. What we've, what I've seen actually though is more similarities. I know that's probably surprised to you, but coming out of AT&T, what I had been working on those last couple of years was actually doing the combination of engineering and IT into one organization and that you do have a lot of benefits for how you can then develop, how you can manage and the skill sets, there's a lot of similarities. So there's actually probably more similarities between companies and on what they're trying to achieve than you would probably think there would be just because we're all trying to make sure that we can develop quickly. How about as it relates to cloud, Kathy? I mean, I remember in the early days of cloud a lot of the big banks said, you know, we can build our own cloud. We can essentially compete at scale with Amazon. We're, you know, the big bank. And then I think they quickly realized, well, the economics actually don't favor us necessarily. Do you think there's a different perception about the use of cloud between sort of traditional incumbents and a tech company in Silicon Valley? And if so, how so? I think that the, if you are, you know, a bank as you refer to and having, it really is where you're starting from. If you have a very large infrastructure footprint and application footprint, your application's probably not born in the cloud. There's a lot of modernization that has to be done with those applications so that they can operate as efficiently in a public cloud as an example. And I think that's something that sometimes gets overlooked is there are enormous benefits going to public cloud, but there's also costs if your applications or your data doesn't really fit as well in that type of environment. So I think that for large enterprises like the banks, some of the telcos, they've got very large footprints of infrastructure already, those investments have been made. And what they're really looking for is, how do I increase my ability to, you know, whether it's agility or it's speed or it's lower cost or it's all those things. And I think that's a different path and different journey that they're on. So they're trying to balance all those equations of, you know, the economics, as well as the ability to have, you know, no more investment or minimal investment in that infrastructure. For companies like Pure, where we started off with those investments, our decision and kind of the decision tree that we used is if it makes sense and I don't have to make that investment on-prem for whatever reason, then I should go ahead and make that investment in a public cloud strategy or a hybrid cloud strategy. And I'll kind of differentiate that because I think that it's different depending on the company you are. And so it really kind of depends on where you're starting from. Then it also depends on what you're trying to achieve. If you're just trying to achieve an economic solution, if you're trying to achieve a strategic solution, if you're trying to get agility, and I think it's different for companies and it's different depending where you're at in your kind of journey.  And those are things that we don't want to have to start going and building all these data centers to go do that. We don't have those embedded investments. So it's a real difference in where your starting point is. And I think there's value in all those different types of approaches. Right, and it's a real advantage for you that you don't have to shell out all that CAPEX on data centers. That's right. As you look back at the last 10 years of cloud, you know, it was largely about eliminating the heavy lift of infrastructure deployment and sacifying, you know, the business. What do you see going forward? What do you think was going to unfold in the 2020s? Is it going to be more of the same or do you expect meaningful differences? I think that we're going to get better as technology leaders on how to quickly make decisions and not have it less political. And I think COVID's actually taught us a lot about that around companies more willing to make, I'll call it a faster decision and remove some of the red tape. I've heard this from many of my peers that things that might've taken them months and months to get approved, it's nowadays. Even if they even have to go get approval. So I think that what we're going to see is, we'll see the continuance of public and I'll call it really hybrid cloud type of solutions. And I think that we'll be more purposeful about what goes there and how that can help us to, I'll call it enable us much faster than we've been able to do it before. I think that's been our challenges. We get mired into some of the details of some of these things that maybe it would be easier for us to just make a decision and move forward than to keep going round and round on what's the right way to do it. Yeah, so that's interesting. You're saying about the fast decisions. I felt like a lot of 2020 was very tactical. Okay, go deal with the work from home, et cetera. Although you definitely see IT spending suppressed in 2020. Our forecast was minus 4%, but we're saying, it's going to grow. We actually see a decent snapback. You know, what are you seeing generally, not even necessarily pure, but when you talk to some of your colleagues, you're obviously in the technology business. It's good to be in the technology business these days, but do you see spending, you know, generally coming back and maybe the timing, first half maybe a little soft, second half, what are you seeing there? Yeah, almost identical to what you said. I think that we'll see, you know, a little bit of a tendency to not really hold back, but really kind of see what's happening in the first quarter of the year. There's a lot going on with companies and everyone's having to kind of balance at what that looks like. I do see, and what I'm hearing from several of my peers is that, you know, it's not necessarily budget cuts, it might be budget redirections, it might be reparitization, but definitely technology investments are still there. And it's still important for businesses to keep on their journeys. And we do see that even at pure as a way to differentiate ourselves in the market as well. Do you, what about the work from home piece? I mean, prior to COVID, I think the average was about 15 or 16% of employees worked from home. You know, now it's got to be, you know, well over in the high 70s. And the CIOs that we've talked to suggest that, you know, that's going to come down in the first half, maybe down to still pretty high, 50, 60%, but then eventually it's going to settle at a higher rate than it was pre-COVID, maybe double that rate, maybe in the 30, 35, maybe even 40%, you know, what are you expecting? Something probably very similar. I think that what companies have recognized, and I actually tell you CIOs have thought this many of them for many years, that there's a huge value in having some type of hybrid model. There's value in having, you know, both from a business perspective as well as a personal perspective. So employees work life balance and trying to balance that.  And I think what we don't want to get into is, you know, a prescriptive that says, you know, this is what the company will look like as a whole. I think it really is going to come down to certain types of work are more conducive to a more remote environment. Others need to have, and I always kind of use this term of individual, you know, productivity versus team, you know, productivity. We've seen, you know, great advances in team, or individual productivity.  And so we are looking at capabilities to be able to enable our employees to do that. But there are some things you just can't replace the human interaction and the ability to very quickly, interactively, you know, five minutes, catch someone and do that. So I think we'll see both. We'll see some leveling off. And I think we'll see some areas of businesses that have once thought you can't do that remote, they might actually say, hey, that is work that can be remote. So I think we'll see a combination of both. That's an interesting perspective on productivity. And what's the old saying is you can go faster alone, but further as a team. And not a lot of folks have been talking about that team productivity. We clearly saw the hit, the positive hit on productivity, especially in the technology business.  Maybe it gets, you know, maybe it gets smaller. But so is there pent up demand for technology spending at the headquarters? Because you've been, you've been, you know, pushing tech out, out to the edge, out to the remote workers, securing those remote workers, figuring out better ways to collaborate. Is there pent up demand at HQ? Absolutely. We've been, you know, we've been actually exploring different technologies. We've been looking at what are things that, you know, could help create a different kind of experience. So I do think, and it'll be some different types of technology. Those will be the things that maybe aren't even out there developed yet on how do you create some of those comparable experiences. So I think that the notion of, you know, individuals will continue to thrive, but we've got to start working on how do we continue to enhance that team collaborative productivity environment that looks and feels different than what it might look like today. Yeah, they've got to leave it there. Great as always having you in the Cube. Thanks so much for participating in Cube on cloud. Great, it's great to be here. Thank you. All right, keep it right there. More content right after this short break.


Hello and welcome to the Grand Line Review, your source for everything One Piece and today we are here with some FACTS, some F-A-E-C-T-S, that's how it's spelled right. FACTS, Shocking FACTS mind you. Which if you are a veteran One Piece of Fire like myself, then you may very well have come across these in your travels. However, if you are a new or a casual One Piece fan, then I can quite confidently say that a lot of what we're going to explore here today is simply going to blow your mind. And in exchange for said blowage, all I ask is that you hit that funky red subscribe button for the Grand Line Review, which will also grant you regular One Piece content uploaded straight into your YouTube feed, but much more importantly, continue to build the Grand Fleet so that we can become the undisputed kings of One Piece YouTube, a very niche title indeed. Let's get straight into things today because we have a lot to cover, which will begin with Shocking Facts. Number 10, the Super Novas were not planned. And by that I mean that they did not exist anywhere in Oda's notes or even his mind until the very chapter in which they were introduced. That's right, Trafalgar Law, Eustace Kidd, Diaz Drake, Capone Gang Beige, and the other ones were never actually intended to be part of One Piece. According to where Chiro Oda's message in the 27th log release, he created them in a desperate rush because he was worried that the Sabadear Capelligou arc would not be interesting enough as it currently stood. And I don't know about you, but I personally find this absolutely maddening because apparently in response to this sheer desperation, the designs for nine incredibly striking characters just came to Oda unconsciously from nowhere. Thus I suppose proving the theory that pressure creates diamonds, or at the very least in Oda's particular case. And from here he also didn't expect any of them to have anywhere near as big of a role as they currently do especially Law. And so I think what we have here is an example of creative intuition at its very best. Oda felt that a singular arc might be lacking a bit of excitement, so he responded by not just providing excitement for that particular arc, but also an entire future's worth of excitement. Because I don't know about you, but as we are on Wano, I really cannot picture things without the supernovas being involved. And I also think it's quite funny because it does go to show that One Piece is nowhere near as planned as people think, although there is still very extensive planning, as can be seen in shocking fact number nine. Jinbei was planned to be a crew member from the very beginning. And this, well, this is something that we only found out relatively recently actually, but longtime fans of the series might be quite familiar with this particular image. This is a conceptual sketch of the straw hats featuring some very familiar faces like Luffy, Zoro Nami, and Sanji. And I suppose I'd call Brook a familiar face, but he doesn't have one. Yo ho ho! And as for the rest, well, they needed a bit of work. Still, what we did not see is that in this sketch, it also originally included the Oji Jinbei design, which was rather sneakily erased when a sketch was released. But the full thing has now been made available for us to gaze upon and enjoy, showing us that Oda had always planned for there to be a fisherman as part of the straw hats, right from the get go. And you know, it took us an awfully, awfully long time to get there, but we did, which I suppose goes to show that One Piece is very much kind of like the ultimate fusion of master planning and master improvisation, the results of which we will see in a few other shocking facts. But while we have all of the straw hats here, it's time for shocking fact number eight specifically, which is that the straw hats are currently the only crew in the series where each and every member has an assigned bounty, or at least a bounty that we know of. And I was quite surprised by this because I felt for sure that there was another small crew out there with a handful of members who each had known bounties, but nope, it's just the straw hats. Every other crew was either far too big to have every member recognized, or too small and insignificant, or in the case of the new Giant Warrior Pirates, both far too big and far too small and insignificant. But no, tangent averted, the straw hats are still the only crew in the history of One Piece as we know it, where every member has a known bounty. And now that we have some money on the mind, let's go to shocking fact number seven. And this is one of my personal favorite facts, but One Piece is the third highest selling comic book series of all time. It currently has a sales total of approximately 470 million, which is drummed only by Batman in second place with 484 million, and a much more further ahead Superman with 600 million. But how crazy is that? Especially because Batman and Superman have had like a 60 year head start on One Piece, given that they were created in 1939 and 1938 respectively. And at this stage, there is no doubt whatsoever that One Piece will surpass the sales of Batman. It is as good as guaranteed. Superman, well, look, it's a very different question, but there is potential. I guess if it was to happen, I imagine it would be towards the end of One Piece, with the release of the final few volume skyrocketing sales of every other volume, with people who just want to catch up or collect them all. It is still a pretty rough ask though, considering it's taken 23 years to get to 470 million. So another 130 million, it's a number. But I'm pretty damn happy with the idea that by the end of its life, One Piece will be at the very least the world's second best selling comic series. Now as for shocking fact number six, we have something quite obscure. So most of you are probably familiar with the idea of the Pandaman, but in case you're not, he's an easter egg character that gets sprinkled into the background and sometimes even the foreground of manga chapters and anime episodes. He also quite frequently makes his way onto the front of Japanese volume covers hidden under the dust jacket. That's not the shocking fact though, this is very well established. But did you know that the Pandaman lore goes a layer deeper? And there is another easter egg character even more obscure and well hidden than the Pandaman, and that is Tomato Gang. Tomato Gang is a debt collector and the reason why the Pandaman is consistently on the run because he's had some financial troubles and Tomato Gang is here to collect. However, it should be noted that Tomato Gang has not made a post time skip appearance, indicating that whatever financial issue he had with Pandaman, it may very well have been solved during those two years. However, he did appear on the hidden cover of volume 85, so let the conspiracy theories begin. And on that train of thought, shocking fact number five. Aliens exist in One Piece. And furthermore, even if you've seen every episode of the anime, you're probably still unaware of this fact because they were only showcased in the manga. Quite specifically, during the NL's Great Space Operations cover story, which saw NL literally travel to the moon, or one moon anyway, it's been heavily hinted that there are multiple moons surrounding the One Piece world, or that the One Piece world is in and of itself a moon, but that's a discussion for another time. But on the moon, NL met two fascinating races, one of which is a series of automata with very space-like names such as Cosmo, Galaxy, and Spacey, the spaciest of the names. And it should definitely be noted that these little guys are not the aliens in question because we did see a flashback of them traveling to the moon via balloon, as you do. But that is okay because we also have the big giant Fox space pirates who are absolutely extraterrestrial. Furthermore, it's also revealed in this cover story that NL's ancestors and likely all sky citizens came from the moon, which you know what, that does make a Rujan alien, as well as every Skypean local, which weirdly enough includes the Shandorans, even though they chose to settle on the Blue Sea. They are still aliens, each and every one of them. And I will never, ever, ever understand why the anime refuses to animate these stories because this one in particular is just pure insanity. I mean, who doesn't want to follow NL to the moon to fight a series of furry aliens? Speaking of though, this cover story ended rather ominously with NL now in charge of a legion of space cyborgs and ready to set sail for who knows. But that does very importantly explain where he was, which relates to shocking fact number four. Every known Logia user was present at the Battle of Marineford, with the exception of NL. And I should say that this was every known Logia user at the time. So it's pretty hard to deny that Logias were the king of class back in the pre-time absurdly powerful and practically unbeatable. So it's only natural that if an event, say, some sort of paramount war were to occur, then these legends would absolutely be involved. And you wouldn't be wrong, because in fact this war was sparked by two Logia users, one of which being poor Gastias, and the man who defeated him, Marshal D. Teach. Ace was then the catalyst for the war and Teach obviously rocked up at the end, but we had our three admirals, Aokiji Kizaru and Sakazuki, all of which were equipped with Logia Doom. Then lower down the rankings we had Mr. Smoker, our very first Logia user in the series, and also calling in for classic one piece we had Sir Crocodile, our very first defeated Logia user. But still it's pretty cool fact that once again, apart from NL who was on the moon, our entire Logia squad up until this point saw fit to assemble at the Battle of Marineford. And while we're on the topic of pre-time skiplets, sneakily transition into shocking fact number three. Did you know that the entirety of pre-time skip one piece, which just as a reminder is chapter one all the way through to chapter 597? Well, did you know that all of those events took place over the course of roughly four months? That's right, from the moment Luffy set sail from Fuchsia Village to the point where he begins training with Ray Lee, is a mere four months. Potentially even less, but probably not. And we know this because a very detailed timeline of one piece does exist, and bonus fun fact, it even includes the year that the series takes place, which pre-time skip is the year 1522 of whatever one piece calendar is used. And essentially Luffy begins his adventure in May of 1522 and then puts it on hold to train in August of 1522, which very much implies that for the most part, the straw hats were effectively as strong in their arc introductions as they were in their late stage pre-time skip fights. Minus upgrades of course, like Diablo Jamba, Ashura or Gears. Aha! And now that I've said the gear word, I should immediately move on to shocking fact number two. There is an incredibly subtle significance to gear fourth, primarily being the chapter in which it was introduced, which would be chapter 783. That number again is 783. And this is not where we see Luffy using gear fourth for the first time, but this is when he announces it. Now this is really trippy, but when we reverse that chapter number, we end up with 387387. And maybe that doesn't sound so special until you realize that this is the chapter where Luffy announced gear second for the first time. And this is just one of those things that is so insanely coincidental that I refuse to believe that it is in fact a coincidence. The history of One Piece has taught us that Oda is very, very aware of numerical patterns and designations. And while I think that no detail like this was not planned from the beginning, Oda did take it into consideration and structure things so that these chapter numbers would mirror each other perfectly. An opportunity that could really only be given to such a long running series. And if you've ever wondered why One Piece turned into such a long running series, then you may very well be interested in Shocking Fact number one. The biggest reason for the extended serialization of One Piece is the seven warlords of the sea. According to Oda's comments in the 23rd log, One Piece was originally just supposed to be a story about fighting against the four emperors. But then Oda came up with a cool idea to introduce a series of pirates aligned with the world government. And because he didn't like the sound of Gobukai or Nibukai being five and two warlords, he went with Chichibukai being the seven warlords. And that singular decision has led to entire arcs and even sagas focusing exclusively on these members. For example, the whole alabaster saga with Crocodile, Thrillbark with Gekkomoria, and how could we forget both Punk Hazard and Dressrosa which focused on Doflamingo? The answer is we can't forget because it lasted so long that it was burned into our brains. Those two arcs known as the Dressrosa Saga took 148 chapters to complete and were told over four different years from 2012 to 2016. So with that in mind, yes, it's pretty easy to see how the warlord decision practically made One Piece what it is today. And that's it for our shocking facts, but what do you guys think? Please do leave your thoughts in the comments below or even join my discord server. And if you'd like to see more videos like this then please do go and check out some of my other content or even subscribe to the channel for more glorious One Piece business uploaded straight into your YouTube feeds. But for now, this has been the Grand Line Review and I'll see you next time.


Simple rules which help to keep students motivated. Emphasize the most critical concepts continuously. Reiterate these concepts in lectures and assignments throughout the course. Include questions relating to these critical subjects on every exam, thus rewarding students for learning, retaining, and, hopefully, applying this knowledge in a variety of contexts. 1. Use Visual Aid Provide students with a visual aid when possible to explain abstract concepts. A significant proportion of today's students are visual learners. For these students, a simple diagram, flashcards, videos or flowchart truly can be more valuable than a thousand words in a text or a lecture. This will motivate the students to elaborate on certain concepts. 2. Organize in Class Activities Use in Class Activities to reinforce the newly presented material. After a new concept or subject has been presented via text reading, lecture, or class discussion, allow the students to put the concept into action by completing an in-class assignment. These assignments can be short, but they must be developed to ensure that the students understand the critical concepts underlying the new material. Typically, most learning takes place when the students are permitted to work in small groups, to refer to their text and notes, and to ask questions of the instructor while completing the assignment. If these in-class assignments are part of the course grading scheme, class attendance also improves. 3. Show that the content is related. Help students create a link when teaching something new. If the student can link the new material to something already learned, the odds of learning the new material are greatly increased. Examples of possible links include prior material learned in this course, material learned in prerequisite courses, and real-life experiences of the students outside the classroom. 4. Show the importance of the vocabulary. Recognize the importance of vocabulary in a course. Students often struggle with new vocabulary in many courses, especially introductory ones. This is always a serious situation in English if the students are learning English as well too. To succeed in these courses, students must become comfortable with new terms or words. As subjects are presented, new and confusing terms should be identified and introduced to the students. The teacher can present simple real-world definitions and alternative terms or world, in addition to textbook definitions. One way to help students assimilate the course vocabulary is to create a vocabulary glossary on the instructor's website where new terminology is added, explained, and illustrated throughout the course. 5. Praise. Treat students with respect. Patronizing behavior may be expected in certain classes.Make some classroom rules and be firm on them.Reward those who follow these rules. However, most teenagers or adults' student will not respond well to these rules. Thus give students a dignity, and they will give you their best efforts. 6. Challenge. Hold students to a high standard. If students are not required to maintain a specified level of learning and performance, only the most highly motivated students will devote the time and effort necessary to learn. In contrast, maintaining high standards not only will motivate student learning, but it will also be the source of student feelings of accomplishment when those standards are met. Are you ready to teach English to ESL students? Each of these rules can help motivate even the most lethargic student, but rule and paragraph 6 and 7 are the most important. If students are not treated with respect and held to a high standard, scrupulously following the first five rules will have much less impact and might end up being an exercise in futility. Speak with an ITTT advisor today to put together your personal plan for teaching English abroad. Send us an email or call us toll free at 1-800-490-0531 to speak with an ITTT advisor today.


All right. You hear me? Good. All right. Good afternoon, guys. My name is Andy Walton. I'm Director of Technical Sales for Serba. And today, I'm going to speak to you about densifying OpenStack environments with software-defined infrastructure control. Basically, analytics that help you scour through your cloud and virtual environments. We're going to focus, obviously, on OpenStack today. Let's see if this thing is working. Oh, there it is. All right. Let's talk about OpenStack and the enterprise. So one of OpenStack's... Something's moving around here. I'm going to have to stay close to this here. One of OpenStack's biggest strengths is KVM. It's cheaper, a better open alternative. But what we found working with our customers has also got some weaknesses as well. For KVM, the management ecosystem is still maturing. Solometer has been going through some major changes in terms of the sort of information that delivers. And then certain challenges that we see in our customers, things like VM placements, density optimization and making sure the environments are as densely packed as possible. And software license containment and optimization are still big challenges. So analytics that understand the supply and the demand in these types of environments are critical. And if you go to our booth over here, we're playing this game of Tetris. You've probably seen it at the big blocks and everything. Now many VMs are in our private cloud. So if we use that analogy here and look at the infrastructure capability or capacity of an existing virtual environment, what we see are workload demands are kind of like Tetris blocks. They all have different shapes and sizes depending on the time of day. And they all have certain requirements. Let's see if this works here. Compute, storage, network and software. And as each one of those workloads with different requirements actually falls down, what we find is a lot of stranded capacity. A lot of spaces that you could be filling in better and you also have some workloads that potentially might be at risk that are going above a certain policy level. So this whole Tetris analogy is one that really plays well for what our software does. In order to kind of control where those workloads land, what is the best place to put them in terms of not just utilization but which workloads go together, which one should be kept apart. You need a very good policy engine to actually take advantage and look at things like, what's the optimal density of an environment? What's the performance that each of the VMs and applications needs? The availability of each different workload, what those things should be set at? Are there compliance rules about customer data sitting on these different systems and running in certain environments versus other ones? Volatility, operational cycles, monthly, yearly peaks, and then licensing considerations around the software. So if you look at say a production critical environment, that's going to have certain characteristics in terms of density, certain amount of availability, n plus two on the hosts, rigorous compliance of which workloads must be kept together, which ones should be kept apart, host-based licensing schemes. And you think about this for production critical and you start looking at all the other different environments where you might be running things like OpenStack, KVM, production cloud, pre-prod, dev test. Every one of them is governed differently in terms of how you want to actually operate it. And it's impossible to keep control with just looking at manual levers or information that's sitting in, well, some of the systems today. So that really has to be governed by a very detailed policy engine that can look at these things and basically dial the knobs to actually control what's your density going to be, security requirements, etc. So we found policy inside these kinds of analytics is a critical component. So let's talk a little bit about supply optimization right now before we get into demand optimization and optimizing the density of these virtual environments. If we take a kind of very simplistic look of a KVM virtual infrastructure, different availability zones, the KVM hosts and the VMs themselves. And let's play Tetris with some of these, you know, what a typical environment might look like, as you can see, somewhat fragmented and every one of those workloads having a requirement. You have the fragmented capacity, again, potential contention risk and inefficiencies in terms of software licenses and what's running where. Now essentially what we do with it is playing Tetris with these workloads and using our policies to siphon through and basically let's segment them together. So if you knew what the workloads look like, if you knew what those requirements were in advance and you could cheat at the game of Tetris, this is what the environment's going to look like. And what you're doing now is basically defragment in the capacity and opening up a fair bit of space for your workloads now to run and also keeping some space to the top four policy, N plus one, etc. This results in the optimized density, software savings, lower operational risk for the workloads and the hosts themselves and lower volatility overall because you're now predicting what the environment is going to look like as opposed to guessing. The way we visualize this through an OpenStack KVM console, just a simple kind of view is essentially kind of breaking it out as we get the data coming in from OpenStack and the KVM hosts, availability zones, the hosts and the guests are essentially located in these rows across the spectrum. If you're sitting on the left-hand side, essentially you're at risk. So according to the policy that you have set up, any workloads, the hosts or the VMs that are sitting on the left-hand side of this environment don't have enough resource according to the policy. It could be CPU or memory, it could be IO issues, storage issues, what have you. Things that are sitting on the right-hand side are wasteful and quite often what we'll see in some of these cloud environments where users are asking for their own resources, say through the OpenStack portal, you'll see those VMs sitting on the lower right and batched up because everyone's asking for large infrastructure more than they potentially need. And after, say, 30, 60, 90 days, you'll find is that they're using a fraction of that which they've asked for. And so we often see this in cloud and private cloud environments. And so kind of what governs the policy goalpost and where you want to be operating in the virtual environments is sitting right in the middle. It's not too hot, too cold, just right. A healthier environment is going to look like this. So through placement recommendations and fixing the allocations where those workloads are running, what we're doing is playing Tetris with the workloads. So when you look at a healthier environment, you're going to be de-risking it as well as getting rid of a lot of the stranded capacity. Again, you can't do that by interpreting charts and metrics and things. Really what you need is these recommendations for changes in allocations, changes in placements in order to drive this density higher and free up this white space. So that's what a control console looks like. Another key component, I kind of brushed by it with the policy part when we were talking about software license control and this whole concept of placing the workloads in such a way that you get savings when it comes to analyzing things like software license models that are based on per host or per core. So if I use a really simple example here, say Windows VMs and Linux VMs and typically what you'll see across an environment is that those workloads get scattered across all the different hosts which requires companies to typically license all those host or per core licensing models across all the infrastructure that's there. There are ways to put in containment boundaries and clusters and things. It's typically a very difficult thing to do on an ongoing basis and the guys who care about the savings there are typically not the guys that are actually running those environments. So the analytics as part of its algorithms can consider as well saying perhaps what you want to do is actually minimize these licenses so what it will do is contain those typically licenses like things like, you know, use Microsoft DCL or Oracle or any kind of host or core based license. What we'll do is keep them on a certain percentage of the host based servers and that derives, you know, tens of thousands in some case for some of our customers millions of dollars of savings in their virtual environments. So what you have to do is not only just shrink, you know, the first time analysis which is analyze and isolate and optimize those placements but do it on an ongoing basis and it's not enough just to build the affinity or anti-affinity rules. The filter scheduler can be configured to work off these containment boundaries as well established by Serba. So that is one of the places where some of these rules might live longer term. We go back to this kind of drop zone diagram and now talk about demand optimization. So these are for new workloads coming in. We've looked at the systems as we're analyzing on a day-to-day basis for the hosts and the VMs and availability zones. But what about the new workloads that are coming in? These can be generated by self-service requests coming in from the OpenStack portal. So a user might ask for, as an example, a new request, Red Hat OS with Oracle Database. It's got customer data on it. It needs a certain tier of storage and it should run on the West Coast. So essentially what this is is new workload demand being generated and customers asking for specific requirements. Challenge today if you're doing this and you're accepting these types of requests through the Cloud portal is a fairly simple scheduling algorithm associated with that. There's no solution for what's currently running in there. So you don't know, at least the environment doesn't know how hot or heavy that thing is running right now. There's no fit-for-purpose analytics beyond the simple filters. So understanding exactly where that workload should run across all the different availability zones and potentially if you're running other types of hypervisors in there as well, VMware, what have you. If you add demand management in there in an intelligent routing and reservation system, what we see is the ability to now those types of requests come through and essentially programmatically ask, Serba, Serba, where do I route this workload? What's the best place for this thing to run? The analytics look at the requirements of that self-service request and match them to the amenities and the available space of those existing places where that workload can run. Think of it as like hotels.com. Requirements of a guest. I've got the amenities of the hotel and now what we're doing is matching those things up. That results in really high density, much higher density than you can get from manual basis. Lower service level risk, a compliance enforcement and a cloud process automation system. So essentially the user doesn't know anything different about what's going on. It's just now there's an API call that's coming in. We're coming back and basically saying, here's the best place for it to run. The other thing that's really important is the fact that if those workloads aren't coming online immediately in a lot of cases, test dev, you're going to spin them up right now. We see in the enterprise is more and more that request is saying for 30 days from now, send me, you know, spin up 25 of these things. So the ability to actually route to the right place, but not only that, but reserve the capacity, the storage and the CPU in order to make sure that when those things do come online, that the capacity is available for them. It's not just self-service requests. It's also other types of onboarding into the environment. So you've got enterprise application deployments. So new applications coming online, not just from people that are asking for them for the portal, but new apps that are being created. Migrations and consolidations, a lot of customers we're talking to are moving off one hypervisor, one platform, and moving into OpenStack KVMs. So the idea that I've got a whole bunch of workloads coming on board at one time. And other existing applications may be moving from a legacy virtual environment. So those are all examples of inbound requests. Some of the challenges with this is the fact that cloud stacks don't really manage the existing workloads. They just start new ones. So there's no predictive element of what's going on, what's going to happen when you put these workloads on board, no reservation capability, no future infrastructure modeling, and no rerouting and analysis. So if you're moving from one environment to the next. So those are big challenges that exist today as you take these other types of workloads and onboard them. So again, the same kind of thing will happen. When we can do this and actually route to the different environments, enterprise-wide routing, not just for OpenStack KVMs, but for the other hypervisors in environments as well. A true capacity reservation system that actually holds the reservation for the workloads that are coming on board. External hybrid modeling, and really this whole concept of automation, really without changing the way the customer sees this process working. The reservation console, so the way it looks from a software perspective, and again, if you want to see this, I'm not going to demo the software up front here in the next nine minutes, but you can come and have a look at it. It's essentially that the request looks like this. So the new onboarded applications come in through the environment. They show up as new guests coming on with specific time frames. Some of them will be spun up immediately. Some of them are ones that are scheduled to come onboard, say in whatever, 15, 30 days, what have you. On the right-hand side are all the different infrastructure groups, availability zones, in the case of OpenStack, the workloads that are coming on. Here's the environments that are best suited for these things, as well as the environments that rejected them. They might have rejected them because there's no available space in those environments, or it might be because that the amenities don't match. Someone needs a certain tier of storage, someone needs customer data running in a certain secure environment, and those things don't match. So the software, again, from an intelligent routing perspective, will figure out what's the best place to do these things. We'll go back to the information back to the provisioning engine. This detail diagram gets into probably more details than I want to get to, but what I wanted to show you was the fact that there's a whole process for the demand management. We call this a swim lane diagram. At the bottom of this diagram is really the ongoing supply, so the virtual and physical infrastructure, understanding what's there. That's what we call supply optimization. The process flow looks like this. So when a new demand is initiated, someone asks for new applications to be spun up. Essentially from a user perspective, they don't see anything different. They initiate the routing of demand. That calls us through our API. We do our analytics, figure out the best place to route and reserve that capacity. Sorry, so the demand routing happens. We look at the outstanding reservations, forecast the supply and demand, and see that demand to the right place. The reservation is created, so if it's not being spun up immediately, if it is, then obviously we continue on with the provisioning process. If it's coming on board in the future date, then we create that reservation in the hosting location and lock in the capacity and take it away from the existing supply. That API goes back in. The reservation is confirmed to the user, and again, they don't notice anything different. It's just like, yeah, you got your 10 VMs that are coming on board at that future date. When that day comes, whether it's on demand or in the future, the provisioning execution occurs, we analyze the latest state of the bookings. We get the optimal placement, so it's not unlike a hotel. You came to the hotel, you made a reservation, you knew you were staying in a certain place. When you got there, they said, okay, you're staying in this room. It's the same kind of thing. It's like you're in this specific availability zone, but you're going to be staying on this particular host. So we give that back for the provisioning process to initiate the provisioning and however you're going to do that. Provisioning is confirmed, it's completed, the requesterer understands and is alerted that the instance is now available, and then there's a reconciliation process that occurs to make sure that we've analyzed the latest state in any sort of reservation that kind of expired, so if someone said it was coming online and it never did come online, then we basically remove it from the queue. Just to kind of complete, we talked about here today is policy-based control, supply and demand management. We've been talking a lot today and we just recently announced this whole integration, at least from the hypervisor perspective with OpenStack and KVM on the supply side optimization. We already had the integration with the Nova scheduler on the demand side. This technology works not just with KVM environments, but obviously Hyper-V, Power-VM, Red Hat and VMware across compute, network storage and the software analysis, and then working with the cloud management platforms, OpenStack and the rest of them to do the actual work. So we think of ourselves as kind of a brain and we talk to arms and legs and get monitoring information from the eyes and ears. So this is kind of the complete fit and this is where we kind of see ourselves between hypervisors and resources and the cloud management platform. The final slide I had was really the benefits and why people are doing this today. So when you can do this with intelligent analytics, the average increase in density that we've seen in our traditional customer basis is upwards of almost 50% VM density, which results on an average savings around 48% on the hardware side. And the software license savings when you can intelligently place where these workloads go and minimize where they're actually going to run is somewhere in the neighborhood of 55%. Obviously mileage may vary, but that's what you get when you actually are doing this whole Tetris packing, workloads together safely, eliminating risk and increasing the density. So that reduces the capacity risk, increases the automation. We've got a few minutes left here, but I'm going to close down the presentation. I could probably throw a rock right over to our booth, which is right over here if you wanted to come over, ask additional questions or see a demonstration. So thank you very much for your attention today, and have a good rest of the conference.


I appreciate the comments and I promise you will always be able to get back to you as soon as possible. In today's video we are looking at frequently there has been a question that has been asked in the comment section. Every single day at least I have to get one comment regarding the salary scale or salary of the security guard in Qatar. Actually for the salary in Qatar, most of you, you'll be able to, or most of you, you know, the actual rules that we are supposed to follow as we get salary and those that are set by the government. But I'll give you my own experience, I'll give you a little bit of my own experience in one world, the other. Maybe you can try to figure out, you can have to get that between those range and they can give you exactly. What you work for, especially for a given salary at one moment of time in case you are recruited to go and recruited to work as a security guard. And my own experience before when I was a security guard, it was something very different away with what is actually right now. But remember, a person working in Qatar as a security guard typically earns between $4,560 that is per month as salary depending on your position. And salary is arranging between $2,310 to almost around $620 that is the highest amount of salary a security guard earns in Qatar. And this typical average, we are looking at the average monthly salary that includes housing, transport and other benefits that a person gets from Qatar from the job or from his position at that time. And remember, the different job positions that are given different salary scale. So that one as you are looking at salaries, if you are definitely looking at salaries, you should have that in mind that the different positions. Now which kind of position you are looking for? A security guard, a security officer, X-ray operator, a supervisor, a team leader, patrolling supervisor, a safety supervisor, senior supervisor. Those are all different positions in the security part, especially in the private companies. And each of those parts that I'm trying to mention, one or the other, they get different amounts of money, only get different amounts of salary according to the position they have to hold at a different trade. But remember, when we are actually talking about salary, especially in the Gulf countries, when I talk about the Gulf countries, I mean UAE, I mean Oman, I mean Qatar, I mean Bahrain, I mean Saudi Arabia, I mean Kuwait. And this is exactly almost getting a little bit similar, that the roles of a security guard in all the Gulf countries is almost similar. Although there may just be a difference in salary payment skills as a different country, but the roles are different in one way or the other. But when we look at in salary, for example right now, someone was asking me a lot of questions about salary scale in Qatar. And we know that 22 is just the largest world cup. And there are a lot of opportunities, job opportunities that will be there, for example, in the security department, because they will need girls to go in to have the accommodations, the football accommodations. We have stadiums, so probably we expect that by 2022 the opportunities will always be there for security guards. But again, that does not stop you that you can have an insight into the salary of what you expect at the range. You remember I told you one thing and I told you that now when people are being recruited by recruitment companies, they normally get a different figure and a different figure. But this is, as we try to discuss right now, it will just help you to know that if you're being recruited by any recruitment agency or government company or manpower agency in your country, in case you are to do that, then you know the salary scale ranging in what range, if it's fit for you, then probably you can take up the role at one moment. But remember, something that I have to remind you that the basic salary in Qatar is 1000. No any other company that is going to lie you in any way, the basic salary for all employees in Qatar, including the domestic worker is RT 1000. So that one should be something, first of all it should be in your mind that my basic salary is going to start from that amount of money at one or other. But before we get into the deep of such kind of things and before we get into that, by the way don't forget to subscribe to this channel, give me a thumbs up if you think this video is very important. It's very helpful for me and educative in any way. You may thumbs up, share the video, let others know about this and I'll always be happy if you put a comment in this comment section below and I'll be able to get back to you as soon as possible. Don't forget to subscribe to my channel, we are looking at a road to 1000 subscribers. Guys, I ask for your support, thank you so much guys, I will support and we have the road to 1000 subscribers. So let's get into the deep of the video. Right now, first of all let us first try to look at the factors that may determine the salary of a security guard of any official in the private company or in Qatar and what are those factors that normally based on before you can see the different salary skills or the different salary violations that people have in one or the other. First of all, we shall start from the recruitment company itself from your home of country, how definitely you get to negotiate with your contract that is very important. It's one factor that is going to determine how much salary you are going to get at one or the other. And if you definitely discuss it well or if you negotiate it well then probably you will see that yourself. You will have a good salary or you have a good salary as when you get to come and that will be your added advantage in one or the other. Then we also look at the situation whereby the level of the experience in the security department will also on the security sector will also is going to give you an upper hand when actually looking at how much is to offer for you or how much is to offer to you for your employers at one moment of time. Imagine a situation whereby a guard is one to two years experience, you can comparably compare the same guy with someone with three to five, three to seven years. So if they are actually looking for security guard that has the experience in the Gulf then this one of three to seven years or three to five years is probably has more experience than this. When you look at some private companies, we have the private security, let's say for example you are being hired by a hotel as a private security for that hotel, they will probably look at when you look at the job description they will probably look at the number of experience of years that you have with that company. So as you try so much to talk about how much I'm going to get and first of all you also have to look at what kind of experience do you really have in that country. We are not looking outside your country, yes outside your country may be mandatory for the interview purposes for that matter but again we are looking at how much experience do you have in that country regarding security. You know all different countries have different security procedures, different security protocols and how they properly do or how they actually mandate carry out their private security and their activities in one or the other. You cannot compare the Gulf countries with the Africa security guard where a guard has to hold a gun or he has to hold a machine gun or he has to hold a gun all the time when he is guarding for safety. Here it's here in the Gulf when you look at the Gulf Gulf it's all about your brain, how your concentration and how probably you can give the customer care that is what normally they so much consider and how probably you can deal with some kind of type situations or how you probably you can handle all the tax cost situations at that time especially when it comes to protecting safety and protecting people and their property and it is actually all what is needed at that time. So sometimes we should also look at, for example in the Gulf so much also look at the gender, they also look at what we call the gender, the gender of the gender, when we talk about the gender we definitely know we are talking about the female, the male at that time. And you find that in this situation the male security guards earn more money compared to the female security guard. One reason that I will give is that they maintain to work more hours than the female and even the feminine of the women. So that one gives you an upper hand and when you look at for example here in Katahizat you find that a man or a male security guard earns 10% increase in the salary compared to the female at that time. So you find that at that time we shall have the different salary violations from all the different groups that will be working in that area. Then you also look at the working time at a given point or at a given location or at a given project. You find that those that are working 12 hours and those that are working 9 hours and those that are working 8 hours. So what does it mean? For someone who is working 8 hours he is definitely not going to get the same amount of money, the same amount of money with the person who is working 12 hours. Meaning that there will be a salary difference at one work the other. So that one also is also another factor that is probably going to explain to you or is going to explain to you how probably you will get a higher amount of money compared to other security guards. I can give an example. I can just probably just need to give you an example in one work the other and in my own experience in one work the other. My negotiation with my contract negotiation was totally different away from what I say. I negotiated it well and probably when I go to find myself he said I had a different amount of money compared to other guards in one work the other. But that was, I keep on telling him, was how definitely you had to negotiate with a recruitment company and definitely how you got to negotiate the salary in one work the other. So that one also gives a difference in one work difference and there are some locations that are really very good that even if when you work 8 hours or 12 hours you will expect a lot of money. And that is what actually sometimes happens in different projects especially in Kata in one way or the other. So you find that it gives you that upper hand to have a higher salary at one work the other. But remember, I remember when we talk about salaries, still when we have to talk about salaries we don't have to forget or we don't have to forget to talk about the minimum basic salary that was introduced by the government. Because all our placements or all our basic salary being paid is just going to start from there. Remember when we are talking about the basic salary we are talking about that amount of money, the least amount of money that is a guard or any domestic work we are supposed to pay after offering his service in one work the other. And when you look at Kata in March 2021 there is a new basic minimum mojilo that was introduced. You all remember the minimum mojilo that was an excitement for all of us, an excitement for all people domestic workers especially in Kata and whereby the basic salary was increased to 1000 actually was very good meaning that at that time the basic salary was introduced was put 1000 food allowance 300 and housing allowance at 500. So whoever had the contract which was 750 or 500 was elevated to 1000 basic salary and food allowance which is 300 and housing accommodation allowance or housing allowance which is 500,000. But to remember most of the companies and most of the number lines especially in Kata the private companies do provide accommodation for them. So that one you don't so much expect to give you what you call accommodation allowance. So what is remaining on your table or what do you have on your table to share with you is that you have the basic salary which is 8 which is actually 8 hours is 1000 kata riyad then you have the food allowance. And also the food allowance will depend in one or the other it will actually depend on a different given company. And the company just say we shall be providing our food for the gods or we shall be providing food for our people. All the means we are talking about the three meals that are being given out. We have the breakfast, we have the lunch then we have the dinner that are supposed to be the recommended number of meals that are supposed to be given to a security guard or any employer that is being provided with the food at one time. So what does it mean if you are provided food by your company that means you are going to get a basic salary of 1000 if you work 8 hours. And if you are working more than 8 hours when you are given food and accommodation then that means a little bit it will be slightly bigger when they get to add up what we call the overtime. But remember still when we talk about overtime overtime is a lot of controversies around overtime with the different companies. All different companies have their own way how to calculate overtime at a given rate. But remember in the overtime that you tend to calculate or in the overtime that you tend to estimate remember you have transport. You have transport time or the transportation time if it is from your accommodation to area of work or from your area of work to accommodation is one hour. That means that if your overtime is 4 hours then that means you have to get off one hour which is the transportation time to and fro which is 30 minutes off. So you have your left with the overtime which is 3 hours that is normally converted or normally computed by your human resource or your company and the end of it all you have at that time. But also if you are not given food then you remember if you are not given food at one or another you are going to have a basic salary including the food allowance which is going to be 1300. But remember still something that we need to note that not all companies provide food for their employees. Why? Because in these companies we have different nationalities all living together. So it may be a little bit very hard for you to prepare kusins that are going to be accepted or are going to be enjoyed by all the people in the different nationalities. We look at the people coming from Asia, we look at people coming from Africa and you find that they have different kusins preference so it sometimes comes very hard for companies to give food. So what do they do? They will probably give you the food allowance which is 1300. So what I want to let you know is that salary salary salary salary in kata for security guards starts from it ranges between 1300 to 2000 to 2200. Or 2200 that is the salary of a security guard. I am looking at the basic salary 1000 they start up from the food allowance that is for 8 hours. Then when you for example if you have overtime within depending on the number of hours you work then it is going to push up to 2200. At least maximum you can have that for that a good company. We have for the best company then I think it may be a little bit higher than that but for a good company it is just going to be that amount of much that you are going to receive. And remember this will also depend on the position that you are holding in that company. Let's say I told you a supervisor will a little slightly earn more than the security guard. And definitely another reason we talk about a different role that you get to play. Let's say for example you are an x-ray operator then you earn more money than another. You patrolling supervisor you get all those positions are given an increment according to their roles at that time. So I think the right answer for people looking for salary in cattle or salary of security guards in cattle the best answer would be that the salary should be ranging from 1300 to 2200 for a security guard. For a startup security guard with an experience of one to one or one experience of zero to two years it should be done to amount to that. But if you have an experience that is more but remember if you've been living the cattle for quite long period of time and you have more experience especially you've stayed with that company for longer period of time let's say for five years they can decide to give you an increment for that. That means your salary will be comparably higher compared to these other fresh people or fresh minds that are coming in the company. So I think that is the right way to discuss the salary in one or the other. By the way don't forget to subscribe to my channel thank you so much for tuning into my channel. For anything that you would like to know feel free to put a comment in this comment section below. I'll always be very happy and glad to get back to you. By the way don't forget to subscribe my channel. My name is Meks from Meks Creation TV. Thank you so much for tuning in to my channel. See you once again. Don't forget to watch other videos. See you once again.


I've always been interested in the intellectual foundations of the debate on our topic, and since nobody else seems to be doing this historical approach, I thought it appropriate, if I said so, in this area. There seems to be a consensus that the typical intellectual today is more ready than most to embrace government intervention in education. But what of the intellectuals who were advocates of laissez-faire in the 18th and 19th centuries? They were surely not approved of today's extent of intervention, but as I shall argue, their tendency to compromise seriously weakened the defences against the growth of an all-encompassing state. Now, from all the early intellectual writers, I'm going to select the political economists, because this is an area I'm most familiar with. And here again, I have to limit myself to three people, Tom Payne and Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill. I may not get round to John Stuart Mill because of the limitation, but I'll do my best. Now, first of all, Tom Payne. Let me backtrack it a little bit. Before I get on to Tom Payne, let me say something about all three writers. The political economists were insistent on one aspect of education, and that is that it should never be free. There should always be price. There should always be a positive price. And with a positive price comes competition. Adam Smith of all the three was the most insistent on this point. If people have to pay at the door of the school, they have to pay a price, and then they choose another school because they're dissatisfied, that brings pressure to bear on the existing school because they automatically lose revenue. With free education, with inverted commas around that free all the time, have you noticed? With free education, there's not that pressure, there's not that incentive of facing public schools, faced with losing customers. But anyway, let me just repeat that point. All the political economists, except Karl Marx and Engels, all the economists of the 19th century did not want free education. Now, to say something about Tom Payne, and I may say, let me confess that these three writers, to some extent have been heroes of mine, and I feel a little bit guilty with my criticisms that I'm going to put forth, but let me also add that the criticisms are partly from the benefit of hindsight. Tom Payne's Rights of Man, first published in 1791, contained an agreement that the quantity of education, or contained the observation that the quantity of education was insufficient, but the shortfall was due not to the unwillingness of parents to educate their children adequately, but to the simple fact of poverty. But poverty in turn, Tom Payne tells us, was due almost entirely to excessive taxes on the poor. General taxation, and especially the excise tax, had been increasing substantially in the late 18th century. The land tax paid by the aristocrats had, in contrast, been falling. Just over one half of the total revenue went on servicing the huge national debt. The remainder went on current government expenses that to Payne believed to be extravagant. And Payne insisted that money taken in taxation from average families was much more than enough to finance a basic education for their children. Much of this revenue incidentally came from the poor rates. Well, after producing an agenda for radical reduction of government expenditure, Payne said about discussing how to dispose of what he called the surplus. Instead of proposing simple reduction of taxes on the poor, to which the logic of his argument pointed, he advocated instead a conditional remission of taxes. The condition was that parents should send their children to school to learn reading, writing and arithmetic. And who should monitor such a voucher system? Payne had no qualms in proposing that it be done by the minister of the church parish. I quote Payne's words, that the ministers of every parish to certify jointly to an office for that purpose, that this educational duty be performed, end of quote. Well then, after speaking up for the average man, therefore, Payne proceeded to indicate that ultimately he mistrusted the average man. My interpretation anyway, because the implication was that if simple tax reduction was resorted to, the people could not be depended on to spend enough of their increased disposable incomes on education. Yet Payne's initial argument was that it was heavy taxation that was the main obstacle to private purchase of education. He had no evidence of the reluctance of parents to buy education. No evidence on basic family preferences. And even if he was doubtful of the ability and willingness of parents to spend on education, there remained the issue of liberty. Did Payne's rights of man not extend to freedom to decide on the type and amount of education of his or her children? Unfortunately, however, Payne failed to address this question. Payne's voucher system, and he was probably the earliest originator of vouchers, his voucher scheme demanded schooling, schooling. Yet this was not the only vehicle for education. Why then did Payne superimpose his own choice? And why should ministers of religion have the sole right to monitor the voucher program? Would they not increasingly modify the definition of education to become more and more in conformity with their particular religious greed? And what constraints were there on the size of the special office that Payne wanted the ministers to report to? He appears to have paid no heed at all to the canceling of William Godwin, father of Mary Shelley, at the time. Godwin warned about the potential growth of bloated bureaucracies that would be encouraged by late 18th century proposals for what was called a national education. Well, so much for Tom Payne. Now on to Adam Smith, and again I feel most guilty of all in this case because I'm usually favorably disposed to the father of economics. In his Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, Smith, as you all know, argues that economic growth will best occur when natural liberty is respected and leads to specialization or participation in the division of labor.  Smith's forecast of the degeneration of labor is based on one condition, that government fails to take some pains to prevent it. That's his words, fails to take some pains to prevent it. The main task of government, Smith argued, was to secure the education of the common people. But since Adam Smith explains that government in his own country, Scotland, had for a long time actually taken the necessary pains, the implication is that the road to cultural destruction in Scotland in the 18th century was closed, firmly closed, at least in Scotland, in England with some of the others. So just like Tom Payne, Adam Smith revealed his mistrust of ordinary people when it comes to their duties to educate their children. But then if you read further it becomes more complicated and a bit confused. In his lectures, delivered to students in Glasgow in the 1760s, Smith is more explicit. Once his market economy fully establishes the division of labor, and I quote him again, the minds of men are contracted and rendered incapable of elevation. Education is despised or at least neglected. That's what the market does to people, the cultural effects. It's astonishing, I think, when you first read those words. He observes that in contrast, people of some rank and fortune have money to afford education. And Smith declares, it is otherwise with the common people. They have little time to spare for education. Their parents can scarce afford to maintain them even in infancy. Well, consider this point. If it's poverty, and if parents can't afford the education, then how can you, Mr. Smith, tell us they don't want education? How can you tell us they despise education? You can't have it both ways. If they can't afford the education, they're not having it. If the main reason for not having it is money, then that's it. You can't say it's their preferences. You can't say they despise education. All my three writers make this kind of error. But I say that Smith is a bit confused beyond this. You see, his statement includes the fact that the Scots had passed legislation supporting a parochial school, one school in every parish, one school in every parish. And he says that this legislation had made most people in Scotland at the time able to read and a large number able to write. And we have to ask ourselves in retrospect whether this was due to the legislation or whether it's due to something else. The Scottish Act of 1696 laid down that a school should be erected in every parish and that teachers' salaries be met by a tax on local landowners and tenants. This schooling however was not made compulsory by law and neither was it made free. The parental fees made up a big part of the teachers' salaries were paid by every social class. The Scots did not have free and compulsory education, schooling rather, until about the same time as England did in the 1880s. Now the more Smith championed the Scots parochial system, therefore the more implicit credit he was paying to parents. Why? Because parents are paying fees for that parochial education and they weren't compelled to go to school. Here they were without compulsion paying money at Smith's parochial school. There was some subsidy, sure. The school building was subsidized by local landowners but it wasn't free. I mean there were other costs besides the building. So the parents' action then involuntarily paying fees to purchase education at the parish schools was obviously a tribute to parents in Smith's own time. Despite his contrary statement in his lectures that education would be despised when the market system flourished after the division of labour was well established. More interesting still, this is an economic history point. It was the fee-paying private schools, not the parochial schools, the private schools that were bearing the main burden of Scottish education in terms of number of scholars. For every one Scottish parochial school pupil in 1818 there were two non-parochial school pupils and the non-parochial school pupils, private school pupils outnumbered the parochial pupils by much more than two to one in the growing industrial areas of Glasgow. The very areas where Smith argued there was greater need for schooling because parents would despise education in those industrial places. And it's a bit hard to find all this in Smith because generally he prefers private institutions, private incentives and property ownership, property rights and that sort of thing. He had no confidence in the economic judgment of human beings in collective organisations in which responsibility was separated from ownership. Well, in the private schools I've just talked about, the non-parochial schools which were flourishing, responsibility was typically not separated from ownership because they were privately owned schools and their growth, the growth of these privately owned schools because if you didn't like them you called them private adventure schools. That was the term given to the opponents. But the growth of these schools, Smith might well have argued, was in no small part due to the natural liberty that A, allowed them to exist and B, created the growing incomes that helped create the demand for them. It's true that private schools often received private endowments or subsidies when somebody dies and leaves money to a school that's called an endowment. And Smith was rather critical of excessive private endowments and some people here when you start private venture systems might want to learn a bit more about Smith's views on this. You can have excessive private endowment especially if that endowment goes to the salary of the teacher because that makes his income independent of his efforts in front of his customers. If you're getting a guaranteed income from over there you don't care so much of the part of the income that's coming from your customers. That roughly speaking was Smith's objection. So don't overdo this endowment business. Keep enough margin there for the parents to pay out of their own pockets. Well, the substantial growth in the Industrial Revolution in the hands of Scotland such as Greenock, Paisley and Glasgow was accomplished largely by the so-called, as I've said, adventure schools or for-profit establishments. And the practice of endowing schools was much more prevalent south of the border in England. Well, that's about 20 minutes, Marshall. I haven't got to John Stuart Mill. Maybe a bit later on I may have time to say something about him but perhaps I better stop right there for now. Thank you, Dr. West. When I discovered the libertarian philosophy many, many years ago Dr. West's work was one of the most influential works that caused me to start thinking about separating school and state and it's quite an honor to be here commenting on a talk by him. I'd like to make just a short comment about comparing the compromisers of the 18th and 19th century and the compromisers of today. Smith was one of the first ones, Adam Smith and Mill and Payne and Ricardo were one of the first ones to develop this idea of human liberty. For many centuries, freedom was described as simply the absence of physical restraint. If you were not held, if you were not in jail, you were considered free. And along comes Smith and says, no, freedom means more than that. It means more than the absence of physical restraint. It means the right to engage in an enterprise without a license or to accumulate wealth without state interference, to pursue education without interference. But I think it's important to recognize that these early thinkers were looking through a glass very darkly when it comes to developing what this idea of freedom is. They were among the first, the first discoverers, if you will. A classic mistake that they all made, of course, was on the labor theory of value, that the value of an item is based on how much labor goes into producing it. Well, it depends on people 100 years later, Minger or Valra, to say, look, the value of an item is not based on how much labor goes into producing it, it's based on how the person perceives it. And the point is, is that sometimes it takes later thinkers to improve upon the thinkers that first came up with the idea, the first began developing the idea. 200 years later, after we've had time to study the ideas of the founders or the 19th century political economists and read later thinkers, Mises and Hayek, West, we don't have the room for excuse like the early thinkers did, so that when today people advocate the compromises, the vouchers, the charter schools, what is the excuse for that? Clearly, the voucher of people falling into two camps, those that truly believe in vouchers as an end, which means that they do say that the state has a role in education, or they say, I cannot let people know my true feelings about abolishing public schooling totally, getting the state totally out of education because people won't take me seriously, I won't be credible. Well, how much respect can you give to that person? A person that violates all standards of integrity, all standards of principle in order to be popular, to be accepted. And I think it's up to us that have broken through who have reached a higher level of awareness, a higher level of consciousness to stick with principle, that the state has absolutely no role in education whatsoever, that compulsory attendance laws can be repealed, school taxes can be repealed, and all state involvement in education can be removed. Throughout history, people have responded in monumental ways to ideas and to ideals and to principles. And I think it's up to us to improve on these thinkers that we're looking through a glass darkly and carry humanity up to the highest levels of educational freedom that we've ever seen. Thank you very much. Well, thank you. Let me second Pumper's opening statement about the honor it is to share a platform with Professor West. You can't be a libertarian very long before running across Dr. West's name and then looking up articles and books because you know immediately there's something significant there, not just on education, but his work on Adam Smith, which was a great source of information and inspiration to me. When Professor West was going through how these thinkers mentioned or believed that the poor, what they used to call the lower orders, I guess, didn't value education. I thought of a very charming quotation by James Mill, father of John Stuart Mill, which is in Professor West's book. I wish I had the text of it here, but to the effect that around London where poor people lived, James Mill noticed that even when families were in such sad straits that they could only scrape together some potatoes for food for weeks at a time, they still managed to come up with money to send their kids to school. This was decades before there was compulsory universal schooling in England, blasting to smithereens this idea that the lower orders were not interested in such things. One of the things I came across in working on my own book was that there was great concern in England that the lower orders, because they were literate, were too readily reading Thomas Paine's rights of man, and this was seen as something of a threat to the higher orders. This sort of goes against the idea that government and the elite of a nation is always interested in having an educated population. They have a long record of actually discouraging education, taxing newsprint, for example, passing laws prohibiting slaves from learning to read, things of that nature. I also share Professor West's view about taking heroes and pointing out some of the warts, but, of course, I guess to some extent they had them. Two heroes I'll mention, unfortunately, also follow in this line. Richard Cobden, the great free trader and advocate of non-interventionism and foreign policy in 19th century England. A great hero of mine. I was drawn to him first because of his work on free trade and then how he tied it into free trade being a great facilitator of peace and a great force for harmonizing people's interests around the world. It saddened me to learn that he was an advocate of government schooling as I understand it on the grounds of some sort of public goods theory. I don't know how explicit it was, but the idea being that there are benefits to education that go beyond the student that spill over into the general community and therefore the community, and the community won't, people in the community themselves won't pay for this child's education, but nevertheless they'll reap benefits. By the way, if you want to see that argument totally obliterated, I refer you to Professor West's book Education in the States, just a masterly, total dismantling of any such theory. And then finally I'll close on this, Thomas Jefferson, a hero of mine, probably a hero of many people in the room. It might sadden you to learn that he was also an advocate of state-sponsored schools, although with some caveats, for example he was against compulsory attendance. He thought that taxes should be used to support schools. I don't believe he wanted the government to actually operate schools, but nevertheless support them. But he was against compulsory attendance. As he put it, it is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated than the shock, the common feelings and ideas by the forcible carrying away an education of the infant against the will of the father. Now, Jefferson also had a more modest idea of what education should be, simply more or less teaching children to read and write. He didn't have sort of the social engineer's vision, but Joel Spring, the education historian, pointed out that even Jefferson could not resist the temptation of using the educational system to perpetuate what he considered to be political truth. Very often when I do interviews, radio interviews about this, people will say, well, can you name a country where there is a separation of school and state? And I said it would be very surprising to find one. I mean, what politician could resist gaining hold of such a sensitive function in a society and using it to shape the young? I mean, you know, the idea is almost unthinkable that a politician could possibly resist that, so it's not surprising we don't find this, which means we have a lot of work to do for ever to bring this about. I think I will end on that note. John Stuart Mill, I know Professor West will probably have a chance to say something about it. He's a very strange bird on this and many other issues. He's never been one of my great heroes. I do like the line in his nice little book, partly at least nice, on liberty where he said, he who knows only his own side of a case doesn't know it very well. And I think that's something we should keep in mind if I can make a strategic point here that it would do us all very well to be reading the other side and knowing how they defend state education so we can be that much better in refuting them. Thank you.