Hi everybody, Joe for jazby's casewrakes.com coming at you with 2021 Panini Select Baseball Serial Box Number 10, or Random Team Breaks. The final filler we got to do to unlock that flawless break, which is coming up in the next video if you're looking for that. Big thanks to this group for making it happen. All 30 teams are in. Let's roll. Let's rando. Snake Eyes, two times. And the second dice roll will be for the giveaway part. This is just for names and teams. One, and two. Two times right here for the teams, one. And two. All right, here's the first half of the list right here. And the second half of the list right over there. Let's print this out.  Open half, sell half. It's a good problem to have. Ryan Mount Castle, Hunchin' Roo to 10. It's not bad. Little Ryan Mount Castle Rookie Silver Orioles, Carl with the O's, and Hunchin' Roo for the Blue Jays, David O, with a nice low numbered card out of 10. Not bad for a Serial Box. Nice. All right, now let's see who's going to win those flawless spots. Let's go back to this list here. Let's get everybody here. And let's roll it again. Top 10 will be in that flawless baseball break after 12. If Dusty wins the grand prize, breaking it. Nice. I would too. One, two, three, four, five, six, and then six more times, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11. Good luck. 12th and final time. After 12, remember it's only the top 10. So spots 11 through 30, sad times, but thanks for giving it a go. Happier times though. For the top 10, you're in the next break. Carl is happy. Carl again. David. Carl. Carl. Danny. Carl. Diego. Carl. And Nick L. And that's after 12 times. There you go. I'll see you in the next video for the next break. Jaspy's casebreaks.com. Bye-bye.


Hey there friends thanks for checking in shot shows approximately a week and a half away and many new announcements will be made of Firearms that they plan to release in 2023 many of the manufacturers They keep it a secret prior to shot, but others have been revealed and some have already been released So they're actually 2022s but there are certain ones that don't excite me at all that I'm not going to chase after It just doesn't have that zeal You know when you stop at a red light and you purchase a handgun and you quickly grab it and then throw it back in The case before the light turns green. That's excitement The ones that I'm about to speak about they just don't excite me and the first one is The Smith & Wesson equalizer for an NSRP of $600. I am struggling to figure out what makes it so special They have the shield line. They have the shield plus they have all that stuff But then they came out with the equalizer and it has a grip safety on there a little wider serration Some other features and people are making a big deal about it. Maybe it's a great gun if I have a chance to review it I'll do that, but I'm just not excited at all about the equalizer And I have no intention of ever owning one. The second one is the Anderson Kiger you may not have heard this it's called the 9c It has an MSRP of $430, but it's a Glock pattern Handgun very similar and I think a lot of the Glock pattern Manufacturers out there they want to capture that aftermarket support the Glock has oh, yeah This will swap it out for Glock Trigger Glock sights, you know guide rod, whatever And yet I am so tired of Glock pattern handguns. Am I the only one here? Hey every new handgun seems to be a Glock pattern handgun. Well perhaps just get a Glock or Save a few bucks and get this or that but the Kiger just doesn't do it for me It seems okay, but I don't have that Excitement to check out the Kiger next was just introduced the Rock Island 5.0 Has an MSRP 998 Here's an opportunity for Rock Island to come out with a 17 round mag 5 inch barrel optic ready, but they didn't make it optic ready now I fought optics for years and then I got a little spoiled now I'm like a little girl. I want an optic on there and I Don't always want an optic, but I want the option to put an optic on there because like I said I've got a little spoiled I've learned to understand the benefits of a red dot on a handgun having that availability is nice They didn't do it there. I'm sure it's gonna shoot fine But it when I see it there's there's nothing there that stands out at me and says I really need to check out This handgun now there is one specifically that I saw three or four years ago It was revealed at shot show I said I will wait in line from Michigan to Florida to get my hands on a Dan Wesson DWX and They put it off and it got hit with some covert things and it was put off to the side Well, now they introduced it and are Releasing the Dan Wesson DWX beautiful handgun It was just amazing when I saw it in person three or four years ago However, once again, they didn't make it optic ready and that specific platform of handgun Should be optic ready now. I think they will in the future and when they do I will be chasing after that one just not right now because With that short light trigger pull throwing an optic on there makes it so easy and fun and I think it offers a lot, but I'm gonna hold out for the optic ready when savage introduced that they were making 1911's there was all this excitement people were like I have to get my hands on one And so I jumped over to my computer. So what's so exciting about the savage 1911 and as I saw them They have I believe six models The answer is nothing. It's a 1911 now 1911's exciting me. I love 1911's I will say that if I get a chance to review one Possibly own one if it turns out to be so amazing I would do that, but I just don't see it for $1350 in an additional 150 to have a rail on a 1911. I just don't see what makes it so exciting where you say I have to get my hands on one Maybe you're a savage fan and you want to build your collection of savages Maybe you're just a 1911 fan and went all these like that. I'm like that but the savage I just don't I just don't feel it when Glock introduces a handgun everybody's head spins and they Introduced the Glock 47 you say well, you can't get that it's made for the border patrol. Well, that's true But it is available on the blue label market. Okay law enforcement firefighters And I purchased clocks from people that bought blue label. They get that discount there, which is certainly cool It's under $500 blue label. It is available It's gonna make its way out into the civilian market and there will be opportunities to get that now. Why am I not interested? It's basically a Glock 17 MOS. I see very few changes other than they're gonna have Inscribed on their BP for border patrol If that excites you great if you're part of the border patrol great if you're not I don't see anything there that makes Anybody want to chase after it? It's just it's just not an exciting launch for Glock I hope they come out with something different. Perhaps they will but as far as the 47 goes Big deal I've been a high power fan. I have the original browning high power mark three Single action triggers not great nice gun but It's been copied already with gear sign Springfield armory and now fn the fn high power looks to be the most refined But it's selling for 1,300 bucks and I think in that, you know that like you can get a Belgium made Browning high power for less than that and they have skyrocketed in price. So for $1,300 I just think it's way overpriced if they drop that down to Maybe 850 like that's a big drop. I get it But maybe it would do a little better and perhaps even excite me, but I have not Experienced anything other than my original Browning high power in that pattern as far as the springfield or the gear sign goes and I certainly won't be doing it with the fn high power because it's Price not outrageously high like more than browning when they produced them sold the high power model So those are my seven. I'm interested to hear what you have to say If I get a chance to review these I will but it just doesn't interest me at this moment If you like videos like this, please subscribe and share. I always appreciate thumbs up button Thanks for watching and you guys be safe


8.84 star 10.54. Kwa ribu ni sana? Kwa ribu sada, Maryanne? Thank you. Thank you. Finally, I'm here.  We've done it. First album.  A lot of people assume what people think ego is. Narcissism. But ego, my understanding of ego is our reflection, what we envision ourselves to be, what we think we are. And that's what my album is and that's what I wanted to call my first album. Instead of giving it a self title, naming it after myself or calling it the beginning or other cliches other artists do. Yeah, I just wanted to say is to give Amira of who I am, ego.  Yes. And it's not that you're narcissistic or anything. No. I just see myself in this power. Yes. It is what it is. Exactly. So why did you decide on this genre of music Afroso? Why not, you know, pop? Why not? Why? I don't, it just happens. I don't force it. I don't wake up and say the song I have to write has to be Afroso. It just comes. It just happens. I think that's a beautiful thing about being a songwriter and an artist. Things just, it's a calling sort of. You don't choose it. Tomorrow I will try to write a song. The next day I can, I think I have a hip-hop song or something. It just, it comes as out of nowhere. Wherever your soul leads you. Yes, but mostly it just happens to be Afroso. Okay, because today is entrepreneurship Tuesday and it's all about making money and it's all about the business. How do you finance yourself? Like I can imagine producing an album with seven songs must have cost a lot of money. So how do you get financing? The first thing is that I've been doing this album for three years.  No, I did it step by step. Anything I got, any bit of money I got, I collected it. It's a collection of money throughout the years that have led me to having an album finally. And sometimes you speak your way through. I have friends who have studios. I have bedroom studios in their houses and it's just like yo, let me record ma, let's do something.  So can we do something? Just networking and do it and I've nailed it and I'm happy so far. Ah, then you must be very persuasive. Yes, I get that a lot. Okay, so then who are you outside of music? Now I'm curious. Outside of music, I'm also an entrepreneur by the way of other businesses that I can get into another day. I'm a very deep artist, not just in a music sense. I get into interior design, I get into painting and stuff like that. So yeah. We've been painting, oh goodness. The bit appears you have a lot of sides to you but speaking of sides to you, let's talk about some of the songs that you have here. Very captivating title. Agal was born. Agal was born is the first song of my album, very short song. I think I mean it's long, it's an intro. It's a prayer actually.  It's just a short prayer and I wanted it to be the first song in my album. So when someone is listening to it, it's a journey throughout the album. They feel it with me and as we talk more about the album, you'll see why it's the best that it's placed there. I'm kind of touched to see that you decided to begin your album with a prayer. Yes. Amen. Today I've met a lot of spiritual entrepreneurs. I don't know what's happening today. You're trying to get to me. Your next song is Why Am I So Beautiful? My favorite song. Why Am I So Beautiful is an acapella song. It's a story actually. I came up with a scenario of a time and place where people were not allowed to see their reflections. It's a person who sees their reflection for the first time and they're completely blown away. But it's not in a literal sense of, oh, I'm hot, I'm beautiful. It's in a deeper sense in the way that the society most times doesn't want you to know who you really are.   It's over. That's my idea of why Am I So Beautiful. I already like the attitude of this album. So good morning. So you are like, okay, so now I have to see it myself. So good morning, bro. Good morning. Good morning is good and then morning. It's a good morning. And it's also a story, most of the songs and album are stories about an awakening just waking up and find one day.  That's what good morning is. Everything is in the past and now I feel fresh. Kind of like Nina Simone's feeling good. It's just that fresh. You've gotten your power back. The dark night is over and now it's the dawn. Oh goodness, goodness. I'm really excited. Okay. So now after you wake up from the dawn and you feel good, you drop the fliest girl in Nairobi. Now that's ego right there. But anyway, let's talk about that. The fliest girl. I like how there's something witty. I'm going to call it witty because I have to give myself prop. I did with the titles. When someone looks at the titles, they see ego. But the stories hidden behind them are not exactly what you think. So the fliest girl in Nairobi is a story about a girl who is jealous that their better half is in love with someone who they think is the fliest girl in Nairobi. So it's a jealousy story and having the ability to address that you know what, I'm feeling jealous. To me I think that's power. That's ego just saying you know what honey, I'm feeling bad. Who is this girl? Other than keeping it in your heart, stalking, checking all the time. I feel like that's weakness. Addressing things head on with no fear. To me that's ego, that's power. And that's what that song is. It's ego healing, not really ego death. Just let it out. You have the power it's in your hands. Say it, talk it out. There's so much power and process in this. Okay, so your next song is tell me what did you want us to tell you or what was going on? Tell me kind of how that same energy with the fliest girl in Nairobi or just having the confidence of addressing things head on. I usually like when there's a situation at hand when there's tension and things like that. Just when someone says is everything okay? The mood feels awkward. Can we talk about it? Just addressing. Tell me what's going on. Tell me why you're acting funny.  Tell me why you're wasting my time. Communication. Yes, that's what that is about. I can see, I can see. Wait before we go to your last song because I think that one has just taken the spirituality to a whole other level. But anyway, let's have a look at your Instagram page here. This is your website. How well done. So who made this, how much did it cost? How long has it been up? A good friend of mine named Steve made for me this website. You are really persuasive, I think that. I'm persuasive. I am. So it's been up for a few years I think. Two years now. How is it doing? How are the fans responding to you? Oh wait. Let's finish with the speaking in tongues. Let's finish with this. So what was going on with speaking in tongues? Speaking in tongues is a serenade. That's what I'm going to call it. It's a story about someone who says another person. Love at first sight kind of and they're hitting on them. I introduce myself several times because sometimes I feel people forget who you are. People can disrespect you and you wonder did you forget who I am. The song has that energy of let me remind you who I am. At the same time it's sort of a serenade of the sorts of having the confidence of hitting on someone as a girl. I think women are shamed about it like put to the side. I can't believe you approached that person. But speaking in tongues has that energy of someone. I speak in French. I speak in the luo. I speak in Swahili. I speak in English. So that's where the name comes from. That is amazing. I find you so good to be around. You feel so good. Your energy is so good. But before I take it anywhere else and also how did people respond?  How did people respond? To the album. I have a very small but keen fan base. What's that you say? Small but keen. It could be like you could have a thousand fans and you only get two likes. You know where that goes. But I have a small and keen fan base I'm really thankful for and it's really different. One thing I have fun with as an artist is I shock myself. I can't predict what I'm going to do the next time, the next day, tomorrow or the other. I get shocked when I wake up the same way my fans felt when they saw the album because what they expected from me as an artist is another thing and better. I like that too, I felt it too I feel so good, I feel like I don't even want to keep reading any more questions. So now what's next? So after Ego, what are you going to do next? I'm planning on releasing I think I'm going to do maybe two or one videos from the album. It will be my first music video because for a long time I'm so against doing videos I'm really against it. Why? Because I believe music should be hard should listen to the music but at the same time I'm growing into the idea of representing a story with visuals so I'll probably do a video or I'm working on one actually a video or two maybe that's what I'm going to work on and after that I'll release maybe other songs outside of that. Okay from the looks of it your videos are not going to be too busy okay alright so let's talk about maybe other people who inspire you in this industry I'm kind of surprised the whole philosophy on life because I've never met an artist to that kind of philosophy I thought it was just the rest of us but anyway is there anybody who inspires you? I always find a question so hard because Ego To say that someone was inspiring me would mean that I just want what they have mostly or I'm looking up to them and not to get mistaken in the industry who are doing a very very good job but I seek inspiration from people's songs not them not them as a brand not who they are you are studying their souls like whatever energies they are putting out their music songs alright that's amazing that's incredible I want to meet you too please make sure you let the fans know where they can find you on social media this camera Merian Mande Merian underscore Mande on twitter and instagram every other place Merian Mande Youtube Facebook Snapchat CPT.Mande so yeah this is a question I can't let you go without answering I'm so sorry but I gotta ask how did you get awakened how did you find yourself what was the story behind it how did you get awakened I feel like I'm a really nice person really nice really nice person in the sense that easy to heart you know how you could be walking someone just flashes water on you and then a different person be like what are you doing? and I'm just like it's okay that's the kind of person I am and I went through so much without being too nice nonsense that you wonder it felt like you know what it's time to take my power back to stand in your power great as in like wow I just feel all sorts of things right now I'm in a good place also the page is up in here but it's about time we conclude this interview so maybe we can just scroll like real quick and then you can let us know what's going on here this was an event I had at the hedge of creative to launch my album of the south yes okay I can see you've also been okay you've been around I can see you're still here on TV it was really really really lovely talking to you this morning thank you so much for coming through thank you so much for having me I've had so much fun me too anyway so please do not go in your brain most of us is coming up next in the next interview this time we're going to be taking it a bit technical so now that we have been so much oh god I don't know I don't know if you're feeling it let us know if you're feeling it I'd write it for you for a channel


Live from the San Jose Convention Center, extracting the signal from the noise, it's theCUBE, covering Hadoop Summit 2015, brought to you by headline sponsor Hortonworks, and by EMC, Pivotal, IBM, Pentaho, Teradata, Syncsort, and by Atunituan Disco. Now your hosts, John Furrier and Jeff Frick. Okay, welcome back everyone. We are here live in Silicon Valley for Hadoop Summit 2015. This is theCUBE, our flagship program. We go out to the events and extract the signals from the noise, I'm John Furrier. My co-host, this segment is Jeff Frick, and our next guest is AJ Anand, VP of products at Keevo's Insights and Praveen, Hanqaria founder and CEO of Inputus who was here earlier. Welcome back to theCUBE and welcome to theCUBE. Thank you. Okay, so let's talk about the technology. We had a great conversation around the services and the big fortune 50 companies, these large deployments. Services led, that's great, but now they got to execute technology. AJ, tell us what's going on with the technology you guys have and how that relates to the challenges that the large enterprises have, because you guys have a unique scalable product. Tell us about that. Yeah, so we're here at the Hadoop Summit and what Hadoop enables enterprises to do is collect all sorts of data at tremendous volume and bring it all together into the Hadoop quote unquote data lake. But the challenge then is how do we make that accessible and interactive for the business user? How do they get their hands on their data and get insights from it? And that's what we enable them to do. So we enable a business user to interact directly with the data on Hadoop, visualize it, slice and dice it with interactive instant response, even though the data can be at massive scale with massive granularity. So I want you to explain something for me because I'm kind of getting the big picture I want to do a drill down is, Praveen and I were talking in previous segment where customers just want solutions and outcomes, right? So they don't talk in the speeds and fees language of the industry, but when they come here, they say, okay, hey, the old way I know I've seen this movie before. I have my big data warehouses and I kind of know what I've inherited costs and they know all the costs of loading everything else. I don't want that anymore. I want the new way. I want to be open. I want to get advantage of open source and I want to be able to work with data, build apps, deliver some value and then incrementally transform my enterprise. But I don't want a situation where I'm locked into a platform or tool for that matter. So what do they do? Yeah, so what a business user is looking for is self-service interactive analytics on data regardless of what the size and scale is, right? And without having to depend on somebody else to be doing the programming and creating the reports and so forth. So they're used to doing this in an enterprise data warehouse using OLAP tools for doing that interactive analytics. And OLAP is pretty much entrenched in pretty much every enterprise out there and has been there for years, right? Now as you've got the new age of big data coming in and you've got data with tremendous volume and variety trying to fit that into an existing enterprise data warehouses doesn't work, right? Because the enterprise data warehouses are pretty structured and inflexible. And in order to make a change to an enterprise data warehouse it pretty much takes an act of Congress with multiple months of effort to make those changes. Hadoop is a much more cost effective and flexible environment and forgiving environment to bring in all of that data. But they still want to be able to deal with things the same way as they're comfortable with the OLAP way of doing analysis. And that's what we do. We kind of marry the benefits of OLAP with the scalability and flexibility of Hadoop. So I've got to ask you a question because Amazon has proven it's Amazon web services and we do all their shows, do it with the Cube and some interesting use cases have come out of this some of these guys that can literally spin up supercomputers to do massive, whether it's regression analysis, black cells or some modeling that they could never do before and highlights the benefits of spinning up massive compute. Okay, good job. With this now what we're seeing is I want to do essentially the equivalent of me spinning up massive data warehouse but I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to double down on I need to see some data, but I need the benefits of scale instantly in a short period of time so I can see and analyze do I have the right connections and formulas and data and then look at the results and then iterate again. So this is going to agile meets data warehousing. Is that what you guys do? Can you deliver that Holy Grail dream? Yeah, absolutely. So as you're bringing the data in, you don't have to pre-commit to a structure or pre-commit to a schema. You can interact with the data. You can build the old lab cubes and then get the results right away and then explore the results and look at different dimensions and aspects of the data and you can realize, is this the right cube? Do I want to change it? Do I want to create a new one? You have the flexibility to create as many cubes as you want and expose them to different kinds of business users or business use cases. So it's a much more flexible environment than existed with the traditional enterprise data warehouse. I love how old lab cubes in the cube are all in the same sentence. It's good for our tweeting mojo. Get the cube out there. No, but the old lab cube really signifies performance. Talk about that use case. What is the old lab cube for the folks out there that understand the magnitude of this scale? Yeah, you know, so if you think about Hadoop, there's kind of two ways of doing things on Hadoop. One is running machine learning algorithms and so forth where you kind of submit those algorithms, come back after a while and you get some kind of result. And the other is where the human aspect of it, where the business user wants to interact with the data and he wants to be able to follow a train of thought and follow it through as he's exploring the data without submitting a query and then going off and getting a cup of coffee, right? So what we do is give you that instant response time. So even though you're dealing with data in massive scale, this could be billions of records and that's literally true. We've got customers with hundreds of billions of records with dimensions with cardinality and the 100 million plus, 200 million plus range is what they're talking to us about. And you still get the response time within a couple of seconds, that's what we deliver. And nobody else can deliver on that. So talk about the business impact though, was that guy can continue to drill down within seconds. So in terms of following a train of thought and really exploring a hypothesis and changing direction, it's got to be completely different animal. Right, so the productivity can dramatically increase in terms of what you can do with the data, right? So we've got users who were taking weeks to produce reports and they started out with Hadoop and they said, okay, we'll put a hive structure in place and we see if that can reduce the time. And okay, so they went from multiple weeks to a few days but it would still take a whole day for them to process the reports and get the results they were looking for. With us, we went to the same environment. Within a couple of weeks, we were able to put a cube in place and now they can interactively create those charts and dashboards and make modifications as necessary and iterate on them and get real value from it instantly. So I'll give you a simple example, John. So let's say I'm a consumer company and I'm an analyst at a consumer company, a multinational, selling, let's say, so-bar, shampoos, whatnot. I want to analyze- Unilever, Lever Brothers, Fratrin Gamble? That's only two. That's it, that's it, Lever Brothers. Fratrin Gamble. Now, almost every resident of the US is a potential customer or a customer today. And if somehow I'm profiling, tracking who bought what using their credit card histories and purchase histories, whatnot, I can actually go in and I can build a cube for the entire US population in one place with absolutely fine-grained information in there. Today, the way what we've discovered is most enterprises, either if they do it at a national level, then it's a very coarse granularity. They don't have, they cannot go down to a single household or an individual in the same cube. Or they'll just go and do it at a state level or a county level or a metro area level. So they've got these disparate systems.  You're hitting on a really core thing which is you're highlighting the old way which is limited by technology and resource, not creative thinking. Certainly the individuals are building cubes, right? I mean, there's a human capital element here. Now with Hadoop Cloud and these technologies with this kind of performance, it makes scale and resource go away. One, two, now the human role changes. Those outliers which are, wow, if I go drilling down on that outlier that's going to cost all this money, that outlier actually could be the answer, right? So this is where we get into the kind of the weirdness and nuances of data science, right? So what impact do you guys see? One, do you believe that? And two, where does this go from here?  I mean, is this transformative? I mean, what? Let me answer this question by asking you a question, John. Let's switch our roles. Yeah, I love this. So between cost of computing, cost of storage, cost of memory, and cost of human time, which one is increasing? Increasing cost? Increasing? Talents, of course, yeah, I would say talent. Human talent. Human talent, right? Absolutely. No more falling. Everything else is falling. So the way we have designed this is we'll leverage the falling cost of all three but we want to make sure that the human being is not made to wait. The human being who's waiting there to know his or her data doesn't have to wait. You know, that's a good other good point. This is a good conversation. Like how we're kind of in real time riffing on this, but the human capital piece, the most expensive component is really what the ROI should come into. So everyone is kind of looking at ROI as kind of justification, we mentioned, how do you sell stuff? But when you look at the ROI, whether it's an expensive salesman in the right sales situation with the right person or using the right resource for the linguistic ontology or whatever things get done, that's the ROI piece. So is this yet even on the table to do ROI on this? Or is this ROI still elusive because it's kind of developing? Most people look at ROI like, oh, we invested X and an artifact popped out and we have a sale or generated revenue because that's revenue focus. But on the human capital, is there an ROI equation for the human capital at this point? Because that's an interesting comment because that's like, okay, good, what do we do? So actually, that's a very good question. So there is no direct ROI that, oh, we are analysts saved so much and that will not be enough of a value add for us as a company. But I think the real benefit is that analysts, before he or she lost interest in pursuing a certain path, pursuing a certain hunch, was able to arrive at that insight and validate or invalidate that insight and act on it. Well, and the other thing is you said, the concept of sampling, right? It's less and less relevant, right? When you can drill up or drill down. Absolutely, you don't have a sample. Right, so we actually have a customer, EnterVision, and that is precisely their use case. They look at, you know, trying to analyze how the Latin population is using different media channels and what the viewing habits are and what the purchasing behavior is. And the way they used to do it before was with self-reported diaries, right? And you know how accurate those can be and surveys and samples. So they really wanted to move away from that and move to empirical data with real transactional numbers behind it and much more precise measurement of what these people were actually doing. And that completely transformed the value they could provide to their customers who are targeting these channels. Right, right. Because now they know precisely where to target them, what the profiles of those customers are and what the best marketing campaign could be for them. So they went from monitoring 40,000 users, a sample of 40,000. Out of how many? To... Well, so their population base that they cover is about 20 million subscribers. So they were sampling 40,000 on 20 million. Right, and now they can get to, you know, every single user of that population. It reminds me too, John, of the all flash discussion, right? There's the unit change in going with flash versus spinning disk, but it's the second order impacts of freeing up time, moving everyone's process quicker, better replication of the data that really opens up a completely different ROI than just looking at I need to justify this with a high value application that needs to be a little latency. It's really these second order impacts that you can't even begin to think how analyst behavior is going to change, discoveries they're going to make and an ROI of business cases you haven't even necessarily thought of when you move away from sampling into this really holistic view. And I think the point you were making was instead of being constrained by the systems and memory and so forth, now you're completely free up the analyst to explore whatever he wants to do. Yeah, I'm a decision maker too. It's a great point. I mean, to me it's all about the data, right? The outliers, which you couldn't get to before because of cost and friction, you can now look at, and at least go yay or nay, I want that, or drill down on it, kind of like that movie contact with Jody Foster.  That's analytics. Yeah, and actually that's exactly what OLAP cubes are meant for, right? So you can take a look at a certain aspect of your data and start drilling down to whatever level of detail you want and really figure out what's going on. So I got to tie this into some real-time relevance and I want to get your perspective on this, just how you guys are thinking about it. So the use case of real-time is huge. We were talking about streaming earlier and the modernization of data warehousing. So data comes in two forms and by the way I look at it. Passive data that's stored and monitoring data I'm pulling and putting to a pile, a corpus, whatever you want to call it, and then active data in real-time. Data is changing shape every day. So if I analyze a piece of data, a corpus of data, and there's more data piling in, I have to constantly be at a real-time stream. So okay, my analysis changes every time new data enters the analysis. So this is a challenge we're seeing I call the data ocean, which is not a data lake problem. It's more of, you know, more currents, more streaming, more stuff. How do you guys think about that and how can we get the interactive of the linguistic or the experts, the humans to solve this? Is it going to come from this kind of system? Because this seems to be the cutting-edge problem. I analyze X, but it changes because new data. So there's two aspects to that, you know, responding in real-time to new information coming in. And there you're looking at, you know, new information comes in, but in order to figure out if that's an anomaly or not, you need to have that historical analysis of the profiles built that tells you that it's an anomaly, right? And the second aspect- Oh by the way, that's got to be in, you know, low-latency performance. Absolutely. Yeah, and the second thing is, you know, incorporating new data into the queue. And there, you know, we have the ability to do incremental builds. So as new data comes in, you know, in very short periods of time that can be incorporated into the queue itself. Awesome. And since you're not sacrificing granularity, you can, that includes time as well, the dimension of time. So you can have very fine-grained mapping of any trend across multiple dimensions. And then you can compare what happened here, what happened in this five-second interval versus the last one year. So AJ, we're getting the hook here. I want to get your thoughts. What does this mean and where's this going to go? I mean, this is cutting edge, it's really great and against high-end, but it's self-service BI, so it can be commoditized to the point where citizens, normal people could use it. So where's it going? So we're looking at, you know, transforming the way business users think of big data. You know, right now it's kind of thought of as a very complex environment. They really don't know how to deal with it. You know, they need some data scientist to kind of figure out how to, you know, analyze that data and really transform that and make it accessible to the business users so they can do self-service interactive analytics right there. So we should contact you when we build our OLAP cube for the cube platform we're building. So that's going to be fully cube, cube square.   And how do we contact you?  Where do I go to join the conversation? Where do I find information? Sure, at kivosinsights.com is our website. And great. All right guys, thanks so much for the insight here. On the cube, Silicon Angles Cube. We are talking about OLAP cubes, bringing the data, making the data work real time, passive analysis and low latency performance. I'm John Furrier with Jeff. We'll be right back after this short break.


Hello. I'd like to thank the organizers for inviting me to speak here today. My name is Elena Hellman, and I'm a graduate student in the Harvard MIT Health Sciences and Technology Program. And I work under Matthew Meyerson in his lab at the Broad Institute. Today I'm going to discuss RetroSeq, which is a tool to discover somatic insertion of retro transposons. So we often hear about transposons being used as an artificial system to induce oncogenesis and reveal important genes. But I'm more interested in retro transposon activity that occurs naturally in cancer. So what are retro transposons? Retro transposons are mobile genomic elements that mobilize via a copy and paste mechanism across the genome. So here we see a retro transposon element in the reference. And that DNA is transcribed into RNA. That, in turn, is reverse transcribed back into DNA. And that DNA is inserted elsewhere in the genome, resulting in now two copies of the original element. So retro transposons have been described as drivers of genome evolution. They comprise over 40% of the human genome. Whereas protein-coding genes comprise only 1.5%, these clearly make up a huge portion of the genome. Most are no longer active, luckily for us. But some do remain hot, as it's called. So they retain the ability to retro transpose across the genome. And thus, they've been recently described, and it's coming to light, that it's a major source of genetic variation. Recent 1,000 genomes projects have revealed up to 10,000 polymorphic retro transposon insertion sites in the human genome. And it's estimated that two European individuals differ by 600 to 1,000 retro transposon polymorphic sites. So just a brief background on two of the most abundant retro transposon elements, because we don't really hear about them much in cancer research. They are line 1, L1, and ALU. So line 1s are 6,000 kB long. They're to compose 17% of the genome. And about 100 of them are still highly active. They're autonomous. That is, they have two open reading frames, which encode for the reverse transcriptase and endonuclease that's needed to reverse transcribe and insert into the genome. And the ALU element is 300 base pair long. It composes 11% of the genome, and it relies on the L1 retro transposition machinery. So when a retro transposon inserts itself into the genome, it can have multiple effects depending on where it lands. It can disrupt the function of the protein if it lands in an exon. It can affect a promoter and thus alter gene expression. It can create or disrupt sites for RNA splicing. And due to homologous recombination, even if it lands in an intergenic region, it can lead to further genomic rearrangement. And so thus not surprisingly, retro transposons have been implicated in cancer. There's episodic evidence of an L1 inserting into an APC exon early in colorectal cancer progression. There's also evidence for an L1 in a muc intron affecting splicing in breast cancer. And more recently, a study from the Divine Lab found nine somatic L1 insertions in six out of 20 primary lung tumors that they looked at using an experimental assay. So the overall goal of my project is to identify the extent of somatic retro transposon insertions throughout the cancer genome using paired-end sequencing data. And of course TCGA is a great resource when looking at questions of extent. So to that end, I developed a retro-seq. The way in which retro-seq works is as follows. We align paired-end reads to retro transposon consensus sequence. Then we then locate the pyramids of these reads that align uniquely to the human genome, to the reference genome. We find these reads, we cluster them. And this provides evidence for potential retro transposon at that site. Now, if these pyramids that we identify, if they're at a normal distance from each other, then this provides evidence for a reference retro transposon at that site. If, however, the distance between these aligned reads where one is in the retro transposon and the other is uniquely mapped is non-concordant with the fragment length distribution, then this provides evidence for a putative novel, non-reference retro transposon insertion at that site. As such. And that's what we're looking for. And in particular, we're looking for ones that are present in the tumor genome and not in the normal. Of course, there are many more steps to retro-seq and parameters and nuances that I won't go into for the sake of time. But I guess my poster is still hanging up there, so feel free to ask me about the various steps at any time. I would like to mention, though, that retro-seq does go back to the reads that align to the retro transposon consensus sequence, we reassemble them de novo to really try to get at what particular retro transposon element it was that inserted at this location. So here's an example output or result from a retro-seq run. This is an IGV view. At the top, you see a normal, the normal genome and all the reads are normally aligned, they're no problem. On the bottom is the tumor genome and here you see clusters of colored reads. And these colored reads represent reads whose pair mates align to a retro transposon, somewhere else in the genome. So this shows evidence for retro transposon insertion at that blue line. And interestingly enough, this example is from the CSMD3 gene, which has been discussed at length during this conference for being frequently mutated. So I guess it's mutated in this way as well. So to test the performance of retro-seq, we did a simulation. We took a BAM file and artificially inserted 226 L1s and 732 Allus into the BAM file. And then we ran retro-seq to see if we could recapitulate them. And we were pretty well. The sensitivity is pretty high and the specificity as well. So that was a good validation for our approach. As an initial study on real data, which is a bit noisier than our simulation, we looked at colorectal cancer, in part because of that event I mentioned in the APC gene. So we took nine whole genome sequences from tumor normal pairs and we used a retro transposon consensus sequence of the L1 family in this particular case. And here you see the results. So the pink lines represent the number of germline somatic insertions of L1s and the green are the germline retro transposon insertions and the green lines are somatic retro transposon insertions. So you see that there's a wide range of somatic insertions that we see in colorectal cancer. In terms of the composition of these events, for the germline events, if you can see on the left panel, we have more than half of them are actually known polymorphic events. So they've been already annotated in the thousand genomes projects and other recent studies. But we do identify around 500 novel germline rare mutations or retro transposon insertions. And on the right, we see the somatic events, the breakdown, most of them do land in intergenic regions, but some do land in the gene introns and a few even in exons. So for future studies, we're currently validating these events experimentally. So this is just the first round of some gels where you see the germline event happening in both the tumor and the normal. And then the somatic, it's missing the event in the normal. We're gonna extend this to other tumor types. For sure we've already started on lung squamous and the results are consistent with the divine lab. And we're going to integrate other sorts of data as such as expression and methylation, which are known to play a role in this. So in conclusion, RetroSeq leverages paradigm sequencing data to computationally localized somatic retro transposon insertions. Using it, we discovered novel retro transposon insertions that are present in the tumor, but not in the normal. And some of these insertion land in genes and regulatory regions. And this provides some evidence for the reactivation of retro transposon mobilization in cancer. So with that, I'd like to thank my colleagues, especially Mike Lawrence and Chip Stewart, Gaddy Getz, and my advisor Matthew Meyerson, and everybody at the Broad Institute Cancer Genome Analysis Program. And with that, thank you for your attention, and I'll take any questions. Questions for Angela. Hi, very good, Carl. My question is how do they be, how do they deal with the transposon with the repeats in the original sequence? Sorry, can you say that again? The transposon may be a repeats of the original sequence. Yes, they are, right there. How to distinguish. Well, so that's how, that's why we use this method so that we localize it, we localize a novel insertion in a new place. So we take advantage of the paired end that's uniquely mapped to the genome. And that's how we identify the novel insertion. Also, maybe the original repeats, right? No, because then the distance between the reed pairs would be normal and concordant. Okay, thank you. I had a question. Okay. Is there any association between these insertions and earlier late replicating DNA? Well, I mean, the CSMD-3 has insertions. Yeah, we haven't looked at that yet, but that would definitely be, yeah, for sure. Yeah, I find myself worried about early and late replicating DNA now for some reason. Okay, anything, there's one. I was just wondering whether you just throw away non-uniquely mapped for reeds. I mean, the many retroposons are highly repetitive. Yeah, so if both ends align to the repeat, we don't look at that, because we don't know what to do. You only consider uniquely mapped for reeds. We only consider paired reeds where one reed is unique and the other is not. All right, thanks. Okay, we should move on. Thank you, Elena.


If we want to, we can structure the market differently. Chief executive officers are among the highest paid people in the country. The issue, to my mind at least, is whether CEO pay corresponds to, in effect, their contribution to the economy, that they actually are in some sense worth their pay, or whether, in effect, that they're vastly overpaid. And my argument is going to be that they are vastly overpaid, that they don't contribute to the economy at all proportionate to their pay. I'll go through five main points. It's very clear CEO pay has exploded in the last four decades relative to the pay of the average worker. The second, the alternative explanations of CEO pay that they're actually worth their keep as opposed to CEO pay as a result of a corruption of the corporate governance process that determines their pay. Third, the evidence shows CEOs don't earn their pay. The fourth one, why CEO pay matters. So one could ask, okay, we don't have that many CEOs. We have 500, 1,000 large companies in the economy. That's not that many people.  Then lastly, outline some possible fixes that have been suggested and that I think are at least plausible ways to get CEO pay more in line with where it had been in prior decades. Okay. So first off, what's happened to CEO pay relative to the pay of the ordinary worker? And what this graph is showing is two different measures CEO pay. One is to simply look at the value at the time they're issued. The other one is to value them when they're realized. So when a CEO actually caches in the option after three years or five years, whatever time frame is on the option. It generally is the case that if you measure the value of the options when they're realized, when they cash them in, that their pay is considerably higher. But either way, you get the same story. CEO pay relative to the pay of ordinary workers has exploded. If we go back to the 60s, it was around 20 to one. By the end of the 70s, it was close to 30 to one. Then in the 80s, it really began to skyrocket and we get to the 2000s where it's well over 200 to one by either measure. It's bigger. It's higher if you use the value of options when they're realized, but even if you take the more conservative measure, the value of options at the time they're issued, you're still looking at CEO pay that's well over 200 times the pay of an ordinary worker. And again, if we go back to the 60s, it was 20 times the pay of the ordinary worker. So the question is, are today's CEOs 10 times as productive as they were back in the 60s? Okay. So the conventional view, if you believe that CEOs are in effect worth their pay is that they are hugely productive, that they produce enormous returns to shareholders.  The shareholders have authority over that. So the question is, are they worth that money to shareholders? And the conventional view would be, yeah, they're the CEOs. You look at a major company, a general electric, an IBM, or Microsoft, whatever it might be for the shareholders, it's worth it to pay the CEO 20 or 30 or 40 million, whatever they end up paying, because if you paid someone less, you would get less, because they're so productive that the economy would really be hurt if they got paid substantially less. Chief financial officer, the other very top people, people often refer to the C-suite, the top five paid executives, those are also very, very talented people. So they get 8 million, 10 million, they're worth it. The alternative view is the corporate governance process is corrupted, that the CEOs largely control the boards that determine their pay. So what I like to say is imagine that you had your friends that were sitting on huge piles of money, because that's really the story here. If you have the board of Exxon or IBM or any major company, so your friends are sitting on a huge pile of money and you're asking them, how much should you get? Well, they're your friends, so they'll probably give you a lot of money. So that would be a story of corrupted corporate governance. So maybe the CEO of a major company is getting 20 million dollars, clearly it's hard work. I mean, you couldn't just grab someone off the street and make them the top executive at Microsoft. You need someone who knows the industry, but there might be a lot of people who could do that and they'd be happy to do it for 2 million, maybe 3 million. You don't have to pay someone 20 million. So in that story, the CEO is not producing some outsized return to shareholders. And the implication is shareholders are getting ripped off, that shareholders are paying someone 20 million and they could pay someone 2 million, 3 million. The next echelon of corporate executives, they're getting 10 million, well, you could pay someone 1.5 million and they don't get a return that is at all corresponding to what they're paying them. Okay, so evidence on whether CEO pay is justified. Well, there was a great study, this is some years ago now, they looked at CEO pay and whether it's affected by events that were beyond their control. My favorite example here is world oil prices. And in principle, CEO pay should neither benefit from good luck or suffer from bad luck. If you're running Exxon and oil prices double, well, you didn't do that or at least presumably you didn't. So why should you get higher pay? On the other hand, suppose they fell, well, that really isn't your fault either. So in principle, you'd like to say that CEO pay would not be affected by events beyond the control of the CEO. Well, guess what? They found that it was affected in a really big way by events beyond the control of the CEO. It does look like CEO pay is determined not by their skill, what they produce for shareholders, but in this case, to a very large extent by luck. People go, oh, well, what can they do? What are they supposed to do? Of course, their options are worth more when the price of oil goes up. You could write contracts, so that's not that way. So you could tie the pay of the executives at Exxon, not just to Exxon stock price, but Exxon stock price relative to Shell, relative to other oil companies. That's almost never done, but they can do that. That would prevent this sort of luck leading to huge pay raises for CEOs. Second story, there's a number of measures that experts on corporate governance associate with good governance. So just to give one example, if you have the whole board come up for a vote at the same time, so that way, if investors decide that company is being poorly managed, they can replace whole board at once. So that's considered a good governance rule. They came up with an index of good governance and they found that this index was associated with lower CEO pay. Okay, again, if we thought that corporate governance was in general very good, there shouldn't really be much correlation between better governance and lower CEO pay. They might be very weakly related. They found a very strong relationship. The Barnhart-Spivy and Alexander study looked at CEO pay in states with stronger takeover laws. So takeover laws means it's more difficult if you have a poorly run company for someone to come in, take over the company and presumably make it a better run company. So that gives, in effect, the top management more leeway because they know it's harder for someone to say, hey, we don't like the way things are going, we're going to take it over. Well, again, if companies are in general well run, CEO pay corresponds to their contribution to the company, it really shouldn't matter whether companies are a threat of being taken over. But this study found a very strong relationship that states with stronger anti-takeover laws, companies that are chartered there had higher pay. Okay, another study, the Quigley-Crossland Campbell study, they looked at cases where you had accidental deaths of CEOs. And this is interesting, there's a little more roast. But the point here is that, suppose we have a CEO that we know is sick, Steve Jobs example, that where he had cancer. And so people buying Apple stock, investors knew Steve Jobs was sick, he was likely not to live that long. So that would be priced into a stock's price. So you don't want to look at cases like that. What they looked at was accidental deaths. So people didn't know that a CEO was going to be in a plane crash, again, assuming they weren't in on it or whatever. We could safely assume these were events that were not captured in the stock price. So if we thought that CEOs were really outstanding figures, that they couldn't easily be replaced, we'd expect to see a sharp drop in the stock price after a CEO dies. What they found was there was some downward movement in stock price, but in very few cases were there sharp drops. So that suggests that the markets generally don't feel that the CEOs are irreplaceable. That if it turns out through some fluke event that the CEO ends up dying, well, the person next in line, they'll probably do just as good a job. Jessica Scheider and myself did a study where we looked at the change in tax deductibility and whether it had an impact on CEO pay. So what we did was we took advantage of a provision in the Affordable Care Act that went into effect in 2013 where it limited the deductibility of CEO pay in the health insurance industry. So the reason why this matters is prior to 2013, companies could deduct the full amount of CEO pay. What that meant was that if they're in the 35% bracket, which they were, that in effect they're only paying $0.65 on the dollar. So they're paying the CEO $20 million. They're only actually kicking out 65% of that because they could write 35% off on their taxes. After 2013, they couldn't write anything above $1 million off in their taxes. And of course, these CEOs are getting paid much more than $1 million. Now, if CEO pay bared any close relationship to their returns to shareholders, this should have meant a reduction in CEO pay in the health insurance industry relative to their pay in other industries. We could find no evidence that the change in tax deductibility had any negative impact on CEO pay whatsoever. And again, that's even after controlling for everything. So that's something hard to explain if it's the case that CEO pay is closely related to their return to shareholders. OK, next story. We have great failures. I'm just mentioning a few. I could give you a very, very long list. But these were some prominent examples. Robert Nardelli was the CEO of Home Depot back in the early part of the 2000s. He left in 2007. He walked away with over $210 million, which would be about $300 billion in today's dollar, I'm sorry, million, not billion, $300 million in today's dollars. It wasn't quite that overpaid. OK, so what do you do for Home Depot? Well, Home Depot's stock plunged in this period. It fell about 50%. Its main competitor in the home improvement industry is Lowe's. Lowe's stock soared. John Stumpf, he was the CEO of Wells Fargo for a number of years. Stumpf was involved in the scandal where they were issuing phony accounts to people. Most people didn't even know they had these accounts so that they could boast about the number of accounts they were issuing. So this would look good for the financial markets. Well, Stumpf seemed to have known about this, seemed to have been at the center of it. And even if he didn't know about it, it was on a very large scale, so he surely should have. But in any case, he ended up leaving the company because of the scandal, put them in a horrible situation in terms of their reputation, which they built up over the years. But he's still got a $130 million pay package. A third example, a more recent one, Dennis Mullenberg stepped down in 2020. He was the CEO of Boeing. He ignored warnings about the safety of their new plane, the 737 MAX. There were two major crashes involving the 737 MAX, killed several hundred people. And again, this was a predictable event that there were warnings about safety risk, which he chose to ignore. And he went ahead with getting this plane out as quickly as possible. A lot of people died. And again, it was a huge cost to the company because of course, obviously any airliner's reputation depends hugely on its safety record. I should also point out their planes were grounded. I think they're now operating again, but these planes were, of course, grounded until they could thoroughly evaluate the problem and develop a work around. He walks away with $62 million. Was Mullenberg worth $62 million to Boeing shareholders? That'd be pretty hard to say. And again, just to be fair, the way this was structured was he had already earned this money. You could write contracts so that you don't get $62 million if you walk away from a company because you had done some major harm like not taking heed of safety warnings, causing hundreds of people to die. They didn't write the contract that way, but you can. The next question I'm asking is just a very simple one. What have been the returns to shareholders? So if CEOs are worth their pay, we should expect to see exceptional returns to shareholders in the period of very high CEO pay. And what I'm doing is I'm looking back over 20-year trailing averages. This is a common method for economists when they're looking at financial markets because, well, among other things, we know financial markets are hugely erratic. So I could pick a year and just say, oh, look, returns in 2021 were great. But we want to know over a long term. And if we do that, we see, well, returns to shareholders over the prior 20-year period. They're not particularly high. If we go back to the 50s and 60s, returns to shareholders were actually much higher when they were paying CEOs considerably less. With the exception of we have a couple peaks, 1999-2000, the peak of the stock bubble during that period. So just at this simple, most basic measure, it doesn't look like CEOs are earning their keep. OK, so why might we think CEOs get paid so much if it's the case that they're not really worth it? All right, my story is one of corruption of corporate governance. These are the people, the boards of directors are the ones who most immediately determine CEO pay. In principle, if we accept kind of the standard conventional economic story, they're not going to pay a CEO way more than what they're worth to the company. OK, well, why might that not be the case? Well, first off, boards are largely appointed by top management. So it's not the board running around looking who's a good person. It's not the shareholders saying, oh, we're going to put up this person on board. People whose pay they're supposed to be controlling are the ones who are selecting the board. OK, that's a serious problem in my view. Second one is that boards nominate their directors for reelection. This is probably worse than what you had in the old Soviet Union, where people were nominated by the party always won, while there were some occasions where they didn't. But those were very few and far between. Well, it's the same story with boards and directors. So you have a vote of the shareholders, but it's very, very difficult to organize shareholders to vote against the person who the board had recommended for reelection. So over 99% of the time, you can almost count on one hand the board members who come up for reelection and are turned down in any given year. Third point about this, board members are paid a lot of money. You get paid over 100,000 a year for being a board, oftentimes 300,000 or 400,000 a year. And there's a great book by Stephen Clifford that looks like he was a board member of several major companies, so he's kind of talking from the inside. He puts the amount of work at around 150 hours a year. As I say, good work if you can get it. So point being that if you're a member of a corporate board, you're getting a real good deal on it. You're looking at a situation where it might be paid over $1,000 for an hour of work. That's a really good deal. That means you probably want to stay on the board. So what does that mean? Well, you probably don't have a really strong incentive to say, hey, our CEO really isn't very good. Because you know everyone else on the board is friends with the CEO. So do you really want to go around to the other people on the board and say, hey, Joe's really not doing a very good job for us. Can't we get someone who's just as good for maybe half the price? Or maybe we should just give him half the pay? They don't do that.  So do you want to be someone that they don't nominate for reelection? Directors have very little incentive to question CEO pay. And keeping with this, there was a great study done by Bovay and its co-authors at the University of Texas where simply surveyed, just asked board members, something in commas often do too rarely, do you see limiting CEO pay as a part of your job? And the overwhelming majority of board members didn't even see it as part of their job. They actually saw promoting the goals of top management as being the main purpose. I think this is very damning because even if they did see it as part of their job, maybe we'd look at them and say, well, you're really not doing a very good job. Okay, so why does it matter? CEO pay is a reference point for pay scales throughout the economy. Why do I think that's so important? Well, one, if you have people who are getting paid 20 million a year when they're only producing, say, two million a year for the shareholders, then we don't have an economy that's based in any close way and people's actual productivity. But if it's the case that CEOs are getting paid 20 million and they're only worth two million shareholders, well, the implications of the shareholders are being ripped off. Okay, so to my view, that's really a very fundamental question. If the shareholders are getting ripped off, they should be allies in lowering CEO pay. Okay, so how do you remedy CEO pay? One issue that people have to understand is corporations don't exist in a free market. Corporations are creations of the government. So we could all form partnerships and we could agree we're gonna collaborate, but we don't create a separate legal entity. That's something the government has to do. And when it does that, it sets rules. Most of the rules have to do with protecting minority rights. And by that, I'm not talking about minority groups as we usually think of, minority shareholders. So you can't have a story where 51% of the shareholders take over a company and they tell the other 49% they're out of luck. I can get together, we get 51% of the shareholders, but whatever we get, the other 49% have to get also. That's what most rules are about. But there are other rules and the government could change those rules. How can it change those rules in ways that are likely to bring down CEO pay? Well, one of my favorite, because it's simple, is that back in 2010, the Dodd-Fernick Financial Reform Act, that created something and it's often referred to say on pay. Say on pay means that every three years, the CEO's pay package is sent out for a vote of shareholders. You could have shareholders voted down and it's just telling the board that the shareholders think the CEO was paid too much. Boards could do whatever they like with that, but there's no direct impact on that. You could change that. Just to be clear, this is something that happens very rarely. So it's about 2% of pay packages are voted down and that's because it's very hard to organize shareholders. So every now and then you'll see someone, usually an activist investor that has a large amount of the company. They organize the shareholders and they get them to vote down pay package. Again, suppose you said instead they're just being no consequence, the board could just go, that's interesting. You say, okay, the shareholders voted down your pay package. Your job, whether they like it or not, is to restrain the pay of CEOs. So if you gave your CEO a pay package, that's so outlandish that a majority of shareholders voted it down, you lose your pay. Well, my guess is that that would cause directors to think a lot more carefully about what they're paying their CEOs. And again, I don't think it would have to happen too many times. You could also put into the rules that boards get an incentive to lower CEO pay and companies could do this voluntarily. They could say, okay, if our stock price keeps pace with our competitors, so go back to Lowe's and Home Depot. You say, okay, if Home Depot's stock price keeps pace with Lowe's, we've been paying our CEO 20 million a year, we're gonna lower that to 10 million a year, and we're gonna split that 10 million, okay? That would be a very good incentive for them to lower the pay of CEOs. Okay, a fourth thing, take away the proxy votes for third parties. Most important here is mutual funds. If you look at any major company, a very large share, often well over 50% of the stock, is held by mutual funds. So oftentimes the mutual fund representative at a company, at a general electric or IBM or Microsoft or whatever it might be, they're often friends with the top executives at the company, because they wanna get information from them. They very rarely vote against say on pay packages, less than most shareholders. So if you have money with a 401K, you have money with a Vanguard or a Fidelity, whatever it might be, it's your money, it's not their money. So you might say, okay, since they're not actually the ones who own it, they don't get to vote on it. Now typically most mutual funds say, okay, you authorized them to vote on your behalf. You could say that isn't good enough, because they don't have a direct interest that the person who actually owns the shares does. Another route is higher marginal tax rates. Okay, so it's worth noting, and you can decide how much importance you wanna place on this, that CO pay tends to rise hugely when marginal tax rates for top owners fell. So if we go back to the start of the 1980s, top marginal tax rate was 70%. It fell in the 80s to 28% for a period of time, then it rose back to 40% under President Clinton, fell again under the second President Bush, rose again to about 40% under President Obama, and then fell again under Donald Trump to 37%. Well, there's an argument here that having a high marginal tax rates will tend to put downward pressure on CO pay for the simple reason that the CO is not keeping most of it. So in a world where you're being taxed 70% or 90% on a dollar of income, you don't keep most of their income. So that means COs have less incentive to try to get really high pay. The last thing to mention is that if we look at the nonprofit sector, well, the government subsidizes the nonprofit sector because we give a tax credit.  Well, the government, in effect, it gives me a tax subsidy. So we have a 37% top rate, and anyone who's giving a million dollars to a university is surely in the top tax bracket. That means that they're picking up 370,000 of the tab, okay?  Government's paying the other 370,000. Okay, well, that means that the government could set conditions on that. Okay, so if Harvard says, oh, we want to pay our president $2 million, well, they can go ahead and do it. We just say to them, okay, but you're not going to get the charitable deduction. Okay, if you get the charitable deduction, you only get 400,000 a year. Okay, or that's the most you could pay your president. Okay, so you could set that as a condition for nonprofits. That, to my view, would go a long way towards bringing down pay there. And just to be clear, where I'm getting 400,000 a year, if it's not obvious to people, that's the pay of the president of the United States. Okay, so to sum up, what I would just say is it's unambiguous. CEO pay has exploded over the last four decades. I should also point out in this respect that you have large companies in Europe, in East Asia, in Japan, in Korea, they're not paid anywhere near as much as our CEOs. Their pay's been rising as well, I think partly because of the pressure of CEO pay in the US. But if you look at France, Germany, their CEOs and major companies might get 3, 4, 5 million. It's very rare you'll find one getting 20 million. Okay, and those companies also do quite well. Insofar as we could say this is a story of a corrupted corporate governance process, then this is a big source of upward redistribution in the economy. It's not a market story. It's a problem with how we structured the market, how we structured the rules of corporate governance.