Welcome back to our lecture series Math 3130, Modern Geometries for Student Sets of the Intel University. As usual, I'll be your professor today, Dr. Andrew Misseldheim. So up to this point in our lecture series, we've gone through many different axiomatic systems for geometries, continually adding to it over and over and over again. We began with the incidence axioms, followed by the betweenness axioms, followed then by the congruence axioms, and of course, in the mix of that, we did talk about parallel alternative servile as well. And all of this was based upon really David Hilbert's axioms for Euclidean geometry. We just keep on stacking more and more and more axioms on there. Well, the last family of axioms from Hilbert's axioms of planar geometry are in fact the continuity axioms. This is the final piece which completes our notion of Euclidean geometry. Incidents, betweenness, congruence, the Euclidean parallel postulate, and then continuity, which the continuity axiom is sometimes called the completeness axiom, so we can use those terms interchangeably. So the completeness axiom is a property that really is coming from topology, which we've talked about topology before in this lecture series. I mean, we of course have geometry versus topology here. The two in some way are related to each other. You could argue that topology is a geometric notion, but then again, that the two are very spatial oriented, but topology has sort of a different goal in mind than geometry does. But again, the two interplay with each other very much. The completeness axiom really is this property coming from topology. And for the most part, it's really, it's the setting that we're gonna be in this conversation for lecture 22 is really what one would call real analysis because the completeness axiom is what makes the real numbers, the real numbers, as opposed to some other number system. In real analysis, the completeness axiom is often referred to as the least upper bound property, least upper bound property. And the least upper bound property is what sets apart the real numbers compared to some other ordered field like the rationals, which what is the least upper bound property? The least upper bound property says that all non-empty sets of numbers with an upper bound must have a least upper bound called the supremum of the set. The numbers, I should say the real numbers as a set is the unique ordered field, which also satisfies the least upper bound property, which is the difference between the real numbers, say with the rational numbers. The rational numbers is an ordered field. So ordered field, what does that mean? Well, from an algebraic point of view, a field is going to be a set of numbers which have a well-defined notion of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. And these four operations behave with the usual properties such as addition and multiplication or associative, multiplicative. They have identities, zero and one. They have inverses, which basically the inversions give you subtraction, division, the distributed property is satisfied in a field. An ordered field would suggest that we can also order the numbers. We can say that these two numbers are greater than or equal to some other number and such. So an ordered field is then a field for which the ordering is compatible with it. And this is then where the least upper bound property enters the field, because the least upper bound property is a condition on that ordering that whenever you have an upper bound, there's always a least upper bound, the supremum for that set. The rational numbers, they are a field that feel is ordered. It has the same ordering that the real numbers have, but you don't have the least upper bound property. There exist sets of rational numbers that have upper bounds that don't have a least upper bound. Well, we'll talk about that in just a second here. And so when it comes to our geometric conversation, we're really interested in the Euclidean plane, which can be given the coordinates R squared. So R squared is then deeply concerned with the properties of the real numbers because if we have this Euclidean plane whose coordinates are real numbers, then what we can say about real numbers means something about the coordinates of our geometry, which then means something about the geometry. So as one studies properties of the real numbers, you learn things about Euclidean geometry. So the completeness axiom is a necessary condition that we need to differentiate between, say a affine congruence geometry like Q2, right? Q2, it's a congruence geometry. It's an affine geometry because it satisfies the Euclidean parallel postulate. So what separates these two geometries is that the real plane, that is the Euclidean plane is complete and the rational plane is not. And we wanna be a little bit more precise about that in this conversation. So the least upper bound property is sometimes referred to as the Dedekin axiom of completeness or continuity because the model of the real numbers that best exemplifies the least upper bound property is the model of Dedekin cuts on the rational numbers. As such, we're gonna recast our continuity axiom for geometry after the least upper bound property and we're gonna use this idea of Dedekin cut because after all, as our goal is geometrically focused, I wanted to explain continuity in a way that'll be most approachable for a geometry student. And I think the conversation about Dedekin cuts really will be the best way to approach continuity as opposed to least upper bounds and completeness and other issues, right? I mean, we could talk about every Cauchy sequence is convergent, that's a type of completeness ax and we could use, but that doesn't feel geometric. Dedekin cuts do that. Why keep on saying this word, Dedekin cut, Dedekin cut? What's a Dedekin cut? Well, we're gonna talk about that just right now. So let L be a line and let sigma one, sigma two be subsets of that line L. So the pair, sigma one, sigma two is called a Dedekin cut of the line L if sigma one and sigma two satisfy the following two conditions. Both the sets, sigma one and sigma two, they need to be non-empty and they need to be convex subsets of L. Remember what convex here means. So convex means that if the points P and Q belong to the set, sigma one, that implies that the segment PQ is belonging to sigma one as well. So in other words, if two points belong to the set, everything between the two points also belongs to the set. So sigma one, sigma two are gonna be non-empty convex sets of L such that L is the union of sigma one and sigma two and the intersection of sigma one, sigma two is equal to the empty set. So when you put these last two conditions together, the pair determines a partition of the line. So what is a Dedekin cut? It's a partition of the line into two cells which are convex. So we're basically looking for a convex partition of a line into two pieces. That's what one calls a Dedekin cut, okay? So that's just the definition. What does this have to do with continuity? Well, the Dedekin axiom for continuity for which we, this section, this lecture was called continuity axioms. In this video, we're gonna adopt one single continuity axiom because one of the conveniences of using the Dedekin axiom is that one, it's geometric, but two, it's one axiom that'll give us all of the continuity principles we want to discuss for what we will soon call neutral geometry. So we're actually gonna take a much simpler approach to continuity than what David Hilbert originally provided for us. So the Dedekin axiom says that given any Dedekin cut of a line, so that is we have a partition, a convex partition into two pieces of the line, given any Dedekin cut of the line. And I should mention that's why we call it a Dedekin cut here. It's because we have these two pieces to the line. If you think of it as like, oh, we have a line and the idea is take your scissors and cut, you cut into two pieces. That's the idea. Then convexity is to suggest why there's, it's not a little bit more mixed up than this. So given any Dedekin cut, sigma one, sigma two of the line, there exists a unique point P and an ordering on the line. Remember, all lines have orderings. There's one or the other. And so given this point P, there's an ordering of the line such that sigma one is just the interval negative infinity to P and sigma two is the interval from P to infinity. That's gonna be the case in either situation, but where does P belong? P might belong to sigma one or P might belong to sigma two. So the continuity action tells us that given any Dedekin cut, well, it's really just you cut the line into two intervals, two rays, you could say it that way as well. You cut a line by a Dedekin cut, it forms two rays. And of course the point P belongs to one of them. That's the important thing here. We have this closed ray and an open ray. It doesn't really matter which one it belongs to, but this is the only way you can cut a line using a convex partition, a Dedekin cut. And so that statement itself, it's like, okay, I can kind of see what you're going with. What's the big deal? What does that have to do with continuity, right? We're gonna make, we'll make them more explicit as we explore the examples here. But a geometry that satisfies the Dedekin axiom, we call this a complete geometry. In particular, if you have a complete congruence geometry, remember the vocabulary we have for this lecture, for this lecture series. A congruence geometry is a geometry which satisfies the axioms of incidents between this and congruence. So therefore a complete congruence geometry will satisfy the axioms of incidents between this congruence and continuity. We make no assumption about parallel postulates, whatsoever. A complete congruence geometry is referred to as a neutral geometry. Some people call it an absolute geometry. And the name there is to suggest, we'll take the term neutral or absolute geometry here, where are these names coming from? The thing is, we haven't made any assumptions about parallel postulates yet. So therefore any theorem of neutral geometry will be a theorem of Euclidean geometry, but it'll also be a theorem of hyperbolic geometry and anything else that doesn't depend on the parallel postulates. So the term neutral is to suggest that, oh, we're gonna go Switzerland here, we're not gonna choose a side. I'm not saying whether it's the Euclidean parallel postulate or the hyperbolic parallel postulate or something else. We remain neutral with regard to the parallel alternatives. The term absolute geometry is also used in this situation because anything that's true in absolute geometry will then be true for Euclidean and hyperbolic geometry. So it's something that's always true. Not a big fan of that because there are other geometries that aren't necessarily absolute geometries like projective geometry, elliptic geometry. These are not absolute geometries. So some statements won't be true for a spherical geometry. And so it's, I don't like the term absolute here because there are other geometries. So I personally prefer the term neutral geometry. Neutral geometry is we have a congruent geometry. We do have continuity in hand now, but we're gonna remain neutral with regard to the parallel alternatives. So, okay, we should talk about, oh, and one other thing I wanna mention here is this idea of complete. In this lecture series, when we defined a ordered geometry in that setting, we said an ordered geometry was an incidence geometry that satisfied the betweenness axioms. Now some authors, when they define ordered geometry actually say that an ordered geometry satisfies the incidence axioms, the betweenness axioms, and the continuity axioms, in which case what we in our lecture series would call a complete ordered geometry. Some people would call that just an ordered geometry. For them, continuity is built into the cake, or cooked into the cake, baked into the cake. That's the word you're looking for. So be aware, that's not gonna be too much of a concern for us, but as you're studying things about completeness, be aware that some geometric terms already have that built into it. When you talk about neutral geometry, continuity is expected, completeness is expected. Some people expect it for ordered geometry we did not in our lecture series. All right, let's get back to some examples of neutral geometry. The most obvious example, of course, is going to be the Euclidean plane, do-do-do. I mean, this is the geometry we're trying to axiomatize using Hilbert's axioms. So every axiom we add is an axiom of Euclidean geometry. We just don't have them all yet. At the moment, we have not accepted a parallel posh that hints neutral geometry. But the Euclidean plane is the poster child of a neutral geometry. But one of the, of course, the most greatest discoveries in mathematics, particularly the branch of geometry was the existence of a hyperbolic geometry. So the real hyperbolic plane is also an example of neutral geometry. The hyperbolic plane is consistent with all of the axioms we've talked about so far, incidents between this congruence continuity. It satisfies all of those conditions, but it doesn't satisfy the Euclidean parallel poshlet, which then proved that the Euclidean parallel poshlet was independent of the neutral axioms. That is Euclid's fifth poshlet could not be proven as a theorem inside of neutral geometry, which many people studied for a long, long time. So, and these two are basically the neutral geometries. Up-tie-somorphism, you basically just have these two neutral geometries, the real plane and the hyperbolic, I should say the Euclidean plane and the hyperbolic plane. But these are not the only examples of complete geometries we could have. For example, in our lecture series, we've talked about the real projective plane, right? One of the models we talked about that is you can take the upper hemisphere of a sphere and you add a wraparound feature on the boundary, the equator there.  In this geometry, it does in fact satisfy Dedekind's axiom. Whenever you have a line, which in this case, a line is like a semicircle, right? Which again, you have this wraparound feature, whoop, like so, the only way you can cut the line into a convex partition is to be intervals. Which, of course, we have to be a little bit more careful in this setting here because when we talk about the Dedekind cut, the Dedekind cut used some terms about ordering. That is, well, I mean, the Dedekind cut did not require that, the definition.  That can be a little bit of a murky issue inside of the real project of plane because the real project of plane does not have a well-defined notion of betweenness. In particular, trichotomy is an issue here. Like if you have three points, right, which one's really between the other? Because you might be like, oh, I went from A to B to C like that. But you could also go from B to C to A like so, or you can go from C to A to B. So in some aspect, all of the points are between each other. Trichotomy doesn't make any sense there. You also do have some issues when it comes to posh's axiom in the real project of plane because it turns out because of this wraparound feature, if I'm on this side of the line and you have some other point on the quote, unquote, other side of the line, sure there's a line segment that connects the two that intersects the line, but there's also the back door which when you hit the boundary, it's like whoosh, you teleport to their side and then you can come over here. And so that second line segment didn't cross the line because this little teleportation part down here is not actually part of the geometry. Do, do, do, do, do, do, do. So in that setting, there's really only one side of a line in the real project of plane. So the notions of betweenness don't exactly work in the real project of plane. This is an issue we'll talk about a little bit later. Therefore, issues like, well, can you actually talk about the interval from negative p, negative infinity to p, right? Do you need ordering to talk about that? One can refine the version of the Dedekin axiom that we presented on the screen above to include geometries like the real project of plane where, again, betweenness doesn't exactly work. So in particular, I should mention that the real project of plane is not a neutral geometry because we do not have all of the axioms of betweenness. We're missing two of the four. But nonetheless, we can still, we could massage Dedekin axioms to be appropriate in a setting where betweenness is a little bit lacking, such as the real project of plane. So we can get continuity in that situation. We do get completeness in the real project of plane. But I should also mention the real project of plane that notions of congruence of segments and angles, they actually satisfy the six congruence axioms. And so despite these issues of betweenness, incidence and congruence have no issue. And we do, in fact, also have completeness inside of the real project of plane. That's an important thing to note here. So RP squared is not a neutral geometry because it doesn't have trichotomy or posh's axioms, but satisfies everything else, including the continuity axioms. I should say axiom because we only have one in this situation. I should also mention that the sphere also is an example of a geometry, which is complete, right? It satisfies Dedekin axiom. Now with the sphere, you do have some issues that it's not a neutral geometry because as we talked about before, line determination doesn't work in spherical geometry. Note that if you have two antipodal points on the sphere such as the north and south pole, then there are actually multiple straight lines that connect them together. So there's always a line between two points, but for antipodal points, that line is not unique. So line determination doesn't work. Also for similar reasons that we had with the real project of plane, trichotomy doesn't work for the Euclidean sphere. And those are the only axioms we're lacking. The other four axioms of incidence are satisfied on the sphere. The other three, let's see, did I say that correctly? There's four axioms of incidence while line determination doesn't work. The other three work for the sphere. When it comes to betweenness, there's four axioms of betweenness. Trichotomy doesn't work, but the other three axioms of betweenness, they work just fine. That includes plane separation. In the sphere, a line does cut the plane into two sides, one side and the other side. Think of the equator, for example. You have the upper hemisphere and the lower hemisphere. You do have plane separation in that situation. And then when it comes to the axioms of congruence, the sphere satisfies all six axioms of congruence. We can make a notion about segment congruence. We can talk about angle congruence and it'll satisfy the six axioms we have there. So the only axioms of neutral geometry that the sphere doesn't satisfy are line determination and trichotomy. So notice that with both of these elliptic geometries, trichotomy is basically dead on arrival for both of them because in these two geometries, lines are circles. And so you really can't have trichotomy when lines and circles coincide here. But you can trade plane separation for line determination. And so the real project of plane does have that advantage that it is a incidence geometry. But on the other hand, the sphere has the advantage that you have plane separation. But both of these examples, this is the critical thing I'm trying to get to here. Both of these examples satisfy the completeness axiom. They are both complete geometries. And in fact, any manifold that we can come up with is going to be a complete geometry because a manifold, remember, is a locally Euclidean topology. And because it's locally Euclidean, you can inherit the least upper bound property from that local behavior. And so we could list several other manifolds here.  So now we reach a very important part in this video here that we need an example of a geometry that is incomplete. That is not a complete geometry. And the example we're gonna look at is gonna be Q. Q2, I should say. Now, of course, the reason we're gonna go here is that as I've already mentioned, Q2 is an affine congruence geometry, or call it a congruence affine geometry. It satisfies the axioms of incidence between this completeness and it actually satisfies the Euclidean periopostia. The only thing it doesn't have is the continuity axiom. And we're gonna argue in this example right here that it doesn't satisfy the continuity axiom that in fact, Dedekin cuts can be problematic for Q2. So let's first, let's of course make sure we understand what we mean by Q2 in this situation. So the set itself will be the points of the geometry. That's often something we do with the geometry. The set is the set of points and the other things are gonna be implied. So we talk about the set Q2, this is a Cartesian product where points are considered ordered pairs where both coordinates are in fact, rational numbers. So we can have something like one comma two. We can have something like one half comma zero. We can have seven fifteenths comma negative three fourths. Those are all example of rational points. What is a line inside of Q2? Well, we can define lines using the coordinate system that we have since the points are ordered pairs. That is we define lines as linear equations, ax plus by equals C, which the coefficients a, b and c have to be rational numbers, which includes integers of course. a, b, c have to be rational numbers and you can't have that a and b are simultaneously zero. a could be zero, you could have something like that. b could be zero. This would give us vertical and horizontal lines, but other than that, they can't both be zero because you either have zero equals something like two, that's not a line, that's a contradiction or you could have like zero equals zero, that's not a line, that's an identity. We don't wanna consider those possibilities. Now of course, when you have a rational equation, so the coefficients are a, b and c, you could, since there's only three numbers in play here, you could always find the least common denominator of the fractions a, b, c, you could clear the denominators and so every rational linear equation could be turned into an integer linear equation. So if you prefer that, just think of it that way, a, a line in the plane Q2 is just a set of all integer linear equations. Now of course, two different linear equations can actually be representing the same line. Like if I take like x plus y equals two, this is the same thing as three x plus three y equals six. Notice that if I times the first equation by three, you get the other one. Those are considered equivalent equations and we aren't gonna distinguish between equivalent equations. Those represent the same line. So really when we talk about lines in Q2, it's there's an equivalence class there, equivalence relation. A line in Q2 is a linear equation up to equivalence and therefore then a point on Q2 is considered incident to a line when it satisfies the equation. That is a solution to the equation. So something like x plus y equals two, then the point one comma one would be a point on that line. I should say it that way because notice one plus one equals two. You could also do two comma zero, that's on the line. We could take something like three fourths over here and then we have one and a fourth right here, or five fourths if you prefer. We can do lots of points. There's gonna be infinity points on that line. And that gives us the notion of incidents. That notion of incidents will satisfy the four axioms of incidents. We have line determination, point existence, secant C and finally non-colonarity. How do we define betweenness in this setting? Well, betweenness for the plane Q2, we would say that two points or one point is between the other. If you, well, the short answer, there's a couple of ways you could do it. But basically when you have equality of the triangle and equality, that's what betweenness could mean in that situation. So what do we mean? We say that a point, let me offer a linear algebraic perspective here. So if we have two points P and Q, then we could look at their linear combination. So we have T P plus one minus T Q in this situation. Like so, for which I'm gonna require that T be a number on the interval zero to one, like so, for which clearly P and Q are gonna be rational points and T is gonna be a rational number on the interval zero to one. This then we can define to be the segment P to Q, like so, or I should say I shouldn't write as an interval, I should write as a segment P Q, like so. So the points other than P Q themselves, every other point that can be written as a linear combination like this, this is what's often referred to as a convex combination in linear algebra. We could say that's a point between these, this convex combination definition will give us the actions betweenness. We have not, we have co-linearity and symmetrization. We have extension, we have trichotomy, we have Bosch's axioms. Those will be satisfied in that situation. Then what about congruence? What does it mean for, what does it mean for things to be congruent? Now that you have segments defined, we can talk about the length of a segment. So you can talk about the distance between two points, P and Q, that's gonna produce a real number. We can then say that's the length of the segment P Q. And so we'll say that two segments are congruent to each other, if and only if they have the same distance, they have the same length attached to them. We can do similar things. I don't wanna say too much more about this, but we can talk about every angle has a measure and then two angles are congruent if and only if they have the same measure. This is exactly how we define things in R2. What does incidence mean there? What does betweenness mean there? What does congruence mean there? The only problem, I should say the only difference between R2 and Q2 is that when we define points, the coordinates have to be rational numbers. When we define lines, the lines have to have rational coefficients. When we talk about convex combinations for betweenness, the coefficients there have to be rational numbers. With distance, a distance function actually maps into the real number. So if the distance between two points is irrational, that's not a big deal for us. We're okay with that. You can still have a rational segment, even if its length is irrational. Sorry Pythagoras, you can actually do that. So with this conversation here, we've now reached the point where, okay, we've now established that Q2 is a congruence geometry. And also I should mention that Q2 satisfies the Euclidean Parallel Apostolate, because if you have a rational line and a rational point off of that line, there will exist one rational line that passes through it. Because in particular these lines and points are subsets of the Euclidean plane. So you can't have more than one parallel line because that would be more than one parallel line in the Euclidean plane. But then the other thing is to remember is in the Euclidean plane, two lines are parallel to each other, if and only if they have the same slope. And for a rational line, the slope has to be rational. And so therefore there will be a rational line over here with that slope. So Euclidean Parallel Apostolate is good. Everything'sunky dory. So now we're in a situation where I can actually then give us a dedicum cut that cannot be turned into an interval. And this will show us that the continuity axiom fails in this situation. And what better line to use than the x-axis? Because after all, we've proven previously that in a congruence geometry, all lines are congruent to each other. So continuity axioms, we take our line, which is the x-axis. Then we have to come up with a dedicum cut, which is gonna be a convex partition of the line into two pieces. Our sigma one is gonna be the following. We take all points on the x-axis. So it's x-coordinate could be potentially anything. It's y-coordinate, of course, will be zero. But we take all points on the x-axis so that the x-coordinate when you square it is greater than or equal to two. And then the other set sigma two will be all those points on the x-axis such that when you square the x-coordinate you get something less than two. And so the first thing to note here is that every point on the line on the x-axis belongs to the set sigma one or to the set sigma two. Because if you take your x-coordinate it squares either greater or equal to two or it's less than two because we have a total order on real numbers and hence the total order on ration numbers. Every point will fall into one of those two sets. It should also be said that the intersection of these two sets is the empty set. There is no point, there's no number whose square is both greater or equal to two and less than two. Those options are mutually exclusive. So this is clearly a partition of the line. Why is it convex? Well, we have to, we have to then remind ourselves what's between this here, right? So let's suppose we have two points on the set sigma one A and C which I'm really, since this is just the x-axis here I'm really just focusing on the numbers x here. You can sort of ignore the y-intercept for right now excuse me, the y-coordinate because it's clearly zero. So we have, we essentially have two numbers A, C on the set sigma one. So this means that A squared is greater than equal to two and C squared is greater than equal to two. So without the lots of generality let's assume that A is larger than C. So A is greater than equal to C and then let B be between the numbers A and C. So B is some number that some rational number that sits in between the rational numbers A and C in this situation. So then there exists some rational number T such that B is equal to TA plus one minus TC like we see here. And so play around with that. If I square B squared that means I'm gonna take TA plus one minus TC and I'm gonna take that quantity and I'm gonna squared, okay? Since, since A is larger than C I can actually replace A with C in this situation for which then notice that TC plus one minus TC that adds together just to be CC of C squared that's greater than two, greater than equal to two they should say. And so therefore B squared is also greater than equal to two. So this tells us that B belongs to sigma one and as B was an arbitrary point between A and C we then get that sigma one is convex. A similar argument will show that sigma two is convex I will let the viewer of the video prove that if you want to, it's the same argument. Thus, sigma one sigma two is by definition a dead, a Dedekin cut of the line but this is the important but this is what we're building up to. There is no rational number P such that P belongs to sigma one or sigma two that makes this into a interval of rational numbers. And the issue kind of boils down to this the square root of two is an irrational number. This is something we can prove that we're not going to in this video but it's a very simple elementary proof that the square root of two is an irrational number it's not a rational number. So in the real number system, if you took this Dedekin cut the least upper bound property within produce for you oh P is equal to the square root of two and that's the thing that separates it and that situation for the real numbers sigma one would be equal to the interval the square root of two to infinity and then sigma two would be the interval negative infinity to the square root of two. This is of course, this is of course in the Euclidean plane but the rational plane does not have this point the square root of two. And so in that situation there is no boundary point that can be obtained. And so therefore this illustrates that q two fails the continuity axiom. So it is in fact a congruence affine geometry that it doesn't satisfy continuity. So the continuity axiom is independent of the other axioms of neutral geometry.


Are low carbohydrate or ketogenic diets bad for your gut health? Hi, this is Dr. Ruscio and let's discuss this question. If low carb or ketogenic diets are bad for, it could be damaging your gut health. In short, the answer is no. Low carb or ketogenic diets are not bad for your gut health. But there's confusion around this and allow me to dispel briefly why there's a confusion and what this means for you. Again, in short, if you're doing a lower carb or ketogenic diet and deriving benefit from it, continue with it. Now, do not continue with that dietary approach if you're feeling fatigued or irritable or having insomnia because a lower carb or ketogenic dietary approach is not gonna be the best approach for everyone. But for some, it will be helpful. And unfortunately, you may come across information on the internet that tells you a number of things. One of which could be that a low carb diet can starve your gut bacteria and be bad for your gut bacterial health. And this is really misleading because while, yes, a lower carb or ketogenic diet may starve certain populations or you may see a dwindling of certain populations of bacteria, other populations of bacteria may actually bloom on a lower carb diet. And there's the data in terms of what population of bacteria are better than the others. And that is so literally speculation that you as a healthcare consumer should not bother waiting in that confusion. But rather, we can look to outcome studies, meaning what happens when people eat a certain way for the answer to the question of what kind of impact could a lower carb diet have. Now, I'm gonna extrapolate a little bit from research on the paleo diet, but there has been research published showing that a paleotype diet, which is oftentimes but not always lower in carb, reduces colorectal cancer risk to a similar degree as the Mediterranean diet. So some good evidence there. Now there's a number of trials showing that a lower carb, oftentimes looking at this through the context of either a paleo diet or a overtly low carb diet can be beneficial for weight loss, metabolism, and cholesterol levels. So more good news there, it can improve your metabolism. Now, how this ties in with gut bacteria, some studies have actually looked at a moderate low and very low carb grouping of patients and tracked what happened in their microbiotas and how did that correlate with weight change. And ironically, and some of the studies or one in particular found that the very low carb diet group saw the most weight loss and had a measurable shift in their intestinal bacteria. And the higher the carbon take went, the less the change on the intestinal bacteria and the lesser the weight loss. So this thinking that if a diet impacts or causes a dwindling of certain bacterial populations that's going to automatically be bad for you, that's really a erroneous premise that doesn't have good evidence to support it. Further yet still, and I review this evidence extensively in Healthy Get Healthy You, when you look at fiber content in the diet as compared to what's known as all cause mortality or morbidity. So your chances of dying from any disease or having any disease, there is no general trend showing that eating more fiber is better for your health. There's about as much data showing that higher fiber intake is good for you as is their data showing higher fiber intake has no impact on your health. So there's no need to subject yourself to a higher fiber diet if you don't feel good on that diet. Now, fiber and carbon taken in the diet don't share this direct relationship but oftentimes what you'll see is when someone's doing a ketogenic diet their fiber intake may become a little bit lower if that ends up being you that's nothing to necessarily worry about. Now, I do think it's a good idea to make sure that you're not eating a unhealthy version of a low carb or ketogenic diet and making sure that you get ample amounts of vegetables in your diets in your diet and some fruits. But when you look at the data comparatively vegetarian diets do tend to have a higher fiber intake than lower carb diets but what that means I think is up for debate. And then finally, if you're someone looking for digestive relief employing a low carb or ketogenic diet if we look at a low FODMAP diet as a proxy we see that those on a low FODMAP diet a diet that by design reduces the amount of fermentable carbohydrates. So many forms of fruits and vegetables are reduced on a low FODMAP diet. We actually see that that can be very helpful for many people with digestive maladies like gas, bloating, constipation, heartburn, diarrhea, loose stools, abdominal pain and what have you. So more evidence showing that a diet that by design restricts foods that feed healthy bacteria can actually cause you to be healthier just tells us that there's quite an ample amount of evidence showing that you do not need to directly feed gut bacteria in order to be healthy. The pots that I put forth in healthy good healthy you is that it's not about just feeding up bacteria and hoping that those gut bacteria make you healthy but rather eating in such a way that makes you the host as healthy as you can be. And when you are healthy as the host that houses the microbiota that the house is your bacteria a healthier host means a healthier environment means healthier bacteria can grow. And that is what you should be focusing on whether it be feeling better on a lower carb or ketogenic type diet or on the other end of the spectrum someone who feels better on a moderate to higher carbohydrate diet. The carbohydrate diet needs to be personalized to the individual. If you as an individual are feeling better on a lower carb diet and that's creating a healthier you and a healthier environment then ostensibly you will see healthier bacteria grow. Conversely, if you're someone who feels better on a higher carb diet then you will likely have a healthier internal ecosystem that will harbor healthier bacteria and that will work well for you. So in short, there is no good evidence to my knowledge and this is after a fairly extensive review of the literature showing that a low carb or ketogenic diet is bad for your gut health. In fact, there's more evidence showing that it could be quite good for your gut health but remember not to be dogmatic regarding diet and if you try that type of diet and don't feel well then you may want to try and moderate to higher carb diet and see how you feel. So the answer, no, a low carb or ketogenic diet is not bad for your gut health. This is Dr. Ruscio and hopefully this information helps you get healthy and get back to your life.


Hi, I'm Benjamin Adams, retired civilian from the Kuwait Marina, North Carolina. In honor of the Navy's 239th birthday, I'd like to thank all the men and women serving overseas defending our freedom, especially those in the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. Thank you for your support and we're looking forward to your return home safety.


I want to thank everybody for being here today, and I thank so many that have been supportive of not only my viewpoints in what I've tried to do, but also supportive for the philosophy of liberty. That is what counts. Ideas have consequences, and the politicians really aren't worth that much if their goal is to just be in office. I have so many young people come, and I'll be talking in the crowd, and many college kids have come, and they'll sort of grasp and say, this is great, this is great.  What do I do? I say, don't do it. Don't do it at all, because I said, unless you're going there for the right reason, but if you're going there to be a congressman, what they're generally thinking about is, what should I run for first? How am I going to raise the money? How am I going to organize? Where do I do the advertising? What am I going to do on the internet? They want the technical part, and that I never gave one minute's worth of thought to, because the only thing I was looking for in the 1970s was a forum to talk about something. When I first ran for congress in 1974, it was in the midst of the Watergate crisis. We had three Republican congressmen in Texas, and nobody was going to file for a congressional seat in 1974. When I was hinting to somebody, because I was very motivated and aggravated by the stupidity of Nixon's monetary policy, I indicated to a few people that I might do it, and how do you do it as an independent, because I don't want to join a party. And the Republicans then were really desperate. This guy might be foolish enough to run him, we'll have a name on the ballot. So I did that, and it turned out to be much more than I expected. But the goal was very clearly talking about the issues of liberty and talking about monetary policy. That took not too long a time to realize that it was a difficult task, but I did that, and to my surprise, the incumbent Democrat resigned from office, and it was a special election. And a special election is special, it's different, it's completely different. And it's sort of one of those things, you couldn't plan it, there was no way this could be planned. Never had it, or never could have had that when I was 18 years old, I knew I was going to go to Congress, nothing like that. When I was 18, I was barely thinking about maybe I'd like to become a doctor and do something positive.  And she doesn't want to hear this story, she's heard it too many times, but you know, I'm thinking about what I thought the consequence of the breakdown of the Bretton Woods Agreement would mean. And it has meant a whole lot, a lot of people, that is a big date in monetary history, no doubt. So I told her, I said, I think I'm going to run for Congress, and she said, what? What are you going to do that for? She said, you have a medical practice here, and you're doing this, and I said, you don't have to worry about that, because she says, she says a big problem with it is that it's dangerous. I said, I could run for Congress, back then we weren't even worrying about the danger that you might be worried about now, the dangers that our son ran has paced up to already. So no, we said, she says, it's dangerous, and I said, why, how could it be dangerous? She says, you can get elected. Matter of fact, she said, you will get elected, and I said, there's no way. I said, there's no way of personally like myself, because I've already made my decision on all my votes, and it was not going to be complicated, and I don't think they're going to vote against Santa Claus, you know, they want our Santa Claus in there. So I was surprised that it ever happened, but I also had this freedom. I had this freedom because the desire wasn't to get 51% and become a congressman, you know, this sort of thing. I had the total freedom of doing what I thought was important. My goals then at that time were to try to set a standard, you know, set a record, make a record, because I always assumed that maybe there would be a time down the road, because I certainly wouldn't be in Washington very long, down the road somebody might take it and put it together and look at individual votes and say, oh, this makes sense. This comes together. He votes against war. He goes, he votes against violation of civil liberties. He votes for volunteerism in a free market, and maybe they'll put it together and see a picture, which many of you have already seen. We come together so often. We discover these things, how a few basic principles bring it, bring the picture all together, and it makes sense. I know in the last day I met a couple of people saying, yeah, it was always, boy, that just like turning on a switch that it makes, makes most sense by doing one thing, defending your right to your liberty and assuming responsibility for it. So that is not complicated at all, and that is something people can understand. Certainly in the campaigning that I went through, I found out that people in a younger age or older people who are young at heart will be acceptable to new ideas and look at things differently. So there were many times I was impressed when the teenagers, matter of fact, there's somebody in this audience today, they said they were influenced by the campaign when they were still teenagers, and I was always marveled at that. I was always fascinated with the idea when a teenager would bring their parents to the office and insist they come in and meet me. In the old days, they'd have the parents bringing the kids, well, we're going to teach you the civics lesson of how these laws were made, this sort of thing, but they would come in and I always thought it was just so neat that the parents were so proud of their kids in disagreements, but that was irrelevant. Their kids were thinking, you know, and many parents were converted to that, and they said, boy, he had something, and they would listen, it might not have happened in one night, but there were many. So it's sort of a flip, it's a direction, but it happened more times. So anyway, that has worked out, I think, fairly well, but I was never satisfied that was my career, because I was there for four terms, and from 56 up to 84, and I missed medicine, I didn't intend to do this, and so I got out of Congress and went back and practiced medicine for 12 years, but I still had that sort of gnawing thing. I don't want to be in politics, but I still want to talk to some people, because I still think the issues are important, and war issue became more and more important, so I accepted the encouragement and did it again. So I'm always surprised that that happens, but I also really delight in the freedom that I feel, because Daniel will confirm this, but so often he witnessed these other staffers with other congressmen, they had to, well, there's a vote coming out, well, the staff's supposed to weigh these things, look at this special interest, look at this special interest, which special interests are we going to support? And I remember the first month or two I was voting, and people would go over to the board where you find out exactly what's being voted on, and I said, what is this here? And they say, well, this list here says all these special interest lobbyists, they support the bill, all these other people here oppose the bill, and that's the way that was sometimes the maximum amount of information the congressmen were getting is just the number of people supporting them, because that's the way it worked, that's the way you raise money, raising money means how you get promoted and how you get to be a chairman of a committee. Now, obviously the goal for me to be a chairman had nothing to do with it, just sort of rub me the wrong way, but I had the seniority, I ended up there in a long time, but if the goal had been to be the chairman, it'd been quite a bit different, but all I can tell you is this approach, and I know so many of you follow the same thing, it should make us feel good by defending something if you can get convinced that it's the right thing to do. And early on I was influenced by reading Austrian economics before the Britain Woods broke down, I had read some of the things on Hayek and Mises. But I remember there was one day back then, it would have been in the early 70s before I'd run for congress, there was a little announcement in the, probably with the Houston Chronicle which doesn't exist, it doesn't publish anything, it was about this big. It was about this big, and the announcement was that Ludwig von Mises, Professor Mises would be speaking at the University of Houston on such and such date. And hey, this sounds neat, I'd sort of like to go hear him, but there was only one other person in the whole town that I know would probably know who he was. So I went and he said, oh no, that sounds good, so we both cancelled our office hours for a few hours and drove to Houston to hear Mises give the lecture on socialism. And this was pretty amazing for us to do that. But you know, the interesting story about that was many, many years after that. That was in early 70s, 71 I believe, it was one of Mises' last lectures. And then maybe, it could have been 30 years afterwards, I was giving this little spiel and it was at a Mises function. And afterwards the individual came up to me and it was a doctor and he says, I know what you're talking about because you talked about going to hear Mises. They gave him a room about this half the size, but it wasn't 10 or 15 people. The room was jam-packed, even back then when hardly anybody knew about Mises, it was jam-packed and I thought, boy, they wouldn't even give them a decent room, of course they never gave them a decent job in a university either.  But the individual in the audience at the Mises function came up and told me, he says, I remember that, I remember seeing you there and he's a doctor in Pasadena and somebody will know his name, I'm sure, because we still see him. He said that, he says, I remember you standing at the door. I remember exactly what you told him, because he was a student at the University of Houston and he was the one that organized Mises. He was probably the only student in the whole university that who Mises was, but he had organized and got Mises to come there. It was just an interesting story about the coincidence about how that happened, but one student had some effort, others did and I was impressed with the whole notion that even then people were interested. It was known, I mean, he was known well enough, but not the professors. There probably weren't very many, many professors there. So it was a very, very exciting time. But, you know, on elections, I think elections, what do they, are they necessary? Should we have them? And yes, I think there is a significance, but it has to be, you have to sort it out. Is it significant? Because you can sit back and say, we are such great Americans. We believe in democracy and we're going to have fair elections and we're going to let the majority sort all these problems out. But, you know, the one election that I remember and read a whole lot about, that there are significant, many times in a very negative way. And the one I'm thinking about is 1948. And that was when LBJ orchestrated one of the worst thefts in history about stealing the Senate seat. And so he gets elected and he has a career afterwards. He gets in there and he was just determined to have political power. And he ended up getting, he ended up becoming president. And he, of course, then inherited the Vietnam War. And he was a terrible, terrible war monger. But he did this and he ended up with this tremendous power. But come 1968, you know, 20 years after that, he was first elected. I mean, he was in big political trouble. You know, he, it was discovered the first primary in New Hampshire. That he has been, you know, hurt. He was politically weak. And he dropped out of the race suddenly. It was a big event when LBJ had dropped out of the race. And then, of course, it wasn't long after that, he went back to Texas. And he spent all the time. He got exactly what he was aiming for. And he died a miserable death. I mean, he was one who didn't take care of his health. And I guess he gets to that point. He has all that power where he had nothing. So within a year or so, he died of just bad health. But it was, it was something I always thought about. Spend a lifetime with a goal of getting power.  You know, Ron, if you're from the chairman, chairman of the bank, I mean, you're going to have a lot of power. I don't want power, but I wouldn't, I don't shy away from the fact that if I can have a little bit of influence on the issues of the day, I'm willing to participate in that. But they deal in power. Everything is power. That's what's going on. Because I claim these elections are, you know, a farce because when it comes to, you know, the process that we're going to have fair, fair election, they're a farce because in one way they're fighting tooth and nails to find out whether LBJ types are going to win or somebody else with some different views. But they fight, they fight over that. But they don't, they never stop and think that what is, what is it going to come of all this? So they do this and there's no stopping it. It just continues for forever and ever. And the LBJ case was a typical example of that. But they really want, they want the power of it. And that is what they're doing today. It's power because when you think about it, if you want to deal in the area of philosophy, should you pick the Democrats, pick the Republicans, or even sometimes the Libertarian Party and think that you're going to have a crystal clear position of saying what we believe in. Well, it's very easy to mock the two big parties, the two major parties, because which party is going to end the Fed? All the special interests have control of both parties. Which one, well, I have to say that I mentioned that the 20 years in this century was a little bit better than some of the other 20 years. But foreign policy, if you look at it, it really doesn't change. Daniel had pointed out earlier that sometimes you'll say one thing. The President will say one thing, but not really do it. The troops are still out there. The military industrial complex is going to remain very, very powerful. Are we going to repeal the whole principles of the welfare state? Are we going to all of a sudden have a majority vote that's going to systematically every year cut the budget 3% of years or 1% a year? Sometimes a member will do that. They'll say cut this program 10% and they wouldn't vote for it. 5%, they wouldn't vote for it. 1%, they wouldn't vote for that either. No, the spending is going to continue. The deficits are going to continue to explode. The attack on civil liberties are going to be horrendous. And this whole thing, and I think one of the biggest threats to us right now, is the whole issue of the social media being nothing more than the arm of the government. And I think that has really played great harm to our First Amendment. Our First Amendment, when I left Congress this last go around, the one thing I put on the top of the list is if we lose the First Amendment, we lose the chance to talk here and do it. And we are. Daniel mentioned it. Others have mentioned it. We read stories about it. Well, you will get can. Oh, yeah. And then they hide behind. Well, we can do that because if we're a private company, we heard the lecture today that there's nothing very private about it. It's crony capitalism, what it is. That is worse. And the real downside of all that is that the Marxists who are marching in, not with armies, they're not invading us, but they have invaded our universities for over 100 years. And they have become a structure here because the Marxists are there with the great deal of influence. And that is where the real problem is. And yet we cannot say, well, we can't do anything. We're still in this room. We're still talking. I know people get cut off on the internet, but we have to expose people. And more and more people are recognizing this now. But back to where we started, the internet. The internet can be our best friend. In spite of all this, and because I wasn't really into technology, I saw the internet as a real blessing in many ways it was competing, even though it's very, very weak competition because of their control that it's used against us. But that is something that I think we still have a chance with because we still can reach more people. And we can do the pamphleteering one way or the other. And that's what really is important is the pamphleteering. These problems that we face are ideological. They're not lack of military. Look at the military power we have.  And oh yeah, but every president wants to rebuild, build up the military, more and more weapons. And it's all part of the military industrial complex to do it. So to me, it's all ideological. And that's the reason that we have the Mises Institute. That's the reason that you're here because ideas do have consequences. And it's such a, as far as I'm concerned, a wonderful idea, personal liberty. And how do you define personal liberty? No violence. You can't commit any violence against anybody else. Pretty simple rule. No lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing. Would that be pretty neat, wouldn't it? And would that mean you're un-American? To some people, that's un-American. But no, that is really part of the American early spirit, is that we shouldn't be killing each other. And we should think of volunteerism and participation in a free market. And also, if we were moving in this direction, the founders thought counterfeiting was one of the worst things you do. They actually had established the death penalty for counterfeiting the money. So here we are, we have the counterfeiters. There's more counterfeiting done by our government and the governments of the world and the monetary issue than any private organization was. So private people finally get caught at it. But it seems like the free, this attitude that there's something for free and the people get tempted by this and saying, yeah, so we have to participate. Just think of what's happened this year. I can't even keep up with the trillions. It's at least $3 trillion. And this is supposed to solve the whole problem. The crack up boom, I think, I think we must be about that close to it because last week was a horrendous week when you saw the stock market doing this, gold doing this, crypto doing this, debt doing this.  And probably longer than we think it should, that's for sure. But the one place where I think we're way ahead of where we were even 100 years ago is the crispness that we can define what we believe in because I think liberty is more understandable. When I first went to Congress, most of them never even heard the word libertarian. So, and the other thing is I never dreamed that people would galvanize around and defend, you know, and they have. So that's a major, that's a big thing to happen, but the people who want it though want it for a very special reason. And this sets the stage to open up the door to the mob that, you know, the marches that have gotten into Congress because they tear us down because of capitalism, but they're describing and they can attack us because it's crony capitalism. They're not attacking us, they don't even understand what we want, but yes, it sets the stage for identifying something where we can understand. They're getting a lot of points for this. The marches get a lot of points for this, but I think the views are better. I think there's a better understanding on monetary policy in spite of modern monetary theory, which is pretty old, that the people are more understanding of this. And I think that the big thing that we have to wonder is when will we overcome moving in the direction of Venezuela?  That's why numbers aren't totally the answer to the issue. It isn't like 51%. You want people support and you want support by a majority of people because the government we have can only exist with support from the people. When the support is diminished by the people, then it just goes away. I think the most miraculous thing of the 20th century was the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism, the Soviet communism, because there were no nuclear weapons. I was drafted in the 60s. I was in the military and there was a cold war going on there and there was a lot of legitimate concerns of who's gonna drop nuclear weapon. But all of a sudden it just was gone. And even at that time I was delighted but I was concerned that they weren't gonna quite come to us completely to the libertarian view but they would probably end up being modified republicans or something. And it didn't work. But it ended without a nuclear holocaust. So things, and it was just sort of a walk away. Koushya, it was just amazing. He just walked away, he sent no tanks into Europe and it was done. So we need another miracle like that and that's a miracle or a consequence of just reality. And the reality is that there's no reason why we can't win because what we're challenged by are a bunch of people who have no idea what liberty's about, no idea how to create prosperity, no idea what monetary policy is, no idea about how we should have peace because even though the warmongers are out there and they stir up these wars that the people really don't want wars. I always say, the wars don't start by the teenagers getting together in one country and going to another country and getting their teenagers because they're the ones who have to fight the war and get killed, so the teenagers get together. They say, let's have a war, it sounds like a lot of fun. It's insane, but it happens over and over and over again because of the propaganda. Not because the majority of the people start off by saying they like peace because the majority of the people like peace but they end up being complacent and listening to the demagogues. Just think how badly the demagogues have been winning this whole nonsense on the propaganda over the coronavirus. You know, we don't, the Soviets aren't the enemy. It's, you know, we're masochistic. We make ourselves the enemy and create things to be fearful of and that is something to do with human nature, but the only thing I can see is continuing to preach the truth, the truth about what liberty is all about. It's been experimented with many, many years, hundreds, if not thousands of years, there's been bits and pieces of what liberty is all about and there's no reason to think that we can't continue to improve on that. That is why I like to come to organizations and meetings like this and that's why I compliment the Mises Institute to continue what, to do what they do and I want to thank all of you for supporting the Mises Institute and also because of your encouragement that you give me. Thank you very much.


Hello, and welcome to the Jenkins documentation office hours. Today is September 9th, September 7th, sorry. That's my American showing. I can't read things properly, but is September 7th. This is the EU U.S. edition and today we have myself and Bruno Vrockman joining. Mark is unavailable to join it today. So if Chris Stern or anyone else has time to show up, we'll welcome them in. Other than that, we'll go over the agenda. So for the agenda today, we have several blog posts that were published in the last two weeks, roughly a couple beyond that, but still related to others. So they're listed there. The Google center of code is Getting to the end of its project, which is really exciting. A lot of the projects have that made great strides and are close to complete, if not already completed. So we'll talk about that. The process of choosing a plugin and build materials version, the Java 11, 17, and 21 support proposal for Jenkins. This is something that Mark's been working on and other developments have happened with Mark not here. We might not have his nice planning schedule proposal, but even still that's something that we've been discussing. This is something that I noticed has been in the open pull requests that Bruno actually really saw because I saw your recent comment on it about users suggesting what about using W get instead of curl. Oh, yeah, we'll talk about that a little bit. I think it's just a good topic to talk about here in the office hours. The Jenkins doc contribute a project. This is something that hasn't necessarily been brought up here in documentation hours previously, but we're actually getting to the point of being ready to or gearing up to publish and make things live in the coming weeks. So I do want to talk about that and also see if there might be anyone that can help out with some of the HTML generation. And then last up on the agenda for today, I have DevOps world tour that's starting next week and we're going to have Jenkins after hours sessions. I forget exactly what Mark called them earlier, but Once the DevOps world tour day is complete, or if it's two days like next week in New York, we're going to have Jenkins discussion time after hours meeting social hour. I don't know what we're talking about. I think for time being it's called let's talk about Jenkins. That's perfect. So after DevOps world tour is over, we have let's talk about Jenkins. Thank you, Bruno. You're welcome. Is there anything else that you feel needs to go on the agenda or you want to discuss today? No, I think we're good. I just have found the URL of Mark's proposal for GTK 1117 and 21. Oh, beautiful. So I put the link in the document. Awesome. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Okay. So first up. So, so we've had several blog posts published recently. The risk five blog posts for Bruno and Dr. Compose and GitLab plugin from Parche and Ash Tosh respectively were published just prior to the two week. But yeah, like I said, we're including them because they have to do with Google Summer Code. And they are recapping their project work, which is great to see. They're sharing their insights, their challenges, their successes, everything from their projects, which is really nice to see. It's just great work all around from the Google Summer Code participants for their consistent work and dedication to getting these things taken care of. And then the risk five blog post that Bruno had written is really nice. It paints a great picture of what the future can look like for Jenkins, including Java support, Risk Five, Arch64, Arm64. Just kind of like all the different developmental options that Jenkins could have going forward. And thank you. Yeah, of course. Is there anything that you'd like to point out, call out, or? No. I think it's the first post about JDK 21. And we'll see lots of more posts by people who know what they are talking about. For example, Mark Wait about JDK 21 because I'm all, when it comes to experimenting, I love what I'm doing. But I'm not the one who worked the most on JDK 21 for Jenkins. Not at all. It was fun to experiment with JDK 21 and Risk Five at the same time. And yeah, you will see more articles about JDK 21 and we'll talk about that maybe later in the meeting. No worries about the image. No copyright or whatever. It has been generated with AI, of course. But which doesn't mean that the AI hasn't ingested things that were proprietary first. I honestly didn't even, I didn't notice the Jenkins logo on the hood of the car the first time. So I actually just noticed it and that's why it's up here. I really, that's just funny and I like it. Yeah. And there are also Jenkins written on the front part on the grill, you know, Jenkins. Oh yeah, look at that. And this one was not AI generated. Same for the hood. It's just my poor skills on Photoshop. Anyhow. Could have fooled me, no worries. I like it. We'll talk about my headshots next time. But yeah, so fantastic. Thank you so much, Bruno, for that and a bit of insight. And then the last two blog posts we have listed here. So Mark just wrote this yesterday. It's just a brief, brief, brief preview of what DevOps World 2023 will look like for the Jenkins project. So introductions to Tim Jacome, Olivia Alami and Mark Wait. What their backgrounds are, what their marks is goes into a little bit about what he's going to be talking about. But yeah, just a quick little preview for those attending or those wanting to attend. And then this was just published yesterday as well later in the day. But this is part of the Artifactory bandwidth reduction project that has been going on for some time now. Just some updates regarding Maven central caching and kind of what we're learning with the respective downtimes that have been going on. This is helping us figure out what is causing bandwidth overuse. We did have some, we've had issues recently with overuse by some users. We've managed to nip some of that in the bud, but not all of it. So this is still the ongoing process of how can we make the usage a little bit less, well, huge, I guess is the best way to put it. Jay frog would love for us to get down a little bit further than we're at now. So that's the that's the goal of the project. That's what we're working on. Anything else on the blog posts? No, thank you. Okay, I was making sure. Great. So then next up Google summer code. So as I had mentioned earlier, Google summer code is getting towards the back end of things at this point. I know that we still have a few weeks and that the participants are going to be creating their recap blog posts to do a full just kind of retrospective on their project and what they worked on and everything. That's what we use and have used in the past for Google as one of the one of the project completion points for Google is having a full summary of participants project and the work they did. So the blog posts that will be coming out and then have been published are those those recaps. So there should be a few more coming, but that's only that's the and that's due to the fact that Djigrude has submitted a few different blog posts regarding the different probes that she had worked on. But that's their smaller individual blog posts for each probe as opposed to a full recap blog post so little things. But as far as the projects go, so the doc compose has been successfully completed four out of five tutorials are now executing with a single command. And there is some remaining work to take on, but the projects that that's been completed. So this is all, you know, after the fact this is in addition to not something that we needed to do to get past the finish line. So that's fantastic. The next. So then we've got the version documentation for building Jenkins I owe that body and been working on the demo site has been really great to see Vandy and crystal have been demoing this respectively at various meetings over the last couple weeks for the Jenkins project and the Jenkins community, which is great to see. And they're getting to the point where they're it's they're almost out of working site just amazing. That's been integration needs some work and they just abandoned the strap strappy backend idea, which was specifically for blog post reviews. And then, yeah, so we're going to continue to use GitHub for blog post reviews, no surprises there. There are still some links that need to be fixed and updated to make sure that they're pointing and directing properly. But that's something that they're working on. And we'll just take care of as we go along. That could even be potentially something for October past if that's necessary. But we'll see how much access or knowledge you need for that. Next under the Google summer code. So the GitLab plugin modernization project has completed successfully as well, which is great. Harsh has actually agreed to continue as a plug in maintainer. And that's a first time a contributor became a maintainer for Google summer code. So that is amazing in and of itself. Just thank you, Harsh, for the work and for stepping up to maintain the plug in as well. That's amazing. And that's really heartening to see from the Google summer code. It does still need some more testing, but it's completed. And, you know, that's the main point here. Everything will need some work and maintenance after the fact. That's just how things go. So knowing that, but having it completed and ready to go and have Harsh's enthusiasm and dedication to that is, yeah, like I said, really heartening. And then finally, the plug in health scores. Yeah, there have been a couple of probes. There have been several probes that have been looked to be completed and merged. There might be one other one that I'm forgetting about right now. But everything looks to be going well here. Yeah, this, this is actually the project documentation might need additional documentation here for the plug in health score. And that could be something that we do for Hacktoberfest. Adrienne would still be available and could guide or potentially help with that. But if we do a Hacktoberfest, that gives the opportunity for anyone else to come in and help out. So, yeah, we'll get opportunity there. Anything else on Google Summer Code projects for now that you want to mention or highlight? Not really. In fact, we're almost good. As you told earlier, Ashutosh has passed years finished the Google Summer Code, except that we still have to, you know, create some pull requests on Jenkins IO because we want to modify the existing documentation. And there has been no progress on this area yet. The thing is, we can't change the documentation and point to Ashutosh on Docker Hub Registry. So, yeah. So, they will come when they will come. Okay, great. Good to know. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda. So, this is something that we've been discussing in the last handful of weeks is how to describe our project. So, yeah. So, yeah. So, yeah. So, yeah. So, yeah. So, yeah. So, yeah. So, this is something that we've been discussing in the last handful of weeks is how to describe the process of choosing a plugin bill of materials version. So, this is a result of a discussion being started in this PR that Kyle had submitted. So, basically saying that the instructions are a little unclear or not explicit when saying which bomb version to choose based on the Jenkins version itself. There are a couple of different pages to go to to get the releases. So, for instance, there's our GitHub release page where you can scroll through and see. You can also search here. But the other end of that is. Yeah, this one just lists them out here very directly straightforward. And Kyle is saying this is this is just easier to kind of navigate because it's more clear and direct in that sense. And then Mark responded saying like hey like what if we do something where we have that bomb version and we explain like what this is for or like the specific use case you would want this for such as having 2.361.x be the first one to require job 11 or 3.46 being the last Jenkins to support job 8. So, yeah, that would help. This week as I was trying to help a user who was having some trouble with the palm plugin. I say, oh, you know what I try my luck. I will try to update the palm plugin just in case, you know, because he was trying to use it on bookworm and it used to work on db on 11 but it doesn't work. It's working more on db on 12. Anyway, so I said, hey, why not try to use the improve a plugin tutorial while I'm there so that the plugin will be more updated with good practices. And in one part of the document, there is bomb that you have, you know, I think it's done with update here I whatever it's bomb 2.387. Okay, why should I choose this one? I have no idea how is it linked to the version, the minimal version of Jenkins I'm supposed to use. I have no idea either. And then later on in the tutorial, another step uses a bomb with 2.375 something. Why this one? Yeah, that if I ID, yeah, why so definitely we need something better. Yeah, definitely. I think Mark had mentioned even using the update CLI to do that sort of thing. If I'm not mistaken, that was an option that he had. Yeah, that could be an option that we use the future and I think he actually with Asia Docs office hours I think they determined where they could add in this. This, this exact sort of guidance and if we go to the bomb repo in the default read me here. Yeah, I think this is the one. Yeah, this is the one that Mark went to now and read me for the bomb repo. So there has been some update, but yeah, it's not nothing that has been enough to move this original PR. Yeah, maybe we need to discuss it a little bit more before doing the change, but yeah, it's cool that we have this discussion on the community. Yeah, exactly. This is kind of thing that is really useful, not only for like this instance, but going forward to other instances or if this comes up again in the future, maybe we can take what we learned here and even improve further. It's one of those just kind of like universal gives us a good way to figure out what the best course of actions. The next thing on the agenda is the Java 11 Java 17 and Java 21 support proposal that Mark's been working on. So the long and short of it is Java 11 is currently supported as well as Java 17 and Java 21 is going to be supported in Jenkins as well. We've been working on testing with Java 21. So this has been happening and it's happening a lot faster than originally anticipated. So the odds of Jenkins supporting Java 21 after its release this month, very, very, very highly likely. If not, it's going to happen. So I did ultimately, the idea is we want to get on a cadence or a kind of routine where we are able to update according to the Java update flow. Because it's very much a work in progress. There's still a lot that needs to be done here. But yeah, the idea is that we have a plan in place to drop Java 11 support eventually include Java 17 support potentially require Java 17 and then supporting Java 21 and when we can when we might start requiring Java 21. And even then that's been a bit of a discussion. Some developers feel that maybe just skipping Java 17 requirement and just requiring Java 21 could be beneficial. It does provide, you know, got much more power functionality tooling testing, etc, etc, etc. But that is. Yeah, that's that's a little further away from the rest of this right now. Is there anything else that you wanted to share about the or any insights you have on that one, Bruno? No, I don't have that many, but I think the goal is to have Jenkins support each LTS version of Java for four years. Java will be supporting their LTS for six years, but I think we will get rid of the two last years and move to the next LTS version. I think that's the goal today. But as you say, there are still lots of discussion to be had. Yeah, we have to discuss that more and more and more. But hopefully Jenkins will be able to support JDK 21 by the end of October. Yeah, and yeah, that's the goal. I'm actually running through the documentation right now to make sure things work like the tutorials, just when Java 21 is in play like that. So far, so good. So everything seems to be going pretty smoothly on that part, which is nice. Java 21 seems to be proving pretty useful in a lot of test cases and experimentation that's been going on. So that part, at the very least, is encouraging to see. And yeah, lots more to come on that. This pull request, I just wanted to bring up and have a short discussion about it. So the reason being is this user brought up that the way that they've gone ahead and installed and set up their Jenkins not using Perl, their default or their their main action was using W get. And so this is all very dependent on how you're setting up your own operating system, your own Jenkins instance. So it's not consistently an issue or something that's hard and fast tied to a specific usage. This person, they just happen to have W get as their like default in this case, let's say. Yeah, so it looks like it's default on Ubuntu, but I've never ever met an instance of Ubuntu, Debian, whatever, without curl. I think it's one of the first things I install. But yeah, I can get it. Some people get a fresh installation of human to with nothing, no additional package install and then they try to install Jenkins and it fails. But as I wrote, I'm in the middle of the bridge. I don't know if that's it's US idea. Maybe I was trying to translate something French that doesn't make sense in English, but whatever. I don't know. Each of the two proposition makes sense to me. You can keep curl and say, oh, it's a prerequisite by the way, or okay, we could switch to using double you get as each and every destroyer is supposed to have it. I don't know what's your feedback about that. So I was I was thinking. I was looking at it and I was looking at your response Bruno and I was thinking that either some kind of disclaimer potentially at the top of a page at some of the on the top of some of these pages or potentially if there's a specific section that seems to be a worse offender than others maybe. But yeah, I would say the disclaimer in my head instead of saying something like you should have curl installed is something like if you don't have curl installed use, you know, this is what that's where you would put your action item or like, and if if you're not using curl replace curl with W get or something like that. Yeah. I don't know. I recognize my phrasing is not ideal. That's not what you meant, but yeah, we could do something better. Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is like, even if even if we don't encourage them to install or use or like install something specific or use something specific. If we just trust that they know what they're doing. Trust in the reader is sometimes tough because you want to give them as much help obviously without, you know, making it too dumb down at the same time but I feel like there might be something we could do where we don't necessarily replace because I don't want to replace curl with W get throughout the documentation. I think curl is and like you said, pretty universally used and installed on default. But yeah, just something small to say hey if if you don't have this use this or something like that. But that would also that requires the user to know what they have installed and what they're using and yeah, it could it could be tough. I think it just but it really boils down to the user who's performing these actions and their knowledge of their environment. Yeah. I forgot the name of what I want to talk about but do you think we could have an expandable section, you know, just in case if you don't have curl and then they click and something appeals with W get command instead of curl. Or do we have a little things a shadow thing or yeah like like an example drop down or like that you could that would be collapsed but could be expanded and then if yep and it says if you don't have curl use this thing. I like that too. Yeah, that's I mean and that's the kind of thing that I was thinking because I don't want to put a disclaimer at the top of every page or like at you know at all the install pages or something. Something like that might be a better option, especially because we could put it just in front of code blocks, where this would come up instead of whole page so yeah, yeah, I like that idea. It's a little more elegant, but yeah, but I thanks for discussing that with me ever know I think it was like I said a great example of where there could be questions or challenges to the documentation but we have to. It's not like an easy decision it's something that we definitely need to talk about as a community and a project. So I noticed we're at time. I will do the DevOps world tour info really quickly. I would like to take a minute just to talk about the computer project if that's okay with you Bruno. Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Thank you. Yeah. So DevOps world tour starts next week. Again, we're going to be touching multiple locations multiple countries across the world. New York, Chicago and Santa Clara, California are going to be our US stops mark wait will be attending all of those and we'll be giving a talk as well. And then after the end of all of these DevOps world tour sessions we're going to have Jenkins let's talk about Jenkins time. So once the conference is over, we'll have separate, separate session where we'll be able to talk all things Jenkins. Mark will be at the California the US ones, Olivia Lamy and Ginger Khan will be at the Singapore and London ones respectively, and they'll be getting their own talks there as well. Again, the preview page blog post went up today so it is there for further information and the DevOps world tour site is still available for registration, if you haven't already got. And last thing on the agenda so brief summary, we've been working on this for some for some time now. We want to recognize and acknowledge and spotlight highlight and show appreciation for the top contributors to the Jenkins project. This is an open source project that would not be where it is if it were not for the contributions and the dedication and hard work of the community and the contributors that continue to prop Jenkins up as it is today. So we are working on getting a compilation of contributor stories. Each of the top contributors has been will be responding to a questionnaire sent out or doing an interview with me, where we can capture their stories or experiences, etc, etc. And then we're going to be publishing these live on either the Jenkins.io site or stories. But basically, we just want to show and spotlight the various contributors to Jenkins and give them their moment in the sun that they deserve for all this. We've gotten to the point now where we're getting responses back. And our next step is to create a landing page slash overview page for the contributors and the individual contributor pages themselves. Just to shout out Christina piece of gaily who put this mock up together just amazing and just really wonderful to work with thank you so much Christina for doing this. This is just the really nice little landing page that we discussed simple. We'll have a different 25 is not hard and fast that's not going to be a part of that text there but that'll be changed. We have the contributors. And then we'll have the individual contributor page like this where we'll have their interview posted links location. This is also to show just how global the reach of the Jenkins project is and get people connected get people some background to the folks that they might work with and never really get to chance to talk to. That looks cool. Yeah, really excited and yeah Christina did amazing with this just coming up with a mock up. Alyssa and I met with her this past Tuesday and she was able to get this put together in a couple days. So yeah just once again massive thanks to her and appreciate the ability to be open to this and helping us out with this. So if anyone has any sort of HTML skills and would be interested in helping put this together HTML is not my forte unfortunately am not a developer. So if anyone has any HTML skills they want to flex share and maybe even show me how to do some things more than happy to take a look. I have posted in the UX Gitter channel as well. So it is there too but yeah if anyone has any insights or would like to assist in building that site. Just let me know. I don't unfortunately you know contributor recognition and appreciation is a massive subject for open source communities. I'm part of something called community maintainers on GitHub. It's a special repo where people discuss about their open source community and lately there has been a subject called contributor recognition and appreciation and all the people participating are facing the same issue as we have. How should we put people under the light and frankly there is no answer. Everybody does things more or less looking the same and they're not happy with that. No magical skills or one or whatever that can help. Lots of people have thought of technical solutions to this for example you know finding all the contributors in their GitHub repose and then crafting automatically page which lists all the contributors with their avatars or whatever. But most of the time it almost works but it does not work. There are lots of manual integration things to modify by hand afterwards because they also want to link that to people as LinkedIn account for example Twitter account whatever and you have to do that by hand because people may be called as me put down on the platform. On another one and so it doesn't match so the technical solution is not there. I think we may gather some statistics whatever but there will be some things to do by real human. I'm afraid it's that it's funny that you mentioned that because when we were discussing different ways to highlight and appreciate that one of the things that I had thought of was one of those contributor kind of bought display tables. Yeah that's about to is called all contributors bought. Yeah okay of course. Yeah that's the one I was looking at and then when I was trying to set it up in my own repo to test it out. Those are the exact things I found out myself to how it's a lot more work and involved than it feels like it should. Yeah it looks like a good idea until you try to work with it. Yeah but yeah it's good to know that that other people are having kind of facing the same thing. It's definitely a hot topic and in my own research and trying to figure out how we can do this appreciation. I mean it's tough with open source projects not being for profit necessarily takes like it's hard to do recognition in a form in a forum where there is not necessarily a monetary value associated with that appreciation or like that hard work that you're putting in. And it's like it takes passion it takes dedication it takes a lot of things that unfortunately do not always get valued in how we would maybe like them to. But yeah there's yeah sorry. Oh no I was going to say there's it remembers me of the things I used to say to my kids when they were younger you know they were waiting for a reward when they were getting good marks. You know I plus or something I should get something you know a candy money something no the reward is into the good mark you got you learn something and you had a plus that's a reward. And it's difficult for people working in open source because the reward is having a good product a product that people love people that people use that's the main reward. And talking about yourself bragging about your skills you know being put in the front page that's uncomfortable. So it's difficult to find the right ways to put people under the light but it's also difficult to put those people to put them under the light because they don't feel like they deserve it or that's not the main point of their engagement they just want to help. Yeah, I think without giving anything away one of the responses that we've received from the project. Basically is all passion all heart you know just loves helping wants to be part of it just loves Jenkins because of how much it's helped them and how much like how much they've invested into it so it's like. They're very aware of all of this you know and it's not to take anything away or to say like oh you're not being appreciated but you know that is the kind of dedication passion that like drives all this open source development. And it's just like acknowledging that aspect and sharing that giving that effect that infectious like joy and spark to other people maybe like that's all it takes or, you know, I feel like the interviews and questionnaire and responses are pretty like low risk in in terms of that person being highlighted and stuff. Yeah, there there's going to be some fanfare associated but there should be the work that they're doing is unreal and necessary and huge and like just pushes us forward. It gives us, you know, gives us more work to do. It's the driving force so it needs to be appreciated these people need to be appreciated and highlighted, like highlighted is one aspect of it but the appreciation needs to happen for. I mean, I know I feel better and will continue to do things when I know it's appreciated. Yeah. So, but yeah, the project's coming along really well, we're, you know, we're getting a lot of good stuff. We're in a good really good place with it. It's just a matter of getting it published in live, more than anything else. And yeah, once we start publishing them they're just going to be coming out on a, you know, hopefully regular cadence of, you know, by every other week. And here you say be weekly by weekly. No, no, you didn't say that regularly. It's a sufficiently vague term to say that we will make it. Yeah, whenever we can. Yeah, it will be out regularly. But yeah, this way we everyone gets a time their time to kind of shine in the spotlight without being overwhelmed. And yeah, I think it's just nice to give that personal aspect to to these as well. For me joining an open source community has been really fun and great because I get to interact with a plethora of people I've never met in person before and from all different walks of life. And I might, but I might not ever get to connect with them on a personal basis. This is this is a really nice opportunity to get that connection, even if it's not direct with that person, you can still, you know, that comfort level is increased by just knowing that, you know, I found out one of our top contributors is super into music and is actually has been playing trumpet for 15 years. Oh, I don't think I would have even asked that question. So it's really, it's really cool to get insight into someone like this. And yeah, I have high hopes that it's going to be a really nice recognition project and that the contributors will feel good after this. I mean, my angle is making sure that the contributors feel appreciated. So that's really all. And more or less discover the real human being hiding behind the contributor. Yeah, yeah, exactly. That Butler is the face of Jenkins but all the internal body parts and stuff like that. They're all people. Anyway, nice one. Yeah, we won't get into which body parts or who. Anyway, okay. I'm not the brains. That's all I'm saying. Anyway, so that concludes the agenda I had for today. Thanks for sticking around for the extra time. I appreciate it. Thank you for the discussion today. Thank you. Really nice. The recording will be up in 24 to 48 hours. And we'll be back next week. Until then, take care. And thank you as always.