Hi there, my name is Sandy Allnacht and I'm an artist and paper crafter here on YouTube and I'm going to be making some spotted puppy slider cards today. I'll make three cards and I'm using some stamps and dies from my favorite things. They're a new dog set. They have several dog sets but this is the one that just came out last month. And what I decided to do was make black and white spotted puppies because I have a black and white spotted puppy myself. She's not a kind of porky little puppy like these are. She's more of a lanky puppy. She's a border collie but she has great markings that are really fun to color on parts. So I'm going to be making all of these dogs look like her. They're all going to be black and white.  It's like marking the best spot to itch any dog. It's right there where they can't reach. And I'm just going to add the color on each one of these puppies.  So I did them first so that I could get them all organized and ready to go and know that I wasn't going to mess up my coloring afterward.   She likes to dig holes. This is her thing. I think she's trying to make her way to China. I might have to buy her a plane ticket instead because she's trying to do it the manual way. Fortunately she doesn't do it anywhere near the fence so she's not going to escape. However she does seem to like to just turn over the garden soil. Bless her heart. So I'm coloring all those gray areas and I thought I'd throw some other color in here. I wanted to do some really simple designs, very simple kinds of colorway so I was going to do black and white with a pop of color and I chose blue for my pop. If you know B04 it's not nearly this light. I had some issues with trying to get the camera settings right on this because I had the black paper behind it so I could really compare the color to black. However now my camera picked up weirdness so the color looks a little bit on the lighter side on all these other areas so it is a much darker color than that. I'm going around now to soften some of those areas of the C3 with C0. I've had a lot of people ask do you have to color something right away in order to get the blending to happen. Well you noticed that I put the C3 down a few minutes ago and then took time to do my blue before going back to this blending. I find that it still works. The moisture that I'm putting down with the C0 is still adding moisture to the paper so it's going to relight things. I've had images where I started coloring one evening and then finished it the next day and it was perfectly fine. So I don't feel you have to continue it right that very moment but if the color doesn't seem to blend just add a little bit more of the lighter color that you may need to work at it a little bit in order to get that paper wet enough because Copic Marker blends with the moisture in the fibers of the paper. So now I'm going to use two other grays to add some dimension to all of my black spot areas and just adding just a little dab here and there. On the ears, notice that I'm giving the ears some shape so that you almost see the inside of the ear this way. You could also make the inside of the ear white because some dogs have white inside. If you're trying to do your dog check and see what color the inside of the ears are because not seven will be lighter colors or brown colors or pink colors or whatever even if it is a black and white dog like this.  I'm going to do some blending. Now I'm going to wait and allow it to set and allow it to dry a little bit before I decide whether I've finished with the blending on those areas. You'll notice that some of them don't look really perfect, but the moisture in the paper changes things. So sometimes when you're doing your coloring, you'll notice later on that something doesn't look as good as it did when you started at the first place. I can promise you that these actually do look significantly better than they do in whatever weird lighting things have happened here because they did come out very nicely. I'm going to go back and add some more gray to those spots because I want to smooth those transitions out just a little bit more. Adding some gray to a few other areas on the train and the car to make sure that they're all those covered and now that the spots are good and dry, I can see exactly where I need a little bit of extra work.  I have a trick to share with you a little bit later about how I handled the fact that the eyes had disappeared here. But first, this little train, I want to have it on a slider that goes up and down. So I'm trying this thing. I'm snipping not all the way through it, but to allow those fibers of the paper to break so that the little dog and the train can go up and down on the little slider here. So I've got my little piece of dimensional adhesive, I have a double width of it and it's stuck onto the back now of the doggies and slits through that slit on the side or die, which is also from my little things. And then I've also got the little piece of paper that's going to be on the backside. You can go from the backside too or the front side. It doesn't matter which side you start with when you're assembling a car like this. So I'll just glue the train portion on here. And my little doggy then goes along this curve. So if you have multiple pieces or you have one piece that's really long, you can still use it for a slider card. For a slider, you do need to build up the dimension on it so that those parts can move underneath of that piece of paper. So that's the dimensional adhesive under there and I'm just going to stick it onto a white card base and move it really pretty simple. Here's where the secret for the eyes comes in. This bottle of Nuvo, which is like a pearl pen or a liquid pearls type of product, but I find I can get really super tiny little eyes, little dots and it means that the eyes are going to show up on that black, the black colored areas. I'm also going to use some glossy accents on the nose. I could have used the black on the whole nose, but I thought glossy accents would be a little different and a little fun. So here is the finished cute little card. Very simple design and when you've got a really simple design, don't worry about throwing the kitchen sink at it. Let it be really adorable and especially if it's got some motion going on and an interactive card, it doesn't need a whole lot more. There's another one with one of the other puppies and since I used the heart sentiment, I punched out a heart and colored it with some pink and blue onto his mouth so he'll carry his little heart along. And then this little guy's got a roller coaster of a slider to itch for a play date and ride along. So if you enjoyed this video, please hit that like button down below. You can subscribe if you haven't yet already. You can click for more on the blog if you'd like to go pin these cards for referencing when you get the stamp set and make a card with them. And there's also a couple other videos here if you'd like to see some others by me. And I will see you guys later. Have a really wonderful day. Go out and make something beautiful. See you next time.


So where are all the actions? As people continue to wander in, since I only have 35 minutes into the 50 minute talk or an hour long talk, I'm gonna have to get started. My name is Dan Walsh. I lead the container team at Red Hat. Today we're gonna be talking about new container technologies that we've been developing over the last year, year and a half.  So this assured is a fairly popular shirt at Red Hat. And a lot of times we talk about containers and the way I like to describe containers is they're just simply processes on a Linux system. And if you, one way to describe containers is to say that they're processes that are controlled by three things. One of them is C groups, so resource constraints, basically taking a group of processes, putting things like memory, CPU utilization and trying to control how much they use so they don't affect other groups of processes on the system. The second thing to think about when you talk about containers is security constraints. So basically I wanna make sure that this group of processes doesn't interfere with this group of process. So there's no escalations, things like that. And then the third thing you think about with containers is stuff called namespaces. So namespaces gives you that virtualization feel. So it's sort of, there's a pid namespace. As soon as a process chooses to join a pid namespace it loses view of all the other processes on the system. Similar amount namespaces, join a mountain namespace. Everything you mount from then on is not seen by your parent. So your amount table starts to diverge from your parent's mount table is. So those are the three things that basically make up containers. So C groups, some kind of security constraints and then namespaces. If you boot up a modern Linux system, a REL, like a REL 7 system or a newer, you would see that PID 1 inside of a system D that boots up the system. If you went and looked at it you would see that you could cat out PROC 1 slash C groups and you would see that PID 1 is inside of C groups. That's C groups associated with it. If you cat it out, if you went to PROC 1 and you could see that system D is running with SE Linux constraints. It has users associated with it. If you cat out PROC 1 slash SATS you'd see capabilities associated with it. Lastly, if you went to PROC 1 slash NS you would see the namespaces associated with PID 1. So when you boot up a Linux system, everything in the Linux system is in a C group, has security constraints and has namespaces. So by the definition of those things being required for a container, everything on a Linux system is a container and that's why the shirt says Linux is containers and on the backs it says containers of Linux. So really the whole Linux system is built to build these containers. Now container run times are all about basically modifying those constraints. So further locking down what a PROC is able to do on the system. So lastly when people ask me can I do that in a container? Can I run this in a container? I always say can you run it on Linux? If the answer is yes then you can run it in a container. Okay, so we're gonna talk about the next generation but let's start by doing this. Please read out loud all text in red. This is excellent. The container registry is rather than the author registry. This is rather than the author registry. Excellent. Okay, so since we're trying to do this talk without using the docker word, we have to put out the swidge for those that are maybe native to the US.  So if I say the D word during this I will have to put money in there. But the real point to this is to point out that so that the D word is sort of dominated the conversation and it's really just one form of doing containers. And I believe in a lot of ways because of that we've been sort of hindered, right? To five years ago, and I'll say it now, Docker came along and they sort of revolutioned. They got all this container stuff to take off and all of a sudden it became the only way of doing it. And just, but containers are nothing more than process on a Linux system. And because of that we've had some hindrances in my opinion. And what I want to look at is new tools to be able to do this container technology and be able to expand it. So when I look at it, what do you need to do to run a container? So what does it mean that I want to run a container on a system? Break it down, what I'm trying to do here is break it down into core components. So when I want to run a container on a system first of all I have to identify what a container is. Okay, and that's really sort of, what is a container? What is a container image? So most people when they refer to it are actually referring to container images, right? I want to pull something from Docker I.O. That's a site, I don't have to pay for that one. So they want to pull some kind of application down. And what happened, the real start of the Docker Revolution was that they standardized on this concept of an image. And what an image was is a tar ball in some JSON file. So what you do is it created what's called a RutaFest. A RutaFest is just a directory that looks like root on a Linux system. And then I created a JSON file that basically describes what's in the RutaFest. Then I tie the thing up together. So I use the tar tape archive tool in Linux and I tie those up. Now I can have what's called layered images which is basically I'm gonna install something on top of that RutaFest. So I tie up the first one and I install something new. Now I tie up the difference from the original code to the new one in the tar ball and I created another JSON file that modifies the original JSON file and I tie that up and that's a layered image.  And in this case we call that website a container registry. So a container registry and then we build a protocol to pull those images back and forth. So when we came out with these tar balls originally there was no standard. There's no standard for it and everybody was just using the de facto standard basically what Docker did in the beginning. And so what they did in the beginning everybody was fine with that for a little while and then all of a sudden CoreOS came along. And CoreOS had a different technology they had a technology called Rocket. And what they wanted to do with Rocket is they wanted to be able to support out their own application container images and what they decided to do was they came out with they wanted to standardize on it though. They didn't want one company to be able to control what it is. And if you think about the problems of controlling what the data, the data images, just think of Microsoft. So Microsoft came out with dot doc format back in the 1990s and what Microsoft would do is every single release of their operating system they would basically change dot doc format. So all of a sudden people couldn't send documents around unless you bought the latest windows or the latest office products, right? So if you had Windows 95 and all of a sudden Windows 2000 comes out, all of a sudden people would build documents on Windows 2000 and you wouldn't be able to review them on Windows 95. And of course Microsoft also was able to get like LibreOffice and OpenOffice and all these other tools weren't able to interoperate. So what we wanted to do is get a standard a standard application in CoreOS that we have to have a standard on what this image format was. And so they came out with the App-C spec. Now App-C spec was different than what was the Docker image. So there was a problem with that and I prepaid for the next one. So all of a sudden the big industry companies like Red Hat and Microsoft and Google and IBM basically said this is gonna be bad. What's gonna happen here is all of a sudden there's gonna be multiple different specifications. So if you wanna build applications that are gonna ship in the future you're gonna have to have an App-C version. You're gonna have to have a Docker version. That was my second one. And so we really didn't want everybody having to ship different type of container images. So everybody got together and said we're gonna form a standard and that was OCI. So OCI stands for Open Container Initiative. It was a standards body originated by Red Hat, Docker, Rink, don't have to pay for that. It's the company and Microsoft, IBM, Google and maybe our CoreOS and Red Hat and maybe a couple others. But anyways they got together and they standard and as of last December they came out with the OCI image bundle format. This basically defined what goes in an image. So a lot of times we talk about images for now on and say call it on the D image, call it an OCI image. It's a standardized image form. It's based on the original D image but everybody agreed to do that. So CoreOS actually triggered this long before they were acquired by Red Hat. So the next thing you need to do, oh segue, the next thing you need to do is basically pull down an image. So this is one of the tools I'm introducing today. It's been around for a couple of years, kind of weird I'm introducing now, it's called Scopio. How many people have played with Scopio? Okay, good groupie. Scopio was introduced a few years ago and the whole idea is originally what we wanted to do is basically go out to a registry, contain a registry and look at that JSON file associated with the registry, with the image. And if you think about some of these images, I've seen JBoss images that are like hundreds of megabyte size, size getting up to the gigabyte size of these images. So the only way right now with the D tool to look at one of these JSON files associated with an image is actually to pull the image. So do you wanna pull a couple hundred megabytes just to look at this JSON file that describes the image and basically say, oh that's the wrong image, now you gotta throw it away. So what we wanted was basically to be able to do a D inspect remote, dash dash remote. We did a pull request to upstream and they said, no we don't wanna clutter up the CLI, what we wanna do is we don't wanna do that but he said it's just simple, it's just a web service, just do web protocols and you can pull down the JSON file. Build your own tool to do it. So we built a tool for that called Scopio. So Scopio which means in Greek remote viewing was a tool to basically look at a remote site and just pull down that JSON file associated with the container image. So the guy that did this on my team, Antonio Madaca, actually decided to do go further so originally he just did inspecting images to pull down that but then he started to say, well I can build the entire container image protocol, the ability to pull these images back and forth between registries and he basically built Scopio into a tool that could move images around. Now Scopio's become really cool because it can actually transition from different formats so you can actually copy down an OCI format stored inside of a, inside of a Docker daemon. You can actually pull it to local directory, she can translate from the original image format to the new image format but the really cool thing is you can actually move images from one container storage to another or one container registry to another. So a lot of people now are using Scopio to actually move images around their environment and we're getting a lot of uptake in this. So we were working with CoreOS to try to get CoreOS to embed Scopio into Rocket and they said they don't want to embed a tool, a CLI tool into Rocket. What they wanted to do is basically just use the library that Scopio was using. So that library became Container's Image. So GitHub Container's Image is now a library for moving these OCI images and old fashioned images back and forth around the environment. You're moving between registries and you don't need to have any root-based tools so you can basically sit there as a user and say copy from say my internet-based container registry and copy into my internal container registry or copy the files locally. So we became a mechanism for moving that image from the registry to the host. The next thing we needed to do is basically take that image and basically explode it on disk. In order to run an application and container we have to have that root FS re-established. So we take down those one or more layers and reassemble them. The way you do that in Linux is what's with things called copy on write file systems. You might have heard of Ovalet, DeviceMapper, ButterFS, there's a whole bunch of them. So we basically took a lot of the tooling that we had worked with the upstream and built it into a little tiny library called Container Storage. So the ability to explode images onto a copy on write file system.  And luckily OCI is standardized on that. So there's a standard mechanism for running a container and that was also specified last year, at the beginning of, yeah, last year as the OCI runtime specification. So an OCI runtime specification says that I pulled down the image and that image had that JSON file that tells me how to run the container. Well, I also have input from the user and I might have input from whatever tool is putting this all together. And I basically want to take those three inputs and combine them together. So user might come in and say, I want to run in privilege mode or I want to run without this capability or I want to volume mount in this stuff. So we need to take the user input, the application that's setting it all up, how the container word, I'm going to call container engine. And then the last step is actually to take the stuff from the image and it munges all that together and basically writes out another JSON file. So that JSON file becomes the OCI configuration and it's part of the runtime. The OCI runtime spec defines what's in that JSON file as well as what's in the root of FES. So it says you put a root of FES on the system, you put this JSON file between it and now I launch an executable that understands the JSON and configures the system. Darker Inc basically gave the first tool to do that called Run C. So Run C was the first implementation or so the de facto implementation of the OCI runtime specification. Just about every tool that runs containers now in the universe uses Run C to create the container. Okay, so Run C. So this is the steps that you needed to do to run a container on your box. Right, everybody agree with that? Anything missing?   Everybody knows it. If I ask you how do you pull an image, you tell me the deep pull. If I ask you how to push it, you say how do you build it, de-build it. And everything goes through this one image. The problem with the big fat container that is the biggest problem with it is we get least common denominator of security. So needing to build a container is much different than needing to run in production. I need a lot more privileges to be able to write to the container image than I do to basically when I wanna run it, say under Kubernetes. So what we wanna do is basically take these pieces apart and reassemble them and redo different types of tools for running containers, each one with the least privilege.  I work for OpenShift. So everything that I do tends to be either for open source or I am instructed to do it for OpenShift. So when I look at what OpenShift needs to do to run containers, OpenShift is Red Hat's Kubernetes, our enterprise version of Kubernetes. Really what OpenShift is, plus plus. We have other features and other things we've added onto Kubernetes.  So what does OpenShift and Kubernetes need to run a container? They need those first four things, but they need CRI. So there's a little story here. CoreOS again. CoreOS came along and they wanted the original version of Kubernetes embedded Docker all over the place inside of the code. CoreOS came along and they said we wanna support Rocket inside of Kubernetes. So they wrote huge patch sets and basically sent them upstream to Kubernetes that basically said if Def Rocket do it this way else do it the old way. And the Kubernetes developers at the time of the upstream Kubernetes said wait a minute, we can't do this. Because if we do this for Rocket then all of a sudden a garden or some other container engine's gonna come along and say we want you to support our container runtime as well. So what Kubernetes did is they wanted to turn it on its head and they basically said you guys implement a small daemon and we will talk to it and we will talk to that thing called VSCRI. So container runtime interface. So Kubernetes defined an interface that it will talk to container engines with and then if the container engine implements it Kubernetes will very happily do that. Next thing that Kubernetes needs to do when it talks to a container engine is it wants to tell the CRI that it needs well it's gonna tell the CRI it needs a container image. CRI needs to pull the image from the container registry needs to store it on top of a copy on a right file system and finally needs to execute an OCI runtime. Anything look familiar from the first part? So we have all these tools. Another one of my members of my teams when this happened basically said you know we could take our standard building block tools here and build our own CRI and that thing was called CRIO. So CRIO, so the CRI stands for container runtime interface for Kubernetes and the O stands for open containers or OCI open container images. So we developed a small lightweight daemon that basically just implements what's needed for Kubernetes to run containers in the environment and we called it CRIO. So CRIO is an OCI based, I already said that. So scope is totally tied to Kubernetes to the CRI only supported uses contained as for Kubernetes, nothing more, nothing less. Let me beat this to death. CRIO loves Kubernetes, Kubernetes is it.  She might get Mesosphere comes in and says you know that's being cute around her and stuff like that but she says no frigging way. And we got here, definitely not, not even in the ballpark. This no way and definitely not, okay. CRIO is only all she cares about is Kubernetes, okay. It's just Kubernetes. So overview of additional components. So there are additional things we needed to be able to do CRIO and we'll talk a little bit about those. So one of the things we needed to do was basically translate the input from Kubernetes. Kubernetes has its own specification of what it wants to do to run a container. But we have to translate that specification to OCI runtime specification. So there happened to be a tool inside of OCI called OCI runtime tools actually written by one of my guys. But basically it can take input from users, a library that'll take input from users and generate an OCI runtime specification. So we use that inside of CRIO. The next thing we needed to use is this thing. Again, CoreOS comes along. We needed a way to configure networks. So networks is kind of a strange part of this whole container world. And now we needed networks to, you know, we want to allow different virtual private network tooling to come along and build and be able to plug into the container environment. There's lots and lots of companies building their own. So either hardware-based or software-based container networking. I mean, so CoreOS is defined a standard called CNI, which is container networking interface, to use to allow other people to plug in. And so they've been used with Flannel, Weave, Open Daylight, Open SDN. I think OpenShift has their own version. So lots and lots of people are building container networking interface. Lastly, to run containers, we need a way to monitor the container. So when I launch a container on the system using an OCI runtime, it just goes out and configures the kernel, you know, those C groups and security settings and namespaces, launches the process, and then goes away. So at that point, there's nobody watching the container. There's nobody sitting out there saying, did the container exit, right, or trapping it? And so we needed a tool to basically watch the container. And basically that's called conmon. We wrote it in C because we wanted it to be as lightweight as possible. And it basically monitors, it takes care of logging, what's the output. So when you run containers, you usually watch what's going to stand it out in standard era. It handles the TTY. It's service, serving attached clients. And it detects who basically figures out if the container died and then writes the status to a file. So now any container engine that comes up can actually go to conmon and basically figure out what happened, or if conmon will exit with the container, but it'll record the data that happened. So the pod architecture. When you're running Kubernetes in your environment, Kubernetes runs pods. It doesn't run containers. Now pods are basically one or more containers running together. And the pod is also this idea of what's called an infra container or a pods container. And what happens when you launch a pod under Kubernetes is it launches this little tiny container program that basically goes to sleep. It just starts up and then attaches all those namespaces to it. You have to have a process in the original namespace and then it will add containers to it. So if you looked at under cryo what happens when you launch a pod, we launch the infra container. It has one conmon listening to that. And then one or more containers gets launched. So basically this is what the whole infrastructure of pod infrastructure under cryo. So we talked earlier about how much cryo loves Kubernetes. And the way we're trying to prove that is basically we have the biggest test suites. Every test suite we can find, we run before anything gets merged into cryo. So we don't want cryo to ever break. No new features ever break Kubernetes. So right now we're running, I don't know, it's probably much more than 500. But this nine full test suites, to get a pull request into cryo at this point is pretty difficult. You have to jump through hoops. You have to make sure that everything is possible state. No PRs emerge without everything passing. Cryo came out, was fully supported as of last December. My engineers wanted to call it 1.0. So we released it back in December. I hated the fact that we called it 1.0. So the next release, we called it 1.9, which works with Kubernetes.1.9. Then we released 1.10, which works with Kubernetes.1.10. Anybody has the guess what works with 1.11? Yeah, OK. So 1.11 works with Kubernetes.1.11.  The goal, right now, well, I'll talk about that in a minute, but basically the goal for OpenShift 4.0 is that we'll support cryo by default. Right now we support both cryo and Docker under the covers. But the goal is at 4.0 to support cryo by default. Cryo is now running most, a lot of OpenShift online.   So cryo is actually getting out there. But in a lot of ways, I always tell people, I want cryo to be something you ignore, right? The real goal here is to make running containers in production boring, OK? I often ask people, they say, all right, you use this in the back end, you use this in the back end. And I ask them, what file system do you use? I don't know what file system I have on my laptop. Is it EXT4? Is it XFS? I don't know, and I don't care. The only time I care is when something breaks. And so our goal here is to make this thing just blend into the background. It's just a feature underneath Kubernetes. So what else does OpenShift need to do to run containers after it uses Kubernetes? Well, it needs the ability to build images. OpenShift has this concept called source to image, where a user just checks something into Git, does a push, and all of a sudden the container poops out the back end of the OpenShift, right? So we needed that container image to come out of the end. So we needed a way to support that for OpenShift. And we needed the ability to push these things to container registries. So this guy right down here, as an Allen Dibyke, is working with me last year at DevConf Check. And we're sitting there together, and he's in charge of a container's image. And I always kept on saying to him that I need a tool for building containers. I wanted to core your TILs for building containers. I said, you know, it's just a root of fs. I need to create a root of fs, tie it up, tie up some JSON file, put it together, and build it. And I said, I needed some copy and write. I said, you get that. You get container's image. Could we throw together something to do that? I told him that in the morning while we're at DevConf, and by that evening he did a five minute talk showing how he would build container images using container storage. And so he said, what do you want me to call it? I said, I don't care what you call it. Just call it builder. What difference does it make? And then he came out with this. And the last thing here, this is not the current image, but this image was the first image we put out of it. This is a Boston Terrier supposedly in a hot hat. As soon as we tweeted out that we had an icon for this, people came back and said, why do you have a dog with tidy whiteies on his head? So I still live it. It's much more of a hot hat nowadays, but I like to leave it just for that joke. OK, so in the coloring book, hopefully you guys picked up, if you don't come and get me afterwards, this is what builder is represented as, as a dog. And I think it kind of looks like Nalan, don't you? OK, so builder came along. And again, my idea was core utilities for containers. We wanted to have a simple interface for it. So we needed to be able to pull an image from a container registry to the host. And so we built builder from Fedora. So what this does is it goes out and uses that container image to go out to a container registry, pulls down the Fedora image off of the container registry to the local system, puts it on top of container storage, and then creates a builder container. Container is a way overused word in this world. But basically, it has all the data that's associated with a container. And the next step we need to do is we need to mount the container. I want a mount point. I want that RudaFest mounted on my system. I just want to be able to write to that RudaFest. So we build a mount. And that basically brings back a mount point. OK, now the segue. Anybody ever hear of this command? Anybody know what this command does? It copies content from a container image to the host. Or it copies stuff from the container, from the host, into a container image. Really cool, huh? Really cool. I saw that and I said, I'm going to steal that idea. So I decided to go off and build my own tool. And I called it copy. And I put it into core utilities on the system. And it really works really well. But once I saw that work really well, I decided to build another tool. So I built a tool called DNF. Sometimes you call it yum. I used to call it yum. I might call it yum again in the future. But basically with this tool, you can actually install content into a container RudaFest. So I just added a dash, dash, install root. And you can basically install Apache into a empty RudaFest and do it. But I said, that's cool. I'll invent another tool. I invented a tool called make. So with the tool make, I can actually do this thing called destor. I decided to come up with this concept of destor. And I could basically set it up to point to a RudaFest. So basically what I'm showing here is you can basically use anything on a Linux system to actually populate what's going to go into your container. So the next thing you need to do is populate that JSON associated with the container image. And we have a tool called build a config. And so you can put things like entry point, environmental variables, all this different stuff that you basically put into a container's image to identify what the container is. And then finally, we want to take that container image and actually have a container and create an image, right? Create an OCI image on the system. And so that's build a commit. And then of course, I want to be able to push it somewhere, push it to a container registry so we have build a push. So with this tooling, and by the way, all this stuff here, no big fact container deeming, right? I don't need a deeming to do any of this stuff so I can do it. Not only that, I'm showing it's running its root here. With the current builder, we can do it as a non-root. We can do all this stuff. Taking advantage of user namespace, we're able to do this all as non-root now. It's simultaneous, all right? You get to try it again. Everybody say the same thing. One, two, three. Stand, please. What about the Docker file? Glad you went. So builder also has to support Dockerfile, okay? Dockerfile has become the sort of de facto standard. I like to think of it as a really crappy version of bash, but of shell script. But basically it's become this de facto that everybody wants to support. So we actually had to support with builder support using Dockerfile. So we built a command called builder using builder, build using Dockerfile. And basically has the same syntax as you would expect for running builds on it. About a course we're engineers, so we're all lazy, so we actually have build a bud. So build a bud, and Anheuser-Busch is not involved in this decision. But basically, we can build container images using Dockerfiles. For bash build. Well, it's not called builderfile, but I decided to write this really nice scripting language and I called it bash. So after I wrote bash, I basically have lots and lots of tools out there to build container images. And the whole idea here is that what I really wanted with builder is to basically provide a library or low level command line tools that other people could build higher level container languages. So we want others to build it. We're looking at OpenShift, is looking to basically replace, right now the source image is actually injecting the Docker socket into containers to run to do builds.  If you want to give people access to the, I tell you to just go in and set sudo to known root and turn off your logging. Because if you give a non-root user access to that socket, that's what you're doing. If I go and do evil things on a system as via the Docker socket, I can then destroy my container and there's no record of me ever doing anything on your system. So never give out that socket to a non-rootless user. So what we want to do with source to image is basically stop injecting that. Lots and lots of people are out running container builders inside of Kubernetes. And what they're doing is they're volume mounting in that socket, okay, which is equivalent of giving them root on any host that are doing it. So we want to be able to do builder inside of source to image and stop injecting the socket. Ansible containers is also looking at potentially using builder to replace and basically using Ansible as your sort of Ansible playbooks for defining what's in the container image. So what else does OpenShift need to do? We need the ability to diagnose problems. We need people to be able to play in this environment. So we decided to create this new tool and we called it Podman. So Podman is part of the libpod effort. So we wanted to basically build a pod manager or a container managing tool. And we wanted to, basically this tool is just a CLI command line tool that can be used for managing container images. And we based it on top of what everybody knows, which is a Docker CLI. So Podman is now out. We're actually releasing Podman on a weekly basis. We've been doing it for probably the last six months. Just kidding, Podman 8.3. So we release it, age is the month and the third week. So at the end of the year, we're gonna be in trouble. So we have to have 1.0 by the end of the year because we can't keep our naming system going. But basically, you wanna list the containers on the system. If you wanna run a container on the system. If you wanna exec into an existing container. If you want to list the images out in the container. Basically we've tried to copy everything in that CLI possible that we care about. Obviously we're not doing swam with this command, but we've had most of the commands are all done and lots and lots of people. And there was a great tweet that came out back about, now I guess it's back in May, and I love this tweet. He says, I completely forgot that two months ago I set up an alias of Docker equals Podman and it has been a dream. So he's been running for two months at this point without using with Podman. And of course that's a several month old one. So the next question down comes down and says only downside, there's no book, I'll talk about that in a second. Next one's down, Joe Thompson replies and says, so who remind, how did you figure out that you were running Docker, I mean Podman instead of Docker. And he said I executed Docker help and it came out with Podman help. I think I owe about three quarters.  It's available on Fedora, Rel, Centos, Ubuntu, and it's fully supported on OpenSuzi as well. So it's basically gone out. We have lots and lots of contributors to it. And guess what? No big fact container demon, okay? It works like a fork in exactly. It works sort of exactly what you expect. Not a client server operation, but Podman is really, really cool and does almost everything you can. So we talked a lot about containers. There's handed out the coloring book before. And I think I'm just about to run out of space. So we have two other talks this afternoon. Nalan's gonna be giving a talk and I'm sure going back and attacking me.  I said that there's lots of security stuff that we're able to do by breaking apart containers. So they're gonna be talking about that later on this afternoon. So look for those talks. You can take the photo of this and the presentation be there. I can only answer one question, I guess, yes. Is there any tool currently that can update a tag on a container or remote registry? Any tool, actually someone asked for that. The answer is that has to be built into the container protocol. Container basically the protocol that talks between the client and the server. And Vincent's raising his hand back there because he's gonna point out that they're working on a standard now to define that. So is that what you're gonna tell me, Vincent? Yeah, you can drop a coin in. The Docker Registry API, not the Docker Registry code base but the Docker Registry API has now been donated to the OCI, the Open Containers Initiative as the distribution spec. It is the API that would enable a feature like that but it's not really up to the client tools right now. They would have to do some shenanigans, like fetch the image and then retag it and repush it. So that would be the place to look for it. OCI, Open Container slash distribution spec. So we actually, we had a big bug report that someone asking for that in Scopio but we have to get it into, we needed to get it into Quay and Artifactory and Docker IO and so we really need that to be a standard how you interact with the container registries to be able to do something like that. Anybody else? Everybody loves this idea and they're all aliasing it on their machines right now, excellent. All right, anybody wanna talk to me? I'll be around and thanks for coming.


So, I started this channel roughly three years ago to talk about my thoughts and opinions about American Horror Story, so it's no shock that my most requested video since pretty much day one was my ranking of the seasons. And if you've been with this channel for a while, you know that I love lists and I love to rank things, so why on earth has it taken me three years to do the most obvious video I could make? To put it simply, I am a Libra and I am incredibly indecisive and specifically with AHS, my rankings of the seasons change all the damn time. I also re-watch the show pretty frequently and genuinely love each season for their own reasons. Long story short, today I will be giving you guys my ranking of the seasons as of right now. This is not definitive and like I said, I do love each season, so if your favorite ranks lower than you would think it doesn't mean I hate it, I'll be ranking from my least favorite to my favorite, including the first nine seasons that I've aired as of right now. I also asked you guys for your rankings of the seasons on my community page and I got over a hundred responses from you guys and I've compiled a separate ranking of your guys' rankings at the end of the video, so make sure you stick around for that. Before we jump in, I'd like to take a moment to recognize my channel members. Thank you guys so much for your support, it is very appreciated. And if you would like to become a member and receive early access to videos and monthly exclusive uploads, you can hit that join button below this video and join for as low as $0.99 a month. But without further ado, let's start with the season that I have in the ninth and lowest position. Spoiler alert for all nine seasons, you have been warned. Coming in at number nine, I have Freak Show. Freak Show has a lot going for it. A great cast with the likes of Angela Bassett, Sarah Paulson, Kathy Bates, Frances Conroy, Evan Peters, Jessica Lange in her last main role in the series, just to name a few. It also treads brand new territory for the series in an attempt to create a band of outcasts performing in a side show. Honestly, on the surface, thanks to its bright color palette and over the top costumes at times, you might think this is a more lighthearted season of AHS. And if you do think that, let me tell you how wrong you are. I think the strongest element in Freak Show is the element of tragedy that is explored. It also nails the dreadful tone that is similarly explored in seasons like Roanoke and Asylum. Characters like Mopetit, Meep, and Pepper all suffer such terrible fates in the season. With the season ending with the majority of our Freaks being massacred by Dandy Mott, let's just say the season doesn't exactly end on a hopeful note. Despite maybe Bet and Dot, Jimmy Desiree getting happy endings, the rest of them got death. With all that being said, I do think the season is a bit of a mixed bag and especially on rewatch, I feel like the pacing drags on at times and I think the main reason I ranked the season so low is because unlike most of the other seasons, I'm not extremely invested in a lot of the characters. Thus, it is a harder season for me to connect to. However, Freak Show did give us one of the best episodes of the entire series with the Orphans episode, I think that should not be overlooked. This being said, there used to be another season that I would consistently rank as my least favorite season. It has only recently been replaced by Freak Show after a recent rewatch. So who knows where Freak Show may end up in the future? Moving on to the eighth spot on my list, I have Colt. Colt is a season that in previous years I may have ranked a bit higher than this. I genuinely love the season but on my last rewatch, it just doesn't stack up when compared to the many great seasons that the show has. I think the season may just try to tackle a little too many things. In the very first episode, you'd expect it to majorly focus on a dramatized version of the state of politics in the US after the 2016 election. And that does act as a jumping off point for the season and is crucial to certain episodes. But by the end, it strayed so far from there that you might forget that the season starts with Evan Peters humping Trump's face. That being said, I think it does capture the hysteria that was and is still present in the country. And at the very least, it serves as an interesting time capsule. The events that happen in Colt honestly aren't that far-fetched now that we have lived through a Trump presidency. But anyway, I think that Allie's character arc is pretty strong, although I do think that the shift in her character could have been built up a bit more. It almost comes out of nowhere. But once that shift does happen, the season is much stronger because of it. It is rewarding to watch Allie finally figure out that she isn't crazy and that people she loved and trusted have been gaslighting her. It's satisfying to watch her infiltrate the Colt, kill Ivy, and ultimately come out on top by the end. It is a happy ending that is very rare in the series. Evan Peters, though, is probably my MVP of the season.  I think he's one of the most despicable villains that we've had.  Kai aside, Evan Peters also plays a number of real life Colt leaders throughout the season. And these flashbacks and explorations of these Colts were some of my favorite parts of the season. All in all, I do think Colt is strong, but it cast a big net and only reeled in about 70% of the fish, if that analogy makes any sense, but let's move on to number 7. In my 7th position, I have Apocalypse. Let me just say this, when the season ended in 2018, I would have ranked the season within my top 3 seasons. It is only with hindsight and 2 or 3 rewatches later that I can report that this season is a tad bit disappointing. I'll say the season might be the most egregious example of a really strong season completely fizzling and fumbling the ball in the last 2 or 3 episodes. I really wish that Ryan and Brad, or whoever, writes these shows anymore, could have spent more time on it, obviously. As is the case with most seasons of the show, the scripts for the episodes are being written as the season is filmed. AHS and Ryan Murphy are notorious for having strong starts and weak endings, but to his credit, or perhaps somebody else's credit in the writer's room, I feel that for the most part, they assemble a cohesive narrative that fits in with the tone and expectations that were established in the beginning of the season. I think that Apocalypse took a wrong step in its 8th episode, and tried to, but never really recovered from it. Up until episode 8, Apocalypse seemed unstoppable. Each episode was more interesting than the rest, with the crossover elements finally starting to live up to the hype. There were a couple of things like cinematography that were pretty weak throughout, but for the most part, and the general fan reaction was that up to that point it was pretty much living up to the hype. Episode 6 was Return to the Murder House, and this is pretty much the orgy of the season, especially in terms of fan service, but that aside, the episode does a really good job of filling in the blind spots of Michael Langdon's backstory with the Murder House. That episode also shows how natural the world and characters from both Coven and Murder House fit in together so well, which I think is a major accomplishment by the way that the season did pull off, especially after it had been 5 and 7 years since those characters had last been seen on television. The first 3 episodes almost serve as their own mini season, with mostly new characters in Outpost 3 taking up a majority of the plot and screen time, but these characters were captivating enough that it was almost sad to see them die so early on. The entire season seemed to be pointing us towards a confrontation between the Antichrist, Michael Langdon, and a rising star in the Coven, Mallory. Their fiery altercation in episode 3 shows just how powerful they both are. We then get Michael's backstory at Hawthorne, and we see him do incredible things with his powers. We see Mallory's backstory at the Coven, where she uses her powers to literally create life. These two characters are established early on in the season to be extraordinarily powerful. Yet when they finally meet again in the finale, Mallory impressively pulls off time travel, only to then run over a defenseless young Michael Langdon. Sure it is somewhat satisfying to watch, but the finale lacks any of the visual magic that we've seen the two characters use. I just think if they had more time to nail the finale, maybe somehow avoid the time travel device, forget or significantly cut the subplots that were introduced in episode 8, then maybe Apocalypse could have been within the top 3, if not the number one season of AHS. Honestly, episodes 1-7 of Apocalypse are great and extremely satisfying, particularly in the world building elements. But anyway, I really do love the season, I just think the ending could have been a lot stronger and so I can't really rank it any higher than it is. So let's move on to my number 6 spot, which is Roanoke. Roanoke will always hold a special place in my heart and I will defend it against any haters all day, any day. Up until recently I had this season in my top 3, I think out of all the seasons I've rewatched this one the most. My favorite thing about Roanoke is how it's one of the few seasons that packs genuinely scary moments and it has some very dark moments as well, but all in all it's still a really fun season to watch, which is something I couldn't say for Freak Show or Asylum, which at times get a bit too dark and hopeless for me to handle sometimes, but American Horror Story's foray into found footage is ambitious, especially with a significant format change in the middle of the season, transitioning from my Roanoke nightmare to return to Roanoke. One thing I would say about it though is that I wish the shift happened an episode or two earlier, because once it does shift to return to Roanoke, shit gets real. If you've ever seen Halloween Resurrection, let me just say that AHS Roanoke is what the makers of Halloween Resurrection wish they could have achieved. And the season really scratched that itch for lack of a better term of mine for the perfect blend of a slashery, ghosty, found footage project. However, aside from maybe Lee Harris or Shelby Miller, Roanoke doesn't have that many gripping characters and I do think there were significant missed opportunities with the character of Scathitch. Once again I'm aware that is not how you say it, but it's how I say it. I think it could have been really great if they were able to fully utilize that character and like I said I used to rank this season much higher, but I have come to the conclusion that I cannot rank it any higher than number six as of right now thanks to my last round of rewatches as I've been saying. It is flawed, but I love it nonetheless. Moving on to my fifth pick, I have Murder House. We are now in the territory of seasons that I think are undeniably great. Maybe not to you, but to me. Let me just say this, Murder House was made in 2011 and that does show particularly in the relationship of Tate and Violet. I've never been a big fan of them and it has always weirded me out that Tate is so beloved with some of the fan base, but aside from that I think Murder House is a great horror drama. Vivian Harmon is probably my favorite character in this season and I think that Murder House nails a poetic, beautiful, and tragic ending to the Harmon's story. And when it comes down to it, it is a family drama. Let's not forget that the season also gave us Moira O'Hara, Constance Langdon, Adelaide Langdon, and so many other iconic characters. It gave us legendary moments like Violet's death, I mean. It's the blueprint for the entire series and it majorly holds up ten years later. It's scary, funny, heartwarming, heartbreaking, and oftentimes outright disturbing. The early seasons really commit to taking the viewer on an emotional journey and Murder House will definitely rip your heart out and step on it a few times. Murder House feels like destiny because everything came together perfectly for the season to spark what is now a franchise. Think about how differently things would have been with a different cast or even more so if they hadn't locked the perfect location. It's a classic, it was the moment, and that is why it is in my top five. But without further ado, coming in at number four is 1984. I just re-watched 1984 and if you want to hear all my thoughts about it, I did do a member exclusive video where I retroactively reviewed the season. But I'll briefly summarize what I love about the season here, but if you want to become a member and watch that video, feel free to. Like I said in that video, my two favorite characters from the season are Brooke Thompson and Donna Chambers. For Brooke, I think that her character arc was really well done. She starts the season having gone through two traumatic events, those being her blood soaked wedding and her attack with the night stalker in her own home. The others at Camp Redwood are constantly casting doubt on these two events, both of which only happened because both her fiancé and Montana didn't believe that she hadn't slept with Montana's brother. Hopefully, you were able to follow that. If you've watched the season, you know what I'm talking about. We learn that she was telling the truth by episode five, but by the end of that episode, she has been framed with the entire murders of that night in 1984 and sentenced to death. So when she does get a second chance at life, her shift from victim to seeking vengeance is realistic and natural. By the time Brooke is saved by Donna, she has spent five years in prison. This is a character change that I think makes sense and is easy to understand unlike how quickly Ally from Colt was able to overcome her trauma. Brooke has reflected on the events that led her there in prison and it is natural that she feels an overwhelming sense of anger towards Margaret Booth and she only trusts herself to achieve justice. This is something she isn't able to achieve as she is shot by Margaret once they meet again and she has escaped Camp Redwood by the time Donna and the ghosts throw Margaret through the wood chipper. Despite this, she escapes to Oregon and eventually settles down and has children in what I can only assume is a very healthy and calm relationship, something that Brooke so desperately deserves. Donna is the anti-hero of the season and during similar traumas to Brooke in her past. The differences in these two characters lie in how they process their trauma. After finding out that her father is a serial killer, Donna devotes her work to proving that no one is born a killer and that society creates killers. In the name of this research, she lets Mr. Jingles loose at Camp Redwood only to find out that Jingles hadn't killed anyone outside of the war until 1984 as Margaret was the true culprit of the 1970 massacre.  She too is given a second chance and she then aids in freeing Brooke from death row and seeing through that Margaret is held accountable. Accountability via wood chipper. I think these two characters are very well fleshed out and I go a lot more in depth in that video, but aside from that, the slasher genre is my favorite horror sub-genre so the heavy influences from Friday the 13th and Halloween greatly add to my appreciation for the season. I won't lie, it falls short in a few areas. It feels like a tonal departure from AHS, which upset a lot of fans, I don't have a huge problem with that, but I do not think that the Richard Ramirez angle was great. But fresh off a rewatch, 1984 seems like a rejuvenation of the show with major casting changes in the absence of Sarah Paulson and Evan Peters, but it doesn't try to be like previous seasons and it thrives in the lane that it created for itself. Not sure if that made sense, but let's move on to my third choice, welcome to my top three. Number three is hotel. I won't lie, for the longest time I considered hotel to be the worst season of AHS. This is the one I was talking about earlier that I used to always say was my least favorite season. The first time I saw it, I found it hard to get invested in the characters thanks to the slower pacing and overlapping storylines. For years I tried to give it a second chance, but just couldn't get through a rewatch. I blame my attention span, which I think honestly got a lot better over the quarantine, which played in part to this probably. I'm happy to report that in October of 2020 I successfully rewatched hotel and in record time. I think I was able to fly through all of the episodes in only two or three days and I honestly fell in love with the season. I don't know what I was thinking before honestly. Hotel nails a specific tone of dread and haziness that I think is really unique and captivating. The hotel Cortez has the capability to pull you into its trance and I think hotel has one of the strongest ensemble cast of characters, second only to Coven. Each ghost in the hotel Cortez is equal parts heartbreaking and terrifying, which allows you to feel for them. Lady Gaga as the Countess is just perfect, I can't even find words to describe it. She is the series most captivating villain. The common complaint that I hear about hotel is John Lowe's storyline as the Ten Commandments killer doesn't make sense and is confusing. Word. It definitely is those things. However, and I honestly think the season may have hypnotized me on that last rewatch because seeing the season happen with the unreliable narrator that is John Lowe added that element of hopeless dread that I was talking about earlier. As the audience, like John Lowe, you feel like you're going crazy being gaslit even but you experience it through John Lowe. We aren't outsiders looking in so when it is revealed that he is the Ten Commandments killer, it's a bit world-shattering. I'm not saying the critiques of this are invalid, I'm just saying that when I rewatched it, the hazy navigation throughout the story with John Lowe as the unreliable narrator was something that really hooked me and got me through it. It was honestly one of the most unique experiences I've had viewing something so that says a lot. Like 1984, I think hotel similarly tried something new for the series in the absence of Jessica Lange and that upset some viewers but really worked for others. So it seems like one of those seasons that you either love or you hate and this is evident that I've seen going through your guys' responses as well. If you would have asked me a year ago if Hotel was in the top three seasons of AHS, I would have said hell no. So opinions are subjective and can change over time and Hotel is the best example that I have of this. That being said, let's move on to my second pick. The runner up to my favorite season of American Horror Story is Coven. These last two seasons that I have left are both ones that I hold very near and dear to me and they both are incredible seasons in their own right. Coven has probably my favorite atmosphere of any AHS season. The New Orleans backdrop and the beautiful cinematography brings me so much comfort when I watch the season. The cast of the season is like AHS All Stars, I mean we had Sarah Paulson, Jessica Lange, Angela Bassett, Emma Roberts, Francis Conroy, Evan Peters, Gabri Sidibe, Dennis O'Hare, Lily Raebe, and Jamie Brewer, just to name a few. AHS's take on witches was so incredibly fun and the characters are all so dynamic and enjoyable to watch. The season isn't without flaws but it overwhelmingly makes up for them by the end of the season. Coven is a complete season with a clear trajectory and a clear ending. Although in another world I could see a spin-off centered around the Coven lasting for many seasons. Coven is honestly the only season of the show that I could see being really successful if it were its own show outside of the anthology. But that's really besides the point here. Like I was saying, the atmosphere of the season sucks you in and makes you not want to leave the world. Cordelia is probably my favorite character to come out of the entire series and Fiona and Marie LeVau are not far behind her, not to even mention Myrtle Snow. So many good characters this season. The cast is so amazing that every episode is lit up by their performances. Even if the story wasn't as good as it is, it would still be top tier entertainment getting to see so many legendary actors perform together. To make a long story short, the season is pure magic. But now it is time to see which season I placed in my number one spot and if you've been paying attention you would have deduced that it is no other than Asylum. Like I said, I'm incredibly indecisive and my choice for the number one spot was not an easy one. Coming off of Murder House, Asylum had the hefty task of selling fans on the anthological format of the series. And if Asylum wasn't as strong as it is, who knows how successful American Horror Story would have went on to be. It's a pivotal season. It gave us Sarah Paulson's first leading role in the series, brought Jessica Lange to new heights, and they managed to deliver a genuinely horrifying season. Asylum doesn't shy away from the darkness and it takes an emotional toll on me every time I watch it. For me, the films and TV shows that stand out are the ones that make you feel how the characters are feeling. Asylum, a bit like Hotel, puts the viewer in the shoes of Lana Winters. Lana's character arc is probably the best the show has ever seen. And when the madness did indeed end, the satisfaction that Lana felt is shared with the relief that we all felt knowing that she had not only escaped, but put an end to Briarcliff Manor. Jessica Lange as sister Jude is tied for my favorite Jessica Lange role. Lily Rabe as sister Mary Eunice as well is a great character to watch. Aside from them, Asylum also gave us Kit Walker, Pepper, The Angel of Death and some of our most nefarious and vile villains in Dr. Arden and Oliver Threadson. At the end of the day, this is American Horror Story and I think not only is Asylum the best season in terms of quality, I also think it is the scariest. All right, so that is my ranking of the seasons, but don't click off the video just yet, because like I said at the beginning of the video, I asked you guys for your rankings of the seasons about a week ago and I got quite a few responses. So much so that I scratched my original idea, which was going to be going through every comment and assigning points to the seasons based on how you guys ranked them. But that proved extremely time consuming. So I made a Google form that I put on my community page and thank God a lot of you responded to that as well. It was much easier to do it that way. So thanks to all of you who took your time to do that. It got 161 responses before this very moment. So obviously that is only a small portion of you guys, so feel free to leave your ranking in the comment below. But let's start with the season that received the least amount of votes by you all and that is none other than Freak Show, which received 14.9% of the vote with 24 votes. You guys agreed with me based on this selection of people that submitted the survey as Freak Show being the week season. That being said, I will say going through those comments, Freak Show wasn't in last place when I did like the first 30 comments that I did do the math for. So we do have a lot of Freak Show stands out there and I'm sure you'll let us know in the comments below. But moving on, the next season that you guys ranked at number eight is Apocalypse, which received 22.4% of the votes. You guys ranked Apocalypse one spot lower than I did. Turns out I wasn't being too hard on Apocalypse like I suspected. You guys are somewhat in agreement with me. At number seven, you guys ranked Roanoke, which is one spot lower than I ranked it and it got 26.1% of the vote. And then number six, we have Hotel, which received 28.6% of the vote. You guys ranked Hotel three spots lower than I did, which is the biggest negative difference on this list between my list and your guys' list. Generally, you guys don't like Hotel as much as I did, but opinions are subjective. Our top five starts with a tie for the fourth slash fifth position. So we have Colt, which received 48 votes, which depending on how you look at it is three or four spots higher than I ranked it, which is the biggest positive difference between our lists and also in fifth or fourth place is 1984, which also got 48 votes, which is depending on how you look at it either one spot lower than I ranked it or exactly the same as I ranked it. So we're pretty much in sync in terms of 1984. Rounding out our top three at number three, you guys ranked Murder House with 62 votes, which is two positions higher than I ranked it. So maybe I had Murder House a little bit underrated, who knows? Number two, we have Asylum. You guys switched number one and two for me, putting Coven in the lead with 94 votes, which of course is one spot higher than I ranked Coven. So yeah, I'll put up the graph of the Google forum so you can see exactly what I'm talking about. That's how you guys ranked it based on a specific group of people. Obviously, it doesn't represent all of you. So like I said, let me know in the comments below what your ranking is. Going through the comments on my first post, I don't think I saw a single one that was identical to mine, which I thought was really interesting. There weren't a lot that were identical to each other either. There's just so many ways you can arrange the seasons and everybody's opinions are so subjective. I think it's kind of cool that for the most part, everyone's list is pretty unique. But there you have it. The video I told myself I would never make. I'd love to hear your rankings in the comments below. Like I said, I think there is a case for any season to be your number one, so there should be no judgment in this comments section. Let's be nice and respect everybody's opinions. Give this video a like if you enjoyed it. I really appreciate things like liking the video and commenting on the video because that shows YouTube that you guys are engaged and it helps my videos get recommended to more people. Thank you guys so much for watching and I will see you next time.


Aaron McMillan and I are both the founders of a quadratic Quadratic funding protocols or unfounded CLR fund. I founded get coin We've been friends before we were founders of that project and we were talking about how inspired we were Of the ethos of client diversity that has come out of prismatic labs and other teams at the base layer and how that Anyway, so we were talking about what it would mean to have practical pluralism at the public goods funding layer of the stack And so I've assembled some of the top founders of public goods funders in this space to talk about practical pluralism So I'll hand it off to you or in So I'm just gonna read a quick excerpt from the article that we wrote or the essay that we wrote It's up on this QR code if you want to go and check it out later because I won't read the whole thing because we don't have time But here we go. So pluralism itself is a primitive for anti fragile resilient and regenerative systems As an ecosystem ethereum has done a great job of fostering diversity in its mining and validating clients Similarly, we should insist on pluralism across the full stack of web 3 technologies And culture so this includes discrete products like wallets RPC nodes Dow tooling public goods funding mechanisms AMM stable coins developer tooling As well as the intangible influencers like the people groups communities and opinions which participate in and Holds way over our ecosystem So we we're all here today because we believe in client diversity We believe in pluralism as a primitive and we want to join We want you guys to join us in kind of extending this ethos of client diversity and pluralism to other layers of our collective stack So by having pluralism as a core value in each kind of vertical We make it more likely that the space tends towards capture resistance and Not fragility participants should be able to choose or To use or not use any of a number of options for any given need And so by having pluralism at the kind of beating heart of each niche We ensure the space is antifragile if there's a major bug discovered in one system The resulting cascading hum can only go so far because there's always another Alternative system to pick up the slack. So for web 3 to truly express itself diversity and pluralism must be a core value I mean I hand it off to griff to say a little piece on this as well Yeah, and I think we need to make sure that we're watching for opportunities for pluralism. I'm really worried I want to make two points. I'm really worried number one about ether scan I think it's the hidden centralization that we don't Mathew town and the ether stand scan team are amazing and they do great work But that is the biggest honey pot in our industry and we don't even think about it If you can hack ether scan and say you sent a million dollars somewhere you sent a million dollars somewhere We really need to make sure that we're funding alternatives like block scout And I'm really worried about block scout since noses just added noses scan and ether scan on that chain And now where's block scout gonna go? We really need to think about blockchain explorers. I also just want to say Pluralism goes if we have this infrastructure at our base layer we can extend pluralism to the world we have monopolistic governments telling us what to do all the time and Demanding monopoly over public goods and if we could instead change it so that we have competing Organizations that are trying to meet the demand of society to satisfy our public goods needs We'll have a much better world and this will only work on top of practical plurality base layer a So I'm Carl I'm contributing to the optimism collective a layer to and we had practical pluralism in two spots one Inside of our protocol. We started out building a monolith, but it was rigid hard to contribute to and bug prone We needed a multi-client ecosystem in our ecosystem So we took a step back we split it up broke it into modules and then now we're actually building towards this multi-client Ecosystem and have multiple clients for a layer to so that's practical pluralism at work Allowing us to scale our protocol and this is just amazing an amazing moment of practical pluralism on stage here today We spent so much time focusing on brands But I am a believer that there is something which is forward progress and that is why Information and open source is so incredible because you can actually make forward progress for an ecosystem It's not about you getting forward. It's about moving the ecosystem forward as whole. So that's it Hi everyone, I'm Pia Mancini co-founder and CEO of open collective. We are not a Web3 project So sorry about that. But what we do is we fund a lot of open source projects We currently support three thousand open source projects. We do project direct directive funding And the way we do it is by creating An umbrella organization that allows them to access funding from companies and individuals and foundations that otherwise They wouldn't be able to access and so our approach to pluralism is really by enabling any open source project Out there to be able to receive funding. They don't need to be big. They don't need to be fancy They just need to be an open collective and in the past four years. We've distributed 30 million dollars Sorry in public directed funding. So that's what we do Okay, my name is Abby. I'm the head of community and governance at radical We built decentralized collaboration tools for developers building decentralized technologies if you see me talk I love free and open soft software I am a fast fanatic and I believe that practical Pluralism that's a tongue twister can save the internet the internet is being captured by anti-competitive forces That sensor and capture and continue to extract and if we don't build against this by investing in technical plurality Giving people the ability to exit infrastructure to freely act on their protocols and their infrastructure instead of Relying on platforms to gatekeep their experience if we can do that if we can be more plural in the way that we build together If by ownership distributions Radical and good coin just did an awesome public goods alliance We did a token swab if you can embed pluralism in your ownership That's another way of securing resilience and then finally if you can build pluralism in your participants and the people in your network by building Super diverse multi-stakeholder governance. You can build practical pluralism across the stack and build a better internet for everybody That's what I think is great. I think that was one minute, right? Hey everyone, my name is Trent Van Epps. It's in first. It's an honor to be with these people so many of whom I respect I'm a member of the protocol guild, which is rebalancing the incentives to contribute to the core protocol Making sure we have people maintaining this infrastructure that the entire ecosystem depends on and that the people that are working on it are Properly compensated and motivated to continue doing this work for many many decades to come And I would like to point everybody to a great talk yesterday from Josh Stark of the EF He included many of the organizations represented here on this slide. I encourage you to go check it out It's about the EF generally but He references or compares organizations fundraising for public goods as ethereum's civil society and it's a really apt analogy because We don't have a government in ethereum We have the private sector which is people that are you know building tools and applications for people to use Maybe profit motive motivated But we desperately need to maintain the civil society that is making sure that the public goods of ethereum are maintained and That people can get the resources to build them long into the future so I encourage you to check out that talk and Imagine this this group of people here as you know the vanguard of civil society in ethereum and it's something that we need to Make sure is Encouraged to we should be able to Contribute to the civil society as well While having these organizations building alongside each other. Yeah, go check out that talk Alrighty, I'll bring it home So I Kevin owaki founder of get coin repent for building a centralized monolith in the beginning and I'm really glad to be seeing get coin move towards a Decentralized modular infrastructure, and I think that that modular infrastructure is going to enable get coin to be more plural in the future And I would love to I'm not in control of the Dow in any way But as an outsider, I would love to see a future in which We build on top of the modules that CLR fund has pioneered that giveth has pioneered Retractive public goods funding and optimism Open collective has been an inspiration for me from the start Radical same thing, and I'm really proud of what protocol guild is doing with public goods funding for the client developers In the ethereum ecosystem. I really hope to see to give another talk on practical pluralism in a couple years and invite We're going to figure out how to put 20 founders up on stage of public goods projects in 2025 and I think that we want to eat around dog food and be practically plural with the public goods funding infrastructure of the ecosystem and This is a challenge to the rest of the ecosystem whether you're building nft marketplaces dexes or any other piece of infrastructure to embrace modularity and pluralism from the start and I'm so inspired by you Thank you for joining this panel and please join me in a round of applause for our panelists Hey right on time there we go. Thanks everyone. See you in the lobby


This study investigated the association between diastolic blood pressure and massive transfusion in severe trauma patients. It was found that initial low diastolic blood pressure was an independent predictor for massive transfusion in severe trauma cases. This suggests that lower diastolic blood pressure may be associated with increased risk of massive transfusion in severe trauma patients. This article was authored by Donghun Lee, Hongsuk Kim, Byungkook Lee and others.


all right so guys i'm going to quickly show you some basic beginner's base groove when it comes to funk you know funk in this kind of um song holy holy holy you know it's as simple as everything and this one what a friend we have in jesus okay so i'm going to show you how to easily funk that kind of song okay and you can use the same idea the same method um to face any other song you guys want to funk on okay so let's get started let me start with what a friend we have in jesus the basic progression of that song is the basic progression of that song is what a friend we have in jesus so that's it so some basic simple passing notes okay which i'm not going to kind of dig more on that okay just get it and practice it it's easy to get okay you just try to put the rhythm on your head and how the notes are sounding okay so let me go so I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't know what I'm talking about. So that is that for the first groove. You can start building your double techniques, sustain notes. Stop building it. These are ways you learn how to groove. groove. Now the second song is Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy. You know? Okay, so that one basically, there are no much progression there. You need to lock with the drummer. So the drummer is giving you du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du. So I will also teach you how to spice to put in some passing notes. Okay? Since you're resting on that one for kind of like how many bars I will teach you on what to be doing while grooving the one, your one chord. Okay? It goes beyond these. So you're going to be chipping in some basic notes. Okay? Note that are closer to your one chord and you're going to be using some pentatonic feel. You know, sound awesome. Now your next chord progression on that song, I think they're going to, once you come to this place, the parts, this part of the song. And you play the melody with them. You can see the two chord is your next chord progression. You're actually going after taking that move with them. Back to your one. I'm basically, I think that's all about the song and the key of the song also I'm still making use of the key, E. Okay? So let's go. So like I said, the key of the song is on E major. Okay? So a quick explanation. What I did was so that movement I chipped in was the flat seven and the one, then back to the groove, back to my one. The idea is I'm following the drummer, the bass drum. Okay? That is just it on that song. That was a pentatonic feel. You can vibrato on that note, the five. That was the first move I took there, then I later went again. Passing notes to my one again. To take me to or to lead me to. To. Leading me to the two chord, then five. Then I did this. Going back to my one chord. Five, five, four, three, two, one. That is just it. Okay? So you just watch my fingering as I go again. This other technique or movement, pentatonic move I did. I vibrato on the one. Kind of a vibrato technique on the one. Okay? Then went back to the one. Same passing note to the one again. To take that move. Ah, ah, ah, ah. Chromatic mode from three to five. Then open notes, the E. E string. Since I'm on E string, I'm on key E. So that's how I ended it. That's it. So let me go again. So. That is all.


The Justice Committee's third meeting of 2019. There are no apologies today. Agenda item 1 is consideration of two negative instruments. Multilingual standards forms fees, Scotland regulations 2018, SSI 2018-373 and Multilingual standard forms, consequential amendments, Scotland regulations 2018, SSI 2018, oblique 374. fourth. I am preparing any comments on either of these instruments. Is the committee therefore agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to those two instruments? Agenda item 2 is feedback from the justice sub-committee on policing on its meeting of 17 January 2019. I refer members to paper 2, which is note by the clerk. Following the verbal report, there will be an opportunity for brief comments or questions, and I invite John Finnie to provide that feedback. Thank you, convener. As you know, convener, the justice sub-committee on policing met on the 17 January, and we took evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the policing aspects of the Scottish Government's draft budget for 2019-20. The sub-committee asked the cabinet secretary to respond to the view expised by the Scottish Police Authority in Police Scotland that the draft budget falls short of what the police service requires to meet the demands placed upon it. For example, the capital budget is insufficient to fund the agreed digital data and ICT strategy and maintain its fleet and estate. The cabinet secretary told the sub-committee that he expects the additional £12 million of capital funding to be used by Police Scotland to implement its digital data and ICT strategy to explain that the strategy includes civil individual elements, and the cost of each element will not be known until Police Scotland produces a full business case for each. The remaining capital funding is to be used by Police Scotland to maintain its fleet and estate. The sub-committee queried whether it was sufficient as it had remained the same as the previous financial year when Police Scotland overspent its fleet management by around £6 million. The cabinet secretary acknowledged that that was an issue and committed to considering how to address it before the next spending review. The cabinet secretary confirmed that the revenue funding would cover the increase in staff numbers at the SPA and agreed to pay award for police officers. The cabinet secretary also confirmed that, due to on-going uncertainty around Brexit, the current assumptions underpinning the overall budget for policing remain subject to review in light of Brexit-related planning being undertaken by the Police Scotland and the SPA. We will meet next on 31 January when we will hear from the chief constable on the draft budget and his priorities for 1920. Do members have any comments or questions on the report? I think that it was a good evidence session and we certainly put on our concerns about the digital budget and the need to arm our police or to make sure that they have the tools that they need. We did flag up the fleet and the infrastructure, so I think that it was a very worthwhile session. If there are no other comments, then that concludes the public part of today's meeting. Our next meeting will be on 29 January 2019, where we will be seeking to finalise our stage 1 report on the management of Offendersville. And we now move into private session.


Hello, YouTube lock fans. This is Alex again. In my previous video, I demonstrated this Yale 5,000 series security or high security lock. And I mentioned that I, in my still amateurish picking abilities, have not yet been able to pick it with all the security features enabled. But I did want to take one apart so I could see how it worked. My first attempt involved removing the, let's zoom for you, removing the, as you can see, how I butchered the little brass strip at the top using a screwdriver and vice grips and so forth. I decided that wasn't really very nice to do to the lock. And I had a little bit of trouble getting that to stay back in there. And so then I remembered that I had seen these things called shims on some of the locksmithing websites. And let's ask it to auto-focus, there we go. And so I figured I'd make one. So what I did was I took a piece of 030 feeler gauge, and this is one, and I made a shim out of it. And here's a lock that is shimmed. I think it's still shimmed. And yes, it is. And so what has happened is that I have worked this, let's bring this in close for you. I have worked this little feeler gauge in along the shear line, okay, all the way through to the, across all six pins. And then that obviously frees the cylinder to move around. And if I wanted to, I could take this out. I'm not going to because all the bits will fall over the floor. I'll have to curse and do another take and I don't want to, okay. So I'm gonna see if I can demonstrate this on film.  So we'll give it a go though. So let's see what this little guy looks like. You can hear the pins resetting.  And you're going for a width that is wide enough to bridge the pins, but not so wide that you take up so much room between the plug and the body of the lock that you can't get it in there. So you're taking advantage of the little tolerances in there that allows you to get this in. So you kind of get it started. Make a little curve, try to avoid any sharp edges because they'll tend to break, okay. Make a little curve at the end. And this one has actually, I've done it used about 10 times and it's held up so far. So it's pretty good. You can also buy these. Anyhow, so what you do is you insert it into the lock. As far as you can along this top bit here, okay. And you'll feel the first pin that you run into the first driver that's down in there. And then I use this little gizmo, which I made for, let me just make sure I'm still in focus, yeah. Which I made for holding the top pins in on Euro locks. But turn out to be really good for this because I can kind of, it's easier to manipulate with one hand without putting the thing in a vise. So we just kind of work this in to the pins all the way through to the back, okay. And there we are. You can see it there on the back pin or number six pin. And what we're gonna do is sort of let off tension on that and there it is. As the pins cross the shear line, the little shim is able to penetrate between them with any luck and there it goes. That's number five, I believe. Is able to penetrate between them and block them from moving back down into the plug. And so what we do is we sort of work this all the way in. I'm not gonna bore you with doing it over and over again. You can also use a pick of some kind. This is an open diamond that I got from somewhere. This is actually a pretty good pick set, pretty cheap. So you could pick these individually if you had the thing in a vise or whatever. I've also found that the long end of a tension wrench, which looks substantially like that thing there, well works as well. This gives me a little better leverage, but you can do whatever you want. And you can see that I'm an amazing brazier depending on your pronunciation, making this little thing. Anyhow, so you just kind of work that all the way through, get it to the front, pop the plug out. Obviously on any well-constructed lock, this will only work from the rear of the lock. And we're taking advantage of the fact that we can access this little space here. On really shitty locks, you can sometimes do it from the front because the tolerances are so bad that you can get the shim in there and pop the plug out, or not even pop the plug out, but you can just rotate it then once you have it shimmed. So it may be a bypass that some of you can use in your work, or if you get locked out of your house or whatever. Again, this is feeler gauge. You can get this from like MSC Industrial or McMaster Car, or if you've got a machine shop or something like that, or a machine shop supply place nearby, they usually will carry this stuff in all sorts of thicknesses. I have tried using aluminum can, bits of aluminum can, which the ones that I had were measured 0.05 inches, 5,000s, and were just a bit too thick. They work decently for padlocks, but not so well for this. Other beer cans and stuff may be better. But this stuff is pretty cheap, and you can get it in different, you can get it in like a one inch width long strips for about a dollar or two online. And good for all sorts of things. So obviously, only use this for legal purposes. Don't break in people's houses or steal their lock cylinders or whatever, their plugs, unless they're good friends and you just wanna mess with them. But anyhow, hopefully that helps somebody and you can try this out yourself. But thanks for watching. Give me a plus one if you like the video and check out uklocksport.co.uk for many other much more competent lock boffins and like and great videos and information. So thanks everybody out there and talk to you soon. Bye bye.