Alright everybody forest here. I'm doing a hit recap from the LSC 125 box World Series Baseball Mixer mania Yeah 125 boxes had a lot of very nice hits we're gonna go through every single hit here every single Yeah, I don't know know exactly how many hits we have but we'll kind of go in a little bit of an order here The first I'm gonna show I showed these in the beginning of the break Um These are from LSC as a sort of like a thank you for joining the break and getting it filled up everybody This is a hit from us to every one for every single team I'll go through real quick. You had pirate's O'Neil Cruz auto Cubs Chris Bryant. I go through and I go a detail more in the break Twins Joe Maurer A's Matt Chapman a Edgar Martin as Jersey autumn Mariners George Valera first bowman base auto guardians Greg Maddox metal-framed auto for the braids to 25 Jersey auto Eddie Murray Orioles David Wright bat relic auto Mets Jersey auto Johnny Bench Reds a Robin the out auto 25 for the for the Brewers Larry Walker Jersey auto to 40 for the Rockies trout refractor to 150 blue refractor angels from 2018 finance the mania Machado defining images auto Padres You get Casey Mice RPA from flawless the Tigers Adrian Beltray auto to 10 for the Texas Rangers Cleo Watson first bowman auto base for the Marlins Ruby Jam Washington Bryce Harper 7 to 15 Dual relic auto Frank Thomas to 25 white socks Silver rank auto Raphael Devers red socks to 25 Yankees auto Reggie Jackson to 25 Dodgers dual auto Bueller and Muncie to 35 Raise patch out of Randy Rosarino one of ten One of one PSA 920 22 diamond Kings Jackson Co our green frame masterpiece one-of-one Royals PSA 9 there a diamond backs dual Jersey auto Randy Johnson 5 of 25 Got a Tim Linsen come dual Jersey auto Giants 25 out of 25 one of one Jumbo patch to Oscar Hernandez blue jays nameplate patch there The Phillies and the Astros both got two hits here But we had a Cardinals Carlton and Flaherty to five dual auto And then the Phillies and Astros both each got an extra hiccups there in the world series He had Alec Bohn dual Jersey auto to 25. That's a Rookie Alec Bohn dual Jersey auto We had a one-of-one Zach Wheeler jumbo patch from sterling or from definitive for the Phillies Jordan Alvarez second-year auto for the Astros from five star and in Alvarez and Altuve dual Jersey auto to 35 You know, so that was all that was not in the break. That was just what Lsc is giving to every spot there just to start off. Everybody will start it off with a hit. We appreciate it guys Go through all the relics now went to the Angels in the random quad relic here judge trout bets Harper Padres will Myers We had Correa Astros to five Buxton twins to 50 Patek Padres to 50 red Sparky Anderson to 15 Demaggio dual bat relic Yankees to 10 nice AJ Puck patch card A is the five Well, why is he got Yankees to 99 six-way relic? We had a Braves Jersey Greg Maddox to 99 each euro Mariners to 99 Steven National Jersey Patrick Corbin to 99 Jumbo Jersey King Felix the 25 Mariners Altuve Astros to 25 Padres go into 25 We had Nick Madrigal rookie Jersey Let me look this up Because he was traded his rookie season. Give me one sec. I want to make sure this is correct I think I may have called white socks out, but that blue is making me think that that is a Cubs card So that is 2021 National Treasures baseball.  I'll even show you That's a Cubs card Where'd it go? There you go Right here Cubs Interesting Cubs, let me try note that down Cubbies on the Madrigal Jersey He was traded this rookie season. So he was a played for white socks and Cubs is rookie year Tristan McKenzie Jersey for the Guardians a Frank Thomas out of a 25 at a tribute That's a cool one for the white socks Jack Flaherty Cardinals out of a 50 Alexander Wells Orioles to 199 Yvonne Castillo to 99 Padres auto and Alex Kiehler brookie auto twins to 50 So there's some auto snuck in there again. It might not be a hundred percent order, but it's mostly an order here for relics and autos Rockies Nolan Aronado numbered To 150 in the Jersey to old Jersey Giants Posey and Crawford to 99 triple Jersey Donaldson blue jays to 99 Jersey card shipper to 50 for the Braves Hey, thank thank you Eddie appreciate it man. Glad you had fun pools and trout dual Jersey to 150 angels Triple Jersey Red Sox to 150 is mookie Glaber triple Jersey to 90 90 Yankees dual Jersey Pirates Bell and Reynolds to 99 Bogart's dual Jersey Red Sox to 150 Jram the 48 Cleveland Batralli triple Jersey Posey Giants to 18 triple Jersey Freeman Braves to 150 Triple Jersey by as Cubs to 27 a Yord on Jersey to 199 Astros dual patch Astros out to beta 10 Mani Machado to nine on the nice Jersey for the Padres Johnny Bench to 199 on the Reds triple relic Then we had a dual Jersey book card went to the Padres. It was Tatis and Soto this one to the Padres and the random Triple legends was Keeler Henrik or Heinrich and Suttles went to the Yankees in the random. All right, we had a really nice jumbo patch twins Byron bucks into five Quad relic Donaldson Yankees at 25 Jersey card Mariners Gailord Perry to 50 Twins Keerlock Jersey to 50. So Real Muto quad relic to 99 Phillies Moncada patch to 25 White Sox Yankees Jersey Gary Sheffield 399 Adonis dual relic Brewers to 25 Judge Yankees Jersey to 299 Lemahue Yankees Jersey not numbered a Cal Ripken Orioles dual Jersey to 25 jumbo materials Abrams Padres to 49 With all focaccia rookie patch to 49 Pirates Seager Rangers Jersey to 49 Cubs Deekman Jersey to 99 Dual Cubs or sorry, this is Braves Maddox and Glavin even that's a Matt's patch That's it says Atlanta. So it's Braves card here Maddox and Glavin dual relic Last of the relics here Philly Aranola to 49 or less of the non-magged relics Bobby wait rookie Jersey Royals Durand rookie Jersey Red Sox and Maguire Jersey to 99 Cardinals All right, we'll start with sort of these autos here Actually here. Yeah, we'll start with those Take stack Just take all out. Okay So from Sterling Royals Austin Cox speckle Yankees Alexander Vargas to 99 Nationals Jackson Clough back to Immaculate now Dodgers RPA Zach McKincher to 99 He'll a sort of Jersey Otto Dodgers. That was a cool one to 75 Celtic Mariners auto to 75 force Whitley prospect patch out of 26 Astros. Hey, have a good one Vonte care, man Jake Myers patch out of the 47 Astros Kevin Smith RPA Blue Jays to 49 Tigers RPA Matt Manning the 25 Then we get a top scrum hits here Nationals Mason Thompson rookie Otto Conor Wong Red Sox blue to 150 Jared Durand rookie refractor out of the 499 Red Sox Conor Wong base Andre Jackson Dodgers to 499 Phillies Matt Veerling Royals with Merrifield Nationals Francisco Perez blue ray wave Mariners Logan Gilbert to 150 White Sox Roman Gonzalez refractor Otto Kyle Muller braves the 499 Brewers Jake Cousins D-back steak McCarthy blue rookie refractor out of the 150 D-backs Tyler Gilbert Marlins Trevor Rogers Pirates or Delpho Castro pirates Rwanzi Contreras Astros Jose Ciri Mike Ballman Orioles Ricky refractor out of the 499 Taylor Widener Diamondbacks search and the Postal Rangers We had a Nick Nelson Yankees rookie purple Otto to 50 Astros Christian Javier Reds Jose Garcia White Sox Matt Foster White Sox Cody Hewer to 199 White Sox Dane Dunning Padres Ryan Weathers refractor to 499 Astros Christian Javier more sterling here Brett Beatty to 150 Mets Jeremy Pena Astros base. That's nice Yankees Jake Sanford Brewers Tyler black wave Otto Luis Rodriguez to 125 Dodgers nice card Angels Irovera D-back Jordan Loller Raise Carson Williams orange for the raise Kyle Manzardo to 75 Astros Darry Lorenzo Pedro Pineda speckled to 99 a's blue Pirates Lee over piguero to 25 Rangers Maximo Costa Rays Nick Bitsco Royals a salacy Brewer speckle headboard Perez to 99 Heading Bertha Hernandez raise base honey old Troy Dodgers McLean a hand redemption for the raise not expired at rookie auto refractor parallel Nice one raise and Dylan Dingler Tigers. Keep going here. Rockies from tribute Andres Gallaraga to 150 Royals Brady singer to 99 Reds Nick sends L Jersey out on a 25 Tanner Howe crookie triple jersey out of Red Sox to 75 The autos from Bowman's best twins Matt Wallner D-back John Duplantier or Duplantier. Adley Rochman base for the Orioles nice Ryland Bannon CJA rooms for the Padres Got Pirates Cal Mitchell Mets pitilanzo rookie auto 19's best is loaded man Bowers guardians rookie auto gold Quinn preacher to 50 pirates Dustin May Dodgers Manoa blue jays White Sox to El Quis Cespidis Padres Victor Acosta Brewers Jefferson caro Marlon's Jose Devers raised Tanner Murray nationals Armando Cruz Rockies refractor Ezekiel Tovar Uh tier one we had ATG Friedel Reds number two two ninety nine Shane Bieber guardians to 149, you don't have to wait for me God White Sox Jake burger or bronze to 25 on the auto jesse winker reds to two ninety nine a gold wave Brandon Lau it's a 50 on the From 2022 tops chrome for the raise Into looks like immaculate again rpa Raleigh Adams gnats to 49 garanti contrast pirates to 99 Tyler McGill eye black patch auto Mets to 47 Redemption red Sox Marcella Meyer prospect patch auto black from immaculate. I said red Sox Uh butt relic auto royals chris bubak to 10 We had raised out of ideal brujana from inception to 99 patch auto Braves Austin Riley to 25 from inception Curtis terry rangers rookie auto to one 25 Rivas cubs at two 99 From chronicles we had mariners map rash to 50 red Sox Conor Wong to 25 Curtis terry twins to 50 Zerpa royals not numbered Got rpa colton welker Rockies To 49 jazz chisel marlin's base John Heasley royals chrome ticket there seth beer dime of access 75 Conor Wong jersey auto red Sox to 99 america's pastime a lot of hits Guardian Shane beaver to 99 Mets marcus stroman to 99. He had nomar for the red Sox to 49 A giant's christian a royal auto to 50 Josh Donaldson blue jays to 80 might be out some Mets 10 of 10 Mariners mitch hannigar auto to 99 and ben intended redemption. This went red Sox It's from 18 tributaries expired though It might still have that I'm honestly not sure how tops does it got cubs e and hap auto to two 99 Or to 199 Nate Pearson blue jays the 199 triple jersey auto erinola fillies to 25 Cubs Andre Dawson to 125 and erinola again partial signature on the relic as well, which is kind of neat That one's to 150 that one's higher number than one that doesn't have that hmm Ian hap cubs dual jersey auto to 399 A silver frame silver ink auto jeff bagwell ashros to 15 Brewers yell itch to 125 Burrios blue jays dual jersey auto to 190 tigers matt manning to 299 chris valmont twins chrome prospect auto redemption Expired about three months ago. It's from bowman sapphire It's chris valmont twins again. Not sure if they'll have that or not Um, qualm young kim rookie auto cardinals randy dobnak twins Joe ryan insert auto from bowman But the rays there first bowman auto choice to 150 austin shenton mariners Rockies carl kaufman first bowman auto Braves von grissom nice Brewer for the astros jordan brewery astros schristen mckenzie Guardians jose bonilla angels starlin aguilar blue to 150 mariners first bowman Yellow leo peguero to 75 with a nice pirates color match there Nice hit on the peguero selestino first bowman auto twins a louis diaz marlins sapphire rookie auto first bowman aqua auto william holmes to 99 angels louis santana first bowman auto astros both from sapphire there Tomas nito went to the mets to 150 on the insert auto In 2020 bowman Kilba do first bowman auto twins from 18 chrome a blue chris torres to 150 marlins Jorge guzman marlins bass pressiato atomic to that's driving nuts to 100 padres nice pressiato baren radicula fillies ben hernandez royals On this one. That was an extra hit. Which is kind of cool Mariners milcar pares we had insert auto to 100 summer campere dentmers angels Jersey autos from pristine white socks tim anderson brewers josh hater Dodgers walker bueller and an orange number to 25 frank thomas white socks The big hurts had a lot of frank thomas in this Okay, there's two more stacks of non mags cards and there's like 12 stacks of mags cards Whoo, yeah, of course man, so I'm glad I did I saw the blue and I was like wait a second Because it's it's it's tough with him because with pinini you have chicago cub chicago whites I was just gonna say chicago because there's no licensing Yeah, I'm glad we checked Uh, so from sterling Dodgers dual jersey auto bueller to 25 randy johnson and mariners to 25 on the dual relic auto From flawless here steve garvey Dodgers to 10 to bear us rangers to 10 patch auto vato reds to 15 puck to 25 patch auto a's lube rock auto to three for the cardinals a legend right there An Aquino for the reds to 10 Um meadows raised the 25 Really crazy patch auto there just and done mariners like the basically the entire logo For the mariners here three or five expired blockchain anthony k blue jays again They probably won't do anything with that with the with the blockchain Um from five star pat corbin nationals kyle lewis mariners rookie Akiyama rookie reds to 50 Robelle garcia cubs Wade boggs golden to 25 red sox Carter kibum nationals Green grisham to 15 Padres. It's a nice one Dylan cease white sox rookie auto to nt now. We had a garret hamson rockies the 25 triple patch auto rpa jacob nix Padres the 99 jersey auto uh vr for the brewers the 99 printing plate auto one of one trevor story rockies yet rpa anderson taheda Rangers to 49 i think it is Mets dom smith auto to 99 orials keegan aiken rookie auto to 99 This is almost more difficult to break like this is a lot in one go Uh, this random went tigers. Miguel cabrera had a marlins and tigers card here went tigers random to 10 Bo jackson royals. These are from diamond icons Will clark giants to 25 berry larkin to five for the reds Bryce harper to 10 for the fillies nice price Cubs andre dawson to 25 gold frame patch auto bogarts to 20 or 30 for the red sox is from definitive now Shane boss raised to 50 crew angels to five jersey auto meadows to 25 crew bat relic auto to five twins this time bat relic auto gold schmidt to 25 cardinals dual auto bregman al-tube stroze nomar red sox to 40 crew angels to 35 Cabrera tigers to 25 cabrion haze pirates to 25 i believe yep it's 25 nice cabrion We had a triple legend trio's book to 49. This was a It's not a tag thing. I'll open it. Look, I'm pretty sure this is giants. I also have to tag it I believe this was giants Yep giants, so it's a Frankie frish William and cubby a male ought those are new york giants and the frish and ought then the cubby is obviously a giant Giants on that one Can you get a sticky note that says giants? Save someone the 10 seconds of opening it up tomorrow Uh d-backs rpa varshota 20 samey sosa patch auto cubs the seven dual patch auto mariners evan white to 25 and patch auto david peterson mess to 20 Okay guys everything else is in a mag This does not include the pristine um Numbered parallels that don't have autos if that makes sense guys like the like the pristine base parallels I'm gonna start with this card. Um, originally we were gonna random this. I'm not gonna random this though I think this is too big to random so gnats and uh Braves we're gonna get in touch with you guys. I got the information there Uh, probably tomorrow we'll email you see what you'd like to do with the card Maybe sell it split it or whatever you might want to do Start with the bin here So these are all gonna be pristine so we'll start with the pristine hits I'm gonna shohio tani auto for the angels As a sick one read debtors angels Phillies ryan howard Jake burger to 25 white socks Reese Hoskins Phillies Yordan gold for the astros david right metz Dale murphy braves Three and two hits now three and two we had berry larkin five-way relic reds larry walker patch auto rockies the five These are all first off the line. So the number to like eight or less every single one of these mag three and two cards trade turner dodgers patch Dual auto red socks mire and cossus nice prospect hit there red socks Andrew painter Phillies quad patch auto ernie banks cubs five-way relic patch auto tigers kasey myse elson howard yankees relic Got a one-soto redemption national superstars signatures red Tyler McGill rookie patch metz patch auto quarry lee astros with a really nice like astros age there Yordan alvarez patch card astros Pirates bill mazoroski on the auto here Gabriel merino dual patch blue jays patch auto red socks paedra martinez to five patch card ray shane baz bobby win jr. rookie quad relic royals Matt manning tigers patch prospect patch auto mj melendez royals dual patch auto a's danis accuracy a's This oakland even though those are red socks patches The rest of these here. We had a white whale rookie triple patch printing plate auto one of one alex kiroloff twins from 2021 triple threads and miguel blice on the blue choice first bowman out of the 150 big card red socks A gold first bowman auto blue jays gabriel merino from 2020 chrome geez The gold henry davis auto pirates to 50 from bowman's best a gold image variation short print Juan soto nationals from 2021 tops chrome That's a cool one from sterling. We had speckle auto riley green numbered to 99 tigers a wave auto jayson domingas yankees to 125 that was the same box as a wild box Uh, clearly autos here phillies ryan howard Elohimenez white socks to 50 a cubs carry wood to 50 ajlx here rookie auto rangers From tops chrome black rookie auto green louis garcía to 99 nas and other green andrew von white socks that time I guess that you don't have to wait. I'll have to like There's not much of an order to these are all they're all fairly large hits All pretty nice We'll start with these dynasty hits here. We had the larry walker patch out of the five rockies Joey vada reds to 10 Man, I'm excited for when dynasty comes out again. We're all this Chapman yankees to five Matt Chapman a's the five in miguel cabera marlins three of 10 We had mvp diamond gem mike schmitt phillies joey barred rpa giants dual game-worn jerseys jackie robinson three of 10 Dodgers That is a sick card There you go Dodgers God diamond mariano reveri yankees nine of 20 Um, we had a dual auto pilanzo yordle alvarez 8 of 15 Went to the astros in the random congrats on that one straws Um, shohio tani jersey auto 15 of 25 from nt for the angels In one of one patch auto from so the next this lesson next to this stack is all luminaries one of one patch auto brewers christian yellich four of 10 edgar martin as mariners Jersey auto shohio tani angels five of 15 Jersey auto mike trout angels two of 15 And angels auto hour pools four of five those three hits were back to back to back in that case insane for the angels insane Jersey auto cardinals azi smith five of 10 with a 15 time all star inscription, which is pretty nice White Sox a break you to 15 red Sox bogarts patch auto to 15 angels kuru to five redemption julio rodriguez mariners Home run king auto red parallel numbered to 10 big time rookie hit there for the mariners We had carlton fist red Sox to 15 one of one al mvp inscribed frank thomas patch auto for the white Sox Fantastic case of luminaries last few hits guys. That's a big one We had a hedecky matt suey four of five quad relic auto yankees mariano revero one of five quad patch auto yankees from sterling red ink vladimir guerrero junior blue jays auto one of five A cut signature number three or four for the braves warren spawn They sit braves And a one of one mariano revero out of icons Yeah, guys, uh, that'll do it. That is a 28 minute recap. Oh my god. Oh my god Yeah, guys, that'll do it. Thanks again


Hey, Psych2goers! Welcome to another video. First of all, we'd like to thank you for all the support that you've given us. Psych2go's mission is to make psychology and mental health more accessible to everyone, and you help us do that. So, thanks again. Now, let's begin. Do you tremble or sweat at the thought of going out into group gatherings? Social anxiety disorder is a chronic illness defined by a marked and persistent fear of one or more social situations where you're exposed to unfamiliar people. The symptoms of social anxiety can sometimes be so subtle that you're not even aware of what's going on. You may have even brushed off your social anxiety as a bad stomach ache or blamed it on a lack of sleep. But it's important to be aware and recognize some of the symptoms of social anxiety so you can get the support and help you need. Before we begin, we would like to mention that this video is created for educational purposes only and is not intended to substitute a professional diagnosis. If you suspect that you or someone you know may have social anxiety disorder or any mental health condition, we highly advise you to seek help from a qualified mental health professional. With that said, here are seven symptoms of social anxiety disorder. Number one, you worry about everyday activities. Do you feel anxious whenever you need to go out? When you have social anxiety, it can feel daunting and overwhelming to complete normal and everyday tasks. This may include meeting new people, starting conversations with others, speaking on the phone, going to work or doing daily tasks such as grocery shopping where other people are present. Number two, avoiding and worrying about social activities.  Whether it's because you feel claustrophobic around crowds or feel that other people are judging you when you're out, people with social anxiety may go out of their way to avoid activities that involve a lot of people. This may include any social gatherings, engaging in group conversations and socializing at events. Number three, blushing and excessive sweating can be physical symptoms. Have you found yourself trembling or sweating a lot when you're in a social situation? Sometimes your social anxiety disorder may manifest itself through physical symptoms. Excessive blushing or sweating can sometimes be linked to an intense fear of embarrassment, especially when in the presence of other people. Other symptoms may include feeling sick, trembling or experiencing heart palpitations. Number four, you may experience panic attacks. In a more extreme case, you may end up experiencing panic attacks when out in public. You might find yourself sweating, shaking, having problems breathing properly, and experience an overall sense of dread or doom. This overwhelming sense of fear can last from several minutes to an hour, depending on how severe it is, and can be quite a scary experience. Number five, an overwhelming fear of being criticized. Can you take criticism in a healthy way? Instead of seeing criticism as a way to improve, you may experience intense dread or anxiety about being rejected or criticized. Often this can end up having an impact on your self-esteem and on your interpersonal skills, where you end up having poor eye contact, closed body language, and a tendency to avoid other people. Number six, feeling like you're being judged and watched. Do you feel like you're being watched by others, like your peers, colleagues, or strangers?  This anxiety you feel in public may cause you to become cautious and distanced from others, and may make it more difficult for you to complete tasks in the presence of others. And number seven, expecting the worst case scenario. Do you always think about all the things that could go wrong? Even if your friends have told you that it isn't as bad as you believe it to be, whether it's a presentation, meeting, or just seeing some old friends, your brain just seems to focus on the worst possible outcome of every situation. This constant thinking of how bad everything can end up being can end up intensifying in worsening your anxiety and dread to the point of causing a panic attack. So do you suspect you or someone you know might be suffering from a social anxiety disorder? If so, reach out to a mental health professional. If you found this video helpful, be sure to like and share this video with those who might benefit from it. Don't forget to hit the subscribe button and the notification bell icon to get notified whenever Psych2Go posts a new video. The references and studies used in this video are added in the description below. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you soon!


Hi, my name is Johanna Weaver and I'm the Director of the Tech Policy Design Centre at the Australian National University. I'm also the host of the Talking Tech Policy podcast, which we're going to be launching with this conversation. As we're meeting here today at Parliament House, it seems particularly poignant to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet the Nga Wa people. I pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging and I extend that respect to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who are tuning in today. Minister, thank you very much for giving us your time. We're here with Minister Fletcher, the Minister for Communication, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. Thank you very much for being here. Very pleased to be here. So when we agreed to do this interview, it was a few weeks back and we agreed to interview you to talk about your book, Governing in the Internet Age. And of course, there's a lot happening in your portfolio at the moment. So it's particularly a great time to have the conversation and we will get into some of the recent announcements, including around the Troll legislation and the inquiry into Big Tech that the government announced yesterday. But before we do that, I wanted us to take a step back and contextualise the period of change that we've had because I think everybody that works in this house knows and understands how difficult governing is full stop. But in the context of governing around technologies and the technologies are not new anymore, I think it's fair to say, but comparative to many of the other issues, we don't have the same amount of precedent and experience. So when I was asked to write something for the Monash University Press Series in the national interest, I thought about what I wanted to write about and decided that the growth of the Internet and what it meant for government would be an interesting topic, particularly because it's now frighteningly 25 years since I first got involved in this space when I started working for then communications minister Richard Alston. I'd recently come back from the US where I'd done an MBA and over that time the Internet, at that point it was just emerging, so when I left Australia there was certainly no retail Internet service providers. There was also no subscription television, almost nobody had a mobile phone, but it was the start of a period of great change and that really accelerated very, very quickly. And so the Internet, of course now, as I chart in the book, is a commonplace part of life and billions of people around the world are connected, but that's really only happened over about 25 years. Certainly if you take the period within which the Internet has gone from being a tool used by a relatively small number of researchers and academics to becoming a mass market phenomenon. So I thought it was interesting to kind of, I guess, try and look at that period and just make some observations about what that has meant for government. Yeah. And can I ask, because I do love to ask this question because it puts it in context for the individual, what was your first interaction with a computer or the first time you heard and used the Internet? Because I think when we reflect on those personal stories it helps to realise how far we've come in such a short period of time. Well, I point to a couple of things. Firstly, my dad was an academic. He finished his career as Professor of Computational Engineering at UNSW. So we always had around the house stacks of computer paper and programming cards and so on going back to the sort of late 60s, early 70s, remember a couple of science projects, which nominally I did, but he largely did, on a computer. Then probably when I got to business school, I took a class called Management of Media Information and Communications, which really opened my eyes to the whole sector. And the professor who taught the class was talking a lot about this thing called the Internet, which I'd never really heard of before.  So that was kind of 93, 94. So that probably started to open my eyes a bit to it. But certainly there was no, at that stage, there were no browsers. So you still needed to use some rudimentary computing language to be able to access the Internet. And of course, that all changed very, very quickly. And that's one of the factors that was obviously key in the Internet then becoming a mass market consumer phenomenon. Absolutely. And if you think 1993 was when the World Wide Web, as we know, it was unleashed upon the world. And so it really isn't that long ago. And without wanting to date myself too much, I think I am part of one of the only generation, one of the last generations, at least in Australia, that can experience life before, remember life before the Internet and life after the Internet. So at the Tech Policy Design Centre, the key focus of our mission is how do we get more people engaged in conversations around technology policy. And I think as the Minister for Communications, it's not actually always a given that the Minister has deep expertise in their portfolio. And that certainly is the case for you having been a ministerial advisor, parliamentary secretary, also having worked in at Optus for corporate regulatory affairs. So with the expertise that you bring to this field, can you explain to someone without a particular deep expertise in tech policy and someone who doesn't work in the tech industry? Why are these issues important to the average Australia? And why should they be focused and concerned or advocating on these issues? I think tech policy issues are enormously important because of the way they underpin the lives that almost all of us lead. The ACCC reported that Facebook has over 17 million Australians who use it every month and in its digital platforms review and over 19 million Australians use Google every month. So first of all, these are very widely used services. Secondly, and I spent a bit of time talking about this in the book, from the point of view of all of us as consumers, the internet has given us many, many options we didn't have before. And I argue that's even more so for a relatively small economy like Australia compared to big economies like the US or big countries in Europe or Asia. And so the choices that it gives you as a consumer on things like being able to instantly get information about different interest rates when you're looking for a mortgage, that was just in practical terms impossible 30 years ago. So I think these tech policy issues are important because of the benefits the internet can deliver. But then what are the business models under which it's delivered? And so the digital platforms inquiry, which led to amongst other things, the news media bargaining code, which we legislated earlier this year, was looking at the market power of Google and Facebook. One of the things that's happened with the internet is that it's been the basis for very large businesses, global businesses. And there's been a tendency for one business to dominate in a particular category. And it's argued that that's a consequence of, I guess, the economic characteristics of internet businesses, increasing returns to scale. So the bigger you get, the lower your costs are, and therefore the harder it is for anybody to compete with you. And that is why search is dominated by Google. It's why, you know, Amazon has such a dominant position in e-commerce and so on. That raises a lot of public policy questions. We've always, or for a long time, governments have been interested in the question of market power, you know, what the US, what in the US is called anti-trust and what here is called competition law. And ultimately, what does that mean about the prices of which we can purchase services? So I think those are some reasons to be why Australia should be concerned about technology policy, but also then things like privacy, security, safety. The internet has become, and particularly social media platforms, have become the digital town square, where so many of us interact. Now, we take for granted that if we interact in the physical town square, that if something goes wrong, we can go to the police. We can, you know, if we're assaulted or if we're defrauded, we can go to the courts. And people naturally assume the same protections are available to them when they interact in the digital town square. But it's more complicated. And one of the reasons it's more complicated is that the platforms are giant global businesses operating in 150 plus countries. So one of the questions is, which countries laws apply and how do governments require these global businesses to comply with the laws of your country when operating in your country? So let's talk about some of the measures that the government has implemented to look at how we can engage in the online town square, if you like. And I think the most topical one at the moment is the legislation or the draft bill that was introduced or released yesterday around tackling anonymous online trolling. And that legislation, in your book, you talk about governments gaining more confidence to legislate. And I think that is unequivocally the case, that we are seeing more confidence. What I'm interested in and the focus of the work that we're doing at the Tech Policy Design Centre is to look at our governments being effective in their regulation now. Because I think step one, let's admit that we should be regulating. Step two, let's regulate in a way that achieves its objective. So you use the example of cars and seatbelts and the evolution of regulatory technology. Cars didn't have seatbelts to begin with, then regulators stepped in. In the case of seatbelts, there's a clear evidence that seatbelts saves lives. With anonymous online trolling, has the government got or do you have evidence that the anonymity online and unmasking of anonymous trolls will actually lead to less of that behavior, that anonymity will actually help us to reduce it? Look, I think there's ample evidence that online harassment, bullying, abuse has very detrimental consequences, including mental health consequences. Sadly, they've been instances of suicides and so on. One of the principles we've sought to apply is regulating just enough. So with our news media bargaining code, which we legislated earlier this year, that was dealing with the problem of content, news media content, generated and paid for by Australian news media businesses like Seven West Media or Nine Detainment Limited. That costs money, costs money to employ journalists and editors and so on. And yet the public policy problem was that that content was being used by the digital platforms as part of their very successful process of attracting eyeballs to their sites, monetizing those and so on. But they weren't paying for it and there wasn't the normal commercial transaction that would occur. What we did was set up strong incentives for the platforms to commercially negotiate. And that has worked and indeed there have been, I think, some 14 or 15 deals done by Google. So creating the incentive for the commercial deals. Now, if we go to the legislation that we released an exposure draft of yesterday, the anti-trolling legislation, the primary framework that that's dealing with is the question of defamation. So it's the law is well established that if I write in a newspaper or say on television or radio, you know, that Paul Fletcher is a lying scoundrel and make other comments that are damaging to the reputation of a person, then the person who has been the subject of those comments has a right to sue indeformation and then the law is well established as to whether a case is made out and so on. That same right should be available wherever the defamatory comments made, whether they're made online as well. But there are major practical barriers to commencing legal action at the moment. At the same time, we've seen a significant increase in the volume of people complaining about these issues because the Internet has given many more people voice, a proportion of the comments that are made will be problematic, including a proportion will be defamatory. So the aim is fundamentally to create strong incentives for the platforms to set up a complaint scheme under which if I consider I've been defined by somebody who said something online, I can go to the platform and say connect me with that person, give them the opportunity to take it down or alternatively give them the opportunity to ask them to release their contact details so that I can commence legal action against them should I choose to do that and then there will also be a power for the federal courts to issue an order requiring the disclosure information. So what we're trying to do again is regulate just enough. We want to create strong incentives for the platforms so in turn they can put in place an efficient complaint scheme. So I understand that you want to regulate just enough and also that the behaviour there is I think very few people in Australia who would want to see this type of behaviour continue. No one is saying the behaviour of trolls is acceptable. But I guess the question is will the removing anonymity actually achieve the objective? And I use here the example of in Korea. So back in 2012 the Koreans introduced similar legislation and actually the Korean courts ended up overruling that legislation on the basis that it actually there was no demonstrable impact of that of the removing anonymity on reducing that type of malicious online behaviour. So I guess it's more a question of does is the target of anonymity actually going to achieve the objective that you're setting here? I would define the target as being making, not allowing people to make comments online with impunity beyond beyond the reach of normal legal and regulatory safeguards that have long existed. And I also make the point that this is part of a suite of laws. And earlier this year we passed the online safety act that will come into effect in January next year. That deals with serious cyber abuse of adults. And it complements the scheme we already have in place for cyber willing of children. It's a pretty high threshold there. So that if a if something if an online statement would be considered by a reasonable person to be menacing, harassing or offensive and intended to cause harm. So quite a high threshold. But if it meets that threshold, the eSafety Commission can determine that it is cyber bullying material, cyber abuse material directed at an Australian adult and directed it be taken down. So the point is that's one part of a framework to deal with unacceptable material online. And then another part of the framework we're now adding in is to deal with the issue of defamation. So not necessarily proposing, constituting a direct threat to somebody, but attacking somebody's reputation and at least giving people in practical terms the opportunity to should they choose to seek redress. So anonymity is one of the practical hurdles today, which means that the normal recourse to the law of defamation that is available in practical terms today, it's quite hard to access when it comes to comments made online. So I would really like to drill down a little bit more on the way that this new law will interact with the eSafety provisions. But before we do that and one of the other aspects of this new legislation that's been introduced, it was in part a response to the High Court case involving Vola, which had the result being that people who have social media pages become responsible for different different defamatory comments made on those pages, whether or not you made them and whether or not you knew they were there. And this legislation is saying, well, now the platform will be responsible for that defamatory comment rather than me as the owner of the Facebook page, for example. One of the concerns that I've seen about that provision, whilst it's great that there's certainty that individual users of platforms are not going to be held liable for comments that they're not making themselves, that it might disincentivise people to do content moderation, that it may actually end up that whilst the objective is to reduce this type of unacceptable behaviour and trolling, that actually it will result in less content moderation because we've moved the burden. What do you say in response to that? Well, you're right to say that part of what this bill does is respond to the law as it was set out in the High Court case in Voila, which said if you have a Facebook page, whether you're an ordinary citizen or a business and a third party makes a comment on that, which is defamatory, you are liable and our policy judgment is that's not the right allocation of liability. So what this bill will do, should it pass into law, is that the prima facie liability will sit with the social media platform. But what it then says is there's a set of mechanisms to deal with if you have a complaint scheme, if you disclose user identity information when it's sought to commence proceedings, then you can avoid that liability. Now, it really comes down to the question of who is who is best placed to manage these issues and the platforms clearly have a technological capability that individual users do not. It's their business model, their best place to identify how to manage these risks. And so that's really the judgment that we've made. I mean, I make the point, it's perfectly possible for the platforms in their terms of use to say to people who have a page, well, you know, these will be your responsibilities. So there's again, what we're trying to do is regulate just enough. The act or the bill sets out clearly what we want to achieve. But much of the operational detail is going to be a question for the platforms and there may be many different ways of achieving it. So I think my skepticism about the efficacy of anonymity aside, I would like to acknowledge the fact that in order to unmask people that will require a court order. And I think that is an important safeguard that is reflected in this legislation. So I think it's being fair on in all of my commentary. The last question I have about this one is it's interesting and you mentioned this in your book about states having responsibility for defamation in Australia. And so just to confirm that you're framing this as a bill or legislation if it is to pass that will that is focused around social media platforms rather than defamation because it is an interesting constitutional needle you're weaving there. Look, the substantive law of defamation is not changed by this. You know, there's a whole series of judgments that the courts make on the facts of a particular case as to whether it is defamatory, you know, truth, public interest, all these considerations come into it. We're not changing any of that. The majority of defamation cases are heard in state and territory courts. We don't expect that to change. What this does do, it would establish a set of processes or mechanisms to commence a defamation action and it also gives very strong incentives for the platforms to set up a complaints mechanism which, if it works as we hope it will, will mean that cases that otherwise might get a court could be resolved more quickly and efficiently. OK, and let's move on and talk a little bit about the e-safety legislation that passed in, particularly around the adult cyberbullying provision, which is the the fundamentally new aspect of that legislation. And my question is how and you have touched on this a little how that legislation will interact with the legislation around unmasking trolls, which I think is actually a bit of a misnomer because not all trolling behaviour is defamatory, for example. But the question I have is how often do you think the this new law would be used if it were to be passed in comparison to the cyberbullying? And when you put them side by side, the cyberbullying does seem to it has a lower burden, so it's you're not requiring defamation, which is so the the barrier to entry, if you like, is less. The you go through the e-safety commissioner rather than through a court and it's a 24 hour period, which is something that is new in that legislation as opposed to a long drawn out court process. It's free as opposed to as opposed to defamation, which is costly. So do you think that this legislation, putting aside its the effectiveness around anonymity, do you think it will actually be used when we have such a strong new legislation in cyberbullying? I recognise the irony of sort of critiquing one proposal by saying how strong something else that you have introduced is. There are certainly going to be online comments or posts which could potentially attract both pieces of legislation but the principal difference between them in my view is that the bar to be able to access the cyberbullying provisions is quite high. It needs to be material that a reasonable person would consider menacing, harassing or offensive and intended to cause harm. So it's very much about a comment directed at an individual that would be concluded to have a particular intent. There will be material which is a comment about somebody which potentially is defamatory but which does not meet the test of intended to cause harm. I mean, think about an online restaurant review and as we know over the years, restaurant reviews have from time to time caused actions in defamation. So you know, if somebody posts you know, I went to that cafe Paul Fletcher is running, it's hopeless.  That would not be, you know, menacing, harassing or offensive intended to cause harm but there would be a question as to whether if I was you know, as the subject of a comment whether I felt that had done sufficient damage to my reputation and I wanted to take action in defamation. So there's potentially some overlap but I think the adult cyberbullying provisions as I say, there's quite a high threshold and it really is about intended to cause harm and that a reasonable person would conclude it was intended to cause harm. So when you describe those thresholds, I mean I think defamation is a cause of action that is of course available but there's a high cost bar of getting involved in that. The threshold as you describe it with the cyberbullying is quite high. Do you think there's more to be done just in terms of social norms that will perhaps have more effect than regulation and legislation in addressing the type of behaviour that you're talking about? Look, I think it needs to be tackled on several fronts. One of the reasons that we're talking about anonymity is because there is a perception that what you do online is anonymous and so you can say and do things that you would never say to somebody face to face. Now, I accept the proposition that there are certainly trolls who are quite happy to have their identity known and it seems to be part of their motivation but there is I think good evidence that we also see people engaging in pretty abusive commentary online because they think they're protected by a cloak of anonymity. So one of the things we want to do is improve the norms of behaviour and as well as the anti-trolling legislation in the online safety act the safety commissioner has been given powers to require the platforms to provide the identity information they have about a user account. So and that might well be used for example if there was somebody who was engaging in systematic abuse and the objective was to identify that person and perhaps pursue that, pursue penalties which the safety commissioner has the power to issue as a means of helping communicate to the broader community we'll look, don't assume you're anonymous online because that's very often not the case. And are you concerned of the privacy implications or the security of the information that is going to be collected either for this legislation or for the online safety legislation? Look, there's absolutely a balance when it comes to issues of privacy and security and clearly there are circumstances where it would not be desirable that somebody's identity be revealed. That's why as you rightly point out under the draft legislation it would require a court order and they'll be in need to balance up these considerations or through the voluntary complaint scheme it would require the consent of the person who posted the material. Similarly, when it comes to the safety commissioner's powers again as a regulator she'll be in a position, Julian McGrathory safety commissioner, her staff will be in a position to weigh up those issues. So yes these things absolutely do need to be weighed up. And I thought it was interesting looking at the legislation yesterday that the information that you're requiring and this is the anonymous Troll legislation is name, phone numbers and email address which is largely information that many people would give to a platform provider anyway. And in the Korean case actually the legislation resulted in a massive data breach and that was part of the concern around that legislation. And I personally was comforted a little to see that the requested information was relatively narrow but I do note that there's provision there for that to be expanded via legislative rules which does raise a few concerns that it may be expanded over time. And I suppose the point I'd make is that again as we consult on the detail we can work through all of these issues including for example part of the question is okay what information do you need to commence legal action? And that's the thing that the courts can rule on or that we can determine through legislation what the courts then apply. And if the comment or post that you're seeking to make the subject of defamation action has been made online by a user then the holder of a user account then the capacity to commence legal process to serve the commencing documents if you can use those online tools then arguably you don't need some of the other things like physical address and so on that historically the courts have used. So those are all issues to be worked on. Yeah, and I think they're very important issues. Likewise, I think with respect to the evidence about how much of the trolling behavior is actually anonymous. There's quite a lot of research that that behavior a lot of anonymous that most of the malicious trolling behavior is actually people under their real name. So I'll be very interested to see how that progresses. Let's move on to another element of the e-safety legislation and particularly the provisions around the basic online safety expectations. This is happening as a subset along with the development of industry codes. One of the things that perhaps has been most topical about that legislation or that direction sorry that's sitting underneath is the reference there to encryption and I know this is something that has been a strong criticism of the Morrison government is your approach to encryption. You mentioned it briefly in the book and I think if we were to sum up the main criticism of it it's that the approach to encryption seems to be the bad guys use encryption. We need it to prevent access to child pornography or terrorist behaviors. Therefore we need this legislation and there are many who would say that actually encryption also has a very important purpose in our societies including for example to underpin our financial systems the banks wouldn't work without encryption. So how do you respond to that criticism and are you also in the same token concerned that some countries outside of Australia would be watching what we're doing around encryption or anonymity and those countries might not have the same human rights protections or respect for rule of law and how you balance that in the global environment which is something you also touch on. So the idea behind the basic online safety expectations is that the parliament through the Minister for Communications on behalf of the Australian people is saying to the platforms these are the things that we expect you will do and we ask you to report against them and there are penalties for failing to report and it's things like having an easy to use complaints system and I guess a range of other things that we would say based upon the collective experience particularly of the E-Safety Commissioner in dealing with platforms. As new platforms emerge TikTok came along only three or four years ago for example now very, very popular there'll be others. These are the things we expect you to do and it's intended to be quite a practical workable document and I would say I actually commend you on that document I think it is a very useful document to set the expectations for the platforms but I guess my question is more specifically on the encryption point because part of those documents were saying that these expectations apply also to encrypted communications and that's an interesting if it's encrypted how are the platforms to? Well again we're looking at it through a safety lens so if you're a teenager in an online chat group bit WhatsApp or whatever the service is and there are abusive comments directed at you seen by 50 or 100 people in the group I guess the basic point we're making is it's not good enough to say oh it's encrypted so you know that's beyond the realm of I guess regulatory concern here on the contrary it's if it has the effect if it's seen on the screen by the user then the fact that it's encrypted we're saying look you've got to have regard to the safety of your users and we've got a set of expectations here we've got a set of requirements and you can't just say oh well it's encrypted so forget all that. Yeah so I understand what you're saying particularly with respect to a lot of the popular social media platforms are either already end to end encryption or becoming encryption so I understand the concern I understand young children are using these and there is bullying behaviour but at the same time something is either encrypted or it's not and as a good friend of mine often said it's maths it's either encrypted or it's not and so it does raise particular challenges because if you weaken encryption for something like this you're also potentially weakening in almost likely weakening encryption for things like the banking system and you know that is a difficult balance and I suspect you might, well I'll give you the opportunity to say something more but it is a concern for many people when they're looking at the approach for Australia around these things. Well certainly in terms of the basic online safety expectations the way that we would think about this is these are things that if you're providing a service to millions of Australians and hundreds of millions of people around the world but certainly our interest is in the safety of Australians we certainly hope that our approach will be of interest in other countries and the evidences that it is then again I can't put it any more simply than the fact that it's encrypted is not a get out of jail free card it doesn't allow you to say well we don't have to worry about safety quite the contrary. Okay great so I would like to come back to the point about international exporting of our policy but before we do that given how much work and attention and by yourself by the e-safety commissioner Julia Mangrant who does an excellent job the announcement of the inquiry into big tech comes as a little bit of a surprise in terms of the amount of work that has been done this new legislation will come into play in January why is the inquiry needed now given the changes that are about to come in and why do you really think you can do this issue justice in three months over a Christmas period after the year that everybody has had? I think there's several reasons why firstly the e-safety commissioner is about to have significantly expanded powers there's a number of codes that are being made we're finalizing the basic online safety expectations so it is an opportunity to I guess pressure test with the community what are your present experiences of online services, parents, schools, children and other stakeholders and those findings will undoubtedly inform the way that the e-safety commissioner exercises her powers secondly we've clearly seen in the revelations by the Facebook whistleblower Francis Horgan troubling indications of business practices the way that the algorithms operate and in particular the mental health implications of that so our users encouraged to go more and more down a rabbit hole of a particular subject an anorexic teenage girl seeing more and more content about dieting and body image and so on so those are some very significant issues that we think need to be examined and we also think it's an opportunity for the tech companies to come forward and talk about what their safety practices are and explain to Australians how they're keeping them safe so this is a very important set of issues it's clear to me as a politician and to my colleagues from the number of times this gets raised with us it's of big concern to families and parents and to kids and so I couldn't think of anything that is more appropriate for the parliament to be looking at that an issue like this which so much goes to the safety of Australians so don't disagree with you I think it's just a question of the timing and the length of the time and it seems to me that you're indicating that there might be further action that comes out of this beyond the new e-safety legislation that comes into play in in January sure well I'm saying a couple things firstly that under the powers e-safety commissioner now has she's got quite a degree of discretion quite a number of regulatory tools this inquire will be very useful in informing for her how she might use those tools but yes of course if we identify other areas where we think action is needed we certainly stand ready to do that these social media services are such a prevalent part of the lives of Australians many hours a day many millions of us from quite young ages so these are very important issues and we've certainly over the last few years done a lot of work in putting a regulatory framework around them but we certainly don't think that the job is done let's touch on the media bargaining code because it's something that you talk about in in the book quite extensively and also I think is is one of the capstone pieces of policy everyone will remember it we had the standoff with Google and Facebook government held your ground and we now have a situation where Google and Facebook are paying substantial amounts of money to a small number of media providers in Australia outside of the code though so the code allows for the negotiation staff and outside of the code now on the one hand that's a victory because that money was not being paid to news companies in Australia before the government took this action and I'm focused on the efficacy point and if the obligation or the intent of that legislation was to shore up and ensure that we have good journalism in Australia do we have is there evidence that the money that is being given to media companies is being used to support media and then the subset of that conversation is and is this actually inadvertently entrenching large media companies in Australia because they're the ones that have been and the deals have been done with you know the the large media companies not with the small or startup environment companies so and it it I'm not disputing the money is now being paid and that was the objective but it's more about the objective of improving ensuring up Australian journalism yeah the underlying public policy objective was first of all the competition policy issue that you have news media businesses competing with Google and Facebook for advertising revenue yet Google and Facebook were using content paid for and generated by news media businesses and not acquiring an ordinary commercial terms so first of all there was the competition policy issue but secondly there was the media policy issue in a liberal democracy you want a diverse vigorous media and that was significantly under threat from the dominance of the platforms we've now had I think about around 15 deals that Google has done slightly fewer for Facebook significant dollar amounts a couple of them have been publicly disclosed by listed companies and there is good evidence that they're using the money to hire more journalists news corp has been advertising for journalists and in some cases specifically linking it to news media bargaining code I noticed in the Australian financial review just the other day an ad for for journalists and saying for the first time they were increasing their newsroom for some years so I think there is pretty clear evidence that this money is being used to hire more journalists on the question of the size of companies I guess the way we looked at it was the journalists around Australia what's going to be the most effective way to maintain and increase their number and clearly the most effective way is to go to the biggest employers of journalists that being said there is quite a wide range of businesses that have received funding and the revenue the the minimum amount of annual revenue you need to earn to qualify to seek to negotiate under the code is 150 000 so it can certainly cover quite small businesses I mentioned before our principle was to regulate just enough to get the outcome that we wanted and so we think it is a very positive thing that these outcomes have been done through voluntary commercial negotiation but clearly the reason the platforms have come to the table to negotiate is because they know that if they don't they will find themselves in the compulsory bargaining process I think we'll all be watching closely to see who else has these agreements entered into and final question for you because I'm conscious we're coming up to time one of the most common criticisms of government regulation in this space is that for better or for worse and this is not intended necessarily as a criticism of politicians or of public servants but they often don't understand the technologies that they're regulating or they don't understand them as well as industry does and I think that was evident for example with the media bargaining code where one of the main criticisms of it was that there was a misunderstanding for example of the nature of the internet and links so two part question one would you do it would you craft that legislation differently knowing what you know now you've been in conversations with heads of google and facebook for example around the technical part not the intent but the the technical drafting of it and how do we upskill to address this asymmetry of knowledge where actually there is a real legitimate public purpose for government to be legislating and taking action in this space and I encourage and commend that but how do we make sure that that regulation and and regulatory interventions achieve their purpose with respect to the the actual technical applications when that knowledge is largely held by the the industry partners on the first question of the specific legislation will we do it differently I would say no we did consult pretty extensively we went through I think three successive drafts in which there was consultation and we did that in a very conscious way and bear in mind it started with a process of the a triple c developing the digital platforms inquiry the final report with several hundred pages so that was about an 18 month process within started on some development of the code extensive as I say extensive consultation successive drafts and so on but I'd also make the point that it does suit the tech companies to say oh government you don't understand if you seek to regulate us your country will be a technological backwater and I guess I've heard that most of the time I've been in parliament and it's a convenient thing to say if you want to avoid being regulated but I think there's a little so I agree I think the assessment of technological backwater is a a move that the tech companies often use but my experience and I worked in the public service for the last 10 years on these issues and I think the level of knowledge is very asymmetrical in favour of industry so I do think there is some element of of it is a fair comment in terms of expertise so the the second point I would make is that to some extent the solution to that problem lies in the hands of the tech sector and indeed I welcome the fact that just in the last few months the sector in Australia has come together to establish the tech council which now has a hundred members including some of the biggest Australian tech companies at Lassian Canva amongst others at the very highest levels and indeed they had an event in Canva just a couple of days ago you know Scott Farquhar and Mike Cannon Brooks from Atlassian were there Cliff Obrecht from Canva so to have owners of these very large Australian tech businesses in Canberra walking the halls of parliament and engaging at all levels is a very good thing so yes the business that the tech sector is complex the technology is fast-moving and so I think it's a very good thing that that is happening and you know government always seeks to I guess understand the industries that it regulates it's not a it's not a perfect process I readily concede that but I think I think there is improving mutual understanding I would say I think that is very fair and in closing I have I have focused on a lot of the challenging parts of the work of the government in this conversation but I would like to end by acknowledging that one of the the things that is particularly heartening for me in this field is that there are more governments around the world waking up and stepping up to the fact that we can change and shape technology for the public good and that is something that I am particularly passionate about so please accept my critiques of you in the spirit that they're intended in terms of it's a very important point in the book I seek to emphasise my strong belief that the internet is a force for economic cultural social educational good and that the world is a much better place thanks to this marvellous innovation that doesn't mean it should be beyond regulation but we shouldn't regulate it more than we need to and governments should also be very focused on how do we use the internet to deliver better services for citizens where it can deliver huge benefit so the internet absolutely a big positive governments need to engage with it but I'd much rather live in a world where so many of us are online than not absolutely me too and I'd much rather live in a world with regulation that is effective and that's our mission at the tech policy design centre so thank you very much Minister Fletcher for giving us your time. Pleasure to speak with you. Thank you.


I'm having to end it a tad bit early, but before we get into that I want to just share with you guys another Announcement I will be taking a break those of you who don't follow me on my community tab It's just a lot going on. I have a lot on my plate right now It's a lot to handle in the world right now. I know a lot of you are busy, but more importantly I am exhausted I am mentally Emotionally drained and now hearing the news of chat with a boxman last night both. I'm saying his last name and incorrectly I do apologize just hearing that and I'm like are you serious, but you know as someone who is an Impet that natural impet and I I'm sensitive to how people feel. I don't even need to be physically near someone to Feel what they're going through and so to know that so many people Worldwide worldwide, excuse me or feeling a certain type of way not just because of his death But in general just this year 2020 has been a shit year, right? Excuse my language, but that's exhausting to me It is beyond exhausting. I am going to have to take a break from social media in general You know with that being said there are some things that I will be doing differently on my channel Reviews or about to be wrapped up when I come back. There's literally going to be less than five reviews there will be here related videos, but not as much and Definitely, I would say within the next six months or come 2021. I won't be making as many videos I've been warning you guys. It's coming. I mean, I'm very serious. I actually gave away I'm looking at it right now gave away or I'm giving away almost all of my camera equipment The only thing I have is the camera I'm holding and one light like because that's how much I am ready to move on from this So yeah, you guys some changes coming on my on my channel. I will say thank you so much for riding with Me all these years. I'll be back in a couple of more weeks probably early October, so With that being said girl, let me go ahead and announce this winter because I know y'all waiting my girl get to the point So, okay, you guys so the winner of the giveaway is Nicole Dorsey. That's n-i-c-c-o-l-e Dorsey she wrote on her on her comment. Happy birthday to you. I am a fellow Leo So happy birthday to you sis and congratulations So what you need to do sis is to email me at annette underscore lol at msn.com That's a n e tte Underscore lol at msn.com You need to email me within two to three business days And then I will go ahead and order your products and mail them off to you So congratulations again, and thank you guys for your support. I'll be back in a couple more weeks. Okay. Bye


I'm Sandy Ritchie. I'm a linguist at Google. I work in the speech department. My main responsibility is working on speech recognition for new languages, which Google currently doesn't support. So a lot of my job is finding out, you know, there are very basic things about ethnology, certain things about the writing system, how they say things like numbers in order to create the zero speech recognition systems for new languages. And today I thought it would be interesting to kind of complement the talks about Persephone with another aspect of speech recognition, which is kind of complementary and would work very well in tandem with Persephone in certain situations. It's got a kind of a technical title. I'm going to talk about graphene to phoneme conversion, which is the process of changing spellings into phonemic transcriptions, so transcriptions of pronunciations, using finite state transducers, which are a type of, let's say, grammar or machine, machine grammar, which you can use to convert from spellings to pronunciations.  Then I'll talk a bit more about how graphene to phoneme or GTP conversion works. Then I'll talk a bit about what finite state transducers or FSTs are. And then I'm going to talk a bit and a bit more about Tibetan and why it's like a super interesting case and it's been a real interesting challenge for us to work on Tibetan GTP. So how does ASR work? Basically, this is like abstracting a lot. At a very high level, it's audio-in and well-formed formatted transcriptions out. And in most state-of-the-art ASR systems, you have three sub-parts, three sub-components of the system. The text doesn't match the audio. You can read waveforms. I have no idea. I just found it on the internet. So, yeah, there are three sub-components of an ASR system. So you have the acoustic model that will get you from the sound waves to phonemic transcriptions. And that's basically like this is Persephone, right, within this system. That's what Persephone is doing. It's taking you from audio to phonemic transcriptions. Then you have the pronunciation model which takes your phonemic transcriptions and turns them into possible spellings of that phonemic transcription. And then you have a language model which disambiguates between possible hypotheses or possible, like, variant transcriptions. So if I say your book, the sound gets turned into a transcription, your and book. And then the pronunciation model will change your into your or your, but it doesn't know which one it will just give you both. And then the language model will choose between your and your, depending on basically its context within the sentence. So it's called an n-gram model. So it's looking at the words, proceeding and following to any n degree in order to find out which is the best hypothesis for the pronunciation. So, yeah, the previous talks were about the acoustic model. Really, that's what Persephone is. And I'm going to talk mostly about the pronunciation model today. And we'll maybe talk a little bit about the language model at the end. This is, or TTS, text-to-speech is basically the same thing kind of in reverse. So you have text in and audio out. So you take a well-formatted string like 12 minutes. And the first thing to do in text-to-speech is to change things like 1, 2 into the word 12. That's a process called text normalisation. And then after normalisation, those are, let's say, written form of the spoken speech. So it's done into phonemic transcriptions. And then you have a synthesis model, which will turn that phonemic transcription back into audio. So it will speak back to you. So if you say something to your Google Home or your Alexa, I'm not going to promote Google Home over Alexa. Then you can say, well, set my alarm. And then some NLU-NLP magic happens in the middle, which I don't really know about. And then it will say, I've set your alarm. OK, so the pronunciation model in particular. It's generally, in most production systems, made up of two components, a lexicon and a graphine to phonemodel, or GTP. So the lexicon is very, very high quality, hand curated phonemic transcriptions of spelled words in the language. So these are made by linguistic experts who are training in transcription of phonemic transcription. And they will produce really, really good quality transcriptions for words like this, which is pronounced kernel. You wouldn't guess it from a spelling. And that's why we need a lexicon, because it is almost impossible to guess that that word is spelled, is pronounced kernel from the spelling. The pros of a lexicon are that it's really high quality and it's very reliable. You can almost certainly rely on it to get a pronunciation right. The cons is that it's static. So new words, neologism, slang, non-standard words are not included usually in the lexicon. And it's extremely expensive because you have to pay linguistic, people have linguistic training to hand transcribe every single word. So to complement the lexicon, we also have another component called a GTP, or a graphine to phonemic converter. And that is basically a rule-based or machine-learn model, which will learn or learn how to produce plantations or phonemic transcriptions for words that aren't in the lexicon. I don't know if anyone knows this word. I found it on the internet. Anyone? Apparently it means flirting in London slang. I didn't know either. It's unlikely to be in the lexicon. It's the kind of thing that someone would say, and then where the lexicon falls down and doesn't have an entry for that word, the GTP will kick in, take over, and try to reduce some kind of useful phonemic transcription for the spelling. So the pros of the GTP are that it's very dynamic. It can produce a pronunciation for any word. It's quite cheap, but it's unpredictable, and the results are, let's say, variable. And depending on the script, it can be really, really bad. So really, in a production system, you need both. They kind of work in tandem together. So the lexicon and the GTP complement each other. Where the lexicon falls down, the GTP takes over and vice versa. So let's just talk a little bit more about spelling and pronunciation. I mean, this is like an obvious point to make, but the relationship between spelling and pronunciation is not always predictable. So even in languages with very shallow orthographies, and by shallow I mean that the orthography matches quite closely to the phonemic realisation of the language, there are going to be context-dependent rules. Take this really simple example in Italian. So Italian N, the graphene, is pronounced N phoneme in this word, nazo, which means notes. And in this word, finché, which means until. And in this word, mano, which means hand. So you're like initial, final, medial. It must be N everywhere, right? It is N. It just is N. So maybe we can just have a context-independent system and just replace the graphene with the phoneme and we're done. And then you get to cases like this, where it's part of a digraph, GN. And you try to just map N to N in a context-independent way. Your system is going to produce agnello, which is incorrect, okay, that's pronounced, agnello. It means the lamb. Yeah, so I mean, given that simple example with a very easy shallow orthography, think about English words like yacht, or canal, night.  What does CH represent in the word yacht? In the pronunciation of the word yacht. I don't know. There must be some L2 learners of English in the room. Any others that you found particularly annoying to remember? O-N-U. O-N-U? Yes, done and gone. Right, yeah, done and gone, yeah, exactly. The same spelling, two completely different pronunciations. Or like O-U-G-H, right? Thru, bow, coff. Persefyni. Persefyni, okay, here. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. English is like etymological, right? You have to know about like Greek orthography to be able to give pronunciations to English words. Okay, so yeah, graffing to phone conversion. There's various ways to do it. It's not just like one size fits all. So the most common is to use a machine learning model. And for that you need lots of data. So you basically already need a pre-existing pronunciation lexicon. So a lexicon is just like a huge list of mappings between spellings and phonemic transcriptions. And if you have that, then you can like train a GTP model. It's just like a sequence-to-sequence problem. So you can see that this spelling corresponds to this phonemic transcription in all these different contexts. And it just learns to reduce the correct phonemic transcriptions for any word. Of course, in many situations we don't have that yet. In fact, that's what we need to make in order to get a system going. So it's not viable for many or even probably most languages in the world. I mean, there are 7000 languages in the world. Google I think for ASR we support something like 120. So that's not even like 10% or something. It's very, very few. If you think about it in terms of number of languages, of course in terms of the number of speakers we're already covering quite a large part of the population just with those 120 languages. So, yeah, as an alternative to machine learning models you can also use a rule-based approach. So this is like super cheap.  And yeah, there are various ways to produce a rule-based GTP. You can use ICU rules which are produced by Unicode but like I've tried and they're very hard to read and it's hard to read other people's rules if you don't have a pre-existing knowledge of their mind and the language and many other things about the system. You could also use regular expressions which are kind of context-dependent replacements that you can use. But that is like even harder. It's almost impossible to read. As soon as it gets complicated you're lost and the code would be unmaintainable, trying to fix a bug in someone else's regular expression forget it. So yeah, the best thing to do if you want to make a rule-based system is to use finite-state transducers written in two languages or two implementations of the same language which are Thrax and Paenini. So Thrax is like a custom of finite-state transducers and Paenini is like another implementation of that which you can import into a Python library users of Python libraries so you can use it within Python. So yeah, finite-state transducers written in Thrax are super easy, super fun and it's a really interesting problem to use. So I'll just talk a bit about that. You can see I'm a bit biased. So FSTs operate on strings. This is like the terminology. So here it comes. Strings can be characters, single characters, words, sentences or text. Any level of character-based input. And FSTs operate on a string. So they take a string and they either change it, let it pass unchanged or fail. Refuse the string. So there are various types of FSTs. So the main one, of course, is the actual transducer. So a transducer takes an input like fish and it produces an output like the Paenini transcription of fish. So that's what a transducer does. It changes a string into a different string. An acceptor, which is also an FST, all of these are FSTs. This is a bit confusing but it's worth getting your head around. Acceptor, it takes a string and it just returns the same string. It is a transducer, but all it's doing is mapping from the thing to itself. That's called an acceptor. Then you have union, which is collections or sets of FSTs. So you can say something like, it's like ore. So fish, orex. That's an FST. So it's like a union of two things together. And then there's concatenation, which is a string that's appended to other strings. So it's a bit like am. So you have fish and am. So those two things concatenated together will give you a new string, fishy, right? And then finally, a bit more complicated, there's composition. I'll talk about this in a bit more detail. In a minute. That's sort of chaining together one FST after the other to reduce a large FST. So this is like a very basic computer theory. I'm a linguist and I did my PhD about language documentation. I'm not necessarily the world's leading expert in this, but so if you have A to B and then you compose A to B with B to C then your result will be A to C so you get all the way from A to C by composing those two rules together. Finally, there's context-dependent rewrites, which are basically just transducers, so changing one string to another string, plus some context in which the change should occur. And context-dependent rewrites are really the ones which are crucial for the graphene phoneme problem. So here's a context-dependent rule written in threx. Forget kernel, forget your we're never going to get that. You have to enter those in the lexicon. There's no GTP rule that you can write which will allow you to produce the pronunciation for that spelling. But for a word like night let's think about what we can do. It is possible to get from the spelling K-N-I-G-H-T to the phoneme transcription N-A-I-T. That's what we're after. So first of all, we need to deal with the silent K. In a CD rewrite, this is the definition of a CD rewrite. You have a transducer so we're going to rewrite K-N, the string, to N on its own. And we're going to give it a preceding context and a following context and a field within it's searching. In this case, our preceding context is the beginning of the string that happens only at the beginning of the word and you'll see where that's important in a minute. And then the following context is always going to be a vowel. So you can't have K-N in another consonant. These are really like, this is short-hand, but these are like acceptors of the beginning of the string and any English vowel-graphy. So A-E-I-O-U. And then this one which is a bit confusingly named. That's just a convention. This means like any unicode character or a space. So it's like a field in which you're searching or like looking to do this transaction. Any character that you like can be accepted by this rule and will put. So any string will be allowed to pass through in any language, in any script, in any writing system. Okay, so with this rule we can now get to N-I-G-H-T. But we're not quite there because we need a rule. So we have a second rule which is another theory we write. And it's basically going to rewrite I-G-H-T-A-I for the phoneme transcription and the left context in this case is a consonant and the right context in this case is a union of a consonant or the end of the string. Okay? So we can either be a consonant on the right or the end of the string, the end of the word. And again we've got the same search field of any character. And now with just those two rules you can take this string because it's a bit confusing but a string is an FST which is an acceptor of itself. So this is an FST and it takes it's spelling in and it just gives you the spelling back up. Okay? Then you compose that FST with the rewrite KN rule. So that's an FST. This is an FST, this is an FST and now this is an FST so A to B and you compose it with the IGH rule. So now you've got A to B to C to A to C and this whole thing is an FST and it will spit out hopefully the correct output, the phoneme transcription night. So we've got with just two rules from the spelling which is nothing like the pronunciation to the correct pronunciation. Okay? And what's really crucial and important to remember is that you can apply these rules hopefully to any English word and they will always produce the correct phoneme transcription if those sequences are in there and it won't mis-produce bad transcriptions. Okay? So take an example like breakneck. I'll just give you a minute if you want to write it down. Okay? Look at breakneck and think about using this rule why breakneck won't be changed by this rule. You can shout it out. Exactly, okay? So it's string medial. Okay? It's not at the beginning of the string. So if you pass breakneck to the rewrite KN rule it's just going to pass it unchanged. Okay? So we're not inappropriately rewriting this thing which is actually a coder and an answer into it or just an answer. And it's not in the same way if you pass the string like pig edit which I spent a long time looking for. What's wrong with this? It's going the IGH rule change pig edit. Okay, it's got a constant on the left so there's some credit context but on the right okay, exactly. There's a vowel. It's not the constant and it's not the end of the string so again it's just going to pass through unchanged. So this works this little toy FST it works beautifully, there's no problems, no exceptions. Can anyone think of any exceptions? I couldn't. Are there any exceptions to this in English orthography? I was trying to think about it. I added end of the string here because you might have like a thigh thigh IGH and then the end of the string so it's not necessarily a constant and following it could be the end of the string but I don't think there's any other problems with it. I mean it's just a toy example. We don't actually use GTP for English it would be terrible. Yeah, so FSTs for GTP so finite stage transducers for graffing to phoneme conversion the pros are that it's deterministic so it's always like I said it's always going to get it right there's never going to be any exceptions it's lightweight, it's small it's cheap and it really works it works really well even for languages which have large discrepancies between spelling and pronunciation as long as the correspondence is as we're going to see are fairly regular the cons are that I said before that it's easy and fun to read but even with this nice context-dependent rewrite language it can get extremely difficult to read people do all kinds of interesting things which maybe you wouldn't do it can become quite hard to read it is sometimes quite inaccurate due to time constraints like the complexity of the writing system or the phonology and it doesn't really handle exceptions very well so if you have some kind of lexical exception to your rule then you just have to basically that's where you'd need a lexicon that's where the GTP won't really work and it definitely doesn't really work very well for messy orthographic systems like English or French or there are many other cases but let's try Tibetan before I start who knows much about Tibetan in the room ok a few so this is going to be really boring and basic for you guys and super complicated for everyone else Tibetan orthography is wow I've never seen anything like it ok first thing to say it's a Brahmic abagida or alpha celibri if you don't know what that means Brahmic means that it's derived from Sanskrit originally and an alpha celibri means like in modern Devanagari so you don't write the inherent vowel you mostly just write consonants unless the vowel is not ah or ur then you would write a diacritic to represent i or u so it's mostly like consonants and an inherent vowel the current standard for Tibetan emerged in the 9th century and has not changed since then barely at all, correct me if I'm wrong so yeah the written and spoken forms of words now differ widely so there are many silent letters like the K in night in our English example and lots of sound changes so vowel, consonant changes between the spelling and pronunciation unlike English what's really interesting about Tibetan is that the correspondences between the spelling and pronunciation are mostly quite regular and unpredictable so it is possible to write a GTP for Tibetan with a rule based approach I mean I'm not recommending it the optimal solution probably is better to just pay or find a lexicon or pay people to write pronunciations but this is what we can do in a low result situation so it's good to think about this even in a complicated case so this is what a Tibetan syllable looks like so Tibetanist can what is this word sorry I don't have the transcription drumton drumton so we have how many of these letters are actually pronounced in that it's a philosophical question you'll see what I mean in a minute okay it's just like as a high level introduction usually have what's called a prefix there's nothing to do with morphology it's something to do with the autography it means like a silent letter at the beginning this is like a vowel diacritic then you have like a root character which is probably pronounced but maybe not pronounced then you have a subscript so it's like another consonant appended to the first one then you can have a suffix that's a syllable usually the prefix and the suffix and the secondary suffix are not pronounced so they're all silent then in the second one you have a vowel character and in this case the main consonant is not pronounced in this case this is a superscript and actually this is the root of the word the appended consonant is the one which is pronounced in this case so it's like another suffix okay so yeah as I said I'm just going to go through a few problems in Tibetan and GCP just to illustrate the complexity of the problem so yeah, the inherent vowel is not marked in lithography so the first thing to do when you're going from graffing to phoneme first you need to convert every single letter in the Tibetan string to a Latin character but then you need to do some insertion rules to add the vowels so that's like the first problem so this is what is actually written here we're ridder and we want to say da we want to add that a after the D and the same thing here there's no vowel on this so you want to add that a that's the easy bit there are special rules for this initial db sequence so if you have db at the beginning so the D is not pronounced and then the B can be lamited to the W or just delete it all together so this one is db us and it's pronounced u so no D, no B, no S and the vowel is not even the same as the vowel in lithography so there's nothing left from the original text in the pronunciation suffixes so there's four types they can be silent or pronounced and they can affect the preceding vowel or not so in this case we've got B which is a suffix pronounced in this case and it doesn't affect the preceding vowel and then here in this case you've got L which is a suffix and it is pronounced but it does precede the preceding vowel so the special rules about suffixes are two categories prefixes are typically not pronounced but they can have effects on other sounds so a preceding glotl I don't know how you call this character like a lot, no well let's not work so I think that's a voiced wheel of frigidote originally and it's written three articles about it so yeah fine I see that I'm doing like to the N101 and some people who are just shaking their heads and going what is this so in the very simplest case this prefix will diasporate the initial consonant so instead of pen and then here this G initial G is also a G and it's not pronounced sorry I'll start again this is in year and the G is not pronounced but it raises the tone so this is originally low tone and it raises the tone on the vowel in the following consonant so not pronounced but having an effect on something way again in the stream so imagine remembering your mind the CD rewrite how are you going to do that how do you jump over all the other letters and make sure that that tone is raised but you can, it's perfectly possible to do this interesting thing about that is called consonant stacking so you can stack up to three consonant graphions one on top of the other so this stack is and then E that's right right so the E is pronounced after the consonant stack even though it occurs on top of it don't ask me here's that stack in action so in this word so the the subscript in this case which is help me out the Y at the bottom it will change the preceding sound from P to Ch I don't even know what to say about this there's no rule you can't call this like africation what does P have to do with Ch anyway here you go from like to because of the the subscript am I right I hope I'm getting this right and then here yeah this is the most in my favour to zola with another subscript it's pronounced do that's what goes on in Tibetan that is what's happening in a literate Tibetan's mind when they see the sequence zola it's done that's how it is superscripts a bit like prefixes so superscripts R and S and L they raise the tone of vowels following the nasals but they're generally not pronounced so this stack associated so here the superscript S it raises the tone of the following nasal it raises the tone of the vowel following a nasal so if you have Sir and then a nasal we'll go from low to high and in this special case which is the only one I think uniquely in this case this stack so from you get finally tone is not overt marking of tone there's nothing in the orthography we can use to predict an acute accent or a grav accent in the Latin script system but we can work out how to insert in a rule-based manner so basically Tibetan constants have traditionally grouped into four columns based on their manner of articulation so if you have a vowel following a column 1 or column 2 consonant it will generally have a low tone whereas 3 and 4 vowels following 3 and 4 consonants will generally have a high tone but if you remember those tones can also be changed by prefixes and superscripts so yeah all that was just to say this is like an extremely complex case of the difference between an orthography and a phonemic transcription but even in this case it's perfectly possible to get all the way from graffings to phonies just with a rule-based system I were already relying on a lot of work which has been done for the Tibetan scripts the Unicode people and various others so for example this stack thing so this is ISPY like from top to bottom but it's rendered already in Unicode as SPISPYI so the vowel is following the consonants so yeah the real key to GTP for Tibetan is to classify the graphemes so the first path is just to say is it independent or dependent so is it appended to another character or is it an independent character and then comes the linguistic knowledge so is it a consonant or a vowel is it a prefix or a root is it a suffix is it a subscript or superscript and then you have many many many context to deal with all these kind of sound changes, vowel changes consonant changes so here's just like a kind of this is like a very very simplified abstracted version but this is what's going on so each you can imagine each of these is an FST a bit like a context dependent rewrite so you pass this string B S G R U B S to this rule and then it will tag all the letters for the stases so from this string we get like say this one's a prefix, this one's a superscript that's the root, that's the subscript and when you say then we know like what the what the class of each character is then you just change all the characters to the Latin script that's like the first thing to do to get to get to the feeling of transcription then you want to remove all the silent letters change the quality of the plos here from G to D and then remove all the tags add the finally voicing and then add the tone marker because we know that it's column 3 so each of these is an FST and if you just chain them all together then you get all the way from graffing and staphoning so what's very important to remember is that if you apply these rules to any Tibetan word it will hopefully this and many other rules it will hopefully produce something like an accurate pronunciation for the word so to summarise I talked a bit about how GTPs fit within pronunciation models specifically and ASR and GTS systems more generally I talked about how GTP can be achieved in a rule based way for languages which have a systematic correspondence between the graffins and the phonemes and the pronunciation I talked a bit about how you can write GTP rules in thrax and then we looked at the issues in Tibetan orthography and gave a simple GTP example for Tibetan so yeah, if you're interested you can do this in your own time main maybe it will be interesting to try and write a context-spending rule for Tibetan or any other language that you're interested in and I guess like yeah I did want to say that in the context of this discussion I guess what this would be really useful for is that if you can create this FST for your language that you're working on in your documentation project then you don't necessarily need to produce phonemic transcriptions for your one hour recording all you need to do is to get someone who knows the orthography to transcribe it orthographically then you probably need to do some kind of normalisation on that text in order to get it into a state where the GTP will pass all the words but then you just chuck that text into the GTP and it will produce all the phonemic transcriptions for you so this is good in some context where maybe you have lots and lots of recordings and all you have is the orthographic transcription by my native speaker and there's no analysis then you can use that data or you can use the transcriptions produced by your GTP for that data and throw them into your model and that will probably make your acoustic model a lot better if you have lots of data like that so that's like a real important use case for this aspect of it just a couple of resources if you want to know more about FSTs go to openfst.org that's where you can find all the downloads and the resources for producing cracks and finding rewrites and I found this website really useful when I was looking at the button so if you're interested you can go there I'll say tup te chat