Alright, hi everyone. Great to see so many of you still here after a long day. I guess that can mean a couple of things. Either you dozed off, you're really curious about international peace and security and cyber space and what you can do to contribute or you think this is about hacking into the UN. If you think it's the latter, it's not, well at least not really unless you count social engineering which I'm sure we'll get to as well. So this is really about how we as a community can better contribute to these war and peace discussions taking place in places like the United Nations but also between multi-stakeholder organizations, civil society and private companies and what DEF CON can do. So my name is Alexander Klimberg. I'm a policy wonk and writer and I have done the cyber policy under different hats, mostly in think tanks and universities, places like CSIS, Atlantic Council and Harvard University. And I've written about some of my views and adventures in a book called The Darkening Web which in its second edition is definitely worth you buying because it has extra darkness. So today I'm monitoring a panel in a different role, namely as a director of something called the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyber Space. So basically this was a blue ribbon commission of 27 world famous experts on all different parts of cybersecurity from 16 different countries who've volunteered their time to help influence the state led discussions on war and peace in cyberspace, mostly taking place in the United Nations but also other places. So our final report was launched in November 2019 at the Paris Peace Forum by the French Foreign Minister, the Dutch Foreign Minister, the head of the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore and an Oxford study once said we were a very influential private initiative. Two of my fellow panelists here on stage with me were also members of that commission. We were joined also by three panelists virtually and I'll introduce everyone in due course but what we all have in common is that we have one where another recently started engaging in these international cyber security discussions that as said are mostly state led and some of our panelists have been part of something called the UN Open-ended Working Group which is one of those discussions that first opened up to outside advice and consultation although to a limited extent and to limited effectiveness as we will discuss. Now that being said the walls are coming down between the hallowed halls of arms control and cyber security and the technical community. The question is how fast are they coming down because this is being diplomacy this happens very very very slowly so part of the point of this discussion is we're hoping maybe we can encourage the process a little bit maybe take down a couple thank you know of those bricks speed it up and see what all of this year can do to contribute. So we're gonna do around with the panelists before opening up to the wider discussion hopefully including a bunch of you and first I want to introduce Lauren Zabiek who is currently the director of the cyber project at Harvard University. So Lauren can you help set the stage for us a little bit tell us where these international discussions are and what do they aim to achieve? Absolutely Alex and the entire DEF CON career there thank you so much for having me this is truly an honor and I desperately wish I could be there with you but anyway as Alex said my job here is to set the scene for you so at one point or another we have all heard that the cyber domain is the wild west there have been little in the way of codified norms and rules to really guide state behavior in cyberspace despite the internet having been around for decades. We've all witnessed the rapid development of cyber conflict over the last decade or so despite the ample attention and work done in the space over the last several years and thank you Chris Pankter one of our esteemed panelists even with Russia's open ended working group or Russian led open ended working group the report that was signed remarkably by all 193 nations at the UN this past spring and which reaffirmed all 11 norms set forth by the previous group of governmental experts. We seem to be no closer to real rules in cyberspace and yet as we know the threats continue to grow in scale complexity and sophistication. So how did we get here? First I think it's important to a revisit the concept norms in the first place and then be understand the general lines of thinking by the major blocks that really serve to underscore you know just how far apart we are despite theoretically sharing a goal of stability and security in cyberspace. Then we'll come back to this the current state. I'd like to say that I'm Tarantino-ing the shebang but truthfully I've never seen Pulp Fiction which as my husband says is a problem. Okay so where the concept of norms and cyberspace come about? Well it goes back to the late 90s when Russia seen the internet and ICTs specifically as a threat to their sovereignty and security wanted to introduce arms control agreements and roles at the UN. The West specifically at the the US thought international law should really apply to conflict in cyberspace and wanted instead to promote the adoption of norms for responsible state behavior. The problem though is that you know we were thinking more about how international law covered cyber warfare and I don't think we're really covering the other stuff and how that other stuff could get so dangerous and then by that I mean the so-called gray zone and it's my opinion that part of you know these authoritarian state strategy has been to essentially exploit that. See show hey you know we need rules this is what happens when we don't but unfortunately those rules we think would give legitimacy to the ideas that we in the West are against mainly state control over the internet by authoritarian states. So in 2017 the UN GGE collapses over some agreement and disagreements between states and Alex Grigsby famously declares this is the end of norms. Then the Russians come out with their proposal and expanding membership to all the different countries in the UN. Needless to say the US wasn't super thrilled with all of this at the same time we're seeing things like want to cry, crash override, not petia, the election meddling, basically shit's getting real. So the next year US the United States elevates cybercom to a combatant command and then you know comes out with the strategy of persistent engagement to fend forward which all the other nations are like wait what you know recalling the Thucydides trap essentially Ben Buchanan forecasts in cyberspace the actions that one nation takes to secure themselves are going to be seen as threatening by others and Russia most surely sees this as aggressive. So then recognizing relations between our two countries are at an all-time low and quite honestly people are worried. So in 2019 we at the Belfer Center added a cyber component to our track two dialogue with the Elba group. Out of that meeting came a paper exploring rules of the road in cyber with Russia that we just published back in June in that we state that bilateral agreements with Russia could be good for our long term security but we're just so far apart in our interests and our perspectives on the internet that it wouldn't be feasible or advisable to do this in the short term. One thing to keep in mind though and this is something that I learned from writing this paper is that Russia has never publicly acknowledged any offensive cyber capability or activities in cyberspace. So a main barrier to discussions is how to even start these discussions with a nation that won't even acknowledge that capability and then how do we reconcile completely different viewpoints on the internet that speak to the different values as nations. So the questions are are norms so last decade or are they back now? Is bilateralism the way ahead? Clearly there are lots more questions and answers right now and that is essentially where we are. Thanks. Okay thanks Lauren. I'm going to ask Chris Painter to maybe take this a little bit forward and maybe also circle back explain a little bit what norms are but also what non-state actors are really doing in this space and how that came about. We heard from Lauren for instance how Harvard has started a so-called track two process that's basically a formerly informal process between the US and Russia. There are quite a few other such processes but let me just quickly introduce Chris who currently is the president of the global forum of cyber expertise before being elevated to that position and to the member of the global commission. He was a lowly first cyber diplomats of the United States after a long career in Department of Justice in the White House. So again Chris I think those discussions are still very state-led but they are opening up a little bit as we hear right? So just to circle back a little on Lauren said and build on it you know this idea of norms I mean the dynamic here was that Russia to some extent China and China kind of played more in the game later on it was really Russia's leading list in the beginning. Wanted a binding treaty, wanted worried about content on the internet they viewed information warfare but they viewed information as the biggest threat to them not the kind of technical threats that we talk about but things that would undermine their power structure or dissent or issues like that and so you know the US response as Lauren said coming up with these ideas of norms first of all the idea international law applies means this is not a free fire zone not anything goes so international law applies but international law is at this very high level you know it's when we have cyber warfare and despite all you read in the press constantly we're at cyber war we're not at cyber war yes the distinction is blurring but we're not at cyber war and that what we see every day are below those thresholds they're the thefts of intellectual property that we've seen they are the they're not petty they're the other kinds of malicious state activity that we see all the time and they have a large effect we also see criminal groups like the recent ransomware groups so what norms are our expectations of behavior they're not hard law they are a way to say this is what we expect this is what you expect a state to do and they really break down the two categories in the way I look at it or way many people look at it just not me norms of restraint so you know what the US did is counter the Russian idea of having a binding treaty that would try to cover cyber weapons whatever the hell they are with taking targets off the table norms of restraint don't go after X so don't go after critical infrastructure because during peace time during wartime you can just like and go after the train lines you know in a shooting war but you then have to obey certain rules of distinction and proportionality etc so don't go after critical infrastructure don't go after the certs or the C certs it's like going after the hospitals or ambulances on the internet so those are kind of norms of restraint taking targets off the table there's also norms of cooperation work with us on something you know if we have a common threat let's work together let's build build better confidence by doing that so those are the two kinds of norms and they agreed to 11 of these norms which are pretty comprehensive back in 2015 before everything fall fell apart now as Lauren also said this has been the province of states alone this is in something called the first committee of the UN which was the denizens of arms control people and when people talk like nuclear and other issues they don't generally involve other stakeholders states you these and the UN is not built for other stakeholders it is built for states which is great in some ways but kind of sucks in other ways because if you think about the the panoply of issues in cyberspace including the war and peace issues and and how norms are enforced and how they work you need people who understand how the fricking internet works as part of that discussion and that's not or that's not normally diplomats it's not normally government people who go to these meetings now it's increasingly changed there you know I was the first cyber diplomat in the US there are now 40 like that around the world great but you need some understanding of how these things work you need involvement of the technical community of academia of civil society because there are issues like human rights involved and you need the involvement of of industry too so those are important components but the UN is not really built for it there's been a glimmer of hope and change in that the UN in this last thing when they had this big open-ended working group which was all 193 countries they held an informal meeting where other stakeholders came together and I was there and now there was others and and some more other panels were there too and they were able to give statements and they were able to contribute the discussion so that's great by UN terms that's amazing right but it still is not a lot you know it still is a stepping stone you're not really involved in negotiations you're not even involved in a lot of discussions often now they were able to send in comments you can send in comments on various things and that's great but it wasn't clear that was really having an effect on the actual negotiations some countries were really good like Australia for instance in getting formally comments from their their stakeholders and and Canada as well and channeling that into their submissions to the UN and their positions but we're far cry from other stakeholders being clearly involved in these issues and for the reasons I stated I think that's an essential thing not that other stakeholders will drive these discussions at the end of the day states are going to decide what they're what they're going to do we're not going to do you know they're going to be the ones to decide that but it needs to be informed by other folks and that's an opportunity for people in this room to we'll get to that thanks Chris so one of the people to co-cris who knows how the freaking internet works is bill woodcock who leads packet clearinghouse in quad nine and also as a member of the global commission so one of the questions to ask straight off not only why did you join presumably you you saw the common good in it but what were the challenges for you going in and also what did you learn you're about as technical as it gets it was a very different community that you were engaging with what were your key takeaways so you know the the private sectors engagement in this conflict started in nineteen ninety two when the privatization of the internet began and we're twenty nine years into that process now it's you know in prior to that prior to the national information infrastructure plan was sort of the communist era of the internet everything was paid for by the US Defense Department they would decide how much you needed how much you got all the bills went to them you couldn't make more if you needed more and they didn't think that you deserved it you were out of luck you couldn't transact business around it you couldn't buy and sell it because it wasn't your property it was their property so this was Al Gore's big contribution to the internet the NII made it legal to make more internet bandwidth and buy and sell it and sort of turned over the reins to the private sector globally prior to that point also there wasn't really internet in Russia or China you know little tiny tiny token bits but not enough that as governments they took it very seriously so in the early nineties between ninety two and ninety six or so is when you see the emergence of conflict between particularly the US Russia on the internet and the problem here is that this is also the period when the internet is becoming private sector everything essentially everything new that's been built since nineteen ninety two has been built by the private sector at private sector expense private sector maintenance private sector investment this differs from normal national conflict because there is no no man's land no high seas there's nowhere where governments can conflict with each other that is not private property somebody else's private property and so this problem has been getting worse and worse ever since then and the private sector has more and more to lose as we become more invested in the internet as it becomes more central to what we have to do every day so this is not a new conflict it's been going on basically my whole career and you know it it's really difficult to get governments to pay attention when they don't want to and governments as Alex and Chris both said are very used to getting together behind closed doors in the UN just talking to each other and assuming that each government is the fully authorized representative of all of its citizens and their interests when in fact collectively governments have a lot in common with each other and the private sector has a lot in common with each other and the private sector now is pretty transnational in fact the internet particularly is really transnational you know most people on the internet aren't thinking well I'm gonna go and deal with other Americans on the internet I'm gonna buy stuff from American companies on the internet and there's gonna be some border there at the edge of America and you know I'll know if I cross that border that's not how it works right we all know that we're buying and selling things with people over the world companies that are incorporated who knows where doing business in lots of different countries and so this divide between private sector interests and governmental interests has become very stark and governments particularly the folks who are doing military stuff have a lot in common with each other and get together behind closed doors to try and figure out how they can create norms which normalize the status quo where the status quo is really problematic for the private sector the status quo of governments just sort of running around breaking shit and leaving the private sector clean up and then awarding themselves ribbons this doesn't really help us so that's that's why I continue to try and engage with them and continue to try and push the norms towards like don't break our stuff if you're not prepared to pay for it all right tired cleaning up somebody else's mess all right got that message going back online Michelle Kumar was one of the most active members from the non-state community in this open-ended working group that we referenced so she represents an NGO called global partners digital which is dedicated to promoting a digital environment underpinned by human rights so she tell please tell us how do you think that non-state involvement in this process worked and where did it not work well thank you Alex hopefully you can all hear me well thank you for inviting me I wish I could be with you and in LIS I've come to you from rainy land and then all our parts of the world need a lot of brains about that but yeah you asked me about how the OEWG was set up and how that worked including from a non-state stakeholder perspective and I think what's interesting as well to comment on is that as as Laura mentioned at the time when the OEWG was set up in 2018 through a resolution it wasn't very popular for for the reasons that were mentioned that enters this political disagreements and lack of common values and an understanding of how the internet work and for who but over time it became a space where I think a number of states who hadn't originally supported it realized it was useful for opening up the discussion and really for raising awareness about what had been agreed in a more closed format the GGE format and that the responsible state behavior frameworks of the norms confidence building measures and other things that have been agreed with a wider community and it was also an opportunity for NGOs or for non-states stakeholders to get involved and as we've heard from from Bill and others that's that's really key because ultimately we're talking about a technology that that is managed by non-state stakeholders so like the thought the fact that we hadn't been engaged at all in the discussion so thus far had been really that had been lacking so there was an opportunity to engage stakeholders and that happened I think as Chris mentioned through an informal intersessional in December 2019 but the substantive sessions where the discussions happen in between states were closed unfortunately in the end to acro-soc accredited NGOs so that was really unfortunate for those who are not ex-soc accredited and that's a lot of my stakeholders who are relevant and who are stakeholders in these discussions so reason for that is the the disagreements around and the values as as Thorn mentioned right who should be involved in these discussions and and who are the relevant stakeholders and unfortunately although it could have been more open it ended up being I think my understanding is like unprecedented in the sense that it was blocked to entry of those that applied to engage but couldn't in the end because of member states blocking that engagement there was an opportunity as mentioned see that informal intersessional but really unfortunately the US is defined by the strictures and it's not the the only time that's been difficult to gain access to discussions so there are apart from the formal opportunities to engage also the informal so NGOs whether it's civil society academia or those who you know the techies can utilize different ways to to share perspectives including what we might call more informal opportunities so space is outside the UN and bilateral or are we like building relationships with the key stakeholders there with diplomats and one thing that we did is proactively create a space to input into the OEWG's report with member states who are supportive of NGO engagement and it was initiative called let's talk cyber which we held through virtual platforms last year we held a series of discussions to directly well indirectly input into all of the OEWG mandate discussions and we we built a report out of that and submitted that to the OEWG so I think you know as we look forward to the new OEWG which is going to be having this first meeting in a few months time with the modalities are still been discussed we need to keep pushing for more open formal modalities and opportunities for engagement because as you know my fellow panelists have just mentioned it's so important for us to do that but we can also utilize informal opportunities and we need to keep doing that because these discussions are very key right well lastly but certainly not least so Martin van Hornebeek so Martin is a former chair of first that's the form of instant responders and security teams which is probably the closest thing that we have to a globally representative body of technical cyber defenders so Martin why were you guys involved in this I mean you're involved in a lot of things and do you think that though and some of the things that you're involved in are pretty informal so you're involved the formal process as well so how did that play out for you the formal component versus the informal component first of all thank you for the opportunity to be here today Alexander when first got involved into this it really dates back quite a few years first is the global community of incident response teams of blue teams if you will and we have about 590 teams across 98 countries so we are truly global and historically we have been an organization of engineers people who felt they could solve internet issues through code to working together and building technological solutions and we did that by making sure that incident responders when they had an incident they could find other incident responders within our community to respond effectively and making sure that they have the right standards and technology to work together and exchange information now within the incident response community what makes it really unique is that it has this very deep mesh of trust I remember very well when I lived in Belgium in the mid 2000s and I was working on a set of targeted attacks investigating them I could very easily send an email to another incident responder in the United States or anywhere in the world and ask them for some help and we would start collaborating in that trust would really develop now in the last 15 years or so there's been a significant increase in governments policy makers taking really strong interest in cyber security and I think that just makes sense there have been a ton of incidents from the big internet worms in the early 2000s over Stuxnet Diginot or Avalanche SolarWinds that have just had a lot of impact both on national security in some cases or the economy in other cases and as a result they have started looking at us and sort of describing or trying to understand what it is that this technical community does and I think in many ways they kind of categorize incident responders as being sort of the fire brigade of the internet the people that kind of jump up when there is an incident and deal with the technical outcomes now first over the years added us goal to educate these policy makers on what it is that incident responders actually do to avoid being prescribed or bucketed in a particular category and that would make it difficult for us to actually do our work and a few years ago I had a good conversation with a diplomat from a particular country who shared with me that they were working on an idea to have essentially every cyber security incident in the country be reported to one national entity and that entity would be responsible for international collaboration and I kind of asked them why they were doing that one of the things that came out of that was a document that a UN GGE another UN process in 2015 published and that document actually literally said that states needed to take some ownership to not allow their territory to be used for internationally wrongful acts using technology and that can be actually a scary sentence like by itself if you read it as a technologist you might not really worry about that but when someone who isn't a technologist reads that they might suddenly read that they need to take responsibility for everything that happens in their country and as I said incident response where the big incident happens we have to be able to respond to it in minutes and hours not in days and weeks so we can't really push it to a national entity to take over that coordination and so as a result we felt it was really really important to provide some of that technical insight some of that perspective in the OEWG discussions and that's why we really really go involved and I think we didn't get a ton of the language that we directly propose necessarily into these documents but with any political diplomatic process the process is as important as the outcomes and so what we did see was that through our own engagement and working really closely with people like Schittel who really enabled civil society to engage with particular stakeholders we were able to help shift that language shift that thinking and that's an ongoing process that I feel is going to take many many years and is going to require a lot more of us to actually get engaged and and educate and I should just add there's a sort of funny incident that Martin is aware of that years ago during one of the first annual conferences in Malaysia I was giving the keynote speech and I talked about this idea of norms including the one protecting certs and the other disconnect here is that the people who do these norms including back in 2015 didn't really have much connection with the people even they were trying to protect in this case the the C-certs and several people in the audience raised their hands after I gave my speech and said hey wouldn't it be great if the UN did this and I said well they did do it like two years ago and that and not having any dialogue between those communities makes so little sense just on that point and just Martin also for you to follow up and really everyone to comment I thought it was really important to highlight that you were getting involved also more or less other defensive purposes because you were reading basically bullshit and you needed to comment and call it out and it just reminds me that in some of the conversations I've been in and like in the OSCE and other intergovernmental entities the first thing we want to establish is for instance a hotline and everyone wants a hotline it's the favorite thing that everyone has and I asked at one point have any of you heard of I-Knock DBA which gentlemen next to me has had a definitive role in setting up and that is already kind of a hotline for for cyber defenders and of course they haven't so they ended up building up their own hotline so my question to really that all the panelists is what happens when these things really are get introduced on top of each other to the conflict and it's a conflict really a question also for for Bill did it just get ignored or is it really a value added and if it isn't a value added if it's a conflict do you have to do what Martin does and get directly involved with your policymaker and say please back off you're about to break the internet again I think you know Martin really has it right that you know when government looks at this and you know behind closed doors several governments have gotten together and said well you know there's a problem here clearly we're the ones who should solve it because we're the only ones talking to each other you know we'll solve it by making ourselves individually responsible for what happens inside our countries which we already are and to be responsible that means we have to take it over you know no you don't want your fire department run by UN bureaucracy you'd like your fire department to arrive before the fire has already burned down the neighborhood not like next year sometime and you know my take is that I'd rather governments weren't exclusively the domain of pyromaniacs who like burning shit down so you know this stuff seems kind of self-evident to us but we're not the ones behind the closed doors in this echo chamber it's really hard to know how to deal with that other than this sort of continued campaign of engagement and education many governments are like the US government where the average age is 24 and they've just graduated from you know a poli sci program somewhere and done an internship and now they're the experts making laws and you know they haven't actually been out there doing anything and they haven't actually had responsibility for anything yet with any consequences to it and so it's really difficult particularly I mean the military big militaries are the worst there because they just you know award themselves medals for offensive actions they're sitting there throwing rocks with no concept of whose responsibility it is to repair the glass houses and you know no idea of defense right there is zero blue team out there you know in military so you get these these weird splits like in the US between DHS with defensive responsibility and and cyber command with offensive and cyber command I mean I can't even guess what the difference in budget between cyber command and sysa is but you know safe to say that it should be the other way around if we don't want to be constantly having things broken okay well speaking about burning things down and throwing stones and glass houses and things like that government sometimes is concerned with letting people like Bill into their hallowed halls so what are they particularly concerned about Chris and what are the rules what are the rules that people need to learn certainly don't have monopoly and Laura and I think you were you were government only don't monopoly of burning things down and certainly you know I think it's it's sort of my office to say it's like the US and Russia at only every country that has the ability to build you know cyber offensive tools is and that's a lot of countries so these this idea of norms this idea of expectations the idea of taking things off the target off the table is really important because that helps build stability in the long run so so I don't think there's you know the danger to have that engagement you want that engagement to help inform these things and some of the norms even that we were just talking about like the one about you're responsible for things happening in your territory that could be used in a very good way so let's take the ransomware example that's happened now even if these criminal groups are operating without the imprimatur of the Kremlin you know I can argue that both ways but let's say they're not then that's what the by the administration said that norm I think would apply in saying that Russian the Russian government still has a responsibility to do something now it doesn't mean take over the internet it means that they have responsibility to go after the group and I think that that's really important so so you know it's part the norms are important how they're interpreted and actually used I think it's really important and that's where other stakeholders I think can really provide that context Lauren you want to jump in yeah just you know on the question of you know the practitioners being in the hallowed halls of government I think more and more at least we are understanding the utility of that right so the whole conversation around you know public-private partnerships bringing experts in I mean look at our our leadership now you know at the highest levels of government these are people who really understand these particular issues so I am hopeful at least that the conversation is starting to evolve and you know we're getting better at that she told it what do you think in particular your group focuses on human rights concerns and some of the security topics are pretty dominant there's always been the point out there that because of security we might infringe on other interesting aspects of daily life like for instance our right to privacy how does that all play out for you and how do you see your role in in getting to governments to to rein in their behavior yeah well I mean these the norms and the discussions at the UN are about how states behave and states have obligations under international law which which includes international rights so ultimately the the way they behave what they invest in what they do what they don't do has an impact on on human rights so it is a question of being there and reminding them of that and the links and also how what the commitments that they've made for example the norms linked to human rights but it's also I think something that like as someone else said like it's something that is it's a process it's kind of continuing it's a way that we we are constantly defining and understanding the norms and the commitments and that's why it's so important for a wider community to be involved in shaping that understanding because it is an evolving discussion and that's how we see I think it's really important for everyone who's a stakeholder which is really because we're also dependent on the on the internet and we're also impacted by how states behave in cyberspace and so that's why it's really important we are involved in these discussions that can bring to the table what's actually happening in the real world outside the hollowed walls how it's impacting people and societies and so that the discussions that are happening there are shaped by reality what's really going on so just a final question to the panelists and then it would be great to hear questions from everyone here so Chris and I had an interesting question that around table we did this morning which was basically the point of this panel which was this really scares me how can I get involved I'm reading really scary stuff in the paper every day bad laws bad bills bad treaties what can I do so this is the question to everyone on the panel what's the best way for people who are not part of prestigious universities or established NGOs to really get involved in these discussions and participate so who wants to go first maybe I'll start and just say look there's you know there's strength in numbers too lots of people here are members of different professional organizations they're members of universities as Alex said that there are lots of you know there are lots of civil society organizations that you can join and be involved in one thing that even though there were some states that blocked this larger multi-stakeholder involvement not surprisingly like China and Russia don't really you know all the stakeholders in China and Russia are kind of owned by China and Russia so it's a little different dynamic but they were able to agree all 25 countries are able to agree that where all stakeholders have a role isn't implementing the norms where it's really where the payday is right so how how you interpret those norms how you carry them forward how you actually implement them is a critical part and that's where I think there's not even opposition to other people getting involved Alex mentioned that one of the things I do now is run this global forum on cyber expertise it's got 60 countries it's got about dozen about two dozen industry participants it's got a lot of civil society including some of the people on the screen and so it's been a good forum to do exactly this to use capacity building to train diplomats talk about norms talk about building C-shirts talking about cybercrime issues there are lots of opportunities out there they're not as accessible as they should be I think Alex I think the problem is that especially folks in this room just don't know what those opportunities are and we need to do a better job of trying to make those more available to them I think Alex one thing that I would add is from my perspective it's still too easy to discard another stakeholder groups perspective it's still too easy for engineers to sit together and say we don't want these policy people involved let us do our thing it's still too easy for government representatives to think they can actually solve it all and I think the first thing we all need to do is really think about like what are our roles and responsibilities and understand that the internet is actually something that involves all of these and really describe like what is our piece in this and what is the thing that others don't understand about what we're doing and how do we get that across I think if we can solve that problem and we can really figure out how to engage with each other across those boundaries by learning each other's language and starting to use it a little bit more and I think that is going to be a really really big impacting thing for all of us to get closer together and then I think it's just the key of finding organizations such as the organization that Chris is responsible for first many other types of organizations that engage and just asking for opportunities to connect because those opportunities do exist but to Chris's point they're not always equally accessible but if you reach out you can find a way in I think just reacting to what Martin just said I think you know I would like to credit all participants with good faith participation in the conversation but I think it's difficult for internet folks who view the internet as underpinning commerce globally to credit good faith on the part of diplomats when diplomats are looking at all of the things in front of them as being fungible and are happy to throw the internet under the bus in exchange for a pipeline right of way for instance it only a majorly gross over simplification yeah it's it's a it's an example it's a gross simplification but it's what diplomats do it's their job to take a whole lot of different unrelated interests and trade them off against each other and you know the internet is an interest and we don't really like being traded off against some random unrelated thing and that's that's something that's really hard to get past particularly when we are used to multi-stakeholder governance and we're used to in fact being a bunch of the different stakeholder groups in a multi-stakeholder governance discussion and government is used to top down you know a few governments get together make decision and tell everybody how it's going to be so that that's a really tough divide to bridge in how to have a conversation which is not say that we have any alternative but to try and bridge it okay well thanks do we have any questions from the audience I mean we covered quite a lot of ground here can have a general show of hands a bunch of them in here too okay please sir similar structure okay just repeat the question what you literally said is if it's possible to apply national and international bail bondsman concept I don't know about international bail bondsman but a bail bondsman concept overall to an international international domain so I guess what you're also asking is about the ability to hack back on behalf of governments or to pursue or to pursue cyber criminals abroad is that right and that's exactly the issue look you know there's no real in fact even in bail bondsman let's take it out of cyber for instance the bail bondsman goes to France and tries to kidnap a criminal and bring them back to the US they're going to get prosecuted in France that's that doesn't work in that scale what happens in cyber crime and cyber and these other instances if it's not state sponsored let's say it's these criminal groups we just can't like land marshals in the territory and go after them we have to get the cooperation of the other government and there are treaties or MLAT with mutual legal assistance their extradition treaties the problem is there are countries that are safe havens we're seeing this with Russia and ransomware now so how do you deal with them and that because more of a geopolitical issue you have to put pressure on the leadership of that country to play ball that's hard with Russia for instance but that's what's being attempted right now and then if you can't you have to think about how you can disrupt these criminal groups or in addition to that how you can disrupt these criminal groups even if you can't get a hold of them and that's the reality and governments love to play coy about whether they are doing something or whether it is you know unsanctioned private parties within their country that are doing something or whether haha it wasn't me it was you you know stop stop beating yourself on the head right it was a botnet in your own country and yeah let's not discuss where the CNC for the botnet is coming from it so it it's it's really complicated to do this when governments are not governments are not declaring war here right Chris got it thank you got it thanks yeah it's not terrorist it's it's well there's also that also gets on the topic of which some governments get really excited about which is hackback as a concept and in our commission that we we have eight norms that we put forward one of the norms are don't do hackback in the sense of not that you should protect your your own networks but you shouldn't go off and try to steal back your stuff or destroy the you know the mothership with a CNC server where that stuff is on precisely because you never really know who started that fight and governments are worried about inadvertent escalation happening when there's two parties fighting and that can't be really clear who who started this let me just go to the chairman over here do we have any other questions so okay that's gonna be the last one thanks oh that's really interesting question so the question was do the digital cyber sovereignty infrastructure structures that some countries like Russia and China have will it spread to foreign to other countries so basically their emphasis on protecting their own quote unquote cyberspace having a clean information domain and policing their own information the information published in that domain right okay so you're talking about bricks net and stuff like like like the bricks going off and creating their own internet and stuff like that okay so an interesting question to ask is why have governments not always regarded the cyber domain as something that they have defensive responsibility for so China and Russia both look at the cyber domain and say well we have to be able to exercise our defensive responsibility here what do we need to be able to do to make that happen what does defensive cyber look like at a national scale and that drives their actions and we look at that and say well you know that seems pretty totalitarian but you know it there's at least a clear logical path there and you know we don't have any of that so I sort of I sort of agree with that to a point but what underlies they're trying to control the internet is about political stability more than it is about cyber stability so they are worried about descending speech there were you know the great firewall China is built for this and the worry I have and I think you're right I think the one of the worries I have is that a lot of the developing world wants to be a prosperous the prosper wants to prosper and the economic growth and other things that a strong internet can have is great but the same time they like stability and so China and Russia are working very hard in those countries to get in their building their infrastructure and others to try to sway them in that view all right thanks we're over time already and we haven't completely taken down the walls between infosec professionals and cyber diplomacy maybe we've loosened the bricks a little bit so please join me in thanking the panelists


What's up y'all it's your girl Kenzie here from Leighton Sports Cards and I'm ripping a personal for Brian T. We've got three 2022 Topps Garbage Spill Kids Sapphire Edition boxes. Alright, best of luck, always a fun rip, uh, opening these, opening these for you Brian. Here we go, again every single one of these cards, look at the sleeves and top loaded. That's her box here. Thanks Elyssus. Hanger, oops, Clark Cantz, Hamburger Patty, Gassy Gus, Audio Augie, Lucas Mucus, Ross Roast and Dental Daniel, Welded Fred, Iron Nat Nerd, a Jean Machine and Bud Buggie, Zeke Freak, Riveted Rex, a Batty Barney and Dental Flossie, Brian Furter, we've got a Blue Boy George 68 of 75, Blue Boy George to 75, Dottie Dribble and a Hugh Turn, Slade Slade, Fred Thread, Menace Dennis and Shattered Shelby, still yet to see a seed, only A's and B's, Glossy Flossie, a Droopy Dolly, Hot Dug and Sprade, Swade, Sprade, Wade, also here should have our second parallel and we do Black Sting Ray, we've got Harden Hollis to 125 and Dangling Dolly. Alright, I'll do it for the first box, number two, Daniel, I am awful for personals for the daytime, again only ripping for about another 45 minutes here, Gil Grill, Tag Tad, we have a Bent Bolt that is 20 of 99 on the yellow, Bent Bolt and a Cracked Craig, Reinforced Aaron, a Doei Joey, Neck Tye and Richie Wretch, Gore May D. Faced, a Juicy Lucy and upside down Donald, Handy Randy, Mick Daggers, Unbreakable Barney and Def Jeff, yeah so you see up in the corner, might be hard to see, it's like a number with an A, there's A and B, you're chasing the C's too, apparently those ones are short prints, I have yet to see one out of this, Nasty Nancy, ooh we've got Aqua to 20, Hot Rod, nice one there for you Brian, nice low number to hit, Hot Rod, there you go, so far so good, Michael Mutant and a Melted Milton, pretty hot, hot today, hot hands, Silvery Neal, a Shirley or Cereal Neal sorry, Warme Shermie and Mick Dagger, nice Randy, where'd you go, thank you, Willie Wipeout, Ultra Violet, Gory Rory and Lazy Louie, last pack here, Matt Kondo Mini, Harden Hollis and Silver Toothy Roofty, Solid Boxer with the Aqua to 20, Tanya Hyde, we've got a Moe Skeeto to 75, Moe Skeeto 55-75, Johnny One Notes, Pin Paul, Ranted Hollis, a fried Franklin, Kitspit and Ben Bolt, Jules Jules, Earl Painting, Gassy Gus and Repaired Rex, Lyft Hanger, Clark Kants, a dental Daniel and Hamburger Patty, Audio Auggie, Lucas Mucus, Buddy Buggy and Ross Roast for parallels here, Daytona, oh nice, so it was like 45 minutes from here, Welded Fred, Iron Nat Nerd, a dental Flossie and Gene Machine, I bet it was hot the past couple days too, Randy, Zeke Freak, a riveted Rex, Hugh Turn and Batty Barney, last pack here should have our last parallel, Fred Thread, a Fran Furter, we have Kitspit on the yellow 77 of 99, Kitspit and a Dotty Dribble, alright Brian that will do it for your boxes, thanks as always for such a fun rip, we'll get these right out to ya.


This video will show you the basics on how to create an in-text citation in APA format so that it will look something like this, or this. Any time that you paraphrase or quote someone else's words or ideas within the body of your paper, you must give credit to the original author with an in-text citation. An in-text citation is a short citation that refers the reader to the full reference at the end of a paper. A basic in-text citation will commonly include the author's last name, year of publication, and the page number where the information was found. When quoting an author's exact words, place quotation marks around the text, then include your in-text citation. Begin with the author's last name, comma, the year of publication, comma, and the page that the text was found on, preceded by the letter P and a period. Surround in parentheses, and always place your period after your in-text citation. If you summarize an author's ideas using your own words, this is a paraphrase. A paraphrase still requires an in-text citation. When paraphrasing, you do not include quotation marks. Using a paraphrase, begin your in-text citation with the author's last name, comma, the year of publication, then surround in parentheses. Always place your period after your in-text citation. It's important to note that page numbers are not necessary when paraphrasing. So far, our examples of a paraphrase and a direct quote have had the author's name and date in parentheses at the end of the sentence. This is what APA refers to as a parenthetical in-text citation. Alternatively, you can use a narrative citation. As this example shows, when you mention the author's name in a sentence, always include the date of publication after the name. Place the page number in parentheses at the end of your sentence, followed by a period to complete the in-text citation. You do not need to repeat the author's name or date. For two authors, use an ampersand after the first author's name if it appears in parentheses. When you are using the two author's names in a sentence, you should use the full word and. For three or more authors, follow the first author's name with the words et al followed by a period, meaning and others. If there's no known author, include a shortened title in place of the author's name. If your source does not include page numbers, indicate the paragraph where you found the information by using the abbreviation para followed by a period. Your reference list will be on its own page at the end of your paper and will contain the full citation information. Make sure to put your citations in alphabetical order. Don't forget to double space and indent after the first line.


Hello and welcome to this session in which we'll discuss the in-collectible accounts. This topic is covered in intermediate accounting as well as the CPA exam. Specifically in this session we're going to be covering the direct write-off method. In the next session we would look at the allowance method. Now it's very important that you understand the direct write-off method in order to appreciate, to understand better the allowance method. Also the direct write-off method could be tested on the CPA exam and if not for anything it's tested for tax purposes. That's the tax purpose method for in-collectible accounts. So it's very important that you understand this topic. Whether you are an accounting student or a CPA candidate I strongly suggest you take a look at my website farhatlectures.com. I don't replace your CPA review course. I am a useful addition to your CPA review course. I provide you alternative explanation, alternative procedures. Your risk is one month of subscription. Your potential gain is passing the exam. Take a look at my website to find out how well or not well your university doing on the CPA exam. I do have other course catalogs such as advanced accounting, taxation, governmental accounting, intermediate accounting, so on and so forth. My CPA supplemental courses are aligned with your CPA review course such as Wiley, Roger, Gleam, Becker, so on and so forth and I do have access. I give you access to all the AI CPA released questions with detailed solution. Almost 1500 CPA questions in addition to my own CPA questions. If you have not connected with me on LinkedIn please do so. Take a look at my LinkedIn recommendation like this recording. Share it with other connect with me on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit. So let's talk about in-collectibles account. Well account receivable is created, are created as a result of a sale. So what happened at the beginning? You make a sale on credit. You take a risk. You sell someone on credit and under the assumption they are going to pay you the money. And a perfect word here are the journal entries that we need for account receivable. We debit account receivable for $100. Let's assume we sold Ryan $100 worth of merchandise. We credit sales revenue for $100. So we bill Ryan $100 at some point in the future. Ryan will pay his bill for $100 and we are done. We created an account for Ryan. We Ryan paid the account and what's left is debit cash credit sales receivable. And this will be the end of the chapter for your receivable chapter. Well that's not the case. You know that's not the case because in the prior recording we dealt with sales returns and allowances and we dealt with sales discount. Sometimes Ryan is not happy with the product. They will return it. Sometimes they may pay early. We might give them a discount. There are much more involved. But in a perfect word this is what account receivable looks like. It's as simple as selling on account receiving the money. In this recording we need to discuss what happens when customers don't pay the balance for whatever reason or reasons. Now bear in mind you as an individual make sure to pay your balance otherwise your credit will be hammered. It's a little bit different for businesses because you and the business they might be two separate entities. The credit of the business might be hammered but not your credit. Your credit is very valuable. Okay don't not pay your bill. I'm not going to put too negative. Pay your bill. Okay make sure you do that because if you don't pay your bill your credit will be hammered. There are two methods to deal with this in collectible accounts. There is the direct write-off method which is not a gap method and this is what we will discuss in this chapter in this session sorry. And there's the allowance method. The allowance method is gap method. I'm not going to say it's difficult and I'm not going to say it's challenging. It's more involved that's all than the direct write-off method. So in this session we would look at the direct write-off method. What is the direct write-off method? What is that method? Well it's easy. You write off the account. You remove the receivable when the company determines the account is in collectible. It's as simple as that. Simply put the company decides they have a policy after a year of trying to collect the money. If we can't we write off the account based on certain criteria. That's it. Now this method is used for tax purposes. For tax purposes this method is acceptable and it's important to know it's acceptable for tax purposes because at some point you need to learn about the difference between financial accounting and tax accounting and this is going to be this is going to be one of the differences. As I said it's not gap. It's not accepted by gap for two reasons. One is the receivable is not stated at net realizable value. What's happened is this. Gap says you might have a million dollar of receivables but you have to tell us how much you expect to sell. So let's assume you only expect to I'm sorry how much you expect to collect. If you only expect to collect 950 you have to deduct what's called an allowance of 50. And this 950 is called net realizable value. In other words this is how much you expect to receive 950. Well the allowance at the direct write off method don't make this adjustment. So that's why it's not gap because gap says tell us how much you really go into collect net how much you really sold because you can sell a lot on account. You can open your door ask tell everyone I'm selling on credit. If you want to buy pay me later and everyone will buy from you. That's not what matters what matters is how much you can collect. That's one reason another reason why it's not gap it violates the matching principle and we're going to discuss this topic again in the next session. But simply put the matching principle says when you make a sale in a particular year if you make a sale on credit in year one this is the sale on credit in year one it has to be matched with the expense. What happened under the direct write off method? Assume you make a sale in year one you may not write it off until year two. Why? Because you are going to wait until you determine that the account is in collectible. So the sale in year one the expense in year two that's a violation of the matching principle. The sale should take place in year one and the expense should take place in year one and we'll see how the allowance method will fix this problem. I'm just explaining why the direct write off method is not gap. The direct write off method is accepted if the amount is immaterial. So if the amount is immaterial for certain companies in other words what is immaterial they don't expect to have in collectibles and if they have any in collectibles it's a very small amount. When you're dealing with government government always pay their bill. Let's assume the majority of your customers are government the federal government. You're not going to have in collectibles they're going to pay their bill right so it's not a big deal. But we will see in the next session how we can address those issues in the allowance method specifically why not gap specifically why those how we would address them fix that issue. So the best way to illustrate the direct write off method is to work a simple example it's as simple as that. You made a sale to Ryan for 100 dollars debit account receivable credit sales revenue. At the beginning I said in a perfect word what you would do is you debit after 30 days or 60 days you debit cash for 100 you credit receivable Ryan for 100 and life is life is over. Okay for the account receivable not for us okay now after repeated attempts we made calls mailing emailing we talked to Ryan in person Ryan failed fails to pay the bill. Okay by June 1st 26 20 x 6 so a year later that's the company the company determines that Ryan's account is in collectible. Now we don't tell Ryan right we keep trying to collect the money from Ryan that's it from our purposes it's useless to keep the receivable on the books. So what do we do at that point we will debit an expense called bad debt expense.  Now when do we debit that expense we debit that expense when we determine that the account for Ryan is in collectible so this is when we did it and the reason I'm emphasizing this the reason I'm highlighting this account because we're going to see it again in the next session when we use the allowance. In the next session the bad debt expense will be used under different circumstances. So we're going to debit bad debt expense 100 credit account receivable for Ryan 100 we were hoping rather than bad debt expense we were hoping that Ryan pays cash but that's not going to happen okay so now we wrote off the account and that's it we wrote off the account for Ryan so if we have a t account for account receivable notice we had initially a hundred dollar when we sold it then we credit the account $100 account receivable is zero life is over we're not going to sell Ryan anything on credit anymore that's how it works now let's assume Ryan sent a check August 5th for $100 so approximately a month later a couple months later june went by july went by August 5th suddenly we received a check in the mail for $100 excellent we're going to take the check we have two entries to make after we write off an account so this is when we write off the account this is write off this is when you write off the account and when we write off the account we have an expense remember i'm going to say this one more time when we write off the account we have an expense in the next session you're going to see something different okay so so under the direct write-off method when we write off the account that's when the expense takes place that's not going to be the case under the allowance method i'm just preparing you okay so let's assume Ryan send the check the first thing we do is we need to reverse the write-off so we need to reverse this entry reversing means to the opposite debit accounts receivable remember what we did first we had $100 then we write it off now we're going to put it back so this is the third $100 we're going to put it back on the books then we're going to accept the cash then we're going to take it off again and we're going to credit Ryan's account after we receive the money we receive the money so that's good at the end of the day Ryan paid his balance it took us a little bit long we wrote off the account to reverse it but that's the as complicated as it gets for the direct write-off method and this is all what you need to know then in the next session i'm going to talk about the incollectible method which will be a little bit different than the direct write-off method which it's going to be a gap method at the end of this recording once again i'm going to remind you whether you are an accounting student or a CPA candidate i can help you invest in your accounting career in your CPA exam take a look at my website farhatlectures.com for a nominal investment you can have access to resources that's going to help you pass the exam good luck study hard stay safe the CPA exam is worth it


Today is Thursday in the second week of the 19th Conference of Parties here in Warsaw, Poland. The ministers have now taken over most of the issues to resolve them by the end of tomorrow, hopefully. One of the key points that may be resolved is the loss and damage issue, which yesterday, in the very early hours of the day, at about 4 a.m., reached the climax when the G77 negotiators left the negotiations and walked out of it because of something that the Australians had done, which is to put brackets around everything that had been agreed until then. Nevertheless, they resumed negotiations later in the day, went on till about yesterday evening, about 7 p.m., and they're still in negotiations today, trying to hammer out some texts that they can agree to. There are two areas where there is disagreement, which will go to the ministers. The first one is with respect to where the institutional arrangement will sit. The developed countries want to keep it within the Adaptation Committee, and the developing countries want a new body for loss and damage, and this has to be a political decision by the ministers. And secondly is about finance, they're not using the word compensation here in Warsaw, but they are talking about money eventually, and they need a place to talk about means of implementation, which is a euphemism for money. The two, the co-presidency has asked two ministers, one from South Africa and one from Sweden, to act as the co-chairs of trying to bring this issue together at the political level. They have been holding bilaterals with the various different groups and got their views on the issues of divergence. Hopefully they will then be able to put forward some views that some proposed compromise that they can do. We will learn more about this perhaps later tonight or early tomorrow morning, and then hopefully get a resolution in time by the end of Friday, and not have to do what we did last year in Doha, which is to go all night Friday night into Saturday afternoon. So we're hoping that we actually do end on time here in Warsaw with a new mechanism on loss and damage. I will report back again tomorrow on this and then at the end of Warsaw as well.


Yeah, this feels like a dream.  You two team keep it clean. What's going on? It's Engraven here with another video and in this video, Bucky Brooks is back and he has compiled a list of QB coach duos that are under the most pressure in 2021. But before we get into this list and see if he's right or he may be wrong and we'll go from there. But I gotta tell y'all be good to yourself. Be good to yourself. Cause I know we always talk about how you should be looking out for other people, which is good. How you should be reaching out to other people, which is great. How you should be thinking of other people, which is nice. But you also gotta take care of yourself. Take time to step back from whatever it is that you do on a normal basis and just, just breathe, take a breather, straight up. Whether things are good, whether things are bad, take a breather, we all need it. We all need that break. We all need that time off. It's super important and it keeps you sane too. But anyway, somebody who a lot of y'all think is a little bit insane is Mr. Bucky Brooks. But let's see what he has to say and let's see what this list consists of and how he came to the point that he did. Anyway, it says there is nothing like the pressure of expectations in the NFL. The Super Bowl or bust mentality that permeates the league routinely puts head coaches and quarterbacks squarely on the hot seat, heading into the regular season. Okay, okay, we see what we're going. This year, the off-season quarterback Carousel has raised expectations for several franchises around the league with the QB one and the head coach shouldering the responsibility for the team's performance. Fair or not, these tandems will face consequences if their teams fail to deliver when it matters. Given some time to survey the landscape, here are the five quarterback head coach combos facing the most pressure heading into the season. All right, so now we see where Bucky Brooks is going with it because he said, fair or not. So whether you think it's fair or not, whether you think it's right or wrong, these tandems will face consequences if their teams fail to deliver when it matters. Let's get into the list. Number one, the Los Angeles Rams. It's Super Bowl or bust for the Rams after they shipped out Jared Golf as part of the deal with the Lions for Stafford with golf's 42 and 20 record and a Super Bowl appearance in four seasons under McVay, representing the bar. The pressure is squarely on the shoulders of Stafford and McVay to capture the Lombardi trophy. Considering the 13-year pro has zero playoff wins and only four winning seasons in his resume, the Rams quarterback Shuffle is a role of the dice that could backfire on a team looking to make good on his current competitive window. So, okay, with Matt Stafford and the Rams. They got a squad now. They have a squad on offense, on defense. Those boys, they got a squad, man. They got a nice little team over there. Is there pressure on them? Yeah, there is, but at the same time, I feel like the Jared Golf move, that was just a way to get that contract out of here. It was a way to get that contract. Now they do give up some stuff for Matt Stafford. So, you know what, there is that sort of that sense of pressure like, okay, we got to make this thing work. Okay, we got to make this thing happen. But as far as consequences, oh, could there really be consequences like that for Sean McVay or Matt Stafford if it doesn't work out? For Sean McVay, I just don't see. You never know. It would have to absolutely, for Sean McVay to be up out of there, it would have to absolutely fail, crumble to the ground.  Like where they don't even sniff the playoffs and they know well in advance that they ain't making the playoffs. But anyway, that's number one. That's who he says the QB and coach duo that faces the most pressure going into this season. He says it's them. Number two, who I'm sure a lot of y'all will be interested in, the Baltimore Ravens. All right, Bucky, let's see what you got to say. Lamar Jackson has posted a 30s and seven career regular season record and claimed an MVP award in 2019 while dazzling as an electric dual threat playmaker. But questions persist about his pocket passing ability. After observers watch the Ravens run heavy offense fizzle in three straight early playoff exits. So three straight early playoff exits. Well, early, well the first year, yeah, they got into, they won their division. So they had the home playoff game. Lamar's rookie season and they lost. They lost. It started to come back at the end, but it just wasn't enough. Second time, they skipped the wild card. They said, oh no, we ain't doing a wild card. We better than that. We ain't doing a wild card. Let's skip that. So they skipped the wild card because they went 14 and two. And then in their first playoff game that year they got beat up on by the Titans. So then following that this year, they played the Titans in, that was the wild card game, I believe. They played the Titans in the wild card.  They were the visiting team. And then they won. And then they lost in the divisional round to the Buffalo Bills. So, I mean, depending on how you look at it, it's not even an early playoff exit. Now, if you're going by as soon as they got in, like that Homer Simpson dad, that GIF where he walks into the ball, takes off his hat and picks up his hat and walks right out. That's how it was with the Ravens in the first two playoff games. But anyway, back to it. He said, with Jackson and company underperforming in the post-season, the pressure is mounting on Hardball to diversify the offense to give the Ravens a better chance of advancing in the tournament. Okay, I don't disagree with that at all. Will the Super Bowl-winning head coach stick to the unorthodox script that has made the Ravens perennial title contenders in the Jackson era? Or will he scrap the plan in favor of a traditional approach that could produce better results in the post-season? The outcome of the decision could make or break the Ravens' next few seasons. Okay, interesting. It could make or break the Ravens' next few seasons. Ah, the last part. Like, okay, so overall, this whole thing, there's some stuff that I'm with. Okay, I agree. And there's some stuff where I'm like, I don't know about all that part. But let's just go piece by piece. All right, so we already talked about the playoff part with Jackson and company underperforming in the post-season, which they have been. We can all acknowledge that, honestly. So we know that. So with them underperforming in the post-season, the pressure is mounting on hardball to diversify the offense to give the Ravens a better chance of advancing in the tournament. That part, I think we all agree with that. I don't think there's gonna be one Ravens fan that's like, hey, what the Ravens have been doing in the playoffs is good enough. No, it's obviously not.  They walking all over defenders and all that. They beating people up. They bullying people. But then the playoffs come and it's a whole another animal. It's a whole different story. Whole different story. And one of the biggest problems that we see in the playoffs is that it's been a couple of different things. Sometimes it's that the Ravens, they end up, you know what, let's not be ourselves. We're gonna try to be somebody else. That was certainly in 2019. Run Heavy team led the league in Russian by far. But 2019, they were like, you know what? You know what, let's go back to 2018. Before you even touch on 2018. Let's go back to 2018. And this has been my thing with the Ravens. One of my biggest problems with the Ravens since 2018. 2018, obviously LeMol first came on the scene. Took the league by storm with that crazy running game. And it was just like, oh my goodness, this is wild. So then we knew that, hey, we played the charges two times in I think three weeks. So the Ravens made the playoffs and the running game was their bread and butter. That's how they got into playoffs. They did pass the ball too, but it was mainly that running game. That was their strongest part of their game. So they got there, got to the playoffs. That running game got put on hold. They didn't have a plan B. They did not have a plan B. And the way that they stuck to the running game, it was just after the first quarter, it's like, okay, I see why you're still sticking with it. Second quarter, okay, I still give you a pass. But then third quarter, even fourth quarter, they were still like, this ain't working. Where's our plan B? They didn't have one. They did not have a plan B. So they failed to prepare. In my eyes, it was just, it was poor preparation. So then 2018, I mean 2019, excuse me, the following year, 14 and two, just killing the league, they get to the playoffs and they go straight to plan B. And it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, plan A is working so great during the regular season. Yeah, you want to switch it up. You don't want to be predictable. But at the same time, why are we not trying plan A first? Why don't we just scrap plan A completely and go straight to plan B? Like between Gus Edwards and Mark Ingram, and again, Mark Ingram was hurt, but you still wanted to try to force it to him. But hey, why were we not relying more on Gus Edwards? Why did Gus Edwards only run the ball, I think, well, three times? It was just like, what? And then of course, I mean, you throwing a lot of drops here and there.  And then 2019 with the drops. But then in 2020, in 2020, they, obviously, the first game, they started off a little slow. And against the tights, they started off slow, but they rebounded. It was just little things here and there that they just needed to fix. And they fixed them and they came back in one, killed a lot of narratives that game too. But then against the bills, bills, bills will stop in that run game. They will stop in that run game. And then with the passing game, just nothing was shaking. There was some drops, but again, I think the biggest one, the offensive line was a big yikes too. But one of the things that stuck out to me, especially in 2019 and 2020, in those playoff games, was Hollywood Brown. And he cannot be the only one. He can't be the only one. Hollywood and the playoffs, oh man! Woo-hoo-hoo! I wish they would use Hollywood in a regular season. Had to use him in the playoffs too. Cause in the playoffs, they like, it's like they save all these crazy Hollywood players just for playoffs. They'd be going over playoffs, man. They be having to move around. They be having them in the backfield. They be having them on all these different routes. And it's like, oh my God, it's so pretty. But in the regular season, they say, all right, Hollywood, go route, let's do it. All right, go route, go, go! All right, nine route, go! All right, just fly, go! And that's it. That's it. But in the playoffs, oh boy, they be using him. We know he's been in Raven's number one wire receiver, but in the playoffs, like, they really use him like a number one wires. They use that boy, Hollywood, man. But again, last year in the Bills game, it was a reminder that he shouldn't be the only one. And not only that, but you gotta find ways to use other guys too. You got to. It's very, very important that you do that. So moving on. When I said, will the Super Bowl winning head coach stick to the unorthodox script that has made the Ravens perennial title contenders in the Jackson era? Or will he scrap the plan in favor of a traditional approach that could produce better results in the post-season? Now, I don't think you need to scrap what you've done to get you this far. I don't think you need to scrap it, but you need to make some adjustments here and some adjustments there, mainly in the passing game, to really get the most out of your receivers, get the most out of Lamar Jackson, really get the most out of this offense. Because the run game, the run game is there. We know the run game is there. Run game is amazing. But the passing offense is where the problem lies. And to really get the most out of their guys. Let's use guys to their strengths. Use them to their strengths. Why did you bring them in? What did you draft them for? What did you sign them for? Well, use them for that and really get the most. Again, that's Keith Williams, T. Martin. They are huge in that. So again, you're not having to scrap what you've done so far because it has gotten you a lot of success. It's gotten you this far. But now to get that much further, you need to really, again, diversify the passing game. But that's why I say I agree and disagree with this all at the same time. And then he finishes and says, the outcome of the decision could make or break the Ravens next few seasons. Now that, depending on how things go, but this is really every single year, depending on how things go, there could be a lot of possible changes being made. I mean, teams go through a lot of changes regardless. But if there are more failures than successes, then teams, they go through a lot more changes when that is the case. So it's a way to see. So was Bucky Brooks all wrong about the Ravens and his assessment of them? No, he wasn't.  Like when he did that thing, oh, the Ravens, they should have these two quarterbacks. They should have Lamar Jackson and Justin Fields. So they don't have to pay Lamar Jackson because Justin Fields can come in and take over and he can carry this offense to where they need to go. It's plug and play. No, no, Bucky, it's not. That, uh-uh, that was dead wrong. But this one, this one, he's actually not trolling. Anyway, number three, the Indianapolis Codes. Perhaps a change of scenery in a familiar face. I mean, a familiar voice will help Wentz recapture the magic that made him an MVP front runner with the Eagles in 2017. The veteran quarterback steps into a Super Bowl ready offense in Indianapolis with a beefy line and an underrated set of perimeter playmakers, boasting big play potential. In addition, Wentz is supported by an elite defense that stymies opponents and easy scoring chances with turnovers. If Frank Rick, Rick Rich, Rick, whatever his name is, I forgot, who served as Wentz offensive coordinator in Philly in 2016 and 17, can get the veteran quarterback to embrace his role as a game manager on a team that is built to make a run. The Codes could serve to the top of the AFC as the most complete squad in the league. Now I do think there is some pressure on them as well, for sure, because they traded for Carson Wentz.  And I think that they could get better QB play out of Wentz than Phillip Rivers. And he gives you another element. Now there's the injury history, which is a little bit scary, but he does give you another element in the running game because if all else fails, Phillip Rivers ain't going nowhere. He'll catch you with some of them little troll runs, man. Like Peyton Manning would do. It's like, it'll be so frustrating as a defense.  If we got everything sold up in the past game, we got everything covered. No flies on, baby.   But Carson Wentz, he presents a legitimate threat on the ground too. But yeah, the Colts, they got a squad too. They got, then boys got a squad, man. Offensive line to run game, their receivers, they brought T.Y. back. Got Michael Pittman, Jr. What's the guy's name with the, I forgot his name. I can't think of his name right now. The other is Pascal, I think that's his name. But anyway, the boys got a little squad and they probably gonna get Zach Erz too. I think they gonna get Zach. Well, I'm recording this on June 28th. So if he is traded after then and you don't see the video, it's June 28th, I think they gonna get Zach Erz. But anyway, so there's certainly some pressure. But again, in the beginning of the article, he said, fair or not, these tandems will face consequences if their teams fail to deliver when it matters. I mean, where does it matter to think about this? Because, and I know we've only gotten through the top three. There's still two more. But think about when it matters, when does it matter the most? It matters the most in the playoffs.  Well, yeah, they will have lost in the playoffs and not get to the Super Bowl. And that's every team's dream. But again, I think it's just, I think that's just such a blanket statement. It's all about the way that things go down. Because say for instance, if using any of these teams, for example, and I can use, I just use the Ravens, for example, since we talk about the Ravens a lot. If the Ravens, say if they got to the playoffs, they got to the AFC champ, they got to whatever in the playoffs. And their offense score 55 points. 55 points, they going crazy on offense, like, let's go. That's what we've been waiting for. This receiver got 100 yards. This receiver got 70 yards. This receiver got 80 yards. This other receiver got 90 yards. The running backs got like a hundred a piece. They going crazy. Lamar threw like four or five touchdowns. They going wild. But the defense gives up 56 and they lose. Do you say, oh, that's okay, the offense, man, the offense wasn't good enough. We failed. Well, no, then it would go to the defense. And he'd be like, oh man, the defense, they ain't holding it down. They gave up all those points. We scored all them points, but the defense gave up all those points. That's why I say it all just saying that these guys are under so much pressure. They do have some pressure, but it's all about the way that they respond to that pressure. It's all about the results. It's all about how things get done. Not just that things get done, yes or no.  You gotta see the way that things transpired and the way that things go down because that's just as important. Number four, said the Las Vegas Raiders. The duo is entering now and never territory into the fourth season of Gruden's Rebuild. With the Raiders sporting a 19 and 29 record and zero playoff appearances since Gruden took over in 2018, the pressure is mounting on Karr and his coach to orchestrate a breakthrough in 2021.  I honestly, I don't feel like there's much pressure on the Raiders and Karr, Derrick Karr, because, I almost called him David, but that's his big bro. But I don't think there's any pressure on them because they've been together. Again, they've been together since 2018. The expectations are low. The expectations are low for the Raiders. So them, I honestly think them even making playoffs would be them exceeding expectations. What do people expect from them? Especially in a division at the end, but not even just their division, but based off of their play. What do people really expect from this Raiders team?  That boy Herbert is cold, man. And then you got the Broncos, they gonna do some things, but Raiders, they going through some things too. So I just, I don't think there's much pressure on these guys because if they don't make the playoffs then oh, what is Gruden gonna get fired? What pressure is there? Even, I know he signed that 10-year contract a little while ago, but and he could be released at any second from that. We know that just cause somebody signs a 10-year contract it doesn't mean they're gonna play out all 10 years. It happens in the NFL all the time, every year. Got to sign these extensions and they don't make it through the extensions. But I don't feel like there's much pressure on them because the expectations are so low. Even if they don't do anything and Gruden gets fired or a car gets traded or cut. Okay, we all expected that. We all expected that. So I disagree with the pressure from there. All right, and then last he said the Chicago Bears. Let me read you this one. If Naggy played for the Cubs or White Sox he was stepping to the baddest box with two strikes on a quarterback, on his quarterback scorecard following the failures of Mr. Trubisky and Nick Folson in Windy City. Given another chance to fix the Bears' quarterback woes with an ultra-talented prospect in his fourth season on a job, Naggy must plot out a course that will enable fields to develop while the team makes a playoff run. Whether that plan features a wait-and-see approach with the first-round picks standing on the sidelines while Dalton serves as a veteran bridge or a stage quarterback competition that enables the youngster to earn the job. Now, Naggy must ace this decision if he is to keep the franchise headed in the right direction. Otherwise, he could find himself standing in the unemployment line by the end of the season. Okay, with that one I agree that there's certainly pressure on Naggy but this talked about QB coach Duos. And I feel like if there's, you're talking about a duo, if there's pressure on one, then there's pressure on another two. If the QB coach duo was Naggy and even with Dalton, there's no pressure on, he's on a, what, a one-year deal? He's a bridge quarterback for the Bears. He's not their future. This dude has absolutely no pressure on him whatsoever. The head coach does alone. I don't think there's any pressure on Dalton. I don't think there is any pressure on Fields unless Fields were to take over from day one. Then there will be some pressure but at the same time, the pressure is definitely on Naggy more than any, it's on a head coach more than any of these quarterbacks. But they've been, they've continued to say, Dalton is the starter, Dalton is the starter, Dalton is the starter. Okay, if Dalton is gonna be the starter, like, it's almost like he's saying, okay, yeah, we don't wanna rush our young quarterback. Even though you know the fans, they ready. They ready for what's next. And Dalton is not who they wanna see. He is not who they wanna see. They ready to see the next best thing. If it's Justin Fields, they like, hey, we wanna see what this guy's got, this young guy. So again, pressure's not on Fields, pressure's not on Dalton. Pressure's on the court, I mean, excuse me, on the coach all day. But as far as them, no, they, boys ain't got nothing to worry about. And again, Dalton just at this point in his career, and it sounds sad, but it's true because it's the business. At this point in his career, just collecting checks. He's not, nobody's gonna look at Andy Dalton like he's the future of the team. Once Andy Dalton, once the bingo said, all right, we're done, that was almost like the beginning of the end. Now it seems like he's gonna be the next Ryan Fitzpatrick or something like that. To where he just goes to team, the team, the team, just to sort of bridge the gap between their old quarterback and the new young quarterback that they bringing in. That's where Andy Dalton is right now at this point in his career. So as far as pressure, naggy, yes, but their quarterbacks, no. But I did enjoy this article and I enjoyed this list because y'all know me. I hate making my own list, but when other people make the list, oh yeah, y'all make lists all day. I read them out and I love them and I appreciate them. So thank you, Bucky Brooks for going through these different QB and coach duos and presenting to us why you feel like they're under pressure. I love y'all team, keep it clean. I appreciate y'all and we out. That's my homie, ain't that right engraving? Right engraving? Shout out to engraving.