I don't know what the faculty is doing here. You already know everything I'm going to say. You should all go socialize somewhere. I learned this all from you, so I'm just repeating it back. OK? Here we go. All right. This topic, of course, could go on forever, of the Austrian school versus the conventional wisdom. That's why I came up with it. I thought I could repeat this every year with new material. So I've chosen a number of topics to hit, some briefly, some more in depth. But so that I can get to the most material, I actually prepared a, I do this a lot, I prepared a page on my site where I'm linking you to resources for further reading on these different topics. So there'll be some things that I've said a lot on YouTube and I'm a little creeped out by how many people have apparently watched every YouTube video I've ever made. So they've already heard all this and I want to bore them. So in cases like that, I may just refer you to that page. So the page is tomwoods.com slash conventional. Never had that page before on my site. So tomwoods.com slash conventional is where the links related to this talk can be found. But don't go there because that'll give away all the topics I'm covering. That would just spoil all the fun. So don't do that. All right. Instead, let's just dive right in blind. When I first, when I was in junior high school, I would say the topic that most persuaded me that a laissez-faire economy was a bad antisocial idea was the idea of monopoly. There were allegedly antisocial monopolies out there that were exploitative and that did damage to, well, laborers, the environment, consumer welfare, you name it. And we saw these terrible photographs or depictions of people working in terrible conditions and children working. And I could not imagine how anyone could support a system like that. So certainly, I wasn't a commie, but I thought, come on. We've got to be reasonable here. You have to have some regulation or otherwise you get that. So I didn't, unfortunately, on my resource page put anything about child labor. So I guess I can't defer to that. I think I will have to say a brief word about it, having said something about that. I will just say very quickly on the question of child labor, my teacher, of course, never gave us the idea there was another way to think about this. It was always moralizing. Look at these photographs. That was the entirety of the argument. So I thought, well, yeah, I mean, look at this. You've seen the photographs? And they are terrible. And I don't want to make light of that because I certainly wouldn't want to have been in a position where my kids had to work. But see, now you're getting a bit to a clue of what was really going on there. A lot of times when even to this day there is moral outrage on Facebook about some company and child labor or some country and child labor. You never get them asking, man, what are these parents thinking? It's always the company. Like the company somehow kidnapped these children and that's how they started working there. Nobody ever asked about the parents. The parents just somehow just get a pass. But I kind of want to know, well, what is the deal with the parents? Why are these parents letting these children do this? And the answer, of course, is the reason that child labor existed since the beginning of time, which was there are finite resources in the world. Most people in history have been desperately poor and more or less one bad harvest away from starvation. So they don't have the luxury of saying, well, of course my child is gonna go to kindergarten through 12th grade and learn and read Shakespeare and so on. They're barely able to survive. And in fact, even global institutions like World Health and International Labor Organization have more or less conceded that the reason that you have child labor is not that in some countries, everybody by a bizarre coincidence just all happened to be evil. And just in that one arbitrarily drawn boundary that all these just happen to be evil, wouldn't that be an amazing coincidence? Or the worst parents in the world are in like five countries, they're all there? How did they get there? Isn't that a weird coincidence? Why would they all be there? Well, instead, the reason is if the children don't work, the family starves. That's the situation. So it's not that we like child labor, but that's what happened. In my book, The Church and the Market, I have a probably like a five page overview with footnotes about justifying what I'm saying, but this is more or less conceited by a lot of economists left or right, that that's the reason. So that when you simply say, well, we'll just abolish it, we'll just get rid of it. So what happens then? So that means starvation now doesn't occur because you passed a law, the anti-starvation law. The thing you were trying to do to avert starvation is now banned. That ought to get rid of starvation. Well, of course, what happens is the kids wind up going into prostitution or flat out starving to death, which has indeed happened in multiple cases when guilt-ridden Westerners think that this is the correct approach. Well, it's not. Likewise, of course, the working conditions people endure. This is because this is extremely impoverished societies. And if you had more capital accumulation, you would have a situation where people would have the option to opt for better working conditions. That's ultimately what happens. And that's how child labor has gotten rid of, not because we passed some law. By the time we get around to passing some law, most of child labor has already disappeared anyway because of the natural operation of the market, because there's more intense investment in capital goods that make mom and dad more physically productive, so much so that they no longer have to send junior off to the mine or whatever it is. And then you get rid of it because you get rid of the starvation. Anyway, that was the sort of thing that I would look at in my textbook and say, how could you be a Republican? Because I thought Republicans favored a radically laissez faire economy. I was just a kid, you know, what did I know? And I thought, my gosh, how could you be a Republican? So little by little, I made my way to, you know, this, whatever I am now. Okay, so, but anyway, so I haven't even gotten to the monopoly, monopoly, right? So in the 19th century, we've gotten this impression that it was, it's like the guy on the monopoly box cover. He's my avatar for the 19th century monopolist, even though it's a 20th century game. You know, he's got a monocle, I think. And in the game, you actually see images of him, either with his pockets inside out, which means he has no money, or more often, carrying sacks of money with dollar signs on it, just like in the cartoons. And that's the impression. And usually they're about three feet tall, and somehow with all these natural biological disadvantages, they've come to dominate everything. So again, you read about this, and you read about John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and these are all terrible people and what they did. And then you look at it again a second time when you realize that there is another way of looking at it. This is the key thing when it comes to government education. The impression you get is there's, here are some facts, and there's only one way to think about these facts. Or in this case, here are a couple of photographs with some captions, but really no facts to contextualize them, but you go draw your own conclusion. Look at how rich this guy is and how poor that guy is. All right, well, in fact, Ed Tom Di Lorenzo made reference to the great work by Burton Folsom. He is another one, it eventually became called, what the heck is this book I'm trying to think of, Bob? I can't, all right, anyway, Burton Folsom has this, the myth of the robber barons, thank you. See, there's a good thing, the faculty's here after all, right? The Myth of the Robber Barons by Bert Folsom. That combined with Tom Di Lorenzo's own work really helps to smash all this because Tom made reference in one of his talks, but he didn't give himself nearly enough credit, so I'm gonna do that for him. He's not here, so tell him later that I was praising him. He had this article in 1985 when none of you were even born, right? Tom is slaving away, bashing myths while you're just, I don't know, floating around in the ether. That was probably a heresy I just uttered, right? The pre-existence of souls. Anyway, point is he writes this article for the International Review of Law and Economics, and what Tom actually bothers to do, if you can believe this, he actually bothers to go back and look at the data to see what are they telling us about the actual conduct of companies in these various industries where monopoly is alleged to exist. So Tom goes and finds data for 17 industries for which data existed that were accused of being monopolized. And what he found was that in like 15 out of the 17, the exceptions being matches and castor oil, I think people probably got along okay even with this. So 15 of these, what are we finding? That in fact, output is increasing dramatically faster in these industries than the, and then in the rest of the economy, which is contrary to the neoclassical understanding of monopoly. And also prices in these industries are falling faster than they're falling elsewhere in the economy. So some monopoly, so wait a minute, you mean they're actually improving the standard of living of the average person? Or Cornelius Vanderbilt can actually make it possible for you to get in a steamboat and go somewhere for instead of $5.50, or in some cases for nothing. He just hopes he can rope you into buying some food on board. That's amazing, no government program can do that. The government program can take from the rich and give to the poor. Yeah, eventually that doesn't work. I was looking, there are 565 billionaires in the entire country, 565. So you start redistributing, it just doesn't, everybody gets one extra chicken leg and that's the end of it.   Which by the way, people are eating now in case you hadn't heard about that. They actually do eat them. I shouldn't have used that example. So the point is that when you actually read the stories about these people, they're actually quite extraordinary. But the fact that practically speaking, one person reduced the price of steel rails by 90% is rather an interesting thing.  So check that stuff out, I've got links on that at the page I mentioned, tomwuz.com slash conventional. Another one, now you all know the answer to this but you know the answer because of people like Rothbard who went to the trouble to dig up the information. In the 1930s, everybody kind of knew who Herbert Hoover was. And when Franklin Roosevelt was running against him, his vice presidential nominee said, Herbert Hoover is driving us down the road to socialism. Okay, you did not get that in school. I guarantee you did not get that, right? Herbert Hoover driving us down the road to socialism. I thought Herbert Hoover just sat back and did nothing. Wearing his old monocle, he actually didn't have a monocle but just poetic license here. He sits back and does nothing while everybody is starving, right? And he just sits back and does nothing because of his ideological devotion to laissez-faire. But then why would he be accused of leading the country down to socialism or being a big spender which he was accused of being? So I don't know what happened in the country that everybody's brain got fogged or something in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s until finally Rothbard came along and said, hello, the reason they were criticizing Hoover for this was because he did those things, because in four years he spent more on public works than had been spent in the previous 20. How about that? Or because he was trying his best to force wages up in a deflationary period, which is a boon if you still have a job but makes it a little bit more challenging to get one. Or if you could just go down the list of what he did with interventions into agriculture or international trade or short selling or bailouts or also helping to make public works available in the States through loans of various kinds, the guy couldn't stop himself. In fact, in 1921 when he was Commerce Secretary, economic conditions at that time in early 1921 were terrible. So he's got a big long list of things he wants Warren Harding to do and Warren Harding just completely ignores him. Just great, beautiful. He's one of the best ignorers in American history. All kinds of terrible advice swarming around him. He just totally, he's just in a alcohol-induced fog, Warren Harding, good for him. Can't even hear Herbert Hoover telling him to do these things. So the thing is if you've ever read, how many people, there's no shame in saying no, it's glorious that you're new to this. It's glorious and wonderful and a garden of delight awaits you. So I'm not in any way rendering judgment on you. I genuinely wanna know, how many people have had a chance to read Rothbard's book, America's Great Depression? Okay, okay, that's actually a really great, now the faculty are raising their hands. Now stop, stop it. All right, well, the interesting thing about that book is it only goes up through about 1932. It does not continue the story through the rest of the depression through FDR. It starts off with some business cycle theory stuff and then it tells you about Franklin Roosevelt. A bigger part, it tells you about Herbert Hoover and it doesn't include Franklin Roosevelt. Now I do know somebody on the faculty wrote a book that pushes the story up through the rest of the 30s. If only I could remember that guy's name, but I just, I never have any interaction with this guy. So I just, there's no way I could think of, oh it's Bob Murphy, right. He wrote a book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, which is also linked at that resource page that I mentioned. So all right, so nuts to that with Herbert Hoover. In fact, there's even, when I was doing some digging around about Herbert Hoover, a PBS page came up and it was like a transcript of an interview they had done where they were all conceding that yeah, actually, Herbert Hoover was kind of a progressive. Oh, Rothbard tried to tell you that for years and years if only you'd crack open a book, come on. All right, anyway, so the New Deal. All right, here's another one. This is, we'll just do this one quickly because I want to get to some trickier ones. The New Deal is supposed to have brought about recovery, but when you look at the economic statistics from the 1930s, they're rather grim. The unemployment figures are still quite bad through the 1930s. Up to, you know, 1939, they're still close to 20%. They've gone back up. So this is not really recovery. So some historians have now had to resort to, well, all right, like Doris Kearns Goodwin, more or less admits, okay, granted he did not cure the country of the depression, but he gave people hope. That was the next thing. He gave people hope. Didn't actually give them the thing they were hoping for, but he gave them the hope. All right, so we'll get in a minute to the World War II thing. World War II caused the Great Depression or didn't cure the Great Depression, but the New Deal thing, you can go through the different programs as Tom does, I believe in his book, How Capitalism Saved America. And you can see that none of them is really designed to bring about recovery. I mean, the Agricultural Adjustment Act involves destroying crops and things. So that would make one sector of the economy wealthier, but at the expense of everybody else. It's like they couldn't think of more than one thing at a time. This'll help the farmers. And then we'll do something else that screws the farmers and the farmer thing screws everybody else. We just screw everybody enough. This'll screw our way to recovery. Because if you look at the National Industrial Recovery Act, the whole point of this is to restrain production so as to bring prices up and make businesses more profitable. Now, we see we're against that. We're against that. And that's why somebody like John T. Flynn who had thought of himself as being a left progressive thought, I don't see how this is left progressive. And then as he began to write about it, he kind of moved out of that phase of his life and became more and more of a free market guy. But if you read by the way, if you read Flynn's book, The Roosevelt Myth, he has way too much of a soft spot for Herbert Hoover. If only we could get back to the great principles of Herbert Hoover. No, how could you write this beautiful book and keep saying that? I don't know. But look, it's better than anybody else was doing in the 40s writing about this stuff. He was doing the best of anybody. He and Garrett Garrett were doing the best of anybody. But in particular though, what you could also supplement our analysis of the New Deal with is the analysis of Robert Higgs. If you haven't read his article on regime uncertainty, I highly recommend it because what he does is he goes back and he uses a couple of different kinds of empirical evidence to justify his claim that the reason the recovery was so sluggish and so prolonged was that there was a dramatic level of uncertainty among investors. Because there's always uncertainty about the future. But this is like exceptionally exponential uncertainty. And we see that reflected in the abnormal rate premium in longer term investments and debt instruments. Now obviously, you always have to pay a little extra for something that's longer lived. But this was way, way, way more than you would think because nobody really wanted to gamble on the future because nobody knows what this regime is going to do. And that turned out to be a problem. So that's a way, because how would we know there was regime uncertainty? Well, this exceptionally substantial premium on the future means there's uncertainty about what's going to happen. So that's one way we can pinpoint it. But another way is the extremely straightforward way of public opinion surveys and opinion polls which really only came into existence in the United States in the late 1930s just in time to try to validate the Higgs thesis. And they would ask questions of businessmen about whether or not they are withholding from investment because of uncertainty about the intentions of the regime. And the numbers are extremely revealing. So it's a beautiful thing about this world. You can just type in Robert Higgs and regime uncertainty and boom, anywhere in the world you are, you can have access to that. But all right Woods, maybe it's true that the presidents did not give us relief from the Great Depression, but thank goodness world catastrophe occurred and then we got relief from it, right? All right, now I mean, I don't want to make light of it. I mean, I'm sure these people would have preferred a situation without 50 million deaths. So I'm not saying that they are gleeful about it, but I am saying that there are people who believe that well, you know, like to look for a silver lining to things. And so we, at least we had economic prosperity as a result. Now I've talked about this. I gave a talk in the previous Mises use years ago when you guys were learning to ride your bike probably, previous ones, when I talked about, I wrote, I actually ended up writing this up for the quarterly journal of Austrian economics. I have an article in there called, what Austrian economics can teach historians? I'm a historian, I've learned from Austrian economics. So what could other historians stand to learn? And I did use the World War II example as a case study of how somebody who's not looking carefully at the data can be misled or who's not really versed in sound economic theory can be misled. Cause right off the bat, something should be fishing to you about this, that bombing and destroying things or conscripting 11 million people and taking them, the most skilled people in the labor force, removing them from the labor force, that made us recover. So maybe if years ago we had thought, all right, if you have any skill whatsoever and you are a man between the ages of 18 and 40, line up against the wall, we are carting you away and that would have restored the economy? Well, obviously not. So why are we thinking that because it's a war, this is some magic word that means we can just drop our rational faculties. Of course, this is not making us more prosperous. In fact, I have to again tip my hat to Bob Higgs because he wrote the article that should have changed everybody's minds on this. And it did change some minds because he did do an article, scholarly article called wartime prosperity and it was with a question mark and then it's a reassessment of the economy of the 1940s. And he goes back and he shows what's wrong with the national income accounting figures of those years. And he says, I was, well, I'm kind of paraphrasing here, but he was first tipped off to the idea there might be something wrong with the national income accounting figures that are showing dramatic GDP growth during these years when he says, well, wait a minute, hold on a minute. This is at a time when the economy is being subject to abrupt and extreme resource constraints. Your best workers are being drafted away and who are they being replaced by? By older men who aren't as physically productive and by young people and women who have never been in the labor force before who have almost no experience. In some cases, no experience. And you're gonna say these are the conditions in which the economy grew at record levels, levels never before seen and never seen since.  It shouldn't. So then he went and showed that the main problem with the numbers is that they're all infected by the overwhelming government and war spending at that time, which gets counted, of course. And then there are spillover effects because the war spending affected all different sorts of aspects of the economy. So what's being reflected in those figures are not the voluntary purchases of consumers according to their individual preferences, but instead you're seeing a gigantic phony number that doesn't tell you anything. And it misleads people into thinking, wow, this was the richest time ever. And then meanwhile, everybody's suffering under rationing. You can't get a new appliance. They're giving you chocolate bars that are smaller than they were before and they're pretending everything's fine. It's like 1984. We've increased the chocolate ration when they actually dropped it by five ounces.  And we're supposed to think this was the wealthiest time we've ever had. So ain't no such thing. No, this was not a good time. The depression ended after all this when more or less all these grandiose schemes, whether domestic or foreign, finally came to an end and you could have normal investment, normal economic activity again. All right, how about this one? How about this one? This one for a claim. How about the Fed is a malign institution? How about that? I don't know, I'm gonna say that. Now that's a little bit unusual. That's an unusual claim because normally, you know that's an unusual claim, right? No one says that. In fact, here we are, we Austrians have to suffer through the following. There'll be some economic disaster, the economy be in the tank and we have to endure this. Well, what should we do now? Print a lot more money or just borrow a lot more money? We just sit there like, why me? Why is this happening to me? That I have to be involved in this conversation. Those are the choices I'm being given and it's like the foreign policy choice. Well, the moderates just wanna starve those people to death and the extremists wanna bomb them and then we have this debate about, well should we, starvation has its merits on the other hand, but bombing ain't nothing like that. Hey, it got us out of the depression. Ang, yay, all right. So the Fed has now ever since the crisis of 2008 has been front and center in people's minds. The Fed had been very much in the background pretty much for its entire existence. Nobody talked about the Fed. You look at, well, think about the election of 1956, Eisenhower versus Adlai Stevenson. How many times has the Fed mentioned? It doesn't even come up. It's there in the background, but now people are very interested in it and people now that it's front and center either are highly skeptical of it or they attribute to it just almost bizarre degrees of power and capabilities. So our understanding then is that basically is as follows that until we had the Fed, there were terrible times of economic instability and turmoil and then we got the Fed and it's been smoothed out because of scientific management of the economy. And a lot of your friends you talked to about this probably believe the Fed was created after the Great Depression. So you tell them that actually the Fed was in existence during the Great Depression and pretty much the best they can come up with as George Selgen puts it as well, that was just practice. Ever since then, it's been really great. Well, actually the statistics on this are not so favorable to the Fed, especially when you look at more recent, more reliable data. And these are conclusions that have been drawn by relatively, if we might say, middle of the road scholars, even Christina Romer has been willing to take a second look at some of these figures. So it turns out that the Fed has not in fact given us fewer or shallower recessions than we had before. It turns out that when we look at the 19th century, these various panics, well, there's virtually always some kind of credit expansion that precedes them. I mean, 1873, this was a time when there was a terrible Lincolnian monetary system in place. So you can always find a monetary cause here. And then also there is, that might be reflected in the data, instability that comes from agricultural economies and the various swings that can occur there. So it's hard to compare the pre-fed economy to today. But nevertheless, the pre-fed economy actually comes out looking reasonably good in more recent studies. So for example, a study out of the University of California at Berkeley concluded that contrary to the conventional wisdom, there is no evidence of a decline in the frequency of panics during the first 15 years of the existence of the Federal Reserve. In a book called Banking Panics of the Gilded Age from the year 2000, Elmas Wicker writes, there were no more than three major banking panics between 1873 and 1907 inclusive and two incipient banking panics in 1884 and 1890. 12 years elapsed between the panic of 1861 and the panic of 1873, 20 years between the panics of 1873 and 1893 and 14 years between 1893 and 1907. So three banking panics in half a century and in only one of the three, 1893, did the number of bank suspensions match those of the Great Depression. By contrast, there were five separate bank panics in the first three years of the Great Depression alone. And when we look at these pre-fed panics, we find that the very worst one was 1893 and in 1893 in terms of depositor losses and depositor losses in the panic of 1893 amounted to 0.1% of GDP. That was the worst one. But by contrast, over the course of the past 30 or so years of in the regime of central banking, the world has seen 20 banking crises that led to depositor losses in excess of 10% of GDP and half of those 20%. So the claims for the Fed are overblown. And of course, I guess the housing bubble was also practiced, but I'll come back, I'll come to the housing bubble if I have time, but if not, there's a book by a fellow you may know called Meltdown that deals with that particular one. That wasn't Murphy, that one was me. All right, let's talk about, I wanna talk about a particular episode in economic history that I've become especially fond of and there has been more work done on it since I did my little thing. I wrote an article for a periodical called The Intercollegiate Review on the forgotten depression of 1920 to 21. Now there was some pushback against that, but are people pushed back like with machine guns? We pushed back against the pushbackers and they haven't been heard from since. So one of the pushbackers is Patrick Newman, I don't think is here right now, but he is awesome. You are the best pushbacker I have ever seen because Patrick wrote an article also linked at my resource page answering the answerers because some of us like Bob and Jim Powell and people had talked about this and then we got attacked by the answerers and then the anti-answerers were led by Patrick. Well anyway, the argument runs like this, that in the 1920 to 21 depression you had double-digit unemployment, nearly 12%, a jumping from 4% to 12%, you have a very substantial GNP decline. And again, this is the time when Herbert Hoover is begging Warren Harding to do something. By the time it even occurs to him to try, the thing is over. By the late summer of 1921, we already had signs of recovery visible and the unemployment rate starts to come down. Now it's interesting to note that Japan also experienced rather grim economic times in 1920 and they responded exactly the opposite way from the US because what I'm gonna suggest to you is that the US government responded altogether correctly. And I almost can't even, it's bizarre that somewhere in the ether is my voice saying those words that the US government responded correctly as opposed to the Japanese. This is Benjamin Anderson who is a great economist by the way, mid 20th century writes, the great banks, the concentrated industries and the government got together, that is in Japan, destroyed the freedom of the market. So in other words, this is how they responded to their problems, arrested the decline in commodity prices and held the Japanese price level high above the receding world level for seven years. During these years, Japan endured chronic industrial stagnation and at the end in 1927, she had a banking crisis of such severity that many great branch bank systems went down as well as many industries.  By contrast, says Anderson, in 1920 to 21 we took our losses, we readjusted our financial structure, we endured our depression and in August 1921, we started up again. The rally in business production and employment that started in August 1921 was soundly based on a drastic cleaning up of credit weakness, a drastic reduction in the costs of production and on the free play of private enterprise. It was not based on governmental policy designed to make business good. How about that? The Keynesian economist Robert Gordon later said, government policy to moderate the depression and speed recovery was minimal. Hmm, the Federal Reserve authorities were largely passive, how about that? Despite the absence of a stimulative government policy, however, recovery was not long delayed. Now of course he's a Keynesian, so he's gotta say despite the absence of stimulus, we got out of this. And then he goes right on instead of saying, you know, this has created a crisis of conscience for me. How could this have occurred? Now he's on to the next thing as always happens. Like when Peter Schiff was right that there was gonna be a financial crisis and all these boneheads laughed at him, then there's a financial crisis. They're still blabbing, right?  Nope, blah, blah, blah, they just keep on going. Except Ben Stein, by the way, the one honorable guy said, nope, I was wrong and Peter was right, one decent guy. And he's not always decent, so don't go cheering for him. But on this case, this case, he was pretty cheery. And it really is true that when you look at the situation, the federal government and the Fed did indeed take a more or less hands-off position. Joseph Schumpeter said that the 1921 case shows better than any theory could how the system pulls itself out of troughs under its own steam and how it succeeds in doing so while the price level is falling. And now I wanna quote another faculty member here, our old friend, Jeff Herbiner. And he's gonna have so much fun tonight because we're taking him to an escape room and he's agreed to do it and it's gonna be so much fun. He hasn't agreed to do it, but if I shame him enough in front of the crowd, I'm thinking I'll weaken him and he'll do it. Anyway, the real reason I'm quoting him has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Instead, he wrote a little something in the forums of one of my websites about the Fed's policy. He says, the monetary contraction starting in 1921 was the intentional sell-off of bills discounted by the Fed which completely overwhelmed the Coincident Gold inflows. The Fed's balance sheet didn't stop falling until 1922, well after the recovery had begun and plateaued for the next two years as the recovery proceeded at pace. In other words, Fed policy was decidedly contractionary during the early recovery from 1921 to 1922 and significantly contractionary during the entire recovery from 1921 to 1924. And yet there you have it, it recovers.  Maybe this is just a fluke. Maybe normally economies don't recover this way. So at a time like this it's important to try to think through why would this have happened or how would this have happened? And to do that, let me just say just a quick thing about Austrian business cycle theory. I know you've had plenty of exposure to it but let me say a quick thing about it because it does help us understand what not to do about a recession and then it can help you understand why when we didn't do the things not to do things turned out all right. So one of the things that helped me to understand the Austrian business cycle theory better was as follows and to see how it actually integrates with the Austrian understanding of capital and stages of production and so on. It basically goes like this that if the, in our case the Federal Reserve pushes interest rates artificially low, I mean you've already heard all this. I mean the interest rate gets pushed artificially low, the economy gets on an unsustainable path but what do we mean by an unsustainable path? What would that look like? And so what's actually happening is, let's first think about a normal economy where interest rates fall. Interest rates fall, we all save more, tends to push interest rates down and what that means is when we save more it means we're not consuming as much.  So consumer goods industries will have a relative contraction because we don't buy as much consumer good stuff. So there's a relative contraction there. But what that also means is that the productive resources that might have been used to ship clothing to and from different JC penny locations is now available for higher order stages to have make use of. Because the higher order stages can also use trucking services. So when we stop buying so many new shirts at JC penny, well they don't need as many trucks to ship new shirts in. So the trucking services now become available for the higher order stages which are stimulated by the lower interest rates. Okay, but now suppose that it turns out that these low interest rates are created artificially by the Fed. Well then in that case, we're not consuming less than before. We might even be consuming more. So we're not actually releasing resources in the lower order stages. But meanwhile, there are projects begun in the higher order stages. And it turns out that the resources for them to complete their projects have not been made available by us by our consumption decisions. And so now the trucking services, just to use a stylized example, are not as available as these investors might have anticipated. They carry a higher price because the lower order stages are bidding them back. And so there winds up being a tug of war over resources. Instead of the resources flowing naturally from some lower stages to the higher ones, there's a tug of war between demand at the different ends of the structure. And given that the higher order stages are more or less being sustained through artificial monetary means, we know who's gonna win that tug of war and it's not these new investments. And so that's where this is all gonna wind up with that's what we mean by the economies on an unsustainable path. You're trying to do things that cannot be simultaneously done. And that will come out as losses for a lot of these new projects. So then now that we get what happened, what's the natural next thing to do? Is it to make interest rates even lower than they were before? Well, obviously what would that do? That would just perpetuate the problem. And then the crash becomes more severe. Well, indeed they did that under Allen Greenspan. We had the dot com boom. And then we had in 2001, we had something like 18 rate, 14, 18 rate reductions. And we didn't really get the cleansing that was necessary. What instead we got was everybody concluding, wow, even a recession can't stop housing prices from rising. And so you get all these crazy decision on the part of consumers too, who looked at the situation and thought they were wealthier than they were. So therefore we can more or less conclude on the basis of my brief overview that monetary stimulus is simply gonna give you more of the same. And what it will give you is still get a crash, but it'll be worse because you will have prolonged the misallocation even longer. So there'll be more liquidation that has to occur. So you don't want that. All right, well, how about borrowing money and blowing it on bridges or whatever, some bridge to some congressman's house or whatever. I used to teach at a college that had three campuses. The third campus was out on Eastern Long Island where there about 10 people and some pigeons basically. There's nobody out there. And it was because some congressman just thought it would be neat to have a campus near his house. And so they're crazy allocation decisions that get made. But the argument tends to be, but you know what, when push comes to shove, you know, if you make me a Keynesian drunk, I will say that spending on anything is better than no spending. So, you know, we'll take that crazy campus that nobody wants, at least it's something. It'll stimulate activity. But of course, this leads to a, this kind of gets us a little bit too far ahead because, well, why isn't there activity now should be the question instead of saying, well, you know, there's a lot of slack here, a lot of idle resources. Let's just stimulate them into activity. Let's pour some monster drinks down the collective throat of the economy, get things going. Well, maybe the problem is the current configuration isn't workable. We don't want to restart this thing. Well, we don't want it to be restarted. We want resources to shift around, to go to new places, not to restart the zombies we have now, we want to go to different, where they belong. The economy, people in the economy are finally figuring out, we've been on this crazy bizarre journey for a number of years. The Fed has taken us on. And there are some things we started that we shouldn't have started. And maybe we got to reallocate resources, whether it's labor or whatever, different types of capital, whatever. That needs to get done. And that needs to get done without any white noise coming from government. And one way that can come is through so-called fiscal stimulus. We'll build bridges and we'll build these sorts of things. And one of the important contributions that Bob has made to all this is asking the question, does depression economics change the rules? Do we say that, well, when the economy is really depressed, we don't have to worry about the broken window fallacy anymore. You know, the broken window, we break a window and we're trying to lecture people, but this doesn't make you richer because now you're just taking resources to go fix the window. But the argument is, but see during a depression, the window guy is unemployed anyway. So you're not really taking him away for anything. You're not bothering him. He's just watching game shows all day. So there's no problem for him to go fix the window. It's not really losing any wealth. So what are you complaining about? But as Bob points out, for one thing, what is the likelihood that the government's crazy project is going to consist of precisely the kind of labor that is presently unemployed and precisely the kinds of materials that are currently unemployed so that it all flows beautifully with no disruption. Of course, that's a fantasy. Of course, you're gonna be drawing resources away from the productive private sector that is trying its best to recover after the Fed screwed it up all those years. So stop doing that. That doesn't help. So XNA to the Iskall Stimulus Fae, right? None of that. All right, and then finally, the last one I could cover is the 2008 financial crisis was not caused by deregulation. Not all your Facebook friends will agree with that statement. I recently released an e-book called Your Facebook Friends Are Wrong About Healthcare, because they are. They're wonderful, but you have lovely people as your Facebook friends, but man, are they clueless on healthcare. So one of my friends, Ben Settle, who's a great email marketing expert, he said, you could do a whole series called Your Facebook Friends Are Wrong About XYZ. And I thought, man, yeah, what an empire I could have because your Facebook friends are so wrong. That's unbelievable. Well, anyway, on the deregulation front, we'll just simply point out this. No, it wasn't deregulation because what deregulation occurred that had any relevance whatsoever to the financial crisis? What was the financial, what happened? Banks made a lot of terrible loans. Yeah, they've always been allowed to make terrible loans. There was no phantom repealed regulation that prevented them from making terrible loans. They were always allowed to do this. So there must have been some systemic thing causing it. Secondly, it's not that spending on financial regulation fell. It tripled in real terms since 1980. In real terms, adjusting for inflation. I had a Facebook guy try to say, oh, you're not adjusting for inflation. Yes, I am. So now what's your argument? They'll come up with something else. But so he admitted that that sounded bad for his side. So there's plenty. And then SEC regulation spending that went way up. So it's not that. Well, it was the partial repeal of Glass-Steagall. This thing. This thing is not real. I have a book called, I don't have it with me. It's called Roll Back. I'll never make another cent of royalty on this. So I'm just saying this, not to earn money, not there's anything wrong with that. But just to tell you where to find out more about this, it's on my resource page as well. But in there, I go into this whole deregulation thing, particularly this repeal of Glass-Steagall. The long of the shirt is Glass-Steagall divided investment in commercial banking and did some other things to it. They prohibited banks from dealing in security. So they can hold them as an investment, but they can't deal in them. So that's what banks were doing. They weren't doing anything they weren't allowed to do. And the only thing, the only part of this that was repealed in 1999 was that now the same holding company could be in control of a commercial bank and an investment bank. Now there's no other country. And I realized that in a fiat weirdo banking system, it's hard to know whether regulation or deregulation is even the right thing. I'll grant you that. There's no other place in the world that's dividing this type of banking. And they seem to be doing okay. But also, when we look at what were the institutions that failed, well, there were plenty of standalone investment banks that failed and standalone commercial banks that failed. So this thing is a total red herring. And I think the only reason they advance it is that it's the only deregulation that has like the word bank in it that even sorta sounds like it could remotely be relevant. But it's not. They're missing the elephant in the room, which is the Federal Reserve. It's in my book Meltdown, and thanks for listening.


We know people are worried about the climate-related emergencies across British Columbia that are significantly affecting our families, communities, economy, infrastructure, and ecosystems. Modern realities like frequent floods, wildfires, and extreme heat, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic have a lasting impact on people and communities. Climate-related emergencies will continue to grow in frequency and complexity as climate change persists. The next phase in our response to these challenges begins with modernizing BC's emergency management legislation. British Columbia is on the frontlines of climate change in Canada, which is why in 2018 we were the first province to adopt the United Nations' Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. And now we are the first province to overhaul emergency management legislation in more than a decade. The new Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness will lead our provincial approach to disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, and will help keep people safe. While this legislation is foundational to the future of BC's emergency management, it is also historic in our province's path to reconciliation as the first major land-based legislation that formally recognizes the rights of First Nations as decision-makers in emergency management, which is an important step in aligning BC's approach with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The legislation creates requirements for regulated entities to integrate indigenous knowledge in risk assessment and emergency management plans and promotes cultural safety. Emergency management is more successful with dialogue and collaboration. The legislation includes requirements and opportunities for government-to-government conversations and interactions with other key partners, like local governments and critical infrastructure operators. It also includes more ways for our public safety partners to support each other and keep people safer. There are more updates to come on this legislation as we continue to ensure that as communities, as people, and as a province, we can meet the challenges of climate and disaster risk.


Hello everyone, thanks for stopping by our session and we hope you've been having an amazing conference so far our talk today is going to be about on a topic which is Close to every contributor, but it is a nightmare for every implementer. At least that is what we feel like just a couple of days ago in the contributor summit We actually met someone who was trying to implement prow which we'll cover. Don't worry. That's what we're here for and They faced a lot of trouble and that sort of just reinforced our own belief that Proud is something Every contributor everyone was made a pull request to Kubernetes is at least somewhat familiar with They have seen it comment on their PR or their issue, but they've liked it But when it comes to Installing it for their own repos or setting it up or just understanding what is happening behind the scenes of Proud How it is working that is not clear and that is what we aim to solve in this talk We aim that once you Go through our session after this you feel confident enough in trying out Proud on your own installing it on your repositories and Basically having fun with it So before we begin a bit of introductions are in order. Who are we? I Am our Sharma. I work as a developer and experience engineer at Octeto I also actively contribute to the Kubernetes project I will be leading the CI signal team in the 125 release and I'm a new contributor ambassador for Kubernetes sick docs Where I help people contribute to the project. I'll hand over to Nabarun now. Hey, everyone. I'm Nabarun I work as a senior engineer at VMware I have been contributing to Kubernetes for the past three years And spent around two and a half years contributing to sick release Having led Kubernetes 1.2.1 last year, which is going to be deprecated this month next week possibly And I am also the current currently a release manager in the communities release engineering sub project I am also an elected member of the Kubernetes code of conduct committee. I Have been in the committee for the past eight or so months Besides that I help maintaining some other areas in communities like GitHub administration and contributing to Other areas of the project Now why are we here? What is proud? Proud is a Kubernetes based CICD system Being based on top of Kubernetes. It brings all the pros of running any application of communities Like you get replication. You get scaling you get rolling updates. You get highly available nature of Any stateless workload that you usually run on communities? Proud can manage life cycle of pull requests like review approvals merging them based on some criteria Through a component called tied which we will take a brief look at later Proud's configuration can be managed through structures inside the ML files. Now there can be two ways to manage them one is inside the repository where you host code and Can also be stored in a central repository aside aside from your code There are pros and cons of both approaches. I should be covering them later on in a future section Proud ships with a very very highly extensible Plugin system which helps you to infinitely extend Proud and change its and modify its behavior to however you need We also set a we also ship with Proud a set of inbuilt plugins Which help you manage several parts of a developer's experience in that system? while Doing continuous integration or deployment of your code Proud also include something called chat ops. We might have heard this a lot of times and how we do it is through Slash something like commands like slash on which will essentially give you a image of a duck Doing some some naughty things around the wild Arches now going to show you around the chat ops system So chat ops is probably my favorite bits about Proud because I feel like when I was starting out as a contributor to Kubernetes and you look at all these PRs and all these Maintain a super experience folks talking in languages. You don't understand Proud is the only simple thing there It's showing me images of cats and dogs. That's what they're what I'm there for no Chat ops basically allows you to have a forward slash and then a command which allows you to interact with GitHub issues and PRs. So Yola is not a command. Please don't try that You can assign you can assign issues to contributors So let's say if you're the new contributor getting started and you want to work on an issue You can just do forward slash assign and that would actually assign the issue and let everyone know that you're working on it Similarly, you can label issues and pull requests Maintainers can provide approval for pull requests and once they provide approval the pull requests get merged using another plugin which we'll cover later and Other than that you can also run tests for a particular PR and there is a lot more you can do So for those of you who have not had a chance to look at how this Or looks like we'll actually go to a pull request which is made by our very good friend and an active contributor mother who said you should meet him by the way and To give some context for this. We'll not go into details. Don't worry. Basically go 18 introduced something and We had a fix for that But then it important one fix that and we want wanted to remove our workaround. So that's what this PR was for and let's see how Brow has been helping with this PR So first what happened is that Kubernetes has a bunch of sakes for those who are not familiar and every part of some code belongs to a sake so this belong to sick testing and Using forward slash sick testing mother was able to apply this label to the pull request and then there's some conversation which we are definitely not going into and Then you can apply labels like this and this label is applied to the PR Which is a priority important soon label and Let's see what else you can edit milestones for pull requests and Tests so when you make a PR tests are run and sometimes some of those tests are flaky and You feel that that a lot of times what happens is that you need to rerun those tests and for that You can simply run the forward slash test all command And once you see that CI turning green as soon as it happens Please can maintain us to approve an LGTM because that's CI might turn purple anytime and you will not have a good time so once you get the approve an LGTM labels then your PR is almost there, but You can add more retests and labels like this like if it's urgent and if someone's working on it You can triage it and then retest and then That is how you basically contribute and get your PR accepted. So I think this now give you an idea of how proud looks like and We'll now go back to the slides Which seem to be lost Murphy's law Yeah, we are back. Yeah So now that we have seen chat ops in action I Am going to hand it over to Nabaroon and he has a diagram which will scare you But I've heard him speak and I think he makes it easy. So now we'll please take it from here So thanks. Thanks to her. He scared us everyone here, but I'll actually try to Declutter through user story of how do they interact? So I showed you how Madhav had created a pull request with changes and we will take that journey through how It actually got tested in proud So first We do have our user who interacts on GitHub right on the left. I wish I had a pointer, but I'll try to explain as well I can and when you Create a pull request on GitHub GitHub essentially generates an event and that event goes through a GitHub app or a Bought account to a component called hook which is in our proud cluster and that component keeps on Processing those GitHub events and packages them into internal structures, which have some more metadata. For example They also contain a proud plugin config proud job config and through this and Another plugin called trigger plugin It creates a custom resource called proud job. So it's a CRD proud job is a custom resource definition That is a central core concept in proud's landscape And whenever any job has to run in proud you basically create a proud job custom resource Notice I told you about the trigger plugin if you don't enable the trigger plugin This thing won't be done Fortunately by default the starter templates that we have the plugin the trigger plugin is enabled So any web hook coming through a hook will process an event will trigger an event essentially Now we have a custom resource. What do we do? We have to reconcile it, right? We have to act on that created custom resource. We have a component called plank Right there Plank processes this custom resource and Sees where should I run this and how should I run this? Depending on that it creates a pod in any of the job clusters You can have multiple job clusters for isolation For example, you might have some kind of trusted jobs some kind of untrusted jobs or let's say you are working on a Private repository and you don't want to mix code And you want to have proper isolation so you can run on any class any job cluster you want Once that is done plan keeps on looking for statuses of those job pods once They execute fine like if there's an error or if they exit successfully It reports back the status to the status sub resource of the proud job custom resource Now how do we get that status back to get up which is where our user is user won't see a custom resource for a status Right we have a component called crier which essentially cries all the output in the status of resource to get up It knows how and what to infer from that status sub resource and it sends back the data to GitHub When mother it created that PR at the end of the PR at the end of a github pull request You essentially see a list of checks These are the same checks that crier updates and it also would provide like a message on if you're failing something what test is failing It will basically verbose leisure and then you can retest those specific tests There are some other components which not necessarily come in the life cycle, but life cycle of a user creating a pull request and getting an output of a test But they are very important. We have one component for whole horror game which essentially Looks at your configuration for any periodic job that you may have created for example You just want to check your code sanity like you want to check the code coverage every day And post them somewhere it will create that proud job CR from your configuration so that Plank can reconcile it and run that job and then report the status back Sinker is basically your Recycle bin What it does is it looks at pods which have passed a certain retention policy for example Let's say there are job parts which have been lying around for more than 24 hours just an example We might set like more Strict or less stricter configs and when it sees Those jobs it basically deletes the parts as well as the proud job CRs So that the system remains in Now I'm talking about like statuses Logs we we have a lot of artifacts that are generated in this process. Where do you see them? So we have a friend and call deck If you ever go to proud or kts.io what you see is essentially deck Deck is basically a dashboard where you see what jobs we have in the community around all repositories What is their status? What was the last PR that they run for if it was a pre-submit job, which is basically a pre-emerge job or any periodic job status or post-submits for example We have a process in Kubernetes community called promoting images We essentially build images into staging environment and then push them into Production registries which you consume in kts.gcr.io Get a container registry domain For example, that job is like a post-submit job. It runs after a promotion configuration has been changed This was about the core components of proud We will talk about Two components which are needed When you want like full life cycle of a CICD system in proud first one is tied. So we have talked about testing of your changes and Labeling of your changes or whatever chat-ops you want to do Whatever merging now if I go about In the Kubernetes repository we see probably like hundred to five hundred PRs every 15 days or something like that If we go about like testing all those PRs against our base main reference and Keep on reconciling the status. We might run into a lot of issues or a lot of resource usage issues what I'd helps us doing in one way is Manage a pool of GitHub PRs it collects a List of PRs from the same repository for example, we are talking about the core Kubernetes repositories kubernetes slash Kubernetes It let's say collect collect 10 pull requests and then merges like merges them Onto the base branch and tries to test it in this way you can test like a lot of PRs in short amount of time tie tied also automatically retest PRs when they meet the criteria For example, we saw Jordan LGTM approved and cancelled the hold on Madhav's PR After doing that it satisfied all of the criterias, but still after that we do a retest of that PR Once the retest passes then only we merge it and you don't require any user intervention after all of this checks Have passed and another retest has gone through. We don't need any more user intervention automatically the PR would be merged If it satisfies all the criteria Tide also serves live data about current Merge pools and a history of actions which can be consumed by deck To populate the tide dashboard or the PR dashboard or the history page which I mentioned earlier apart from tide the other component which we Use in the Kubernetes community's test grid It's not entirely open source. The front-end is not open source, but the back-end is open source It's basically an interactive dashboard to view test results Ursh later will show you what a test grid entails and how we use it in our day-to-day workflow when he shows you configuring a proud job And they're shown in a grid Here for example, we're showing the Sigrilli's Test grid and where Sigrilli's master blocking is a group of jobs and verify master is a job Where this certain set of tests are on and we can see for the previous runs What what was the status and this is how we can decipher? What is failing in a very variable? We don't need to turn through all the logs of previous runs and how do we find them? What are the refs they ran against? What is the test intro ref? all those kind of things I Would now hand it over to Arsh who'd explain you. How do you configure proud? So when it comes to defining proud jobs, there are two main approaches you can choose from This choice it might seem that this choice is very trivial at first and you could just go ahead with whatever you want But if you plan to scale your project to the size of kubernetes, this will come and bite you later If you do not give it thought so the two approaches we have is one an in repo configuration and In this configuration you basically define the jobs the proud jobs in the same repository where your source code is living So you will have a dot-proud directory or just Dot proud at the Amal file at the root of the repository where you would just list down all of your jobs It is important to note that in this approach your jobs are not defined centrally They would be present for each repository in that particular repository The other approach is centralizing your job configuration What this means is that you have a separate repository and the purpose for that repository is to Have all the configuration for all the jobs you might be running across many different repositories you have in this approach Jobs get defined centrally So let us look at gubernator slash test infra where we'll see this approach in action Yeah so for gubernator is the test infra if you go to the config directory here and You go to jobs We are grouping jobs based on The organization and I'm gonna show you one of the first jobs I wrote and that is under the gubernator's directory inside sig architecture and this is a periodical job a Periodical job is like nabaron mentioned earlier a job which runs periodically on the on a particular repository So it's pretty simple and intuitive if you try to read it It's like any other YAML you tell that you want the job to be run every six hours you tell a name for the job and You tell decorate to what decorate to does is add site card containers which help in source code check out and other related stuff And then you mention what repository you want this job to be run for in this case We wanted to run for the main gubernator's repository. So we specified the org and The repository and the branch to path alias is basically when this Job checks out the source code, which is which we need for the job to do its action What directly do we want it for after that the spec is pretty simple. We just used a Golang based image and What we did is essentially install a tool we wanted to run called Dev stat and then run the command in it And that's it. That's this is how simple it is. It is nothing but a container where you are running some commands and That's how simple pram makes your life and that is why we love it Towards the end you see we have annotations and this is where the test grid number and just talked about comes into picture So if you notice we mentioned that the test grid dashboard We want this job to be associated with is sick testing miscellaneous So if you go to test grid dot k it's not I o you'd see a list of all the dashboards here And that dashboard was sick testing miscellaneous. So if we go here That's it. That's where it is And this is the periodic job look flaky. How nice But we go to here and this is every each run It did for the job and you can if you click on any one of these green cells It will take you to spy glass where you can see the logs for the job And it is these logs that we wanted for this particular job So if we just look here, this is the information we were interested in and this is what proud did for us It basically grabbed a binary ago binary and ran the results for the binary on the Kubernetes repository and give this a central place for the logs So another place where you Could have like seen the logs for this and this is something Specific to Kubernetes and not so if you have if you have your own Instance you would have this kind of URL for your own thing But this is where you can search through all the jobs running across all Kubernetes repositories So that job was called. Yep. So you can just search for jobs and similarly you can see the Last few runs of the job this way Yep, this this dashboard that's that So we are going to now get to the fun bits of actually deploying prow and then we'll see how That gets configured So yep coming to the interesting parts the parts where you most of you were here probably for is How do you actually deploy your own instance of proud to use it with your own repositories? Well step one is Creating a GitHub app to configure all of this Give me a second Is creating a GitHub app The only rule you need to follow for this particular step is be creative with the name because we all want a friendly robot in our repositories Next when you're creating the GitHub app This is something you need to be careful of is that will ask you for a web hook URL and when you're doing this step It doesn't actually matter what URL you add right now because we are going to change that later But remember to keep a note of this that you need to change this later and we'll provide a secret here But we'll get to that later the third thing you need to take care of is Adding a bunch of permissions because these permissions are needed for prow. Otherwise, it will not be able to interact with your GitHub repositories and this is just a snapshot. There are more There are more permissions you need to add but we didn't want to add a URL right now in the slides We'll do that later. We promise so The final thing you need to take care of is in there's a section called subscribe to events and you need to subscribe to all events Because Brown needs to know what's happening to the repository in order to react to it This is where the hook system Nabaroon talked about comes into picture because if it is not getting notified of the events it really can't do anything for you Once you are done creating the app make sure to note the app ID And to generate a private key keep them very secure because we are going to be using them later Now I don't take it from him Awesome So after you set up your GitHub app Upstream Kubernetes maintains a banner called tackle Recently we made some changes to tackle which made it a little bit Trimble to use or easier to use we fix some bugs a few months back So since we have already set up our GitHub app and we are not relying on a bot account What you can do is just run tackle skip GitHub and how do you get tackle is if you go to the Test info repo that are short if you go to cmd The command directory you'll see the tackle sub directory and you just need to go install Check out the source code and go install that should do it We don't ship a tackle binary right now, but maybe in the future when it becomes more stable and supports more providers We may start like shipping it It runs perfectly for GKE right now and our demo is also based on GKE But in case you have any other provider We are working towards it in future you will have other providers in built-in to tackle Who which which tackle can use to create Kubernetes clusters appropriately? Just to be sure you still can run your prow instance with other providers Just that the simple root of tackle will not work and currently only works for GKE. Yes the documentation also Tells you about like manual deploy steps, but in the interest of sanity. We are Demonstrating using tackle so you let tackle run you tell tackle if you already have a GCP project and a GCP GKE cluster running if you have one you can just mention the name and It will install everything for you in that cluster. Otherwise, it can create a cluster for you as well And you run it and let it run and pause when it asks you to provide a starter YAML now We're going why we are going to pause here is because we have to backfill certain information into that YAML What are those things? And even before that we have to apply the prow CRDs. Oh my god. It's too small in the Display, but we will make it bigger when we put the PDFs on sked But what it does is it when I talked about the proud of CRs It just creates the proud of CRDs for later when you want to create proud of CR so that Kubernetes API server knows Hey, what is this resource and how it is structured? One thing we need is we talked about a lot of Things artifacts like logs Did the test unsuccessfully or what was the exit code all of that is currently stored in a GC's bucket Now you might see the commands are very scary, but I'll decipher it for you It just creates a service account. It creates a bucket. It binds it to the server It binds the service account to the bucket gives it appropriate permissions and then you can use the credentials In your starter dot ml make sure to keep your GC's bucket name globally unique because otherwise You're gonna spend 15 minutes like us figuring out what went wrong. Yes also, you need to create a Secret to give it to the github app so that When when the web calls there is a unique token which it communicates through Now when you do all those changes you By this step, you would have almost everything that you want to replace in starter dot ml and start like creating Or creating the resources which proud uses in that Kubernetes cluster so you get the starter Template from the URL and then you basically fill in grep through all of the Templated strings and replace them with the appropriate values that we created before Now once you did that you can just tell Tackle because tackle would be waiting for you to give a location of a starter ml. You can just give it the Location it will download or read it from local disk and then apply it Once it is done, it will tell you hey, you're done now you have to get the ingress controllers External IP from the cluster that was just created or your existing cluster and point the domain that we put earlier When configuring the github hook for that there This is how you get access to deck also, which we were talking about earlier. Yes The one of the final steps is to just update the token that we created Before the secret in your github app and that is very important. Otherwise all the web book Deliveries would fail and the URL you use. This is what you fill in the github app web app web app section I talked about earlier and the final step is to install the app on a repo Whatever you want the org that you put in there the org can be a user account itself If you just want to try out for now, but if you are doing it in production also the starter template doesn't Is not suggested for production because the starter template creates proud clusters and job class proud clusters and job cluster on the same Kubernetes cluster ideally they should be separate. That is what we do in upstream Kubernetes And once you have all of this set up you just enjoy Now I can talk about benefits of using proud so Coming to the benefits I feel like we all know that collaboration is like the backbone of open source you cannot have open source if you are not able to collaborate effectively and I like proud because I feel that it really makes the process very efficient So if you have like a lot of repositories, right and you set up proud for all of them What this does is ensure that developers get a similar experience across all repositories for your organization so they don't have to learn the processes again and Learn new commands or figure out or ask what's gonna happen. And this is why I love proud because Developer experience is something which is very close to my heart And I feel that proud provides an excellent developer experience the chat ops based interaction ensures that you do not have to be a GitHub wizard like if even if like someone has not Gone through the nuts and bolts of GitHub understanding commands like forward slash assign are pretty intuitive because you get the idea that you want to assign someone and Lastly, I feel that proud is new contributor friendly because If I'm a new contributor, I sometimes feel lost. What are the next steps? I've created a PR now Where do I go from here and with proud you can set up automated messages and friendly stuff which provide next steps that hey You have your PR here. These are the persons you need to ping for review now We agree that all alike. It's not it does not always get them correct But as a new contributor, I would at least have a first point of contact Even if that is not the correct point of contact and I would not feel lost So I feel like these are the benefits of proud, which is why we love it in upstream Kubernetes Now what's the point of this talk? We want you to use proud we want you to use proud for production and We want you to come back to us as in sick testing Kubernetes sick testing and tell us what more we can do and Not just that we want your help When you use proud you report us back issues and even you can contribute to that yourself be those good Samaritans of the open source community and Just have fun We hang around in sick in the sick testing channel on Kubernetes Slack How you can join the community slack is you can go to Slack dot caters dot IO and get an invite for yourself When we publish the PDF When we publish the PDF the PDF would have the links so you can just click on it and Join the community slack and go to the channel You can also join our mailing list and that mailing list would give you access to Our meeting docs it will put a meeting Invite to your calendar so that you can come to the meeting and ask us questions and see how we can contribute more with that We both. Thank you all for joining us We would like to take questions if you have like one or two minutes Please any questions just catches after the dog. Thank you so much for our ending Okay, so we have one minute to take one question and then we can talk in the hallway obviously I'm not sure about that because I think at this point But we do run a lot of different kind of jobs Since we build Kubernetes for a lot of different kind of platforms The question is can we run different platforms Test for test for different platforms on the same build cluster or the same job cluster Yeah, you mean like our more AMD on the same cluster, right? Right now we do ship, but I have to verify and we can talk like Yes Okay, do we have time to take more do you have time to take more questions? No, okay You can join us in the hallway or ping us on Slack or email or anywhere Thank you so much for it. Thank you so much for it


We're here with the M-Fit QS, the sleep tracker, and who are you? I'm Heik Reis and I'm CEO of M-Pi. So what are we looking at here? So yeah, this is our sleep tracker. It goes under the mattress. So the piece here, the long strip goes under the mattress, and it measures polystyrene biograms. So heart rate, breathing rate, moment activity, dosing and turning. Did you say heart rate? Heart rate, breathing rate. And we are the first who does also heart rate variability over the night. So with our device, you get whole night heart rate variability analysis. So for example, there's an app here, and you get some graphs, how the sleep was going, and you get the heart rate variability all the night. All the night. So let me show on the tablet. And can you also explain what kind of sensor do you have inside? Yeah. So the sensor what we use is our own manufacturing. We are manufacturing for a 25 years for this sensor. It's a quasi piezoelectric, ferroelectric sensor. So there's something all the way in here? Yeah. And it feels like some leather? Yeah, there is actually it's... It's inside the leather? Inside the leather, yeah. And it just goes under the mattress? Under the mattress, that's correct. You don't actually sleep on it. It's under the mattress. So it doesn't matter how big the mattress is? No, even a thick tempered mattress is okay. Any? Yeah, some users have like 30 cm thick tempered mattress, and it's still okay, no problem. And then where does it connect and where does it go? Is it Bluetooth? This is Wi-Fi, so it connects to your home Wi-Fi. And it's all automatic, you don't have to remember to on and all. Can we check it out? What are you showing here? The leather. Just a second. Just to get an idea of all the data that can be there. So the sleep time, sleep score? Sleep score, sleep time, sleep glasses, including REM sleep, moderate variability, evening and morning values are here. So recovery analysis based on all night, moderate variability. System balance, heart rate, respiratory rate with activity. Let me show a little bit more. There's a lot of stuff going on here. Yeah, this is for example one night, two night, moderate variability. It's really interesting. So your company, you have a history of doing this kind of stuff? Yeah, since 1990 actually. Yeah, the very first thing like. This stuff actually since 1993. We decided to develop our own electronics and software since year 2000. So we've been, we're the biggest manufacturer of epilepsy monitors for people with epilepsy. And heart beat detection based data as a monitor for elder care. And the sleep tracker we introduced first time a few years ago. We came actually, we first developed this for hospital use. Tracers at home. This is a very small percentage of the world population, right? Currently it is still, yeah. It's tiny. It's tiny, yeah. Today it's tiny. Which is that, why? Why is it not working good enough for people who don't know about it? They don't know about it. That's the case, yeah. This kind of sleep trackers that are invisible under the mattress, automatic. This has been for consumer market just a few years. But if you put it as Wi-Fi, then how long is the battery? Are you connected? It's always connected. And does it use a lot of power? No, no, that's a very small number. Is it not a good sleep mode? When you don't sleep and you're not there, it just uses less power? No, it's always very, very small. All right, so you're planning to take over the whole world with this, right? What's the price for what? The price is $299. $299? Yeah. Is it some kind of FDA approval and all that stuff? No, this is a consumer product, so this is not considered a medical device. So it's reduced for, let's say, healthy persons. Is this already in the market or not yet? It is on the market, yeah. So is it available in Europe? Yeah, in Europe it's available to Amazon.