Narcissists only care about themselves, part two. If we observe the narcissist's mentality, we can see that they see things in either black or white.   So inevitably, narcissists are always the losers. They also want you to think, feel and act in the way that they do.  They want to make you more like them because it is very difficult to control a winner. It is very difficult to control someone who is likely to be successful because then they would have the power. They would have the ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others and the cause of events. Although a real winner is unlikely to control or alter people in a way that might be more favourable for them, a real winner is likely to let the situation play out on its own which would then make it even more unfavourable for the narcissist because the narcissists are lacking the capabilities and the potential to survive. They are dependent on other people for their survival which is why they have such an obsessive need to control them. If they can control the people around them they can then have more control over their own lives, over their own futures but if they cannot control the people around them it becomes like survival of the fittest where only those with a strong desire to succeed and the ability to change as conditions change will achieve success. Narcissists cannot compete in an environment that is not under their control because they cannot adapt to changing conditions. They don't have the capabilities or potential to develop anything to support their own survival so they have to create an environment where they are able to leech off the success of those who they believe to be superior to them. Only then can they feel like they are in control. Only then can they feel like they are not the losers. Narcissists have developed cobin and defense mechanisms to avoid feeling like they are the losers. They have created a false self that is meant to be perfect. It's meant to be always right. Everything they do is justified. They are always in control. They have a strong sense of entitlement and they are deserving of everything they desire. They created this false self to feel like they are not losing because deep down they know that they are.  Everything they wish they were. The problem is that because their false self isn't even real they have nothing to give because there is nothing within them. There's no foundation or structure. It's all superficial. It's all on the surface. It's all an illusion and it lacks any real significance or meaning. It lacks the essential properties that it needs to survive. So all it can do is take from those who do have a foundation and structure those who do possess something of significance and meaning and then use them to feed their false self and prolong its survival. If you talk about what they're doing will you invalidate their false self? It will cause a narcissist's injury. It will only make them hate themselves even more as they begin to reflect on how they know that they are fraudsters, liars and posters. They are not who they say they are. They are not how they portray themselves to be and they know this. They just don't want anyone to start speaking on it. They want everyone to pretend that they are their false self so that they can continue existing in the fantasy world that they've created to avoid feeling like they are losing that life. They hold a mask of being everything that they are not. Everything they wish they were but underneath that is a very weak, fragile, immature, self-hating individual who only cares about their own self-interest or needs and cannot deal with reality. They create this false narrative as though they are in control and that is what they want you to believe. They want you to believe that their false narrative is reality and if they are able to do this they are able to control you if they can get you to believe in their false narrative it makes it more believable for them and then you can both exist in their false reality together and in denial of what is actually happening in the real world if they can pull you into their world they are more able to control you in their world you have to play by their rules you have to exist in the role that they have assigned to you and it will never be a role that is based in any truth or reality it is a role that is designed to feed their ego and make them feel special or important and will usually be either a projection of their positive or negative traits the role that they assign to you has more to do with how they see themselves rather than how they see you not to say they only care about themselves their priority is to feed their egos their priority is to regulate their self worth self esteem and self importance and the more they feed their egos the stronger their desire becomes until they are willing to abuse people without any empathy or consideration for them because the only thing that matters to them is their own interests or needs feeling guilt or remorse for other people isn't going to feed their egos they are too preoccupied with their own interests or needs to care about you they are in a committed relationship with their false self and there is no room for anyone else anyone who comes between them and their false self is likely to be in serious danger they can be very convincing and making you believe that they love or care for you but they don't even love or care for themselves they abandon who they really are and now all that is left is their false self and an empty void within them they do not have the capacity to love or care for you they have no empathy or consideration for you all they care about is themselves all they care about is feeding their egos and serving their own interests or needs they have no soul they have no humanity and so they have nothing for you they will always leave you worse off than before you met them thank you for watching I hope this video resonated with you please like, comment, share and subscribe click the bell icon and receive notifications for my future videos if you are delighted with the name my PayPal link is in the video description coaching inquires you can email me and ask for my coaching at duma.com thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon


Hey, what's going on everyone it's be Avery here for another trailer reaction This one is by 20th Century Fox titled the darkest minds. I have no idea who's in this movie I have no idea what it's about I saw a pop-up on my feet yesterday, and I knew I was going to react to it today when I got off work So let's go ahead and get into it and see what it's about So you guys can stop listening to me talk after I put on these headphones and watch me Watch this trailer Here we go Soon there wouldn't be any kids anywhere. Yeah, it's a lot of buses The government wasn't afraid of what happened to the ones that didn't make it They were afraid of us Because the ones that survived Oh snap changed I'm already on board with this it looks good Even before I saw that and that black girl you are very rare Among the most powerful We're going to a place where kids can live together on the outside Who's the X-man part to people who would ever help us? Or us For their safety and yours, please turn over your children It's more enough to know you're hiding something and you're smart enough to be hiding I Just didn't want you to be afraid of me The more that I try to control it the more damage that I do I can show you how to use your strengths the way they're meant to be used You can fight back We don't have to stay in darkness We've survived all of this I will fight for all of us Wait to see how that plays out Man, I thought about like seven jokes simultaneously uh at that one part I I geeked at it. Okay Darkest minds. Well, yeah the darkest minds. I don't know. I don't want to I don't want to see you There's another youtube before the pop up here on my screen So I got to pull it up right here on uh, imdb But uh, all I see right here. I didn't because when I started the trailer I said I don't know what it's about who's who's in and all I have is like the title here in the poster Um, but their black girl. Well, I think she black and white. Uh, my lotto Um, she was in that movie came out. I think last year called It was where she was sick and she couldn't leave the house and her neighbor was a guy new neighbor and came over um And they kind of fell in love or fell in like what is See, I think imdb should have a rule to where the Main stars are the top as well. Is this Is that who is that a mandala steinberg? Is that yep, because it was uh everything, you know, I feel so silly that is uh, rule from um, from the hunger games Then she didn't grew up Oh No Because yeah, rule came out a rule came out. The hunger games came out in 2012 So that's uh six years from now. I hope she's of age. I'm a person saying she's cute and stuff or did I say she was cute? Hold on. How do you Where you at? Where's your age? 98 so you are baby.  Yeah, you know You cute. You can't even talk to my brother my younger brother. But anyway About the movie. Let's see. Let me read the synopsis for this because that looks I mean it reminds me of x-man It seems like it's the same thing. It's x-man just with a different take or whatever And that's fine. I mean we have more than one action movie more than one comedy more, you know You know, you understand what I'm trying to say But I may actually end up liking this a lot more than what the fox did with their x-man films Especially x12 and three and the 2000s 2004 and 2006 or 2003 and 2006 Because I'm not attached to the darkest minds. I was attached to the x-man So it's like you you didn't do it right from the cartoon or the comics, you know No, it doesn't seem like that but it seemed real cool when I do say hey no matter what happens Don't stop and he uses powers that break the tree or throw the log out there Imprisoned by an adult world that now fears everyone under 18 a group of teens from a resistance group to fight back And reclaim control of the future So I guess the thing that is different from the x-man world is that uh only the children or I'm from the column mutants Only the children have special abilities the director of this is jennifer u nelson Never heard of her before Oh, but it seems like I should have because she has done kung fu panda now What did you do with kung fu pandas? Did you direct it? Okay.   Um Is there anybody else in this movie that I know gwendolyn christie? I don't know her personally, but I think you understand what I'm trying to say But yeah, uh, okay. Here's the longest synopsis When teens mysteriously develop powerful new abilities, they are declared a threat by the government and detain 16 year old ruby one of the most powerful young People or anyone has ever encountered escapes her camp and joins a group of runaway teens seeking safe haven Soon this new family family realized that a world in which the adults and power have betrayed them running is not enough And they must wage a resistance using their collective power to take back control of the future I'm on board with it also kind of reminds me of logan, you know, because you know, they were trying to escape as well too But that seems so clean. Do you know when I was like, come on I had that power. I mean it was uh, uh, was it I always get telekinesis and uh, telepathy not Anyway, was it is it a telepath? No I can't remember if a telepath is somebody that can control things A control moving objects and one of them is controlled with the mind telepath Telepath definition The supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses telepathy Telekinesis What am I tripping psycho the power I don't want to go to no website. I'm trying to get the definition Or the website will be in a different the definition will be on the website. Damn. I can't find it. What? that wiki Is a term use either alternate name Okay, this is taking too long, but um, I don't know about this movie Uh, I don't have any interest in it, but I have inches now and I want to see it now But yeah, yeah guys this uh this film right here. It looks pretty good, but it's just a trailer. When does it come out? I think I saw august or something like that um But yeah And I guess what guys over the past few weeks there have been a ton of trailers that I have not reacted to And I'm going to react to them this weekend and next week too. So it's going to be a new segment called super late reaction So stay tuned for that But guys of the darkest minds that is just my opinion for this trailer What did you think of the trailer? You know, were you surprised as I was or like, huh? You know, I don't really care. Do you know, do you like it? Do you hate it? Do you agree with me or do you disagree with me? Let me know in the comment section below. Let's get this conversation going and keep it flowing If you like this video, go ahead and give me a thumbs up and if you don't that's fine But you can still subscribe to the channel you can look me up on social media facebook instagram and twitter It's right there at the bottom of your screen and I made it very easy by providing a link also down in the description box below But guys, I just want to thank you again for tuning in to my opinion slash review slash reaction for the darkest minds trailer starring Amanda love steinberg and before you go don't forget that my name is brennan kitavery And that's just my opinion. Peace


Chechens pressured by authorities to fight in Ukraine. Authorities in Russia's North Caucasus Republic of Chechnya have pressured Chechens to fight in Ukraine using money and force since the start of the war, according to a report published by the SKSOS Human Rights Organization, according to the Moscow Times. The invasion of Ukraine was another opportunity for Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov to curry favour with Vladimir Putin and show his influence in Chechnya, SKSOS wrote. But despite Kadyrov's efforts to rally support for the war in his region, in reality a year and a half of the war has looked completely different for Chechnya. Ridiculous propaganda, hunting for taxi drivers, missing passports, crowds of boastful marauders in Grozny, and fabulous fees for signing up for mercenaries. The group continued. Chechen security forces allegedly keep a database of individuals who have been detained in the past for drugs, alcohol, making unflattering statements about officials or being LGBT. Since the start of the war, security forces have threatened to send these people or their relatives to the front line, saying they will be sent to prison if they refuse to serve. The report says about 45 of approximately 70 people who were illegally held in one such prison were sent to fight in Ukraine during the Kremlin's partial mobilization campaign in the fall of 2022. Chechen police also raided establishments where potential conscripts could be found including cafes, gaming clubs, gyms and taxi companies. During the launch of the partial mobilization, the report said.


We have CBs from Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit 202. They're in from both Kings Bay, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida. They're doing some horizontal construction in support of the marine camp here. Typically, they're doing about seven miles of road repair, which includes some additional gravel and grading, raising some elevations and changing some drainage issues that they're having.


It's a pleasure to be here to present our work at Tocanomics 2020. So I'm Gabriele Coste, I'm a system professor at IMT School for Advanced Studies in Leucine, Italy. And I'm going to present you our work about the security of, let's say, the security implementation of a reliable and fair back bounty program support system that we are carrying out with my colleagues, Andrea Canidio and Letterio Galletta. So let's start from the problem. The problem is that open source is almost everywhere nowadays. Well, in general code is everywhere, but open source in particular is a very interesting subset of all the code that is outside the world. We use a lot of open source tools like web browsers or entire operating systems like Linux or Android. And also, perhaps more interesting, open source is typically part of larger software that might also be commercial or proprietary software. And another interesting thing is that many security critical utilities are also open software, open source software. The reason is that it is very important to be able to verify the implementation of these systems that are so relevant for so many applications. I mean, all the problem is that the vulnerabilities in open source software are very dangerous because these can affect a lot of systems and may affect the life of citizens. And one might think that verifying open source software can be easier because we have access to the source code, but code verification is not such a simple matter. And authentication is hard in general, even when we have source code. For this reason, we had in the last year, many parties starting bug bounty programs. So the idea behind the bug bounty program is that a certain authority or a certain actor offers bounties. That means they give you a reward if you can find some bugs or errors in a piece of code. The idea is that there are bounty hunters, which are ethical hackers or security experts that spend their time in investigating these vulnerabilities that they can even federate in large groups of ethical hackers. And eventually they disclose these vulnerabilities in order to acquire the bounty that have been the bounties that have been promised by the bounty issuer. And the interesting application of these scenario as is also the new foster project that has been also extended to you foster to that is a bug bounty program for third parties application. So in this project European Union acknowledged that there are several open source projects that are very critical for the European community, and they offered the rewards for people that could find bugs in these very critical software. And that's exactly an example of a bug bounty program that is open. So we are used to think that the bounty issuer is somehow the owner of the code. But when we are referring to open source code, even third parties might be interested in paying a reward for finding bugs. And this is a very interesting market, a growing market, but we have a problem here. The problem is that we have two markets. We have let's say a white market that is the bug bounty market. And we also have the zero day exploit market is what we might call the black market. So zero day exploit can be sold on the deep web. And there are people that can buy these. So you can offer not a vulnerability. So you have found an error in the code, but a way to exploit this error to attack someone or to attack a platform. The problem is that if you can turn your bug into an exploit, the value of your information increases significantly just to make a concrete example for Google Chrome. And if you check on the official bug bounty program, you can aim for $5,000 reward in the best case, but the very same vulnerability that you convert into an exploiter is $300,000 worth. You might think that when you have a vulnerability, it is complex or unusual to turn this into an exploiter, but actually this is not what happens because many bounty issuers before paying for a vulnerability also require for the bounty hunter and evidence of the bug. And the evidence is typically an exploit. So it's very common that when you find a vulnerability you also need to create an exploit to prove that the vulnerability is actually there. And also, when you disclose vulnerability sometimes you have to perform an extra effort, because they might ask you to develop remediation plan, while when you provide an exploit you sell an exploit on the black market nobody asked you to fix the bug. The very last issue, but in our opinion, a very important issue is that bug legibility is decided by the bounty issuer after the bug is disclosed, which gives the bounty hunter very limited bargaining power when they disclose the bug because we apply for a bug bounty. We provide all the information and then eventually the bounty issuer says no, this bug is not eligible, but they already have all the information to replicate and fix the bug. And all of these reasons make the bug bounty market quite inefficient in general, in our opinion, and we also have several evidence, evidence is confirming this problem. So the problem here is that there is no fair information trading, as I said, we, we know that this market suffers for an old problem. And we want to avoid this. The first thing that we have to do is to introduce symmetry in the information exchange protocol. This is a paper by owner and three parts describing how to implement this fair fair trading system by means of a sequence of tests tests are executed to somehow checking the validity of the information that the bounty hunter in this case is going to sell. If these days tests are faster, this means that information has a fair amount of quality, let's say it is good enough to be to be sold and the bounty issuer can actually decide to pay. One of these solutions that there is a total lack of commitment by the two parts. So the bounty issuer and bounty hunter are untrusted might even be anonymous. And they don't trust each other, and they might retreat from the protocol without completing it so trying to get the money without revealing the information, trying to selling fake information, and trying to acquire information without paying for that. But this problem we investigate the possibility of applying the blockchain by means of smart contracts. So the deal is that we want to implement the mechanism for ensuring the commitment of the two parts to smart contracts that are public verifiable and cannot be removed from the blockchain so they provide a commitment by by the one of the two parts. And for the initial disclosure, I will show you something more detailed later on, we will use the same approach of orange creepers. So this is our protocol that we are implementing in various. So we have these two parties the bounty issuer and they come and bounty hunter and they communicate to smart contracts on the blockchain. So the bounty issuer is some party that publishes a smart contract defining what kind of bugs they are interested in and what kind of rewards they plan to pay for that. Then we have bounty hunters that look for bugs and when they find something they can claim the bounty. When this happens, we start what we call the bounty claim protocol that is at the very core of our of our proposal and then going to tell you something more in detail about this. The bounty claim protocol is basically a non chain fair exchange protocol between the bounty issuer and bounty hunter. The bounty hunter starts by sharing what we call a trace commitment, which is an initial description of a failure state that the bounty hunter could obtain to a certain execution. These information is not enough to replicate the execution, but is enough for the bounty issue to evaluate whether whether this is interesting for the point of view of the bug bounty program. This means that bounty sure can check the eligibility of this bug and decide whether or not to start the protocol. So the bounty issue is authorized to retreat from the protocol at this point, but in this case the bounty hunter preserves the information and do not does not share it with anyone. So can sell it somewhere else. And then bounty hunter bounty hunter can even negotiate some parameters that are not very relevant for the execution. But we are also investigating as part of our future work and we tell you something more about for instance the partial world computation method. But let's see the protocol in more detail. So we have the initial commitment that is sent by the bounty hunter to the bounty issuer so from right to left to the blockchain. And then eligibility is compute the and the main part of the protocol is inside this loop and these loop implements a challenge, a challenge response protocol for information disclosure. So the very core is this part of the protocol that I'm discussing more in detail now. First of all, I need to provide you with some information about what the program trace is and what we mean by commitment. The execution trace is a sequence of program states that starts from initial state of the program, typically state where we passed the input for the program. And roughly speaking, each state in the in the trace is just a finite mapping between variables and values. So we might have as in this example that variable X is assigned to 42 while we're variable Y is assigned to true, and so on and so forth. So that an execution trace uniquely identifies a single execution of a program and can be used to repeat that execution. So this is an evidence that something went wrong. This is an evidence if the last state is a faulty state like the very common segmentation fault error that we might have while running a program, but this might be anything so the final state shows highlights the vulnerability, but just by looking at the final state we don't know what was the input for running this program. So commitment in this case is important because we must make sure that the bounty hunter cannot change the trace during the protocol. So as in this picture taken from Ghostbusters, the bounty issue must show that the trace is not changing. So the card is displayed clearly and cannot be modified, but eventually we also need to do the commitment. The commitment means providing a cryptographic secure hash code for the sequence of states. And the commitment means providing a state and we can compare the hash code with the state which is equivalent to showing a certain state of our trace and making a step farther in our session. I'm saying a farther step and not a step forward because what we are doing is executing this backward. The reason is that if we go forward we start from the initial state and the initial state has enough information to replicate the bug with no need for the entire trace. Instead we go from the final state to the initial state. And this is our challenge response loop. So the idea is that the bounty hunter to implement the proof of knowledge protocol where the bounty hunter sells a certain segment of the execution trace. The challenge is published on the smart contractor so that on the blockchain to a smart contract so that the execution of the contract can be invoked by the bounty issue. To put it in a simple way, publishes a contract saying if you can solve this challenge, this means that you know the previous state from which I could reach the next state in the sequence. So we go backward from the final state the arrow state to the initial one. It is very important that the challenge is complex to be solved by someone that doesn't know an actual trace. So we need an NPR problem to be encoded in the smart contract. And we have a good candidate in the form of the satisfiability model theory formulas and the way to generate satisfiability model theory formulas from a program code is through backward symbolic execution. To put it simply, what we do is starting from a certain point in the program, and as the bounty issue computing some constraints about the previous data few steps before, few instructions before, and asking the bounty challenger, if you really know a trace, you know a valid assignment of variables that satisfies this formula. And if you don't know this assignment that you have to compute it right now, and it will take a lot of time. So you can solve this challenger in a reasonable amount of time. So let me make an example, because this technique might be, it's a bit technical. Imagine we have this very simple program that is made by a single function called foo that takes a single variable called C. Okay. C is a chart in C. This means a small integer. The program just check whether this C is greater than zero and increase in that case increases C by one, then creates another variable called D that is where we store the C plus one again, and then eventually we compute X as 42 over D. So imagine that this is our open source, open source project, and someone tells us about the answer tells us I found a division by zero in this program. Okay, so although this program is very simple, it is not immediate to find the value of C that leads to an execution where D is equal to zero. If we are interested in finding division by zero, this is exactly what we need to say, okay, I want to pay for this, provide me with a trace. So let's see how to compute a challenge. With those backwards symbolic execution, which means let us see we want D to be equal to zero, right. So right before doing this division 42 over D, we want D to be equal to zero. But at the previous statement we have that D is equal to C plus one, which means that if we move one step above, we have that C plus one must be equal to zero. Now we have a condition. Well, for condition we have more complex rules that make the formula in trees in size. And what we have is these disjunction where we say that either C is greater than zero and C plus two is equal to zero or C is less or equal to zero and C plus one is equal to zero. And this is our challenge. So what we put on the blockchain is this expression. And we say, I'm ready to pay if you can show me a value of C that satisfies this formula, which is part of a trace. This is just a single step. And this is done in a certain amount of time. So you can take all the time that you want. This is a very simple example, but you might find that this is not so trivial. And if the bounty bounty hunter can exhibit the value that satisfies the formula, then the smart contract automatically pays for that. So we cannot retreat from the protocol after publishing the challenge. And in this case, let's say an honest bounty hunter might show that a possible value is 254. Okay. So, to conclude my talk. Very us is aiming at implementing a fair and reliable market for bug bounty programs also open because on the blockchain everyone can publish bounties. So we can even implement in this way a med campaigns for finding certain families of bugs. We're implementing the contracts in solidity. Some of the contracts are already available. And we still have to do some, some work in particular we are studying equilibria for partial reward, which is not trivial because it depends on the characteristic of the execution trace because we don't want to reveal too much information during the process to avoid the bounty hunter to a leak information that the bounty show might use to retreat from the protocol without paying. So there should be an equilibrium between these two operations. We are evaluating alternatives for the challenge response implementation in particular for computing the challenges with other techniques. And we are also considering the possibility to make a formal verification of this protocol that in our opinion is very important to prove that that the protocol is secure in general. So, and that's everything on my side. Thank you very much.


When you think about the Wildin' Out the time when you got started in that, how did you end up on there anyway? Man, I just did it the whole fashion way. I was sitting at the crib one day and my girl at the time was like, they supposed to be having some kind of audition, but I hadn't heard shit about it. Yeah, we on Boss Talk 101. When you think about the Wildin' Out the time when you got started in that, how did you end up on there anyway? Man, I just did it the whole fashion way. I was sitting at the crib one day and my girl at the time was like, they supposed to be having some kind of audition, but I hadn't heard shit about it.    And I was like, I called the club and they was like, we supposed to do something to hell. Ain't nobody up here.  He was like, it was close audition. Ain't nobody, if you're not already on the list, you're not getting on the list. And I just kept like every time he came around, he's like, you're not on the list.   Because I know this is my club. This ain't my city.  So I went in there.  Stop doing that. Anybody know about audition? It's a time where it's like, like it's a time slot where they got like the real people who can put you on the show and then like they'll go on a break and then they'll just put some up like it's in there. Who will just be like holding the spike. So you don't want that dead spike. So the people left, but I actually did my audition for Nick. So like everybody, a lot of them people had to just audition for just to produce. My audition slot feel like that little hour that he was going to be there. So I auditioned for him. And you guys just, he was there in town. Like I guess he said a lot of people had been telling him about my stand up comedy. So he was there. I was like, you got to don't leave till you see him.   Got the callback. How long did it take to get a callback? Shit. It was a couple months. I was like, I wanted to go that day. It was a little, maybe about a month or two maybe. Something more. I done been like, they forgot about me.  So they call me on my, I was on my way to do some shows that weekend. And they call them and tell them I got a callback.   And then the rest is history like you like to say. The rest is history. I went through the whole audition process where I had to sign up audition, callback audition, then get the call and then be on the show.  I'm going to go. I don't know if you saw the video, but it was this face that you made on the way down.  It was American Idol. It wasn't a signing curve, nigga. He was like, wow.  Go out.  Because everybody was coming over.  They was not trying to go home. That nigga was coming with it.  You'll be great on that. You need to be on Wildin' Out. Man, the motherfuckers get on there and turn around and look at the cameras and feel they're eating from them lights. Some motherfuckers can't do nothing. I've seen people completely. For years and years on hell, yeah. I'm talking about like stuttering, sputtering. I done seen that in here. Yeah. They say they want to do it until you get a man. There used to be some people that ain't never really done it. It's a big deal when you start thinking, damn, I have to ask some questions. It'd be crazy, bro. Damn, people get nervous. No, but people, they say that we've made them feel comfortable because they realize it's not just I'm having a pad with some questions. We're just a conversation. So a lot of times, especially when you have on the headphones, you sort of forget about everything else that's going around. We draw you into the conversation. So they forget about the cameras. They forget about everything.


But all of this brings us back to our original question. Do the brain sciences disprove religious beliefs correspondence to actual supernatural realities? Have the various brain sciences prove that religious belief is simply an evolutionary byproduct that can be reduced to patterns of neural activity? Some may say yes, that the evolutionary basis and usefulness of religious belief disproves the reality of God or human interaction with God. They may even suggest that humans have evolved to the point where cognitive God concepts have outlived their usefulness. Many might well conclude that given the evidence that religious belief is natural and evolved, the God hypothesis is made redundant and unnecessary. That is, given a natural explanation for religious belief, we might be scientifically unjustified in supposing that religious belief actually corresponds to a real God. Others, however, argue that the validity of religious belief is not threatened by evolutionary explanations for its development at all. These people would argue that while modern science has been extraordinarily successful in explaining even the evolutionary development of religious belief, there are still limits to scientific explanation. For example, one could argue that even if religious belief is an evolutionary byproduct of useful cognitive mechanisms, this natural predisposition toward religious belief was actually intended by God all along. Perhaps after all, our innate receptivity towards God and our propensity to believe in supernatural beings are products of an evolutionary process that was guided or initiated by God in the first place. Indeed, one might actually conclude that if God does exist and intends to interact with humans, then of course our brains would have developed the cognitive capacity to fulfill God's intentions for human belief. In short, one could conclude that the naturalness of religious belief demonstrates creative forethought in action on God's part. In conclusion then, it seems that neuroscience and the cognitive sciences might not be the type of things that could prove or disprove God or the relationship between humans and spiritual entities. It is true that neuroscience has offered compelling evidence that religious belief and experiences are predictably and reliably correlated with specific neural activation patterns. And it is also true that the cognitive science of religion offers compelling explanations for the evolutionary development of religious belief, even suggesting that religious belief is a cognitive byproduct of more mundane cognitive processes that have aided in human survival. However, these scientific explanations for the phenomenon of religious belief are not the whole story. The scientific method does not seem to be the sort of thing that could address entities or realities outside of the physical material world in the first place. Science might tell us how our brains naturally manifest religious experiences and why religious belief has evolved, but we must look elsewhere for our knowledge of God's existence or non-existence.


Stop controller, Stage 11, the second pass through the massive Nambucka Stage, our ARC teams. The times make for some interesting reading. We've had dramas up and down at ARC Field. Here's what they had to say. Tony, the report come through that you'd gone off on one of the early bridges, mate. Just, the back wheel just rolled over the edge of the little plank that's on the outside and got hooked on it. And we couldn't go forwards and we're smoking the wheels and trying to go backwards. Almost backed off the bridge. Luckily some spectators came along after about five minutes and got logs of wood and got the wheels back onto the, just onto the bridge and off we went again. Darren had just gone past and I caught him in about a K and a half and then followed him the whole way in the dust. But I, yeah, I didn't want to buck up his day, but man, we were going good through there up to that point. So, very disappointing, I tell you. Brent, now there's an obvious first question, which is, Scott, he's behind you on the road at the moment. Is that correct? Yeah, I think there was a really tight corner that actually tightened a little bit more and it was bedrock and there was wheel marks that went out towards the tree and then only just after that he's changing a tyre. So, maybe he's got a puncher or something, but they're both out of the car and we went past. Okay, and I think they'll be coming along fast behind me, but once we've seen them, we really backed it off a bit. So, we didn't push it too hard on the tyres, but pretty clean run in there. We got off the notes in one spot, but shows how difficult it is and something like Scott being stopped triggers something in your mind too. So, we've got to switch on to this last stage and try and win this leg. It'd be great. Scotty, when you were stopped, I can see the left front's not as worn as the right so I'm assuming you might have a left front puncher early on? Yeah, probably 17k to go. Just down a hill, all the cars before it just exposed rock in the middle of the road and we just obviously nicked the left front wheel, probably, you know, every other corner we'd do the same, but just a little rock there and instant flat. So, took some time to find a place to pull over and we did an okay change, but pulled out behind Brando, so, you know, overall it doesn't hurt. There's probably a few heat points there, but, you know, these things happen. It's all happened here, mate. The ARC feels every single car having a drama telling you how to clean run. Yeah, actually, we've actually sorted the idle and, yeah, we had some issues with our quad throttle bodies. So, we solved that and it seems pretty good. Probably a little bit too stiff in the suspension for that stage, but, you know, we're looking at the bigger picture, so, yeah, no, I'm happy with everything. A little bit of shouting going on there, mate, and it wasn't me doing the wrong things either, but, yeah, the intercom was cutting in and out, so we've got a spare lead in the bag there, so we quickly changed it in the middle of the service, in the middle of the stage. Really good, yeah, happy with that. It was nice and smooth through there. Kept the lines flowing as best I could, and, yeah, we'll keep pushing on from here. How is Bernie's, can we give you the numbers by finger, was he, mate? Is it working okay for you? I'm not sure the choice of one right was the perfect finger to choose, but, yeah, look, I didn't take it personally, at least, but, no, it was fine. We've got a pretty close relationship. I know what he wants me to do, what he wants me to do it. I do know the stage quite well, so it was made life a little bit easier, but it's watching a lot of Inca previously to the event as well, so, yeah, we do our homework, so just in case this sort of stuff.


Okay. Hello. Can you hear me? Great. So in a minute, we will have WM project leader talking about the WM and the challenges that await us. I would like to remind the audience not to interrupt him. Once he's finished, there will be a question and answer session. So I present you, Stefan Zakiroli. Thanks. So if I now say that I welcome questions during my talk, would you be offended? Thanks for the introduction. Thanks to all of you for being here. I want to point out that I didn't want to enter on a Herm Chair as much as I didn't want to pitch during a baseball game last year. And it always feel ends fault. So welcome to DebConf. It is always a pleasure and a honor to be here and address the DebConf people at the start of the conference. In this talk, I just want to share with you some thoughts on the role of Debian and what we are doing and why we are doing it, and some of the challenges which await us in order to be able to keep on fulfilling our role. So I usually start with a bit of history, which I guess if I've seen other thoughts of mine, it's familiar with you, but still it's an important starting point. So the first quote is the announcement of Fian Maadok that he was creating what we now call the Debian project. So it was 1993, 18 years ago, and back then it was seen as something quite idealistic. Back then there were a couple of distributions and no one believed that a group of volunteers can put together a competitive distribution able to compete with a commercial operating system and especially nobody believed that it can be done in the open and only on a basis of volunteer people. And in a recent interview that you can find on Linux.com, which is pretty interesting on the history of Debian, Ian essentially stated what I believe is true, that Debian has been the first intentional community development project of this size. So there was some software development project with them, but Debian is the first large scale distribution which has been made in a completely community-based manner and we are still doing that. So this was 18 years ago, 16th of August of 1993, and 16th of August this year we will be celebrating 18 years, so Debian coming of age. Now, 18 years later, we have a distribution which is a very interesting software project and a very interesting community project. So we have today in AMD64 seed main something like 33,000 packages and that makes Debian possibly one of the largest software project in existence, even if we do not develop the project, we try to keep all the pieces together. We have released 12 times, the last release is a squeeze as you all know, and we have a project which is made by a few thousand people, 900 Debian developers, 150 Debian maintainers and thousands of contributors which it's not very easy to quantify actually, translator, people doing ports, people submitting bug reports, it's not really easy to count, but a ballpark figure of several towns is probably appropriate. Our distribution, Debian, is among the so-called, let's say the most popular distribution, among the mainstream distribution, as the largest number of ports, so we have about a dozen of ports that were released, and we have also released for the first time we squeeze a non-Linux port, which is, if you ask me, quite an achievement, and we are also considering to have a hard port coming with the, with Weezy, so if you ask me, well done everybody, this is something we have done together, so thank you, thank all the people submitting patches reporting bug, this is what we have done together, and it's pretty incredible if you look back at 18 years from now. So this is what we do, what we do, and I think is great, but is not really enough, so back then in 1993 there were really not that many distributions, there was what is now called Slackware, there was I think what is now called SUSE, and that's pretty much it, so it was reasonable to have a new distribution made in a different way than what was made before, it was something that was needed, and nobody was saying, okay, you know what, we don't need that, and we don't need something like that, but now the situation has changed completely, so there are a couple of distribution review sites, which I believe you are familiar with, one is DistorWatch, the other one is LWN, which maintains an index of distributions, and if you go there you will find something like 350, something like that, active free software distributions, so we are not the only one, by far we are not the only one, there are hundreds and hundreds of distributions doing something similar to what we do, and among them you find many differences, you find distributions which have a different release schedule, which do things in different ways than what we do, maybe they are based on some corporation, they might have a different degree of support for software which is in distribution, different packaging system, different look and feel, different target for users, and so there are a lot of differences, and if you ask me, it's important to be able to answer what is so special about Debian, so we should not do Debian just because we have always done that, people in this room are, there are developers which have been developing Debian since the very first days, I have been doing Debian myself for the last 10 years of my life, but that's not enough, I should not continue doing Debian just because I have always done that, we need to know why we do Debian, so at last DebConf in New York when I was doing my DPL speech, I made a small exercise with the public asking why we are doing Debian, I'm not going to redo that again, because maybe bore some people that have been already there last year, but I'm going to share some thoughts on why I personally think that what we do in Debian is special, and why what we do in Debian is something that no one else is currently doing in the ecosystem of first of the distribution, so the first thing which qualifies Debian is quality, sorry for the word trick, so I like to say to people, because I believe it's what we do, that we do have in Debian what I call a culture of technical excellence, we are perfectionist, we want things to be done right, not just to meet some sort of deadline, but we really want to do things done right, and we have written this down in several places, the policy, so we are pretty interesting project in our use of the policy, so we have a formal document stating how a package should look like, and that's very helpful both for developers and for people depending on us, and then we have a whole lot of testing tools, we have PIP parts, we do periodic archival builds, we guarantee that every single source package which is in a release Debian distribution can be rebuilt from source, and this is important because if you cannot rebuild the package from source, then several of the advantages of the software are just many hypothesis, are just something that you is not really granted to users, so all this is technical quality in Debian, then we have other cultural traits which make up the quality in Debian, we have maintainers which in general know not only about packaging technique, but in general they also know about the software they are packaging, it's not really well accepted in Debian to have someone who does not know a specific software to package it, because we want maintainer to be able to answer a very in depth question, and we want maintainer to be able to collaborate with upstream to improve the software. Finally, we also have that all packages in the archive are equal, okay this is an ideal, there are some cases which that's not true, for instance orphaned packages, but in general we try to have all quality guarantees equal for all packages, we do not say Debian only support this tiny subset of the archive, but we do support all the archive, and finally if you think of it, our release mantra, we release when it's ready, is actually another way to say that we are here for quality, we are not ready to just say we will release that day, because we might have blockers that day, so we just say we will release when all RC bugs are fixed, so all this for me is something that makes up Debian quality, and it's something that I believe is pretty unique. The second point is freedom, so Debian is based on a group of people which are united together to make the best possible operating system, and what keeps up together is what is written in the social contact, it's essentially the only thing we have that we know we all agree upon, maybe we can have different interpretation, okay, but that's what keeps us together, we have been in some way promoting the culture of free software for the past 18 years, and we are completely free in many ways, so the first obvious thing is in the software we distribute, everything, including firmware now, is completely free in Debian, and we will always be, but not only that, Debian is free in the infrastructure, all the tools we use to make Debian are free software, most some are developed by ourselves, but still are free software, no one in Debian will accept using some non-free software to develop Debian, or some non-free software to actually offer a bug tracking system or something to the user which is not free, this wouldn't be acceptable in Debian, and a different kind of freedom we enjoy is actually also in our processes, so we are here to have open processes, we of course have no cabal at all, so this is another way of being completely free and being open to people, well, sometimes we fail, but still that is the direction in which we want to go, and our community knows about that, they respect us for this, and essentially what we have done with all this is setting a very high bar for software freedom advocates, so if someone claimed to be someone advocating for free software, often it makes a comparison with Debian, so how are we doing when compared to Debian? And this is an important role, it's not only software, but it's a way we have been promoting free software in the past 18 years. A third point is independence. This is something I didn't realize in the beginning, so it's something which just came on us, but it's becoming more and more important every passing day. So we are a project of volunteers, well, there are people who can be paid by their bosses and work on Debian, but the project itself is based on volunteers. We have no corporate or hierarchical structure, we have no power structure, we have very little device in which doing something can be imposed on others, so there are essentially exceptions, and we don't have any single company which can claim that they are taking care of Debian, that they are babysitting us, okay? We have these companies which donate to us, but no one can say, I am the company behind Debian, and if you ask the public, no one will be able to say, okay Debian is essentially the same thing as this company. How do we work? Well, we do need money, we do need resources, we get them by donations of either money or hardware, and everything else is a sort of gift economy. So we work for each other, we exchange patches, and that's how Debian work. So if you do a small exercise and go through your mind at the most popular pre-softer distribution in existence, in most cases, you will be able to associate a distribution to a company, either because it's what we call a commercial distribution, so created by some company, or because even if it's a community distribution, all the infrastructure, all the machine used to run the distribution came from a single company. This is not the case for Debian. And this is, I believe, very important because in our case, we have people who trust our choices not to be driven by profit, not to be driven by commercial interest. And if you think at recent acquisition of big companies which used to be free software friendly, and then after the acquisition, they are not so free software friendly anymore, well, you start to understand why this is very important. So to do what we do, to push for free software, independence is really a key device we need. Then we have a kind of peculiar way of taking decision, which is a sort of a consequence of being independent. So the default way in which we take decision is what we call a duocracy. So our constitution is very clear on the fact that anyone who is working on a specific task is free to take all the decision you want on that specific task. No one else can go to that person and say, no, you should do this differently unless that other person is ready to do the work in place of the maintainer or whoever was in charge before. We do have also democracy, but we tend to use it not for technical stuff, but let's say for political decisions, but it's a good way. So it's a good way to say, if someone abuses our rule, we do have a way to overall the rules which we believe are being abused. And if you take these two things together, it essentially means that the reputation in the Debian project is very strongly tied to work. Someone who is well-known in Debian is someone who does a lot of work and is respected for the quality of the work he's being doing. There are no other ways to be well-known in Debian. We also mean that there is no benevolent dictator, which is something which exists in many other software development projects, and ultimately it means that there are no decisions which are imposed on us by some external entity, by someone who has the money, someone who has hired a lot of people, or someone who is owning all the infrastructure we use. And the last point, which I think makes Debian special, it's this fairly new, well, respect to the history of Debian, fairly new, a notion of derivatives. So derivatives is a phenomenon which started having a really high importance in the past five years, I would say, and have changed the way in which distributions are made.  And the advantage for the derivative distribution is that they can focus just on the customization. I say only between quotes because it can be a huge amount of work, even only synchronizing with the upstream distribution can be a huge amount of work, but still is way less work than having to maintain by yourself 30,000 packages that exist in the Debian archive. So this has changed the way in which distribution are made, and Debian is sort of the champion of derivatives. If you look at the indexing site for distributions, you will see that something like 130 active derivatives are either directly or transitively based on Debian. This is about one-third of all active distribution in existence which do benefit from the work we do in Debian. So that means that any user, either of Debian or of some transitive derivative distribution of Debian, benefit from our work, and even more so probably depend on the work we do in Debian. And if Debian fail, if the well-being of Debian is not granted, all those users will suffer something. So to summarize, there are quite some reasons why I believe that Debian is unique, the quality, the freedom we offer, the fact that we are an independent project, the way we take decisions, and all the derivatives which are based on our work. All these together make Debian a quite unique player in Free Software in general, and I think it's our responsibility to be up to the task. So if we fail, not only Debian will suffer, I think that in general Free Software will suffer a very important loss. So the question is, are we up to the task? Are we doing enough not to fail and to guarantee that we're playing our role in Free Software? I think we are, but there are various things which we should watch out for. In particular, I made an experiment in looking if these points, the way we do things, can strike back on us. So what are the drawbacks or these characteristics of Debian? And are they affecting us in any negative way? So to conclude, I will go through some of the way we do things and ask you and ask myself whether the way we do things can have a problem and something we can try to fix. So last year, one of the main blocker, one of the main hindrance I've been discussing in my Debian talk was the lack of manpower. I've discussed that because it was one of the most commonly reported problem in Debian. I've been going through a Steve team review, which are a couple of years old, but still it's pretty interesting grade. And one of the most reported problem was we lack manpower, we lack workforce. We don't have enough people to do what we are supposed to do in this team. And so we went through that last debcov and well, you know what? We still lack workforce. We are a volunteer project, we will always lack workforce. We cannot simply go and hire people to work on the stuff, we are not, which is not being attended. So yes, we do lack workforce, but it's not true that we are unable to attract people. I've been through some numbers and this is the number of people we have been attracting recently. So the number of people voting with the right to vote in DPL election 2010 was 25 DD less than in 2011. So this is a minimum number about 25 new developers in one year. Actually it can be more, because that's just the total number. The number of new DDs this year up to June is 13 person. The number of new DDs in the last, the DM sorry, in the last year is 30 person. That might not seem much, but if you look at the stats of active developers by looking through the uploads and the people who actually vote, this is about 10% of DDs new in one year, which is I think is pretty good. And the number of DM was like 120 and become 150. So we do have new people. We are attracting new people. It's not true that we are unable to attract new people as we often repeat ourselves. So this is, I don't think it's an argument. I think we are good in attracting people. And beside that, don't cry for the lack of workforce because it will always be the case. We should not use that as an excuse. So rather, we should try to put into better use all the people we have, all the workforce we have, all the volunteer we have. So let's go through our characteristics and see how they can strike back. So we are up to quality. Can quality be a problem? Can quality be something which holds us back? Well, yes, it can be. All other factors being equal, doing something of better quality requires more time. So if we have higher requirements for our release, well, it will take more time to put it together. That's for sure. But we are actually doing pretty good. So if you look at the past four releases, we have been releasing every two years, on average every 25 months, even if you include the surge, which has been a pretty slow release. So what we are doing by increasing year after year the quality requirement for our release is that we still are able to release on average every two years. I think it's pretty good. It's not a six-month date cycle which others are doing, but in what we do, providing a rock-solid stable release, it's pretty good. So what can we do to improve this? So I think we should have a more dependable release process for us, not for people outside. We should be able to tell developers you have this time to make up all your changes that will break stuff, and then after this time we will consolidate and release. And this is something we are doing for this release cycle. So the release team has decided to go for the first, for this time on a time-based phase, and we know a freeze date, a freeze month, which will be June next year, with one year of advance. This is something we have not trumpeted much, but which is really important. Something we can use to negotiate with upstream to say, okay, I need a stable release of your software for June next year, actually a bit before that, if I want to be able to check the packaging and do all that. And it's something we can use to be sure that our development cycle will have a specific length. So this is very good. This is something new and very good for us. But also we need a more collaborative release process. Too often we just care about our own package and leave the release team do all the rest, right? They're the release team, they should prepare the release, right? Well, no, doing a release is a collaborative effort, and to do that we really need to learn that it's a shared responsibility of all of us to put out our release. So once your own packages are free of RC bugs, you need to realize that the other RC bugs are your responsibility as well. Do NMUs, accept NMUs, love NMUs, okay? And finally, another possibility to go forward here is to add a new quality time trade-off in what we offer. So right now we offer a stable, which is a very clear quality time trade-off. So it takes time to prepare, two years on average, it seems, and it's very solid, it's very stable. And we have been discussing on mailing list for quite a while, but I find very useful and interesting discussions, the possibility of adding new quality time trade-off, of adding something like testing, but which is meant to be used by final users. There are various versions of the proposal, cut, rolling, but this is something we should consider. We should take care that it does not get in the way of stable, of course, that it would be a very useful way to add a new product which offers the unique feature of Debian to a new user base. What about freedom? Can freedom be something which holds us back? Well, no, maybe yes, but that's something which cannot negotiate, okay? Of course, well, of course I got to ask a lot of talks very often, why my Intel-based wireless card does not work with Debian? Well, that's too bad, but it's something we do not negotiate. We offer a clear barrier where you explain people, if you pass this barrier, you will be on your own. You will be using non-free software that we don't know what it does to your hardware, you cannot support it, so you're on your own. And this is part of what we do, is what unites us together, so I don't think we should negotiate on that. How about independence and bureaucracy and the way you take decision? Can that be something which holds us back? Yes, it can, and I think it currently is, because we have some drawbacks when you do only bureaucracy. There are some tasks, some non-geek tasks, some non-cool tasks, which can be left unattended. So there are tasks which might be sort of boring for geeks, like writing documentation, doing mentoring, doing management tasks, doing marketing publicity, doing accounting, doing legal-ish stuff. All these stuff are not fun for geeks, okay? They're not fun at all. But if we leave them unattended, at some point, they might get in the way of doing hacking, of doing geek stuff, for instance. Having sprints is something that is very funny for geeks. You get together, you hack for a weekend, and you put out a lot of very cool stuff, very cool new stuff, but you need someone that organizes the sprints. If you don't do that, you have less occasion to meet, and you have less hacking, which gets done. Another example, trademarks, which have been debating quite a lot this year, okay? If you don't know what to do about trademark, if you need to have some kind of legal advice on what to do about trademarks, you are stuck in not knowing what to do with a specific license, with a specific trademark license. Or, I don't know, you don't know what are the risks of setting a specific package in the archive, and if you don't get an informed advice on that, you are stuck, okay? So there are plenty of examples in which you can be blocked in doing hacking by non-geek stuff, okay? For instance, not doing documentation. Who cares about documentation? True, but documentation helps other future geeks to join your project. It makes easier to actually join the Debian project. And there are plenty of examples like that. So what can we do to, oh, and by the way, like it or not, we are competing with other distribution, with other commercial distribution, which are very good at this stuff. They can just hire people doing that stuff, so they turns out they're pretty good at that. And like it or not, we are competing with these people, so unless we learn how to do this task as well, well, we will have a problem in this competition. So what can we do to improve on this? Well, first of all, we should stop saying that those stuff is useless. It's worth nothing. Just ignore all this. It is not. In some ways, it gets in our ways, so please acknowledge that it's actually useful. Second point is to welcome in our project people working on that. And this is something we have done. Last year with the GR on Maintainership for Non-Packager, we have done that. We have welcomed people in our project and about, I think, four or five people have applied for that, which is still too little, but it's something we now say. We now acknowledge the fact that those tasks are useful for Debian and we welcome you if you want to do them in Debian. And finally, we need to try and understand it socially. If we agree that this task is something we need, well, we need to find a way among us to do these tasks, to do them together, maybe taking turns, taking turns, but this is something that will help us prosper more than now. Democracy, can that be a blocker? Can that be something which gets in our way? Well, yes, if you look at folklore, I think there is also something on this to watch about Debian at this point, people believe that large changes are impossible on Debian because as soon as you propose a large change on Debian Devel, well, at least someone will disagree. So you cannot change anything in Debian because we are just too many people and it's kind of impossible to agree on everything. Well, consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. You can have consensus even if someone disagrees. Let's keep this in mind. And also we need to keep in mind that there is an order in democracy and democracy. Democracy comes first. So you can debate something on Debian Devel as long as you please, but if you're not doing the work, if you're not the person in charge of doing that work, it will just not happen. So too often I have the impression that people believe that just by discussing something on Debian Devel, they can impose their choices on other and they just cannot, okay? They just cannot. So if you want to change something in Debian, well, show me the code. That's the only way, okay? And this is a quote which I'm quite loved by Sam in Debian 7, be bold, okay? Take some big job on your shoulder if you really care about and start doing stuff. Start doing even the NMU that implement your change. Honestly, what can you undo? We have computers. A lot of mistakes we can do can be undone quite easily, okay? So what can you do to improve on this front? I think we need to work on forking enabling technology. We should make Debian easier to fork, not in the sense to create even more derivatives. That's good, but that's a different matter. But we should make it easier to test big changes in Debian. We should make it easier for developers to propose some dangerous change and let people play with it, okay? An example of such technology is what they're called PPA, Personal Package Archive. I have an infrastructure to enable developers to propose their own version of packages they do not necessarily maintain, okay? This is something which have been discussed, which is good, but guess what? Need some work to be done. The second example is what we've been discussing test-driven development. So enable people to have more testing packages. We need supporting policy for that. We need some bit of infrastructure. But if we have more testing Debian, people will be less scared of making changes. People will be more confident that their changes they've been making are not breaking stuff. So this is what I think we should work on to get better in this front. And the last one is derivatives. Can derivatives be a blocker? Can derivatives be something that gets in our way? Yes, they can be. If they lower our morale, if we think that nobody uses Debian anymore, they are all using derivative, if that gets on our morale, then yes, derivatives are a problem. But I think they are an opportunity, actually. So like five to 10 years ago, software was distributed with a very limited number of stakeholders. We used to have upstream software developer here, someone in the middle, like Debian, and users from the other side, okay? The software flow was from left to right, and the bug flow and batch flow was simply from the right to the left, your right to the left, okay? Now it's more complex. Now we have a whole pipeline of distribution which are upstream one for the other. We might have upstream developers here, and route distribution here like Debian, another derivative here, and so on and so forth. And in each single block of that diagram, you have users and you have potential contributors. This is very good for us, because every time we are at the block, okay, we reach out to new people that use Debian, even if it's indirect, they use Debian, new people that might be interested in working on Debian, okay? So what can we do to exploit this to our gain? Well, encourage collaboration with derivatives. This is something we have been doing a lot this year, with initiative like the derivatives fund desk, with decks, there are a few initiatives which has been going on, which is very good. Keep our communication channel open and explain to the people in the derivatives what Debian is about. Explain that we care more about the benefit of free software in general than the benefit of Debian itself, or than the benefit of a single upstream development project, okay? In my experience, a lot of contributors of other derivatives are really fascinated by these values, and it's quite easy to explain to them that if they contribute to Debian, they benefit also their own distribution, and they benefit free software in general. So this is a very appealing argument, and I think it's our role to try to spread this culture, try to spread the culture of giving back to your upstream, okay? So, to summarize, I think we have a greater role to play than just being yet another distribution among the unders distribution which exists. I think that if we fail, it's not only Debian that will suffer, not only our current user that will suffer, but free software in general will fail because it will lose a player which cares about free software deeply and which enjoys important independence from companies and from money. So our own ways of doing things might get in the way, and we need to watch out for that, we need to watch out that it doesn't happen, and a couple of rules which can help to avoid that is being bold, taking responsibility, and understanding that there are sometimes some tasks we need to work on for the benefit of Debian in general. So this is it. We have about 10 minutes for your thoughts, question or anything you would like to share with me. Thank you. Thank you, Stefano. I just want to make a very small suggestion, but one point in time through you had a slide that said, you know, the non-geeky tasks, they need more support by us, and I would like to suggest that we don't talk about them as non-geeky tasks and non-cool tasks because they can be quite geeky, being someone who puts a lot of, I forget the word now, but a lot of energy and love into what he's doing and does it more than the average person, and I can tell from my own experience that for instance writing documentation is very cool because you get a lot of people who write back what thank you notes, and that actually is sort of like rewarding, good feeling. So they are also cool tasks, and we should accept them as such. Okay, thanks. So I agree. So the presentation is suboptimal on that front, but we need to learn how to attract these people doing those stuff, explaining that it's cool stuff that is always very needed and rewarding. I basically want to say the same thing, just with another example. I think doing marketing stuff is a real cool thing, even so cool that it gets confused with having technical skills in that area. I'm doing marketing for K3BC port, and people start asking me strange C questions of which I have no knowledge, just because of my talks and interviews I give. So folks, what are you waiting for? Do marketing for the fact of how cool those tasks are and how badly we need them, in Debian. Any further questions? Ashish. No, he's leaving. Hi, so you said, okay, so do marketing. Well, I guess one reason that we don't is that it's a lot harder to know what is the right next task. With packages, it's extremely clear. If there's a new upstream release, I package it. If there's a bug, I fix it. There is a publicity team now, and there is a website team, but something isn't as smooth in getting us, I don't know, in helping me know what the next step is, I guess. Yeah, so actually, you're right. So essentially, you're saying that there's not enough documentation to explain what needs to be done on that font, and so you're right. I think part of the reason is that not many people in Debian face directly the need of working on non-packaging stuff, but with software and with packages, it happened to us that we each reach out and discover, okay, that's something which needs to be done there, and we just do that. So maybe we just need to think about them and just try to be imaginative, and how can I improve this specific process in Debian, for instance, and try to work on that. I just wanted to point out that the next talk is actually gonna be in this room by Tolomar. It's the publicity team and you. So if you're wondering how to get involved, stick around for that. Yes, and by the way, I think that publicity is a very nice example of the fact that we can actually be very successful in work on non-packaging stuff. The publicity team has been doing a wonderful job as long as I've been starting to look at it, so yeah, big kudos to the publicity team. Okay, slightly different tack. So how many people is this the first ad conf? Hands up. Wow. How many new Debian developers for the first time this year? How many new Debian maintainers? Okay, cool. Please tell me, promise me you're gonna get involved. Infrastructure, all of the cool non-packaging stuff. Awesome. Thanks, Steve. Hi. Could I just ask or make a comment, perhaps, about the social contract that you mentioned? All of the times I've seen the social contract discussed before, it was almost a personal philosophy of how we should live our lives. And in your last couple of slides there, I thought it was a very important point that you were talking about it as a means of making the economy work. And it struck me that we needed to get across to managers more, the understanding about that economy to explain that it's something like the rules of the stock exchange as a way of doing business. Could you sort of say some more about that, please? So yeah, well, I'm not sure I fully gawk the analogy with the stock exchange, but yeah, so you have a point. So essentially, I think that the point of, the second point of the social contract is we will give back to the free software community. And we were used to think, well, yeah, of course, we need to work with our upstream. And the fact that there have been derivatives which are so popular, actually way more popular than Debian itself, has made this equation more complex. But I think it implies that Debian should go to those people and explain you need to give back. And on one side, so if you want all this to work, essentially, if you want this pipeline to work, you need to have a very low viscosity in the pipeline. So any patch which is added in any point of the pipeline should go left, should go upstream, so that more people benefit from that patch. And I think that explaining this aspect is something Debian should do because Debian is the root of an incredible amount of derivatives. But to do that, we need also to be exemplar. So we cannot go and ask other derivatives to give back to us or to give back to upstream if we are failing to do that ourselves. So that's a very important moment in the way we do distribution, which we need to show that every single brick in that chain should actually do the right thing and push things upstream, including Debian. Can you write that down somewhere, please, so I can send the link to people? Because at the moment, if I send them the social contract, it kind of looks like a declaration of independence rather than a sort of statement of commonsense economy. Yeah. Lucas? Yeah, about the lack of manpower, you said that, okay, we won't get more manpower. It would be hard to get more manpower, but we should make the best use of the one we currently have. Could you give concrete examples of what we should do to get to that? So, okay, so essentially there is a trade-off in having the notion of package maintainer. So Bidale has spoken various times about the Easter of Debian, the fact in the beginning we didn't have a notion of maintainer and we now do. So the notion of maintainer is kind of weird because on one end it enables to have more social package maintenance because you can easily define areas which are the responsibility of one maintainer, but it also creates a barrier in contribution because if you see there is a fence, there is a maintainer fence, well, you're a bit scared of crossing the fence. So that actually trying to cross the fence more often is I think the best example of how we could do to put it to better use what we have. And that's why I think we should be way more liberal with NMUs, accepting them more. And I also would love to see having some very widespread version control system access rights. So having, there are packages in the archive where anyone can commit, any Debian developer can commit, and those are great examples. So in general try to see where there are barriers, where there are things which blocks people to contribute and tear them down. We will have some flames about that because there will be people who are very, you know, they have an important sense of ownership of the package. But that's the, I think the best way we have to scale. I have some thoughts regarding the licensing issues you were seeing regarding the, for example, the Intel wireless cards. The now Intel will strike back on me. It was just an example. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, just an example. I think I have a different opinion that and I think it should be regarded not the same depending on if it's run on the machine in the same space or the same memory with other things and drivers with developers free software or it runs on the specific device. I think it should be regarded something like the basic input output system on your machine which is also closed source. I'm not saying this is a good thing but I think it should be regarded a bit differently. Okay, so. That's my take on it. Yeah, I know, I mean, you're surely not the only one thing in that. And you released another CD version which contains these drivers and I think this is very essential because it's a must. So I'm sure you do. I know you do but I think this is a must at least for me. So I mean, I'm sure there are a lot of people with the same opinion. Personally, I disagree but the other question is to what we should apply DFSG. I think Debian has essentially decided over the last three or these cycles to actually consider firmware as something that should go under DFSG. I agree that. We have been working a lot on that and I think that as a result of our work and in particular of the kernel teamwork we have actually also encouraged upstream to separate free firmware from non-free firmware and I think it's a very good outcome, a very good thing that Debian has contributed to free software in general. So. So you mentioned that Debian is still growing and my questions are what is your workload as DPL? Because you nowadays have to manage more and more people and I would like to know what is your workload and if you think if it is sustainable to have one person being the DPL? No, I honestly think it is not. So luckily the DPL role is not really doing a management in the project management sense. So luckily because otherwise we'll be like three work, three full time job at the same time. So this is something which helps but I do think it's not scalable. I do think that so no, I think it is not but I don't have yet a better solution to propose. So the DPL is sort of the public figure of Debian. It can do some sort of moral suasion in debates and this kind of stuff but that's potentially a problem, yes. But right now it's written in the constitution and so figure out a better governance model is something which is pretty difficult and pretty difficult to imagine upfront how it could work. So potential problem, yeah. I think time's up. So thanks for all your question and thanks for being here.


So, let us proceed further, we are going to have one class only for the problems, but the problem is that in this chapter, there are many questions that combines multiple concepts together. So, we cannot have questions on single concept, write down, principle of superposition, just write down superposition, this is the biggest topic of this chapter and the most important topic, if question from this chapter comes, 90 percent from this, 90 percent chance, it will be from this topic, that is, now superposition means what, it is like a collision, ok, two mass when they collide, that situation you have discussed, momentum and all get conserved, but we have not yet learned what will happen if two ways collide, that is what we are going to learn, ok. Now, when the two waves meet, there will be different, different things that will happen and that makes this scenario very unique, when mass comes and hit the other mass, there is nothing other than force, ok, so momentum get conserved and you are able to write the momentum equation, but over here there will be multiple scenarios, ok, so, just first write down the scenarios, so if two waves, I am talking about superposition of two waves, because if you know how two waves superpose, after superposition you can superpose a third wave also, ok, so 1 plus 2 is 1, then third one becomes a second one, so it is always two at a time, so two waves, two waves traveling in same direction, when meet creates a third wave or creates another wave, that is the combined, that is what two waves traveling in the same direction, when meet, oh, we are talking about a third wave get generated, only one wave get generated, two waves they meet and a third wave is the outcome of the two waves meeting, two waves knock on, second two waves traveling in opposite direction, having same wavelength and frequency create standing wave, two waves having different frequencies, we are going to discuss it anyways, just I give you a small example, you might have tried playing guitar, that is all, so when you play the guitar, you will see that this kind of wave will get generated, if you plug the string, you will see this kind of thing get generated, when it vibrates the string when it vibrates, this is also wave, but what is happening is that these two points are fixed, one where the two ends where the string is held, this is wave which is not moving anywhere, what happens is one wave get generated when you plug it, then the wave get reflected from here, then this reflected wave travels in opposite direction, it meets the wave coming from this direction, when they meet, they create standing wave like this, we are going to discuss it in detail, two waves having different frequencies, when they meet can generate beats, this beat is not your song or a beat, as I gave beat or song, which one, beats is something else, I am going to show you actually, I will play a video for this, just write down three scenarios distinctly, because when we are going to take it one by one, you should not wonder that what is this, what is something new, these are all the three scenarios that come up, when two waves meet, in the first two scenarios, I am assuming that frequency and the wavelength is same, in the third scenario frequency is different, there is a fourth thing also, but that is not in the syllabus, so now you might have got an idea that two waves meeting is not as simple as two masses colliding, so according to super position principle, y is equal to simply y1 plus y2, y1 and y2 are the wave equations of the two waves, just write down, according to super position principle, y is equal to y1 plus y2, when the two waves meet, simply you have to take the algebraic sum of the two, going to discuss it, y1 is not a, y1 is a sin kx minus omega t, getting it, so when you add it, you have to add the sin, according to super position principle, they can be n number of a's, y1 plus y2 plus y3 plus y4, so keep on adding it, so let us take y1 as, write down in your textbook, they have taken cos of sin, sometimes they take cos, sometimes they take sin, they have taken sin, sin, they have taken, a sin kx minus, when they talk about beats, they have taken it as cos, y2 is equal to a sin kx minus omega t plus phi, they are the two, can you describe what is the similarity of the two, velocity is same, what else, amplitude is same then, time grid is same, wavelength is the same, what is the difference, phase difference is there, I could have written here phi1 and this is phi2, phi1, phi2 then phi2 minus phi1 will be the phase difference, so it is similar, now please write down y1 plus y2, and tell me what equation you are getting, y1 plus y2, what you will get here, you sin a plus sin b formula, y1 plus y2 will be 2 a sin a plus b by 2, then cos a minus b by 2, so cos of this and sin of kx minus omega t plus phi by 2, does it look like a wave, does it look like a wave equation, this is your amplitude, if I rather than this bracket, if I write capital A, suddenly it will look like a wave equation, so when two waves like this meet, it will create a third wave of what amplitude, 2 a cos of phi by 2, and when it comes to the wave, when we talk about the energy contained in the wave, we talk about intensity, intensity is a better representation of energy in terms of the wave, because there is a continuous transmission of energy, so it is better to talk in terms of power delivered for an area, so intensity do you know proposal to what, amplitude square do you know this, you do not know, now you know, please write down intensity is proposal to amplitude square, as you mean frequency constant, if you compare the two waves having the same frequency, intensity will be proposal to amplitude square, see the right guy, so it is straight, straight, yes sir, 90 degree, not like this, that is more than 90, come front little bit, straight, spine straight, okay, so intensity is proposal to amplitude square, if frequency is constant, if frequency is not constant, as if you are comparing two waves having different frequencies, then intensity is proposal to frequency square, amplitude square, so intensity is power by time, power per unit area, power is energy per unit time, okay, fine, so here usually we are comparing the waves having the same frequencies, so intensity is proposal to amplitude square, so initial intensity is, initial intensity is some constant into a square, final intensity is square of this, 4 a square cos square phi by 2, yes or no, so can I say that intensity is equal to 4 times i naught cos square phi by 2, all of you understood this, right, so intensity is 4 times the individual intensity multiplied by the cos square of phase difference phi 2, okay, now what is the maximum possible intensity, if I can change the phase difference, what is the maximum possible intensity, 4 i naught, where, no k is not equal to 1, intensity is here also k will be there, right, constant of proportionality, no, k into a square is i naught, so both the k's should be, because frequency, wavelength everything else is same, so i max is 4 i naught, what is the minimum value of intensity, minimum is 0, now this is something very unique, very unique can't be together, right, there is something unique about the waves, so two waves can meet and they can destroy each other, intensity will be gone, that doesn't happen when two masses can meet, it's like one wave this, if this wave meets that wave, nothing is left, fine, so it can happen, similarly, one wave having intensity i naught meets the other wave having intensity i naught and i naught and i naught creates 4 i naught, so basically what is happening is that the energy is getting concentrated and energy can become 0 also when they meet, in terms of when we talk about the waves, now tell me what should be the value of phi for which the maximum possible intensity comes, so for that cos square phi by 2 should be 1, so cos of phi by 2 should be plus minus 1, so phi by 2 should be n pi, so phi should be equal to 2 n pi, so if phase difference between the two waves is 2 n pi then you say that the maximum intensity will get generated, you also say it constructive interference happens, this is for constructive interference between the two waves, reading it, see I will just tell you the day to day life example of constructive and destructive difference, have you ever seen oil spilled on the surface of water, when you move past it the colour changes, colour of the film changes, you don't know you haven't seen oil spilled on the water, the weird rainbow thing, yeah rainbow sort of thing, when you move past the colour continuously changes and there is a location like that, location becomes completely dark and there is a location when you move past suddenly becomes very bright, so when it becomes suddenly bright constructive difference is happening, when it has become completely dark there is a destructive difference that is happening there, but there are many other examples that we will be discussing later on not now, so this is for light, this is for the light and that is EM wave that you are going to learn in class 12th, okay so tell me what is the value of phi for minimum intensity, cos square phi by 2 should be equal to 0, so phi by 2 should be equal to what, 2n plus 1 times phi by 2, so the value of phi should be 2n plus 1 pi, so if it is an odd multiple of pi destructive interference happens and even multiple of pi constructive interference happens, understood any doubts, keep it to yourself, no doubts, see this phase difference determines everything, because of only difference between the two is the phase difference, everything else is same, so what if everything else was different, yeah that is I mean slowly and slowly we will do it, now I will change the amplitude, okay is this clear to all of you, everything is different because they interact, they interact now why not, if you force them to interact they will interact, what to do, right if I force you to interact with him even though you do not like him, you will talk right now why I hate you, he loves me okay I hate you that is the kind of interaction you will have, right, so see right now also in this room there are multiple ways, light is coming from here, here everywhere else light is coming, but the problem is that these light sources they are not having same phase difference, when k and omega are different, the difference between these two phases change with time, yes or no, when you do cos a minus b by 2 kx minus omega t disappears, when you do cos a minus b by 2 omega 1 and omega t both will be there, k1 and k2 will also be there, so with time the amplitude changes and the frequency of change is very fast, 50 times in a second, so you cannot see it, you can see only when the phase difference between the two waves is constant, so that is why we are studying this, sir can em waves interact with mechanical, no, no it is like the aliens interacting with you, good question, em wave interacting with mechanical waves, em wave can generate momentum and it can transfer energy, so in that way some interaction is possible, but that is, sir you have to do something. But I am not talking about that kind of interaction, we are talking about this kind of interaction, they will not be interference between em wave and mechanical wave, by the way since he has pointed out that velocity we have found out for the sound is gamma p by rho and p is equal to rho i t by m, you know this or not, so p by rho is i t by m, so gamma i t by m is also the speed of sound, so velocity can be written as root of gamma i t by m and hence velocity is proportional to root over temperature of the air.


Final Future will look at its offensive rookie of the year. You're going with a running back, why and who? Yeah, this award is one that's a bit more running back heavy than other awards are. So I feel okay going to the running back here over the really fun and really good quarterbacks. And a big part of it is because Trey Sermon is in a good situation. He's running behind potentially the best offensive line in football, playing a team that should win a lot of games, which will get him notoriety. And now with Jeffrey Wilson Jr. going through surgery, it means that the path to playing time for Trey Sermon is more clear than it was previously. You still have to deal with Wayne Gaulman, still have to deal with Raheem Mostert. So there are some obstacles in the way, but when you've got Kyle Shanahan calling plays for a running back who is talented behind an offensive line, this good, on a team this good, against a pretty easy schedule, that all adds up really well to make Sermon a good bet at 26-1. I think Najee Harris is the more likely guy to win this award among the running backs because the volume should be so good, but Sermon is double the odds. Najee Harris, who is 13-1, and Sermon is on a better team with a better offensive line. So if you're gonna give me Najee Harris at 13-1 versus Trey Sermon at 26-1, I'm gonna take the better offensive line and go Sermon and see if he can capitalize on the situation he has at his hands in San Francisco. Sermon is at pretty long odds to win that offensive rookie of the year award, especially on an offense that loves to have double and triple headed monsters coming out of the backfield in the 49ers.