So I would say that, first of all, it's of course about a common topic that the different partners are working on. Of course, the topic with relevance for the different working realities of the different partners that are on board of the partnership. Then, of course, speaking about this context, it's also about the question of what every partner is actually bringing into the partnership, but also what every partner can take out of this common project. And of course, then we're speaking about the European programmes, so it also means including the European dimension, which means this aspect of having different countries working together on a common topic that might have different aspects also with the different backgrounds that partner will bring in. So for me, it's a lot actually about the multiple perspectives that will be visible, for example in the application form. This would mean that, for example, the needs are clearly described for every partner that is involved in partnership, but of course showing very clearly which kind of competence every partner can bring in, but also what every partner might learn during this partnership. Of course, also this whole question of the balance, like who will take over what kind of task and also why would partner take over this kind of task to make really clear what are the competences partners will bring in and how they will learn from each other and how they will actually also bring this whole knowledge back to their own organisational context. One important aspect, it's the one I just mentioned before, it's really also about learning from each other. So I think one important point is that competences might not only mean knowledge, like knowledge on the topic, but of course there can be a lot of more diverse competences within a partnership. So for example, it could also be one partner bringing in competence about project management being really experienced in this kind of field, but maybe also on specific access to a specific target group or one partner with a specific expertise on dissemination. So in the end, it's a lot about the mixture, I would say. It doesn't necessarily make sense to have the very similar expertise with the different partners, but more to see what is there and how you can use it as a puzzle and make a clear picture from all those competences and skills that might be with the partners that are on board of the partnership. So one very important aspect I would see here is actually to think of the fact that equality of the partnership should begin before the start of the project itself. So it's also a lot about preparing things together and having this whole process until the application together. This is one part that's actually also really visible when you read applications. Then of course I would also see this whole question of commitment connected here. So the project should really be like something where every partner is committed to and that will bring added value for every partner, which also means it should not be only like the coordinator being mainly responsible and being the one pushing through things, but more like really this equal approach and this balanced approach like everyone bringing something in and trying to move things forward. And so another important aspect for me would also be this question of the reason why to have this partnership. So having a clear picture of what specific expertise partners will bring in. For example it might not make too much sense to have like three partners with very similar expertise from the same country because then it's not really clear why it makes sense to work in this constellation. And of course then also one important aspect might be not only to think from the perspective who are the partners I know, who am I already working with, but really more taking maybe the opposite view, thinking okay this is what we aim for, what is actually the competence and expertise we might need and if I identify that there is like something missing it might be also a hint to look for a new partner maybe to bring on board who can bring in this very specific expertise that might actually be missing so far with the well-known partner. So sharing the needs of each partner also in the preparation process I think it's a very central aspect because in order to actually have an impact of the project for every partner that's on board it's also very important to know what are the different needs that might be in the room. And it should not only be about the needs of one or two partners out of the partnership but really having a look at okay what is it what every partner would need related to this topic and what can we actually work on together in order to provide to every partner who is on board impact for his own work in the future and also for using what's coming out of the project after the project ends actually. So when I think about good projects what immediately comes to my mind is actually to really be able to read especially also between the lines or to see that the application actually had already been prepared together by all the partners it's visible because for example the needs are clearly described for each and every partner but you can also read or see the reflection that has been going on in the preparation process for example discussing concepts there are usually clear hints about what do we mean what might we not mean actually and then a second very important aspect would actually be also of course the impact it's also the part where it's usually really visible and what might make the difference to really see also at the end of the application what kind of thinking took place in the preparation process how can every partner on board take back what will be worked on to his own working context apply it use it of course and share it with own colleagues this question of expertise that's brought into the project so I think it's also making a huge difference if it's visible that actually there has been a clear choice also to see and what kind of expertise every partner can bring in the project and how is it going to be combined and used and not just like yeah several partners having exactly the same approach and skills and not very clear what's going to come out of it. I would say that the most common error is actually to have the application only written through the perspective of the applicant for example so it's not very clear what about the other partners and it's only described about needs for one or two partners and the impact is not clear for the other organizations on board so this is very common or especially also in cases where there might be a mix between known and new partners also to have a disbalance between what's described or the partners that already work together pretty often and the ones that might be new on board very often those ones are kind of forgotten a bit or can be forgotten a bit in the description of the application form. Then I would say another aspect that's sometimes missing or not very clear a sign that maybe things haven't been developed that well together and beforehand is also a dismissing part of learning from each other so really more focused on producing outcome for others but not including actually reflection on what are we going to learn as a partnership and what is it what partners are going to take out of this common project. One other aspect I would see here is also a disbalance between maybe partners only bringing in knowledge and input and others only learning something and let's say taking things but not having both aspects for each partner this is a very central point. Another thing is which also could be like a common mistake or error would be to kind of forget about this whole part of having room for exchanging and discussing concepts actually really exchanging about how do we understand this and what is how do I approach this how do you approach that and so having more this bigger orientation on only producing outcomes but not really this aspect of actually working together and the things. One of the first things that come to my mind here is really this aspect of capacity building which means that very often I guess it's there's an assumption but it's not written that actually it's also about having this organizational development for the partners that are on board and development for the staff but also for the organization as such as a whole so this is one very important aspect. Then quite some projects or applicants or partnerships actually tend to forget to describe what they already did beforehand so there might be only a very short mentioning of yeah we had one common project but they don't describe really in detail this whole common preparation phase or also where does the idea come from how did it come up in which context even though this would actually be a very important aspect actually when it comes to the application. So another part that's quite often forgotten is actually this whole question of how decisions are taken in the partnership like which ones are going to be taken commonly or who is maybe going to take what decision on his or her own and which are actually a bigger question that has to be discussed with the whole group. Yeah and then as a last point I would still add again here and this whole question of actually learning from each other especially when there are like project results involved this is something that's very easily forgotten to be described because of course there's also this big focus on what do others take from it how can we disseminate it how can the whole field actually use it but this aspect of actually also always having this idea in the background of the head of what is actually going to happen within the partnership and how can we learn from each other and yeah grow together actually this is also something that can be focused in the application form and that is forgotten quite often.


Right, ladies and gentlemen, can I welcome you now to the final session of the Urban Age Conference in Istanbul, which will deal with I think a critical theme which has been running through, if not lurking behind, some of the other sessions over the last day and a half, which is that if cities are growing and if cities are changing, how do you actually manage that growth and how do you establish a guideline for that growth? And there's an awareness, of course, in the discussions that we've had that this can be done and has to be done to a degree from top down, but also an awareness in the recent discussion we had and part of yesterday that it also has to be, it must also involve the bottom up. And one of the key aspects that the Urban Age has certainly identified in the cities that we've studied over the years is that some of the cities that we think work better than others, I know that's an enormous generalization, but are able to create a political consensus around their program and the implementation of their master plans. We've certainly identified that these cities have a very clear sense of leadership, we'll come to that, but more importantly in terms of this debate, a clear vision, a clear sort of set of, as I call it, a framework, a guideline, an idea of what that city should be. And this session is very, very much about that. And we have a number of speakers who are going to make presentations who are well placed to do that and equally commentators from this city and other cities across the world to respond to that. I am chairing the session with Koran Gumos, who probably in this city is the most authoritative voice in the relationship, in the discussion and the public debate between, I think, architecture and its social responsibility. I think Koran has played a critical role over the years, very provocative, very tough, and very, very serious in the work that he has done both as an architect but also as a figure who's ready to put his money where his mouth is by being a director of architectural projects with the Istanbul 2010 European Capital Culture Agency. In a way, one of the key players in that. And we've had many conversations over the months of preparation about this theme. He will join me in the discussion and in chairing the debate with our colleagues around the table. The three people who are going to be speaking with slight inversion in the order between the first two are Peter Bishop, who is now responsible for setting a vision for the mayor of London, even though he started with a previous mayor of London, just like Richard Rogers and, in fact, even myself. He will be then followed by Andy Altman, Andrew Altman, who used to work with the mayor of Washington, who's here, Tony Williams. Then briefly went to Philadelphia to run that city, and then saw the light and came to London to run the post-Olympic development, which I think he's going to be mainly talking about. And then we are very fortunate to have Ibrahim Baz, who is in charge of the IMP, the major planning vehicle in this city, which is, in fact, just announced the master plan. And we are going to be in an interesting position for the first time in a way to have the, first time, sorry, in these two days, to have the sort of formal, official vision of what the plans are for this city set out before us. Clearly, this has been an ongoing process. The IMP has been in existence for a number of years, and much of the work was done by Ibrahim's predecessors and colleagues, in fact, some of whom are here, and it will be interesting to engage with them later. So that's how we're framing this discussion. We're going to ask Peter Bishop, as I say, director of design for London, and a key player in the London Development Agency, which is the mayor's arm in London to bring in inward investment and develop the economy of the city, not just the spatial structure of the city. That's, again, an important point that the chief planner, if I can call you that, is actually within the Development Agency. That's an interesting mechanism. So could you welcome Peter Bishop? Thank you. Thank you very much. I guess one of the paradoxes of London, that for a city which actually has a very mature, and at times actually quite an effective, planning regime and system, it is actually on the city scale, largely unplanned, and you could argue almost unplanable in terms of its political structures and its land uses. It has changed. In the last 15 years, London has achieved a transformation in terms of how it presents itself, in terms of its physical spaces in central area. It's even developed a cafe society, which you wouldn't have believed 20 years ago. And it's beginning to actually occupy its public spaces and actually value the streets, the public spaces, and the parks that create the kind of fabric for very high quality urban life. But like every city, it has its kind of rather wonderful dark landscapes. And it's damaged and derelict areas. And spaces where this actually is a temporary use. You might argue it's a rather poor temporary use. But we've become quite interested in the ways in which you can use these pieces of land, layering temporary uses to try and create the spaces where you can allow that kind of positive anarchy in a city to find expression and create the seeds for new things to happen within what is otherwise, quite a straight jacket that urban planning can give land uses. Three years ago, the previous mayor, Ken Livingstone, and Richard Rogers set up an organization called Design for London, an architecture design studio working for the mayor to try and actually understand and work out strategies for shaping a city as pragmatic and as chaotic as London. And one of the starting points was this. This is a kind of rather wonderful plan from the 1940s, the Abercrombie plan for London, the time when architects had watercolors rather than CAD machines. And what this tries to do is actually paint a picture of the character of London. It's immense diversity of a city that's expanded by absorbing very, very distinct patterns. And one of the targets for Design for London is to make sure that in forming strategies, we don't end up with London all looking the same. We don't lose that diversity. Similarly, as an open city, it has this immense diversity of population, approximately 330 different languages spoken within the city. And perhaps it is an element of acceptance which, as an open city, is perhaps almost the litmus test for global cities. A city where you can come, you can arrive, you can migrate into the city, and by definition, you can be a Londoner. And that's something which we didn't want to lose sight of. Then finally, we thought about how we could wrap in the environmental agenda and tie in land use planning and the kind of structural approach to change in the city with the importance of dealing with climate change. This is a diagram we produced very early on in our history and this just tries to explain the numbers of people who get involved in designing one piece of public space in the city. And it's not meant to clarify anything at all. It's just meant to say it's incredibly complex. And possibly out of this, the idea for a design team like Design for London came out. The fact that the only way you can operate in this complexity is to be small and strategic. We tried to recruit the bulk of the people into a very small team from outside the public sector. I was the only bureaucrat in the team. We had a very small budget, a budget which could commission, but which never distracted us by trying to build anything. And we had no formal powers. We maintained an ambiguity of power because we were the mayor's design team. But we deliberately said we do not have a statutory power. We don't want any statutory powers. What we want to do is use our position to almost broker and negotiate urban solutions between partners to subvert and infiltrate bigger organizations, of course, in the nicest possible way. And to think about very, very simple ideas that could frame the city and then break those down into lots of small actions to start to move the agenda forward. And we came up with two very, very clear ideas right from the beginning. The first was to say we give anybody an hour of our time and because we had no power, we couldn't enforce our views. At the end of the hour, people went away. They took on board advice and they didn't and that was absolutely fine. Sometimes led to a second hour, sometimes led to a project, sometimes led to a collaboration and that was also good. And the second thing we did was we took a very high degree of control over the procurement of architects and designers within London on a very, very simple premise that a good architect with a good client can produce a good public space and a good building. A bad architect never will. And then a year ago, there was a combination of design for London and it's the development agency and the link between the design team and the power of having about two billion pounds worth of public land at my disposal to develop and very, very large environmental programs. And to take this new agenda forward, we started a formulator series of very, very simple approaches. First of all, to understand the economic forces and work with them. Richard Rogers really shown the plan for London but there's these two big growth corridors. London's not gonna build on green space. It's gonna become more compact and more dense. And it's gonna develop in these corridors out towards the Thames in the old areas of industrial decline. Secondly, to use town centres and to really focus on design strategies and economic regeneration strategies around town centres as the key building blocks for civic life. Thirdly, follow the transport. We've had long-standing policies in London with this very, very extensive and rich public transport network. To actually focus development and density of development around the transport capacity. And increasingly now, with new lines going in like the Crossrail Line, which will link Heathrow to the centre, we started to look there around each station to put in very, very small detailed design studies to try and capture the economic benefits that the transport accessibility will give us. We're also looking at strategies to frame growth. This is where we also have us a policy role. Over the next 10 years, 650,000 new people are moving to London. And we produced a policy guide on housing. A lot of the housing we've seen in London was actually quite poor, high-density poor quality in the last 15 years. And we started off with a very, very simple housing design guide, trying to marry together things like space standards with a meaner tube with floor-to-ceiling heights with aspects without all space. And in the spirit of infiltration, the London Development Agency adopted this. Now the National Homes and Community Agency that funds the public housing in the country looks like adopting this as the national standard and looks like becoming the planning standard for London within the London plan. The fifth approach is looking at public space. We are launching this in 10 days' time, a new manifesto for public space in London, looking at how we pull together public space with streets, improvements to streets and infrastructure, public squares, green space and water space, and also a strategy for the spatial prioritization investment. And one aspect of this is a new launch of a new public space campaign called The Great Spaces. Encouraging partners, some of the smaller units of government, the boroughs in London, to come forward with ideas, we went out and we had 137 responses. And again, next week we're announcing 36. And the key move in this is, as we've said, that we will assist, we'll help with the procurement, we'll help with the design advice, but to get past the first hurdle, you've got to sign off your application by your political leader and your chief executive to show you're serious in following through the space initiative. And one example of where we're using public space, this is in barking. I'll be amazed if many people in the room know barking. It's a very rundown area, a very poor area of East London, very fractured. And we've used public space strategies to try and bind together this piece of the city, to try and tie in the public transport nodes with the shopping centers, with the civic areas, and with the open space. And this is a public space we've just finished. Actually, completely against the expectations of the local populations. Actually, rather grand, rather generous. And the image on the right was produced by architects, MUF, MUF. This actually is a flanked wall of a supermarket. They constructed this folly using material off the site. This was finished a year and a half ago. It already has the reputation of being the ruins of a medieval manor house. It's haunted. It has its own mythology and folklore. And finally, we're extending the barking strategy, working with the architects journal, working with the media to try and raise the profile in a series of competitions to the final bit, which is the integration of the public space. Andy Ordman is going to speak about the Olympics. The Olympics is a catalyst for regeneration. And the objective afterwards is to use it to transform the East part of London, to create a mosaic of spaces, to create communities, which will be just another piece of London. And for me, one of the key interventions is around the edge of these mega-developments. I think we learned the lesson in London in Canary Wharf, the second big commercial center, where Canary Wharf stands in isolation. It doesn't relate to its communities. It has no links with its hinterland. It's surrounded by roads, by severance, and by poverty. When I was working before on the development of the Channel Tunnel Rail terminus and the development of King's Cross, over six years with the developer, a company called Arjun, a very enlightened developer, we spent more time outside the site than we spent inside the site in the debates and negotiations. Again, on the very, very simple premise, that a good developer with a robust planning system should produce a good development, but it's only the public sector which will look at the fine stitching, which will link that with its hinterlands in a seamless way. And we developed a whole series of strategies which were not just physical, not just trying to bridge severance and actually make linkages, but to try and create the social conditions which would allow the people who lived in the very, very poor communities around King's Cross to start to think about this developer as being their turf, adopting it as their part of their city. And then taking this idea further, this is the work we're doing around the Olympic Fringe, and around the work that Anne is leading with the Olympic Legacy Master Plans. We've thrown six Fringe Master Plans, not Master Plans in the traditional way, but just looking for the sort of 70, 80, 90 small things we can do held together by a big concept which can incrementally do the fine embroidery to stitch this piece of city together. And this is one of the projects. We're looking now to open up the River Lee of a damaged, of a derelict urban landscape, link it in using what we've got, which is kind of small pockets of open space and linking it together with a single connection which we've called our designers, called the Fat Walk, working with a very talented young group called Fist Studio and with Latsen Partner. We're now developing a strategy where you better walk through this landscape in a space that's never wider than this platform, but opens up into different parks, with different functions and different relationships to each other and which will create a new landscape, new connectivity, and which will tie the Thames at the dock base that they're in the middle of the picture up to the Olympics. It will be about an hour and a half one of the great new walks in London and will create a very, very different set of conditions and link him with fast express the ferry services to the center of London. And the final project I'm gonna look at is a project we're doing to tie in a similar way. The city of London, the center in with the Olympics. We call it High Street 2012. It took a long time to get the copyright to use the date 2012 from the Olympics. And we're using it as again, combining the idea of links of town centers. A location is one of the highest insides of multiple deprivation. It's also an opportunity area. And a street which is actually one of London's greatest arterial roads, but which has been lost amongst behind the kind of conglomeration of piecemeal development. With a very, very poor community, very, very high degrees of first generation immigrants. And working with a team called Fluid, one of the techniques that they suggested to engage the local people in this design was to hire an ice cream van. And in return for a comment on the scheme you've got an ice cream. And we open up involvement and participation of people we normally couldn't reach. Again, a similar approach, a big concept, a new High Street, broken down into distinctive areas and designed up in detail in terms of very, very precise interventions. We're phasing this over four years. We're building it incrementally, but within an overall concept. To try and create a revitalized center for the communities rather than a barrier between them. And this is the final picture. This is where we're now moving ahead. And on the back of the regeneration potential of the Olympics. We're now putting together something called the Green Enterprise Zone. And here we're trying to pull the big urban picture together. We're looking at regeneration around green enterprise and the massive economy, global economy that the environmental industries can give us. We're looking to combine a new university and teaching faculty with research and development space with green industry for manufacturing and recycling. We're also putting in a decentralized energy grid to link it in with existing sources of heat and power. We're putting in very, very high degree of specification on housing. And we're looking to actually bring in a visitor attraction to try and catalyze this. To try and actually persuade people that this could be a new heart and to use that to pull the development that started. The start of a city east canary wharf has been pushed ahead by the Olympics to bring it further down. This will not be built, but it'll produce a different set of circumstances which I think will create a set of conditions which will see a different kind of regeneration flowing out of this within London. Thanks so much. Peter, thank you for that.


I think there's a lot we could be doing to support students to understand trauma as an inescapable part of life, as just something that occurs to us as humans. A lot of our schooling now is still very focused on cognitive and physical education, you know at the expense of emotional and spiritual education, and I think that bringing, you know, socio-emotional learning into the classroom paired with a discourse and conversation around trauma would probably do our kids a lot of good. You know, we've created this culture of childhood that sometimes involves bubble wrap, but I think it's really important to have some frank conversations with our kids in a good way at the appropriate level about trauma, and they surprise us consistently when we support them to navigate complex things, and they support each other. So I think that it starts with a conversation. To actually explain to them what's happening in their body, you know, bring awareness to heart rate, stomach pain, shallow breath, those feelings of panic and invite students to be present with that in the body and say, when you feel like that, you're only using about 15% of your brain. So when you make choices with about 15% of your brain, you're really likely to make poor choices.  So invite, you know, have grounding practices, deep breathing, going for walks, moving your energy through your body, and bring yourself to a calm state before responding to a stressful event, and those few students that are the most acutely, if they have that understanding and that language, it's amazing to see how they can respond and witness and hold space for others when their peers are in distress. And it's an empowering approach because it takes the responsibility away from them in a way.   And it comes from a place. And it wasn't just me. It's the whole system and structure and history and land and ancestors. And it all contributes to what's happening in my body now, and it's not my fault. But the strategy of inviting students to have soft hearts is really important. And if a student will cry with you and find their tears and soften their heart, that's where the real work happens in trauma-informed practice. So never shy away from a student crying, actually celebrate it, and thank them for bringing their tears and sharing their tears, because that's a powerful and profound place of growth. And when a student doesn't cry and doesn't have tears, when they should, it's a much bigger job. Once everybody is under the same understanding of what it looks like, it is then easily be able to then refer out, find resources and refer agencies that can provide that specific care to those youth, and then come in and provide that care, which we're seeing pretty effective results with. And then looking at those kids that have overcome these traumatic experiences and then making them become and feel empowered to take their experience and spread the word and spread the knowledge to other kids. So whether that means peer mentorship, whether that means partnering people up, doing group work and having kids come in and speak, looking at ways to really get children empowered and speaking about their experience and how they've overcome that experience through the counseling and the support provided by either the school or secondary agencies. I think it all comes down to recognizing that at the end of the day there is no real hate, there is no bad child, there is no, those things just don't exist. It's fear or love, you're acting out of fear, you're acting out of love. Or if they have some sort of cognitive disorder or learning disability, again it's fear or failure, like they're acting out because they're hurting. And as soon as we take a step away from that and towards surrounding them with love and finding positive consequences and giving them opportunities to grow, then we'll have a much better way of dealing with these things in schools.


So, hello everyone. I think it's about the time to start. So, I'd like to start my presentation titled, Cactus Helps Cross-Industry Collaboration to Tackle the Climate Change. So, first of all, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm a project manager in the Fujitsu, and I also double identity as a governing board member in the Hypervisor Foundations, and that is very my proud to be presented here in such many people in front. So, because of my career in the Hypervisor Foundation was as a maintainer of Cactus, but now that role is taken over by teams and now there are more involvement in the deployment in the real businesses. So, today I will present to you the topic of the talk with our partner, IHI, who is very eager to solve the problem on the climate change as a responsibility of the industry leaders. So, because of the wear comes from the blockchain world. So, many times we are talking about how our technology can be used to the fact. However, to our customer had a different perspective because the problem is always first and the one of the solution could be a blockchain. So, when we need to be involving to such a climate change, first of all we need to be the pathway to them to use the five blockchain is needed to solve the problem. So, this particular problem like the climate change is a simple problem that we need to reduce to the carbon emissions. This is the same of the previous presentation in this room, the SDG 13 was clearly said we need to be tackle the climate change based on the to reduce the impact of the environments. So, because of the Japanese, I'm from Japan, the Japanese government also agreed to achieve to the earlier goal, 2030, to achieve to the GHD emission into the impact zero. So, that is not the meaning of the wear are perfectly working as the emission zero because I will talking about the fire it was, it is very difficult in certain industries. And I also mentioning about the mechanism about the carbon offsetting. So, the carbon set is sometimes misunderstood by the that is only the model of the well trading the variable, that is not. Because of the sometimes for the in Japanese government perspective they encourage to such a trade within the same country. Otherwise, those are only the investment for the another country and that will not contribute to the better environment in our own countries. So, before the jumping to the real problem I will explain about the fire we choose to the partner as IHI because IHI is a heavy industry company and they have a very serious problem to reduce to the other carbon emissions. For the chemical plants and they need to be product of the materials like steels and they create the aircraft they cannot be fly by the electricity. So, those are the heavy industry is the one example of the industry that it always tackling to the unavoidable CO2 emissions. So, they really want to contribute to the other to reduce the CO2 emissions. However, they cannot in directly. So, the another well the scheme for the carbon offset is that is the previous presentation also mentioning that the mechanism is simple. So, that is a balancing mechanism of the who actually producing to the CO2 that is a supposedly evil things but also the another that will be balanced with the good guys that they produced the way to reduce to the emissions like for example keep the mountain for the instead of destroy it. But the both of the other actions are required to the some found to help. So, the carbon offset mechanism is not only the balancing to the such a value other into the zero they need to be collaborate to each other in finally. So, this diagram is showing to the how the other carbon set work. So, the left hand side is let's assume to the that company decided to replace to the boiler from the old one to the new one. And new one is a better quality but still that need to be a higher cost to earlier early adoption or deployment. So, the that company need to be some sort of the assist of the to encourage to the such a new investment. So, the such company like IHI maybe the help in fundamentally in the farm in money. So, the those case as someone in the mentioning the current situation is that we have a public market have the certain the certified environmental values on registered on the central registries and that will be exchange. So, the other but that is still the problem because of the there is a no way to truck into the original value on the market or on the market. That is the merely the measurement of the carbon emissions or the reductions. So, the but the all the company need to be proved that they're good behavior to the their investors or customers. So, the the new aspect of the our mechanism is we need to be the verification mechanism that is executed by the third party that supposedly the trust was the organizations. So, this is the kind of bit technology parts but the fire we need to be using to the blockchain technology for the that model is the blockchain as a nature they have the three functional requirement that is the one of the trade. The first one is the verification. So, the the blockchain is allowing to the not to self prove. That is the proved by the another third party the engineer that record is correct. So, the all record on the blockchain is automatically verified and later on we can check to this that the the truthness. And second thing is the governance. Yeah, because of the environmental trade is the the many people involved many players involved. So, the even the same company are the they have the certain long big supply chain like the companies or partners or supplier and so on. So, the if we need to be the those are the kind of mixture mixed information into the single consistent way we need to the blockchain because of the blockchain is the only way to prove to the other things other and record the those are the original data into the other result data consistently using to the smart contract. And third thing is sustainability because of the other that is dependent on the how the blockchain is managed but most of the blockchain currently is the because of the their trial other private chain is still exist. However, the for the carbon offset is some sort of the public sector or public the services. So, we think to the those blockchain has to be managed and run as a consortium chain which is maybe the governmental or other responsible companies need to be managed. So, the those three aspects will be automatically or other has to be achieved by the design of the blockchain systems. So, the the back to the original field so the other this is a kind of concept of the our idea for the how we need to be changed using to the block chance. So, the other left side is a study with the deployment of the new equipment but that with that will be the creating to the that need to be provide the measurement of the how that equipment to improve to the previous I compare with the previous one. So, the those information will be recorded on the radio on the single company managed but that radio will be managed by the consortium way. But the doesn't matter to the how the radio is managed the the leisure entity should be separated on the each supply chain like the company and company B might be liable do not want to share to the their record on the same leisure. So, the in those cases always happen. So, the we are thinking about to the those leisure record will be a separate rerunning at least. Also, when we need to be executed to the transferring to the such environment value across or the industry or between the companies. That is also needed for the proof of the transfer outside of the those two. So, the other nature we can see the at least the three leaders are the separated but they are connected each other. So, the here's our technology connection chain. That is a well that we design for the public in the back to the 2017. That time we only care about the exchange of the cryptocurrency but now the time is coming and we need to be a this technology into the using of the non-financial asset like the environment values. So, the we did not expecting to the real problem for the interworking of the blockchain. The connection chain is a blockchain to unite or integrate to the multiple blockchain not only the two blockchains but the other frame we started to the project. We need to be implement for the each adapter for the the different regions because of the customer choosing to the free choice like some people like a Ethereum and some people like a public. So, it is that time the other those blockchain cannot be communicate each other securely. So, we are going to start to the the hyper leisure project cactus that is one of the category of the tools currently. The fight was to because of the cactus is not a final product that is a tool to provide to the better interoperability to access to the any kind of the blockchain as a design. So, the cactus has a well had a lot of the interest in the hyper leisure community and many people willing to contribute. So, from the beginning we only had a merely one or two. The blockchain was supported but after the two years during the coronavirus that we had a plenty number of the at least the all the DLT technology within the hyper leisure umbrella is already supported. And we also keep updating for the new technology like Irohore version 2. So, the right hand side is well the because of the concept of the cactus is pretty difficult to understand. The cactus provide to some of the example application like the discounted cut rate. I will explain to you some details for how the cactus can be used. So, the concept is the because of the cactus will provide to the some of the intermediate infrastructure so any application can use to the cross chain or same chain operation will be through the common API. But the cactus did not remove to the difference of the blockchain intentionally because of the difference of the blockchain is always the strength of the DLT technologies. So, we make a choice of the instead of the removing from the abstraction we removing to the communication part only for the inter PPD purpose. So, the some news announcement is as Daniel mentioned this morning yesterday we had well the Hyperledger Foundation make the big press releases and sorry the very almost end of the those good news that we have the small news like about the cactus we have the new name of the cacti that is the new project name so the cacti is using the technical benefit of the cactus and the waiver that has some similarity and now those people are getting together and to create to provide the better inter PPD in the Hyperledger community so the behavior of the cactus is kind of easy or simple that is started with from the user's point of view that looks like one of the web services and that will request to the trade for the well let's say we want to use it to the car for 30 minutes but I want to getting to the corporate discount because of the my company the contract so that case the user will need to be provided their asset key and the credentials and also they want to provide to the identity information to be proved so the cactus application will interact with each chain for the based on the requirement they need to be checked to the identity the cactus will communicate to the and when they need to be withdraw or deposit the money that will access to the financial tokens on the Israel and finally to the right to use was managed by the fabric that will be the interact with the fabric so those combination is freely designed by the programmers the perspective so the I think to the that will be the fulfilled the some application on the net so the I think to the need to be missing part here so I believe to the that is fulfilled by the firefly or some other application layer so that is a just a well information so now back to the original story so the I think to the we need to the unite or integrate the three blockchain that was our previous stories so the other to build to the dot system the interworking with those two and also the because of the our connection chain is designed for the its own the blockchain behaviors we are providing to the other smart contract to which can communicate with another block chance that is extended part so the other result we could build to the whole with the as the consistent way with hi the 30 because of the hi is a company to provide to the information on the the machinery senses sensing data into the block chance and Fujitsu provide to the financial at the tokens which will be the use for the settle the blockchain trading and we also provide to the another blockchain based on the fabric as a imitated trade party that we transfer to the hi is value to the other one so the we are the remarkable because of the we are the same the companies we also discuss with the Japanese government for the other feasibility of the how we can adapt to the current markets so they said to the the central repository is still needed so the we designed to the system with jcredit is a kind of Japan wide the central repository managed to the value for the other value but we also keep the consistent of the original information or keep the those information into the their own private chance and we unite to the how those repository can be referred or created so that way the connection chain Fujitsu will provide the evidence or proof of the transfer and also the proof of the the tokenize the actual made sensor measurement into the environmental values so the other the all the details are described in the joint press releases so the if you are some interest that please look at our press releases in English but beyond the other what we did the we are expecting to the enlarging or enhancing to the community as a more bigger or valuable things because of the we only the tried on the how the carbon emission can be used on the replacement of the equipment however the environmental actions is available like a well let's say we need to be more trees or let's say that we need to be deduced to the vessel or something like that garbage is yeah so the there is a so many the the the climate action the the involving those are the required for the some investment from the other good readings so the we are the reading to creating to the such a bigger the ecosystem not only the simple use but those are the exchange of the those values are the very depend on the realness of the investors like some people said this is a well we need to we need to be invest on the reducing to the carbon offset someone wanted to direct to the contribution like we want to get into more trees so the those are the the diversity of the wheel should be integrated as a blockchain system that is our the concept of the collaboration with the IHI so because of the this is a very the cutting edge the initiative so the we are just started to the with our close partner IHI but the both company agree to the that is not should not be ended up with two companies we really want to join to the many people who are in mind and same the thinking so the other I believe to the other this is a good chance to present to this in the European countries because of the European countries and people are very the sensitive and eager to reduce to the CO2 emissions so the I hope to the my presentation help to the your understanding of the the blockchain potentials and the potential of the CACTI as a new project this is the end of my presentation thank you very much so I think I have some questions Mr. can I have a mic yeah the end room ended thank you for an excellent presentation at a question so you have sensing data coming in feeding a smart contract now usually when you have sensing data translating into a monetary value you need a custody transfer quality metering with accredited meters that have the right certification everything to the actually metering the right way so have you been able to think about how you can integrate that into a smart contract that is actually measured by a certified meter yeah I think that is quite a good question because of the those are very depend on the how the those ledger will be build or design so the we assume to the some variety one of the type will be simply keep the record of the measurement of the sensor however to the another type of the regular smart contract will automatically calculate it based on the GHD protocols that is translated to the based on the measurement into the actual CO2 calculations will be done by the smart contract so the the former part case because of the that is the measurement like the data chain or the representation the previous days that data will be need to be tokenized by the another program or smart contract so that need to be if that is the case that one will be break into the more smaller piece like the simply recording right-weight measure with smart contract can calculate to the environmental values but the other cactus is nicely handled those kind of the varieties because of the that is the application logic need to be the adapt to the such a differences so the what we need is only the how the those are the data or value will be recorded and how the those value can be safely transferred as a contracted way I mean to the that is a human contract I think so the that part is we need to do the some technologies like extended smart contract here thank you Mr I have two questions for you yes correct so the actually to the for the case of the our the case we are technical for the other measurement of the periodically because of the metering is like some sort of the design for the no back way so the other even the those the duration will be let's say one day that could be okay because of the that is consistent with the previous value as a sum up to the other record so the but still that we have the potential problem for the everything on the blockchain using to the smart contract so the other that is not the depicted such a detail but I think to the company need to be subsidiary the block chance as a shading techno at technique record dividing to the small pieces will be integrated to the one the logic some people propose that instead of storing everything on blockchain we can store it on off chain and kind of store a link on the blockchain so do you think that is the right way to go I think to the other I do not say that that is good or that is bad other that the I think to that it depends on the needs so the for the case of the we only require for the evidence of the very scientific things so the that to be okay but I said to the other my customer was willing to getting to the some achievement like a I'm doing good things like a well the how we contributed it should be the visualized so the exact case is the blockchain might be helpful maybe the comment on your on your question I mean what you are trying to say is exactly what addresses the value of blockchain interoperability you can if blockchains can interoperate you can imagine different networks providing dedicated functionality depending on the specific blockchain technology that has been employed like for example you can have a high-performance permission network collecting the data from the sensors and using only a public let's say lower performing non-permission blockchain network like Ethereum for example only for the relevant value exchanges and if you if you can employ different blockchain technologies working together then you can cherry pick the features that you need from the technologies that are really relevant for each let's interface to the outside world I think the similar kind of thing we are doing in this climate action accounting project so for recording a sense sensor data or carbon would pin data in a high-pressure fabric and then using this data in a EVM based blockchain so tokenize it because in the fabric you can use the data because the permission network you on the nodes you can decide the size and everything I think that is the area of the climate change working group I think I'm eager to working with you as a within the same the organization but the unfortunately to the cactus was a new B for the other this community and during to the corner the virus situations so the we had a less opportunity to talk to each other yeah so even we are working with Peter from the cactus team to even using the cactus in the same project there so we ran couple of mentorship programs for that one yeah so that already we implemented the cactus in there in the same project sure so that is a very good news for the we had a new cover for the ecosystems so the basically to the other you the question is a very positive because of the that is the bigger problem for the industries for the to tackle the environment so the but today I will providing to the information about to the why we need to be used to the blockchain as a business logic and also that we need to be we have some tools to help the those initiatives so I think it's almost the time of the ending so I may take one last question so do you have any volunteer to not I think sorry yeah other please give the mic who who we misunderstood okay fine so they thank for the the participating to the discussions and the this is the end of the discussion thank you very much


Hello, my people. I am Meacham. I'm your college counselor, and we're going to continue the video that I made last week about how to build your college list. The next step, once you've figured out which colleges you really like, is for you to really evaluate your chances of getting in. And what we're going to do now is go to the second tab, which is the admissions criteria tab. All of these things that we're going to take into consideration here are going to get added up and calculated into one awesome score that's going to give you an idea of your chances of getting admitted. The name of the university is already populated from the previous sheet, so you don't have to like write it in here. The first thing we're going to need to look up is the acceptance rate. Now, I do not recommend you Google this because you're often going to get bad data. Check this out. University of Pittsburgh acceptance rate. I'm going to get a number that says 66.7%, which seems really, really good until you look at the actual data and realize that this number is way off. Where do we get the actual data? We need to look for the common data set. The most recent one is for the students that entered in 2022 and they report that data in 2023. That's why it's numbered like this. We're going to go straight to section C of the common data set. This is the data that tells us how many people were admitted, how many people applied, how many people actually enrolled. And what we really want to figure out is the acceptance rate, which is these two numbers here. So if I get my calculator out 2699.79 divided by 53,072. It looks like it's a 49.1% acceptance rate. That is much lower than what Google said. And it's really important that we have accurate data here for this for the test policy. For example, we can actually find that out by scrolling down a little bit further. So that's perfect. It is indeed a test optional university. What's the percent of the people that were optional? We're just going to add these two numbers up and then take the difference. 47, 16, that would be 63% of the people brought a test score. So we'll say 37% were optional. The next thing that we got to do is see what factors they evaluate more in this university. You're going to see all that stuff just up here in C7. This is like the most important part of the common data set. And I swear if you do not look this up and you do not take the time to actually understand what the college cares about, you're going to have a bad time. Like take the time to do this research. I guarantee it's going to make a difference in your application success. We see here that there are academic and non-academic factors, and I have put all of these into the sheet so that you can keep track of what matters to what school. Academic rigor is almost always going to be a very important. So we're going to mark that class rank. They say it is just considered GPA, almost always a very important item. So again, your academics will always be some of the biggest factors in your application. Test scores, they say are just considered. Again, the SAT is not that important anymore my people. Application essay, very important. They really care about the essay over here at Pittsburgh. Good to know. Recommendations, considered. Now we're getting into some of the non-academic factors interview. I don't even see it here. What's it say? It says not considered. They don't consider the interview. Extracurricular activities are just considered. Not the most important factor over here at Pitt. We got talent and ability. If you've got special talents and abilities, good for you because that's important here at Pitt. And so is character and personal qualities. First generation is just considered. Volunteering, you'll notice, is considered important down here. Work experience also important. If you've got some work experience, they like to see that over there, which is interesting. Demonstrated interest, one of the most important and least considered variables. There's going to be videos about each of these things in the future. So make sure you subscribe. We're going to talk about how to demonstrate interest in a future episode. Alumni relation, that's like if your parents or like a brother or sister attend the university. Also known as legacy admissions. They say that's not considered good for you, Pitt. That shouldn't matter. Residence. So geographical residence and state residency. Obviously, if you live in the state of Pennsylvania, for a US, Pennsylvania and public university, that would be something they would consider. Obviously, they probably prioritize the people that are in the same state. There's also religious factor, which is considered. And the last thing is race or ethnic status. That's probably going to disappear from all college applications very soon with the Supreme Court made a video about that, that a bunch of Russians invaded just to suppress it. So if you want to actually watch that video and help me recover from the Russian invasion, you can go ahead and do that. There's a thingy in the corner of the video up here for you to click that if you want. Now you will see here that my awesome Excel sheet is starting to provide a score, your odds of admission here. And I want to make a point here that this is not a perfect scientific method. Universities can evaluate things in different ways. This is just to give you a rough idea, a general idea of your chances. So in order to do that, we have to have like a rating for yourself and we're going to put that in up here. I'm going to put the CVS away and expand this out for you so you can see a little better. The self rating, we're going to rate from one to five and it's very simple. If you really think like you're excellent in these categories, you're one of the top 10% of applicants, you're just amazing. Go ahead and put a five in here for yourself. If you're like really solid top 75% or above, but maybe you're not that top tier S tier, top 10% kind of person, a four would be good. Three is like, hey, I'm a little bit better than average, but I'm nothing like special, nothing wow in this category. Two would be, maybe I'm below average in this category. And one could be like, I got nothing for you. Be honest with yourself. Obviously, this is not a perfect science. You can also use some decimals if you want. If I were to rate myself, right, just being honest, my academic rigor was horrible. I was homeschooled and I took a lot of easy courses. Two is probably even generous for myself class rank. Then I also would say that I was very low in that regard. My GPA though wasn't bad. I actually had a pretty good GPA all in all because I took such easy courses. So there's that. So I'll put myself as a four test scores. I would just say that would be a onesie because I didn't even really do those essays. I'm a really good writer. I'm gonna, I'm gonna say I give myself a five on my essays rec letters. I think I had pretty solid stuff. I had teachers that liked me at least. So there's that interviews. Are you good at interviews? I think I'm pretty awesome at interviews. Oh, extracurricular activities. I was somewhere in the middle of the road here. I wasn't amazing. Talent or ability. I don't consider myself a very talented person. I'm gonna say I'm below average. Character, you know, I think I'm a pretty decent dude. I'll give myself a four. Um, you know, would a would a five really give themselves a five? First gen. For this one, I left a little comment here. Just put five or zero. It's either it's either you are first generation or you're not and I am. My parents did not complete college. Um, nor did my grandparents like nobody in my family ever did volunteering. I didn't do much of that to be honest. A little bit, a little bit, but probably below average work experience though. I worked a lot when I was a teenager. So I got a lot of work experiences that I could talk about and demonstrating interest. This is something where you need to make sure you put a lot of effort and I know I do. These are other categories that are specific to the university. So it doesn't really make sense to have a self rating here because you would have to like redo this for each college. You know what would be like a good score for religion? Well, that depends. Does the university have a religious affiliation? Are you in the same one? That would be good. State residents either you are a resident of that state or you're not. So if you're comparing universities from different states like you wouldn't be able to put a single score for these categories, what I've done is just kind of created a little space for you to make an adjustment. You can add some points or take away some points depending on how you feel you match up with some of these other factors. Again, these are never going to be like the main factors. These are always going to be smaller factors in the grander scheme of things. So don't worry about them too much. At the end, you will see that it has spit out a score of 47.5 and so the hypothetical maximum that we could get from our scores if I had like fives across the board would be 67.5, right? Right here I have 47.5 and all I've really done here is just made a quick comparison that will tell us if we're looking good or not, right? And this is based on the acceptance rate. If I divide 47.5 divided by 67.5, I'm going to get 70%. So that kind of is suggesting that I'm like an above average applicant. I'm pretty solid. Like maybe there's 30% of applicants could have better results than me and since that 70% is better than the 49% in the acceptance rate, it's going to spit out a thing that says, hey, you're looking pretty good here like you are. I mean, this is fair, right? I may not have the most, you know, rigorous academics and my GPA is okay and like I've got really good essays that's making up for some of that stuff. I've got some other personal factors that I think I really will really help me, right? But if I didn't have those, I might be screwed. If these numbers were lower, right, or the acceptance rate was lower, you would see a different result. For example, if I put this as a 25% acceptance rate school, I'm not so hot anymore. I'm essentially saying I'm in like the 70th percentile of applicants, right? So if they accept only one out of four, that means there's like a gap, right? About a 5% gap between me and the other applicants and so I'm probably not going to have a great shot here. I might be able to make it. I might get lucky, but like I shouldn't count on it. But at the 49% acceptance rate that they've got, I feel like I would probably get in, you know, I'm looking good. That's what this whole sheet is for, is to kind of give you an idea of what your odds might be, okay? Again, there's always going to be variants from one person to the next, from one admissions officer to the next. If you obviously apply early, that's going to increase your chances. We haven't even gotten into the application requirements yet, which is going to be the next video of this series. This is just a good way for you to measure roughly what your chances of success are for the colleges that you're checking out. So hopefully you're doing your research, you're deciding, okay, I want to apply to this college because it's a really good fit for me. I think I can make the financial aspect. I can cover that. And looking at the criteria that the university cares about, I can see that I'm a pretty good fit for this college. So if you're looking good on your applications, you're going to want to make those applications. And that's what the next video is going to be about, is how to actually fulfill your application requirements. I'll see you next week.


Hello, this is Fray Nolson, crop economist and marketing specialist for NDSU Extension. This is a soybean market update for the week of November 26 through the 30th, 2018. This week we'll review the expectations for soybean production in South America. This graph shows historical total soybean production for Brazil in the red line, Argentina in the black line, and the United States in the green line. I'm using the November USDA WASDE, or World Agricultural Supply Demand Estimate Values, because these are the reference points that many market analysts and traders currently use. The current USDA forecast for 2019 Brazilian soybean production is to increase about a half a percent from last year, even though harvested acreage are forecast to increase between 6 and 7 percent. The reason is that USDA is currently using a trend line yield for the 2019 values, while 2018 yields were well above average. In contrast, Argentine soybean production, which is the black line, is forecast to increase about 47 percent. The larger increase is due to the drought conditions that impacted yields last year. The current forecast for 2019 is nearly identical to the production two years ago in 2017. The current private estimates for Brazilian production are very close to the USDA values, but the private estimates for Argentine production are slightly above the USDA values. This is a map of the soybean-producing regions of Brazil. The darker the green color, the more tons of soybeans are produced. Please notice that the key northern-growing regions of Mato Grosso and Goyos raise approximately 40 percent of the country's soybeans, while the key southern-growing regions of Paraná and Rio Grande do Sul raise approximately a third or 33 percent of the soybeans. This map shows the most recent vegetative index for crops grown in Brazil relative to the five-year average. The map has been filtered so that non-crop vegetation has been removed, but includes all crops grown, not just soybeans. As you can see, the majority of Brazilian crops are scored better or much better than normal. There is one small region in southern Brazil that is scored as below average, but soybean planting hasn't been finished in that region. This next map is an estimate of the surface soil moisture available in the top meter of soil, or about the top three feet. Current soil moisture conditions are again rated very good, except for that small region along the southeastern coastline. This final map is an estimate of the subsurface soil moisture conditions. As you can see, the subsurface soil moisture levels are also very good, except for a growing region along the southeast coast. This suggests there will need to be an extended period of below-average rainfall to cause any kind of significant yield loss. Now we're going to shift our attention to Argentine soybean production. Once again, the darker the color, the more soybeans are produced within that region. Please note that the Argentine soybean production region is smaller and more concentrated than the Brazilian growing regions. The vegetative index relative to the five-year average is not as strong as Brazil, but better than the end of the growing season last year. Once again, this vegetative index has been filtered to include only crop acres and includes all crops, not just soybeans. There have been heavy rains across a large portion of the Argentine growing regions, which have improved soil moisture conditions. The majority of these rains occurred before soybean planting began. This map shows the estimated surface soil moisture conditions, again within the top meter, or about three feet of soil. Once again, soil moisture conditions have improved, but are still marginal. In contrast, the subsurface soil moisture conditions are estimated to be closer to normal. This suggests the ability of the crops to maintain some yield potential during short periods of dry conditions once the root system has been developed. So to briefly recap, the Brazilian soybean crop is currently in very good condition. Soybean planting started earlier than normal and planting progress has been faster than average. The current estimate is that 89% of the soybean crop has been planted versus about 81% planted at this time last year. The Argentine planting progress is near normal at 39% planted, about the same as this time last year. There's still a lot of growing season remaining, so markets will be watching the South American weather and crop development very, very closely. Weather and growing conditions in South America have become important factors in U.S. soybean prices, but traders are especially sensitive to these conditions this year, mainly because the large quantities of soybeans China is buying from Brazil. This concludes this week's update. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, and thanks for listening.