So all of our new inspectors, I know all of you.  And your hard work and dedication and the solid reputations that you all carry in this department makes this an incredible day and a really proud day for all of us to see you all get promoted to that next level of leadership in the VPD. But as we move forward and we look at the challenges facing the police department, there's many, but I'm always confident in the many women of the Bank of the Police Department to lead and make us successful as we're helping the community in need. We're leading through serious social issues. We're leading through different public policy decisions that also overlap with policing and how we do our operations. To all of you, enjoy the refreshments and a big round of congratulations to our new inspectors of the Bank of the Police Department. Thank you.


Our newsboy was only able to give us a little bit less accurate historical data. It was very coarse. The table gives us a set of discrete values, 3,000, 3,500, 4,000 for the demand, increasing up to 5,500, and then he gave us the probabilities for each one of those discrete values, 10, 15, 20, and so forth. The method we need to use to get our random variable requires us to use something called a lookup function. And the lookup function requires that we have our data range like I have it here with the information, the variable of interest, the demand, and a column adjacent to an empty column. And in this empty column, which I've labeled lookup column, we need to have the cumulative probabilities. By having the cumulative there, we can use the ran function to give us a probability to lookup, and the lookup function will jump into this column, start looking for a probability. If it hits one that is bigger than it is, it drops back and gives us that value of demand. To complete the lookup table, we need to have the cumulative probabilities from this column here. So we need to use the sum function. Clicking that cell equal SUM to insert the function, and we're going to start with that first probability, make it into a range. Now I want to unlock that first cell using the F4 key so I can drag this down. And as I grab that corner, I can drag that formula down to get our cumulative probabilities. If I click on this last one, you can see that the range has expanded as we drove down, which is what we wanted. Now we can use the lookup function to give us our randomized value for demand. I'm going to click in this cell here, and we're going to click in equal, lookup, and that's just the basic lookup function. And we want to lookup a value, which is going to be our random function, in case a probability, but a comma, and then we need to get the array, and that's going to be that array there. Close it and enter it. And so now we've got our first lookup value of 4500. And you can see as I cycle the sheet that the lookup function will take whatever random value that is, look it up and return the demand. So up here on our demand, again, I've used that max function in round as well in order to make sure that we get a reasonable value for our demand.


Despite the wealth of metagenomic sequencing data, the functions of most bacterial genes from the mammalian microbiota have remained poorly understood. In their recent study, Yong et al 2015, Wang, Gerber, and colleagues present a platform which allows functional mining of bacterial genomes for genes that contribute to fitness in vivo and holds great potential for forward engineering microbes with enhanced colonization abilities in the microbiota. This article was authored by Jeremiah J. Faith.


We continue today with chapter 14, the light of communication. The journey that we undertake together is the exchange of dark for light, of ignorance for understanding. Nothing you understand is fearful. It is only in darkness and in ignorance that you perceive the frightening and shrink away from it to further darkness. And yet it is only the hidden that can terrify, not for what it is, but for its hiddenness. The obscure is frightening because you do not understand its meaning. If you did, it would be clear and you would be no longer in the dark. Nothing has hidden value, for what is hidden cannot be shared, and so its value is unknown. The hidden is kept apart, but value always lies in joint appreciation. What is concealed cannot be loved, and so it must be feared. The quiet light in which the Holy Spirit dwells within you is merely perfect openness in which nothing is hidden and therefore nothing is fearful. Attack will always yield to love if it is brought to love, not hidden from it. There is no darkness that the light of love will not dispel unless it is concealed from love's beneficence. What is kept apart from love cannot share its healing power because it has been separated off and kept in darkness. The sentinels of darkness watch over it carefully, and you who made these guardians of illusion out of nothing are now afraid of them. Would you continue to give imagined power to these strange ideas of safety? They are neither safe nor unsafe. They do not protect. Either do they attack. They do nothing at all, being nothing at all. As guardians of darkness and of ignorance look to them only for fear, for what they keep obscure is fearful, but let them go, and what was fearful will be so no longer. Without protection of obscurity, only the light of love remains, for only this has meaning and can live in light. Everything else must disappear. Death yields to life simply because destruction is not true. The light of guiltlessness shines guilt away because when they are brought together, the truth of one must make the falsity of its opposite perfectly clear. Keep not guilt and guiltlessness apart, for your belief that you can have them both is meaningless. All you have done by keeping them apart is loose their meaning by confusing them with each other. And so you do not realize that only one means anything. The other is wholly without sense of any kind. You have regarded the separation as a means for breaking your communication with your father. The Holy Spirit reinterprets it as a means of reestablishing what was not broken but has been made obscure. All things you made have used to him for his most holy purpose. He knows you are not separate from God, but he perceives much in your mind that lets you think you are. All this and nothing else would he separate from you. The power of decision which you made in place of the power of creation, he would teach you how to use on your behalf. You who made it to crucify yourself must learn of him how to apply it to the holy cause of restoration. You who speak in dark and devious symbols do not understand the language you have made. It has no meaning for its purpose is not communication, but rather the disruption of communication. If the purpose of language is communication, how could this tongue mean anything? Yet even this strange and twisted effort to communicate through not communicating holds enough of love to make it meaningful if its interpreter is not its maker. You who made it are but expressing conflict from which the Holy Spirit would release you. Leave what you would communicate to him. He will interpret it to you with perfect clarity, for he knows with whom you are in perfect communication. You know not what you say, and so you know not what is said to you. Yet your interpreter perceives the meaning in your alien language. He will not attempt to communicate the meaningless, but he will separate out all that has meaning dropping off the rest and offering your true communication to those who would communicate as truly with you. You speak two languages at once, and this must lead to unintelligibility. Yet if one means nothing and the other everything, only that one is possible for purposes of communication. The other but interferes with it. The Holy Spirit's function is entirely communication. He therefore must remove whatever interferes with communication in order to restore it. Therefore keep no source of interference from his sight, for he will not attack your sentimals, but bring them to him and let his gentleness teach you that in the light they are not fearful and cannot serve to guard the dark doors behind which nothing at all is carefully concealed. We must open all doors and let the light come streaming through. There are no hidden chambers in God's temple, yet gates are open wide to greet his son. No one can fail to come where God has called him. If he clothes not the door himself upon his father's welcome. And from the workbook, Lesson 110 I am as God created me. We will repeat today's idea from time to time. For this one thought would be enough to save you and the world, if you believe that it is true. Its truth would mean that you have made no changes in yourself that have reality, nor changed the universe so that what God created was replaced by fear and evil, misery and death. If you remain as God created you, fear has no meaning. Evil is not real and misery and death do not exist. Today's idea is therefore all you need to let complete correction heal your mind and give you perfect vision that will heal all the mistakes that any mind has made at any time or place. It is enough to heal the past and make the future free. It is enough to let the present be accepted as it is. It is enough to let time be the means for all the world to learn escape from time and every change that time appears to bring in passing by. If you remain as God created you, appearances cannot replace the truth. Health cannot turn to sickness, nor can death be substitute for life or fear for love. All this has not occurred if you remain as God created you. You need no thought but just this one to let redemption come to light the world and free it from the past. In this one thought is all the past undone. The present saved to quietly extend into a timeless future.  The healing power of today's idea is limitless. It is the birthplace of all miracles, the great restore of the truth to the awareness of the world. Practice today's idea with gratitude. This is the truth that comes to set you free. This is the truth that God has promised you. This is the word in which all sorrow ends. For your five-minute practice periods begin with this quotation from the text. I am as God created me. His son can suffer nothing and I am his son. Then with this statement firmly in your mind try to discover your mind. The self who is the holy son of God himself. Seek him within you who is Christ in you. The son of God and brother to the world. The savior who has been forever saved with power to save whoever touches him, however lightly, asking for the word that tells him he is brother unto him.  Today, honor yourself.  Be worshiped not today. Deep in your mind the holy Christ in you is waiting. Your acknowledgement is you. And you are lost and do not know yourself while he is unacknowledged and unknown. Seek him today and find him. He will be your savior from all idols you have made.  Today we make a great advance to truth by letting idols go and opening our hands and hearts and minds to God today. We will remember him throughout the day with thankful hearts and loving thoughts for all who meet with us today. For it is thus that we remember him. And we will say that we may be reminded of his son, our holy self, the Christ in each of us. I am as God created me. Let us declare this truth as often as we can. This is the word of God that sets you free. This is the key that opens up the gate of heaven and that lets you enter in the peace of God and his eternity. Amen.


In the previous lecture we proved if g is non-separable then any two points u and v are on a common cycle Let's try to form another chain of conditionals So let's start by supposing g is a connected graph where any two points u and v are on a common cycle What if we have a point u and an edge vw? Since any two points are on a common cycle, there is some cycle c that includes u and v Now suppose this cycle also includes w Then the cycle must go from u to v along some path, from v to w along some path, and from w to u along some path Or some permutation of this But since there's an edge that joins v and w we can take a shortcut and produce a cycle that includes the edge Now suppose w is not on the cycle that includes u and v Because the graph is connected there must be a path from u to w that does not pass through v And that's because if every path from u to w passes through v It would be impossible to form a cycle containing u and w So again we have part of our cycle from u to v and the remaining part of the cycle from v back to you and The path from u to w might have points in common with these paths But there's going to be a last common point u prime, which we'll assume is on p2 So let's take the path from u prime to w and it has to have no points in common with the cycle containing u and v Remember u prime was the last point in common with the cycle And so we can form a cycle by taking the path from u to v Taking the edge from v to w Taking the path from w to u prime and then taking the remaining part of our cycle back to you And this gives us a theorem suppose g is a connected graph if every pair of points is on a common cycle Then any point and edge will be on a common cycle To continue our chain. Let's suppose g is connected and any point and edge are on a common cycle What if we have two edges? Suppose our edges are those between vertices u and v and that between vertices r and s Then vertex u and the edge are on a common cycle If v is also on this cycle, we can use the uv shortcut to produce a cycle that includes both edges Otherwise we can find a path from v to r that does not pass through s Here because any point and any edge must be on a common cycle We can just use the part of the cycle that does not include s So again, we're assuming that any point and edge are on a common cycle So there's a cycle that contains u and the edge rs and again We don't know what this cycle looks like and it might cross this path Let v prime be the first point this path has in common with the cycle including u and the edge rs Then we can form the cycle From u to v along the edge From v to v prime going through no points on the cycle And from v prime to the edge sr Back home to you and so suppose g is a connected graph if any point and edge is on a common cycle Then any pair of edges is also on a common cycle Let's take stock so far. We've considered two points a point and an edge and two edges And in each case we have two things What if we have three things? Let's consider two points u v and an edge between two vertices rs So again begin where we end suppose g is a connected graph where every pair of edges is on a common cycle Now since each point can be used as one vertex of an edge we have two edges Which must be on a common cycle So that means any two points are on a common cycle But remember that in a connected graph if any two points are on a common cycle Then any point and edge will be on a common cycle And so there's a cycle containing the point u and the edge rs If v is on this cycle Then there's a path from u to v that uses the edge And if not, there's a cycle containing v and the edge rs And as before if u is on this cycle, we can find a path that uses the edge So suppose u and v are on different cycles We can follow the path from u to v prime the first point that is on the cycle that includes v the edge rs From v prime to the edge along the cycle including v across the edge And then back to v along the path that can't include any vertices between u and v prime And so suppose g is a connected graph if any two edges are on a common cycle Then given two points at an edge there is a path between the two points using the edge And notice we've switched from cycles to paths So what if we have three points? So again begin where we ended Suppose g is a connected graph where given any two points at an edge There is a path between the two points that uses the edge Since any point in a connected graph is incident on some edge We can take any of these points and form an edge There is a path between the points that uses the edge So there's a path that passes through all three points And whichever point is on the edge will be between the other two And so suppose g is a connected graph if given any two points at an edge There is a path between the two points using the edge then given any three points There is a path from one to the other passing through the third Now suppose that in a connected graph g given any three points There is a path between any two passing through the third So given three points u, v, and w we have a path from u to w passing through v So there's a path from u to v that avoids w So in a connected graph if given any three points There is a path between two that passes through the third Then there's a path between two that does not pass through the third But if we can always find a path between two points that bypasses any third point Then we have no cut points And so this takes us home Suppose g is a connected graph if given three points There is a path between two that does not pass through the third Then g is non separable Now our conditional chain means that any one of these statements implies all the others for a connected graph g g is non separable Which tells us that any two points are on a common cycle Which tells us that any point and edge of g are in a common cycle Which tells us that any two edges are on a common cycle Which tells us that given two points in an edge. There's a path between the points using the edge Which tells us that given any three points. There's a path between two that passes through the third Which tells us that there's a path between two that does not pass through the third Which tells us that g is non separable


Sex during pregnancy is a common question that comes up. It's totally safe unless there's a high-risk problem that's been identified. It's not going to do anything to harm the pregnancy, it's not going to do anything to harm the fetus, as long as both partners are comfortable with the activity. Initially, it was hard because I was struggling a little bit emotionally, hormonally. I think in the beginning it took him a little bit of time to get adjusted to it as well. I'm trying to get used to this and I think I had to realize, you know, so is he. This is also a big change for my husband. Some people definitely lose interest in sex during pregnancy and other people go the opposite direction. So, it's a large variety and it's okay to listen to your body and what you want to do. For a lot of moms, they feel that this may not be the best time for them to engage in certain activities. A lot of that is dependent upon the couple and what feels most comfortable for them. Well, it's certainly uncomfortable after a certain point to be too intimate, and so both mentally and physically. So, we've always been good about date night, I would say, and so we always continue that throughout the pregnancy. There's many ways to be intimate and during pregnancy if intercourse is not something that you're interested in, holding hands, cuddling, all those things are totally fine. The reality is that for most people, sex during pregnancy is safe. The important thing is that it's comfortable for you. Many couples, you know, feel like they would like to continue with their sexual relationship through the pregnancy and there's no reason not to do so unless your provider has said to avoid it.


Hi, this is your host of LimbHartia and welcome to a brand new episode of our series, TFI Topic of the Month, AKA T3M. And this month's topic is platform engineering is DevOps Dead. And I guess today is Kit Merker, Chief Growth Officer at Noobline. Kit, it's good to have you back on the show. Great to be here. Yeah, and today's discussion, as you know, is about platform engineering is DevOps Dead. Before we jump into this discussion, what I would like to hear from you is that what kind of cultural or organizational restructuring you are seeing within organization when it comes to discipline like DevOps, SRE, platform engineering? Yeah, I would say a few things on this. In terms of the org structure, there's a few different modes on the spectrum. One is rebranding, right? You take an IT ops team and you kind of rename them SREs and probably have to give everybody a raise if you do that. But there is a lot of that that I've seen where people say, you know, let's rename the team. And by the way, naming is an important part, right? It helps define the roles and clarifies an approach and gives people some context about what you're trying to do. So that's one side of it.  Is it FANG companies? It's now MANG, I don't know. But, you know, from Metta, from Google, from, you know, Apple, they're bringing these folks in that have experience in large scale teams and trying to bring that to enterprises. I've definitely seen a lot of teams building platform engineering groups and platform engineering I think is really a powerful move. I've seen quite a few SREs actually, even where companies have gone through the evolution of saying, okay, we're gonna have a DevOps or a cloud engineering team, then they move to SRE and then they're moving to platform engineering. And I don't know that it changes the work to be honest, but I do think it changes the interfaces and the ownership. I think that's really the key difference in these organizations. I think one of the risks in building an SRE team is that you might end up doing a lot of DIY engineering projects. And I think there's a lot of hesitancy around that right now in early 2023 where we sit with a lot of economic uncertainty and headcount uncertainty. You know, doing DIY is probably not the most effective approach right now, but there's a perception I think amongst engineers that if you don't build infrastructure that you're not gonna be able to get ahead in your career. And so that's something that I think people have to counteract. So that's another thing I've seen. But there's a lot of interesting models like embedded SRE teams versus centralized teams. I've seen quite a few companies, especially larger enterprises that build, they build sort of cross company groups where they'll have like guilds or other kinds of reliability focused virtual teams. And I've seen that be really effective because you don't really have to do much to build in terms of org structure is not political. It becomes really more about learning and sharing ideas and practices, which I think is a really great place to start because I think jumping to org structure is always like a little bit chaotic, right? A little bit risky. I would also like to hear from you that the definitions, as you said, the labels are important. How would you define platform engineering and how different if it is from DevOps or SREs or they can overlap? These are just labels. I would say that the skill set and the sort of mindset is actually pretty similar, right? It's people who are concerned with not, all the things around the product and not the product itself, right? So it's the illities, if you will, right? Reliability, security, scalability, et cetera. And that can come in different forms. It can be a consultative kind of view. And I think a lot of SREs take that mindset where it's like, oh, look, I'm gonna help the team out. We're gonna be a first line of defense. We're gonna help them measure and improve. DevOps tends to do the work. Sometimes as part of the team, sometimes again, centralized depends. And then the platform engineering, at least the way I've seen it done is generally building a platform. They're building something that then they have internal customers that they're using it. So it's kind of like different approaches or even different degrees to how self-serve is it, how consistent is it, what is the thing that they're responsible for that they own? And is that a concept or is that a system? And if it's a concept, then it's like, okay, I'm gonna be responsible for reliability. What does that mean? I have to now define that set of practices and tools and outcomes as opposed to platform where you take the repeatable services that everybody inside of your company requires, which they may be able to get from a cloud provider, but more likely they're gonna need to hook together multiple systems with some configurations, some consistency, and that'll give you everything from compute, network storage, database, identity, observability, et cetera, et cetera, as a part of a platform. And hopefully, obviously some metrics and goals around that, some service level objectives or whatever, but something that is a running system that other teams internally can leverage to build and deliver whatever software they're building. That to me is really what a platform engineering team is that's different. And the SRE approach is much more focused on how do we improve reliability? How do we measure reliability? And I would say DevOps is much more about how do we take responsibility for whatever goes wrong? How do we make sure that all the things that need to be done to deliver the product are done in an appropriate way? We do hear that DevOps is dead now at the time for something else. As you said, these things really, I want to hear your opinion, is DevOps really dead? I don't think it can die. I mean, it's kind of funny, I think it catches headlines and people kind of latched onto it, but I don't see a reason for it to die, to be honest. I think DevOps has been a rallying cry for a lot of people who are trying to find their role. And we've seen the evolution in tooling, which I think is also an evolution in kind of technical competency or even technical literacy. As we're now moving to a mode of low code, no code, I'm even hearing about prompt ops, which I think is the silliest one so far I've seen, but we've got co-pilot and other kinds of tools that are really reducing the barrier to entry for technical contributors. It's not to eliminate engineering or development, in fact, I think to the contrary. More and more of our life is dependent on digital information, but what we've found is that there's patterns and tools that make it easier to do that. And so what I see happening more likely is that the DevOps mindset is going to be applied to more domains, like I think in the ML ops space, for example, machine learning data scientists need a lot of help with their DevOps. That's something I've heard all over the place that ML teams still don't really have a good delivery model for how they're gonna put their models and data production. So I would say in some ways it's growing. And I think in some ways declaring it dead may even be revitalizing, right? So maybe it's a good thing. You also touched briefly in our discussion previously is the importance of developer experience First of all, once again, how would you define developer experience? What is the importance and where does it fit in the platform engineering aspect? You had defining developer experience is actually, it's an interesting question because it's one of those things you kind of know it when you see it, but developers get frustrated when they have to go through sort of consumery types of experiences to do what they want. And developers are trying to automate. I mean, this is really what it comes down to. Rather than manually doing something they wanna automate. So the question becomes, how do you make that easy for people? And so you wanna have simple APIs, you wanna have command line tools, you wanna make it fit into their developer workflow, you wanna make it so you can persist configuration as code. You don't wanna have any sort of unintended side effects. You wanna be transparent about versions. Those kinds of things are all part of that developer experience. And when it's not there, when people try to hide complexity to make it easier, they end up with the unintended side effect of making the developer experience worse. It actually can be antithetical to making a good UX. We think about a good UX for a consumer hiding a lot of the complexity and guiding them down a path, which for a developer, it's like the difference between giving them a Lego set with instructions versus giving them a set of tools that they can go build, can go construct something for themselves. It's a very different way of looking at the world. We have reusable components you can bring together to build stuff. Where does developer experience fit into when we talk about platform engineering? If you think about a platform that you've built for your developers internally, right? You have to give them a developer experience. And you can kind of think of this as like a, you know, a set of reusable components, but you wanna give them clarity about the constraints of that system. If they're trying to build highly reliable, you know, high performance service of some sort on top of your platform and you haven't clarified for them what the reliability targets or the performance targets will be for that service and given them a way to provide feedback about that, you're gonna run into trouble, right? And this is, you know, it's part of developer experience, but it's also just like engineering constraints, right? I'm trying to build something. You told me I'm supposed to use this platform and the platform doesn't give me what I want. How do we have that conversation? And then more importantly, how do we have that conversation at scale, right? Because we don't actually wanna have the conversation. Let's be honest. We wanna have pull requests. We wanna move our meetings into pull requests and APIs, okay, if you're a developer, that's really what you wanna do. How do I reduce the meetings and move it into this more productive mindset where we're working on the system as opposed to talking about the system, right? And I think this is maybe one of the missing pieces of truly building a strong developer experience is making it so that that is incredibly transparent. People see the interfaces and the boundaries of the service and they have a platform where they can, they're not constrained, but they're enhanced. So you might have three databases that you offer as part of your platform and some team truly absolutely needs a fourth type of database. Do you tell them to wedge it into your platform or do you let them go and do it themselves? Well, if they go and do it themselves, they need to take responsibility for reliability, performance, monitoring and all these other things that the platform provides. And if not, then you do it as part of the platform. And this is the kinds of decisions you have to make as a platform team. You have to decide what's good for the vast majority and then where do we handle exceptions? What kind of rules of the road can we give our team so that they can be productive? And this is, I think, one of the challenges of that is it does require a judgment, right? You have to think hard about these kinds of problems. You don't necessarily wanna be on the far end of the spectrum, like which Google kind of is, which is like, there's one way to do everything and everyone will do it that one way. But on the same time you don't want it to be a complete chaos free for all where everybody gets to pick their own things. So there's a balancing act there for sure. But I think generally speaking, you kind of go with the 80-20 rule, so yeah. Okay, thank you so much for talking about this topic today. And as is allowed, I would love to have you back on the show. Thank you. Thanks so much.


Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE. Covering Adobe Summit 2019, brought to you by Adobe. Hello everyone, welcome back to theCUBE's live coverage in Las Vegas for Adobe Summit 2019. I'm John Furrier with Jeff Frick from theCUBE. Our next guest, Bradley Jenkins, who's the marketing CIO and vice president at MetLife, part of the global technology and operations group. Innovative title, welcome to theCUBE. Yeah, thank you, thanks for having me. So we're here at Adobe Summit, where a lot of things are happening. It's really interesting because you have a convergence of two worlds, and it looks like a cloud world. It's the creative cloud, it's the experienced cloud now called, so whole world's changed. A lot of DevOps mindset in there, you got a platform. So the whole world's changed. Now marketing has a full-blown cloud. It's not just marketing cloud, it's a whole system. So as a marketing CIO, what does that mean? Is now a new role emerging in organizations? Is this what we're seeing? I think it's an emerging role. I think it's one of those things where in the marketing and technology space, the lines are blurring. And part of the role of people like me are the ones who can be the bridge makers between the two functions and bring in products like we see all around us here today, cloud-based solutions. How do we activate marketing tactics faster, quicker, and then combine things like experiences with tools and technologies in different ways. So I think it's a specialty skill that's coming out now in emerging. Well, one of the patterns is that marketing departments that have a technical and also IT relationship seem to be more agile, transform faster. I do. This seems to be the same thing you guys are looking at, right? Exactly, it's all about speed to market. So I think agility is one, co-looking, combining everything from creative to the developers all in one, to a product resource person all in one, and we get in and try to solve business problems as fast as possible. But you're almost kind of a personification of the story we hear all the time. We just CIOs get a seat at the table right now. They're no longer just keeping the lights on, the system's lit, but it's a fundamental way that the company goes to business, a fundamental way the company interacts with their customers. And so to actually put a marketing CIO title, that's a pretty unique thing I don't think we've ever had going on. So you come at it, no doubt about it, I'm here about customer engagement, customer experience, not keeping the light on. That's right, that's right. First one, it sounds like a unicorn. There you go. So how's it been? So tell us some of the things you're doing. I love how you're part of a global technology and operations group. You notice the word operations and tech together. Again, back to this cloud theme of DevOps, which changed the game on the IT world. It has, yeah. So we're seeing that same thing happening, playing out in the creative market, whether it's content or here, same things, playing some of the things you're doing. Yeah, it's the same thing. And everything's very cloud based today, obviously. So everything from building out content platforms and services and content services frameworks, which is key to what we want to do, but also campaign and analytics and social and what the emerging capabilities are and social and how do we tie all those together, but do it in a way where we're capturing data and insights across all of our channels in a more creative, quicker way, and then activating that across new experiences. You know, Bradley, one of the things I wanted to ask you, and I'm glad you came on, because I've been really kind of riffing on this idea and I'm trying to get a date, an actual year, kind of a before cloud, after cloud demarcation line because we're in Silicon Valley, we cover a lot of startups and literally the ones go big or go home is kind of the mantra, but if you were born before Amazon, you're pretty much either aren't around or got acquired. If you were born after Amazon, where cloud scale and all this stuff happened, you tend to thrive in a whole new kind of shift. So in Martech, which was heavily funded sector, the ecosystem map of pure play applications was pretty dense. It's very dense, yeah. Did that live up to its name? Did it shift in shape? What's your thoughts on that Martech landscape? Because certainly it's relevant when you're marking CIO, you want to put technology in place, has the platform shifted? What's going on? Tell us. Yeah, so I think as it lived up to its name, yes, and it's created challenges at the same time. So what is still in the Martech landscape is 17,000 or whatever, tens of thousands of products now. I'm not sure what's got bringers latest one shows. Every year it doubles or quadruples in there. And I think one of the biggest challenges we have now is just navigating the landscape but then being able to pick out and say, here are the five things I need to focus on. Here's how I'm going to tie them together and integrate them in. And there's a lot of noise and you have to break through a lot of that to be able to craft these solutions together. So in a lot of ways, I think it's lived up. In a lot of ways, I think it's created a lot of new challenges that things like Martech CIO need to think about and be aware of the breadth of capabilities that are out there. But not just the capabilities, how do you stitch them together? And you become more of a weaver than a specific domain. So classic early adopter proves the model and now reality as operationalizing things becomes clear. The wheat from the chaff, as they say, kind of get figured out. Yeah, exactly. Bradley, I want to get your kind of thoughts on as the relationship between the company and the customer has shifted from sitting down with an agent or maybe talking to an agent on the phone to really electronic means, how you've been able to kind of continue a certain type of brand experience. And I'm also just curious your feedback on the theme here, where it's not really the transaction, it's the experience of which the transaction is a piece of and how are you seeing that play out in the way that you guys interact with your customers? Yeah, and I think for us, we're an evolving state too and we have agencies and brokers that we work through. And so it's a B2B model in some cases and some cases it turns and we're a B2C targeting B2B group customers as an example. And so the experience is very a bit. So for us, it's experience of the end customer and how do we service them? How do we treat them? What's the purchasing, servicing capabilities look like? What's our customer service look like? But also the experience of agents and brokers and are we providing the right service and products to them to be able to equip them to go help and resell products? So we look at it from a couple of different angles and depends a lot on context and where we're operating and servicing products at. And is it easy to maintain kind of the voice of the brand, if you will, through these alternate channels? Or how do you kind of stay true to the brand yet go to market through these immediate of channels? Yeah, it's no, it's a good question. We're literally working through the same kind of things now of what can we help provide agents and brokers with and that helps with our brand, our brand promise helps them sell better. So it's a work in progress, but it's a good challenge. Yeah, I don't know if we have all the answers. Take a minute to explain the MetLife transformation. What you guys have done, where are you now in your journey? Yeah. I see your Gobi customer you're here at their event. Where are you on that progress bar? How far along are you? It seems to be a theme of transform and continue to transform is what successful companies are doing or iterating or raising the bar, whatever term you use. Where are you guys at? Can you take us through? Yeah, so a few years ago, we refreshed our enterprise strategy. We placed customer and digital and data at the center of our enterprise strategy. And we have pillars around different transformation aspects that we're working on, everything from customer service to right products, simplifying our product messaging, a lot of the way we talk about products, especially in insurance, can be complicated. And so we're trying to get a little more concise and clear and package things differently. But at the core, our strategy now is placing digital, placing digital data at the center of it. And then how do we enact data in new and different ways, everything from not only knowing customers, but how do we use data to create better and smarter products or even de-risk different products that we have so we can be price competitive in certain market areas. So data is the lifeblood of your transformation. It is. What's the strategy? Are there people in that internally? What's some of the results can take us through some experiences? You don't have to tell us any numbers, but I'm sure it's helping. If you do it right, I mean, it's challenging though. It's not easy. It is, yeah. It's challenging and it will take a while to sort out. So I won't say we've solved everything. But I think we look at a few different things. One is knowing the customer. And so we're investing heavily and doing things like customer profiling and customer 360, whatever you want to call it in different areas. But how do we know them and how do we then enact the data and insights into different channels? So we've had a lot of good successes in there in particular markets on creating more engaging experiences and lifting customer retention and loyalty. So we've had good insights there. We're applying it to other different areas. So things like when we go to bid for new products or new customers around a new product area, what can we do for our pricing models? And how do we leverage data around where it's geographic or whatever it might be or demographics or apply it to be more price competitive. And we're starting to see a lot of fruition there and how it gets applied to win new business. One of the things that we've been talking about on theCUBE through a lot of events. And the theme that comes up all the time when you have these new shifts is new things are emerging, new capabilities, different economic points, scales different. So all good. Now the hard part is making it work. Operationalizing something new is a huge challenge. Could you share your view on that and reaction to that? Because this seems to be not about the tech, about either skills gaps or culture gap. There's a lot of things in the way of operationalizing something new. What do people do to operationalize something new? Yeah, no, it's a good question. I'm glad you brought it up because that's actually one of the things that I advocate for a lot is a lot of times we leak with the tech and then we place it and then we say, well, now what? And then everything sort of comes to a standstill. And you have to leak with the people process. So again, in for transformation, I understand exactly what it is you're trying to solve, how are you going to solve it afterwards? Do you have the skill sets in place to do it? And then follow up with the tech. And then I think a lot of companies do it a little bit reverse where they go and acquire and like, oh, we're going to solve this and bring the tech in. And then you're literally left standing at the end of the day of how do you operationalize it. So something we focus on a lot is the people process piece of enablement, training, the skills that are required, how do you turn it into a machine after you bring the tech in to really start pumping up whether it's a growth objective or cost saving, whatever the objective might be. But you have to almost produce this into a life machine of its own that can then live and breathe after you bring the tech in. What should marketing, CIOs as it becomes a product, I think it will be, in my opinion, I think it will be a role because it's really critical because of the opportunity. What should they be doing as this new persona evolves? You're pioneering it. What is the job function? What does it do? In your opinion, how does this take shape? Yeah, I think, number one, learn the business. I think you have to speak the same language and it's been the biggest challenge is translating. So different languages across different groups and the first thing any marketing say you can do is go learn the business, speak the same language and feeling like company, you know, we're an insurance company and a risk management company. So understanding finance, understanding market objectives, your customer objectives is key and then figure out how to start mapping the solutions in. But yeah, I think it's a bridge role. We have to be able to be a navigator in a way across solution options, but always in context of understanding the business and how you can best apply it in a specific way. And a data wrangler, of course, because you're wrangling a lot of data. Yeah. I'm curious, you probably don't have a lot of intersection with kind of the actuarial side of the house, which has kind of always been data driven, right? Since the early, earliest days. But I mean, are you seeing kind of that side of the house go, hey, can we get some of these new tools, can we get some of these kind of new ways to approach the data problem than we historically did? I think now, yes, I think it's been an evolution. I think in the early days of data, it was a bit more of a scary thing. And so I feel like as advocates in the CI space, that we were pushing a little more than being pulled in. And I think lately, in the last couple of years, I know at least in my life, we've seen a shift of demand side, of requests coming in saying, we need to partner, we need ideas of how to accelerate and be competitive, which is great.  Because the level of segmentation on kind of classic insurance kind of breakdown is really high, right? Sex, age, a couple of other factors. But now the amount of data that's available, the amount of real-time data that's available and changing, they got to be going bananas over on that side of the house. Yeah, yeah, that's right. One of the things that we've been seeing on the IT side, again, I want to bring a question of the marketing CIO piece is, and we've had many CIOs talk about this on theCUBE in direct interviews, is they've outsourced everything and they really had no core competency. You had all the big SIs running stuff. You had global outsourcing, development. And as cloud became important, they had to build applications internally, they didn't have the skills. So they had to quickly reset and rebuild an in-house capability. And the result of that is ongoing and you've seen the ones that have done that well with cloud are doing great. They still use outsourced stuff. Now on the marketing side, you saw that same thing happen where agencies run everything.  And some say that marketing has been outsourced a lot. And so the question is, what mix of in-house skill and agency relationships, because now you can have an agency that's an application developer, no problem, but core competency becomes a super important question. And how are you funding it and what should be in-house and what should be outsourced? Yeah, yeah, and we're going through the same evolution. We had a position a few years ago where it was almost entirely outsourced and we insourced a bunch of it and now we're rightsizing what's insourced and not insourced enough. So I think one is think about what your differentiation is and how do you want to be competitively, differentiate competitively and have it and create advantage. And then insource those things and then you have to find a way, it's one of those things I think every year you start to right size and reassess. And so for us, we insourced a lot of things around first around build side, so platforms being cloud, but then how do you enact and activate them? So we brought some of those inside internally and then we started marrying those up with creative agencies, which is still outsourced by the creative, but we would marry them up and get these more agile, lean teams of cross-blended skill sets and go to market quicker with new experiences. And I think over time you'll see us start insourcing more of the agency side, maybe shedding some of the left side as we start becoming more pattern based and whatnot. So I think it's one of those things that you evolve every year as you right size, but the key is trying to tie it back to how do you want to create differentiation and what's your competitive advantage and then make sure that you have that internal, first and foremost, and don't outsource your smarts to another. I think the key point is by refactoring or resizing, that's the iteration that you get with cloud and scale. And if you don't do that, the scale can also hurt you. I can, yeah, yeah. You can come back and crash it. It's right, it's right. Broly, thanks for coming on, appreciate the insights, from great to hear from a practitioner. Love the new title, I think this is Game Changer. I think it's going to be a standard. Final question to end the segment, learnings over the past couple of years, what are some key learnings that you take away from the process that you're going to carry forward? Yeah, I think one is as a company, being a blend role between marketing and technology, one is be willing to change and adapt and be willing to bring the rest of the company with you because you can't do everything yourself. So I think you have to be a change agent for the company, figure out that everybody is in the journey with you and then how do you create that scale to get the mass moving? Because it takes a village to get things done. Bradley Jenkins making history on theCUBE as the first marketing CIO we've interviewed. Super excited, great insights. This is going to be a position we think is going to be around for a while. Of course, the CUBE coverage here at Adobe Summit. I'm John Furrier with Jeff Frick. Thanks for watching. Stay with us for more day one of two day coverage here in Las Vegas after this short break.


So thank you. It's an honor to be invited to give this presentation and Tell you what we don't know and a little bit about what we know about the great oxidation event one of the great Transformations maybe after the origin of life the greatest transformation in the history of life on earth Just to orient you a little bit to what the what it is. We're trying to understand This is a quick cartoon showing you the relative abundances of the gases in the atmosphere Most of the earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, but the next most abundant gas is oxygen at about 21% today So the question is how did it get to be that way? Wasn't always 21% and it's rather important that it's 21% because we wouldn't be here otherwise to enjoy this Enjoy this conference and enjoy everything So this is this is a first-order challenge in earth history trying to understand how the atmosphere got to be the way it is The answer to that We don't fully understand, but we know that the way we get to it is through the rocks I think was Carlo yesterday showed a picture of a banded iron formation. So this is a Spectacular setting in Western Australia where you can see these banded iron formations These are rocks that appear uniquely towards the middle part of earth history then they go away and We essentially never see rocks like this in the geologic record afterwards and we think this has to do with the rise of oxygen I show you this particular As a website this particular picture as a website because this is a teaching resource here that I think might be useful to some of you That a group that I lead at Arizona State University the Center for Education through exploration Produces we produce a virtual field trips among other things we produce immersive interactive virtual field trips that take you To places where your students unfortunately well and most of us will never get to go But we've gotten to go to some of these places and capture some pretty exciting renderings and imagery and and data for these places and and Have these as resources that you and your students can go visit and in some cases We've built interactive and adaptive lessons that take students through these locations and teach particular scientific concepts So that's the there's a link to this in the brochure in the pack in the packet if you go to my page there There's some links and one of them is to VFT dot as you dot edu Which is a website that has dozens of these virtual field trips and growing a little bit every year So what we want to understand in this particular case is The origin the cause of the great oxidation events. This is a plot showing you oxygen through time So here's four and a half billion years ago Here's today and this is a summary from a few years ago of oxygen in the atmosphere over time So here we are today at around 20% oxygen in the atmosphere Here's the first half-worth history with very little or no oxygen And then there's this sharp change that happens around 2.3 billion years ago We argue about the exact date roughly halfway through Earth history We have this sharp increase that we refer to as the great oxidation event So this is what we want to we'd like to understand why this happened big transition in the history of the planet Not the only transition involving oxygen and worth noting that this is if you're teaching a math class This is worth pointing out. This is a log plot here the access here is log logarithmic and on a log plot This looks like the big increase But if you were to plot this is a linear plot, this would be the big increase Right, so sometimes, you know when you switch from linear to log things can look quite different So so there's a second big increase here in the neoproterozoic the neoproterozoic oxygenate oxidation event And this Really made the rise of animals possible But this rise wouldn't have happened if this rise hadn't happened first So we refer to this one as the the great oxidation event even though an actual amount of oxygen is smaller Because here we went from almost nothing to something that we argue about how much but something appreciable So before we launch into what happened it's and why maybe we should talk a little bit about why we care Certainly an education. That's something your students will ask you about I get asked all the time Not just by students, but why do we care about this and I'm gonna give you two reasons that both Come from this orientation about thinking about the earth as a planet. This is a pic This is the pale blue dot. This is earth You're all in this picture all of us are in this picture a few years ago No is taken this is from the Cassini orbiter when it was orbiting Saturn and they point it back to earth to take a family portrait About all of us. So here's earth as a planet and when you think about earth as a planet There are two big areas that pop into our minds many of us who are geoscientists. One is to think about Life on other planets and how we would look for it. How do we look for life on this planet from a distance like this? So the the astrobiology questions that motivate many people and the other questions that motivate many people when you're a geoscientist or Just a citizen of the planet and occupant of the planet thinking about the future are Anthropocene questions about the future of this world and in both cases the oxygen question has some some very big picture relevance So from the astrobiology standpoint as most of you probably are aware We're discovering planets outside our solar system at a crazy crazy pace. There are now over 3,000 over 3,500 confirmed planets orbiting other stars So 25 30 years ago now as a graduate student it was science fictions Even you can consider kind of crazy to try to go into that field of science and now it's almost boring It's like easy to find planets. That's kind of amazing when you think about it Almost a thousand of the planets that have been found are terrestrial planets meaning they're rocky planets They aren't quite necessarily earth-sized most of them are super earths But these are planets where we can start thinking about life like ours on and and this is growing all the time Every time I give a version this talk I go to the JPL website and update these numbers because they change weekly So we're finding exoplanets all over the place This is the Kepler space telescope Which is one of the main ways we found a lot of these planets and it finds planets by Looking at dips in the brightness of light from the star as a planet passes in front of the star and That sets up the ability to do once we get better telescopes spectroscopy You can imagine if you have a planet passing between us and a star that the light that's going through the atmosphere of that planet will be Dimmed differently will absorb certain wavelengths of light do the gases in the atmosphere and you can do spectroscopy and tell What the atmosphere is made of we can't really do that now for terrestrial planets orbiting other stars But we will be able to it's a big goal that NASA and and ESA have the so-called spectroscopic search for biosignatures and Oxygen looms very large among the ways we might do this So here looking at our solar system as an example. Here's Venus earth and Mars And if we look in the infrared wavelengths We see that the atmosphere of Venus has this big feature due to the absorption of carbon dioxide So there's the Venus atmosphere is about 90 times earth's atmosphere and pressure and it's almost all carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is a very strong infrared absorbers is a very strong infrared feature and not much else Mars Mars has almost no atmosphere It's an atmosphere of six millibars of pressure It's it's it's six thousandths of the earth's atmosphere, but it's also almost entirely co2 So this is big absorption feature due to co2 and there's really nothing else If you make the same kind of observation of earth in the infrared You again see a co2 feature the earth has 400 ppm co2 and rising But you also see this interesting feature here from ozone in the Earth's atmosphere You don't see this in the Venus or the Venus or Mars atmospheres and Ozone is a byproduct of having a large amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and so this is arguably diagnostic of life The spectroscopy of earth's atmosphere looks different in the spectroscopy of the atmospheres of Venus and Mars because earth has life Which pumps out oxygen through photosynthesis and and gives us this this feature So this is one of the sorts of data that astronomers want to obtain from planets orbiting other stars or to look for Right, and if we found something like this, we'd get very excited And then we'd argue about whether or not they're non biologicals to make ways to make that and we'd have you know 20 more years of controversy, but at least we'd have we'd have moved the ball down the court in terms of what we're arguing about So so oxygen looms large in this astrobiology field And so wanting to understand it's kind of important and understand what controls oxygen in the in the atmosphere From the Anthropocene perspective, you know, we're entering this epoch of earth history where the future the planet is very much in the hands of us of beings walking around with big brains and hands who are big evolutionary innovation on this world perhaps as big an evolutionary innovation as the As the photosynthesizers that evolved we'll talk about when they evolved and change the surface of the planet so the earth is very much in our hands and that's leading to all sorts of Amazing and scary ideas like deliberate intervention in the earth's climate system is a way of coping with what we've been doing Accidentally to the earth's climate system. So ideas of deliberately removing co2 from the atmosphere sort of cleaning up our waste or Deliberately modifying the earth's atmosphere to reflect sunlight These are ideas that are being taken very very seriously in the most by the most august scientific bodies and natural National Research Council of the US You should report on this a few years ago working on another one now So there are ideas like this that are out there as we enter this sort of Hopefully adulthood at least teenager hood of humanity on the planet And their ideas like this they're floating around Elon Musk wants to terraform Mars Now we're a long way from doing this, but this is the kind of this kind of talk is out there And it's going beyond science fiction into people who actually have industrial capacity to try to do things This is where Elon Musk is aiming. He wants to make Mars green Okay, if we're going to start modifying the earth let alone modifying other planets If this is something we're really going to think about we kind of need to understand the system that we're modifying and If we don't understand why the earth has 20% oxygen the atmosphere and how it got to be that way Which is one of the first sort of things you could ask about in our atmosphere Then I think you could rightly say that our knowledge is pretty primitive compared to our ambitions and our abilities And this is something we might want to try to understand if you want to understand the earth system One of the first sort of things you might want to be able to explain is when did the earth's atmosphere become 20% And why did that happen in oxygen? It's like a first-order feature of the atmosphere. I can't explain that one You know, we're in bad shape trying to do anything deliberate to earth let alone try to replicate earth somewhere else So so for both these reasons, but the astrobiological and the anthropocentric reasons This oxygen pursuit is a very big picture important thing to try to figure out So so what caused the great oxidation meant and I'm just noticing that the timer didn't start So I have no idea if I'm on pace or not. Just so Carlo, please or max Mako. Yeah, I know I'm okay right now But later on let me know so what caused the great oxidation event. How do we get oxygen in the air in the atmosphere? So there's one process that nobody talks about very much, but is worth Worth noting so that you're aware of There is a continual source of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere from the loss of hydrogen out the top of the atmosphere This is a process that happens all the time. It's happened throughout earth history. It's happening right now. We can actually see Emission of photons from this process Hydrogen is being lost at the top of the atmosphere We heard a little about it yesterday from John Tarduno in the context of the Martian atmosphere Atmospheric loss happens on earth to for hydrogen and if you lose hydrogen You leave behind oxygen most that hydrogen is coming one way or another It was kind of paired with with oxygen in water at one point and as you lose hydrogen you gradually oxidize the planet So there's a continual sort of geophysical source of oxygen over time and people argue about its magnitude And it certainly plays a role But there's no reason to think there was some big inflection or anything like that some big change halfway through with history and the Rate of hydrogen loss, so we don't think this is the story about the great oxidation We don't think this is this is it, but it's a factor that needs to be thought about and considered The textbooks will say something like this, especially the biology textbooks We'll say something like this the rise of oxygen is due to the evolution of photosynthesis Life figured out how to take CO2 and water and React them to make oxygen and organic carbon. This is the geochemist way of writing organic carbon We don't actually mean the molecules ch2o. We mean the stoichiometry one carbon to two hydrogens to one oxygen in a whole array of different molecules My chemistry friends especially my biochemistry friends are horrified when I ever I write this equation down But stoichiometrically it makes sense one co2 to one water to makes one oxygen and an organic carbon molecule So the the biology textbooks will tell you well this evolved and oxygen rose and a story We can drop the mic and go out right that's the end of the game But the geologists if you look at the geology, it's more complicated than that and since we're here at a gift workshop not a Bift workshop since the gift workshop. We're gonna delve a little into the geology So this is a virtual field trip to shark Bay in Western, Australia To Carbola Beach specifically and this looks kind of nice and pretty but kind of nondescript Until you go under the water when you see these mound-like things all around you and If you and these are really interesting to swim around with it's kind of cold also too But once you get over the shock of how cold it is they're really interesting to swim around And if you look at these things very closely what you find is that while they look like rocks. They're really not Or they're not purely rocks. They're layers of Microbial microbes and and sediment interbed it and the microbes that are living here are dominantly cyanobacteria and There's cyanobacteria that are making oxygen and we call these things when they're fossilized. We call them stromatolites These are modern versions of what we find in the ancient fossil record that are called stromatolites And they are these very complex microbial communities that leave behind a very distinct Geological marker in the form of these things which when they get buried and lithified they're pretty distinctive in ancient rocks So and when we go back in the geologic record what we find is that before the rise of animals you go back before half a billion years ago Or so you find the fossil remains of stromatolites are quite common You find them even if you go back before the Great Oxidation event 2.7 billion years ago This is in Western Australia go up this ridge here. I don't know if the lighting works well You can see this all that well, but but we'll zoom in To this cross-section and you can find these fossilized stromatolites That are we're gonna zoom in over here That are absolutely spectacular and you can again the lighting a little better. You could see all the glorious detail in here I'm not a paleontologist Let alone a geomicrobiologist, but those who are look at these and say oh, yeah We can we can pretty convincing argue that these are fossilized forms of those stromatolites that we were swimming amongst in Shark Bay that you can find living today and When you go back into the the Precambrian before the the rise of animals This is the dominant form of life that you see in terms of anything macroscopic that you can see that's biological Today these stromatolites that we see today make oxygen and so it's quite conceivable that these are making oxygen as well And notice the date here. This is 2.7 billion years ago. The Great Oxidation event is 2.3 billion years ago so we're already Quite a bit of time before the Great Oxidation event here, and we see these stromatolites We can go to some of the oldest sediments that we that we know of oldest nicely preserved sedimentary rocks These are the these are rocks in the dresser formation 3.5 billion years ago in Western Australia, and they aren't nearly as well preserved But they are not Terrible and you can make an argument that in some of these rocks we see structures features that are That have been interpreted again as being stromatolites at 3.5 billion years ago And if you look at the detailed morphology of these of these stromatolites the argument has been made that that indeed They were oxygen-producing stromatolites now. That's not a slam dunk That's very contentious But you can at least make the case and it's not a weak case that there could have an auction production as early as 3.5 billion years ago just based on the fossil record So the Great Oxidation that happens at about 2.3 billion years ago But well before that there's there was certainly biology There was certainly phototactic biology that was making use of sunlight and there's a good case to make any way that that biology was making oxygen So it's not as simple as saying oh photosynthesis Turns on and oxygen takes over the world Now we being geochemists. We don't believe all that morphological Fossil stuff some of us well so that we don't believe it It's that we we trust magical things that emerge from our mass spectrometers more So so we work with our paleontological partners to do things That are geochemical to try to confirm verify and extend what what the paleontologists find the paleobiologists find So what I'm gonna walk you through here now is a little bit of stuff that my group and collaborators have done Looking at of all things the element molybdenum Why molybdenum if any you read hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy in this room hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy ever read that? Yeah What's the answer to life the universe and everything? 42 it's element 42. So of course you'd use a molybdenum. What else would you do? But that's not the real reason we use molybdenum the reason we look at molybdenum in ancient rocks is because it turns out the Geochemistry of molybdenum in the environment is very sensitive to the amount of oxygen that's around It's a proxy for oxygen the amount of molybdenum in certain kinds of sediments is a proxy for the amount of oxygen in the environment We can't record ancient oxygen directly in rocks billions of years ago, but we can Reconstruct the amount of molybdenum that was in rocks laid down billions of years ago and from that infer What the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans was or draw some inferences? And molybdenum is not the only element, but it's probably the one that's been looked at the most carefully in this regard So there's a number of of molybdenum related arguments that I could make to you But this is probably the simplest one to get across in a short talk So molybdenum in in in crustal rocks, especially in igneous rocks Which are the primary rocks of the make up the crust molybdenum is found inside sulfide minerals dominantly Sometimes is an impurity in pyrite and Sometimes as molybdenum sulfide molybdenite is a sulfide mineral that is a molybdenum bearing mineral but either way those sulfide minerals are major reservoirs of molybdenum in the crust and They react quite vigorously with O2 right sulfide minerals oxidize quite readily if you expose them to oxygen They don't necessarily fall apart right away sitting on your desk But give it geological time and you know your fool's gold your iron pyrite sitting on your desk is not going to last all that long Because it's reacting with the oxygen in the atmosphere So the logic of using molybdenum is a paleo redox proxy goes something like this Imagine I've got a continental crust that has molybdenum in Sulfide minerals in it If there's no oxygen in the environment if oxygen is absent then that molybdenum basically stays locked in the sulfides And if it stays locked in the sulfides, there's really not much opportunity for molybdenum to get into the oceans and So the molybdenum concentration of the oceans is low and If you go to ocean sediments that could scavenge molybdenum if it was there you'll find that there isn't much molybdenum there But if I turn oxygen on if there's oxygen around in the environment Then these sulfides oxidize they fall apart they deliver their sulfur and their molybdenum into the oceans And the molybdenum content of the oceans rises and I can find evidence of that in the geologic record That's the that's the the simple logic and we can make it more complicated with equations in math and talk about Solubilities and stuff like that, but the logic is basically this Right, so no oxygen molybdenum stays locked up in the crust Oxygen around molybdenum can accumulate in seawater and all the rest is important commentary So we can go into ocean sediments that are ancient We look at the kind of sediments in which molybdenum Can accumulate if it's in the water in the first place not all sediments will scavenge molybdenum for example Calcium carbonate rocks are very molybdenum poor. Molybdenum doesn't really go into calcium carbonate very well But molybdenum goes very nicely into black shales Into carbon-rich organic carbon-rich rocks that make that sediments that eventually make up these kind of sedimentary rocks called black shales and So there's a small cottage industry of us going around drilling ancient sedimentary sequences to get these nice black shales out That are well preserved And then measure the heck out of them for molybdenum and other trace elements and isotopes to try to reconstruct what the Chemistry of the waters was waters were where these sediments were accumulating billions of years ago And when we've done that we've been able to do things like this. So here. We're looking through time Here's today. Here's three billion years ago. So we're not going all the way back here yet So zero to three billion years. Here's a molybdenum concentration in black shales. So what's been done here is to get black shales through time measure the molybdenum contents And then plot them up and what you can see is in the last half billion years or so the living contents are quite high Which makes sense because in the last half billion years or so there's been a lot of oxygen in the environment 10 20% oxygen Molybdenum should be a very mobile element in that world. It should be abundant in seawater like it is today today Molybdenum is the most abundant transition metal in seawater. It's still very scarce But it's but it's but compared to other metals It's quite abundant in seawater and that was probably true for most of the last half billion years or so And that's why you see good enrichments all the way up here Then you go earlier remember I've mentioned that that neoproterozoic oxidation events So we go before that time and molybdenum concentrations are lower And then we go further back and there's not a lot of data and the concentrations are lower still So you have this sort of first-order confirmation of this kind of threefold or two-step change low Something goes up and then it goes up again kind of like what I showed you before for oxygen And this is this is this is one line of evidence that's taken to say to taken as support for the hypothesis I gave you that we can use molybdenum as a way of tracing oxygen through time But let's dig into this a little bit more so that great oxidation event happens about 2.3 billion years ago That's right around here Here's 2.5 billion years ago, and you can see that molybdenum is actually somewhat it's actually not there's not a big difference here There's not a big step here Hmm what's going on here So let's look at this more closely So this is a this is data that that my group and collaborators generated about 10 years ago at this point We we wanted to look at sorry at whoops Back at that point of time. We didn't have these data that was just very low Do we said let's start looking before the great oxidation and see is there a molybdenum around in the environment? And what we found is in these rocks from about 2.5 billion years ago where there's these beautifully preserved black shales When we looked with depth in these rocks, we found this enrichment of molybdenum. It's kind of transient But as an enrichment of a little it goes up to around 40 parts per million at around 2.5 billion years ago This is a healthy amount of molybdenum and you can look at other tracers We won't go into all this because it gets into all sorts of geochemical nerdy nerdy-ness that we don't need to go into Don't have time for but all sorts of things kick here at the same time and You can argue about Alteration stuff like that, but but we and most people are pretty convinced at this point. This is all primary It's all telling you something about the original seawater and what we think we see here is a transient a Pulse of molybdenum into the environment and we've argued that that actually reflects a transient whiff of oxygen Small amounts of oxygen wafting into the environment in sort of variable ways a bit like today Right today methane is a rare gas in the atmosphere But but it's around and it varies in concentration certainly over over tens and hundreds and thousands of years It can vary up and down and so we would argue that in this pre great oxidation event environment We had oxygen as a minor gas But one that varied around and sometimes you might get a pulse of it for a few million years depending on vagaries of Biological production and other things that are going on So we call this the whiff of oxygen and The picture that emerges from this and other studies is that it during that first half of its history Whereas today the it's quite simple more or less oxygen penetrates through the water column in most places In most parts of the world the environment as the oceans are thoroughly oxygenated We think that before the great oxidation event. It was a more complicated picture We had large volumes of ocean water that are were so-called ferruginous They had very little oxygen, but lots of iron. That's why you could get those banded iron formations And then as you went to the near shore environment you had we argued and this is not just us This is a classic argument actually you had cyanobacteria living close to the seashore producing oxygen creating an oxidized Near surface region and sort of oxygen oases So so regions large but contained regions that were oxygenated in the shallow waters Overlying and paradoxical reasons we could talk about later on you get these very reducing sulfide rich regions below that but the the basic story here is a kind of heterogeneous story with some oxygen around in these near shore environments probably being produced by cyanobacteria probably Many of them in communities like those stromatolites So we see fossil record of stromatolites and we see geochemical evidence that we argue is evidence of the being oxygen around in the environment in small amounts before the great oxidation event so again, the geochemistry is telling us something similar to the Fossil evidence, which is that it's not as simple as life figures out how to make oxygen and boom away It goes we had a long period of time It looks like when life was around possibly making oxygen, but the environment was not taking off Into a 20% or anything close to that oxygen rich atmosphere Right, so here is this taking this diagram again for my friend Tim Lyons and adding into it oxygenic photosynthesis We think oxygenic photosynthesis is old. I think today. We might extend this back to 3.5 based on some other data that this out there now But the rise of oxygen was delayed and didn't happen until around 2.3 billion years ago So in text summary so far before we get to the conclusion here. How am I doing on time? Ten more minutes perfect So somebody so far the great oxidation event occurred around 2.3 billion years ago We kind of took that as a given. I didn't really show you the evidence for that but just take that as a given evidence of microbial mats Which when fossilized are stromatolites that might have produced oxygen are found as far back as 3.5 billion years ago Malibu them and other elements in Asian ocean sediment suggest a slightly oxidizing surface environment and hence Arguably and this is all arguable, but arguably auction production at least by two and a half billion years ago And I didn't show you this evidence, but but there's other things that get a little more complicated to show Around molybdenum and a little bit of isotopes and chromium isotopes and stuff like that all of which Let you extend this kind of argument back to almost 3.5 billion years ago this geochemical evidence and So yes photosynthesis was necessary for the great oxygen oxidation event We don't think you can get a 20% or even close to an oxygen atmosphere on earth without having biology pumping oxygen in the environment but It originated much earlier Another way of putting this is photosynthesis is a necessary condition But it's not sufficient on its own to explain why we wind up with a heavily oxygen atmosphere So this question what caused the great oxidation event we can be a little more sophisticated about it now The question we really need to be asking is not what caused the event, but what kept oxygen low before the great oxidation event It was being produced we think But something was keeping it down So There's broadly two arguments that people make and one that I'll argue is is more likely or to be more important That to try to account for this so we need to get into one more step of geochemistry to to Understand the first these arguments So we talked about oxygen the atmosphere But it turns out that oxygen in the atmosphere the accumulation of oxygen the atmosphere is a consequence of burial of organic carbon How does that work so the very simple way to sort of conceptualize it So so this is such a tight relationship that in the literature you'll find people talking about organic carbon burial as if it's Synonymous with oxygen production unless you know what's going on. It's like why they talking about organic carbon burial We're talking about again. What is this so I want to get this across to you here So CO2 and water are the reactants in photosynthesis in oxygen-producing photosynthesis So they react to make oxygen and organic carbon that's the photosynthetic reaction But as you all know unconsciously if not consciously because you're doing this right now with your breakfast the back reaction of aerobic respiration Takes oxygen and organic carbon and turns it back into CO2 and water. We're all doing this right now as we speak and On a global basis, these are pretty finely balanced actually Pretty much all the organic carbon and oxygen that are produced every year by biology are re consumed by respiration I mean, why wouldn't it be that way the organic carbon is there is oxygen the atmosphere So if if this is being made there are bacteria and other organisms that are going to do this back reaction and respire it So how do you actually then accumulate any oxygen in the environment at all? How do you end up building up oxygen in the atmosphere? What happens that there's a trickle of organic carbon that gets buried in sediments on Geologic time scales and gets protected for for hundreds of millions or billions of years from re-oxidation and for every mole of organic carbon that you bury You leave behind a mole of oxygen in the atmosphere So there's this so burial in sediments. This is geology now, right? So everything here is biology, but this is geology and So if you do things that change the efficiency with which you can bury organic carbon in sediments over time You can change the source the effective source of oxygen in the atmosphere So one classic argument that has been made is that the rate of burial or organic carbon in sediments might have changed Either because of geological changes or maybe because of changes in evolution that changed the efficiency with which organic carbon gets packaged and sent into sediments And so perhaps early on earth history We were simply burying less organic carbon than we are today and maybe that maybe there was a big change that caused the great oxidation event So this gets too complicated to go into I just want to summarize the the result people have looked at this hard They've used carbon isotopes and this is a whole hour-long lecture to explain how you use carbon isotopes to get at this But they've tried to reconstruct the fraction of carbon in the surface environment that gets buried as organic carbon through time Here's 3.5 billion years ago here's today and there is indeed a bit of a trend We are burying a bit more organic carbon today than we used to But and this is an attempt this this study by Christensen Totten is an attempt to really put rigorous statistics on this And the statistics tell you that yes, there is a change here, but it's not enough to account for the great oxidation event So there has been an increase in the burial organic carbon Which means there is an increase in the effective source of oxygen the environment But it's not enough to explain this big change that we see 2.3 billion years ago So we need to look for other things instead or in addition and so here again. We come to geology What about the geological sinks for oxygen? So over geologic time we produce oxygen through burial of organic carbon which leaves the oxygen behind and we also have a Escape of hydrogen space, which is a source of oxygen that talked about at the beginning But what happens to that oxygen that gets accumulated in the atmosphere? Well, it reacts with things it reacts with reduced minerals on the continents during weather a it reacts with Volcanic gases and with rocks on the seafloor it reacts with volcanic gases on land and with metamorphic gases these are all sinks ways of consuming oxygen and So the question that has loomed large in the last 10-15 years is well, can we better understand all these sinks and? Did how do they change? And if you think about it the earth's interior is a very chemically reducing place It's effectively an infinite sink for oxygen and Most of the planet is the interior Right the oxygen that we're talking about the atmosphere is this very thin scum here It's a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the mass of the planet and so Changes even small changes in the interaction between the interior and the surface can make a big difference in the oxygen sink strength on the surface So you could have things the most controversially What if the actual redox state of the mantle changed slightly and in Steve's talk when he summarized when he summarized Steve Moig's work He talked about possible changes in the the oxygen fugacity of the mantle That's a way of talking about how reducing the mantle is has this changed over time in some ways Has the composition the continental crust changes change in ways that would change the sink strength of oxygen And what about the composition and flux of volcanic gases for the interior? How is have those things changed? So all these things have become areas of serious investigation over the last decade or so and it turns out there's support for each of these ideas Against our it's argued about but but there's a blizzard of papers And this is only some of them There's more where people have attacked various ideas like this and shown Hey, this could be true this could be true This could be true and we're only now getting into the stage where people are string to attack some of these papers And see which ones can be shot down This is an area of very of a lot of intellectual ferment right now of looking at these geological sinks and trying to understand which ones are important and which ones aren't and What I'd like to leave you with is the thought that perhaps they're all important Perhaps these are all just different parts of the elephant That we're all feeling in our blindness And imagine this kind of thought experiment imagine we begin with a hot earth an Earth where there's where there's a very rapid exchange between the surface of the interior because it's hot and it's it's Motion the mantle is it's convecting faster and things like that And so you have a lot of interaction between whatever oxygen is produced here and they've reduced interior And so oxygen can never really rise can't really take off because you have too rapid interaction with the surface in the interior And then as the planet cools down you kind of slowly freeze that out right you slow down the interactions between the surface of the interior and Oxygen can increase and perhaps all these things we're talking about change in crustal composition change the amount of the crust change Volcanic gases all those really are symptoms changes in those things are going to be symptoms of Cooling of the planet, so maybe what we really need to do if we really want to nail this question This topic is to sort of develop a theory of the earth There have been some previous attempts to write books called theory of the earth Perhaps what we need to do is as a community try to put together a theory of the earth system that really integrates That will the story that's emerged from the surface and what we're starting to figure out about the deep interior and its Interaction with the surface and we really need to sit down as communities together and try to figure this out It turns out that surface earth scientists and deep earth scientists don't tend to talk to each other all that much Don't tend to do research all that they don't even understand each other's questions and problems and vocabulary at the time all that much But maybe it's time we need to pull that together in order to resolve this problem, and I'll leave you with that. Thank you