All right. Thank you. Hello, everyone. This is the weekly TSC call. I think I only see familiar names, so you're all aware of the antitrust policy. We also have the cutoff conduct. You'll know all those things and love them and defend them, right, help hold them, all the good stuff so we can stay out of trouble. Thank you. All right, let's get going. So, a few announcements. First, a reminder. Once more, there is the hyperledger developer newsletter going out each Friday. It's an opportunity for everyone to highlight what's going on in the project, working groups, things or whatever. Do you want to say something about this, right? Nothing beyond we are, we would love to have more participation. I see that Helen has unmuted Helen. I was just going to say that, yeah, it gets a pretty decent open rate. So folks that might think, oh, you know, it's, you know, what's what, I don't know, it might not see the value in it. It actually gets quite a lot of eyeballs.  Go ahead and drop your notes in that wiki page for the developer newsletter and I'll incorporate them in contact if you have any questions but again it's actually a pretty decent tool to get, get the word out. And, you know, breaking down silos and barriers between projects, it's, it's, it's fairly effective in getting some eyeballs on it so absolutely, I would absolutely have more contributions and announcements I go out searching and use kind of my news judgment on what I think is kind of, you know, the things that are percolating to the top each week but would absolutely love some guidance from the different projects to include the announcements, the worthwhile announcements for that publication. Yeah, I feel for you because I've been in charge of editing a newsletter like this, and it's pretty gruesome. The clock keeps ticking no matter what and you're struggling getting content and all. So I, I can totally relate to the pain. And one more thing though is, you know, again on the call about the Sega feedback and that Tracy shared when I wasn't there, you know, there was quite a bit of talk about how the newsletter could be used as a vehicle to fill in the gaps and you try to bridge the different parts of the community.  But if we don't actually act on it, it doesn't work right so where we seem to have put a lot of hope in being able to use the newsletter to, you know, solve some of the issues we are facing. But we have to actually make use of it.  With that said, we have a reminder also for call for maintainers. Right. Sure, that that call will follow this call. And I plan on giving a fairly high level overview on where insights is and how insights can help maintainers, you know, better understand their project. So, please. I'll be there. And finally, the global forum, who wants to talk about this. I think that's going to be Daniela or David. I think we covered this last week, just a reminder should have gotten an email from Karen about looking for volunteers for doing the project. Overviews and ask me anything. If you didn't, and you would like to do one, please do reach out to anybody on staff and we'll work with you on that. Once again, it's 15 minutes. The goal is a five minute overview of your project with a 10 minute Q&A. And we'll do that too. I don't think I got it. So I'm a bit curious. I'm not sure who sent the fabric is carried on. I will take that off. It was Dave. Yeah, that's Dave. I got it. So one question there. Is it an overview like for beginners or is it like an update since last year or so. An update would be great. Okay. So Dave, Dave, that's mostly, you know, the people that will come to those kind of sessions where people that would be looking for updates, new information and ability to talk to you all. All right. Any other announcements anybody wants to make. If not, then we can move on and go on to the courted reports. So we did get the report from the quilt project. So it was kind of long overdue. And it raises some important questions. I mean, basically when you have one person working on it. And he's saying don't expect any, you know, activities for the foreseeable future. And it does raise a question as to what we should do about this. So I actually put that on the agenda. You may have seen further down as a discussion point. Is there anything else beyond that anybody wants to bring up on this. Okay, I take that as a no. So that's cool. Let's leave it at this for now then and move on. We also had a report from the fabric project that was actually made available last week already. I didn't see any comments that require discussion there was a question Dave asked about the state of the repo linter implementation. We're still in the works. We still don't have a final answer as to will, what should really be done. What it comes down to on that front is, you know, some of us have been working on the common repository repo linter configuration file, and people expected to make. I'll start with it and, and suggest changes. I just merged one from Troy, as a matter of fact. So, there's still work underway and by the way there is another PR from me on that. I would appreciate if somebody could review it. Anyway, on the fabric front. Is there any questions. Don't see anybody raising their hand so I'll take that as a no. And we can therefore move ahead. And we also just received. I think it was yesterday report for from so to it didn't raise any questions to me. I didn't see any comments earlier when I looked. So I don't know if there's any anybody like this project is cruising and there's no issue. Okay, let's still see nobody raising their hand so I'll take that as a yes. I mean, I realize some people may not have a chance to look at it carefully. And I will put it back up the agenda next week so you'll still have a chance to raise issues if you have any or ask questions. In the meantime, the period on the wiki page is the most effective way. We're still missing a report from the explorer team, starting to wonder what's going on there but so if there's anybody in contact with the explorer team close to them, they can talk to them. That would be interesting to ping them and say hey, what are you guys up to your report is longer redo. So, let's get back to the let's get Tracy please. Yeah, I just wanted to mention on the explorer front I did see come through the get a release. I think it was yesterday sometime this week, version one dot one dot five which was some sort of bug fix for explorer so I think there's still things going on there I just think we need to figure out who the right people are to contact for getting a report. It concerns me that you know, despite all the, the reminder I sent on the TSC list. There's no reaction which tells me there's nobody from the explorer team paying attention to the TSC list as a as a project I would expect people to be at least connected with the TSC enough to be aware of those things and, you know, but yeah. Thanks for the piece of info Tracy. All right, so, again, let's go. Let's move on to the discussion. As I started stated earlier, there's a question about the quilt project. So basically, we're in a situation where the project itself.  You know, that minimal in the sense that there's one person working on it and it went through different phases they were times when it seemed to be going dead completely. And then, you know, we had one person step up and say no I'm actually interested I'm going to work on this so it was like okay this is good. I don't know if anyone has to attract anybody else. So we still only have basically one maintainer, David fueling and then so he himself says I don't know what should be done about the, the status of this project. So, I honestly don't know either. I know that, you know, I've chat with Ryan it was saying, should this be moved to a lab. And the thing is, in the past, we have actually talked about, you know, the possibility of rescinding project from one state to another and we said no we'll never do that project can stay indefinitely in incubation. That's okay. So, I mean, you know, just saying, we can just say yeah let's put, let's move that to a lap, because it's would be at odd with what we've decided before. It doesn't mean we can't do it. It just means it requires a little bit more form. If we want to do that because we would have to agree that, you know, this is at odd with what we've said before, and maybe change a policy as to how we can dispose of projects when they are in limbo. But so, the alternative is, you know, we could move that to like towards archiving it. But, you know, he seemed to want to work on it again eventually. So, is there much to gain in putting in, you know, archiving it now and then he will come back and say can I resurrect this project. I mean, of course, then we could say, yeah, go make it the lab if you want and it would be a way around her policy. I don't know that there's much to gain there. So, I don't know. I'm happy to hear what others think. So I see Daniel is first on the queue. And if we're looking at what other open source umbrella organizations do, we can use that as kind of a guide to what happens in situations. Apache has something called an attic, where when the PMC can't muster up enough votes for releases or other such issues. They move it there and it's something between deprecated end of life. There's still a PMC that overlooked over looks it still kind of grows it can still do releases. But one of the unique things about the attic is if you get enough people who want to be responsible and lead it, it can come back out of the active and go back to the beginning of the Apache life cycle. So one of the things that's missing from our life cycle I think is it's all straightforward it's incubation active deprecation end of life. So I was wondering if, you know, to solve this, you know, we'd be a little less answered by moving things to deprecated and end of life if there was a way for them to move back to the incubation state, when they get sufficient activity to warrant it so it's not a death sentence, when they get moved to further you know down the road it's not the total end of the line of the project. There is a path back to activity, if they want for it. So something that I think we should probably think about as one of the options rather than just moving stuff back to the labs is to give the option for projects to be resurrected, possibly in the labs, but I think a more appropriate place might be for back to incubation that that's the standard it needs to be incubation where before it gets moved out of its quiescent state. I mean, it's kind of like shelving it for the time being we don't have a shelf to put things on. Nathan is next. Part of what I wondered is I read through the proposal is, we don't know a lot about the overall health of the interledger protocol itself. You know, what's the trend of the underlying community beyond hyper ledger related to this project. And that that could tell us a little bit more about what we should do with it. But it does seem like we might need a state. I don't know if I like calling it the attic, but like a maintenance state that says, you can use this project. But it's probably not going to get bigger is probably not going to have lots of development effort beyond bug fixing. It's in maintenance mode, so to speak. That would hopefully indicate that, you know, it's not going away. It's not dead. But, you know, help set the expectations and maybe we could put it on a different reporting schedule and a few things to make it easier for someone to get involved without having as much overhead. And hopefully serve as an invitation to say, if you want to bring this back to a more active state. These are the things that need to happen. And I agree with down that we don't really have that kind of state right now. That's right. Thank you. Anybody else. I'll just mention I dropped in chat that the Apache attic is intended to be the end of life situation I think. Just distinguish between or maybe think of a way to describe is the difference between projects that are simply out of gas, you know where there isn't enough contributor energy to really muster of release that is trustworthy, you know, and that's where something like quote could go versus something where the contributors actively recommend that you move on from the tool, which I think was the case with composer where, you know, there's the original maintainer saying, you know, really we're going to be in SDK or in point of view there's no one around to update composer and composers kind of reached its, you know, a point where anyone using it should be using something else. There's fields like these are two different end of life. Those are two different statuses those could both be in an end of life status with just different guidance given to people. You can still go find the composer code, but and in both cases, you might want to warn people away, but in both cases you want to keep wiki pages around and documentation around on the process and the premise that it's useful as mulch to the next thing that comes along at the worst case so I kind of feel like what quote is asking for is moving down the deprecated to end of life kind of thing. And, and, and yeah. All right, thank you, Brian. Nathan, are you back on or just left or. Okay. Anybody else. Come on. Aaron I see you've been typing in the chat window whether to speak up. I think Brian summarized it pretty well. In this case it's not that maintenance saying we should end this project rather that even though that we still have activity, even though it's just one maintainer or one active contributor over there. So we should not punish the project for for just for the reason that he's not he or she's not getting additional contributions. I think Brian summarized it well. So it occurs to me that I mean there's one option that's obvious, which is to just do nothing right, we can leave it like this, and we can advise them, maybe to put a comment on their homepage saying you know, there's no current active project, we don't have plan new features and, but you know we'll be there if you need to, if there are bugs will try to address them and leave it at that. This is totally acceptable to me, of course, you know the notion of incubation is a bit harder with that but funnily, there is no cost to doing this, and they could pick it up, or pick up the pace anytime, and it would be fine. Yeah, I agree. I don't know. I think if you read through our life cycle that's where it needs to stay is right in incubation. Our life cycle says that the next state would be active or deprecated and deprecated says that the maintainers have to say that they want to deprecate it. Right, and then the TSC has to agree to it, so I don't think the maintainers have said that, they basically have said they just want to put it to sleep for a while, right, until there's more interest and more focus on it. So, based on our life cycle, the right answer is we don't do anything. And that doesn't mean that we can't change our life cycle, but based on where we're currently at, we do nothing. Yeah, but would you, I mean, what do you think about the proposal we heard like maybe to insert a new state like attic shelf or whatever we call it. Yeah, I think the difficult part there is what what is the name of that state. And is there a different state for projects that are moving from incubation to that state versus projects that are moving from active to that state. You know, are there two different states that we have to introduce, I think there's a whole lot of questions and discussion that we have to have if we introduce new states or states. Yeah, that's a good point. Thank you, Aaron. So, it also raises interesting question in the sense that what if a project so now I'm not sure when was this project mode and if we had that fine line criteria for project to be moved into incubation when when we first proposed. But now that we have a different process that project will start in and then incubate only when it meets certain criteria. So, the other question which it raises is, have we defined the process where for a project which is an incubation I believe this similar question came up earlier for relating to another project. I would not bring up the name here, but when it does not meet its charter goals or like agreed upon maintenance they move away from the project. I mean how do we handle such scenario right. I know similar question was brought up earlier, relating to another project. So we considered that scenario for quite as well. My hand is up Arno. Yeah, please go ahead. I don't see. Okay, well I don't have the ability as I was. I get it. I want to like, I'm really pushing back on your assertion that there's no cost of caring. There's a huge cost, and that's, you know, just look at the greenhouse right. It's very confusing. And if we have a project that we know is not going to do anything for the next couple of quarters. There's a burden that puts an additional burden on staff to try to explain. Well yeah that's that shows up on the greenhouse but it's kind of asleep and and don't expect a lot out of it but maybe in a couple of like, I beg the TSC to find a way to, you know, help projects transition more to hibernation or something. I don't know what the word is, but it's not zero cost. Take your point I want to to point out, there is a work underway to revamp the greenhouse right and I can tell you, I mean, Ellen might say more but you know the discussion is so far has been going towards a much more dynamic view of the how we present projects that would show, you know, things in a different way so that we can surface things differently and that would give us more flexibility and maybe, you know, I think address this kind of issues you're raising, but beyond the greenhouse I mean in terms of resources. Do we have other costs with having a basically dormant project. I technically know a dead mailing list doesn't cost anything. I would defer to Brian. If there's a reputational hit from having them, I don't know Brian thoughts. I mean, it's not a problem until it's a problem and there hasn't been a problem with somebody saying, you know, quilt is broken there's, you know, no one has come up with say security holes. So there's, there's a, you know, perhaps a burden on a security and hyper legit or collectively if somebody reports a major bug in a project that there isn't somebody around to respond quickly to address that and respond that's that's where I would more worry more about the reputational risk, but I do agree that projects that are not active should not be as widely promoted and equally promoted as the ones that are and that that does open the broader question of reformatting the greenhouse into something more dynamic and landscape driven which is a longer term conversation but in the shorter term. I kind of see in the status update, you know justification to say quilt might not be dead but it might not deserve to be in the greenhouse right now. All right, so let's close on this I think you know the status quo is for now it stays in incubation we agree there is no, you know, obvious step we can take to move it to somewhere else right now. The alternative is somebody makes the effort to come up with a proposal on how we modify the project lifecycle. So, or maybe if you can come up with a new idea it's fine with me. Maybe there's a tag of some kind that we can say this is hibernated. That short of such a proposal that we'd have to be looked into develop proposed approved so that we can then use it. I guess for now we are stuck in this current situation we're in which clearly right doesn't like but that's how it is. I suppose right you could make a proposal with you. I don't know about that. That's okay I mean I don't mean to put you on the spot it's just like, you know, that's where we are any other thoughts. Otherwise I'd like to move with the other agenda. So, I don't see me. So, let's move on. Promoted release. So, in the process of implementing the resolution with regard to the change of name from active status to graduated. So, it, you know, I realized that the document we had the page that describe the project lifecycle made references to promoted release. And you may remember that at some point, well at least the older people like myself should remember that promoted release used to be called first major release.  And then we give it and there was also security audit and a bunch of things happening. And so we said, well, maybe not all projects in all states can claim to have the right to do this and long story short we say well that's not really a state. It's just one thing is promoted release because in fact, some, sometimes we do that, and it's not the first major release. So, we moved to from first major release to promoted release. And to me that you know we ended up with the documentation where the name was changed, and things were kind of left broken. And so, in the project lifecycle page, it referred to promoted release. And it kind of, it didn't define he said to have a promoted release, the project must be in active status, it was called. And so, you know, when we when actually Tracy have to be recreated when she reviewed the change I had made regarding the change of name of active from active to graduated. She noticed that there was all these texts about promoted release that didn't seem to make much sense, even refer to Sam there and a bunch of things that seem to be completely out of date. So, in the end, I decided to just get rid of the section on promoted releases which didn't quite belong to the project lifecycle anyway. But the only page we have left is this one that rise, you know, showing, which is the criteria for promoted release. There's no definition of, well, this tells you what you need to have to have a promoter release but it doesn't even say what a promoted release actually is. And so, I feel like we have a bit of a problem here in our documentation, there's a gap here. I figured, well, I'm going to bring it up and I know that our room for one was saying, well, this should be defined somewhere, which makes sense. So I said, okay, let's, let's take that on in the separately. So we have implemented the change from active to graduated. But now we have this problem of promoted releases. And so, I felt like, okay, I'll bring it up to the team and see what people are saying, people think we should do. And there's also the question about, you know, is that still accurate? Do we actually go through this? Because for one thing it says, prior to bringing a project to the TSE for a vote on granting a promoted releases. And I don't even know this is happening. Hey, so if I recall correctly, we used to have sort of a strong requirement for a promoted release and what that meant. But this sort of died because the marketing people just sort of decided what releases to promote and how to promote them without any input from the TSE really. So this came to be like a marketing thing rather than a TSE thing. Releases were being promoted without, you know, any sort of TSE thing. So the whole thing just kind of died. I think that's that's sort of what happened. So I don't know, given, you know, all the changes we've made if we even want to be in the business is a technical steering committee of handling promotion. Yes, I think that's a very well put it's kind of what, you know, I had in mind and made me feel like we need to bring this up to the TSE and have a discussion on this. Tracy. Yeah, I would say that we probably haven't had a project come to us for a promoted release because there hasn't been any. I mean, if you think about, we've had promoted releases for fabric when it hit 1.0 we had a promoted release for sawtooth when it hit 1.0. We haven't had any other promoted releases like official promoted releases. Obviously marketing has been doing a ton of marketing for any of the projects. You know, as they've moved through and the life cycle. I think the other piece about promoted releases per se that we had kind of tied into it but it wasn't really necessarily related to marketing was things like the. We were doing license scans every month, but then once it was going to go kind of active 1.0 we insured that there was no license concerns and we went through the legal committee to ensure that there were no issues there. And then there was also the security scans that we did that Hyperledger paid for to ensure that there were no security vulnerabilities for 1.0 type release. So I think there were some other pieces that were kind of tied to promotion. And when we went to this promoted release we kind of dropped the requirement for those sorts of things happening as far as license. Not dropped them completely, but we just didn't include them in the definition of what a promoted release was anymore. And it truly did become marketing focused. So I think in general, as long as all of those things are happening right the security scans when we do kind of a major release. The license scanning is still going on and that the legal committee is being. It's being talked to you discussed with when there's things that need exceptions, things like that I think are still important and need to happen, but they don't necessarily need to be tied to what this thing is, whatever we call it. And I mean marketing is doing their best to get the word out about all of the different projects regardless of what state they're in so. I agree with heart that like this piece around marketing isn't required but those other pieces are still required. They don't require TSC approval, but they are required processes that have to happen and I'm sure they're still happening. I think the, the license scanning happens once a quarter. I had to have to check in with Steve Winslow. We are doing security audits and kind of an ad hoc way deciding which, which projects get them in what order. You know there's some turbulence there because of the change in staff. Brian, do you have anything you want to add about the difference between where we were and where we are. Who is brief. And you should be brief coming from Brian. Wasn't sure there's anything that wasn't sure why I was being prompted. Well, just we're, we're going through right now, figuring out the security audit schedule. So that's, that's why I brought it up. Yeah, no, I mean we have capacity to continue to do security scans of projects that reach a useful milestone. I think there's some demand for us to do that for Aries and Ursa next. So there's some interest there but we have a capacity for other projects that are, you know, getting ready for their first promoted release to do that. I don't think the timing of that is awkward to try to do that before a 1.0 or before a first promoted release. I wouldn't make a requirement of release. Does it still make sense for the TSC to have a say in what can be a promoted release. I would say that for documentation, like the stuff about doing the license scans and all of that needs to live somewhere. I think the heart's earlier point. This is completely decoupled from any technical stuff.  So set guidance, give yours what good looks like kinds of things and trust the maintainers to follow that and ask for that in a status report perhaps and talk about that but not have not put the TSC in the position of having to approve the first release. Okay, so that's, that's, I think that's an important finding that I agree. I think it would be good to make that decision official and update the documentation according me. I agree with, you know, not throwing out all these texts because I think there's some good stuff in there. The fact that it seems to be under the purview of the TSC. When I looked into it as like really, I don't even know that we are actually, you know, that's not how we are operating today so for me when the documentation is that odd with how we do things is I think it's time to update the documentation. I'm willing to do the PR, if you're willing to get a second and do the vote. Well, I think we could have the vote now on, you know, agreeing that we are basically agreeing that the promoted release is no longer the governance of the TSC. Right, that's what I was saying. I was just going to say just to be clear what we're voting on is that we say that we're just sort of canceling the TSC procedure for a promoted release. That's why I was proposing. Yes, just remove all this verbiage and save it somewhere else releases as attached to the TSC. I'll second that proposal. And do we do we still have the requirement but graduated. I mean, who is in charge to enforce it. Or we just say, well, that's not our problem. Well, it hasn't been enforced marketing has been more than happy to promote non graduated projects. Okay. All right, so I'm happy with the proposal. Anybody wants to say on it. I think I already did. Okay. All right, we have more seconds than we need now third and fourth so let's try and get through this quickly. Is there any questions about the vote of the proposal. Does anybody want to object. Does anybody want to abstain. I actually have an objection to this process where we don't require people to make an affirmative action about on it. It just feels weird. I would prefer that we at least have a voice vote of everyone saying I or day. You do. Okay. Yes. We have problems with this in the stadium where passive action causes stuff to change and people say well I never voted on it. So that's my concern with it. That's fine. I mean, I appreciate that for me, it seemed to be more effective, but. All right, I don't think we need to do a roll call unless someone calls for it, but I don't like the silence confers success approach. Okay. That's fine. I can. I can totally accommodate your request. So anybody in favor says hi. Hi. Hi. All right. I don't have to redo the abstain and then objections right. All right so this is passing unanimously thank you. Thanks. All right so finally. I wanted us to have a look at the backlog of the decision log and see if we could do a little bit of cleanup. It's pretty clear if you look at it that there are issues that are still pending and that you can hope to get resolution on. And then there are things that just like I, you know, they either are superseded by other issues that we are working on, or we just never get to a closure so might as well accept it. So, the first one that DC O validation, I think this one is still pending. So we definitely keep that one. The project matter made majority matrix and badging is also pending experience experimentation and the automatic tools so we'll definitely keep that one. The restructuring the greenhouse to avoid confusion. I would say we can close it because we now have a task force that's dealing with this. And all of we this was about is, you know, let's make sure this happens. And I'm happy to say it is happening. The leadership of Helen who is present here and can tell you more if you care. But so I would propose to close it and call it. And we call that like we have delegated these to the task force led by Ellen as a sound reasonable grace. Just a quick question. Is it. I'm fine to update the status, but with the status being processed or I don't want to close it because I think we want to regroup on. What happens, but just not sure. But obviously propose doesn't necessarily make sense at this point. Well, so I see what you're saying. I mean, those might be the only two tags effect. I'm not sure. It doesn't cost me anything to make that text, say whatever. Yeah, we can. Yeah, it's free form. You can actually say whatever you want. Yeah, yeah. If everyone else agrees with that, but just so we don't, we do check up on it because I think it's important and we don't want it to just be closed because it's technically not closed, but it's definitely not proposed. Yeah, and it's kind of deferred to the separate effort. So, but okay, that sounds good. I really cool with that. All right, let's keep going down the list. Introduce a mechanism for regular review for project. So I would contend that the badging proposal is basically addressing this need, but because the badging proposal both as the, the badges and the project that the process and updating the projects. I don't know that anybody has come up with a better proposal or is intending to make one. So, to me, it's either somebody says no, no, we need a different mechanism to do that. And they need to work on a proposal, or they're satisfied with saying no, I'm happy to defer that to the badging mechanism. Of course, you could say, well, if the badging proposal doesn't get closed approved eventually after experimentation and whatnot, then maybe we should resurrect that then, but I don't know. Tracy. We already have a mechanism for regularly reviewing projects they're called project reports. Yes. I, I don't know, I see that you created this, I suggest that you withdraw it. Oh, that's easy. I can do that. Did I. I think I yeah okay I'll take the blame. The proof is right there so I can deny it as opposed. I do think yeah. So, again, I think yes withdrawing seems like a right thing to do. It doesn't anybody get offended with this. So we can actually all take out saying that this can be considered as part of project budget criteria and then market has done. The resolution is that we are considering this as I mean we have a update quarterly report. And then badging criteria keeps the project reports up to date about activities status. And we can close it. Okay, so that's a different proposal is you want to market resolve. Yeah. It's either related to one. I mean it's related to two activities so we can resolve it. So if you want to do that we need a we need a decision by everybody that you see. I want to have another vote on that. I mean, I think withdrawing it is probably the easiest but sure have another vote. Sounds like I really prefer that. I just feel that same way or otherwise I'm fine with withdrawing. I would vote for withdraw. Okay. That was going to be my comments as well. Okay, so there's a seems like anybody else wants to go through the process of resolving this rather than withdrawing it. Okay. Let's withdraw it. Good. Thank you. What's next. I think long-term agenda framing. The order change. No, there is what if a top level product does not meet its charter goal. I know I created that one too. And, but to my defense, I think it was based on some of the question that was raised earlier on. I think maybe by in some discussion we had, I think I wouldn't maybe have raised this. No, it was part of the rollover stuff. That's what it's about. Yeah, when we talked about rolling over, you know, that was the, that's, that's right now I'm remembering. So you remember when we talked about rolling over projects as sub projects to an existing top level project when there was a clear dependency, because a project. It was the grand goal of supporting different frameworks, but ended up never doing it. The idea was, well, let's simplify the number of projects top level products we deal with recognize the dependency, moving a project within another one that depend on, and then it was pushed back we decided okay let's not do that. The one question came up as part of this was, well, so we finally raises the one question which is, what if a project does not fulfill its charter. And we don't have a mechanism per se to catch that. And this is what this was about. Do we care. And if we do, how do we go at capture, you know, catching that situation. Sometimes he would also require knowing what to do if we decide okay they have not fulfilled their charter but so do people feel like this is still worth keeping on our decision log and something we should eventually work on. Do we just give up on it. That's basically the question. I'm asking. I don't know that we need a formal process on this I think it'll happen frequently enough that special action in the cases that it happens I think would be warranted. So, I'll be okay with the drawing it because formalizing it. I don't see the value about it. All right, thank you so we have a proposal to withdraw it. Anybody else either in favor or against withdrawing our room. I'm against withdrawing it because the whole point such a topic was brought up last time was because few of the members felt that particular project is being suppressed. So any kind of talk should not have come up. And if we leave it for case by case basis, then I'm sure such kind of thoughts will again come up. All right. Fair enough. Okay, so we'll leave it for now. You know, that's fine. Let's keep going we only have a few minutes left if we could keep going down the list, I think, and knock off a few more I think that'd be great. So, this is kind of like this, you know, big idea of like, okay, what is the big agenda for hyperledger, and can the TSC set a technical direction, a roadmap for hyperledger. It did, you know, it did lead to quite a bit of interesting discussion. I don't think, you know, we got anywhere specific and I don't know how we would, you know, close this person. So I don't know what to do with this. Yeah, I thought, you know, and Dan had opened it when he was a vice chair last year and also felt like kind of free space and you want to just close it but it seems like a mission impossible to close it properly with the resolution. So hot. This seems more like an abstract sort of long term goal rather than a concrete proposal. As you correctly point out I don't know that, you know, we could ever, we could ever do anything that sort of satisfied this goal this is sort of like an ongoing thing. That being said, I think it's absolutely something we should do. So, I'm not, I'm not sure exactly where it fits, I guess. Yeah, I agree with that. So maybe there's, maybe there's something that can be done that's different than keeping it there as an open issue. There should be something on the on the wiki somewhere as a page something to have and work on but not technically as an issue, I don't know. Any other ideas. I mean it's, it's you know it occurs to me that this thing has been sitting there for a long time and nothing is happening and I don't know that there is anything we're going to do to that would change that. I don't like just keeping it there for the sake of it. If we want to make sure we don't lose it some, that's maybe the best to do though, if, you know, until somebody can come up with a proposal on how to dispose of Arun. So it looks like this proposal is asking us to get back those discussions back into TSE maintenance and we lose Arun. Yeah, I think we lost him. Hello, can you guys hear me. Yeah, now we can hear you. Hey, sorry, I don't know it says my internet was unstable sorry about that. So I was saying, one place we are saying we don't require any reports from working groups and we say it. I mean it doesn't expect anything from working groups and at the same time we are saying architecture related discussion and discussions or decisions do happen in architecture working group calls and then similarly there is another working group for identity. So should we just bring back reporting to those working groups or maybe ask them to get the status once a month or probably once in two months to the TSE. Would that be a good start to answer these questions. Okay, that's an interesting question but I think it's, it's orthogonal to this long term agenda framing issue. Nathan, we're out of time so we're going to close after that. Okay, I guess I'm in favor of withdrawing or closing this proposal just because I don't see how it's not already part of our remit. I mean, we get to set our own agenda and this is the thing that's going to help us set technical direction for the project or help better support the underlying coding projects better than this is all what we ought to be doing. If any of these items on the list came up in our agenda. I would not be surprised at all and I would find them all probably fairly engaging. I don't think there's anyone in the architecture or identity working groups that are talking about that would be offended if we wanted to take up any of these topics and TSE meeting I think they'd actually be excited we were paying attention. All right, thank you. I, as you say that it occurred to me maybe one kind of middle ground is to try and, you know, capture some of the content there I mean there's questions that were raised I agree with you as kind of for mission to do. Maybe we just put some of this text on the main page of the TSE the main wiki page as things that the TSE, you know, text into account or as part of its mission. And then we can close this and say okay we are not going to lose it it's there we have, you know, restated that. That could be a reasonable way out so we don't lose it completely and we can dispose of it. All right. Let's leave it at this we're out of time. Thank you, I think we made some progress will keep doing this because there are a few more I think we should get through in a similar way to do a bit of house cleaning it's spring so it's good time to do cleaning. All right, thank you all for joining. We'll leave it at this for today. Talk again next week.


Dear colleagues, my name is Saabatnyi. I am the author of Maliglan's Self-Life and Barsicism Revisited and a series of other books about personality disorders. I'm a visiting professor of psychology in Southern Federal University in Rostov-on-Don, the Russian Federation, and I'm a professor of finance and a professor of psychology in Siyaps, the Center for International Advanced and Professional Studies in the United States and Nigeria and other countries. Welcome to the International Conference on Addiction, Psychiatry and Mental Health held in Rome, Italy in November 2019. Today I would like to discuss the relationship between addictions, trauma, narcissistic defenses, dysregulated emotions and dissonances. In literature, scholarly and popular, only one type of dissonance is discussed extensively and at length, and that is the family of cognitive dissonances. And yet there are many other types of dissonances and they are all as powerful as cognitive dissonances and they all lead to addictive traumatic or post-traumatic and defensive strategies. Narcissism as I said, pathological narcissism, secondary narcissism, post-traumatic conditions of which narcissism is one and addictive behaviors grouped within addictive personality types, all of them are closely related and in many ways interchangeable reactions to dissonances. Dissonances in a conflict are intolerable. They generate anxiety and anxiety needs to be ameliorated or palliated against. No one can tolerate anxiety. So in an effort to reduce anxiety or to control it somehow, people resort to all kinds of addictions, from substance abuse to shopaholism to pathological gambling, sex addiction or anything else. But what about the dissonances? What about the inner conflicts that lead to these behaviors? They are overlooked and very poorly discussed in literature. Let's start with the well-known family of cognitive dissonances. It's when two thoughts, two cognitions, two bits of information coexist within the same individual, within the same client or patient. It is very difficult to reconcile these bits of information. It is very difficult to accommodate, to contain two conflicting thoughts, two conflicting cognitions, and it is very difficult to rearrange the world, to reframe and narrative, to tell yourself that both parts, both pieces, both bits of information, both thoughts are actually true. One of them has to be false. It is this recognition that you are engaged in false thinking that parts of what you believe, parts of what you are thinking are probably wrong, that create this feeling of being so unsettled and disconfident. And so cognitive dissonances have been widely reported and widely discussed in literature. They are resolved by reframing, by discarding one of the thoughts or one of the bits of information, creating silos, confirmation biases where we filter out countervailing information and countervailing and suppress, countervailing thinking. And so there's a lot going on inside the psyche, trying to cope with the influx of data and the emergence of thinking, of cognitions, which very often creates internal discrepancies. We are geared towards and we are well, we are adept at coping with these inner contradictions, with these constant clashes, constant skirmish between this flow, these rivers of information and cognitions. But what about other types of dissonance? Again, much less discussed in literature. Consider, for example, volitional dissonance. Volitional dissonances are when we act in ways that are perceived to be a critic, perceived to reflect a crazier, ways which are immoral, antisocial, ways which are not frenetic. Let me elaborate a bit on this. When we act in ways which reflect a weak will, when our behavior is contrary to our best judgments, we, there's a situation called a crazier. A crazier is when we feel alienated, when we feel alienated to our own selves, when we feel that we have acted in ways which are shocking to us, surprising, which we would have never believed we could act in. When we feel that our will had been weakened either by substance abuse, by circumstances, by the environment, by peer expectations of your pressure, or in any other way, by, via injunctions from authority figures, emulating and imitating role models, there are numerous pathways towards a creating or a crazy acting, acting that reflects a weakening of the will, or even annihilation or total suppression of our will as connected to values and so on. So behavior that is contrary to our best judgment, that we consider to be immoral and antisocial, is behavior that runs contrary to frenesis. Frenesis is acting in cahoots with, acting in, in conjunction with and acting in accordance with our strong will, our values, our beliefs, our morality, and the social mores and cultural headaches that we are imbued with and embedded in. When we act against frenesis, we discourage eudomania, we discourage eudemonia, eudemonia, the good life, we become not good people, not good persons, we suspend our good judgment, there's a flaw of character, there's a problem of morality, we go against our habits, inculcated in the lifetime, habits of acting properly, habits of being good people, we do not live the good life in the Aristotelian sense, the good life that had been described by Plato and others in Socrates in ancient Greece. So frenesis is comprised of the proper practice, the proper practice of our values, our judgment, our will combined with eudemonia, the good life, the life of acting as a good agent or a good agent of change. And so when we suspend all this, when we act against all this, when we find ourselves embroiled in something in an action or in a series of choices or exercising judgment that we would have never ever ever treated to ourselves, we feel accretive, we feel accretive, we feel that that it's not us. People say it wasn't me, it's not like me, I would have never done this. And this is the volitional dissonance, again much neglected regrettably in literature. Another type of dissonance is emotional dissonance, that had been described well over 100 years ago by Zygmunt Freud when he coined the term ambivalence. It's when two utterly polar opposite emotions coexist in the same person, love and hate for example. We very often love our parents but also hate them. We love the rich and hate them or envy them. We love authority figures but passive-aggressively act against them, undermine and sabotage them. We love our celebrities and yet we envy them and we revel in their fall, in their downfall. So ambivalence, a coexistence of two emotions which are diametrically opposed to each other is a form of dissonance, emotional dissonance. And then we have axiological dissonance. It's when we harbor two values and they contradict each other. For example, thou shalt not kill, we should not kill other people and yet we should kill for our nation. So as soldiers, soldiers have axiological dissonances. On the one hand they should kill the enemy to uphold the nation's values, to protect the nation from incursion or invasion and so on so forth.  So there's a conflict of values and that's the axiological dissonance. Axiological dissonance are very, very common. Very often we have two conflicting values, two conflicting mores, two conflicting edicts, two conflicting commandments, two conflicting expectations as to behavior, two conflicting judgments and opinions and they all lead to axiological conflicts, conflicts of shoots. How should I behave? What should I do? And very often the answer is conflictual or contradictory. You should do A and minus A, you should do B and not B at the same time, at the same moment sometimes. Axiological conflicts are possibly the most powerful conflicts there are because they hark back to the process of socialization in early childhood. They conflict with things our parents taught us, with what Freud called the superego, with introjects of voices, authority, authoritative voices of parental voices, role models, teachers, even p-groups. So axiological dissonances have to do with the most ancient layers of our formation, formative years and they create in us the most, the mightiest conflicts and feelings of discomfort and anxiety. Then we have deontic dissonances. Deontic dissonances arise when we have two duties or two obligations which conflict with each other. We have to be in two places at the same time. All dissonances, all dissonances, present dilemmas between equipotent horns, between equipotent options, between same force or same power choices. If the choices or the dilema or the horns of the dilemma are not equipotent, then of course the process of decision making is fessile. It's much easier. But the problem with dissonances is that if we have to choose between two duties and two obligations or two values or two pieces of information or two thoughts or two emotions, they are of equal force. The conflict is such that if we choose one, we give up the other and the opportunity cost is enormous. And so in deontic dissonances, we have two duties or two obligations, a duty to a family of origin which conflicts to the duty to a caravan, a duty and obligation to our workplace which conflicts with our duties towards our spouse, an edict of the church or of our faith which conflicts with the demands of the state and so on and so forth. So duties and obligations clash in deontic dissonances and again it's one of the most powerful forms of dissonance there are. And finally there's attitudinal dissonances. These are dissonances where internalized beliefs, attitudes, statements and propositions about the world which is another way of saying beliefs, they all clash. We have two attitudes which can't reconcile, which can't be settled together within the same framework or the same narrative. We have two beliefs, internalized beliefs which clash axiologically. We make two statements or two propositions and they conflict with each other, they contradict each other. These are attitudinal dissonances. So as you see dissonances and the process of inner conflict that's a huge family and actually on a typical day we encounter and we strive to cope with and we strategize in an attempt to resolve dozens of dissonances, some of them cognitive, some of them volitional, some of them emotional, some of them axiological, some of them deontic and some of them attitudinal. Normally, normally our psychological defense mechanisms, coping strategies that we had developed over the years, especially in the former two years, they are sufficient. Some defense mechanisms may be dysfunctional or pathological, especially when it comes to attachment, bonding, empathy and regulation of sense of self-worth and regulation of emotions and yet they are sufficient, they allow us to get through the day but when we fail utterly with all these and the dissonance rears its ugly head, we experience severe anxiety. It is then that we self-medicate, we can self-medicate with anything, overeating, substance abuse, sex, gambling, shopping. When this self-medication becomes the core strategy, becomes habitual, we are faced with an addiction and if the addiction is sufficiently severe, harsh and it takes over the personality, it engenders trauma. Post-traumatic conditions are intimately linked to addictions and intimately linked to personality pathologies such as narcissism but that is a topic for another paper. Thank you for listening.


If you take a bar magnet and break it into two pieces, instead of a separate knot pole and a south pole, we get two smaller bar magnets.  Something that really doesn't work with currency notes. Now it turns out that if you keep on breaking these bar magnets into smaller and smaller pieces, you keep on getting newer magnets and this is true right to the level of an atom. Even an atom has a knot pole and a south pole. Now it turns out that there are no magnetic monopoles. There is no magnetic monopole known to exist.  The simplest magnetic structure that is known to exist is a magnetic dipole and a bar magnet can be a magnetic dipole. Also a current carrying loop can be a magnetic dipole. Now the goal of this video is to explore Gauss's law of magnetism, which is saying the same thing that magnetic monopoles do not exist but it is using the language of math which is saying a lot but using very less number of words. Alright so let's begin. In our previous videos, we looked at how to calculate electric flux through a closed surface where if we had a closed surface like this, a closed spherical surface and let's say we had a positive charge in the center, we know that the flux that is going through the surface would be given by the closed surface integral of the dot product between the electric field and area which equals the amount of charge enclosed in that surface divided by epsilon naught. Now what if just instead of a single positive charge, a monopole of electric charge, you take an electric dipole inside the Gaussian surface just like this. Now what do you think the electric flux would be? Pause the video and think about it. Alright, I'm sure you'll agree that the electric flux in this case would just be zero because your enclosed charge would come out to be zero. You have a plus Q and you have a minus Q. Even if we look at the field lines, this is how the field lines would look like. You can see that the number of field lines that are leaving the surface is equal to the number of field lines that are entering the surface from the other side. So no matter where you place your electric dipole inside the sphere, your flux will always come out to be a zero. Now let's bring back our magnetic dipole into the picture and this is how it can look like. Again pause the video and think about what would be the magnetic flux in this case. Alright, so the magnetic flux in this case would be zero because there are no monopoles over here. We are taking a magnetic dipole and just like how flux for an electric dipole was zero, similarly the flux for a magnetic dipole is zero. We can even have a look at the field lines and see how geometrically similar they are. We can see that the number of field lines that are leaving the surface equal the number of field lines that are entering the surface from the other side. So now we can think about causes law of magnetism just like causes law of electricity only if we had dipoles and just like it doesn't matter where you place the electric dipole inside the surface, your flux would be zero. Similarly it wouldn't really matter how you place the bar magnet inside the surface. You will always get the magnetic flux to be as zero. Now what if we kept the bar magnet outside the surface, somewhat like this. Let's say this is your surface and your power magnet is just right next to it outside of it. So the magnetic field lines in this case would look like this. Now over here we can still see that the number of magnetic field lines that are entering the surface and that would be two in this case. This is the first one. This is the second one. They equal the number of field lines that are exiting the surface again two. So the net flux is still zero in this case. Let's check if the magnetic flux is zero for a different case. Let's say we move around the magnet and we keep it in this way. Half of the magnet is inside and half of it is outside and the field lines in this case would look like this. Now what do you think the magnetic flux would be? Again pause the video and think about it. Now it turns out that even for this case the magnetic flux is zero. You could think that because half of the magnet is inside and half of it is outside, this would be similar to saying that the positive charge, a positive charge would be inside and a negative charge would be outside. But the key point over here is that magnetic field lines form closed continuous loops. So the field lines even inside the magnet go from south to north pole and this is how they look like. Now if we look closely we can see that the number of field lines that are leaving the surface and that would be five in this case. They equal the number of field lines that are entering the surface from inside the magnet. And we can go on to say that this part right here, the part that is near the surface, we can say that this can be a south pole because after all the field lines are going towards the north pole from this region. Now we can say that because we have a north pole and a south pole inside the magnet this is very similar to having an electric dipole in the same orientation. So an electric dipole would just look like this and we know that whenever there is an electric dipole inside the surface the flux for that would be zero. Similarly if we have a magnetic dipole inside the surface the flux for that will be zero. Alright so in this video we looked at how if you take a piece of bar magnet and you break it into smaller pieces instead of a separate north pole and a south pole all you get are newer pieces of small magnets. And just like how the flux for an electric dipole came out to be zero no matter where you place it inside the Gaussian surface, similarly the flux for a magnetic dipole also came out to be zero and we kept the dipole inside outside and we kept it half inside and half outside. In all the cases it came out to be zero. Now if we compare Gauss's law for magnetism with Gauss's law for electricity we can see a noticeable difference. We can see that there is something on the right hand side for Gauss's law of electricity and that is because there is a monopole of electric charge. You can see a single positive charge and a single negative charge and but we can never see a single north pole and a single south pole. So therefore you see a zero over here. Now it turns out that scientists have been searching for a magnetic monopole for almost 90 years now and they have been to the north pole, they have been to deep under waters but they haven't been able to find one. And imagine if they do find one firstly the right hand side of this equation will change. This equation the Gauss's law for magnetism will look very similar to Gauss's law for electricity. You will have something something like a magnetic charge over here and the entire set of Maxwell equations will become beautifully symmetric. We will talk about Maxwell equations in depth in upcoming videos.


Mike is ever so helpful always. And Mike has a wonderful blog called The Oblivious Investor. He's also the author of numerous helpful short books on single topics like social security and tax planning. His latest book is called More Than Enough, which I think is highly relevant to a lot of people at this conference, which is considerations if when you look at your finances you actually see that you have more than enough to do the things that you want to do within your own lifetime, thinking about things that you might want your money to do for you, for others in your life. He is going to be doing a session on Sunday morning that I wanted to call attention to. That's kind of a reluctant spouse's conversation. And the idea is that we've spoken to attendees in the past who have said, you know, I am the enthusiast in my family. My spouse is not into this stuff at all. What's the bare minimum that he or she needs to know? How can I get him or her a little more enthused about this stuff? So that will be the topic for Mike's discussion on Sunday morning. The thing we're doing that's a little bit different about that session is that your partner needn't be enrolled in the conference, so they needn't be registered. They can come and join us for breakfast and hear Mike's tips for getting their reluctant spouse along for the ride. So I am so thrilled to introduce Mike. He's going to be talking to us about tax-advantaged accounts. Thanks, Mike. All right, so Alan and Rick both spoke with you about how to select different investments. And so now what we're talking about are the different types of accounts in which you might own those investments. And we're gonna be spending most of the time discussing tax-advantaged accounts. But before we can actually talk about tax-advantaged accounts, we have to spend just a couple of minutes talking about regular taxable brokerage accounts so that then once you understand how those work, we can talk about how tax-advantaged accounts work differently. Ah, okay. Gotcha, thank you. All right, so a taxable brokerage account. This is anything that's not an IRA, not a 401K, it's not a 403B, it's basically just if you went on the Vanguard or Fidelity or Schwab website, you opened up a new brokerage account, it would be a taxable brokerage account. That's what we're talking about here. And in these types of accounts, the interest that you earn every year is taxable at your ordinary income tax rate. And the dividends that you earn are taxable as well. The tax rate's a little bit lower, basically it only goes up to 20%, but they're still taxable. And then whenever you sell something in a taxable account for more than what you paid for it, we call that a capital gain. And capital gains are also taxable, and the tax rate depends on how long you owned that investment before selling it. So if you owned it for one year or less, we call it a short-term capital gain. And those are taxable at your ordinary income tax rate, whereas long-term capital gains, which is when you've owned the investment for longer than one year, those are taxable at the same rates as qualified dividends. So the summary of this whole slide is really just that we call these taxable accounts because the returns that you earn in a taxable account are taxable. That's the idea. That's the thing you need to know about a taxable account. And then in contrast, we have all of our tax-advantaged accounts. And tax-advantaged accounts includes IRAs, 401Ks, 403Bs, 457s, HSAs, and 529s, and probably some other stuff too. And in these types of accounts, you don't have to pay tax on the interest that you earn every year. And you don't have to pay tax on the dividends that you earn every year. And you don't have to pay tax on the capital gains whenever you sell stuff in one of these types of accounts. And so the most important thing to know about tax-advantaged accounts is that they literally grow more quickly than a taxable account. If you have the exact same investment in a taxable account and in an IRA, you're going to earn a greater return with that investment in the IRA because you don't have taxes taking a bite out of your return. And there are also tax consequences, either for putting money into tax-advantaged accounts or taking money out. And what those consequences are, depends on what type of account it is. And we're going to dig into all of that. But again, the single most important thing about tax-advantaged accounts is simply that you get the whole rate of return every year. They grow faster than taxable accounts, and that's a big deal. So the first type of tax-advantaged account to discuss is the traditional IRA. An IRA stands for Individual Retirement Account. And with IRAs, there's a limit to how much you can put in every year. So the limit is the lesser of your earned income for the year or a fixed dollar amount for this year at 6,500 or 7,500 for anybody aged 50 and up.  If you don't have a 401k or a 403b, which again, we'll talk about those in a minute, but if you don't have anything like that, then you get a deduction for contributing to a traditional IRA. If you do have a plan like that, then there are income limits. And what that means is that if you have a 401k or something similar and your income is above this limit, then you're still allowed to contribute to a traditional IRA, but you won't get a deduction for doing that. And with a traditional IRA, just like every type of tax-advantaged account we're going to talk about. All right, with a traditional IRA, there is no tax on the growth while the money stays in the account. So again, they grow faster than a taxable account because they're not paying tax on the interest and dividends every year. And then when you take money out of a traditional IRA, so when you take money out of a tax-advantaged account, we call that a distribution. And distributions from traditional IRAs are taxable as income, generally. And so we call these tax-deferred accounts because the idea is that you get some tax savings at the beginning because you get a deduction, and then you get some tax savings along the way because the growth is tax-free. But then there's additional taxes at the end because it's all taxable when it comes out. So you've deferred taxes. You get savings at the beginning, but additional taxes at the end. So it's a tax-deferred account. And one last thing to know about traditional IRAs is that there's a 10% penalty for any money you take out before age 59.5. And the idea here is that Congress made these to be individual retirement accounts, so they put that rule in place to discourage people from spending the money early, basically. And then we have the Roth IRA. And Roth accounts Roth IRA's share or contribution limit with traditional IRAs. So 6,500 for this year or 7,500 for anybody age 50 and up. And it is a shared limit. So for instance, if you put 2,000 into a traditional IRA, the most you could put into a Roth would be 4,500 if you're under age 50. And the ability to contribute to a Roth IRA phases out based on your modified adjusted gross income. Really all that means is that if your income is too high, you can't contribute to a Roth IRA directly. There is something called the Backdoor Roth IRA strategy. Admittedly, we don't actually have enough time to go into the details of that today, but if your income is above those limits, that's something that you'll wanna look up. It's not quite as good as a regular Roth IRA contribution, but it's still, it's pretty close. And with Roth accounts, you do not get a deduction for contributing. So there's no tax savings immediately, but the account does grow tax free and the contributions to a Roth IRA. So the money that you put in, you're allowed to take it back out tax free and penalty free at any time. You don't have to be age 59 and a half. Christine mentioned this earlier, this is a big deal. It means that Roth IRAs can kind of serve as a backup emergency fund. And this is a big advantage of Roth IRAs relative to all of the other types of retirement accounts. And then the distributions of earnings, so that's all the growth in the account, that's also tax free if you've had a Roth IRA for five years and you're at least age 59 and a half. If you don't meet those requirements, then the growth when you take it out could be subject to a 10% penalty and it could be taxable, although there are some exceptions. The traditional 401k and 403b, and these types of accounts are tax deferred. So they're a lot like a traditional IRA just through your employer in the sense that you get a deduction when you contribute. So you get some tax savings immediately and then it grows tax free, so you don't have to pay tax on the interest and dividends every year. And then it's taxable when you take it out. So again, tax deferred because you get some tax savings at the beginning, but additional taxes at the end. And the contribution limit for 401k and 403b plans is a lot higher than for IRAs. It's 22,500 this year, or 30,000 for anybody age 15 up. And some employers offer a matching contribution. And what that means is simply that if you put in at least a certain percentage of your pay into the account, then your employer is also going to put in a certain percentage. So for example, if your employer had a 4% dollar for dollar match, that would mean that if you put in 4% of your pay, or rather at least 4% of your pay, you put in at least 4%, your employer will also put in another 4%, which means that you've basically doubled your money. So it's 100% return without any risk, which is obviously a better deal than you get anywhere else. And really the big difference between 401k and 403b plans is not the tax treatment or any of the complicated rules. It's really just who offers them. 401ks are offered by businesses to their employees. While 403b's are offered by educational institutions, so universities and things like that, as well as nonprofit organizations. And then we have the Roth 401k and Roth 403b, which is exactly what it sounds like. It's a hybrid between a Roth IRA and a traditional 401k. So because these are 401k and 403b accounts, they share the same contribution limit. So it's 22,500 for this year, or 30,000 for people 15 up. And with any Roth account, you don't get a deduction for contributing to the account. So there's no savings immediately. But just like every tax advantage account, these grow tax-free. So you don't have to pay tax on the interest and dividends every year. And then the distributions from a Roth 401k or Roth 403b are tax-free, if you're at least age 59 and a half, and your first Roth contribution to this particular plan was at least five years ago. And lastly, for retirement accounts, we have the 457 plan, which is less likely that you're going to run into this during your career, because they're offered by a lot fewer employers, but they work differently than 401k and 403b's. So if you do run into this, it's important to understand the distinctions. So first thing that's the same with 401k and 403b's is that the dollar amount contribution limit is it's the same for any given year. So 22,500 for this year. However, it's not a shared limit. So what that means is that if your employer offers a 401k and a 457, if you had enough income and enough cash flow, you could put 22,500 into the 401k and another 22,500 into the 457. So if your employer offers both, then you've got enough cash flow to do this, you can contribute quite a lot of money. And 457 plans might allow for something called special catch-up contributions. And this is a weird one because the tax code doesn't say they have to offer it and it has to work like this. So there's a little bit of leeway, basically, to the company offering the plan. So if you have a 457 plan at work, you basically just wanna talk to your HR department and ask about special catch-up contributions. And then 457 plans can be tax deferred or they can be Roth. And if they're tax deferred, they work pretty much how you would expect for a tax deferred account and that you get a deduction for contributing. The account grows tax-free just like every tax-advantaged account and distributions are taxable. And if it's Roth, again, more or less what you would expect because you don't get a deduction for contributing but it does grow tax-free and the distributions are tax-free also, including all of the growth, if you're at least age 59 and a half and you've met the five-year rule. Now one thing that surprises people about 457 plans is that there's no 10% penalty whether we're talking about the tax deferred or the Roth. There just isn't one. So that's a nice feature of 457 plans. And then the last thing to know about 457 plans is that we break them down further into two subcategories. The first is the governmental 457 plan and then we have the non-governmental 457 plan and that's basically based on who your employer is. If it's a government entity that employs you, it's probably a governmental 457 plan and otherwise it's non-governmental. And the thing to know here, there's a couple of distinctions but really the most important one is that with a governmental 457 plan, the assets are, quote, held in trust for the employees. What that means is that the money in the plan in an account with your name on it is literally in an account with your name on it. So you don't have to worry that if your employer goes out of business or gets sued or there's files bankrupts here or whatever, you don't have to worry that the money's gonna disappear because it's your money. And by the way, that's also how 401k and 403B plans work. You don't have to worry that if the employer goes out of business, you'll lose the money because that can't happen. Non-governmental 457 plans don't work like that. With a non-governmental 457 plan, the money that you've contributed to the plan, which you're probably thinking of as your money because you get a statement, has your name on it, shows balance, it's technically the employer's money still. And so what that means is that if the employer goes out of business, you can lose that money. And so that doesn't mean that you shouldn't contribute to a non-governmental 457, but it does mean that you need to understand that risk and really carefully weigh the pros and cons basically. So that's it for retirement accounts. Now if we move on to 529 plans, these are a tax-advantaged way to save for college. And with 529 plans, there's no deduction for contributing to the account, but it grows tax-free, just like everything we're talking about. And the distributions are tax-free. If you use the money to pay for qualified education costs, and that includes college tuition and a handful of related expenses basically. So these are kind of like a raw IRA, but for college, in the sense that there's no tax savings at the beginning, but you get tax-free growth and it all comes out tax-free if you jump through the appropriate hoops. But if you take the money out and don't use it for qualified education costs, then the growth, the earnings, that's going to be taxable and it's subject to a 10% penalty. And lastly, we have the health savings account. And this is probably the most powerful account on the list, but the first thing to know about it is that you're not necessarily allowed to contribute to one. Because in order to contribute to an HSA, you have to have what's called a high deductible health insurance plan. And that basically means that the deductible for the year has to be at least a certain amount, which varies by year. And so really the easiest way to know is every year when your employer sends you the PDF or the link with all the health insurance plans that you can choose from, or if you're buying insurance on the exchange and you're comparing the plans there, it will tell you. If a plan is HSA-compatible, it will usually just have HSA in the name or it will say HSA-compatible somewhere in the bullet points. So that's the easiest way to know. And with an HSA, you get a deduction for the contribution to the account. So you get immediate tax savings. And then there's tax-free growth and the distributions are tax-free if you use the money to pay for qualified medical expenses. So these are called triple tax-free. They're the only account like this where you get a deduction at the start. It grows tax-free and the distributions are tax-free. Nothing else works that way. So if you have access to an HSA and you would plan to use the money eventually for qualified medical costs, or as Christine mentioned earlier, to reimburse yourself for previous qualified medical costs that you had, then an HSA is the best deal around. If you take the money out and don't use it for qualified medical costs, then the full distribution is going to be taxable. And if you're younger than age 65, there's a 20% penalty. And that's it for the different types of tax-advantaged accounts. A little bit later, we're going to be discussing the most tax-efficient way to use all of your accounts.


So the first year of a child's life is a time of exceptional growth. From the moment they're born to about four to six months, a baby normally doubles their birth weight. And it is quite normal also for the baby to lose weight just after birth because they are born with a lot of extra fluid. So it's very normal for a baby to sort of lose a little bit of weight in the few days after birth and then gain them back quite quickly and then by four to six months depending on whether they're breastfed or formula fed, they will have doubled their birth weight. And by the 12 months or by one year they will have actually tripled their birth weight. So that is really exceptionally fast growth, accelerated growth in the first year. They also grow taller and heavier as well each year. And sometimes it's, you know, if a child gains more weight in proportion to their height, you could look at it as maybe the fact that they're maybe overeating or they're not exercising enough, they're not as active. And inversely again, if a child doesn't gain enough weight in the first year compared to their height or throughout their childhood that it could also be due to malnourishment. But one of the things, it's not only just in height and weight that the baby grows or the child grows, they also, there's also a lot of physical changes in the childhood that are during childhood that are happening. Things like brain development. The baby will, the child will start to begin, develop their cognitive abilities. They'll start to develop their language skills. They'll start to develop any emotional, emotions and also social development as they get older. The nerves also will grow longer dendrites and axins. So the nerve cells actually multiply dramatically during that time as well to create more connections as well. There's exceptional growth in bone mass and muscle mass and bone density. And also their organs will continue developing.  But a lot of the organs already existing are remarkably similar to the adults in terms of their structure. But we've seen as before that some of them are still immature. They have immature kidneys. So we don't want to include lots of protein and lots of high salt in their diet when you're weaning. We know that their GI tract is still developing as a child. And it normally takes, even the microbiome, takes about two years to grow, to fully establish. And then the reproductive organs are still growing and developing throughout childhood. So it's a really exceptional time of growth, development, and it needs to be supported with the right nutrition.


సిమానుంపినం స౗తి విలులుల్ పతి సిలుల్సి ఆరిలోది వంల్లిల్సి పిమలాన్టి సన్నింాదాసి స౐తికానుతానేయలినామిసినేతిమాధరినటేయా� you can keep the cursor here and you can check the styles exact bibliographical elements and the punctuation marks are similar or not you can select the exact reference which you want after which it will appear in that list then again you need to go back to the Zotiro you need to click on the document preferences Zotiro document preferences will appear so you need to click on this modern language association 9th edition then click on ok this is the mla 9th edition style now if suppose you want some other reference style which is unique as per your need then you need to go to csl editor and from there you can download your own reference style the video for that csl editor is shown in the cards above and you can create your own reference style also that is also possible so that is how we change references from vancouver to mla style of reference in google docs and we are using Zotiro reference manager thanks for watching this video


Welcome back, we apologize for that time out. Now moving on to our first feature for the day, the largest cryptocurrency in the world, Bitcoin is trading on that immense pressure. One Bitcoin is now worth around them 27,000 US dollars, which almost was around 69,000 dollars in November of 2021. Since then, Bitcoin has been on a downward trajectory and now it almost looks impossible that it will ever recover back to the heights that it witnessed long back in 2021. Well, I have joining me right now certified blockchain architect and Metaverse expert, Rume Dominic. Thanks for joining us on this discussion, Rume. Thank you very much for having me. Okay, the question right now is that should one just invest in Bitcoin or one should just run in mile or have high hopes because right now a lot of things are happening. No one is really understanding what's happening in the crypto vest, specifically with Bitcoin. It is similarly going on there by the day. What exactly is the issue, Rume? Okay. Interesting question you've asked. One of the major stories that I've heard recently and also been able to follow up recently on is a fact that truly we should not actually run from Bitcoin. However, there seems to be a couple of crackdown in terms of regulatory policies in the US. As two of the biggest exchanges in the US, Coinbase and Bitrex, they issued out a statement saying that they might likely leave the US very soon because of the SEC crackdown that has been melted to them. However, let's leave the fundamentals on this and let's be able to focus on the facts on the chat because sometimes the fundamentals tries to play with investors' emotions so that they can actually lose a lot of momentum and interest in the market. The facts in the chat from my last market analysis that was posted this morning is that we take three data points, one in 2015, one in 2019, and one in our current day, 2023. And we saw that from these three data points, Bitcoin, actually from its last all-time high, been able to correct about 85% downwards and start a new bull run. Same thing happened in 2019 and same thing happened from that 2022 when Bitcoin came down to this particular time. Now, Bitcoin is currently headed for an upward trend. And if you notice, Bitcoin has been rising from $15,000 to this particular point of $30,000. It's no more for a market to be able to correct after such an upward trend of over 100%. And the scare that we're all having is not so much of a scare that we should have. I mean, I just mentioned up 80-something percent. We only had about 10% drop in the price of Bitcoin, which is no more for every market. So I think it's something that we should have been expecting from me, given the fact that we have been on a very bull run and a very upward trajectory for this period of time. So it is not a time for investors to be scared. It's a time for them to actually look at facts and data on the charts, just like I pointed out, and be able to take smart investment decisions. Okay, but Ruma, I need to really have a background of this whole drop and decline in Bitcoin, because it actually dates back to 2022. You know what? I remember the fall of the crash of FTX and all of that. But so far, since then, most people have not really been speaking positively as much as they have been speaking of cryptocurrency and of course, the Bitcoin since last year. So what exactly really happened? How come it fell that low? I mean, from what I see here, it actually fell to about $27,000. So what exactly is the situation really? How did we get here? Actually, about one year ago, Bitcoin was at its all-time high. So at Bitcoin at its all-time high, on my chart, like I'm looking at my chart now, my chart is actually showing me that the last time Bitcoin was at its all-time high at $67,000 was about November plus December 2021. And at $67,000, the market had a very high level of euphoria, which means that the market was excited. And if you remember, we're in both of investments, which is one of the greatest investors, is that you should sell when the market is excited and buy when the market is fearful. That particular time at $67,000, the market was extremely excited. And truly, with every currency, there is always a rise and a fall, even with the US dollars, even with the Naira, even with the yen, the pounds. And it is not different from Bitcoin because every currency is based on demand and supply. When you had investors make so much profit from where Bitcoin currently rose from, before it got to that point of $67,000, of course, there would be a lot of people that want to take profit. Now, when that particular market started dropping down, there was a lot of negative sentiment that was actually also attached to it. But then the fact that we had some FTX crash, we also had some political unrest, like in Ukraine, a lot of currency rose and all that. These things, Bitcoin is also related with the traditional market in a way because some of the money that is used to buy Bitcoin comes from fiat currencies. So these things were actually some of the reasons that made Bitcoin to actually decline in that particular manner and obey the normal market movement and had that particular correction. On my chart, if you take, as I'm making out my chart now, if you are to take that particular measurement, Bitcoin also dropped about 80, something percent downwards from where it was at that particular point in time. So it is not something that we should be scared of. It is a normal market correction and we can see that throughout the year, since the beginning of 2020, we had another up-portrait judgment and another market cycle starting. So it is time for people to now look at it and say, yes, I'm a smart investor. I'm going to use only the decision and the fact based on the chart to be able to approach the market this time. Okay, so as it is right now, what does this mean in the next few months? We should not just keep the once money on the road or what things are you going to be given because of course, you only have to buy when the market actually suits you and not when it's so, so, so low as it is. So as it is right now, should investors be keeping their money or should they be looking at other options in the cryptoverse? What just should they be doing? Well, actually, you know, the decision to go digital is a personal decision, even as much as we are pushing for a lot of digitalization in the economy. But right now, should it be a decision to adopt Bitcoin as a form of currency that you want to use over other sources of currency or you want to invest in it as an asset is a personal decision. Just as you are going to invest in stocks and all that, if you look at it and you see that from the current financial state of the world, looking at the fact that there's so much inflation, looking at the fact that there's people that is being said that it wants to be able to move this power and all that. And looking at the fact that Bitcoin as a currency is sound money and can not be manipulated by the government and all of these things. But I'll then say I want to go to invest a chunk of my portfolio, maybe 1% of my portfolio, maybe 10% of my portfolio. Because let's say if you have a 10,000 dollars portfolio and then you invest 1% of that portfolio, that would be like 100 dollars that Bitcoin naturally goes up. Maybe it goes up to 100,000 dollars. Maybe you will have made 300% of your investment right now. But if it drops down, you will just lose about 100 dollars of that investment and still retain about 9,900 dollars of that portfolio. So it's a thing of being able to understand that you can stomach the risk that is involved with these different currencies. I mean there's really no making money without risk involved. But really Bitcoin is actually positioned for a very good medium and long-term from the facts on the charts from what I've seen and from the deeper points that I've actually made mention of earlier. So it is not something that investors should look at coming away from at the moment. It's something that you look at and also getting into the other ecosystem because the market cycle seems money going into Bitcoin first and flowing into these other cryptocurrencies. And you can see that Bitcoin has risen up to about 30,000 dollars, is having that courage and it's going to bounce up again. Thank you so much, Rume, for your time, for all those useful insights that you have given to us concerning what's happening in the cryptoverse. We do appreciate your time. Thank you very much for having me.