I hope you had a great lunch. You're filled up, notebooks filled, stomach filled. For those of you who drink a lot of coffee, there will be more opportunities to have that. Obviously, it's about redesigning organizations and attracting and sustain happy-performing people. Whether we can do that without formal managers or not, that's the question for the panel. We'll try to deep dive into the what question, the why, the how, the who questions of being able to build self-managed organizations. Why is this a better model than the other ones and how do you do it and what's the pitfalls? We'll bring in some of the most curious people around this topic and they'll touch upon this based on a few different perspectives. Here's the happy crowd. We'll be inviting up for the panel. The ambition really for the panel is to try to extract three, four or five things that we're able to pinpoint and sort of the key, most important things to understand and to work with in order to have a self-managed organization work. Some touched upon earlier there are a lot of risks and there's a lot of reasons why you shouldn't go about organizing your company or organization this way. We'll touch upon a few of those as well. I'm just laying it out there that the ambition is to find three, four or five things that we can all bring home. We'll see if we manage. Super interesting crowd. We'll invite three friends up to begin with and then the rest and then we'll spend time until some time to ten to two. So some 40, 50 minutes on this topic. I'd love to have James Priest up on stage and Mary Williams and also Joss whom you met earlier today. It's a big hand please. Hello.  Which I can genuinely say would be the case because you're not Swedish. None of you actually, I realize now. Sorry about that. I'm very sorry for being born in the wrong country. Sure. But it's okay. We're very happy to have you here anyway. And you both come from the UK, Mary and James. And I thought I'd start off with you James because you've been working around this topic for many years as both a project manager originally and then a consultant and your lecturer, your author. And you've tried these things out very much so in a sort of community organization environment. A lot of focus on collaboration. And you've also invented or founded a framework an organization called Sociocracy. 3.0, yes I don't forget. And that's an area where you do a lot of evangelism in a sense and inspire and help people to work around that. To just begin with because some here know very well about that and some doesn't. What is Sociocracy 3.0? Okay well, Sociocracy is basically governance or decision making by the peers, the friends, the companions. Which in plain English means just giving decision making power to the people who are doing the work. And removing interference from people who are just overseeing that or coming from a place of abstraction. And 3.0 is basically the discovery of myself and my friend and colleague Bernard Bockelbrink out of Berlin. And we just noticed some tensions with the classic sociocratic framework and also with Holacracy. And also some tensions around agile, particularly when it came to scaling agile and lean principles into organization. What's the main difference between Holacracy and Sociocracy? Well Holacracy is a whole system so Brian Robertson developed patterns for addressing operations as well as governance. We also sought to patent the original kind of framework from classic Sociocracy and that was turned down due to the fact you can't patent a process. So there's a lot of influence from Sociocracy, particularly the circle structure and the double links. And Holacracy compromised somewhat on the consent principle. And Holacracy relies on a full implementation. So S3 was basically through navigating the tensions that we saw in implementing these different frameworks into organizations. We stood back one day and saw that the process we were actually going through to find new strategies to address the unmet needs was the thing that we now call Sociocracy 3.0 or S3. So a key component is various kinds of tensions that you sort of learn to navigate and use in the right way. It's just recognizing that all of life unfolds according to need. So life continues until there's some kind of obstruction or problem or opportunity and then it changes. So it's making that conscious and explicit. And the fact that we are by design very effective at doing that is just we do it in more or less conscious ways. And this is just a side reflection when we spoke the other week and we talk about these things. We realize that this is a subject that is sort of far beyond how do we organize our people. It's very much about looking into yourself and see what's purpose, roles, individuals. We talked about societal changes going on. So we're not going to dive into that right now. But you also do a speed talk later on. So for those of you who want to dig deeper. You also say that you can't just implement these practices. You can't just say and invite your employees to just go about doing this in this new way. Well to quote my friend Daniel Mezek, you can't mandate agile principles and practices into organization. You have to invite people to participate because otherwise it's just a hypocrisy of the essence of what you're seeking to do. Right. So the invitation is paramount. And if people can't locate themselves in the story of change, then why would they engage their short precious lifetime in doing so? And I think that's a good takeaway. And we'll come back to that because that's where you have the tension between management and employees. Mary. Hi, is it on? Is this on? Yeah, it is. I love that they look like Brittany and I get to pretend to be a rapper. I'd also just, I know this doesn't feel important in Sweden, but I'm from South Africa. I'm from a country that's still in the rugby world cup right now, not England. That's a lot of key messages in 30 seconds. Okay, sure. I just learned the Brittany whole thing just now. So from now on I'll call myself Tommy Brittany when I'm on stage. Anyway, that's not why we're here. You run a micro consulting company out of the UK? Yeah, in London. Although, as you said earlier, I've just three weeks ago taken on a normal, employed full-time job again to go be CTO of M&S.com. Which is Mark Spenser's online business. And you're newbie, in a sense, to this whole framework in this way of working on the agile methodologies. You've done that for many years, but you're also in P&G for God knows how many years. A very, very long time, yes. Right. I think it's very interesting going into Mark Spenser because I think all the architects are convinced I'm not just going to raise everything to the ground because they see my P&G experience. And then M&S are looking for more what I did at the government digital service, which was to help government be a lot more agile. So it's quite interesting. That's a challenge. But you might have help from your background, which is artificial intelligence, which is probably as cool as it gets, in a sense. But yeah, we'll see how that connects to this management philosophy. One thing I wonder, it sounds like quite a bold move by Mark Spenser to hire you into their fairly traditional organization. Is that just me mixing things up? So the much bolder move they made was a few years ago where they hired a guy called Kyle McGinn who I have a huge amount of time for and going to get to work with him is part of the reason I've done it. Where they realized that that kind of traditional program management approach to things maybe wasn't great. And they hired him into to run a labs team and have found that that kind of agile way of going from idea to something that you can test, whether it's really working, whether users really want it, customers really want it as quickly as possible. Have a small autonomous team that gets to build what they think is important to make the customer experience better. And we've really just seen it scale out of that. So there's actually a really brilliant product team over there. And now we're just into the how do we level up our engineering capability to be able to build basically build the kind of capability that we can't buy. Which is about how we survive the coming change. You can't hold back the ocean, but you can learn to surf I think is the phrase. Alright, there we go. Another key message. I was a bit intrigued by your by your background with with PNG because one of the things they price themselves with is obviously management training. So it just maybe it's not a paradox in any way, but it's interesting that you've been trained in an environment that is one of the world's best trainer in management and leadership skills. And now we're spending a whole conference on sort of flushing out the management layers with the early water. Is that so? And should we do that? Or I mean, you've spent your career. So that I think PNG and I think GE is the only company that produces more C level execs for other companies than Procter. And what they're brilliant at is teaching people is helping create an environment where people learn fast and level up and become great enablers of others. So people look at the people who stay at Procter for a really long time and are like, wow, you had the same job for 15 years. I was there for 10 years and I did seven completely different roles. And so they've become a very, very good at having a system where they can move people around and that be incrementing their ability to be effective each time.  And I think that's interesting. I think we're three years gone from PNG now, so I'm not on the inside anymore. I still say we, sometimes it's in your blood. I think what's becoming interesting for them as a company is that if you have people who join at graduate level and stay for 30 years, they have to try very hard to be connected outside to understand that outside influence. And I think doubling down and believing that you'll discover yourselves, everything interesting that's happening outside is probably not a winning philosophy anymore. But it's also not a philosophy. They're trying to hold anymore. They're very much moving away from that. They're also moving into this century in a sense and this movement. But it's interesting because PNG then obviously looks like many other companies and some of them we have represented here today. So it's good just to tap into some of that experience. But basically you're saying that management is not evil and it's not only... We're not going to get rid of all management in a sense because there's good things with it.  It's not a really popular research discipline. So I used to be a project manager and what we found in AI was all of these things that we thought worked from people project management, the important thing is to follow the plan well. There's lots of project management practitioners who will tell you that compliance is the problem. The process is great.  And we tried that. Robots really don't mind doing what they're told. They don't have any kind of existential angst about not feeling in control of their lives or any of that. They're obedient, they're tireless and it doesn't work. So even if you remove the squishy human problem all of those traditional ways of planning and operating those traditional techniques do not work. And what does work is exactly what just described this morning which is you help agents or robots to know what they're trying to achieve, to know what they're capable of and to make the right decision in the moment based on the environment and to do the right thing. So what I find funny is that we talk about this as being like a very different thing that we need to do that's the only way in a complex system it'll work. We have these complex systems in technology. The way they work is by being more autonomous, able to learn and able to act independently but towards a common goal. And so actually what robots would teach us is the same thing as we hear when we hear inspirational stories like this. Okay, so either we listen to the robots or we listen to you, Joss. Or both, hopefully. Because how do you relate to this? Because you built a company with no managers, basically. And we have a discussion here. Is it all management and managers' per definition that we want to get rid of for various reasons? Or are they good management and good managers? Do you hear me? Yeah. I think there are evil things in management. So what I learned is that throughout the years, first as a nurse and later as a manager director, is there are a lot of images about management which doesn't fit reality, I think. So managers themselves think they are important. And they are the cause of the things which are happening in organizations. And I think that's not true. I said to my colleagues, I think if we stay home today and the coming weeks and the coming months, nobody will notice. And perhaps some things will even go better than when we're just disturbing the daily work. Well, I think that's a good exercise to do. Just sit down for five minutes and just think about what would it actually mean if I just stayed home for three weeks? Don't just think about it. Go home three weeks. I think what's more important is if you're delivering services or making products, I should ask the question, what kind of support do you need to make the best possible things? I look at it from an economic perspective and I say, if you build this management structure and HR structure and so on, it costs a lot of money. You have to have a legitimation to do this. And if you can integrate these different aspects in the daily activities of people and not in persons, then I think it will be much more effective. So I agree completely with what you're saying, that the world is complex, getting more complex, and you have to be able to make the decisions at the moment you are dealing with them. But in my opinion, the hierarchical structures avoid people to make the right decisions at the right moment. So I think you need to find a balance. And I think that only talking about management already what I said this morning, I should broaden the perspective and I should think there are different ways to organise. And the management and management language creates some kind of a tunnel vision, in my opinion. So we should be more open to different ways of organising and it leads to more creativity because if you're all using this management language all the time, then it's disturbing, I think. A lot of professionals don't know this management language. Usually I see when nurses who are working for us have had a meeting, for example with some other people from other organisations, usually they are the managers. They're using other language, they don't understand each other. But the nurses usually think that they have more ideas, the managers have more ideas by the way they talk and the language they use. And I always say no, it's less because they try to cover up what they don't know. But for me that's creating this world has a lot of damaging things in it. And that doesn't mean that managers are bad. I think a lot of managers have the right intentions. So I'm not against menace but I think we should be aware of the consequences in how organisational behaviour develops, how people develop and can grow in organisations, and how if it's supportive or if it's working out more negative. Let's invite up two more friends and we'll broaden the discussion as well. Two other practitioners in a sense, Marijaf Turanmoh who's a consultant these days but spent a lot of years as an HR director, formerly just recently stepped out of NetEnt and Karin Tenelius who's a CEO and serial entrepreneur in a sense. Please welcome up on stage. You're making a lot of room. It feels almost a bit distant but you're called. Hi. There we go. In Sweden we have so much space, so we try to get closer sometimes. Anyway, Marijaf, hi. Hi. You're the HR director in this crowd. Exactly. You've done that for 17 years. I love HR directors. So you two will have a nice chat, I think. Yeah, absolutely. Some of your best friends are HR directors, right? What's fascinating is that you have a very broad background. You've been in steel, in finance, in gaming, so it's some of the things that we talk about here. I know for a fact that you've been working on hands-on. And it's notably when we look at what you've done, it's a lot of fast-moving IT-related industries. How do you relate to all this looking at it from the HR director's seat, in a sense, from what Joss talked about this morning and how we build organizations in this way? Yeah, when I heard Joss talking about we don't have an HR organization or an HR function as sort of the benefits of this, I think that maybe Joss has a more traditional and conservative view of the HR function. And I think the HR function is changing as well as other functions and the way we organize ourselves. But I think maybe we will see more MDs and they have the background in HR, for example. Instead of engineers. I think it was Harvard Business Review that actually claimed that last year potentially the best possible CEO in their view of any company would be the CHRO. For various reasons. For me, I've always been working with the managers. That has sort of been my role as the one working with the managers in the organization. And of course, if we don't have any managers, what will happen then? What will happen? I think, and I've been always been driving sort of, have a culture and a value driven organization. And it's exactly what is described here. So I'm totally into this and I think we can do a lot more and we are in a very exciting moment at the moment. So I'm really looking forward to see more organizations as process, yes. Because you've worked in, I said steel, that may not be the most fast growing industry on the planet, but you also headed up HR at NodeNet during the sort of booming years. You've been part of taking NetEnt, which is formerly Net Entertainment, which is casino gaming, from small to super successful. So it's been pretty fast. What's the most difficult sitting in the HR director's seat working with the managers, getting them to move in this direction? Because I imagine it's challenging. Yeah, but it's not actually the managers, it's the management team and the board, I would say. It's the biggest challenge when we talk about this. Because the managers, they really want to develop, we talked a lot about inclusive leadership and transformational leadership and to build self-driven employees. So it's exactly what we're talking about here. But the problem is the management team and the board who wants to have the budget and the figures and the KPIs and stuff like that. So that's at least my experience. It goes back to... And some of these companies you worked for have also been listed companies on the stock exchange, which is good as a context reference. Karin, Tonellius, welcome. Thank you. You're sort of a serial CEO entrepreneur that have been practicing these things since the 80s. But don't call me CEO because I never... That's just a joke at the office. I don't think anybody knows that. It says so in a few places, but serial entrepreneurs don't. Because you've tried these practices, I mean you've been in hotel business, you've been in the call center business, you're now in education among other things, trying to get managers and leaders to work in new ways. Yes, I read some books in the 80s when I was at school and then I tried out the theories there. Very inspired by Ricardo Semmler, for instance. And it took, I think, 12 years before I could try it out for real in a small company. And then I just kept going in very small companies, though. And when we say small, what's the scale? Well, at most I had 55 employees in like five or seven companies. So it's that size. So you've been quite successful in some of these companies.  Yes, because I was early. I mean, in the 90s I stood and talked about this in crowds like this. And it wasn't very well received everywhere. And it was a lot of argument about it's against the law. You don't know what you're talking about. Is it against the law? No. Okay, just checking. But what do you think this is such a controversial? I think people hear chaos. They hear chaos always. And it has nothing to do with chaos. The structures are there, but the structures are invented by the people that will live with the structures. So that's just the difference. It's a lot of order in the companies. Yeah. But it's also, I mean, people in general don't like chaos. It's not only management that doesn't like chaos. It's all sort of, all of us prefer in the sense some kind of order. You talked, you also said that one of the most fundamental things that we underestimate beyond imagination when we do these things is the fact that people need to be on board in sort of doing this. So forget about managers. There are so and so many people, but then we have an entire organization that needs to be on board in starting to work in these ways. Can you reflect upon that? And I also have taken over old companies a lot of old culture where they weren't allowed to do really basic things without allowance. But when we initiate this change, all the coworkers welcome it. It's like, yes, we can have a say. That's not, that's really great. And then is this honeymoon for a while. And then it's really rough because everybody understands that it includes dealing with older colleagues. Right. Okay, yeah. So you actually need to collaborate and deal with each other, yeah. Yeah. And then the trouble starts or the challenges. And in the other end of that, there is a lot of confidence, openness, and safety. How fast have you transitioned because you've done this a number of times? Yeah, my first two cases went really quick. I get afterwards because, so eight to nine months. And also that included to go from a big loss to profit, unexpectedly, actually. The profit or the loss? Always good with positive surprises. The profit became much, much bigger than we ever could dream of in two cases. So it's a good financial model. But the last cases, it took much longer than I thought. But here's also what you said that, and this might go for Sweden, it might go for the entire world, I don't know. But you said that the problem we have is that employees are so goddamn employed. Yeah. And it's not evil, but it's a mindset that is really hard to come to terms with. One of the people I learned the most from when I was doing GDS highlighted this brilliant quote, which is under stress, people do what they've always done, whether it worked or not. But I think that often what we see in these kind of transformations, when we're going from one state to another, is even if people are bored into it, even if they really want the change that's happening, under stress, under pressure, they'll revert to what they've always done and making space for that to be a bump along the road rather than a catastrophe is part of what I think you have to do. Letting people understand that this is on the horizon and that this is part of the deal in navigating transformation. I was reading the Deli Llama a couple of days ago talking about the need for self-discipline in embracing this kind of transformational process to hold ourselves and be aware of that invitation to fall back into previous strategies under stress, or when more vulnerable. But it's good then because world and work right now is not that stressful, right? We do have time and energy to explore. Why don't we broaden up the discussion? Because this is a topic that is one of the very fundamentals I think we agree on. How much of the challenges can be divided, or actually we'll do a quick poll, not in the audience, but we can do that too actually. A poll on stage where the biggest challenges lies in doing these transitions that we're talking about. Is it within managers and management, or is it with the employees having the interest, the willingness, the energy to move in to work in this new model? Race of hands. Management is the primary problem? Not managers, management. Stopping managers, managing. That's the biggest problem. We'll do a poll here as well. Management and managers being the biggest problem, or the individuals? It was like a fallout rate of 80%. So we'll do it again.  Okay, interesting. Can I say, I don't think there's a problem. Go ahead, think there's a tension. Yes, and there's a disproportionate distribution of function. And it's important to recognize that a role is just a strategy to deliver value somehow, to needs. And it's one that we're culturally familiar with. And some functions are more clear than others. So like a leadership function, for example, we can understand leadership. When I'm meeting you, Joss, and having the conversation, it's like the company's successful because of your strong, facilitative leadership, I would say. And there's really a pattern where a number of organizations might make some kind of transformation towards more distributed leadership. But when the kind of benevolent leader or the facilitative leader pulls out or the coach pulls out and so on, then it can very fast return back to that old pattern again. And I don't think it's about who's the problem. It's just there's an opportunity and attention, and everybody's accountable. I think we're all accountable. Is that a key component, making sure that there's a facilitator, a coach, or I think you refer to them as translators, in a sense, almost. They have to be there. So you can't just rip all of them out. Or just in a way. No, I was thinking about what you were saying. But if you look at the average management education, it's focusing on the hard things. So it's not so much about psychosociology or how to communicate. The average MBA is too much focusing on the hard parts of the organization. So the attitude of a lot of people who become managers is unbalanced, in my opinion. So we should train them more with more spiritual things and more other things. So one of the articles, Sharda Nandram, the book I mentioned, wrote, she said, one of the reasons that things are going so well within the organization is that there is a good balance between material things and spiritual things. And I think as a society, if we look at the last 30, 40 years, we moved very fast to the material things and missed part of the things which creates a soul in the organization. Recognizing our interdependency. Also, yeah. Are these managers that we talked about, are they aware that, to what extent are they aware that we can actually work in new ways and actually, if we just take the time? Or are they too stressed and focused on? When I get into an organization where there are managers, I take them away and give, so they'd be part of the team. That's a quick solution. And in the beginning, the team needs a lot of facilitating and then you're totally unnecessary. So just a step back. So when you go in and you buy a company or you're moving as a CEO, you just take the management out? Yeah, I don't fire it. I mean, they are still there, but they're not in the manager role anymore. And what do you do in order for that to work fairly smoothly? Because it sounds very theoretical. I've been lucky because those managers are really long for this way of working. They were not top managers. They were middle managers, women. And they really thought it was a good idea to work this way. Nobody, when you're like six years old, they go, what do you want to be when you grow up? It's all like firemen. Nobody says manager. We don't grow up with this as a really aspirational career choice. I'm just like, one day I'm going to put a suit and tie on and it's going to be awesome. It doesn't happen. But I think one sort of tension or problem you have is when you have a very successful company. You have a lot of money, a lot of profit. And then if you want to drive change, it's quite difficult because why should we change this? This is a success story. But I think in order to stay at least attractive as an employer, you need to change in this direction. Otherwise we won't be there in five, ten years time. I think especially in five or ten years time. And this is really at the core also of your responsibility as an HR director is making sure that we have enough talent of the right caliber and that they're engaged and whether it's your responsibility or channeling it through the leaders, but still it's on your plate in a sense. Is that one of the core drivers you see in the way you work that it's about talent attraction? Yeah, absolutely. Motivated people and happy people at work, I think that's quite important and that's my why or my purpose, so that's important for me when I work. But I think we were talking about leadership training or training managers a little bit earlier and I think I've been part of so many designing for managers to become leaders. The leadership skills train feedback, train how to have a dialogue with people, conflicts. But I hope we will see other way around that we find leaders and then we train them in P&L and budget or whatever we want to have. So that we have the leaders and then sort of train them in this other hard stuff. That's much easier. We will never know where to find them. We will be surprised where we find them, I think. This is not because we don't do leadership training and so on. My opinion, you become a leader because you're taking responsibility for what you see and in daily practice by becoming a more and more senior professional. Yeah, of course what I talked about was a little bit more like if you have managers, if you're not the organization like yours because you don't have managers in that way. But a lot of organizations still have, most of them. So that's sort of I think the first step maybe towards something else. But when we talk about what you're talking about I think it's more like self-leadership, to lead yourself, to be aware about yourself and your motivation or whatever. That is so important. It starts very early. I quite enjoy reading kind of interviews and conversations with people who are very respected at bigger organizations. I don't know what's wrong with me. But it's interesting because I think we have this kind of pointy-haired boss view of what a manager is and when you speak to the best leaders and managers on European G, they were not telling anybody what to do, ever. And they had worked out early in their careers that that was not the successful strategy and they had found different ways to approach it. They were much more about enabling the right team to do the right things. And they're in a bigger organization so sometimes what they're also doing is providing air cover or helping somebody who knows what localize needs to happen but needs to understand something else.  But I think we have this kind of view that if we critically looked at who succeeds in those kind of management roles, many of them are not acting the way that we're worried about. They're acting the way that we would like them to. But they are burdened with this title and this perception and sometimes a set of words and vocabulary that is really not helpful, which I completely agree with. First of all, we're going to rip your mic off because it broke, so you're going to use that one. So no more Britney Spears, I'm afraid. It's not working, I'm afraid. So who will then be the leaders or the managers in this paradigm? And again, there will be a transition. We have this futuristic image of having no managers at all. But until we get there in about 100 years, how do we make sure that managers and leaders transition? Who will be the translators rather than the managers? Each other actor? You need to be a people person first of all. It's not about education, it's more about the view you have of people and their capabilities. So how do we make, because again, you've been very instrumental in building a few of these things and institutionalizing them in NetEnt, for example, and NodeNet. How do you get that across? So now we will start recruiting nurses only. Or now we will make sure that the finance department holds a lot of HR people instead. How do we try to make that actually happen? And you've pushed some boundaries in your former job. Because it also sounds like fairly bold moves. I think use good examples and inspire and encourage courage, I would say. Because I think it's a lot about courage. I'd really echo that.  And so I think there's an overall piece of going, let's measure success the right way and let's reward the right things. So somebody's professional success shouldn't be at odds with doing the right thing. But very often that is how we're set up, right? I wonder if it's the right question, really. Who's going to do this? Because I think it comes back to all of us. And everybody's at a different stage in their own personal development and that relative to the context of the culture and what I see as an emergence of people who either through just immense suffering have had enough of their current paradigm and are asking if not this, then what? And others who are more pre-emptive and seeing the possibility of alternatives on the horizon and there's this emergence happening, grassroots throughout organizations, throughout communities, particularly in the younger generations now. And I wonder if we can be a bit arrogant in thinking which expert now is going to facilitate this process. It seems that facilitation as a practice is what's required to draw out the inherent skills, creativity and potential. I worked 10 years with at-risk young people and we had a potential-orientated approach to engagement with them, which is like nobody tells the acorn how to grow into an oak tree.  It just needs the right environment to flourish. And so people are very much looking at their environment now. They're dissatisfied with the story they were told would be satisfactory for them and they're looking much more to their own needs and what would bring them more happiness and fulfillment. And that seems to be a meme that's spreading. So I think this telling our stories, inviting others, if others can relate to it, and them sharing their stories and finding frameworks, patterns, processes, examples, people who are resonant with those, there's something for everybody out there. I wonder if we have to try so hard, really, or if it's more about acknowledging what's emerging and sharing this story and sharing our excitement with it and recognizing that there is hope. And it's down to all of us, not down to some expert. I think the water to the oak in those is what I say is a culture of safety, confidence, respect. And so what I try to do when I buy a company, it's a lot of fear and you just put confidence and safety and trust. So that's the water that is needed. Yes, so in a sense, will the individual employee become the manager in a sense? So it's a leadership training and the future will not really exist. You have a leadership training company, I'm sorry to say, but... No, no, that's fine. It'll be something completely different. Yeah, it is about skills. And I don't spend so much time in my leadership company because it serves hierarchical companies and that won't be the case forever, I hope. So I totally agree that leadership will unleash in other ways in the future. Right. Okay, so where do you find the ones that are good at doing this? I mean, we have a full crowd here that comes from all different kinds of places. They need to start digging into the good examples, the ones that are good at doing a few of these things that we're mentioning. Should we all look at Sappos and then be fine with it, or should we... Let's have a discussion about Sappos, because you were boiling. I mean, that's one example. We had in Morningstar there's a few examples that are used again and again. Any other examples or comments for that matter on the examples? I think we labor under this illusion that people want things to be the way they are. And I choose to believe that everybody comes to work wanting to be brilliant. And I don't think there's anybody who goes, you know what, today I'm getting out of bed and I'm shooting for just south of mediocre. We're not like that. There are people who they can't deliver their best right now because of something's going on or the situation they're in isn't great, but nobody comes to work going, that's what I do. Does anybody go to work going, I want to be just south of mediocre today? Not that many. So I feel like we're often talking about it, like we have to go and incite something in people that isn't easily there or like we have to become... Change agents, oh my God, unless you're actually a Secret Service agent, you don't get to call yourself an agent.  And I so wish I got to start from scratch ever because that would be... In some ways, being able to just do it right from the beginning is such an amazing opportunity. But I don't think that companies aren't people, systems are just systems, we can change them, and I don't think we need to believe that we have to make that happen to people. People want that, we just need to stop stopping it. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now. You asked for examples, and I think of course that's good to look at different examples, but I also think we can just go home and look in our organizations and see what we can do and start there. Normally we want to have sort of a recipe and bring that home, and I think we all can go home and make a change. So what can HR start doing in this, and what are some of the things that you've tried out? Yeah, I will work more with self-leadership when it comes to employees. I have been focusing a lot on manager training or leadership training, but I think one of the recipes for this is to have sort of the driving force from the people, from the crowd, and if you train people or give them the safe environment and to be able to lead themselves, then I think this will sort of come naturally, in a way. And the key thing is to give away the authority and the control. And nobody wants that. Sounds like an easy task. Maybe we should just add in effective solution-orientated decision-making as well, to help people skill up on how to make decisions together, how to tap the collective intelligence that lies within teams, because a lot of people are struggling to manage with the tools and processes they inherited from before, and they're not necessarily so effective. I think the governance side is often underappreciated in terms of how to navigate, guide the flow of value in order, basically, by optimizing the flow of information through systems so that people who need to know things and people who do know things can transmit rapidly that information and it doesn't go between somebody who holds it all in some kind of autocratic position. Not enough. I'm sorry to say, but it's not enough. More things need to be done. I think young people will create one disruptive innovation after another. So we'll see. The bigger companies who are not changing yet, they will be forced to change or they won't live anymore after 10 years. So young people don't accept the way we build the organization. It's a 50-plus problem. So it's an intergenerational problem. We are built on... Most organizations are built on power, status, and money. And if we want to accelerate, then we have to create environments, in my opinion, which give the opportunity to the people to do their work as the way we are talking today. And if we don't do it, we will be forced to do it because I think what you see all over the world, disruptive innovations are more and more and more. There's a lot of money to keep these organizations running. And what comes out of it is less and less. So it's also my perspective, and I'm happy that I started two years for economics. It's also an economical issue, in my opinion. Also, I was thinking about the stress-related problems we have at least in Sweden. And it's sort of increasing. And I think this is also... That couldn't be a sort of a driving force for change. So I think we should look at the stress-related problems as a sort of a source for change to have more self-managed organizations. And I think that's why people are so stressed at work. This clash between how we are as human beings and how we are organized. I completely agree with that. In S3, we say that tension is a symptom of wisdom or new information seeking emergence. And if you look at the current level of stress amongst the human species today, that's a lot of wisdom seeking emergence, I would say. I think that has to be the final word, actually. But if you would have one thing to say, and you have 10 seconds each in a sense, the most important key message on how to get this to work, what would that be? Karin, you're sort of all fired up. I want to ask you, Josh, do you think we need to have a crash or can we do it painlessly change in society? I think both. The crash is already happening. So it's there and a lot of people don't notice, but if it's either on ecological or on energy or all kind of themes. So we are in transition and we are in change of eras and the coming 10, 20 years, I think we will experience the consequences of that. So if we can, of course, go on with a very gentle way of changing organizations. But if you're not aware of what we're doing now, so wisdom and awareness, I think are very important things at this moment, then as an organization, as that is your goal, you won't survive. That's my... You agree? Yeah. Okay, one thing. Just look inside your organization and start in a small scale. Inside, start in a small scale. Key takeaway. Be radical. Be radical. We need a transition. Yes, James? Evolution and we're the ones we've been waiting for. Stop trying to hold back the ocean. That's all I want to say. Which is very much get out of people's way. All right. Big hand for the panel. Thank you very much.


What is going on guys, welcome back to the channel and I appreciate you being here. Today I want to run you guys through how you can land yourself this epic pulse rifle, the machiner die for if that's how you want to pronounce it. I'd call it the machiner but other people want to call it the machiner but hey whatever. But before we get into that people epic loot is being given away on this video to win. Hit that like button and join my discord server linked within the video description. So going into the curse of Osiris there were a few said weapons I wanted upon watching the teaser trailers, this was one of them. As soon as I saw it I knew it was going to be a pulse rifle as it's basically a re-skin of the no time to explain that amazing Destiny 1 exotic weapon which was basically an exotic version of the original rare strangest rifle which was brought back in year 2 of Destiny 1 as a legendary all of them were great weapons nonetheless. This upon using it for over a day is also indeed a great weapon far from the best but still great. Haven't given it time or day in PvP yet though as I'm staying the heck out of there until I get that Prometheus lens because that thing is so OP I refuse to play PvP while people are burning me alive with it no way no way. Okay so how did you get this? Well upon completing the curse of Osiris story campaign you then have to complete three adventures at Unmercury, the up and up, the runner and the bug in the system. Upon completing these three adventures you then need to head to Brother Vance within the Lighthouse Unmercury. There he will then give you an option for one heroic adventure which you must complete and heroic version of one of the three you just did. Choose whichever you like, whichever you think will be the easiest. They do however come with modifiers which I do understand change on a daily basis. Pick the heroic you think will be simplest to complete, I say simple but doing it solo ain't very simple at all. But once you have completed that head back to Brother Vance he will then offer you something called Lost Prophecy verse 1. This verse apart of 11 verses to collect requires you to use one concentrated radial rayon culture to get these you need to farm chests. These can be on any planet from basically any activity, public events, VIP enemies, planetary chests and so on. In farming chests you get the radial rayon cultures, these not being the concentrated versions. You need 10 of these un-concentrated versions and 15 shards to get one concentrated radial rayon culture. When you have the 10 you farm from these chests head back to Vance, you then have to trade him the 10 radial rayon cultures with 15 shards for the concentrated version. Now I will say the concentrated versions do also drop from chests but they are extremely rare. So upon obtaining the concentrated radial rayon culture you need to activate it within your infantry. Once you have done that you will then need to take that Lost Prophecy verse 1 back to Brother Vance so he can fulfill it for you. Once you've done that you simply head to the Forger machine in the lighthouse and forge your weapon. This will give you the progeny which is the scout rifle, not a bad weapon to be honest. Now once you've got this you then want to head back to Vance who then should offer you another selection of verses for you to complete. You can only pick one of these and the Pulse Rifle is verse 4. From what I understand verse 3 is a energy hand cannon and verse 5 is an SMG. So if you want the Pulse Rifle choose verse 4. Now upon selecting this the requirements to forge it are basically the same as verse 1 except you need to farm 3 times as much as you need 3 concentrated radial rayon cultures to activate this verse so you need to go and farm chests. I have posted a great farming spot on a faster way of obtaining these and that can be found linked within the video description if you do want to check it out but yes 3 concentrated versions are needed. So once you have farmed or if you've got lucky and you've got a concentrated version drop like I did but whatever when you've got what's needed you simply run the same process go back to Vance obviously requiring you to spend 45 shards if you didn't get a concentrated version drop so 45 shards and 30 radial rayon cultures you then trade them with Vance for the 3 concentrated versions once you have them you activate them in your inventory then head to Vance he will then fulfill this verse this tablet you then take it to that foraging machine and collect your loot it is as simple as that people so yes this is how you get the Mackinac Die 4. I hope this video helped you out if it did leave a like really does help me out thanks as always for stopping by people and hopefully people I will see you on that next video


Hello everybody and welcome to the first talk here in hall 3. Our speaker is Swally and in his talk he will address the history, the programming details and the hardware internals of one of the first game consoles on the market, the Atari 2600. Give him a huge round of applause, he is Swally. Hello, hello. So this is what I want to talk about today, the Atari 2600 video computer system. Yes, it's really called that way. So I'm going to talk to you about the history, the hardware and how you can write programs. Some first steps on how to get there. So why do I want this talk? Well, the idea came from two different aspects. One was Michael Stahl who inspired me to do a talk about retro computing when he did his talk about the C64. And the other one is why did I choose really the Atari? Because it is very well documented, the CPU and the video chip is as well. And the video chip differs from anything else that you've got in any other hardware or any other gaming console. And this is the main course. So first of all I got to thank you to all these guys. They did the pioneering. I just took on their work and did the talk. There are a lot of sites concerned about the varying aspects of video gaming in general and specifically on programming on the 2600. So let's start with the history. Short about the Atari history. Atari was founded by Nolan Bushnell and Ted Stephanie in 1972. It was founded because they wanted to produce what is known as Pong. This is recognized as the first worldwide video game. And though it's not the first at all. The same goes for the Atari. It was also thought of as the first gaming console for home. But this isn't. There was the Fairchild Journal F was further. But this was the one that really got the huge success. Between 1972 and 2001 Atari had an arcade game division which was the basic. One of the main fields of industry where they worked in. Most of the some of the games were also implemented for the Atari 2600. So let's start with the design history. Well their first release was a home version of the Pong game which was a success and a failure both. It was a success because it was the first game that really got into first video game that got into people's homes. But it was more a failure for Atari because it was cloned very fast and they couldn't get much money out of it. So in 1975 they decided to produce a home game console based on a programmable design using a CPU. They co-named it Zella after the bicycle of one of the engineers. And when they started designing three processor designs were considered. The Intel 8080, the Motorola 6800. And the MOS 6502 which was an independent company once the design started. But between that and the release of the Atari the whole MOS company got bought by Commodore. So they could produce the the pet computer and later the C64, big 20, something like that. And one of the key issues what they wanted was it should be really cheap. So that a lot of people not into video gaming would also consider buying one. So the basic design was set up in two days with the core team of the engineers together with Chuck Petal of MOS. He was the man who designed the 6502. And both the CPU and the ship set were off the shelf components. If you take a look at nowadays consoles like Wii, Xbox or the P3 all are custom designs. So this is back then it was off the shelf components. But the main thing MOS got the deals because they were significantly cheaper than the others. The first offer was about $15, Atari sang the prize to $12. Whereas the competition got them to or wanted to have $150 to $200. The guys at Motorola were sure that they want to get the deal because they were a bit cheaper than Intel. And they didn't know about MOS so a week after they learned that they didn't get the deal they sued MOS for patent infringements. But what was still needed was the chip responsible for video and audio. There were no off the shelf components available at this time. So Jmina designed one. Jmina is also known or better known as the father of Yamiga. And he did it using breadboard technology. We'll have a picture of that later. And it was a rather expensive design phase because it was very tedious work to do. And it took quite a lot of time. But when the finished design was transferred into a chip, this resulting chip was easy to produce. And it was named TIA short for television interface adapter. So this is what a breadboard looks like. And this is just a binary counter. So imagine if you want to put a whole video chip on this one that you really got to need a huge size of it. This is what the finished die looks like. And Atari is a part of pop culture. They were not the first on the market. This was the Fairchild Channel F. But they were the first that achieved really broad distribution. And it was released in 1977. And after the first release, the PCB design and also the casing was constantly redesigned. But the last version is still 100% compatible to the first version. And I knew back in the 80s, Atari was the new for home gaming. I knew back in the playground, when I was a kid, there wasn't a do you have a home game console? No, it was do you have an Atari? And it was discontinued at the end of 1991. So it was in production for more than 14 years. And this is the longest, this is the console that remains the longest in production. There are about 500 games that were programmed. If you're going to count in bootlegs, NTSC, Parcon versions, stuff like that, you can get estimated to over 10,000 different modules. About 7,000 have been counted by one website. So this is what the first Atari looked like. There you see the module you're going to plug it in there. And this is called the six switch model. Because there are still some difficulty switches on the front. In the next revision, they did not get moved away because it is still 100% compatible. But they have been moved to the back, which is better to see by the next revision which is just another different color. So you're going to see there and there the difficulty switches. This was the last one of the original Atari that was produced. If you want to go and code on real Atari hardware, I suppose that this is the console that you're going to use. Because it is technically the most advanced and it's really easy to modify for an AV output. The others still need some more. But this is for about parts two to three of you you can build your own AV output. This is the Atari flashback. So when Retro really got on the way, Atari also wanted to make some money of it and they put a whole series of flashback consoles. This is the flashback two plus, which differs from the original two just by a different game selection. The flashback one was not really an original Atari 2600. It was a NES system on a chip design where the games has been ported to. The flashback two is an ASIC design of the original hardware and the flashback three which has gone on the market this year is an ARM based computer which just runs an emulator. So back in the days, there was this green meadow where they're going to put on new games. So where did they get the inspirations from? Well, first of all was to port some analog games or content, something like chess or checkers. Also, there was an attempt to port the video pinball. So this is what these games looked like. Sports were a very nice thing where they got their ideas from and most of the sports have been implemented more than once. So there's boxing and real sports boxing, real sports soccer and pilet soccer. And so it's nice to compare them. We'll have that on the next slide. And probably the biggest selling title there was Decaflin, the real Georgia killer. So here we have basketball and soccer in the different year. So this was really from the early days. The double dunk is more sophisticated, but the most interesting part is to compare the soccer. On the pilet soccer, you have four players, three pilers and goalie. And the field players are always there in this formation. So you move over them at once. Six years later, they got more sophisticated. The other players were controlled by the computer. You just controlled one player, and there were six field player and one goalie. So another huge origin of games was to French eyes. Other titles like movies or cartoons like Spider-Man and even something like the Muppets. And the first Star Wars video game was for the Atari 2600. But there's no roundhouse kick. I tried it, I couldn't get it. So this is what the games looked like. This is the first Star Wars title. So you're going to play your fighter against the 88, Spider-Man, Smurf, and this one is Rails of the Lost Ark. Though it doesn't really look like much, it's one of the best adventures program for the Atari and it's still a fun title to play today. But the biggest section was to port arcade games. But it was not really porting, but it was just a re-implementation of the original game idea. So let's just compare two games. I can say one of this conversion sucks, in my opinion, and the other one has really gotten very well. As I put on the slides, I say from the view of the games you really couldn't tell which is which, but Donkey Kong, in my opinion, sucked because the original has four levels and the Atari clone only has two, the first and the last, and Popeye includes all three levels and they are also very fun to play. But this is the part you really want to get an Atari for today. These are the original titles. They are really evented for the Atari. The most important part there is the most original titles were just another space shooter or something like that, but there were really some really nice pearls in there. Haunted Horse is a nice adventure survival horror game, it's also called Pitfall is a classic, and Adventure is the one I'm going to introduce you in depth to. So this is what these games look like. About Yachter Revenge, there's a nice thing to know, that this energy barrier here, which blocks your shot, the developer wanted to have some random data, but space in the cartridge was really short, so what he used as random data is what you see there is program code used as a table. So let's take a look at Adventure. Why did I choose Adventure as an example? Because it's the ancestor of all action adventures. So when you play Zelda, the original one was for the Atari. It is still a fine game to play. It will not take you as long as Zelda to come through. A skilled player can do the easy version in less than a minute and the more complex... But this is just an introduction. The real game setting can be done in about five minutes, something like that. But till you get to that point, where you can do it in five minutes, you have still some things to learn, so it will... For the first time you get it through and think you've done it is about an hour. The original author of this game had put on a small website about this game where he also includes slides for a lecture he gave about this game and the Atari development in general. So how do you play it? This is you. So you start as an adventurer in front of a castle and your job is to bring the enchanted chalice back to that castle. For this you have a world consisting of 29 screens like the first one we saw. There are three castles, three mazes, consisting of several non-linear screens. So when you move out to one level, you can get into the same level as you can get... If you enter to the right. So it's really... You've got to learn your way by this turn, that turn, and not by just thinking as just as a plain area. There are several connecting rooms like forks where you can get either to the maze or to the castle. There are some dead ends. Some of them might contain objects that you need to solve your quest. So let's take a look at these objects. All objects interact by overlapping, so touching. This was something very new back then. We've got three dragons to chase you. This one is the real enemy because it moves your objects away. You can carry only one. So if you put it somewhere, it steals it from you. So maybe the sword is gone when you want to fight the dragon. You've got... For each of the three castles you've got a key, a very nice drawn sword to kill the dragons. This is something really cool. This is a wall where you can cross through... A bridge where you can cross through horizontal walls. The magnet to attract objects. This is also something very nice. This is a workaround for a problem you've got. You can drop some of your objects inside a wall so that you can't get them anymore or the bed can do this. So you've got to get it out there somehow and this is why Warren has implemented this magnet to attract the objects. And of course you've got the enchanted challenge. But the coolest thing about adventure is there's one more object. It's one pixel in size and it has the color of the background. So if you drop it, it's very hard to find. It's hidden in a room that's only accessible using the bridge. So in normal gameplay you wouldn't even come to this room. When you take this dot to a certain room and add another object to this room, the wall is gone. Maybe not on the first time. Maybe you've got to leave the room and enter it again but then the wall is definitely gone.  The revenge of a disgruntled video game programmer. When Atari released their games the program of video games got a salary of about 20 to 25k a year. And they didn't get their name. Not in the manual, not in the game, not anywhere. It was an Atari game, it was another game of a programmer. So Warren choose to hide this one very deep in there. And after that quit. So let's take a look on how you're going to program it. Back in 77 you've got code assembled on a computer running a proprietary OS. My guess was that it was CPM but it wasn't back then. It's connected to a special cartridge which simulates the ROM inside the Atari. And when the software crashed you would just see stripes top down. Why are we going to learn later on? For debugging a logic analyzer was used. So something leading to a special condition could be displayed. It does not need the crash but something else could be also done. Nowadays it's much more simple. You've got your code assembled on almost any operating system you're going to choose like. You can run your code inside a very sophisticated installer with an emulator with very sophisticated debugging options. And once it works like expected you can transfer it on a special cartridge which simulates the ROM for you. Supercharger was the first was able to do this and how many cards is the current one that you can buy. In between there have been about four other cartridges but they are not available anymore. So this is what the Supercharger looks like. The data is transferred very much like it was done on the home computer back in the 80s. So with an audio coded signal. The game developers mostly used this to plug in the audio signal into the sound card so they could create the data direct from there. This is what the debugger looks like. So you've got your object code. You've got all the RAM in one view and you've got the display of the game. It turns black and white once the new screen will be drawn so that you can see where you are going to draw your data right now. Piracy. It was even back then an issue. In the design phase nobody thought about it because they thought this hardware is so sophisticated no one ever will be able to hack it. But suddenly there was competition in the name of Activision. Activision was founded by four Atari programmers who decided that they wanted to have their name on the cartridge so they had to go independent and there was a nice talk before they did that and this sentence was the one that really got them going. Well, Atari and otherwise. They filed a lawsuit to prohibit a third-party game development and they lost that suit. And other companies know that the juristic stuff was clear jumped into that and really lead to a flood of game card which is by other programmers. Some of them were really nice but most of them were not really worth mentioning today anymore. But when you have the option to program for it you have also the option just to modify the game so this is the cause of all the bootlegs. You just pick out the original game maybe change some sprites or some colors and then you have a new game that you really want to sell as new but you could also copy your games at home. There was some kind called the duplicator. You have got cartridges. They are fit with an eProm and this is just an ePromer with very special connectors. Atari filed a lawsuit and this time they won. It was a bit too obvious that this is not really good. So, home brewing. The Atari has been out of production for 20 years now, even more. And there is a big home brewing community that still develops new title. This year, Boulder Dash has been ported as a licensed game from First Star Software. Atari H and other real cartridges that you can buy and plug in an original Atari more than 100 titles compared to the 500 titles that were available when the Atari was taken from the market and most of the home brewing games are even better programmed. So, if you want to do it yourself, I can recommend two different assemblers. There is the Desim assembler and this is the defective standard of the home brewing community. And there is the CC65, which comes from another aspect, more for programming for Atari, the commuter computers, the 8-biters, all what runs on a 6502 processor. And if you just want to give it a hack, there even is a Atari basic. This is a basic-like language which compiles your code to an assembler source code that you can put on through there. You don't want to write a new game from scratch. You can go hack and modify other games. You can just change the graphics as the bootlegers did. There are even a few games with editors, so adventure can be modified to your own adventure. And you can disassemble and game and modify it. Therefore, I've got a fine example. Pac-Man. This is what Pac-Man looks like in the arcade. And this is what Pac-Man looked like at home. So the home brewing community thought, we're going to do this better. Let's put it in this way so that the colors match, the sprites look a bit nicer. But they even took another step. This is the ROM image of Miss Pac-Man, the successor, and they put back in the original image and even put in intermediate movies and stuff like that. It's really close to the original arcade version. So let's take a look at the hardware. This is the block diagram. So we've got the Atari. We've got the ROM module that contains all the code. There's no firmware or something like that in the Atari. The Atari in itself is dumb. You've got your input devices like joysticks and paddles. And you've got your output device, the television. Inside the Atari, we've got the 6507, the CPU. We've got the chip that contains ROM, IOD ports and a timer. And you've got the television interface adapter. These are all connected through a CPU bus. And the input devices are connected to the riot and also to the tier for analog inputs, something like that. And the tier outputs what you've got to the television. So let's take a look at the CPU. The CPU is a stripped-down version of the 6502. This has been described in depth by Michael Steyer last year. And if you want to go into that, I really recommend that you're going to see that talk. So here's just a brief overview first of the 6502. It was designed by Chuck Paddle, who also did some work on the Motorola 6800. So that was one of the course for the lawsuit. I mentioned earlier. It is an 8-bit architecture, a little engine. Your instructions take up one up to three bytes and take two up to seven clock cycles to execute. In this case, it is clocked at about 1.2 MHz. And it's cheap in production, even the 6502, and it was competitive in speed. So you've got in the CPU six registers, the multipurpose accumulator, two index registers, the program counter, so where the next instruction will be fetched from, the stack pointer. And there are some discussions if it's a 16-bit registered or not. It is a 16-bit address register where the next address for stack will be used. And it is an offset from 100. But if you transfer the stack register, you can transfer it to the X register, and then you have got 8-bit, so I chose to say it's an 8-bit register. And you have also the processor status for the zero flag, negative flag, stuff like that. So what's different about the 6502? It has a smaller chip package. What's missing? Three address lines. So instead of the 64K, you've got only 8K where you can address all the others on mirrors. The both interrupt lines have been completely disabled. There are four other pins missing where not essential and three non-connected pins have been used. And this one is even because of the smaller chip design or the chip package, this was one of the main cost factors you've got back then. So it was even cheaper to produce than the 6502, and it was very popular for embedded applications like washing machines, something like that. So we've got the riot. It was a very, very common companionship to the 6502 family. It features the whole 128 bytes of RAM. That's all you ever get there. You've got two IO ports. One port is used for the five console switches, the one you saw on the first minus the power switch. You've got one IO port for both joystick ports. There are only the directions. The fire buttons are routed through the tier. And a timer that is capable of sending interrupts. But as we have learned, the 6507 is not capable of receiving. So the external address space is 8K. This means we've got eight mirrors. The remaining address space is split in half. The lower half is used for IO like the tier, the riot, timer, RAM. And the other half is used for the ROM module. They are typically used in two ways. Either you put them all in one, but the most common one was to use the lower bank with the address of zero and the ROM with the address of f. So this is what the mapping of the chip looks like. It's a bit weird. So it's usually addressed at the first part of the zero page. There are different shadows available. It's got space for 64 registers. There are 14 read-only registers. They are mirrored four times inside that 64 byte address space. So we've got 45 write-only registers. They are really write-only because if you read from the same address, you get the read-only registers. So you use the address for both of them. So this is what the except-making of the riot looks like. The real interesting part is that there are the mode registers, either RAM or IO. So it means it's mapped to two different addresses. The RAM is usually addressed at the second half of the zero page, and the IO is at 280. So this is the mapping, which looks a bit weird, but they're alternating like this, that you get the first two mirrors for the RAM, the second two for the IO, and then switch back and something like that. This was necessary to get this mirror here. We'll learn the short why. So this is the IO ports and the time-up addresses. This is the RAM, 128 bytes, as I mentioned. It's needed two locations for your game status, the variables, and for the stack, which is at 180. So what you've got there is pretty less time. In the menu, it is stated that the stack will be used from top FF down. So keep in mind that you're using mirrors, so that you don't have the 128 bytes twice, but only once. And my favorite quote from the developers manual is this one. So what's still missing is the ROM. The ROM resembles, this is 24 pins that are on the connector, resembles an eProm or a ROM of 32 kilobits, so 4 kilobyte. It has three power lines, two ground and one voltage, eight data lines, and 13 address lines. So it just resembles what's the difference, what's missing. What's missing is the ship select signal. So what Atari did, they just defined that the ship select is not low active, but high active, and it's used at the highest address line for this use. So they needed no logic inside the Atari to generate a ship select. And what's also missing is the read-write line, which is in my opinion a bit of a design failure, because they have two grounds, one would have been enough, and they could have used the read-write so that you could put RAM on a cartridge. But this was, when they designed it, they just thought of it, ah, 4K ROM would be enough for everyone. So we're going to need to now learn about how to work around these barriers. At the start, there were only two or 4K ROM modules, at 81, the first 8K ROM modules were available. How are we going to fit it in there? Bank switching. Let's assume you've got your ROM, which is an addressable space of 4K, you put in two banks, and by reading just from a special address, you switch from one bank to another, and by reading from another address, you switch back. This is called the F8 type of cartridge because of the low byte value that's been used for switching. So if you need more ROM than 8K, you can simply add more banks. You use four banks, and again, four hotspots. This is called F6 because the first one was F6 to use. Now we have enough ROM, but what about RAM? We have no read-write line on the module, but we can use or misuse the address lines for the read-write configuration. So we have a write port and a read port. The write port starts from 1,000, and the read port starts from 1080. So what we're going to write to 1,000 can be written from 1080. And these are variations of the cartridges that I just introduced, and they have added a C for, as far as I know, super cartridge. But you can push the bank switching a lot more further. You can first split up your address space so that you don't need to bank all of it at once, but just one half. For this, you can address up to 256 banks, and these are not addressed by accessing hotspots because a whole page would be just lost for hotspots. You write the ROM bank number to 3F. This is IO space. But since you've got the whole CPU bus, you can use it. You can also add 32 banks of RAM. Change it to a different IO address you're going to use, and then you've got a really super cartridge, which is capable of addressing 512K of ROM and 32K of RAM. They are the different ports. And this is called Type 3E because of the RAM address, and it was used by a company called TigerVision. Though they didn't push it this far, as far as I could research, they only used up to four ROM banks. But one of the homebrew cartridges was capable, they have extended this logic to use it up really to this maximum. So short conclusion. There are many ways you can get more ROM or RAM into the cartridge. They also include some kind of bank switching scene, and you've got, you've learned about five real-life configurations. The Amulet Astella allows about 25. So it's even fun just to poke through the source code and see how they implemented the bank switching. There are some really weird things there. So nowadays you can use it using microcontrollers in cartridges, which also include the ROM data as well, which is used in the Harmony cartridge, for example. So part three, how to write programs. Now you're going to learn how to write on the registers. First of all, we need to look at what a television frame looks like. The ray crosses, the beam crosses the frame from left to right, and while it's crossing it's selected which color should be displayed. And this is done line by line, every frame. For these scan lines that they are called, you've got on NTSC 262 and on PAL 312. Across, as the beam travels you've got 228 color clock cycles. The Atari has no frame buffer as most of the other consoles. This is one of the main differences. So you cannot call them pixels or something like that. So you've got your vertical sync from the television, which is not displayed on the screen, as well as the overscan area, where the beam already has gone out of the picture. And you've got your horizontal blank, which you can use to prepare something for display. So this leaves you with an drawable area of 160 color clock cycles. So this is the closest one that you can get to a picture, so this is the resolution you've got there. Your games logic will always happen in the vertical sync, vertical blank, and in the overscan area.  And the CPU clock, when you program the TIA, you have only 76 color clock cycles, exactly a third, because the TIA generates the CPU clock as one third. So since we've got no frame buffer, why we have no frame buffer? RAM was in 75, very expensive. My rough guess is that a kilobyte of RAM back then cost more than it would cost a gigabyte today. To convert, if you think of it as a frame buffer, there are 160 times 192. You will need 30K of 7-bit words. This would be a huge amount of RAM. It would be very expensive and wouldn't even be addressable by the CPU. So something, a completely different approach has been taken. You program the chip while it is traveling the beam. The advantage is it was very cheap to produce and it is very flexible. So over the years, the program has really learned to master this technique. And the disadvantage is, as I stated, the CPU is occupied doing this play so you can't do any game logic in there, except you put in a blank or something like that. So instead of running the graphics frame by frame, the image is drawn really line by line and you draw it line by line. But nothing changed. The next line is drawn as the one before. So if it crashes, you have just one set of lines going from top to down. There are no registers for Y components. That was something that was really odd to me when I started reading the manual. I thought, yeah, the sprite position X and X and Y. Y as you draw. So when you draw a sprite, it is 8-bit wide and you can put it as high as the screen. So what you do is you tell the tier to paint while it is painting. And this really needed some exact timing and this is officially called racing the beam. So let's take a look at the wide registers. There are four for syncing. So you even do your own syncing on hardware. A lot of graphics registers. A bit audio and this is to reset collision. So let's take a look at the graphic capabilities. You've got a background color. You've got two different colors for the sprites. You've got play field with its own color. You've got two missile sprites that are reusing the player colors. You've got one ball sprite. So if you take a look at this, a ball to missiles, it really comes from the requirement that you needed to run combat and pong as games. So let's take a look at the colors. We have got four color registers. Background, the play field and the two players. All other colors are taken from these for missiles and the ball are taken from these registers as well. And the color can be picked of a palette of 128. As a C64 programmer, I was really envious of this. This is what the palette looks like on NTSC. This is what it looks like on PAL. Because PAL color generation is more complicated, some of the space needed to be used for this logic. So it was completely rewritten at this point. When you port a game between NTSC and PAL, this is one of the two things that you've got to take care of so that you use another color palette. The other is the 60Hz versus 50Hz timing problem. But this really isn't a problem as you have seen. You do the timing all in software. You really program the video blank yourself so you've got no problem in running an NTSC game in a PAL console. You just get a 60Hz version of the game and you get some really strange colors. But really screwed with the one who got a Ccamp system. What has happened there? Well, the Atari has a switch in which you can put each game into black and white mode. So on the Ccamp system, this switch is always set to black and white and instead of displaying different gray colors, it's just really a different color that's been used. So let's take a look at the play field graphics. The resolution is 40 bits. So we've got four color clock cycles per bit that have been displayed. The registers responsible is the play field color, three data registers, but how are we going to squeeze 40 bits into three bytes? There's one more register that's just involved. It's a control play field register. And there you've got the option to reflect the play field or repeat the play field. This we're going to get in depth on the next one. You also can choose that you can use the player colors instead of the play field color, which is often used to display the score of a game. So the number displayed on the left gets the color of the left player and on the right gets the color of the right player. And you can also choose the priority if the play field should overlap sprites or if the sprites should overlap the play field. So this is the data register in depth. We've got our 20 bits there. This ordered in this way. So these 20 bits can be either mirrored and yes, this is not a mistake. The bit you specify there is really displayed somewhere in the middle. And this is one thing that's also, it's a cause for a lot of bugs if you're going to try coding. At least that's been for me. What you can also do is repeat the same color, still unordered or sometimes reversed, sometimes normal and backer to reverse. But what you can also do is you can change it during display. So while the beam travels over the first data, you can change that data to something completely different and then use this data again on the right half. And this ordering really isn't anything but straightforward. So let's take a look at some examples for our play fields. This is a classic combat, which has been one of the launch titles. You've got the play field slightly mirrored. You've got two different colors for the players and the players. Defender is a nice example on how the repeat has been used to draw the screen. And one of the nice examples I could use for play field was a game called to tank him. There they're going to use the alternating between mirrored and repeating to really to design the game level. So you come back from up there. You've got here a place where it is switched. This is a tunnel. So you can't go back down there. You go through the tunnel, go around there. And yes, here is mirrored. Here it is repeated. And this is something, which I think is a very clever design back then. We've got the play field and the other big graphic elements, the sprites. The TI has five sprites. Two player sprites, eight bit.  And one ball sprite, also just on or off. So the missile sprite positions can be locked to the player position so that you don't have to use the registers for the missile sprites, but can position them on the same exact position as the player. And keep in mind that the hardware was constructed for using combat and pong. So you're going to see the player, the missile sprite, the missile sprite, the player, and the ball sprite. And these are also player sprites. Sprite placement. This is a real interesting topic. The Y is how it reaches, when it's enabled before it reaches the beam position. And X is a bit more complicated. You have registers that are called reset player zero, reset player one, reset missile zero, reset missile one. But these are just registers you trigger. They don't take any value. They just reset the sprite position. And reset has also different interpretation in here. You do not reset it to position zero to the left, but to the current X position of the beam. So what you're going to do is you wait until it reaches a special position, then trigger the reset register, and in the next line you enable so that it is displayed. But we have learned that the tier is three times as fast as the CPU, so you cannot do it pixel or color clock cycle exact. For this, you've got fine tuning registers. These are motion registers that can be used to move the sprite minus eight to plus seven. Very intuitive, negative move to the right, positive to the left. And you just store a value in there. It is not triggered while storing. It is triggered by storing the move register. And you can clear all these values at once. So how are you going to keep your code in sync? This is something that is really essential as we learned on the previous slides. To accomplish it, there are three rules you're going to use. First of all, you count the cycles. You know of every instruction, what it takes to execute. The second one, this is the core. This is really the core of Atari programming. You've got the W sync register to stop the CPU until the start of the next scan line is reached. So you can always delay your code to the next line about to display. And this is something, this is the key that obsoles but makes it possible to work without interrupts. And if you cannot predict, well, don't want to predict because it is some more complicated game logic, you start up a timer, run through your code and wait for it to time out afterwards. So let's take a look at some real life sprite examples. So the question is, two player sprite is a bit, really a bit, not much. So we can get more sprites. This can be done in software. Just by changing the sprite registers, once a sprite has been displayed. But you can also get a bit of help from the hardware. This is another game variation of combat. And once you have three planes there, again one large one. And this is done by hardware registers. The player sprites, or for the player's workouts, these seven options, the normal sprites are mostly used. You can then position them or enlarge them. So mirroring is also possible that you don't waste your ROM on mirror data. And the ball and missile sprites can be enlarged. So let's take a look at some game examples. Outlaw is one of the, not a launch shuttle, but came really short afterwards. Two player sprites and missile sprites have been used. Circus Atari is quite nice. The player sprites are used for the two clowns. And the seesaw you can see there is a missile sprite that's been moved four pixels, or the two-color-cluck cycles, sorry, every line. So you've got Berserk and Vanguard. They use the same technique. They make sure in gameplay that two enemies are on the same scan line. If this robot moves up, you're going to get there, it will stop about here because it would then reach the area of the next enemy. Pegman uses another different technique. This is a bit bad to see here. Pegman is always drawn every frame, but the ghosts, one there, one there, one there, and one there are also drawn, they take turns in being drawn. So they are interlaced. Space invaders use another neat trick. It uses triplication. So this, this, and this is the same sprite, and this, this, and this is the same sprite. And what you're going to do is, when someone gets shot, you don't turn it off, but you set the data to zero. DigDuck. DigDuck is a really fine-coded game. It just uses interlaced when two sprites are on the same scan lines. Videochess uses another trick. It just displays only every other line. So, and this is really still the best technique to use if you want to generate some kind of menu or something like that to display your data. So, let's go to detecting collisions. This is essential, and the hardware is full-featured here. We've got all combinations that are possible for collisions. There are registers in there. They will keep their data until it is triggered. What is a collision? If you code it in software, you could, you would do it in other, would not, if the pixel is touched, but you would take the drawing area and just see if something matches there. And it's really good there. So, this is not a collision. We've got two voices. A little bit of a rush because time is running out. The audio, we've got two voices, each having three registers. Volume, the frequency, this is a divider for the base frequency, and the control. The control has 11 unique settings and the control is the basic pattern you're going to get there. You're going to see it a bit afterwards. Most of the settings are not used for music, but just for motor noise, shots and something like that. So, the sound generation can be looked at at two steps. The basic signal is generated by setting the audio high or low. So, what the output got in there is just a rack angle. These are the base frequencies that are used. The control registers define the pattern and the sound is generated by shifting these patterns out one by one. So, let's take a look on a piano keyboard on what tones you've got if you're going to use the settings that are used for generating just a pure rack angle and that are useful for generating a melody. So, what you've got there is a bit more than three or four octaves, something like that. Some game developers really took some guys, say, write me some simple music instead of taking something that has been already known because there are some keys sometimes missing. So, let's take a look at the waveform that can be generated. So, this is the pure rack angle you get for the high notes and this is the one that get for the low notes and some others are really weird looking so they get some kind of distortion that can be used for motor noise and something like that. So, and the step two is that this signal is multiplied with the corresponding volume register and this can be used also to play four-bit digital data. This is quite impressive. There is one game which is really worth looking at. It's called the Berserk Voice Enhanced Edition. This is a hack of the game I introduced during the sprites part and this features the voice of the arcade version and if you compare it, it's really impressive because of the really different hardware and the capabilities. The hardware of the arcade version is way more sophisticated. So, going from here what you're going to do next I invite you to play a game.  When a game sucks, you see it and if it doesn't suck, if it really gets you playing then it gets it for a good cause because the game is good. I have not covered the homebrew games because I'm already out of time and take a look there. It really is impressive of what the homebrew community has squeezed out of the hardware and what's also nice. What you've learned here, try to figure out how they do it. I still have seen some games. I don't know how they did it. So, if you're not into playing games play with the system, code something for free. All tools are available. The emulator is available with very nice debugging support. You've got two assemblers you can use. And from the intro I've displayed the scroll routine without the coloring. Just drawing some text has taken me an afternoon to code. So, it's some time you can spend.  I would like to learn. Show me something. So, have you taken time for questions? No time for questions. I'm sorry, but I wanted to squeeze as much information as in the talk. I'll be here around. I'll wait outside the room. If you have questions to me, address them. I'll be waiting there for you for about the next half an hour. Thank you.