I'm very glad to see that we still have so many people this late on a Friday afternoon. This is our third panel of the evening and my name is Sonia Collina, I'm in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese. I'm the moderator for the panel and I'm going to introduce our three next panelists. And they're like Professor Adji just mentioned, we have a variety of people from different departments, the university and this panel I think is a very good example of that, like other panels we've seen today. So we have Professor Yurenda Almeida from the Department of French and Italian, Professor David Christensen, right, did I get it right, sometimes I get the Christensen's then confused, and the Department of German Studies, I'm sorry, classics, sorry, trying to work my memory, and Professor Thomas Kovach in the Department of German Studies. The way we're going to do this is first they're all going to tell us a little bit about their work with translation. As David mentioned earlier, you have detailed bios on the program so now they're going to give us a little bit of detail about their present projects on translation. And then I'll have a couple of what I think are somewhat interesting questions and hopefully we'll stir up a little bit of debate in the audience and I'll first give them the chance to answer those questions, the panelists, and then hopefully we'll get a little bit more audience involved then, okay. All right, so Professor Almeida, oh you get your own, yeah you're right. Hi, can you hear me? Okay, my first work of translation was the translation of a novel by Chinua Chebe, whom as you know passed away last week as I was at the conference of the African Literature Association. So it was a sad event but it was good that there were 400 people there who deal with African Literature who could do a memorial for him. So the book was Chebe's third book, Arrow of God, and I translated it into French with a friend under the title La Flesh de Dieu. Now I would very much like to translate this book again because I translated it 20 years ago and I feel that I have a little more experience today to do a better job at it. So I'm in negotiation with Presence African in Paris to see they're going to allow me to re-translate it, especially since nobody else did another translation of that book. Now I think we're going to come back to this later because, well maybe I'll make just one point about that book because I am from Benin in West Africa, a French-speaking country, translating a book by a Nigerian with an anglophone and who is also an Igbo within the Nigerian society, so it was a very distinctive culture. So I will talk about the challenges if we have time. My second translation work is the one that is on display outside and it's a translation of African Women's Poetry. Even though I'm not officially the translator of that book because what I did was more the work of gathering all this work that African women have done and which has remained invisible even within the French-speaking world, let alone the English-speaking world. So that's another definition of translation, this transfer of knowledge from one language to the other. And then the colleague who was working with me who is an African American, so her language is English. So that's why I was interested in that concept of what in which language you translate in, you know, where you are more at ease. But what I'm working on now and that I'm very passionate about is on translating oral traditions by women in four, F-O-N, which is one of the main languages spoken in Benin. So I was on sabbatical last year, spent a whole year in Benin collecting all this poetry, but I mean there are many challenges. The first is that it's poetry in four that have to translate into English, into French, and eventually into English. So we have a translation of a translation and also because it's oral tradition, it's how do you translate pitch? How do you translate, you know, the chanting? How do you translate? I mean there are so many questions that we can talk about later. So I want to, that's all I want to say now. Okay. We can come back to it. Yeah. Okay. Am I audible? No. That should be on. Should be on. What about now? Nothing? What about now? That's most natural. All right. Thank you. I unfortunately wrote something up ahead of time after I did not have the advantage of Professor Raji's wonderful talk, which I learned a lot from. So this will give a much less nuanced view of the relationship between source and target text. But here it goes. The focus of my current and previous translation projects is on the translation of the current and previous translation projects has been ancient Roman comedy and the Roman comic playwright, Plotus in particular. Plotus wrote and produced plays around 200 BCE, just after the Romans had taken a major step toward acquiring an empire by defeating Carthage in the Second Punic War. Roman literature thus grew out of imperialism as its creation was part of Rome's project to establish a cultural identity as it militarily and politically colonized Europe. Every culture and literature were rapidly being absorbed by the Romans when Plotus came onto the scene, though not without conservative resistance to the newfound cosmopolitanism in Rome. Drama came first in Latin literature because the Roman soldiery had enjoyed theatrical productions of Greek plays while on campaign in Hellenized regions of southern Italy. One outcome of this early explosion of Roman interest in drama was the survival today of 20 complete or nearly complete Latin comedies adapted from Greek sources by Plotus. Until relatively recently, classicists had only begrudgingly accepted Plotus's chronological primacy in Latin literature. Plotus's plays were mostly marginalized as degenerate translations of presumptively superior, albeit almost entirely lost, source plays of Greek new comedy. This dismissed Plotus's plays as linguistically frenetic and extravagantly jokey corruptions of their sources. And given their general disregard for consistent development of character and plot, they could not as readily be made to conform to modern traditions of theatrical naturalism as could surviving specimens of other new comedy playwrights. It thus was generally agreed that the best use to which Plotus's plays could be put was to reconstruct their lost or highly fragmentary Greek source texts. In the late 1980s, my choice of Plotus as one of my special authors for my comprehensive exams in my Ivy League PhD program was mostly met with snickers from my peers and professors, apparently because up to that point I had been thought to be a capable and serious student. Extensive 20th century papyrus finds of the Greek new comic playwright Menander, however, have gradually revealed that the lost Greek comedies behind Roman drama were not all they had been cracked up to be, and that Plotus adapted his sources more liberally for his target audience and to better effect than had been presumed. Near the end of the 20th century, a few scholars began to look more closely at the extant text of Plotus as scripts were performance and demonstrated that the plays were much richer when imagined as complex spectacles enacted at a particular historical moment. Much of the performative power and interest of Plotine comedy is in fact derived from the shifting dynamics of actors and audience, and it turns out that Plotus in some ways is a very modern and thoroughly metadramatic playwright. Plotine meta-theater goes far beyond Kleber quips about the play's status as a performance in progress in that it aggressively exposes the underpinnings of Plotine comedy, especially its conventions, its stock roles, and role-playing as the constructions they are. Contemporary Roman society was deeply theatrical in its scripting of public events, as seen especially in its spectacular religious rituals, military triumphal processions, elite funerals, and even the daily obligations of political patronage, all of which enacted in an often elaborate social script, firmly grounded in rules and conventions designed to affirm social hierarchies and relationships of power. A Roman of this period who had seen any form of drama would easily have grasped the meaning of the Shakespearean dictum all the world's stage. It seems no accident, for example, that in this age of fierce competition among the elite for the right to celebrate military triumphs, in association with empire building, several Plotine comedies feature a braggart soldier drawn to absurdly egotistical extremes. The study of Plotine metadrama holds much potential for shedding light on the nature of Roman society in the dynamic period of economic and social change following the Second Punic War, especially as it relates to such issues as the effects of new cultural influences, the possibilities for social mobility or rebirth, personal and group identity, gender, sexuality, and otherness. My own scholarly work, Outside Translation, largely focuses on how Plotine comedy addresses these kinds of issues within the confines of state-sponsored dramatic festivals and in so doing subtly interrogates Roman systems of power. This reinvigorated interest in Plotis has resulted not only in fresh scholarly studies of the place in their ancient performative context, but has also opened the way to revival performances and to a number of new translations, which, like my own, actively bring an awareness of recent scholarly developments to the translation enterprise. In the prefaces of my two published volumes of translations of Roman comedy, I emphasize that I translate for the classroom and that my primary aim is to provide students with a readable and well-informed introduction to the place and to the distant cultural environment in which they were produced. Although the striking similarities between ancient and modern colloquial conversation often lead to readily domesticated English dialogue and translation, overall I aim to retain the foreignness of ancient Rome in general and the strangeness of Plotine verbal prolixity in particular. Plotis abounds in neologisms hyperbole and often bizarre and baroque conceits, which, when left relatively undomesticated, may seem as unexpected and jarring to a modern audience as they were meant to be for an ancient one. One simple method I use to broadly preserve the otherness of the source text and perhaps induce students to appreciate differences in that source text and its culture, even if they are reading in their own language, involves not modernizing the names of the characters and leaving in references to Roman and Greek places, persons, deities, personified abstractions, institutions, currency, and the like. These are explained in notes at the bottom of the page or less frequently in appendices. The same treatment generally extends to Roman cultural beliefs, values, assumptions and ideologies, and thanks to a sympathetic publisher, this process of defamiliarization can be carried out at the most minute linguistic level. For example, a common Latin way of expressing the proverbial notion stuck between a rock and a hard place is between the knife and the victim. In these instances, I literally translate the ancient proverb or give a domesticating equivalent, but in either case include a brief note on the prevalence of animal sacrifice in the ancient world and its pervasiveness in the colloquial lexicon. I of course acknowledge that this degree of foreignization may not be a reasonable goal for all translations. For my first two volumes of translations, I was most fortunate to have worked with Focus Publishing, a press in Boston well established in my field for its translations of ancient drama that allows translators to include notes on the pages of the translated text, which greatly increases the chances that students may actually read them. I had to negotiate for notes on the page in the contract for my current translation project with Oxford University Press, whose normal practice is to relegate notes to the back of their editions. These notes can be interpretative as well as merely informative. In the case of Plautine Metadrama, for example, I often include a brief explanatory note about the possible meta-theatrical import of something a character says when this is not immediately obvious. And in the more obvious cases, such as when the playwright figure of Plautus' Casna, Cleostrata, who at the play's end, after she has subjected her lecherous husband to a humiliating transvestite punishment, arbitrarily declares that she will forgive him, quote, only because this play is long enough as it is, unquote. I include a note, referring the reader to a general discussion of Plautine Meta-theater in the introduction of the volume. This kind of interpretive direction clearly illustrates how translations may be inscribed within current scholarly discourse on the source text. I do not apologize for this sort of interpretive transparency as translation like scholarship is an historicized cultural product and we should not pretend otherwise. And this is just one reason, in the case of ancient Greek and Latin text, to be sure, why commonly read works should be re-translated every generation or so. Thank you. Do I need this one? Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to, as you suggested, come out of the closet and talk about my early experiences in translation before I get to my professional work. And I'm thinking back to studying German in college, where I learned the language for the first time, and believe it or not, I was taught in the now totally discredited grammar translation approach, which had one advantage. Not that I'm advocating it, but it did make me aware of translation from a very early stage of my kind of engagement with the German language. In my college days, we were very immersed in the works of Thomas Mann. That was really the dominant figure in my studies. And because I was just learning the language and sort of struggling with it, I did consult translations quite a bit. And back then, there was only one translation available of Thomas Mann's works. It was the translation of Helen Lowe Porter, which struck me as rather stuffy Victorian in style. We also made a number of blunders, which even I as a second or third year student could spot. But it just didn't seem to me faithful to the style and spirit of Mann's texts. And so I remember when I was now in graduate school in comparative literature, I did sit in on a workshop on translation. And for that, I submitted my version of a translation of the first paragraph of Thomas Mann's Der Toten Venedig, Death in Venice. Those of you who know the work know it's about this writer who is in this very overwrought state of mind from the very beginning of the text. And that psychological state is conveyed by the very convoluted prose, which of course German is known for, but this is particularly convoluted. And of course, Helen Lowe Porter in her translation had broken it down into many easily flowing English sentences, which had none of the feel of the original I felt. So I tried to replicate this totally convoluted syntax in my English translation. And I'll never forget the response of the professor who was leading this workshop. He looked at it and said, that's not English. And this did teach me a lesson that, you know, however much we try to think we can manipulate our target language to accomplish an expressive goal, every language has its own parameters that must be taken into consideration. And this is a lesson I learned early on. Now, you know, just quickly referring to the theme of this panel, translation as scholarship, and in what sense it is, I can sort of confess that for much of the early part of my career, apart from doing sort of various projects to serve community requests or colleagues requests, I wasn't really engaged in translation professionally as part of my scholarly profile. Until more recently, I was involved in a publication of essays and also poems by the German Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig. And then just moving on, in 2002 I published, I edited a volume of essays on the Viennese writer Hugo von Hoffmann style that I'd written my dissertation in another book on. And a couple of the submissions to that volume were in German, so I had to translate them. A couple of years later, my colleague Steve Martenson edited a volume in the same series on Früder Schiller. And one of those essays was in German and he asked me to translate. So, you know, this was my first sort of professional experience, in this case translating academic prose into English. Then more recently, I published a volume consisting of speeches and essays by a contemporary German writer, Martin Walser, all related to Germans dealing with the Nazi past and how that has really impacted German national identity. So, my volume consisted of translations of his texts, as well as introductions and commentaries. Now, what's interesting about these works is that the genre is kind of slippery. I mean, on the one hand, you might think, well, this is a writer functioning as a public intellectual, you know, declaring his stance on various issues in public life. But Walser would often kind of retreat into very literary devices, for instance, jumping into third-person forms. And so, you know, this was, in a way, an initial encounter with literary translation as well. I've more recently translated novella by another contemporary German writer, Peter Schneider, which is a very, also a very loaded one. It is fictional, but it is clearly based on the testimonies of Rolf Mengele, the son of the notorious Auschwitz doctor, Josef Mengele. And it's had a very kind of rocky history because of that. But I don't want to get into that right now, although we can talk about it more later. I guess, you know, what I want to sort of bring out is the different genres involved in translation. You know, from philosophical essays to academic articles to speeches and essays which have some literary flavor, then finally to a clearly literary work of fiction. I do think that the whole topic of genre is a very important one, because to me, the rules of the game are quite different, depending on the genre. And, you know, for instance, on one end of the spectrum, translating a scholar the article on the other, translating a poem. In the former case, the main focus is really the content of the message, what is being said, and you want to convey that as accurately as possible in your target language. Now, if the scholar resorts to some literary flourishes in the style, well, you can try to convey those. But that is, as I see it, not really central to the enterprise. Apart from sort of amateur attempts to translate to the text of some German leader or art songs, I have generally shied away from translating poetry. But I think poem, you know, the translation of a poem is the perfect example of, really, a counter example to the scholarly article. Here, really, what is central is the tone, the figures of speech and the formal elements that play a role, you know, even if you can speak of the content of a poem, which is far greater than the content. And, again, here I kind of want to hark back to my lesson from graduate school that I mentioned before. And that is, you have to convey the reading experience of someone reading the original text, but you have to do it in a way that is possible within the parameters of your target language. So those are, you know, what I thought I'd just close with some reflections on the whole theme of our panel, and that is the whole question of translation of scholarship. And, you know, as it has been mentioned several times before, it used to be the case that translation was, did not count in any regard to scholarship, was regarded by many in the academy as a rather menial task. I think we're all encouraged to see that that is beginning to change, that people are more and more inclined to view translation as a scholarly activity. And I think one can argue that translation does accomplish a goal comparable to a work of literary criticism or scholarship, which is to interpret a work to make it accessible to a new audience. So let me just close with that. Thank you. Go ahead, the microphone, please. OK, I think, Iran, you wanted to add a little bit about the type of one of your projects. You wanted to go into a little more detail? No, I thought that you were going to ask us the questions. I would do that within the questions. Oh, we would do that within that context. And I just wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity to tell us about it a little bit more. Now, what I see listening to all of you, what I hear, actually, after, I don't know if it's been 15 or 20 minutes, is that each one of you, you're all talking about translation in a similar context in a way, but at the same time, you're all talking about different types of translation, right? Translate in the classics for college students or for textbooks. You have a certain type of purpose, in mind, a certain type of audience that makes you do certain things and makes certain decisions that someone else would not make with a different type of translation. An oral translation is a different type, from oral text to written text, from what language was it? I'm sorry, I can't remember the phon. Into French and then into English. And the same thing, Thomas referred to. You talked about grammar translation at first, and then you're talking about different genres and different purposes. So it seems to me that the issue of translation as scholarship or in scholarship is closely connected to the issue, the topic, the theme, the notion of translation and what people understand when we talk about translation. And in many cases, what's happened in the past, in my understanding, is that we have a very simplistic notion of translation. And many people out there who made decisions and thought about translation, of course, just transferred whatever they thought translation was to other contexts that may not have been the same type of translation. As we get to understand the field a little bit more and the activity, then we'll start realizing all the differences. And whether we understand translation as scholarship will probably depend on all those subtleties.  As people get more interested, then all these things start to surface. So my question to you would be to sort of elaborate a little bit more on your understanding of translation in relation to your projects and how that impacts the scholarship aspect of it. In the sense that it is scholarship because this is what we're doing that is related to scholarship versus someone else's understanding of, for instance, grammar translation, like you mentioned. So I don't know if, okay, that's good, right, Vane? Actually, I don't need that. Can you hear me? Actually, when I read the question, the first question which was how, why, when and in what sense can translation be a form of scholarly research, I thought that I would gently, gently, nicely take issue with the formulation of the question itself. You know, because this implies, the way it is formulated, it implies that it's not really scholarship, it's a form of scholarly research and I think that translation is always, scholarly research, except, of course, if somebody asks you to translate their birth certificate, for instance, and even though, you know, even then, if you have a birth certificate of an African person who was born before the 50s, I would say, you would say, né vers 1945. He was born around 1945. Now, if you don't know the culture, you would say, what, you're born on a date, you're not born around a date. And it's because, you know, people said, well, he was born during the last drought. You know, there was not a specific date. So apart from, even in those cases, you have to know the culture, but I think that to me, translation is not just translating from one text to the other, from one language to another, but also from a culture to another, or a set of cultures, you know, because Africa is a very large continent and it makes me mad when people speak about Africa as a country. I always remind my students that there are 54 countries in that continent, but so there is all those subtleties of culture that need to be taken into account. The second thing that I have to talk about here is the whole politics of translation. What gets translated? What does not get translated for whom and who makes the decisions, right? So I think that that is a very important aspect of translation, even especially in the so-called minority languages or minority cultures. And that's why the work that we did on the translation of African women's poetry is so important, you know, to show first of all that the poetry exists, right? And also to give a wider audience to these African women. And I'm going to share that in a minute, but what I wanted to say also about that is also the politics of editing and publishing, I want to say. Because we wanted, on the book of the translation, the two titles, the title in French in Prix de Mou, and in English it's A Rain of Words, and we wanted the two, since it was really a bilingual edition, but the editors refused to have the title in French because it was for an American audience. And I said, well, but it could be for an African audience as well. So what we did was, you know, on the cover, you know, to have lines that would, and right in between the lines, in Prix de Mou, in Prix de Mou, in Prix de Mou, but they cut it and said, no, okay, so, well, I think that's, yeah, that's enough. Well, you know, it's interesting, and this refers also, made me think when you were talking about the whole decision about whether to use footnotes. And this really does, you know, and here is where the problem arises when you're translating a text, when you're presenting a text from a different culture to, let's say, an American reading audience, how do you provide the context? How do you provide the cultural context that is necessary? And I mean, for instance, the essays and speeches I translated, I did use footnotes. There were a number of references to figures in German public life or to events that would not be familiar to an American audience. I have to admit, though, if I'm translating a novel or a short story, I would probably feel more reticent because somehow, you know, again, it gets to the question of genre, I would think you don't want to break the flow of the reading. So I don't have an answer to that question, but I think it is an interesting challenge for translators. And I'm sure if I were translating for a non-academic context, I would grapple with that question more seriously. On the other hand, and I do, I know something in the work of Lawrence Venuti, is that his name?  And I think that includes things like footnotes and why should they be invisible? And you're not, even if you are reading a novel, you're not reading the original author, you're reading something else. Someone's version of that novel. But I don't know, I don't work in that genre. It works perfectly for me to have footnotes and I couldn't function as a translator without them for what my purpose is. Anyone else? Which I think, I mean, I don't want to talk too much, I always end up talking too much, but which I think takes us back again to the purpose of what it is that we're trying to do. Depending on the genre and whatever it is that we're trying to translate in the audience or what we're trying to accomplish, then we may use one research or the other. Any questions from the public? I want to involve the public, the audience a little bit more. Questions, comments for the panel, for everyone, for... You mentioned translating Thomas Bond and major translations, the local order of translation, the way in which the novel that you mentioned doesn't fit, where Ashton Vaughn can't decide whether to say it or not, it's a leaf. And it's about a leaf. And it gets to an alimactic point, it's really conflicted, and Thomas Bond switches to present tense. And it's very effective, it makes the very leaf that you feel like you're there, both local order and language of choice, put it in past tense. Ah, interesting. I'll never forget with Low Porter, in Dr. Faustus, as a reference to the Händstadt, the city where Händel, the composer lived, and she translated it as the industrial city. Oh, okay. They're just talking about major blunders, that one stuck in my mind. Any other questions, comments from the audience, in terms of translation, as in scholarship, or any other issues that the panelists hit? Well, since you used the word audience, I guess I want to return to that. I mean, I talked about how genre is, really a crucial dividing issue in different kinds of translation. But I think along with that, the audience, and this really gets back to what David was saying, that if you're translating for a scholar, the audience, there's no question that footnotes are appropriate. But if you are trying to sell a work of fiction to a more general reading public, that's when it will become more problematic. And again, I don't have a clear answer to that question. Exactly, because, I mean, in my opinion, that basically has to do with what it is that you want to do with it. Someone else? I think though, in terms of the development of this new phenomenon of international writing, right now we are exposed to more literature from a broader range of cultures. We really have to also attend to translation of scholarship. Most of these people that get translated, especially in terms of contemporary, they are people of some note, some importance. And there is hardly any study that is being translated from the home countries where these authors are, in some cases, studied. So, I mean, the translation as scholarship also has to have that dimension of translation of scholarship. I mean, what you're doing with regards to bringing attention to the moral of church, I mean, that's where you have translation working as a scholarly filter or scholarly conduit through which you're doing preservation work. And so, in fact, these are also extremely important for our effort to recognize different things. On the panel? Okay, go ahead. Who does decide what gets translated? I'd like to hear more about that. Publishers, readers, economics? I would say, I don't know what all of you think, but I would say in general, I mean, there's a little bit of literature on that, people who work in translation studies, but I would say all of the above. And again, I would think it depends on what area you're focusing on. In some areas, the publishers, things that are for the market, the publishers have a bigger say. It may depend on what countries, too. So, I don't know what the other panelists... Well, I'm tempted to be cynical and say, publishers slash economics and the readers fall somewhere under those two, but... Eighty-five percent of the work, literary work that you translated to English are from the three or four languages, French, German, and some Russian and some Chinese, but really still, French, German are still very prominent. And yet, 85% of the rest of the time are almost always recommended by the translators. They are the first to encourage attention. So it depends on where you are in the hierarchy, so to speak, of languages. I was also going to ask a question for panelists in relation to that, which... Maybe, don't you speak? Do you have a question? I think that in terms of Polishability and Translatingness, one category of text that has difficulty getting translated is multi-colonel text themselves. So code switching texts. Texts that tend to have a lot of code mixing culture with writing, and they're all ready. It's almost like it's not the market saying those can't be translated, as much as translation practice as such doesn't have quite what to do with the text that's partially Puerto Rican Spanish, partially New York dialect. I was so surprised last, yesterday, when I was looking for translations of this Langston Hughes poem in German, that the poem that was major American poets has not been translated. Probably this poem, because of its dialectal code blending and things that scares off a lot of translation. So I'm kind of wondering what you think about the practice of politics of translating multi-lingual texts themselves. Does that make sense as a question? Yeah. Well, it's a challenge. I mean, the multi-lingual text, by definition, I think prescribes a fairly relatively limited audience who can fully appreciate all the aspects of that text. And then if you translate it, how do you reproduce the correspondence of New York English and Puerto Rican Spanish, let's say, for a German reading audience?  Actually, no, no, no, okay. No, actually, the colleague who translated the reign of words with me, she's doing something like that. She read all the translations of Toni Morrison in French. And she said that, you know, the African-American language, if you will, the tones, the kind of codes that they have, that it's completely flattened. And so she is redoing those translations. And she has a theory that she calls the transatlantic translation theory, in which, in fact, she tries to see in which way you can render that idiom that is specifically African-American, right? So, is it on this that you wanted to talk? Yeah, so why don't you, and then I'll come back to your question. Yeah. I was just to argue in favor of that, and to say that it offers more, just more points that I would like to hear from you. Well, that's an interesting point. I guess, you know, I would still think that a reader who would be enticed by that, even if that reader did not have mastery of, let's say, all three languages, would still be a fairly literate person, someone who really was open to that kind of interplay of different languages, which, you know, we like to think that's a large audience. But I think certainly, yeah, no, I see the point you're making that that would really, at least, offer different points of access to the text. And I'm wondering in which sense we can use the new technologies, like, you know, translate stuff and put it online, you know, because the question that you pose, poses, I mean, brings up the problem of finding publishers, you know, you may want to do that. The audience will be limited, but it's still interesting. But will there be enough people that it was going to be financially worthwhile for an editor to do that? So maybe that's where we can explore working on the internet and, okay. And the other thing that I wanted to respond to what you said or comment to what you said about preserving the culture by translating it. And this morning there was some questions about ethical questions, you know. For instance, I would go to Benin and I would go to villages to record all these songs that have existed for a long time. But at the same time, there is a kind of resistance, you know, too, because now with globalization they know that they can record these things, but there is at the same time, a kind of protection, you know, of that. And so the ethical question is, you know, what right do I have to make it, you know, to take it out of its context if the people themselves, you know, want to keep it that way? So that was one question. But the idea, at the same time it is in contradiction with the idea of wanting to show it to the world because it exists. And I have here a quote by Ngugi Watyongo who is a writer from Kenya. And his latest book is called Something Torn and New, An African Renaissance. And he attributes the fragmentation of Africa to what he calls europhonism. And he describes it as a replacement of native names, native languages, native identities with European ones. And he says that the result was a dismemberment not only of African people, but also of African memory. And one way of remembering, in the sense that Toni Morrison uses, remembering the memory, but remembering, putting all the members together, not only of African people, but also of African memory is through translation that he calls a patriotic act in this context. So there you go. I think some of the other questions that we were hoping to address in a way you've already touched on those issues, but I still like to just bring them to the foreground a little bit more and recapitulate on what you said so far. And it's, I mean, we were talking about scholarship and it is very clear that that putting some of these oral traditions into a written form and translating them is very clear as a form of scholarship. So if we turn it around, how, I mean, I think again, we've already talked about this, but how does that also influence you and your own scholarship in terms of your other work in your other scholarship? And I'm using the example that you're on mentioned, but I'm also wanting to see how David and Thomas see that. How does that affect your own scholarship, your own work, and at the same time, not just your own work, but how does translation in general affect scholarship and research in the humanities and the social sciences? What role does it play? Well, one point I wanted to make, and this gets back to the point you made earlier, that one thing to be said for translation is it really intensifies your reading experience. It really makes you a much more discerning reader. And so I think that to me was an interesting insight and I think that certainly speaks to one way in which translation feeds into your scholarship as well. Yeah, and I would just agree with that, that I'm writing a book on Roman comedy and there are 26 extant comedies. I wish I could translate them all before I go undertake those larger, interpretive leaps because there is no closer intimacy with the text in no way you can achieve that other than through translating, it's a great experience. Yeah, yeah. Actually, I agree also with this idea that it teaches you to be better readers, as I say. Everything has been said and we come to Taitediae, Miss Amlédagne, anyway, but yeah, I think that as I said before, but I want to say it in another way, that meaning is not only located in words, but it has a very close link with the culture from which those words emanate, okay? So it has, of course, influenced my scholarship, but also my teaching because I teach courses in literature in translation and pedagogically, I think it's important to show students that that is a translation because the invisibility of the translator that you were talking about, they read those texts without knowing that they're, well, they know that the course is called African Literature in Translation, but you have to let them know all the time and make the translator visible and use the translation as a critical tool also, as it was said this morning. But now, when you say translations in the humanities, I would say that translation has helped shape disciplines, and even has helped determine and define disciplines. Where would the English departments in North America be without the translations of Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze, for instance? So those translations have shaped what happened in English departments even more than they do in French departments at these points. So, and everybody's talked about the globalization, one of the good aspects of globalization has been the fact that we are moving from culture to culture, we are more open to the world, we have more opportunity to know each other through translation. Now, I think that what we have to do is to continue the fight so that it is recognized as the scholarship that it is. I was telling a group earlier that when I came to the United States, what I wanted to do was translation, and there were a few schools that could teach me how to do this, and secondly, one of my mentors said, why do you do this? You'll never have a career in the academic world through translation, just forget it. So this new development is really exciting, you know. That's very interesting. I actually like to take a survey and see how many people have gone through that exact same experience, the exact same thing happened to me. I approach at the MA level, I approach a professor and I said, and this was in the US, I said, I wanna do translation, I wanna do a PhD in translation. He said, don't even think about it, you know. That's academic, this was academic suicide. This was about 20 years ago, so things are changing significantly, mm-hmm, you know. Well, in my case, it would be more than 20 years ago, and it wasn't even, I mean, I was always fascinated by it, but I never even had the illusion that it was. You were too bright. Oh, no, it was just. No, you, yeah, you followed their directions, yeah. Yeah. I did both. Any other comments, questions about this? Any other questions for the panel? Lovely, should we talk about some things to eat, so if your stomach is ready for some food, we have it. One thing that I just add to this is that we're also, for the first time, competing with this simultaneous global dissemination of content and equivalents provided by private sector platforms. Yes. And 20 years ago, we didn't have those, so one more reason why translation is scholarship is that we're offering an alternative to that model. We suddenly were the alternative, you know. Whereas 20 years ago, we were the only game in town that started translation, sort of thing. But that, the fact that we have, what a, we always have these sort of resources, that's, that's. I want to also say something that you mentioned is before there is that, you know, Google's platform is very interesting. You probably noticed, when you ask to translate something from Turkish to English, what it does is it surveys existing translations. And then based on the recurrent translations of the same word, they confuse you when it says that it's correct or not. But in a way then, the people who are working in Google to improve this machinery are themselves translators. I mean, Google is in fact waiting for us to keep translating because that's, their accuracy depends on the availability of translation. So there is also a way to benefit from that synergy. Yeah. Oh, I guess you don't need to. Oh, I don't need to. No, I'm sure that many people now are aware of this MLA thing that's called Evaluating Translations as Scholarship, Guidelines of Peer Review, which is really when I saw that I just almost fainted because, you know, as we know, MLA is, you know, is a sacrosanct gatekeeper, you know, of our profession and for them to come up with this is just quite remarkable. So I think we're on the right track, David. Have you seen that? No. It's quite amazing. Just go in. Thank you particularly to our guests from Iowa and Turkey and also from our speakers here on campus. Thank you so much. Please join us for a meal right outside. Thank you. Thank you.


Can you elaborate in detail how zero-knowledge groups work? Not in detail, but I can explain the general concept. The concept of the zero-knowledge proof is proving that a certain condition is true without knowing the inputs to that condition. For example, proving that the amounts in the transaction add up, so the amount you are spending and receiving, add up to the same amount. If you subtract the outputs from the inputs, the result is greater than zero, or equal to zero. That is basically a common type of proof, called the range proof, one type of zero-knowledge proof. You can do mathematical proofs using homomorphic encryption, where what you are doing is applying encryption to the values, and then you are able to do simple arithmetic with these values, or range proofs with these values, without decrypting them, without knowing them. You are able to verify the truth of a statement, like, no new coins were created in this transaction, without knowing how many coins were used in the transaction. Mario has a follow-up question. How could you create a zero-knowledge proof transaction? It seems that it is computationally complicated and not time-efficient. That is true. Zero-knowledge proofs are computationally complicated and not particularly efficient. They are not efficient in computation in time, but they are also not efficient in science. One of the big problems with zero-knowledge proofs in general, and homomorphic encryption in various types of zero-knowledge proofs, including range proofs, is the fact that they produce a very large amount of data in order to be able to validate these zero-knowledge proofs. You need a lot of data. So transactions using these systems can be ten times larger than transactions that don't have zero-knowledge proofs. This has been something that has been holding back for technology. Most of the development in zero-knowledge proofs is in being able to express them in less space, to use less data to communicate with zero-knowledge proofs. All of the great innovations that have come out of that space are about compressing the proofs, so that they are viable, so that you can actually create transaction sizes that can be propagated. It's not competitionally efficient, and it's not space efficient, and it's not time efficient. It's not intended to be. That's the trade-off. The trade-off is that in order to get very robust privacy, you lose some of the efficiency. Hello. I've been aware of you since last year, and you seem to be a person who really likes Bitcoin and the blockchain and all the benefits it might give. Very good. Thank you. I want you to try to play devil's advocate for me, and you might have received this question before. What could be the biggest danger to Bitcoin that can be thrown by, let's say, the banks or by international governments? Very good. Yes. Actually, maybe throw it off its original course of trying to be decentralized and just being a force for the individual. I get that question quite often, so I can answer it very directly and very simply. I think the biggest weakness that Bitcoin has is that the base layer, the first-layer blockchain, is insufficiently private. It does not have strong enough privacy anonymity guarantees. What that means is, if you're trying to build a currency on top of it, that threatens the currency's fungibility. Okay, so fungibility. First of all, it's a great word. I really like saying it because it sounds so much fun, but listening to it is not even half as much fun as actually saying it. You should try it because there's an F and then you go into some Ns and Gs and it's fungibility. It's really a lot of fun to say.  About half the audience. That's great. It's a weird economic term. What fungibility means is that in a system of money, it's important to not be able to distinguish between different units. Meaning, if I'm holding, let's say 1,000 won, that's a paper bill here. I haven't actually touched Korean money yet, I've only used debit cards. I'm holding a 1,000 won bill, right? If I go to a store and I give it to a storekeeper and I say, here's a 1,000 won. Give me something you can buy with a 1,000 won, probably something very small. They'll say, oh no, I don't like this one. Do you have any other 1,000 won bills? Not this one. But why? I don't know. It's number Ns in a three. I don't like those. I want one that doesn't end in a three. Do you have another? They can't do that. In fact, it's illegal to do that. They have to accept that any 1,000 won bill is the same as any other 1,000 won bill. They can't say, I don't know, the corner is a bit creased, so I'm only going to give you 950 on that one. If you had that kind of situation, you'd actually have a problem. How do we know? Because it's happened. In Roman times, when they had coins... I don't know if you've noticed. Have you noticed that almost in every country, if you have a metal coin, it has little lines around the outside. Have you noticed that? Do you know why those are there? So they don't shave them. Back in the days when money was actually made of something valuable, like silver or gold, if you had a coin and the edge was smooth, then you could just shave off a bit of silver and gold to make it a tiny bit smaller, and give it to someone, and then you keep the shavings. If you do that with enough coins, eventually someone notices, they're like, Why is this coin banana-shaped? Is this part of the lunar cycle? Because this looks like a half moon. Where's the rest of the coin? So what they started doing is they put those ridges around as an anti-theft device, so that if you shave it, it's visible that you shave it. If you try to make the ridges again, because they're symmetrical, it's very obvious that you've cut new ridges into the coin. That's why they have a little circular ridge around the edge, and that's why they have the little lines. So what happens in Roman times with silver coins, is they started trading for different values, depending on how badly they were shaved. So it's like having a thousand-won bill, and someone is saying, I'll give you $8.76 for that one. That one looks pretty good. I'll give you $923. Well, the problem is, if money starts having a price, it stops working as money very well. If each piece of money has a different price, but not the one that's on it, but a slight discount depending on whether it's being tainted or shaved or something like that, you have a problem, and that's what fungibility is about. You know, there's another funny situation that we have. I don't know if you've heard this statistic, but every single dollar bill you've ever touched has cocaine on it. It also has E. coli. You. Yeah. So every single dollar bill you touch has cocaine on it. And the reason for that is because there's this way of rolling up a dollar bill and turning it into a straw, and using it to ingest cocaine, so people, you know, that kind of thing. So that means that eventually you take this dollar bill, it touches the other dollar bills in your pocket, they get a bit of cocaine, and then you give it to someone and it touches their bills they give, etc. And so everything has cocaine on it. Now this causes a bit of a problem, because what if you had a test, and you could run a test? And they actually suggested doing this in the 80s, and they said, well, let's test the dollar bills, and if they have cocaine, we won't accept them. And then they realized this is a very bad idea, because it would cause chaos. Can you imagine if every shopkeeper had to have a little testing system, and they'd be like, oh, sorry, this has too much cocaine on it, I won't take this one. But this one has just enough, I'll take this one. And so then what would happen is people would pay more for the ones that were clean, and less for the ones that were dirty. And then you have a real problem, because then the value of money can vary a lot. Not just 2% or 3%, but even 20%. Well, that's happening in Bitcoin today. You can actually buy Bitcoin that just came straight out of a fresh block, fresh from the oven, still smelling of hashes, and right from the Coinbase. They sell those at a higher price than Bitcoin that has touched other people's wallets. And the reason is that because you can trace Bitcoin from transaction to transaction to transaction, if you give Bitcoin to your exchange that you received from someone else, and that person received it from another person who stole it from empty gox, your exchange is going to go, ah, too dirty, no, thank you, and they'll shut down your account. And that's a problem, that's a big problem. Because if you start doing that across all of the money circulation, you end up breaking money. It stops working as money. The whole point of money is that you have one universally recognizable, verifiable thing that has one price. Right? It is the price, that's its purpose. And if it starts having different prices, it doesn't work. So, fungibility is a big problem. So, and how does fungibility relate to privacy? They relate in a very simple way. If you have strong privacy, if the money is anonymous, and if you can't trace where it's been before, then it becomes perfectly fungible. Then every unit is the same as every unit. You can't differentiate between them, and you can't have problems where the exchange will say, not this one, yes, this one, or where they trade for different prices. And today we don't have perfect fungibility in Bitcoin. There is perfect fungibility in some other blockchains. Privacy-focused ones like Zcash and Monero, and many others that have come out since. I would like to see privacy improvements in Bitcoin. The reason I'd like to see them is because this is a very specific attack vector for governments. What they can do is start circulating blacklists to say, any coin that is touched one of the following addresses is a bad Bitcoin. Then make the exchanges block any transactions. They will set a limit. They will say, if it's changed addresses less than six times, if it's touched one of these, they call that six hops, then you can't accept it. That would cause very, very serious problems to Bitcoin. Of course, what it would also cause to Bitcoin is the immediate implementation of strong privacy and anonymity. One of the ironic things, when you're working in a dynamic system, is that if you have a threat like that from government, if you have an attack like that from any government, the response that happens is that the system evolves to develop defenses against that particular attack. One of the reasons we don't have strong privacy today is because Bitcoin isn't being attacked enough. This applies to all cryptocurrencies. If cryptocurrencies start getting attacked using privacy as the attack mechanism, two things are going to happen. One, privacy will become very valuable, which means that any cryptocurrencies that do strong privacy immediately become much more valuable, because everybody wants the private ones. Two, every cryptocurrency that doesn't have privacy has privacy, which probably is also why governments haven't tried to attack in that way. They actually like the fact that they can track these things, and they know that if they attack it in a very obvious way, they'll stop being able to track them because they will immediately get privacy. Gareth asks, privacy coins like Monero and Zcash are invaluable to people in authoritarian regimes who want to try to protect their wealth from government confiscation and inflation. I wonder if the new implementations of Membo-Wimble, such as Grim and Beam, will be a better option than the existing privacy coins, such as Monero or Zcash. Membo-Wimble is a much smaller, more efficient blockchain and can store more transactions. Can you see it displacing the current top two privacy coins over time? I don't know. I think it's important to realize that Membo-Wimble has different trade-offs, both in terms of security and privacy, as well as efficiency and scalability. I would like to see this experimentation continue across all of the privacy coins, because it enables us to see how different trade-offs and different privacy techniques can be used, and what their pros and cons are. Perhaps in the future, we can see more of those privacy techniques combined, so that we see a lot of cross-pollination between the research and development teams in these various privacy coins and other coins. Techniques invented in one place are used in another. That's one of the wonderful things about working in a broad open-source ecosystem, like cryptocurrencies and open blockchains, where an invention made in one place can be used anywhere else. It's not encumbered by patents, or even if it is under open-source, that doesn't really matter. We will see a lot of cross-pollination. Whether Grin and Beam displace the current two privacy coins over time, it depends on what you mean by displace. If you mean that they might rise to have a larger market cap, I don't really think those metrics are meaningful. The question is, do these new technologies offer more choices for people operating under conditions where privacy is absolutely essential? I think they do. Do they displace? This isn't a zero-sum competition. Grin and Beam can thrive and grow both together, as well as against the other privacy coins, without any sacrifices. I'm hoping to see not only these privacy coins, but more privacy coins develop and explore other areas. That's the only way we learn. Of course, not all of them are going to survive or succeed or flourish. That's okay, too. These experiments are not about winning, they are about offering choice and exploring different avenues. Could you comment on the Zcash inflation vulnerability that was recently exposed, and whether this has implications on the feasibility of base-layer privacy on Bitcoin? Many Bitcoin proponents believe that the fixed supply of Bitcoin is one of its greatest value propositions. Is there a risk that by obfuscating the base-layer for privacy reasons, would make it less auditable and create a risk of inflation bug that goes unnoticed for quite a long time? In the case of Z-case snarks, the vulnerability existed for eight months. If I understand correctly, there's no way of knowing if it was exploited. Would it not be reckless to deploy nascent cryptography on the whole network, given the fact that second-layer solutions may prove to be sufficient? This is a great question about the balance between privacy technologies and the risk that privacy technologies introduce in the form of an inflation bug. Let's explore this a bit better and explain what exactly is happening in this case. One of the important privacy technologies is the ability to encrypt the amount of a transaction, so they can't see how much money is being moved within a transaction, in such a way that you can still audit the amount without knowing what it is. There are a number of different techniques to do this. Zero-knowledge proofs are various forms. Zero-knowledge proofs are proofs where you can prove that something is true without knowing the specific details. For example, within a UTXO set or within a transaction itself, you have a certain number of inputs on one side and a certain number of outputs on the other side. A transaction is valid if the total of inputs minus the total of outputs is equal to an amount greater than or equal to zero. Zero is equal to the fees, which is the left over, or zero if there is no fee, which is unlikely today. Let's say the total on each side of the equation should balance. You should have effectively double entry bookkeeping. You shouldn't be able to spend more money than you have. Now, if the amounts are encrypted, how do you know that they add up? That is where you get a zero-knowledge proof. The zero-knowledge proof is where you can do mathematics, basic arithmetic, on two values that are encrypted, in a way that doesn't reveal their value. You can do a subtraction, a range proof, as it's called, where you can show that the encrypted values of the inputs, let's call that bananas, minus the encrypted values of the outputs, let's call that apples, is within a range that is greater than zero. You don't know what number of bananas is, and you don't know what number of apples is, but you can do the mathematics and arithmetic and say bananas minus apples greater than zero. That's what a range proof is. Now, if there is a bug in there, what you can do is actually create bitcoin on the encrypted side of outputs, or create the cryptocurrency of the system, in a way that increases the supply. You're essentially generating currency from nothing and introducing it into the supply, in a way that can't be detected because the values are encrypted. They'll still validate in the long-term. This is a very serious bug. In the case of Zcash, fortunately it happened in an environment where there hasn't been much use, and it's still very experimental, and this is a great lesson for Bitcoin. This creates a fundamental challenge for privacy. If you introduce privacy in the base layer of a cryptocurrency that has very strict monetary characteristics, what if there's a bug in the range proofs of that that cause a significant inflation bug? This is one of the criticisms levied against zero-knowledge ZK Snarks, as they're called, because this is relatively new cryptography. As a result, it hasn't been broadly tested, it has been extensively peer-reviewed, but it hasn't been broadly tested, and it's quite complex stuff. In this case, there was a bug. The bug actually goes all the way back to the equations in the white papers describing ZK Snarks. It was identified, one of the equations was wrong, and no one noticed for eight months. The question is, what about adding things like bullet proofs, which are used in confidential transactions, currently implemented only in test networks around Bitcoin, and sidechains like the liquid sidechain? What about adding that technology to the Bitcoin base layer so as to improve the privacy of the base layer? Is it too early to add that technology? I don't know. Is the risk too great that that might introduce an inflation bug? I think the argument that you can do it in second-layer solutions isn't absolutely true. I think a lot of the privacy solutions are much better applied in the base layer, because it's very difficult to maintain privacy on the second layer if the base layer can be monitored and surveilled. However, this is a true consideration now. This is a real design trade-off. This is the essence of cryptocurrency design, I think, and the very difficult fundamental trade-offs that exist in engineering cryptocurrencies. There are no perfect solutions. Everything involves giving a bit in one area in order to gain a bit in another area. You can't just be best at everything. We're going to see this debate happen very strongly. I think it's part of the reason why it's going to be difficult to introduce privacy technologies in the base layer of Bitcoin. I hope that we will introduce privacy technologies in the base layer of Bitcoin, even if there is a small risk that there are exploitable inflation bugs that could go undetected and cause some problems with the inflation of the supply of Bitcoin. I think in the long run, the risk of not having sufficient privacy in the base layer is greater than the risk of a small inflation bug, which I think with maturity will not go undetected for very long. But this is a very difficult risk analysis, and I'm not confident about that opinion. I'm leaning more towards privacy at the moment. I could be persuaded otherwise. I'm not certain or fixed in my opinion on this. I would like to hear a broader debate, and understand how big the risk is. I understand the risk of not having privacy in the base layer. To me, that's a clear risk. It involves undermining the fungibility of Bitcoin, being able to introduce regulation and legislation that makes it very difficult for anyone other than criminals to use Bitcoin, because the very use of Bitcoin that involves using black lists, white lists, tracking addresses, and complying with surveillance regulations will make it impossible for normal businesses, for legitimate users, to use cryptocurrency. That's a real risk. I understand that I can quantify that risk. The problem on the other side of this equation is a risk that I don't understand. I don't know how big the risk of an inflation bug is. It's not zero. We know that now. It's not zero risk, because it's already happened. But how big is it? How repeatable is that bug? How many other bugs could possibly exist? That I don't know. I'm not qualified to know it. I'm not a cryptographer. I don't understand range-proofs to that degree, so that I can evaluate that risk. This is a broader debate that we're going to have in this community. It's a very interesting glimpse into the very important, very serious trade-offs that exist. Maybe it turns out that the risk of inflation is much greater than the risk of not having privacy. We really need to work about moving privacy to the second layer. I don't know. I could be persuaded either way at this point. We'll find out. This is a very interesting debate to come in the crypto space. It's not going to play out just in Bitcoin. This is going to play out in every cryptocurrency that has the same fundamental challenges of protecting privacy and the integrity of the currency.


So Jonathan is here to talk about the DPDK burst replay tool, which is a tool for DPDK testing, is it? Yeah, to burst packets. Hello everybody, everybody. My name is Jonathan Ribas and I come from Marseille to present you today a tool called DPDK burst replay. We will talk about why I developed this tool, what can it do, how it works, and what are the future plane evolutions. But first, first slide on quick information on the tool. So it's Linux command line tool. It uses DPDK stack. It only needs two packages, DPDK and LibNuma. It's an open source available on the DPDK Git repository. It's early stage and it already has a big community of one developer, me. So why I developed this tool? In fact, in my company, we want a way to burst wheel packets, a real pickup file into DPDK ports to make some stress tests and also functional tests. And the two difficulties with the common TCP replay is that it uses the TCP, IP stack of the kernel. And it can be struggled by the IO of the hard disk drive. So we want a tool which is fast, so to bypass the Linux stack by using DPDK. And simple, we just have a tool of the TCP replay kind. So with this tool, we just have to specify the file you want to replay and the port you want to replay on. And we also want the application to be scriptable, to be easily integrated into some Jenkins scripts or whatever. So what it can do? First, it can load the pickup file. So the pickup is a standard format for all the network dumps. We put all the packets in cache to be able to send it directly without reading them into this drive. And we can burst the packets on multiple ports. And we can replay the same twice, several times in a row. And at the end, we put some statistics about how went the replays. And yeah, it abstracts DPDK stack so you don't have to understand and to configure manually all you will patch your DPDK setup. The goal is to have a simple tool. So how to use it? There are two little prerequisites. The first is to have huge pages available. So huge pages is a standard Linux kernel mechanism to have memory area shared between kernel and user space. With this example, we can create four pages of one gig. And after, you also have to bind the port you want to use into DPDK with the IGB UIO, which is the DPDK driver. Then just call DPDK burst replay tool by specifying the file and the port. In this example, I want to replay the pick up on four ports and we want to replay it 10,000 times. A quick word about its internal design. So let's say we have the tool linked with DPDK library and DPDK driver and pick up file which we want to replay on four ports. First, the tool preloads the pick up. It will count all the packets and remind the biggest one. Why? To be able to calculate the needed mempool for DPDK to store the packets. So we initialize the DPDK, we create the mempool and then we read again the file and now this time we put all the packets in different caches. One per port. The idea is to avoid lock contention, context switching, just to be sure that there is no disturbing action between just sending the packets. After, we initialize the ports, set up maximum TXQs for the NICs. We spawn the threads. So in this example, four can be just one, it can be 10, whatever. Once everything is set up and ready, we replay all the pick up in the different ports and at the end, we output some stats. On the terminal, it looks like this and you can retrieve the six steps explained before. The preload, the allocation of the mempool, the unique initialization and at the end, some stats. So per ports and at the end, a total stats of bit weight, packet per sec and send. Quick word about future revolutions. So the goal is to fit a little more with the TCP replay style. So adding options to play with the bit weight to limit it or to run a pick up respecting the timings. Maybe I have an option to select multiple pick up to send on each port or maybe to change them or maybe run just one pick up, but throwing the packets on all the ports. Many, many things can be achieved. Other ideas is to create a Python module to integrate this application directly into a Python application. Another thing can be to add a config file to let the advanced users to be able to configure the internal parameters of DPDK, initialization, kind of stuff. And most important part, it's you. So if you are interested, if you have some feedback, ideas or contribution, please you're welcome. And that's it. Thank you. Any questions? Yeah. In fact, it's not a generator. So we don't try a generator. We just want to take a pick up and replay it. Yeah, it's possible. OK. But I don't know if it catches all the packets on memory or... No. In fact, no. Yeah. Sorry. You mentioned something like contention on the cache. Yeah. Each kind of... I mean, my three ideas that those caches and those caches are really only for the players, for what it is. So why are you saying that it's contention? It doesn't mean you repeat the question for the camera class. Yeah. He was asking me why we create different caches to avoid some contention. What is the contention? In fact, when we send the packets to GPDK takes NQ burst, we give the packets to the GPDK stack. And we want to give the same packets to multiple threads, to multiple intents of... To multiple intents. I'm not sure that it will work very well. OK. She's made of buffers. Like buffers that you transmit. Yeah. It's mem buffs. OK. Yeah. OK. Sorry. I was just curious about the packet science variants. I was just playing around with that initially. And is there a top constraint in packet science? No. No constraints. It can be jumbo frames or... Yeah. Depends. But... Any more questions? Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.


In this video, I'm going to talk about finding the complement and the supplement of different angles. These are just a few examples of the difference between complement and supplement. Okay, so first off, I want to go over real quick just the vocabulary, complement, and the vocabulary supplement. Compliments, now when you say complement and supplement, you're talking about angles. Okay, we're talking about the plural form, angles. So we're talking about two. So if I want to find complement angles, complement angles, it's two angles that add up to 90 degrees. Compliment is two angles that add up to 90 degrees. Okay, so that's the vocabulary for complement. Supplement angles, okay, supplement angles, again two angles here, are two angles that are going to add up to 180 degrees. Okay, so you've got to keep those two separate from one another, but you also have to understand it's two angles, pairs of angles, two angles that add up either to complement 90 degrees or supplement 180 degrees. So you've just got to keep another difference between the two. Okay, first example here, find the complement of angle F, okay, just a small little picture that we have here. This angle is 59 degrees, so I want to find the complement. Okay, so now the thing is, when we talk about complement angles, again, complement is going to be, right up here, it's going to be 90 degrees. It's going to be two angles, two angles that add up to 90 degrees. Okay, so find the complement of angle F. This is actually, what they're doing is they're telling you what one of the angles is. They're telling you what one of the angles are, I think that's what the proper English is. Anyway, so you've got to find out what the other angle is. So again, we've got to take an angle plus an angle, and they should add up to 90 degrees. Okay, so this kind of looks like a formula that I'm using here, but I'm just kind of using this as a diagram. All right, so now the thing is, we actually know what one of these angles is. One of these angles is 59 degrees, plus this other angle, I don't know what that other angle is. So actually what I can do is I can use a variable here, so we use the variable A, why not, equals 90 degrees. All right, so what I need to do is I need to find out what that missing angle is. This is going to be the complement of F. All right, so what I do is I just take this 59, and again, it's just an algebra equation, so I take this 59, subtract it over to the other side, my missing variable, my missing angle is going to be, one gets this to 60, 30 gets this to 90, so this is going to be 31 degrees. All right, so the complement of F, comp of angle F equals 31 degrees. Okay, so notice that for my answer, I kind of spell it out, the complement using an abbreviation, your complement of angle F is equal to 31 degrees, I want to make sure and answer the question, because this A equals 31 degrees, nobody's not going to know what A means, that's just a random variable that I picked, so make sure that you actually answer your question. Okay, so there's complement, there's an idea of complement, so now for the second example, supplement of angle G, if the measure of angle G is 107 degrees. Now notice we've got no picture here, okay on this previous problem we had a nice little picture over here, we know what the angle was, but what this problem is designed to tell us, is that you don't necessarily, you don't necessarily need a picture to find out what a complement or a supplement is, so supplement are two angles, two angles that add up to 180, 180 degrees, so again I have, kind of like last time, I'm going to start with a kind of a, kind of a scaffolding for my equation, so I have an angle plus an angle is going to be equal to 180 degrees. Now if I, I know what one of those angles is, angle G is going to be 107 degrees, so just like last time, 107 plus some angle we'll call it B is equal to 180 degrees, so what I want to do is I want to find that missing angle, but notice here I'm using a couple different variables, I'm using A's, I'm using B's, it doesn't really matter what variables you're using, I'm just throwing in variables, because that's what a variable is, it's an unknown, it could be a lot of different numbers, in this case it's only going to be one number, but you can use whatever variables you want to, so I'm just throwing in variables, because this is my missing angle, right here that's my missing angle, I want to find out what that is. Alright so just like last time, I'm going to solve this like I would in any algebra equations, 107, subtract that over to the other side, that's going to be 73, so in this case the supplement, abbreviate supplement, SUPP, supplement of angle G is 73 degrees, equals 73 degrees, there we go. Alright and again make sure you answer the question, just don't give me, just don't give any of your teachers B is equal to 73 degrees, because that makes no sense, B, there's no B in this problem, okay, that doesn't make any sense, so make sure you actually answer the question. Alright, down to my third and final example, when we change colors here a little bit, so we don't mix these together, don't mix these together. Alright so the supplement of angle X, find the supplement of angle X, so just like the last one, two angles I add up to 180 degrees, now when I look at the picture of this one, I get an expression, 7A plus 10, what is that? It doesn't really matter, it doesn't really matter, it could be a number like it was for these last two, or it could be a variable expression, it doesn't really matter. Okay now these type of problems tend to confuse students because as we'll see here in a little bit, you're not going to actually find a final answer, you're not going to find a nice clean number like 31 or 73, you're not going to find that, you're going to find something a little bit different, and that on the other hand for students is kind of confusing because usually in mathematics you find one nice neat answer, in this case you're not really going to find a nice neat answer.  Okay so now what I'm going to do is I actually know what one of those angles is, one of those angles is 7A plus 10, 7A plus 10 plus, I don't know what the second angle is, so I'm going to use an x this time, so a variable x this time. Okay so I know what one of the angles is 7A plus 10 plus the second angle, which I don't know just keep it as x, if I add those together I should get 180 degrees again because they are supplement angles. Okay so now again I'm just going to solve this just like I did just the rest of them. Now if I look at the other problems, the unknown that I had, all I did was I got that by itself and I basically got my answer, so in this case the A got it by itself, I got 31, over here the B was by, I got B by itself and I got my answer, I'm going to do the exact same thing here, which again is going to be a little bit confusing because we have this other variable, we have an A over here. Okay but again don't worry about that, I'm trying to figure out what this missing angle is. This doesn't matter over here, this A doesn't matter, I only care about this x, this is the missing angle, this is the supplement of angle x, that's what I'm looking for. Now did I think of it? x is a very bad, very, very bad variable to use, so in this case I'm actually going to go backwards, I'm going to backtrack just a little bit and I'm going to get rid of this x and I'm going to come back in, let's not use x, let's use z. Okay so my apologies there, I should not use that variable x because you might mistake it for this angle here which it's not so I'm going to change that around a little bit. But again same thing, first angle is 7A plus 10, the second angle I don't know what it is but when you add them together you do get 180 degrees, I want to figure out what this angle is so I have to get this one by itself. So this 7A plus 10, I'm going to subtract both of these over to the other side. So z is equal to 10 subtracted over is going to be 170, 7A subtracted over is a negative 7A and then that's that's it, these two, that's a number and a variable, they're not going to combine so you can't combine those two, don't try to bring them together and that's basically it.  That right there, that right there, you're going to look at that, that's going to be very confusing because you're thinking to yourself well the previous problems we got 73, we got 31, why do we get an expression for an answer? Well that's kind of how it works since they, the only thing that they gave us was an expression, they don't tell us what A is, they don't give us any other information about any angles that might be the same, anything like that so that's it, that's as good as it gets and that can be a little confusing for when you see that for the first time but just, just remember, just remember that I just need to solve for this angle right here, so I name it whatever you want to don't name it x like I did, so angle z, I need to find out what that is so solve for that, get everything else on the other side and then that's what the angle is going to be. If you happen to figure out what A is, if you happen to figure out A is 12 or 52 or whatever it is then you could very easily plug that number in and figure out what the supplement is going to be but in this case we're just going to leave it just like that. Okay so hopefully those three examples helped you out with the difference between complement and supplement, just to rehash a little bit, complement is when two angles add up to get 90 degrees and supplement is when two angles add up to get 180 degrees so you know the difference between the two. Hopefully these couple of examples helped you understand the difference between complement and supplement angles.


You need a financial advisor with the freedom to focus on your specific needs. Whatever your goals, Reid Potter can create a game plan tailored to you. Call Reid at 432-0777 at Pikeville, Kentucky to learn more. SOAR announced their collaboration with Microsoft TechSpark with the goal of fostering inclusive economic opportunity, job creation and innovation throughout the region. Eastern Kentucky has a large amount of folks that are in prime working age here. So like age 25 to 54 that are not in the workforce, right? Actually, when you look at some of our most distressed counties or formerly most dependent on coal or coal mining counties, that number is like 40,000. There's roughly like 40,000, 25 to 54 year olds that are not currently employed. That should be right. So we know along with supporting local industries and supporting industries that are growing like healthcare right or entrepreneurship and small business owners. We really think that there's going to be a need to fill that gap by the idea of importing jobs, right? Or connecting jobs that are already created to turn talent that's in the region. The Microsoft grant will help fund a TechSpark community engagement while spearheading efforts to work with local partners in promoting digital equity. The fellowship marks the first time TechSpark will work in Kentucky. More people, especially in some of our unserved locations or in some of our most remote parts of our rural communities, there's never been a better chance for them to get connected than before. For more information about the collaboration with Microsoft, you can visit SOAR-KY.org. For Mountain Top News, I'm Kelsey Dean.