So Maggie Moon is an associate professor of general pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Johns Hopkins University and faculty of the Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. She currently serves as the chief medical officer of Johns Hopkins Children's Center and she's also a member of the Center and Community Health Research at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. Professor Moon was a fellow at the McLean Center as well as a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar at the University of Chicago. Professor Moon devotes her a clinical time to Johns Hopkins Pediatric Emergency Department where she teaches residents in an urgent care setting. She also teaches clinical and research ethics to fellows, residents, and students at Johns Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine. Dr. Moon's research interests include empirical evaluation of ethics in everyday clinical practice, teaching and evaluating house staff education and ethics, and the ethics of community based research. Today Dr. Moon is going to talk with us about pediatric bioethics in a post-factual era. Let's welcome Dr. Moon. Well good afternoon and thank you very much. I'm always so excited to speak to this interesting group of people and about topics that we all find so important. So honestly this one is a topic that has emerged from anxiety on my part so I probably like many of us I have been watching sort of with some horrified fascination in these last several years where there's been a real rise of an anti-intellectual bias and anti-science bias and I try to discount it as just rank propaganda and then I remember the power of propaganda and the importance of propaganda in the way that our social and political world functions and it reminds me that we'd better stop and to pay close attention to this notion of post-truth and we have to come up with a consideration of how we ought to be responding in for this talk is in my own my own world of pediatric bioethics and pediatric clinical practice. There is the answer. So I have no disclosures no reportable disclosures. So here I'm trying to got two systems going here. Here's what this notion of post-truth has come to mean so this is it was the Oxford dictionary word of the year in 2016 which I think is demonstrative. It really has come to represent the sort of fascinating rats nest of propaganda emotion and evidence through which we have to slog on a daily basis to communicate with each other and to understand how our world is working. It is a wonderfully frightening phrase. So when I think if we believe as I generally believe that good ethics does require good facts and we've heard that several times in the last couple of days that ethical analysis is best when it starts with good facts facts have to have some weight. And so if we live in a world where the whole notion of fact and expertise is challenged it's hard to find footing for an ethical analysis of competing moral obligations. So the questions that come up here are the practical. So if we're struggling with the whole notion of fact the first question is well what facts should I use as a pediatrician what facts should I use with my patients and how then you have to think again about well what facts matter whose facts matter and then what in overall has happened expertise. And because I am by nature a problem solver I want to know am I contributing to this problem are we as a profession contributing to the problem. If so what are we contributing and what are the solutions. So this is a little bit of history this is George Orwell and I take some cold comfort in the notion that we actually have been here before. So this is Orwell writing in 1943 looking back on the Spanish War and Orwell was really anxious about the notion of how a totalitarian government totalitarian leadership could dispute the very idea that objective fact existed. So he's writing about this and he's he's really thinking about history and about how could history ever even be truthfully written. I think that today if we change the word history for science that's sort of where I feel like we stand today there's dispute about whether science can ever be truthful that science could ever be fact. Orwell goes on to consider the implications that a totalitarian leader in control of the facts could convince us that two plus two equals five that what you just saw or read didn't really happen maybe even that that shooting in California last earlier this week was in your imagination. So the question comes up what is happening to facts there's been several explanations of sort of what might be going on in terms of our inability to have faith in fact. So first one is identity politics and I think the notion of identity politics explains that in certainly in stressful times but whenever there are big strong socio-political groups the whole notion that group identification is more important than any other sort of expression of facts. So the whole notion is that group identification overwhelms people's interpretations of fact that because of the group the group has to come first and so you only absorb those facts that support the group identity. The backfire effect is another really interesting one and this is one that has come up a lot when we talk about resistance to vaccines in pediatrics. The backfire effect shows that in a situation where evidence is disputed the more facts I bring to the table the stronger the resistance will be on the other side. So the more facts the more evidence I offer the stronger is the resistance against those facts. So it really puts those of us who believe in facts at a disadvantage when we're trying to convince patients about something as complicated as vaccination. I think the confirmation bias again is a similar thing we tend to hear only those aspects of facts that that support our internal beliefs. So the whole notion of distrust of expertise the phenomena all of these contribute to this notion of distrust of expertise but what I worry about is how are we as a medical profession contributing to that distrust. So in order to explore this I want to talk about two cases I want to talk about vaccines and I want to talk about newborn screening programs. Now every time I talk about the notion of vaccines every time I raise the possibility that pediatricians might not always be right in the way that we talk about vaccines I steal myself for some backlash because I certainly have received a lot of backlash about this. So in self-defense I want to start out by saying I am completely vaccinated my children are completely vaccinated and even my dog is completely vaccinated. I am a believer I believe in vaccines my patients are vaccinated right I really do believe very strongly in the public health value of vaccines but we know that in this country we still have some small pockets of persistent vaccine refusal there's substantial vaccine hesitancy and lots and lots of public health concerns about the diminished herd immunity so that our vaccine programs are becoming weakened. The newborn screening program is something that you probably may have heard a little bit less about but the newborn screening programs involve a sort of a mandatory program in most states where infants twice in their first two weeks of life undergo heel stick testing blood is collected very small about a blood is collected to check for diseases that are either heritable or some or sort of congenital diseases that may not have symptoms early on in life but certainly can be very devastating so the best the best reasoning for these newborn screening programs are to identify diseases that are treatable if you catch them before symptoms arise but the program has expanded far beyond those sort of diseases like phenyl ketoneuria or sickle cell where early onset treatment actually does make a difference to include a huge number of programs for which there is really there's testing but probably really no treatment. The challenges to the newborn screening programs from the public perspective have to do with both their and mandatory nature but also this other side of it that there's a challenge to the notion that somebody is storing my child's blood for reasons that i'm not quite sure i understand because the newborn screening programs they don't discard the blood spots once they're used for the testing they keep the states tend to keep them for three years or three months or for some unspecified period of time and physicians or researchers are allowed to do research on that blood so parents have sort of raised some concerns about the notion of storage and the use of remaining blood for research this question about who has your baby's DNA has come up so these are two really interesting cases that bring me to sort of the way that i often talk about unpacking important ethical questions and so this is the four topic model looking at mark this is from a very profoundly important book about called clinical ethics i think some of you might have used it or read it in your time this is mark's book and this four topic model is a wonderful way to unpack ethics questions i use it i teach clinicians to think about ethics not necessarily ethicists but clinicians and the four topic model is remarkably helpful when you're working with clinicians because it's very much like differential diagnosis it sort of fits in the same pattern it triggers those same ideas in your head and actually i find it incredibly helpful because if you use it correctly answering these four topics you know sorting through these four topics can change an incredibly naughty question down to one that really there's only one or two things that you need to continue to sort out so i'm a huge fan i want this sort of i want to ask a sort of a meta question though where are the facts in these in the four topic model where to identify facts so one of the things that i've noticed in years and years of working with this is that we tend to say that the facts are on the medical indication side on the patient preference side we impute values these are not necessarily facts i mean it's a fact that a patient expressed a wish but the wish is an expression of values but on the medical side when i talk about what's the evidence for the plan of care what's the prognosis what's the likelihood of treatment those are all fact based right they're based in outcomes research they're based in the best current evidence they're best based in the best science again on the patient side though what i'm hearing about is values the concern with this is we and i think other people are raised to sort of a similar question today which facts are those that we adopt as most relevant how am i selecting the facts to support my side of the argument or my side of the analysis is our selection value free and if it's not value free what do we do with those value frameworks that affect our decisions about facts should i let the patient know here's a value framework within which i'm selecting my facts the same question applies to the patient's values are they fact free can we stop and say well these are just values so if we expanded the four topic model a little bit to sort of think about not only my sense the physician the medical indications the doctor's facts and the patient's values but what about the doctor's values and the patient's facts where would that get us in this discussion with our patients so this is going back to vaccine vaccine hesitancy if i expand this i hear i have my doctor's facts and these are these are the vaccine vaccines work they're safe herd immunity and the public's health require high vaccination rates we think mostly 92 to 95 percent some of the numbers vary but we need high vaccination rates for herd immunity to work another fact on the doctor's side is that the vaccine schedule is logical enough to justify adherence to it it it's not uh written in stone but it's pretty logical it works well it's pretty logical it's logical enough on the patient's values side we hear patients say my child first so we interpret that as selfishness we interpret that as putting my child above other children i'm willing to freeload on society i'm willing to always sort of discount the needs and the values of the public's health i'm putting my child above everybody else we hear parents sort of say they have some suspicions about governmental mandates we interpret that as well you're a conspiracy theorist you're just having weird anxieties parents say it you know it's my self respect i'm in control of my family i want to be the one to say how things happen we hear that as sort of arrogance i refuse to participate in the medical world and also this notion that the faith in the doctor is an unconditional and that just hurts our feelings let's now go to the patient's facts it's true that some children are low risk children who are healthy children who live in a community where the vaccination rates are high children who have access to high quality medical care are probably at lower risk from vaccine preventable diseases than other children parents know the fact is that other people have altered the vaccine schedule without any harm to them so why can't i do it and parents also know that there are challenges to vaccine science they're not really very good challenges but they certainly sound sciency right there if you look online there's all sorts of things that sound very much like science challenging the value of vaccinations okay on the doctor's side though let's take for a second the doctor's values and we always talk about the doctor's facts but can we talk a little bit about the values one of the values that comes up when people are really adamant about vaccine programs is this commitment to the public's health that herd immunity matters the public's health matters physicians talk about the importance of a consistent message we all have to have a unified front here we need to say the same thing physicians talk about the inefficiency of having to negotiate about vaccines with every parent in a busy practice and also there's a professional ego here and doctors do get anxious and frustrated why is everybody just arguing with me i am the expert and expertise should matter aka trust me i'm a doctor newborn screening a very similar interpretation on the doctor's fact side screening is minimally invasive offers potential protections for the child certainly a public health benefit patients values again my child first my family my decision i'm suspicious about mandates generally and i'm anxious about science and i'm anxious about research again the patient's facts though and this is one that we tend to discount research is not the same as clinical care patients may not be be able to express that in terms of the belmont report but they get it like if you're talking about research you're really not talking about my child research isn't isn't my duty and not necessarily in my interest or that of my child so now let's get back to the doctor's values we use them to make sure that the doctor's we use the facts that screening is safe and minimally invasive it's important it works but there's also a notion i've as a physician i have a duty to the child in front of me but in the back of all this is my duty to the public's health again i really believe in the data in the value of big data about sort of using these masses of numbers of samples to identify disease to get smarter about disease i do feel a duty most physicians do feel some duty to the public's health and the notion of research brings me to this point though because i think as i teach medical students and i listen to people talk about health care i think the notion of our duty to the public's health is being drawn more and more and more into clinical medicine not even saying that's a bad thing i started this business from the from the aspect of public health i'm a believer in public health i worry though when we when we combine both public health ethics and clinical ethics in the same encounter with patients because i think it's remarkably confusing and opening us to the distrust from our patients if we think about public health ethics the you know the primary relationship is between the state and the community it's not about an individual person the whole basis of the doctor-patient relationship actually the whole basis of the trust that we say is critical to the practice of ethically relevant clinical medicine is the trust between the doctor and the patient and that trust is based on an understanding from the patient that the physician is looking out for my best interest so think about what's happening when the doctor is actually operating on two levels of duty the duty to the patient which is important but also this notion of a duty to the public's health i'm afraid that our patients are hearing us do this and worrying about it and it's it's um weakening this trust that we intend to have between our patients so public health ethics we're maximizing the well-being of the group clinical ethics it's really promoting individual well-being public health ethics the good is socially divine defined the whole notion of patient autonomy and clinical ethics between a doctor and a patient is our duty to hear this patient sense of the good right to really promote this patient sense of well-being contrary to the notion of public health ethics public health ethics promotes public benefit sometimes over individual well-being clinical ethics we don't do that public health ethics it's social justice even over individual autonomy clinical ethics is all about respecting the individual so you see the difference and i hear lots and lots and lots and when i'm teaching medical students as i said but even in clinical practice we're talking about choosing wisely which is supposed to be about the patient's best interest but it comes from a public health perspective comes from the notion of resource allocation so i think we need to be concerned when we're thinking about public health and clinical ethics that we are we are fuzzing the boundaries between these two things and it's to the detriment of our patient's ability to trust us so why are we doing it i think physicians sort of have this broad notion of a therapeutic privilege if it's in my patient's best interest i don't have to tell them the truth about this but honestly public health bias that would never qualify as something that we can avoid discussing because of therapeutic privilege it's an interesting notion so post-truth this era of post-truth feels to me like a great time to remind ourselves to shore up our fiduciary duty to our patients which involves acknowledging competing duties competing obligations between public health and clinical ethics on also understanding that our use of facts is value-based as much as our patient's use of values might be fact-based we have to expand our acceptance of the patient's approach to facts or the patient's understanding of facts there's one other in the last couple minutes there's one other point i wanted to make about post-truth and it's another challenge to address the broader concerns about integrity in science i have this sort of gruesome habit of collecting popular media messages about scientific lack of integrity so failures of scientific integrity and the scary thing is it's way too easy this is not even hard anymore these are all from the front page or the you know prominent page of the new york times and only in the last couple of probably the last year at least so we remember the memorial slone catering debacle where they just decided they didn't have to disclose conflicts because they were sort of above all that because you read the article in the york times about vitamin d science and the guy that's the vitamin d grew he's changed the way that we all think about vitamin d and vitamin d supplements gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from those supplement manufacturers but says it's not important because it doesn't change the way i think about my work science for hire this global energy balance network that was funded by coke and sort of told us that it was more about exercise than ingestion of sugar like if you just exercised enough sugar didn't cause obesity in this last one data fabrication this notion this uh this was also from the new york times where this was some work about stem cells and we we pair up heart muscle harvard says the guy fabricated all his research and i think this one actually came with really sad statement really sad letter to the editor the institution can retract can retract the publication with false data how are we able to retract our textbooks how are we to apologize to our patients who've been treated by false guidance and i think this is a real plea for all of us in our work to be more aggressive and more demanding about integrity in science because it's our profession so the things the key points that i think we need to make about post truth and how we can respond to post truth the first is that the fax framework should include our own value overlay we need to cop to it we need to know what we're bringing to the table and understand that our patients might want to know as well if our primary duty is to is to the patient then our duty to the public's health might represent a real conflict the conflict that our patients are sensitive to assessment of our patient preferences should respect their fat content some of the facts that patients bring to the table are very very valid and if they're not our patients really do deserve our attention and our time to help them understand a better approach and the third one is that the medical industrial complex is a threat and we have to stop pretending that we're immune with lots and lots of public information about how we fail as a profession to tell the truth we cannot possibly intend for our patients to trust us when we continue to fail the to tell the truth so here's orwell again and i think the way he said this there really only two safeguards in this era of post truth one is that however much you deny the truth it goes on existing and even as it were behind your back and consequently you can't violate it the other is that so long as some parts of the earth remain unconquered the liberal tradition can be kept alive and i think there is hope in that there's challenge however so thank you very much it's been a wonderful session i have one contextual question you know you rightly so as did the previous speaker emphasize both doctor patient relation trust communication and fiduciary duty and i'm very concerned that the context of this includes that families and vulnerable individuals are likely to trust celebrities politicians and thing they see on social media yeah and there is no acknowledgement of the conflicts of interest there is no sense of if i'm in a vulnerable situation and anxious that i can be manipulated and have false beliefs such as vaccines and there's no consequences for the harm done how would you think we should really address that because it's out there you know that's a really interesting question thank you for that so i have seen some successful responses there was a couple years ago a really wonderful campaign by a bunch of hollywood types to promote vaccination against pertussis i don't know if you guys remember it but it was actually people were standing up saying hey we need to help so i think on the other hand there's always been charlatans sort of at the edge of science right it's never it's never been different than that we just see more of it now because we there's more media available to us but i think in with some comfort i do believe that science matters and that the arc of science may be long


This is Think Tech Hawaii, Community Matters here. I'm Marcia Joyner and this is Community Matters. Think Tech Hawaii has created a series of Community Matters where we talk to candidates all over the state of Hawaii from South Point to Nihihau and everything in between. And we've talked to candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, the Senate House City Council, County Council, and all. And today we are going to talk to Renee Ng, who is a community activist for as long as I can remember, forty years maybe, something like that, and because we were against the war together. Yeah. Exactly. So Renee Ng is the candidate for the Green Party, Lieutenant Governor. Aloha Renee. Thank you so much for having me. I'm not used to being the guest. But she is an activist and never met a call she didn't like. Exactly. Just constantly out there. No matter what it is, she's there. So tell us about Renee. Tell us about you. I was born and raised in Hawaii, as you know, and I don't know how I came to this activism thing. I mean, my brother and sister grew up in the same circumstances. They're not activists, but it just, it always, I guess it was the time we grew up in where we were against the war, we could see all of these injustices, and they were talking about climate change, they were talking about this sort of agricultural technology. They were talking about a whole range of stuff, and the college was just so interesting. And when you found out about those sort of things, it was a little hard not to be concerned. It was, yes, yes, yes. So you have just been an activist, like I said, for as long as I can remember. And so now you have, is this your first campaign? No, actually Jim and I ran when Lingo was in office. So we ran in 2008, and our program is basically just the same as it was then a little more fleshed out because things have happened since, you know, the decade since then, and given us details of what we need to follow. What is the Green Party? Now, you know, of course, we all know about the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, but now on the ballot we have the Constitution Party and the Green Party and the Libertarians and what, so what is the Green Party? What differentiates you from any other party? I don't know if it distinguishes us from any other party, but I guess if you had to choose one word that describes what we're concerned about is sustainability, sustainability of not only the environment, which is where the Green Party started in Germany as an environmental party, but we need to be able to move on and what's happening at the national level with the Green Party also to become a party that includes not only sustainability for the environment, but also sustainability for the communities, sustainability for our democracy, you know, and so basically that's a big thing with us. Yeah, okay. Well, we talk about sustainability, the people throw that word around, it's one of those things you hear, excuse me, all the time, and you wonder if people really understand what they mean about sustainability. My first thought, of course, is we see so many people in distress and I would think that food security, the thought that you know where your next meal is coming from, what is, how do you define food security? What is that? Food security is always having food to eat and that is a real concern right now, you know, all of these climate change catastrophes that have been hitting both floods and wildfires and that sort of thing, hurricanes, they've been devastating our food production capabilities, they've been devastating farms, you know, pigarees and that sort of thing, and it's not only that, that comes to mind recently because of the wildfires, but the thing is with the drought and with the U.S. mainland not being able to produce as much as it had before, that means we will not be getting food coming to Hawaii, they're going to feed themselves first. Sustainable, that means you can continue to sustain yourself, eat, in other words, and so we need to grow our own food here, I mean if we could do it, they say for a million people pre-contact, we should be able to do it again and you know, that means we need land to grow our food on and one of the things that as a green party, we are saying whole peely land, which is, you know, above below Makakilo, Kapolei, is the best land in the state for agriculture, I'm told best land in this country because it has four growing seasons, the only place, I mean, mainland doesn't have four growing seasons, it has beautiful soil, it has great irrigation and sunlight, it was called the golden triangle in the days of the plantation and they're digging up that beautiful soil, meters deep and throwing it out and building whole peely on it, which we don't need apparently, but anyway, so what do you mean by building whole peely? They're building a housing development on it, they're taking our best agricultural land and paving it over, so we would like, through eminent domain, a green governor would ask that we buy that land back, whole peely land back through eminent domain, we have a billion dollar surplus, if it costs 78 millions to drop in the bucket for the future of our kids and our state and we need that kind of thing to grow on. We do and we have farms on every island, of course, the ones on the big island have to be rethought, we have to re-plan, we do that, however we do have farms on every island, are they being supported? Are the farms on these islands because you take an island like Molokai where water is an issue, but they still have farms and ranches? And even Kauai where the rain has diminished, you're lately, after their flood and now, so if we look at farms on every island, are they being sustained? They are not being supported the way our farming industry needs to be supported, the way they were after, during the World War actually and all the way up until the 70s, we had a huge, they call it victory gardens. Yes, I remember victory gardens. Oh, gosh, I do, yes. You remember it, okay, anyway, and so they had this huge agriculture infrastructure that included, for instance, now the state gives one percent of its budget, at that time the state gave grants to agriculture. I think if my memory serves me, it was about five percent. We had a huge UH infrastructure that did research for the farmers that would, of course, train farmers and then would also go out, extension services would go out and share best practices. And for instance, one of the things that five percent grants can do would be to say having a processing co-op for farmers where they all can come in, they don't have to have their individual ones come into a processing place, you know, clean, cut, pack their produce for shipment, that sort of thing. So that that would be another support, but they should also be supported as far as the water infrastructure goes. I mean, it should not be a fight for them to do something individually. That needs to be something that is part of state policy to make food sustainability sustainable. Yes. Yes. So and oh, I'm sorry. Governor E. Gay wanted to have to double the food production by 2030. We should 20 or 2030. Anyway, we should do that and we should double it again by 2040. But can't we double it now? Yes, we should. We should go a long way down the road. I know. Oh, well, we should begin to build the infrastructure to double it. And one of the things, you know, Gubern, Green Gubernatorial Candidate Jim Brewer has been talking about is carts and agriculture sustainability is the perfect place to have carts because who knows better than the farmers? What the conditions out there and that particular part of the island was all of these micro environments, right? That particular part of the islands, the the sun, like the irrigation, whatever, is capable of growing what kind of crops, what they they would know more, what they need to have in order to build a diversified ag system. And while you're at it at UH, I understand that right now they're on a GMO track, they need to get off that track and go to diversified ag for the GMO food. Now, I don't know this for sure. So don't quote me. But the GMO track means that Monsanto is giving them grant money to do the research. Exactly. Yes. So that's all that is. Yes, this is money. And for anybody that doesn't know, when you plant the GMO seeds because they are artificial, they don't reproduce. So the farmer has to come back next year and buy more. Can't save a seed and plant next year. No, see, a natural seed, natural, like people, like bears, they reproduce. Right. These seeds do not reproduce. So next year after you harvest, you have got to come back to Monsanto and buy more. So that's the that is the real issue with the GMO is that it keeps that in business. Right. Right. But beyond that, they've been talking because Monsanto is on trial right now. They've been talking about how the effects of the GMO on rat and possibly possibly human fertility and the effect on our DNA is really, really dire. And the effect on the bees. The bees have a built in guidance system that they go and they can come back. But this has the same effect on them like Alzheimer's. They can't find their way home. You know, so it has too many bad effects. So off GMOs, on to healthy, normal, normal food. And ag, ag car, ag citizen action round tables. Ag carts would be perfect to help us build that infrastructure. My question, though, and I don't expect that you have a answer. All of these farmers that have this land that's in GMOs, if we said no more GMOs, what happens to them? What happens to Monsanto? No, to the farmer, not Monsanto, the farmer. The farmers, we have a problem. Because apparently, once it's GMO, always GMO.  It seems to me it would be kind of like the lava land devastated. Once GMO, it's forever GMO. So I don't know how you can sequester the GMO, but it would need to be, you know, the farmers are also in their knowledge is also an infrastructure that we need for agriculture. So we would probably have to find other places where they can farm, sequester the GMO on their existing lots, you know, so that it doesn't because apparently it also disperses to nearby lots, you know, without anybody actually consciously planting it, which is scary. It is scary. So we need to take a break and when we come back, there's so much I want to talk to you about. Yeah, about the medical Medicaid for all. And of course, where do we go from here to make sure that these people have this? So we need to take a break and we'll be back in a minute. This is Think Tech Hawaii, raising public awareness. I'm Yukari Kunisue. I'm your host of New Japanese Language Show on Think Tech Hawaii, called Konnichiwa Hawaii, broadcasting live every other Monday at 2 p.m. Please join us where we discuss important and useful information for the Japanese language community in Hawaii. The show will be all in Japanese. Hope you can join us every other Monday at 2 p.m. Aloha. I'm Marcia Joyner. This is Community Matters. And we have visited with candidates all over the state who are running for election or re-election from as far away as the Big Island and as far north as Nihihau and everything in between all kind of places that most of us in urban Honolulu didn't know existed. So today we are talking to my friend Renee Ng, who is running as Lieutenant Governor for the Green Party. And most of us again don't have a clue about the Green Party. But the Green Party, as she has told us, kind of makes sense that their name would be Green, given their whole idea is about sustainable way of living. Now, the biggest issue in sustainability in Hawaii, which I have discovered talking to people from every island and every district is housing. Every district, every one of them has people living on the street, living in their cars, not enough housing. And we've heard people talk about building affordable housing and we know that's not going to happen. It can. It can, but it isn't. When you talk about the developers, the cost and all the costs that goes into developing, then we have to rethink this thing. So one of the things you mentioned that I read in all of your details was creating Ohana zones. What do you mean by creating Ohana zones? Ohana, yes, great. And this is another place where we have to think outside of the box. It can happen. We were being told by the housing experts that no place on the mainland, a tent city, and those people became residents of low-cost affordable housing. But Ohana zones, the way the state, the 2018 legislature gave it funding and the way the state is here, it can happen. For instance, if you take Puu Honua, Ohana, which has about 200 people in it, if you, because we have so much state, we have so much government land, half of the state is government land. And so if you found a big piece of land in Ohana, and why and I, if you took that 200 people, they built a tent city, or rebuilt their tent city or whatever, built temporary housing on one half of that lot, and on the other half of the lot, you build quickly because the bill is only for three years, the funds expire after three years. So you need to build affordable, portable, low-cost housing on these other side. Then after you've finished, you need to build it quickly, then the people break down their tent or whatever, dismantle their tent cities, or leave it and go and become residents of a low-cost affordable housing state. So did they build it themselves? No, no, no. It would have to be the state would have to be. And I want to talk about affordable, affordable modular housing. So there's a prefab home kit for one bedroom, 576 square feet, for under $12,000, two bedroom, 768 square feet for $16,000, three bedroom, 1,000 square feet for 215, five bedroom, 200 square feet for $40,000. It needs to be affordable. It needs to be built quickly. Modular housing can be built quickly. So if we look at this, these are modular housing. And so it would be put on the state land. Yeah. Yes. And the state land needs to be kept in state hands and affordable forever. But these... So the state retains the title to the land. Yes, and makes sure it stays affordable. No developer gets their hands on it. Right, and so the infrastructure, water, streets, lights, electricity, that's done by the state. The ideas or the city. But anyway, the thing is this is deceiving. Because actually it's just... You know how those steel framing for houses they have now are going up all over the place? Basically what it also means is that you have... It's called structural integrated panels or something like that. Anyway, so you have a piece of metal, not just the framing, piece of metal, foam insulation, about that big piece of metal on the inside. And you just, it's kind of like, kind of cute.  The next one, shoo-took. It's like tic-tac-toe. Anyway, not tic-tac-toe, but, you know, tic-toy. And it's pre-made in a factory. It's insulated, so that means it's insulated. For instance, they said that shipping containers were too hot and you have to insulate it. Well, it's insulated against sun and wind, cold. We don't get too cold here. But anyway, against the sun. So it's basically just like any other housing, but the construction and the materials are different. But it can go bang, bang, bang. It can just go up really quickly. And we need to do it really quickly because the Ohana zone money is only available three years. So now that you said that Bill passed the legislature. Yes, this year. This year. And the governor signed it? Yes, he did. Okay. On July 10th. So when do we get started? Or how do we get started? Or who gets started? I have no idea how the state would do it. I have my own ideas, but I don't know if it'll happen. I don't know if they can. I do know that they're looking at it already, but I don't know who would be the agency. Who is they? Who is the state? I don't know if the state would choose, say, HHFDC to develop it the way they've developed other places. The Hawaiian House? No, no, Hawaii Housing, Oh, those people. With the whole state. Anyway, I don't know. I don't know. Yeah, maybe if it's on Hawaiian homelands. I don't know if... No, they lost $300 million. Well, anyway, we're talking... No, that's... We don't even want to talk about that. We just want to talk about the state. Okay. So I don't know if they would give it to them to develop, but they need to move quickly and they need to have a plan. You know, we have the land. 50 to 75 percent. This is Hawaii. It's really expensive. 50 to 75 percent of the cost of housing is the land under it. Right. So when you take on government-owned land, you take that cost off, you're making affordability possible. So if you have... We have the land. We have the money now. The ledge gave us and the governor gave us $1,200,000. And we can start moving. I know they're looking at it, but for Ohana zones, they need to move fast because the funds lapse in three years. So they need affordable, portable modular in order to do it in that timeline. That's my thought, anyway. Well, that makes sense. What about mobile homes? With all this state land that's available to tell you the truth, I really prefer that we do development that goes up. Mobile homes, unfortunately, are only one story so that there's not a good use of the land.  To tell you the truth, in town is where most of the jobs are. People nowadays, the younger generation, are looking at their work play in town and in that case, if you find parcels of land in town, you need to make low-rise three-story or mid-rise four-story. But if you go through Kalihi near the waterfront, what used to be, and all of that is just sitting there, what used to be factories, what used to be warehouses, if you drive through Kalihi, there's all of this that could be high-rises. To tell you the truth, with climate change and its mid-century is just around the corner, I don't want to spend all waste, all of this resource that we have now, this hard, hard-won resources. People have been working on this for a lot of years. I'm saying that those are empty. Put it above Baritannia's G, put it above the freeway when the water comes up, whether it's groundwater inundation or high seas rising, put it where you'll have beachfront property in front of you and you'll still be in their house. Where we live, when we moved in in the 80s, at high tide, the ducks would fly up to the seawall. Now at high tide, the ducks walk across. People would say, oh, it's not happening. It's happening. But those are the kind of things you can mark. Those are benchmarks. It's kind of hard to see when you look at the ocean and it's so big. It's kind of hard to see the rise. But those, like I said, but the ducks, they just walk across. The IPCC, the inter... I forget what that means. Climate change, international panel or something like that. 99% of the people, the scientists in that UN commission says, global warming is happening. We need to take it into account. The city and the state are also on board. We need to take it into account and we need to have it embedded in our housing policy. We're not going to be around for it, but we want the young kids to have some place that is dry above land. You're right. You're right. I have to remember that the next time I drive through Kali, I have to remember that all of Kali, he's going to be a little... Oh, my God. Anyway. Okay. Now, I want you to look into this camera and I want you to tell all of us why we should vote for you. Okay. You should vote for us because we stand for out-of-the-box thinking. All of these details that I've been talking about, my husband and I, my husband mostly, he's the analyzer, the researcher, I've been researching housing for decades. We need out-of-the-box thinking. We need fast action, and that's what the Green Party candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor are about right now. We cannot wait. We cannot play politics. We need to just get the job done, and we need to get everybody on board under those terms. Get the job done because this is a critical time. We need to be moving, you know, because we cannot wait, and we cannot wait for people to say, well, why didn't you do something? That's too late. We can see the problems. We have the solutions. We have the money. We have the land. We have the plan. We have the solutions. This thing on state land, it's been happening all over for many years. The state's been doing that for a long time. We need to expand it out and put it above the freeway. Well, thank you so much. Thank you for having me. Now, for people that haven't voted yet, when you go into the booth, you will see your ballot, and they will have all of the parties separate. So don't think you can vote on this one and then move over here. So if you select this party, you have to go all the way down. You can't go or it voids your ballot. So read the ballot carefully. This is the green party. So read the ballot carefully. Be sure you stay within the lines. You don't want to have your vote discarded. So again, thank you. Thank you all for staying with us through this whole series that we have met so many wonderful candidates. Again, the election is the 11th. Saturday, August 11. I expect all of you to vote. Early voting is happening now. Please, thank you again. Vote, vote, vote. Aloha, and we'll see you next time.


Hello, you are? I'm going to see you soon. All right. Thanks.  And the original plan, as you probably know, is the President had agreed to come by and appear briefly and extend his respects. And then he said, Howard, why can't I stay for life? And I said, Mr. President, believe me. So we are delighted that you do that. And while luncheon is on its way, why don't I make a couple of introductions and I'm going to turn the meeting over to Frank Farrinclough. I'm pleased to be here, ladies and gentlemen. And believe me, I'm going to carry around our Reagan's flag here and do the very best I can 100% of the time to see that Ronald Reagan's programs are... I'm not, Jim, I'm not taking them out until it's cool. I'm well. Thank you. We're glad to have you in the house in now. Yes, he's at the right place. You just want a next lens so you can get the picture. Did you notice all the people looked up when he said Mr. President? Mr. President, there's a story that Pointe Dexter is going to say, he told you all about that money. Is that true? There's a story that Pointe Dexter is going to testify, that he told you about the diversion of money to the conference. I'm not telling me anything to do, I just can't talk. If you think that Pointe Dexter and Norris should be more than my children, you got it. I don't think that she's lying. I was thinking that. I was thinking the next future. So you're feeling old about everything that happened? We're feeling old about it. He got here in just a half, Jim. Break this out. So do you think the resignation of Arturo Cruz is going to hurt the efforts of the conference? He said he's not going to talk. Syriacists won't do it. Listen, if you know what he was doing, he wouldn't be late any longer. at our times we'd better die now. Case in on, we've got a full agenda. As you know, last week I sent up a kind of, which two communications that directly relates to our interests in Central America. First, I asked for 300 million in economic assistance for Central American democracies. And it was our intention that these monies go forward last year, but I understand that the actual appropriations collapsed at the end of the fifth of the year before the continuing resolution reached my desk. So to keep our commitment, we agreed, submitly, the request. And also last week, we took the... How are you? Alan, how are you doing? I'm good. Alan, how nice to sit here. How are you? I'm good.  Best thing in a ten... Thanks.  Clip handsome. There used to be two or three deserts there. One. And no man here. I remember that. I remember that. Give me a twirl. He said, take a jar of a drink. You could eat every college have. And every night when you go to school you see a lot. I don't like young people. I don't like young people. Oh. I'm so excited for you. I'm so thankful for you. I'm so proud of the American people. I'm so thankful. I'm so thankful. Yes, it is. The target of the black community... Yeah, don't think that person is going to be smarter or wilder or you're very much out of it. Very material. Mr. President, there's a bold statement for the Iran-Covered Deal. Well, you wouldn't want to do anything next. Perhaps you'd like to write something down for me. Thank you, Sam. I think you should get or we'll get new contra aid in view of the scandal, the diversion of bonds and so forth. We also think you ought to go over and negotiate a peace deal. We'll bring strong back you. There are no women at this table. Thank you. Why? Thank you. He found his voice. Thank you. Does that 90 day delay the immunity grant going to bother the investigation? You worried about that? Do you think I get it? Special prosecutor wants a 90 day delay in the granting of immunity. Yeah, I know. We're trying. Thank you. You're not afraid of these Democrats, are you, sir? Let's go. Let's go, please. Thank you. Having recovered from Larry Charles. Let me have a brief general rule. They always buy a photo opportunity, no questions. Sometimes you get in here when there's a head of state business. There's no laws. Three or four ways come through like this. And they start shouting questions at you right past the head of state. They don't have a den to do what he's doing there. And all of this. I'm just out of line, so I decided I had a convenient laryngeitis, a cure for illness. I opened my mouth to tell them that. I'm not going to take any questions. They think that's an answer and they'll answer another question. Well, listen, thank you all for coming down this morning. I wanted to be briefed on two important issues. First, the recent developments in Geneva, and second, the situation in Central America, where I believe to be our best course of action. On the Geneva developments, let me say that I was encouraged last month when the General Secretary Gorduchoff agreed to pursue an INF Treaty separately from the other discussions. It's the first time that we've been able to forget that and to get any commentary from it. The timing of that opening was fortuitous since we were then able to complete our internal work on a draft treaty that we've been working on based on the agreement principle that I'd reached with him in regular and that I could instruct our negotiator to present that treaty draft in Geneva. I believe our draft treaty contains the elements that the U.S. had long maintained when necessary for an agreement, stabilizing reductions, global equality, and effective verification. And there are also provisions in strange shorter-range INF. The Soviets have agreed to start to follow on negotiations toward eliminating the residual longer-range INF and reduce the shorter-range reference within six months of concluding the initial INF Treaty. I believe our approach benefits the security of both the United States and the Allies and flows from the alliance's 1979 dual-track decision. And I look forward to having your continuing support of our efforts in Geneva both in INF and the stark defense and space areas of our negotiations. And I ask Frank Carlucci and Ambassador Campelman to brief you further on these developments. And so, Frank, we'll start off. Thank you, Mr. President.


Thank you, Boone had mentioned that the split to Otani maybe used a different pitch there. Do you second guess pitch selection there? No, I mean, I feel comfortable with that splitter, but I probably should have thrown Melissa fast, but I threw him four in a row, you know, and he's a really good hitter. So, I mean, when you throw a good hitter for four out of seven pitches, they're going to hit a pretty good. What do you think of the most out of the start? You pitched into the seventh, but the three homers probably did you in? Yeah, I mean, I thought I threw it about pretty good. Just like, can I keep the ball in the ballpark? It was a couple pitches that I thought were good. Even the split to Otani, I thought it was a good pitch. The possible two-way game for it was good. The only pitch I missed was the one to the first base when I was trying to go away and just went inside. Can you put your finger on why maybe you haven't been all that consistent? I'm sorry. Can you put your finger on why you haven't been all that consistent since coming over here? I don't know. I mean, I kept throwing the same pitches, just a little bit of luck, I would say, but I mean, I'm still working. I'm still going out there and trying to get my best. Does it get in your head when you're going through a slump with a new team as opposed to if this happens in the middle of the season, though, can where you're probably trying to showcase what you can do here for a new team?  Not really. Not really.  You know, if you put pressure on yourself, like, you're done for the day.


can help you with the tax laws. We have the reports dropdown. You can also find these reports in the report center, but it's probably easier to see them here. And then you've got your tax accumulating per location. So for us, we set up the default 5% to Alabama and Colorado here, just randomly picking those two, and then you have the statuses of all paid, due, overdue, or open, and the amount and the status is open here. And then you have the tax year, the current year that we are on, and then the details on down below. Now, if you're using the sales tax, so that's the sales tax center. If I open this up, we then went into our sales tab and we went into our products and services. And in our case, we're saying that all of the actual inventory items are subject to sales tax, as you can see here. And we're saying that the service items are not subject to sales tax. Therefore, when I populate an invoice or a sales receipt that has an inventory item, it will charge the sales tax based on location, unless we say the customer is for some reason exempt from the sales tax and anything that's this type of item, like a service item, will not be subject to the sales tax. And the last step was to go into the customers, which you don't normally need to do unless a customer is special for some reason and would be exempt from sales tax or possibly have a different sales tax location than would be the default sales tax setting, typically driven by the sales tax setup and by the items. All right, so that's been set up now. If I go into, say, the balance sheet and I was to drill down on one of these accounts, going into it, we can see that their increase in the liability is increasing with invoices and sales receipts. If I go into those forms, these are the sales forms that we have, we can see the detail of the calculation. So you'll recall that when we enter an invoice, it increases the accounts payable by the total amount. And then the revenue goes up by this amount, the amount that we charged and the sales tax increases the payable account by whatever the sales tax is, in this case, 172.50. Remember that you could imagine a system, you might be thinking, why doesn't, why if we're gonna collect 3,622.50, I should record that as revenue and then record a business expense of sales tax. And that system would still result in the same net income and it's a question that will inevitably come up if you're a bookkeeper because the client is gonna say, hey, look, why don't I have something on my tax return if you're in the United States for sales tax expense because I'm spending all this money on sales tax. And the answer to that question is if you're using this system, that's because we didn't record the revenue on the income statement either, neither the revenue or the expenses on the income statement, we put it into a payable because the concept is that the government is saying, we're not actually taxing you business owner, we're taxing the client, we're just using you as the collection agency. Again, you can argue whether or not that is true from an economic standpoint, given the fact that we as the business have to basically increase our sales price. It looks to me kind of like we have a sales going up and a business expense of the sales tax for basically protection money that we're paying to the government so that we could pay for the cops so they can actually stop the people that keep looting our stores and stuff. But no, that's not how it works. So really we're charging the customer and therefore apparently the cops don't have to stop people from looting the stores or something or whatever. But so then let's close this out and let's go back to our report here. So then if you collect the sales tax from just a logistic standpoint now, now we have this money that we collected from the customer and of course we have to pay it to the government. And the question is well, how often do I have to pay it to the government? Which will hopefully be set up within the widget depending on the location as you set up your tax information. But usually what will happen is if you get a lot of sales the state or locale will want their money sooner. So you might have to pay it more regularly. And if however you don't have many sales then possibly the state's gonna go, okay we don't really care because you're not making much money anyway so maybe you just pay it once a year. For us we said we're gonna pay it monthly for the practice problem. So what does that mean? That means that we're collecting money for January. So we're gonna imagine January we collected our sales tax and then I'm in the payroll tax. The sales tax is up here. We collected the sales tax and then in February we also collected sales tax but we're gonna pay off just the January sales tax and then the February sales tax will be paid off in March. So there's gonna be a month lag of the sales tax. We collect the sales tax from customers using the sales forms, the invoice and sales receipts and then we pay off the liability that has been accumulating in the following month for the prior month as the current month keeps accumulating with the current month sales documents, invoices and sales receipts. All right, so let's go to the first tab and back into our tax over here. Now normally you would do that with like a widget in your sales tax and QuickBooks would make basically another type of form that would be another kind of expense, a check form decreasing the checking account but be specific to the sales tax. But because we're using a practice problem here we can't really do that because you have to run in real time for QuickBooks to basically calculate the tax that is owed. So we're just gonna do a manual check or a manual check here or an expense form but in practice of course you'd wanna use the little widget as the time passes when your tax is due. You can run the reports down here. We have a tax liability report, tax customer report, non-taxable transaction review. So clearly when you're looking at the liability you wanna possibly run the liability.


A gunman opened fire on February 13 at Michigan State University's main campus, killing three people and injuring five, some severely, before he was found dead hours later, apparently from a self-inflicted gunshot, police said. Few official details about the gun violence were immediately available, but Chris Rosman, interim deputy chief of the University Police, said shots were fired in two locations at an academic building called Berkey Hall and the Michigan State University Union Building. Police responding to the shooting, which began shortly after 8 p.m. found victims at both locations, Rosman told reporters at a televised briefing about three hours later, Rosman said investigators had no information about the motive. He also said the university was not aware of any threats made to the campus before Monday's bloodshed. Rosman said three victims were killed and five were taken to hospital, some of them with life-threatening injuries, two of the dead were at Berkey Hall and the other at the MSU Union. Rosman said the suspect was contacted by law enforcement off campus at some point, adding that scene is being investigated as a crime scene. The gunman was confirmed dead from an apparently self-inflicted gunshot roughly four hours after the violence began, Rosman said. There is no longer a threat to campus. We believe there to be only one suspect in this incident, he said. Students, faculty and residents in surrounding off-campus neighborhoods of East Lansing, about 90 miles northwest of Detroit, had been told by authorities to shelter in place while the manhunt was on.  It happened here tonight. I want to commend the students and our community on how they reacted when we sent out our emergency messaging, instructing people to shelter in place, to run, hide, fight, our community listened and that's why a lot of folks in those buildings were able to escape is because of following our instructions. I can confirm that the photograph that we pushed out immediately as part of our transparent information sharing is the same suspect that was found deceased. Yes. Thank you and we'll see you at 1.30.


under voltage 60, over voltage 90, I would explain it. Was it really that good? Green light now, that's good. Works much better than before. All right, I've been really trying to avoid this, but I'm gonna have to deal with it. So I got this vibration going on in here when the motor's running. About 90% sure it's this shaft hitting the tube that it's inside, because all right, it comes up inside a tube here and this tube continues right up to where the motor is and the shaft goes right through that tube. Two problems. One, the tube, like the outer tube, we'll call it the outer tube and the shaft will be the inner tube. The outer tube is not super straight. It's pretty straight, but it curves a little bit like that. You know, I'm exaggerating with my hand. It's just a tiny bit, but it's enough that in the middle, the wall is really close to the inside tube, the propeller shaft. Now the second problem is the propeller shaft is also not perfectly straight. It is pretty close to straight. When it starts spinning, any amount of bend will be amplified because there will be the centrifugal force pushing it out. So start spinning, the tube hits the inside of the other tube and that just causes more vibration you know. So there's two things I can do about this, at least that I'm thinking of right now. One, I can straighten out the outer tube a little. Like maybe wedge something between this and that tube. That means I have to get inside there and it's a sealed compartment.  But I think I need to do that. The other thing I can do is put a bearing right in the middle. Because right now it's got a bearing at the bottom and it's got a bearing at the top, like way up here. So if I put one in the middle, it would be totally, totally no problem. Now I could try doing that without fixing this tube at all.  But if I could do a copper sleeve and then just have it in a thing that's offset that fits in the tube, that would fix it. I just don't know how much heat is gonna be generated by a stainless steel tube spinning in a copper tube. I know it's pretty smooth, but I don't know how maybe I need to do a test. So the bearing, or I guess it's a bushing, it doesn't really need to do much. Just keep the vibration from starting up. It doesn't need to hold any weight or anything like that. I kind of need to take care of this now before I go trimming the propeller blades, because I start with the propeller blades bigger than I think they need to be and then I'll trim them down to where it's good. But if I trim them down and then I fix the vibration, then suddenly I get all this power back that I was losing to the vibration that I find out the propeller blades that come down too small, well, it's a lot harder to put the material back after you cut it off. So I'm gonna figure out this propeller vibration before I mess anything else up.  It's the same pipe as the propeller shaft. Don't, don't do this. It's a little bit warmer than what it started and I did not oil it. No lubrication in there at all. Maybe I can get away with that. Yeah, it doesn't seem to be heating up. That's kind of impressive. All right, I just tested that on high gear, which is 2,900 RPM. And the motor on the boat only goes up to 1,800 RPM. So, I think it'll be fine. I think I'm gonna try it. Yeah, if I can get the propeller shaft through this tube and this secured in there somewhere, in a good spot, it should fix all the vibration. It'll be really nice to run quiet too, because we're not gonna do that. No good. Oh, I have no idea what I'm doing here. Now, can I squeeze that into you? This is the size of the tube. I should be able to stuff that down inside there. Oh, maybe not easily, but it'll fit and be nice and snug, so it shouldn't move. Yeah, see, I designed this pretty well in terms of maintenance. It's pretty easy to get the motor out. And now I'm seeing how bad the problem is. So, if I put the tube right in the middle of this tube, it's hitting the wall on this side somewhere down there. If I put it over here, though, it doesn't hit. So, maybe I should just screw this up, make it offset a little bit, you know, like four millimeters this way. It might actually be all right, then. I couldn't make this thing fit offset. I'd have to take out some of that. All right, if I stick the motor in here without this and just bend the thing it's sitting on and hold it to the side a bit, I should be able to run it and at least see if that gets rid of the vibration. All right, got my motor temporary hooked up. Let's see how this works now. That's way smoother than before. Excellent. I think it was just asking too much of that pipe to span a meter and a half supported on each end, but not in the middle, and spin and stay not wobbly. Probably with a solid shaft, it would be no problem, but the tube is a lot more flexible. Thing is, I don't want to use a solid shaft because that'll add like 40 pounds of weight, so I want to keep the tube. Yeah, this seems to have fixed it. Now I need to remount the motor offset. It's just a little bit. It's not pretty much from where it was. You might not be able to see much here. So the vibration was getting worse again, and I was like, why is it going on? I thought it was getting this under control. So I was like, ah, forget it.  So I went to eat dinner. And like halfway through dinner, I'm like just thinking about this because it's bugging me, right? And I'm thinking maybe there's something stuck inside the tube, or maybe the tube like has a weld line that's so unbalanced when it spins. It's like, oh, so I checked it. I checked another piece of the tube, and it looks pretty smooth all the way down, like uniform wall thickness. And then I came over here, and I was going to see if there was like some junk stuck up in the tube there that was like unbalanced. So I took the propeller off, because it has a bolt that goes through it, and I have to be able to get something up there. So I took the bolt off and took the propeller off, and I'm looking at the propeller, and my daughter was here, and she's like, what happened to your propeller? Because one of the propeller blades was folded like totally forward. And I guess it was because it was spinning fast enough. It had enough power to actually bend one of them, which was good, because then I bent it back, and the vibrations seem to be mostly gone now. So nice. Oh, and I changed the way the propeller blades are a little bit now. So instead of being pretty flat, they're a little bit flexed that way, so it's harder to bend them.  Anyway, bottom line. It seems to be running pretty smooth now. So I think I can take it out and do a test. For real test tomorrow, the sun's almost down right now. There is one thing I might want to change though. I may want to reprogram the speed controller to operate at a higher amperage, because it's a 40 amp motor, and I told the speed controller cut off at 50 amps, but you know, it's cutting off just as I'm getting to full throttle. So maybe I should just let it have a little more, or maybe I should trim off those propeller blades so I'm not overloading the motor. That'd probably be a good idea.


And here's Thunder X. This is the developing board. Yes, it is a Thunder X evaluation board. And today we are showing ODP, OVS on Thunder X. What is that? We have an ODP native port on Thunder X hardware. And what we're showing is OpenView switch packet processing using ODP packet I've interface on Thunder X hardware. So what is that good for? Okay, so the demo is mostly, essentially it's a loopback packet processing done by OpenView switch on ODP interface on Thunder X hardware. So he's pumping a close to 10 million packet and which essentially goes to another port who receives the packet and transmitted back. If you see that packet is actually received here and you're not seeing a packet drop, except that this is a generator he's not handling it. So he's showing an overrun but OpenView switch actually receives that 10 million packet and he looks into the packet flow that if the packet is found based on the RSS hash value and that's how he actually forward this packet to the destination port which is nothing but a transmitter who actually is in the port. Is this about showing the high performance? Yes, it is about Thunder X making a line rate. So very fast networking system.