Welcome to Toffy TV, it is the footy show daily, bit of a change of tone today, we're basically sick of talking about when football is coming back, so we're going to have a talk about VAR, something that a couple of our recent guests spoke about. Yeah, spoke to Andy Gray and Richard Keyes about their thoughts on VAR, so we'll put them clips up for you to see what they thought, they think about it, but for us I mean do you think, we're trying to move away from talking about when football returns, but when football does return, yeah, and it looks like it might be June 12th, do you think the VAR changes will be implemented then or do you think they'll wait for next season, because what they've said is obviously refereeing. Is going to the screen and using that a bit more? So do you think it'll be when we come back or if it's a new season? I think it'll be a new season, I can't. I mean they've already changed in certain things, you know, grounds and all the rest of it, I think doing that would be going on too far. mor wir yn ddwych, mae'n ddydd yn ei wrthyn, ac mae'n ddweud bod yn digwydd ymellodd. Mae'r ddwch, mae'n ddwych, mae'n ddweud bod yn ddweud bod yn cerddiannol, yn y llunio, mae'n ddweud i'r siwr yng nghylch a'r cefn, yna ddigwydd cymhir hynny, eu flwg, a dyna'n defnyddio ar whyfodol, fy mod i'r yn troi ymlaes. Er lle mae'r dduylu ddwy'n ymmerdd y spain, efallai rydyn ni'n defnyddio gyd. Ac ti, that would get them into some good work and bonuses. But in terms of obviously, things like the offside trap and things like that, I dont think, that's their rules and the big rules. So I can't really see that happening yet. Well the big things were well I go back to the screen and put the rule changes were obviously the offside they're going to look at and to talk about the Wenga rule coming in. a gwnaeth Follow mewn hyn yn y peynon a'r ffeithio yn gwah间. Rydych chi'n meddod yn meddod, yw'r feithio yn meddod, os y gallun ffasg ffaith yw'r olygu i'r llun ffasg wath i'r ddechrau, mae'n meddod i'r ffaith i'r ffaith oSi, dwi'n meddod. Bydd hyn yn hyn gyfeithio y ffeithio yn ei hyn ymddangos, yn ychyn gweithio yn ymddangos yma. A bydd yna eu lefais yn ffosgrifennol ac hynny mae'n meddod yr argynfyrdd. Dyna'r ddweud o'r ddechrau, ond mae'n ddweud, ond mae'n gweithio'r cyrraedd, ond mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Dyna'r ddweud eich bod yn fwy o'r ddweud, mae'n ddweud, fel rhai sydd wedi'i gweithio'r ddweud yn fawr, mae'n ddweud yn gyfleoedd o'r ddweud. Rwy'n dweud, mae'n ddweud, oedd yn amlwg eu ddweud o'r ffinoffi, o'r ffilm yn Gwylch Llywodraeth, If you're the referee, give yourself the time to go and look at your decision and then maybe have a conversation with that person if you want because ultimately you're on the pitch, you're there to referee the game he's there supposedly to give you another pair of eyes so if there's an elbow in someone's face off the ball or something like that or you might not see it on trip on someone going and look at it, then what looks like a trip wait till you see it gives you clarification so I think you're right it could get them into good practises y head of when fans are back in the stadium because at times it become a bit tiresome, didn't it, not knowing what was going on? Yeah, we've obviously spoke about this a lot, we spoke about this last season and what we thought was going to happen. We were hoping that they didn't use the screening a lot and we hoped it would allow the game to flow. I just don't think they've got that happy medium.  I think if the guy upstairs sees someone throwing an elbow or a punch and says he's just throwing a punch, then you can go.  I don't think you have to review that. I think if some of the more petty things, or we would say think as petty things, don't need to be reviewed. But then again, you know, we had the one of Brighton where maybe you've asked me last season, because I don't remember the one we got, nothing but VVAR, we got a penalty against Fulham, I want to say, last season. Dominic Arvillun was barged over and I think Sigarton missed it, didn't he? Yeah, yeah. But the line didn't give it, and the referee had seen it, but the line didn't give it. So to me, that's the way I was picturing that, that's how it would work. But then you go to the Brighton one, where the referee sees it, and even after the game he said, I don't know if I would have given that. I think that one is where, if he's so adamant, like if he's so adamant and thinks, well, I saw it, but I'll go double check it, then I think that's when you use the screen. The one we had Jeri Mina when he had the one they sell out, Westam, the handball against Tottenham, I think that needs to be checked. Things like Chelsea and Tottenham, you know, the stamp by Lo Kelso, and things like that, you know, big decisions that referees, I've said this before, you know, when games I've seen referees, one of the last games, I think it might have sold onto Newcastle, it might have been, I think. The referee's gone and used the screen, used it brilliantly, but then later on in the game there was an opportunity for him to go and use the screen, he didn't, and even though I think the decision might have still been the same, he broke criticism on himself because he was using it at times and then other times, no. And I think if I was a referee, I'd want to make sure that I was consistent in using it, so if you're up in the box and you say to me, that's a penalty, I'd say right, I'm going to have a look, and I don't know if it, look at it, bang, bang, go ped, you're right, it's a penalty, or, because again, I'll bring it back to an Everton perspective. Dominic Calvert-Lewins' winner against Manchester United, you know, he looks at egos and looks at that at the referee and looks at it properly, I think we get the win. So do you think that in terms of that then, that maybe the Premier League bringing a rule, a say rule, or a recommendation, that next season, any major decisions, the referee must consult the screen. And then we start with the high bar, and then we start, as we get the confidence of the, it sounds like the lockdown this doesn't it, as we get the confidence of the fans back, and the trust amongst the work and practices of how we do things, that we start less using it, or do you think we keep that up all the time and just have that as we use it, because you look at somewhere like Germany, and you'll see this soon, because the back of weeks at the, is that when there's a major decision, the guy just trots over it, and you think a baric, it only takes a minute, it only takes a minute to just have a look at something again, they trots over to the screen, look at it, and then everyone goes, well he looked at it, and then it doesn't even matter what you think the decision is right or wrong, they've made the decision because they've seen it twice, one in split second, gut instinct, and then they get to see it again in slow motion and go, yeah that was right. Think about as a crat, a member of the crowd, as a fan, you see the referee doing that, like United, take that United goal for instance, take that United goal for instance, tell the loom scores, we're all celebrating, you're celebrating half because you're seeing the line, he's kind of talking and you're a bit like I don't know, but if he runs to the screen, and looks at it like that, and looks at it, and then goes no goal, then you kind of go, he's seen something then, the referee's seen something then, fair enough, you feel a little bit more confident in the referee, just a little bit, we can argue whether he was right or wrong afterwards, but you feel a little bit more like he's the referee on the pit, he's made the decision, not someone else is saying to him, if he goes to the screen, looks and goes, yeah, it was John Moss I think wasn't it over, and goes yeah, you know what, you're right, yeah I agree, he was offside, you're right, that's not a goal. You'd have to go, all right with the referee, he's seen it, he hasn't just gone, or I'll get it, or he hasn't just allowed someone to tell him, because the conflict comes when you've got someone in Stockley Park looking at it, and someone refereeing a gooders in Amfield, Old Trafford, wherever, and he mightn't have the same opinion as him, and that's where the problem is, he's got the, he's on the pit and can make that decision, John Moss or Martin Atkinson or whoever it is sat in Stockley Park doesn't blow the whistle and go, that's a goal, that isn't a goal, do you know what I mean, so therefore the referee looks at it and goes, I agree with you, that's offside, or that's foul, or that's a red card, then we have to take that as fans because we have to take that anyway. What you're essentially doing is you're splitting, what they have been doing is splitting the referee's responsibility, and basically saying the guy in Stockley Park is called exactly the same amount of responsibility as the guy, well he adds because he's over, he's got more. Because he overreals them, penalty for us are bright and he overreals them, whereas what he should have done is, and I really like the way they do it in rugby union in the five, six nations, shut me eight there, the six nations is, the guy calls them, says you want to have a look at this, they look at him in real time while it's on the screen, they talk you through it, if you're watching it. I don't know what the in-state of the experience is like, but when you watch it on TV, he's talking to him, he's using very precise language as well. I think that's the most interesting thing is to use language that doesn't confuse anybody, he sticks a shape in ways of saying, it's just like, is that a try in your opinion? I agree or I don't agree, I think they've both got to agree because he's the breath, he's the video breath, and it's so easy, I know it does take a little bit more time, but I remember watching it, I think it was two years ago, and I think England scored a try in the last minute of a game or something like that. And if it was given, they would win the whole shebang, and they could not agree whether the ball had been touched down or whether it touched someone's leg, and they could not agree, it's as simple as that, they could not agree whether the ball had been put down, so therefore it could not be given, because no angle showed and in real time you couldn't see. So you just said it's not a try, and the opposition team ended up winning the whole thing? Well that's what might have happened with Calvert Loom, they should have been able to have that discussion, if they can't agree, if the referee's gone, no I don't agree, and he's gone, well you just go with the goal because I can only rule it out if it proves something, the same with a penalty, a penalty you have to be 100%. The problem is, the two things are, one, I think the thing that didn't do anyone any favours was Liverpool 2, West Brom 3 at Anfield near Fico a few years ago when they kept going to the screen and it was taking ages, I think it was seven minutes between two goals by looking at stuff, that didn't help anyone so people cast out on it then. And I think from that everything's unravelled so people don't want to, the other thing is you don't need to go to the screen for every single decision, it'll only be big decisions, and it'll be game changing decisions which allegedly is supposed to be what it is, but they've got quicker at doing it, so you might get three decisions in a game where if you score a goal and there are egos to the fella in the thing while you're all celebrating, any problems and egos no, no problems, it's a goal, you only have to go and look, but if egos you might want to look at that, you go and look at it and the story, I think it'll quicken it up, I personally think that. I think VAR has come in, whether we like it or not, we want it to influence things, we've said before, goal line technology is infinite, it gives you that decision, it's fine, it gives you it, did they cross the line yes or no, great, took away that argument, I think VAR has been brought in to help the game, this is what the guest thought. Look, it's not going away, in my view it should never ever have been introduced, it has added nothing, it's the same with a piece of equipment when you're analysing football, Andy would always say there's no point giving me that because what does it add, nothing, nothing, if it adds something, fine, VAR has added nothing, it's destroyed and is destructive and it is there largely for that purpose, it is not there, can't, maybe one, Arsenal got one at Manchester United, I can't think of too many occasions when we've said, good job we had VAR today because that might not have been allowed, but I think the price we've paid for it has been too great and I always said this, my view on goal line technology was consistent, I didn't want it, not because I didn't think it might occasionally help, might occasionally help, I didn't want it because I knew it was the thin end of the wedge, that the minute we got it people would start saying let's have cameras now for offside and frigate years, we've only just started with VAR, which phase are we going to be arguing about soon, how far back do we take it are we going to be arguing about soon and I don't think the game, I don't think that's not the game I want, I love watching championship football because it's pure, it's clean and a goal scored and people celebrate and crowds are enjoying it immediately, not waiting, what's happened there, if you're in a stadium it's hopeless you've no idea Everton, so the last game I was at a Goodison was the Man United game, Dominic Halvert-Lewin scores in the 93rd minute, it's essentially the winner, by the way it is, exactly so we're celebrating and you're looking and going well we can't really celebrate because the referee's having a chat here You know what Ritted, if he'd gone to the screen and looked at it and gone okay for me, I thought it was a goal because he couldn't see the ball, his body showed he couldn't see the ball because he moved Exactly so, but if the referee would have looked at it and then made his decision himself, had he gone okay, wouldn't they have liked it, no, but at what stage, how is someone telling him and he's not got any influence on that decision, it's bizarre, is that just them giving responsibility away, do you think? Totally, this and whether they will never admit it, but if I'm Martin Atkinson and the lad's name from Australia escapes me at the minute but the boy they brought from Australia and he's only done BAR at the minute, you're not overturning decisions I've made, you're not making me look a mug And so it depends who's on the pitch and it depends who's in that bunker and look, it's not going on but I wish we'd never started with it, we didn't need it, it's added nothing, for me it's all negative and that's not why I watch football matches, I want to be entertained and enjoy it Somebody scores a goal, great, alright, onside, yeah fine, no reason to decide that, get on with it, but you lad's there on the, where were you, Gladys Street, I don't know, you're in the posh seats now? No, the wood, the wood still wouldn't So, but that's it, we've beaten Manchester United, no we haven't, are you sure? No, well maybe That's exactly it, I mean that's exactly it, just on, just finally on that, do you think it would help if the BAR people weren't referees who were still refereeing in the Premier League were almost independent or do you think it doesn't make any decisions? Yeah, I would prefer to see, I would prefer to see people have done the game, you don't need to be a referee to be sitting in there, yeah I would prefer to see people that have retired that have recently left the game, there are people, there are good examples of people sitting on their backside, Dean, according to Mike Riley, quotes, it's been not good enough to work in BAR, well how good do you need to be to sit and watch your monitor, I mean it's jobs for the boys by and large, but we have to accept it's here and sadly, I think that Blatter was right, I would rather have people behind the goal and keep it a game that's occasionally going to let you down but give you something to talk about and reward you for the money you've spent, you're going to see goals today, not see technology disallow goals Fair enough, fair enough And do you think BAR's gone in this season in terms of certainly from the Premier League because obviously that's what you cover and do you think we've used it correctly and do you think a lot of the criticism would have been alleviated had referees just used the monitor at the side of the pitch more? Right, first and foremost, I don't think we needed it Okay Right, I think it's changed the game fundamentally from the game we all fell in love with and I'm not sure we'll ever get it back to what it was and it's true sense, we're now going to be punctuated with loads of stoppages and a football match where we wait and a game that should flow and used to flow continuously It's never been used properly, no, we've batted at that here, Richard and Kees and I have talked about that continuously, the only country in the world that doesn't allow their officials to go to a monitor and make their own decision is the English Premier League How can that be right? How can that possibly be right that a referee sitting in Stockley Park in London watching Everton Ville of a Bull at Anfield of Goodison makes a decision on a matter of fact or an opinion, sorry, on a matter of opinion as to whether it's a penalty or not? That can't be right The only man who should have an opinion is a referee and his linesman, you know, if it's a penalty, was it inside or out, the penalty area fine, that's a matter of fact, was it inside or out? Is he offside? That's a matter of fact, but that's another one that's an absolute shambles To be disen diverse goals for two millimeters, three millimeters, four millimeters offside, I'm sorry, that's destroying the game in my opinion I don't care what they say about well it's a fact if he's offside he's offside, no, offside although it is black and white was never black and white. You always got something and didn't get something Now they're saying well you're always getting it, no you don't. We're seeing unbelievable goals disallowed for a tonial, for an armpit. I've seen more goals disallowed because somebody's armpit was offside this season than any other part of his body. It's a shambl. So I know it's here to stay, so we have to accept that we've got it. So if we've got it then we have to use it properly. I don't think Mike Riley has come out of the smelling of roses at all. I think he's made a complete mess of it so far and if we're going to use it which we are and if we're stuck with it which we are then at least let's use it properly, let's use it the same way that every other country in the world uses it. Why be alone voice? We can't have referees not going to monitors in Premier League and then when they go and referee in Europe going to monitors? It doesn't make sense. signature is here. We're going to have to then use it properly. Andy, thank you so much. OK. Well, we know what Kir's opinion has been from. Does he call it the VR? But it is the stayers, listen. Is this on? There's people of a certain age who obviously have no interest in this kind of thing I'm not saying that's the wrong way Fel ei diwethaeth ei wneud… Tyn ni'n mynd i ddod yn gwinellio'r gennych. Fel y gallwn i'r fan yw'r amddiffon ddydylu. Felly bydd ei ddim yn bod yn yr hanes, oherwydd mae gennych chi i fel y�d. Mae beth… Mae gennych chi i ddweud i ddweud itiol, mae gennych chi i ddweud i ddweud itif i gael. Ond efallai nad o'n ddweud— mae'n gweithio ydw i ddweud i ddweud i oed i ddweudnau. If we're going to get it so right, then let's make the offside rule so it's the other way round, this finger rule that I really like. Which means that any part of you is online, is onside or onside. And I like that. It gives the advantage back to the strike hit. I think at the moment, it's not clear. Because after time, you're getting given offside. And it's not of any, not anything that the defenders have done brilliantly. Mae hyn sy'n ddod. Y ddechrau'r adwydd o'u clywed. Yna mae'n ddiddordeb. Mae'n llwyddiant yn ei ddidd, ond dyna eu chan i chi. Mae'n gwybod eich ddesgol neu chan i chi. Felly nowa, mae'r ddysgu'n ddiddor o'r ddiddor. Mae'n ddiddor i chi. Mae'n ladechawd, mae'n ddiddor i chi. Mae fyw o'r ddiddor i chi. Mae'n ddiddor i chi. Mae mam wym elu. Mae'n ddiddor i chi. Mae'n ddiddor i chi unig neu mynd i chi. Ac oedd yn ffordd rwy'n culte. Er bod dwi'n tot y mynedd fray." Fi'n cael ei llachol iawn. Felly mae'n gael ei ffyrdd i chi. Gael ei ffan o'r bobl. Fi'n gael ei ffan o'r bobl, mae'n ffyrdd i'r bobl. Mae wedi ffyrdd yr athyn yn hynny am yr agynnal. Mae'n yn ymeth o ffordd ti, mae'n meddorol yma. A werthio am y cwrsau. gweithio, cynnwys i chi'n ddyn nhw er gweithio. Cyngor yn gweithio y barion nad oedd na'n gallu cyfan hynny. Yna, neu'r emwol yn ymwyng honno mae'n amlwg i chi'n ddyn nhw, yna dwi'n meddwl digwydd iddyn nhw. Mae'n gweithio atod o'r gyfrifiad. Mae oedd nid yn rhan o gyfrifiad. Sil Store ynCK, a phobl yn meddwl. Mae'r cyfrifiad o'r cyfrifiad. Mae'n meddwl wedi'u meddwl, ac mae'n meddwl bydd. Roedd nid yn y ddweud hynny, ddweud dangos gyda'i gwybod allan o brif. Sfrifddai'n ddim yn meddwl i gynnydd yw half ar half gyda. A dyna'r ystyried bod yn ddodol, ac mae'r broses yw ddodol sy'n ddodol allan a'r peth yn dangos dda i'r rhan o'r system. I mor diodd pan yn ymgyrch – dyna'r reisett. Wrth i amser, yna'r oedd yn ymgyrch. Ac yna'r oedd yn ddodol gan go. Oedden nhw yw oedd yma, O'r fynd o'r prosecution o'r Jason Bond yna? Ond efo'r eistedd y sefydliad yn cael ei fod yn yr bwysig, gan fighor am lleiwyr yr eich fath amfer o bach. Mae'r rwyf yn dod yn gywm yn sgol o'r drama. Felly, mae chi wedi gwneud yn gweithio'r ystafell a'r ffarswchio hynny? A os yw'r ddweud y'r ffordd. Felly, mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'r ystafell. Beth yn cael ei fod yn gweithio mor ffarswchio'r broses Indonesian?  Rydyn na'n ddwy'n defnyddai'r cyfrannu hefyd. Mae'n ddifwng chi'n gweld i fewn o'r ffordd. So gyd yna, mae'n ddweud yw'r ffordd yn bach ac mae'n ddweud yw'r amsigol. A dyma'n ddweud, mae'n ddweud am ffandig y gweithio. Yr wych yn gweithio'r llwysau, mae'n gweithio'r grannu i'n ddechreu. Yn y gallwch chi'n gweithio'n gweithio, mae'n ddweud i'n gweithio'n gweithio, mae'n ddweud i'n gweithio'n gweithio, alwch chi'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio,


Hi all, Salvatore here. The idea of doing an objective quantitative democracy ranking is actually a very appealing one. The problem is it's extraordinarily difficult to do. I don't mean to be a party pooper, but I've spent 20 years on and off thinking about this challenge, and it's just a very difficult one. Now, the first and most important metric might be regularity of elections. For that, we're starting to get some big data databases pulling together elections. Maybe we could do this within a couple of years the data might be available to go for this first one. I'll even add there how competitive our elections would be my preferred metric. If elections are close to 50-50, that indicates quality democracy, 90-10 indicates it's not. But things like court decisions against the government, well, very often the government is a nominal defendant in a case. Also, this is the court saying the government's wrong. Is that democratic? I could say the opposite, that the government prevailing in a court decision is more democratic in a democratic society. Number of articles and mainstream media against the government's position, that's impossible. First of all, how many newspapers and how many languages are going to have to study? 200, 300 different languages around the world, and those newspapers aren't necessarily digitized, and a lot of the poor countries that we think of may be the most important ones where we want to measure democracy are countries where we simply won't have the data, and then what is against the government's position? It can be very subtle, it's difficult to tell. Again, this is almost a near impossibility. Journalists jailed, we just don't have data on this, and if we do have data, the question is, do you support it? So for example, in India, there are quote-unquote journalists who've been jailed on terrorism charges. Are they journalists or terrorists? Well, they claim to be journalists, so again, a very difficult one. Now I know that these other things being suggested are a little more political, they're not really necessarily intended to represent democracy, but still, they're difficult to measure, they're difficult judgment calls. It just is very hard to do this in a meaningful way.


Republican Ken Buck already announced in November that he wasn't seeking re-election in 2024, but this week he made another announcement.  And this decision has enormous consequences for the broader Republican Party, and it especially has consequences for Lauren Boebert, who may have just been screwed over by this decision, and predictably, she is f***ing pissed. And she accused the Uniparty of rigging the election against her in an appearance on Steve Bannon's war room. So let's watch. The Uniparty is trying to do everything that they can to stop my candidacy, to rig the election in Colorado, and this is breaking news as of yesterday. Ken Buck's announcement yesterday was a gift to the Uniparty. The establishment concocted a swampy back room deal to try to rig an election, an election that I'm winning by 25 points, forcing an unnecessary special election when the same day as the primary election in Colorado, and this will confuse voters and it will result in a lame duck congressman on day one and leave the fourth district with no representation for more than three months. This is absolutely unacceptable. I believe that this is selfish. Yeah, so coping and seething aside, I do think that she's right that this is confusing to voters because it is true that the special election and the GOP primary for the same seat, mind you, is taking place on the same day, which is June 25th. But the question is, why not just run in both? What's the problem? The problem is that in order for her to be eligible to compete in the special election in the fourth district, she would have to vacate her seat in the third district, which would then trigger a special election in her district and potentially hand that seat over to a Democrat which further threatens the Republican slim majority in the House. But if she doesn't run in this special election and give up her seat, it's going to be even harder for her to win that seat. As the Hill explains, both parties will nominate candidates for the June 25th special election for the fourth district being vacated by Buck. Whoever wins that contest to fill out the remaining months of Buck's term could have an easier path to winning the election in November to serve a full two-year term representing the fourth district in Congress. So the question is, will she potentially sacrifice herself to maintain the GOP's majority, or will she put herself first to maintain her seat in Congress at the expense of the GOP's majority? Well, she's actually opting for the former. In a tweet complaining about Ken Buck's decision to retire early, she has announced, I will not further impair all the already slim House Republican majority by resigning my current seat and will continue to deliver on my constituents' priorities while also working hard to earn the votes of the people of Colorado's fourth district who have made clear they are hungry for a real conservative. So here's what that means for her. The New York Times explains, that means she needs to convince Republican voters in her newly adopted district to vote for one Republican in the special election against the Democrat while simultaneously voting for her in the primary. That will be no mean feat in a district where she is already facing the carpet-bagger aspersion. So this is basically the worst-case scenario for Lauren Boebert and whatever chances she had of losing the primary, I think that just increased substantially. And from her standpoint, she feels like the establishment is trying to ice her out. And I say this because she retweeted a video from Dan Bongino saying exactly that. She can't be the general election, special election candidate to replace Buck and then be the primary candidate for the November election for Congress in the fourth because she'd have to leave her seat to run in a special. Yes. Dan, that sounds like they're trying to ice Lauren Boebert out of the seat. Yes. I think it's wrong to think that she isn't liked by the Republican Party establishment to the extent that the old guard still exists and has control. But this isn't necessarily a coordinated campaign by Republicans to ice her out because the date was set by Colorado's Democratic Governor Jared Polis. And this decision by Ken Buck to not serve the remainder of his term was a decision that he made because he feels like the MAGA chuds in the party like Lauren Boebert have actually iced him out. And this was explained on Fox News. Did he say specifically why he's leaving in the timing of this decision? Yeah, I just looked at his statement a second ago here. So this is just coming in as we get it here. But he had indicated that he was going to step down. He had expressed a lot of concern here about how things were going. He actually put forth a resolution not long ago. He was still engaged in legislation to try to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president because of what was said in the Robert Hur report about whether or not the president was fully with it. That hasn't gotten any consideration here. But that demonstrates that Ken Buck was working on this right up to the end. He also was at odds with his party. You might remember that he was one of three Republicans who voted against the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security Secretary here.  He doesn't like what Mayorkas had done. But he thought that it was a bridge too far to impeach Mayorkas, only the second cabinet secretary ever impeached. So he was at odds with parts of his party for quite a long time there, Sandra. And keep in mind that those are just some of the recent issues that he vocalized about his own party. But when he announced his retirement back in November of last year, he also condemned Republicans like Pobart for spreading the big lie, saying, quote, I always have been disappointed with our inability in Congress to deal with major issues. And I'm also disappointed that the Republican Party continues to rely on this lie that the 2020 election was stolen. If we're going to solve difficult problems, we've got to deal with some very unpleasant truths or lies and make sure we project to the public what the truth is. So he's bitter. And I would be too if I were him. He thinks that people like Lauren Boebert are destroying the Republican Party and they're part of the reason why he's retiring.  And now Boebert feels like she's the one being pushed out. And maybe that's true to an extent, but from Ken Buck's perspective, she's getting a taste of her own medicine. But in conclusion, I have absolutely no idea what the hell is going to happen now because she's lost every single straw poll, which are unscientific, but the one poll that has been conducted in this district, she has a pretty commanding lead of 25 points. So I don't know what's going to happen now that the special election has been thrown into the mix. It just feels like a complete mess and chaos. And I'm here for it, though. So we don't know where she stands, but I will continue to keep you updated on this race, because if this is the beginning of the end of Boebert, I'm here for it.


From San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley, it's theCUBE covering Big Data SV 2016. Now your hosts, John Furrier and Peter Burris. Hello everyone, welcome back to Silicon Angles theCUBE, our flagship program. We go out to the events and extract the signal from the noise. I'm John Furrier, my co-host Peter Burris. Our next guest is Rishi Yadavu, who's the CEO of InfoOp, it's great to have on because he's not only CEO of a really awesome company, he's also on the front lines, he's almost like an expert analyst to come on and share his thoughts on the industry because he's so up in the front lines. Welcome back to theCUBE, CUBE alumni, good to see you. Good to be back here on theCUBE. So last night we had an interesting event, you were at our event and Peter was doing some new research and we were talking after. The market is really robust right now with Big Data but the Hadoop Strata O'Reilly show is not getting as much traction as we were saying and I can see from the TweetStream that day one certainly got a pop but really the engagement seems to be down a little bit. Is that a function of Hadoop or is that a function of the event? What's your thoughts? I think Strata has been the oldest show so and I think the whole Big Data thing has kind of expanded or moved on. I mean the Big Data has become a fast data. One thing which I noticed in the show was that there are more companies about machine learning than anything else. Two, three years back, every other company was building some kind of a database. SQL on Hadoop was a big deal. Now SQL on Hadoop is a standard, I mean you need to have it. The theme which I see on the ground is streaming, the real time streaming and I didn't see a lot of companies about that but the reason could be that the streaming has kind of become a standard now but I saw a disproportionate number of machine learning companies which was interesting to see. And you get the machine learning and last night the forester analyst I was on the panel with Peter Burris was talking about we need algorithms to police the algorithm because you might not know what's going on so there are some key technology navels that are pretty hot right now. You mentioned machine learning but also the business stories are big so seeing threads of I need more machine learning some more under the hood advantages when the spark certainly has still got the momentum there but then the conversation shifts as EMC's Bill Schmarzer was on who's talks to customers all the time it's the outcomes again back to outcomes so you're seeing the thread between some really key stuff going on under the hood and then the business outcomes as the core themes. What are your thoughts on that? I mean I mentioned machine learning anything else that you're watching with spark and what are some of the customer conversations that you're having? Yeah so you're right. So I think it's become rather than technology it has become more of a use case oriented. In fact most of the customers when they talk to us yes Hadoop is there, spark is there, Kafka is there but most of the time when they come to us they talk about the integration right? So integration is the underlying theme which is not, which is always underrated here. I mean nobody talks about integration but most of the work which we are getting is about integrating different sources whether it's IoT sources or the enterprise sources or anything else. Let's talk about that because the integration challenges on conceptually sometimes seems very simple and the industry's gotten really good at moving data around. But there are a lot of challenges for still defining formats, defining the tooling, how much it's gonna cost, how long it's gonna take. So when you talk about integration what are some of the new considerations that people have to factor into the decisions about what they do? Yeah so the first thing about integration is and going back to the Hadoop and I'll get back to that that why Hadoop itself is losing relevance. But it started with all the unstructured data and the stories around that. But most of the data in enterprises is structured data. So when you're integrating data, most of the sources you have are the structured relational sources from where data is coming. And they all had their own siloed approaches how to pull data from them. And now with Kafka for example is doing pretty good Kafka, has something called Kafka Connect which came out a month back in which you can ingest directly from the relational sources using the JDBC connector. So connecting mostly with the relational sources is becoming the theme and then the real-time streaming with other event data which is coming from multiple sources. And those connectors, that's really talk about the integration piece. I mean that's a big thing again that we're hearing. I mean Peter was talking about the integration piece on an opening day here on our keynote our opening segment which was that path to digital business really has nothing to do with technology. And that was one of the questions I thought was awesome last night when you asked what do you worry about the technology or something else? And everyone was like I worry about something else not so much the technology. Or at least they said it last night that they worry maybe 50% of about the technology but that it's moving up. They're increasingly worrying about the business objective that they're trying to serve and the people that they need to work with to serve that objective. So the integration becomes a, there's certainly, there's always going to be a technology component but there also needs to be some policies, some governance. We have to take the business activities and the business insights and what the business needs and drive that into the different challenges or different approaches to thinking about integration and that's more than just moving something over the wire. So again, as you think about the integration challenges it's moving from relational out but are there some new things as people try to machine learning is clearly people are trying to turn it into a killer app. Are we seeing some new integration challenges beyond just moving the data around as we try to get at that application value? So I would say we are looking at the old integration challenges and what I mean by old means not old in the Hadoop space but in the other enterprise technologies. Security, for example, governance is a big deal now. So security and governance which people did not care about in Hadoop five years back now they have become front and center.  It's not just moving the data around. I mean moving the data is good. You have to move data at the low latency. You have to clean the data before moving but again that cleaning data has been there from last 20, 30 years. Nothing new about that. So that's an interesting signal then. So would you say then that that signal means that when you start getting those checkpoints if you will or but speed bumps, whatever you want to call it means it's coming more into the enterprise radar because those are more table stakes for the enterprise. Oh, I think that's exactly, what have we learned from data warehousing that can now be applied to some of the things that we're doing with big data and governance and those types of issues are really crucial. So how is that starting a factor in your customer's thinking? No, absolutely, you guys are right. So Hadoop has become rather than being siloed it has become mainstream now. So all the concern as it has security and governance and other cross cutting concerns which apply to every enterprise application which have always applied to every enterprise application but never applied to Hadoop because that was more of a siloed sideline project which people are doing. And now they are applying there. And at the same time, Hadoop itself is becoming less relevant but because when you're connecting with the sources okay, you want to do stuff in real time then you need Kafka and Spark. You want to store data. Yes, Hadoop is good to store the data but you know what probably will go to Microsoft Azure or will go to S3, right?  So there's nothing left except the name, right? So let's talk about that because that is really a big statement because I mean, you've been invested in Spark early. So one, I want to get the update on Spark. Then I want to come back to the leg chopping off aspect of the cloud. So first, give us the update on Spark because this is really a dynamic. You don't need to have Hadoop to run Spark. That's a misconception that IBM certainly cleared up this week. So Spark, what's the update? So Spark streaming is becoming more and more mainstream now. That is front and center. From last one year, all the new business we are getting that is about integrating with real time or near real time to be honest, streaming sources. So and Spark, mostly because of Flink and the market push. Spark has paid a lot of attention to streaming. So streaming has become really, really important there. So streaming at the same time, you still want to have access to the SQL sources. So SQL on Hadoop, you don't even talk about it anymore because that's a given. You have to have it. Whether it's streaming or machine learning or everywhere else, that access from SQL has to be there. Yeah, and I validated that last night on a tweet. I threw out a tweet out of our quick board on CrowdChat to some targeted people. And they came back. Absolutely unequivocally, SQL's not dying, going away. That's how you get attention. Say something's going to be dead and you get 10 responses. But that's a good point. So with respect to the Hadoop getting kind of squeezed, if you will. So you mentioned the legs of being chopped up by some of the big guys like Azure and others. What do you mean by that? Is that the cloud storage and the cloud data stores are replacing Hadoop? And take us through that. Yeah, so how do the compute and the storage part, compute part, was taken away by Spark? So the only part of the Torso which is left is the yarn piece. So yarn more of as a resource negotiator to manage multiple compute resources. That has remained there. But storage, yes, you can use Hadoop for storage, but the public cloud providers and their storage technologies. Microsoft is coming with this. And the impact of Hadoop is what I'm trying to cut pieces together, so I'm just trying to, and I get Spark, I get Spark done. What's the other piece of it? Just the cloud guys? Yeah, cloud guys are doing the storage, right? So you don't need SDFS for storage when cloud guys are already taking care of it. Microsoft has invested big time into their Microsoft data lake solution which they're coming up with. S3 has been a standard for ages.  That's what you're basically. And the Torso's yarn? Yes. Yeah, and that's a really powerful way of describing it. But are we going to, so we have kind of metadata for the resource management and way of applying that metadata. What about some of the management or administration interfaces that are going to be necessary for the data officers, the CIOs who are responsible for knowing where the data is, who controls it? Is that also going to be, is that going to be more associated with Spark or how's that going to be incorporated into this whole integration challenge? Yeah, so the data management and the governance piece, I think that piece still needs a lot more work to be done there, right? Cloudera has their navigator, other vendors also have their own tools. So that is the piece on which I think there will be a lot of work which is going to be done in the next one year. So the word Hadoop still means something. I want to get you to talk. So we're going to be at Hadoop Summit with the Hortonworks show coming up. I also hear Strato at Hadoop World, which is the Cloudera show. What's the future for these guys?  Where do they all fit in? How do you see that those guys kind of settling in? Is there, I mean, Cloudera just got valuation clipped down by fidelity investments. So I see they're looking, they're not the million dollar valuation anymore. So what's the take in the Hortonworks public? You see their numbers. What's your take on the Cloudera versus Hadoop? I mean, Hortonworks. So they do, I mean that's- It's Cloudera, I mean, they're good friends. And Cloudera, they have huge first-mover advantage and I think that's going to remain there. I think Hortonworks and MAPPAR, they do not have that advantage. So it's going to be slightly more challenging for them. MAPPAR is kind of moving away from Hadoop. They are like, you know, we are more of a, more data management platform. I think I heard somebody saying that compare us to Splunk as opposed to comparing us to Cloudera or- So they're already kind of seeing the positioning shift. They're jumping to an area that's going to be safe for them. And what is that? That's basically Hadoop plus something else. And we saw Hortonworks has the data platform and they have this new emerging products group, which is seems compelling to me. I mean, so you said they're making their moves basically. Yeah, so I mean, I haven't followed Hortonworks for the last few months. But I think the challenge with going too much open source is that then how do you make money? So I think Cloudera has been able to maintain a fine balance there. But I think profitability is still a challenge for, I think it's going to be the main challenge for all of these vendors. Nothing's ever free. That's what Jerry Held was saying and that's the key. All right, your thoughts on the next step for you guys. What's going on with InfoObject? Share with us some of the things you're working on in the business. Yeah, so I think for us, streaming is what we have been focusing on from last one year. I think streaming is going to remain a theme for 2016. As Intel comes up with their 3D cross point towards the end of the year, I think the whole non-volatile RAM. So again, first taking the hard disk was taken off. Now, I think once the 3D cross point comes, the flash will also be taken off, right? So it's just going to remain the memory chip and that's going to become the primary storage. So in fact, if three things or three commandments I have for this year, they are streaming first approach, streaming only approach and in memory storage, right? So streaming first means that no matter what type of data you have, that is going to be streamed first in. Streaming only approaches that you don't need Lambda architecture or anything. All the data will be streamed. First data is streamed and you'll figure out what to do with it. And while you're figuring out, it doesn't have to go to Hadoop or anywhere else. The data will be stored in memory. Well, so, but there are still some limits to streaming. So as you think about what your clients are going to ask you to do with Spark, they're probably going to ask you to do things that Spark itself is not necessarily built for. How do you think you're going to end up adding value on top of that stack for clients as they try to solve challenges or applications that may require lower latency, the ability to act on single events, those types of things. What's the role of the services as we move this forward? It's got to be more than just implement Spark, right? Yeah, so, yeah. So I mean, the first thing which when clients come to us is they say that we want to lower the latency. Right presentable latency is a three minutes and we want to make it say 30 seconds or 10 seconds, right? And there, yes, Spark is one part of the play. I mean, data is coming from Kafka. All kind of disk IEO we have to reduce there or almost make it zero. That's why it goes in memory. Yeah, so that's why it goes in memory. So, but you're right. So it's not about technology anymore. It's more about the use case, right? How they can get the highest performance, highest throughput and lowest latency for their use case. And I think that's going to remain the theme. Rishi, I have final question I have for you is I want to just take in a concept around new way versus old way.  I do bluesing relevance in the sense of the overall big picture, but finding it's one spot, integration, machine learning and streaming. I see key components you're seeing on Spark.  So I want to get to your thoughts. As you talk to your customers and prospects, you have a lot of candid conversations around the big picture. What's the pattern that you see if you were a machine learning algorithm? What would you say is the pattern around what the new way is, what they want to do versus the old way? In other words, what are some of the old things that are going to be retrofitted or thrown away or replaced? And what are the new ways that they want to do business with big data? Can you share any observations, anecdotes? Yeah, so I think one is that rather than technology-oriented approach, whether it's Kafka, Hadoop or Spark, I think it's going to be more solution-oriented approach. This is what even InfoObjects is focusing on. For example, one of the verticals which we are going to focus this year, big time on is manufacturing, right? So it's not that what Hadoop or Spark can do. It's like what InfoObjects can do for manufacturing industry, right? So I think that's going to be the new way, that it's not about what the technology can do or what your throughput is going to be. That's all okay, but for a given business problem or for a given industry, what we have done so far and what different things we can do. And what are some of the conversations around that thread? Is it integration? You mentioned that. Is it the technology? Is it architecture? Where is the customer in the progress of that journey of figuring out these new solutions? Is it like a new conversation? What are some of the specific conversations? So it always starts with integration and it's going to end with the predictive analytics and the predictive maintenance and those pieces, the machine learning piece. But we are still far from there because I think for maybe at least next two to three years it's going to be about integrating with multiple sources. I mean integration is a big deal. I mean when you have hundreds and thousands of sources. Well we've been saying on theCUBE the integration is the new barrier to entries for young companies and certainly big companies to maintain relevance in their enterprises because that's now the glue and there's a lot of work being done there. So great observation. I appreciate you, great stuff. As always, great to see you. Great perspective. It's like having an extra analyst on the set here. Appreciate it. You guys are doing a lot of great work. In fact, talk about streaming. We'll be streaming live at Hadoop Summit in Dublin next month. So watch, keep following theCUBE on Twitter, at theCUBE. This is theCUBE with more live coverage here in Silicon Valley after this short break.


Welcome to this course on Transition Metal Organometallics in Catalysis and Biology. In continuing with our earlier discussion, we would be looking at examples of ring closing in ion metathesis reaction. In short, these reactions are called RCEYM ring closing in ion metathesis reaction. And then we will try to finish off all the related examples with regard to this reaction. And then if we have time, we are going to start another new topic, another new interesting reactions, which are alkene and alkyne oligomerization reactions. Now in keeping with the theme of this course, which was intended to highlight all the industrial scale applications of organometallic reactions and catalysis in particular, these alkene and alkyne oligomerization reactions is another Nobel Prize award winning discovery that we are going to take up next after olefin metathesis, which was also awarded a Nobel Prize. So now we go back to our discussion on ring closing in ion metathesis reaction. We have looked into several examples in the earlier lecture about ring closing in ion metathesis reaction. What we have learned so far is that ring closing in ion metathesis reaction is an intramolecular reaction, where the substrate happens to have both the olefin as well as the alkyne bond. So to insert closing in ion metathesis or ring, this reaction what we have learned in short is that the substrate has both the alkene and the alkyne components, and the reaction is intramolecular metathesis reaction. Hence the preferred mode of reaction is that it is preferred under high dilution conditions in order to suppress intermolecular cross metathesis reaction reaction, and these cross metathesis reactions may occur between the alkyne two of these molecules. It can be alkyne cross metathesis, intermolecular cross metathesis or even alkyne intermolecular cross metathesis, and this is pretty much suppressed by performing this RCEYM reaction under high dilution conditions. The last thing is that these are important properties that we have been learning about this RCEYM. The first is that this is the intramolecular reaction preferred under high dilute conditions and suppresses the cross metathesis reaction. The second thing is that the favorable pathway or preferred pathway involves in first mechanism, which means that the active species is formed on the olefin first, and the active species is the metal carbene species as shown over here, and that further reacts with the alkyne subsequently, this reacts with the alkyne subsequently to give the corresponding RCEYM product. This is the active species for this ring closing in ion metathesis reaction. This is exactly a few points that we take home from our discussion on ring closing in ion metathesis reaction. In this regard, we have looked into other possibilities, for example, we have looked into the possibility of reaction happening in the alkyne or at this alkyne site giving the active species, and that mechanism is called ion first mechanism. But we have also noted that the ion first possibility will have a lot of regioisomers, so there is a lack of regio selectivity, whereas these reactions as observed are highly selective, which points to the in first mechanism. In this context, we have discussed various other possibilities, which have been proposed, but have not gained popularity with regard to the mechanism, the active species as well as the conditions in which these reactions are carried out. With our discussion on ring closing in ion metathesis, today we are going to look at two more examples of RCEYM reaction, but they are taken in a context of more complex maneuver with regard to organic synthesis, particularly tandem reactions, which involves RCEYM along with other reactions, for example, it might as well be a cycloaddition or other reactions which in tandem with RCEYM some complex substrate has been obtained. Let us start with these examples that I have been referring to. In this, let us take a look at this example of tandem RCEYM, in which there is a cycloaddition reaction proceeding along with the ring closing metathesis reaction examples. The one that we would be referring to have been used for synthesizing highly substituted bicyclic compound octahydrobenzo C as a pin 3-ion. So, this is given as in over here, the reaction is shown over here R1, and after several maneuver, the final product is this compound, and this complex synthesis was reported by Blakert in 1999. So, this synthesis is a very nice way of making this complex molecule involved using these two strategies, once a RCEYM ring closing RCEYM involved this ring closing RCEYM reaction. This complex example was synthesized using this ring closing in ion metathesis along with a tandem cycloaddition reaction. So, we are going to take a look at the mechanism for this formation as it is given below. This involved first the reaction of the substrate, some polymer support these reacting with C2, and the reaction would proceed as shown here, and then this would give the product as shown here. Now, this is the active species, but will not propagate, so then the reaction would proceed, the one which would be necessary would be the one that would proceed along the other conformation. Please note the conformation over here, as over here they are just the rivers. Now, this would then react further to give, and now that would rearrange to give the product. So, the point to note is that of these two possibilities, this is the correct pathway that gave the active species on this substrate. So, the next step involves the reaction of this substrate with further the product, and this is shown in the next slide. Now, this substrate would then react with the alkyne substrate, which is R1 to give as shown here. Now, this would subsequently undergo rearrangement as shown here, so double bond between 4 and 5 R1. Now, this would then react with olefin to give the corresponding metathesis product along with the elimination of CR2, the active species. So, once this is formed, then this is reacted with methyl aluminum dichloride in presence of this alpha beta unsaturated carbonyl compound R2. So, a cycloaddition reaction follows suit as shown over here, and the reaction proceeds to give this product, which then is reacted with amine in tubital NH4 reagent to give this amide in it R3. Finally, this cyclization with a tri methyl aluminum and tri ethylamine cyclization involves this reaction with this amine over here to unfollowed by detachment from the ring, give the desired product as shown here in R3 R1 in 20% yield. So, this is a very interesting reaction, and even though the yield 20% seems low, but in the context of such a complex molecule, 7-membered, 6-membered bicyclic amide functionality compound, so such a complex molecule being formed in multiple sequence standards step speaks well about this yield of even 20%, which otherwise may seem very low, but this is not trivial in this particular case, because such a complex molecule has been formed. Now, another important highlight of this reaction is that it undergoes this in-ine metathesis reaction, ring closing in-ine metathesis reaction. So, this reaction happens in the first half and then this cycloaddition reaction, which happens resulting in the formation of the 6-membered ring, and that sort of shows the beauty of this reaction. So, to put these two reactions, which have happened more appropriately, they are called in-ine metathesis, not the ring closing, because the two substrates are not the alkene and the alkyne moiety are on two different substrates. So, this is an intermolecular in-ine mechanism metathesis reaction. So, this is the intermolecular reactions, and then as the alkene and alkyne are on two different substrates. So, with this, we come to an end of today's discussion, where we have taken up an example and worked it out showing the different orientation in which the metal carbene species may react with the substrate, and what we have seen is a tandem reactions of cycloaddition as well as in-ine metathesis with regard to the earlier discussion on ring closing in-ine metathesis reaction, and how these active species leads to a very complex product, which is shown over here even in 20 % yield. So, with that, we come to a conclusion of today's lecture, where we have seen a tandem reaction as it preceded by this in-ine metathesis and cycloaddition reaction. We are going to take up a bit more detail, another interesting example of this in-ine metathesis reaction, when we meet next on this lecture series. Till then, goodbye and thank you.