Hello and welcome to the Active Inference livestream. My name is Daniel Friedman and this is going to be a solo discussion. If you're a new listener or not, welcome to TeamCom. We are an experiment in online team communication and learning related to Active Inference. You can find us on Twitter at inferenceactive at activeinferenceatgmail.com on Keybase via our public team or at our YouTube channel. This is a recorded and archived livestream, so please provide us with feedback so that we can improve our work. All backgrounds and perspectives are welcome here. And also, as far as video etiquette goes, remember to mute if there's noise in the background, raise your hand if you have a question, and so on. Here we are in act-in-stream number 5.0. We're kind of exploring with the numbering system, so give us any feedback as far as what kinds of numbers or what kinds of shows might be helpful for your learning. But the goal for this discussion is to set the context for act-in-stream 5.1. In 5.1, we're going to discuss the paper Multiscale Integration Beyond Internalism and Externalism by Ramsted et al. 2019. The goal of this video is really to contextualize some of the ideas, the historical threads, and the vocabulary that will help you either read or work with the Ramsted paper in terms of other fields that you might be more familiar with or just to sort of connect ideas, and thus ground your understanding and your practice. So I come from a different background from the authors, so I have a slightly different perspective on perhaps even the implications of the paper. So the goal here is really just to explore that so that whether you listen to this by itself and you're looking to sort of see where active inference is trying to relate itself to other philosophical ideas or whether you're coming from the active inference side and you want to understand some of the broader philosophical questions that are being addressed potentially by active inference. In both those cases, I hope this is an interesting video for you. So here are a few of the topics that we'll be exploring here. The first one is top-down and bottom-up causation, and that's going to be an introduction to multi-level systems as well as thinking about causal modeling also. Next, we'll talk about and raise some questions related to partitioning between internal and external cognition, which is certainly the wedge or the main issue that the Rampstead et al paper is going to be focused on. And then we'll talk about a few different perspectives on systems modeling and action. That's sort of action and inference, if you will, but there's also been a lot of philosophical thought on systems modeling as well as action. So we can kind of see how those two fields might come together in the field called active inference. And next time in number 5.1, we will all come together. Everybody who wants to can always get in touch with us. We will all come together and discuss the paper. To whatever extent we've read it, whatever we thought about it, any questions that we wanted to address, any of our background knowledge, any of our perspectives that we bring to the paper, those are all cool things to come about in 5.1. And if you're listening to this after 5.1 has happened, you can either listen to 5.1 or you could get in touch with us to be on a future discussion. So next time in 5.1, we're going to be talking about the figures to abstract, etc. in this paper by Ramstead et al. called Multiscale Integration Beyond Internalism and Externalism. And that's in the Journal of Synthes in 2019. So the goal of that paper, and the only quotes from the paper that are going to be in this video, are just from the introduction and the abstract, just so that we can ground the ideas more specifically in what Ramstead et al. frame their work as. So the goal of the paper in the author's words was, we focus on making explicit a description of the boundaries of cognitive systems that we think follows from taking seriously the inactive embodied and extended nature of cognition. This is the idea that the boundaries of cognitive systems are nested and multiple, and that with respect to its study, cognition has no fixed or essential boundaries. Cool, I think that that is really exciting and also it doesn't necessarily bring the free energy principle or active inference on too heavily. It just helps understand what is the broader goal of the paper. Well, the question that really excited me today was this taking it seriously aspect on multiscale integration. It's the first two words of the paper's title, so maybe they're trying to signal with that. The story that we want to be working towards is multiscale integration. So linking things that are different spatial and temporal scales at once, multiscale. How are we going to do that multiscale integration? Well, what they're provocatively stating in the title is that we must move beyond this debate of internalism versus externalism, which I'll contextualize soon. And the way that they're going to take it seriously is using a mathematical framework called free energy principle and it's related process theory active inference. So that's what taking it seriously looks like for them, especially drawing on their background as cognitive science experts. They're really framing this as about multiscale cognition. And I came from a not a cognitive sciences background, more of an evolutionary biology background. And so multiscale integration in the ant colony or in the insect brain or in the cell, there's a different set of philosophical baggage that comes along with it. Sometimes if I could characterize it, so clearly would be the focus on humans tends to focus on the experience and the internal view since we are humans. So at the very least it's one of the ways that we can study emergence is by ourselves as an emergent process. Whereas in computers, ant colonies, the cell, there's often a tendency following let's just say denit and others to imagine it as an automata or just sort of a robot and therefore devoid of experience or speculatively having experience but sort of on the sci-fi fringe and anyways when you deal with the system you have to be in that intentional stance. So those types of systems tend to have perspectives that are devoid of agency whereas human systems, the debate is just about that is about our own agency. But we're all part of the same multiscale integrated framework and so we want to have a story that works for cells that are in our gut, that are in our gut lumen in the microbiome, why should it matter? Why should we have a different theory of biology for one side of that over the other especially when we know that there's important transfer between them, for example. So the authors took it seriously and wrote this 2019 paper as well as other papers. I'm going to try to take this seriously from the work in biology that I have learned about over the years and that's what taking it seriously and contextualizing looks like to me so I just thought I could start with that. Here's a paper from 2012 by Dennis Noble who's a great systems biologist called A Theory of Biological Relativity No Privileged Level of Causation So you can kind of see where he's going which is taking the idea of relativity whether that's gravitational relativity something related to quantum mechanics for example or just inter-subjective relativity like focusing on the relations that define something or the interactions that define a person rather than an essentialist take. So Noble is sort of taking a broad understanding of relativity and saying well if we really look at multiscale systems and spatial and temporal cause then there's going to be this relativity principle maybe that could apply to biology and what I like about his figure one and I've added two rungs at the top is that it really clearly phrases what he's arguing against and also makes it clear how some of these logical errors become deployed in real systems in real analyses. So figure one is a model of causation for what's called upward causation and the way to read this figure is it starts at the bottom with the smallest thing which are genes which here is just I believe being meant as a string of DNA but that's a whole other discussion. Let's just say that genes are able to cause proteins in RNA which are another scale of organization bigger moving up towards protein and RNA networks up through cells, tissues, organs, organisms social interactions, ecological, technological, governance informational systems and so on. So this is a sort of multiscale systems perspective and the version of events that we often get is implicitly one of what Noble is characterizing accurately as upward causation. One could change the spatial metaphor it could be moving downwards, it could be moving inwards or outwards but suffice to say that this is what we mean when we say upward causation is really from small things to big things because the top down things are often seen as big and the things that are just on the fabric level of reality are often seen as small rightly or wrongly. And the story when you have this type of a upward causation model again that smaller things cause bigger things is the genes are upstream of the behavior or the cell damage is upstream of the organs. So it makes sense and there's also a related idea called supervenience that is that is there a relationship between changing the smaller thing and the bigger thing changing? So these are the kinds of questions that come up and this is one direction of causation. However what Noble ends up framing in this no privileged level of causation model is that yes there is influence or flow from so called the upward direction so that's the genes and going all the way up in influencing things that are at larger scale but also in a very real and causal sense there are top down causation that can be equally important for regulating the system. So even if in the short time scale the influence of the bottom up is extremely strong if there's no top down force sometimes any amount of bottom up power can just cause the system to dissipate and therefore not exist. So in that sense all systems that we observe continuing to dissipate energy for example like active inference foragers informational foragers humans living creatures we can really start to see that there has to be some sort of a top down organizing force otherwise it would be like a land slide or a lightning strike it would just dissipate away. So he says look because the top down forces are so important and over evolutionary time end up shaping the parameters and the set of what is possible or functional at the lower level it really needs to have an equal hand causally. So we also need to look at this from a top down bottom up perspective lots of people have thought about these types of issues in systems theories and in other areas but the three areas that I just want to emphasize here before bridging to active inference are that there's a continuum of larger and smaller things that has to basically be true because you can't have something bigger inside of something smaller and in the context of this debate that we're framing to get set up for which is between internalism and externalism you can think about things that are bigger as being more external and things that are smaller as being more internal so like the story about the smaller things is going into the organ into the cells into our cells but the story going out is about the ecosystem or the constructed niche and these are things that are external and so that's going to come back later in the paper and then also as a consequence of that there's this nestedness or this embeddedness to these different levels of analysis and there's again many vocabularies for this type of recursive or embedded system and hopefully we'll address some but also feel free to provide feedback these are just some of the general aspects of multi-scale systems and some of the questions about multi-scale systems that the paper is going to address eventually and the field of research but also there's some philosophical work from areas other than the inactive cognitive area alright so the next topic is going to be about partitioning between internal and external cognition which is another way of saying what is the internalism versus externalism debate about how are we going to move beyond that how might the free energy principle be involved in that and in a sense the question that this is asking is how do we do causal modeling of situations where internal and external states interact for example through sense and action so let's think about how sense and action are interacting even at one level of analysis what the ant perceives for example in its actions what you perceive in its actions and then immediately one of the questions that many people have asked is okay so how do we make that story multi-level because the ant we could simulate it as just a robot with inputs and outputs and sort of black box inside but it is also composed of the tissues and the cells and it seems a little bit ridiculous if we would have to simulate from the cell up to the ecosystem level so we have to be able to separate that model somewhere even if only for computational tractability or comprehensibility so we got to make this trade-off between making causal models of systems that are at one level of analysis but including things that are at a smaller level of analysis that can have consequences that bubble up for example a drug binding to a receptor it can bubble up to behavior that's like a story about upward causation or someone's choice or someone's context could dictate their physiology through any number of mechanisms which food or molecules are available so there is going to be times where that cross-level interaction is really important for the stories that we tell for the narratives how we understand the world how we communicate about those things so how does the multi-level perspective relate to causal modeling if your story is about two people who are fighting is the story only going to be at that level or are you going to bring in society are you going to bring in the molecular stuff how much upper and lower context do you provide for causal modeling at a given level of analysis how is causal modeling related to the possible actions of a system also known as the adjacent possible for example what else could be and this just kind of reminds me of how when someone describes near-miss or a situation that could have been another way they're not saying it could have been any other way this thought experiment has been carried out by Gould and others in the sense that something happened a certain way which means it was permitted by reality and then you're envisioning a slightly different scenario the ball hits the other side of the roof and it ends up rolling down a different direction doing some other outcome and the ball still has the same physics and you're still the same person so it's not any alternate reality it's a very tightly constrained causal reality and what kinds of alternate realities do people propose or speculate about ones that are within the causal latent model of the world where all stories where you cross the freeway are dangerous for example that's the causal model that underlies what we generally are talking about when we're talking about what could happen we're not saying anything could happen we're saying a pretty tight model given about how we think about cause and effect in the system why is causal modeling so important to active inference and there's two roads into this I would say one perspective is why is causal modeling important from the point of view of the organism and another would be of the scientist or the observer so first from the point of the organism there's a lot of ways to frame exactly what it is an animal does and a really common area that people study this without the psycho baggage is in animal foraging so whether it's a rodent or an ant people or a bird are interested in the bio energetics and the decision making that underlies how the animal goes about searching for food and how does that depend on the dynamics of the ecosystem and so one popular framework in studying foraging is optimal foraging theory which you can just by the name of it imagine is kind of like optimal investing strategy and there's a lot of variations on it and what the ant is trying to do or what the bird is trying to do is given the costs and the benefits or as estimated by the bird the predicted cost and benefits of the environment and the processing time it's going to do this reward maximization and the good news about that approach is it often works a lot of times animals are near their predicted efficiency however other times it can be quite far off and it's not exactly apparent why that might be perhaps some constraint exists that was not modeled and so the reward maximization idea often succeeds or it captures a story or an important variable about a foraging system as you might expect but it doesn't really go the full way in explaining how the model is embodied or carried out by the animal because it doesn't necessarily have the kind of computational processing that a human simulation might not to compare the brain or the niche to a computer but just to say that that even as a physical computer imagined is still something that's quite different than the models that are being used to study the air diversions by which ultimately people are going to be asking whether the strategy was optimal in terms of its reward or not what active inference does is it says right the overall reward model is intractable it contains variables that are inaccessible or just not realistic for the nematode to be calculating for example in any way directly but what the animal can be doing is engaging in this cycle between action and perception and so it is making these sensory hypotheses about the world embodied through action so for example the eyes are circling around very rapidly where they are moving they are moving to where your brain predicts that you need to resolve your uncertainty about your visual field most so that's why even though your actual visual resolution on your retina or the density of the cells the ability to perceive the fine granularity of vision is quite different across the back of your eye yet the whole visual field unless you have some sort of visual alteration is uniformly clear because it doesn't have a blind spot so that's evidence that at least visually we're in a generative model of what's happening and it shouldn't be too far away to say that that's what other animals are also having at least visually with a total secondary question of whether it's experiential or not but just visually so active inference is a process theory that we can go into more another time that has to do with how organisms actually act in their to resolve their uncertainty about the kinds of problems they actually need to resolve therefore framing things like foraging as a reward obtaining but a precision maximization behavior sequence and that framing turns out to have big implications so just wanted to frame it that way as far as the scientists active inference the scientist also from an informational perspective has to think about which hypotheses they're experimenting or modeling with to produce their uncertainty about what and just as in active inference where the generative model of the internal state the organism in this example the scientist the internal model includes a generative model of the latent causes in the world and understanding the latent causes better is what facilitates better action and also better experiments and hopefully better transmission as well how does the Markov blanket idea come into play what pierces the blanket so here any figure that you look at of the Markov blanket is going to have basically the active inference cycle with the Markov blanket superimposed down the middle there's internal and external states and then external states influence sensory states sensory states influence internal states internal states have their own autonomous or self influencing dynamics and through policy selection end up implementing action states for example the movement of an arm action states influence the external states the world states for example which are also of course involved in their own dynamics the Markov blanket is pierced on one side by sense coming in and by action on the other side going out and then the whole multi-scale question is going to be about applying that Markov blanket all the way down idea taking that seriously as far as cognition one other area that I thought could be kind of interesting to relate this to would be like other partitioning problems and another partitioning problem that comes up in biological philosophy realms is this question of nature versus nurture and here I would point people towards two pretty recent and excellent books on the left is beyond versus the struggle to understand the interaction of nature and nurture by James Tabry and then on the right the mirage of a space between nature and nurture by Evelyn Fox Keller and they both have a different perspective on the same question but in both cases there's this idea of moving beyond the binary partitioning of nature and nurture and so here in the Ramstad 2019 paper the framing of internalism and externalism where they're sort of entering into this stack is at the level of cognition it's about cognitive entities whereas here's the partitioning problem in the area of genetics and in environmental and developmental studies for example and here's an example of where similar internalism the genes right smaller things or externalism outside bigger things the ecosystem is seen as bigger than the person with this implicit focused level of analysis on the individual and so just to draw on Evelyn Fox Keller's book she uses a metaphor of different kinds of tasks and how even if you just had two people so the same type of agent if you had two people building a brick wall together you could at the end of the day say well this person added so and so many bricks and this person added the rest of the bricks and so maybe you could say well 40% of the work on this wall was performed by that person however imagine a situation where two people are needed to hold a hose to fill up a bucket for example even if one of the roles requires a specialty or more training or some other attribute even in that case that person can't do it alone so no matter how much water comes through that hose and it's all water coming through the hose you're never going to be able to say well 80% of the water was a person A and 20% was a person B so she uses that really clear metaphor to describe the relationship between nature and nurture they're obviously related there is no such thing as a niche free organism especially when you think about this from an evolutionary ecology or ultimately active inference perspective organisms and their niche are what fitness is about that is what is being fit to what is the organism to their niche and you don't see things that aren't fit so it's unsurprising that we're finally attuned to things in our niche also there was one interesting section in mirage of a space between where she traces the linguistic origins of the framing nature versus nurture because everyone has heard the phrase nature versus nurture or is it nurture or it's in our DNA it's in our nature how did things come to be in this versus sense that's also alluded to in the title of Tabary's book and what Fox Keller writes is recently a fashion has arisen for tracing the phrase nature and nurture and the debate with which that phrase is associated back to Shakespeare or at least to Prospero in the Tempest in 1923 who writes off Caliban as uneducable quoting Shakespeare a born devil on whose nature nurture will never stick back to Fox Keller some have traced it further back to a monograph on children's education written by an Elizabethan pedagogue Richard Mulkaster Mulkaster's words were nature makes boy towered nurture sees him forward maybe it rhymes in another pronunciation it's from 1581 and then she concludes but in fact although both Mulkaster and Shakespeare juxtapose the workings of nature and nurture neither invokes the term as an explicit conjunction so not an or they do not write of nature and nurture as such so they don't separate them and they don't make them contradistinct versus each other indeed so when we look more closely at what they do write we can see that their use of the two terms does not invite such a conjunction for there is no presumption of an a priori disjunction so what she's getting at there is there really is no need to do an argument against the concept of nature and nurture it's kind of like writing a hit article on somebody who you disagree with people who understand that there has to be a move versus beyond an oppositional framing of nature and nurture those people should be and are making their positive arguments for why it should be framed a different way where the nature and the nurture are things that are pulled out or controlled for specifically and transparently in specific systems so that's an example about how the philosophy of science for example how we think about the partition between internal and external states of phenotype relates to how we think about multi-scale systems overall because I think okay it reminds me so much of this internalism and externalism in cognitive sciences debate reminds me a lot of this historical debate in genetics alright next section perspectives on systems modeling and action and here the motivating question is about how do we carve nature at the joints which is a quote attributed to Plato and the Fadris allegedly and the quote alludes to this idea that nature whether one thinks that systems can be defined tightly and they're just on their own billiard ball trajectory or whether one has a relational perspective where there's just these multi-level networks of relations and being and becoming whatever it is. At some point we want to carve it at the joints because otherwise we're going to get swept up in the storm and people will often hold that that's not their position or that they don't want to carve systems at the joints but I think if you're listening to this I hope you can see that at some point at least in action you have to be dealing with nature at the joints so to speak are they the right ones or not isn't that the whole question one thing that is a connection is we can ask how is the FEP the free energy principle or active inference going to help us frame this problem of carving nature at the joints this is kind of one of the big ideas from a philosophical perspective is about classification and about distinguishing things whether it's objects or types of processes or ideas distinguishing things and those are part of nature is part of philosophy and so coming back to this essential question of carving nature at the joint and then asking well how can we use things like FEP, active inference to frame the problem structurally to give us an ontology and in fact in the paper they'll talk about an ontology and subsequent work also worked on ontologies so that's sort of the big motivation it's why this quote is being brought up in the context of this paper we're about to discuss because the whole point is about us carving nature at the joints so let's go a little bit deeper into systems modeling and carving nature at the joints and the question is how are descriptive we'll just call that type 1 and action-oriented type 2 models related or different and so just to explain what those types of models are by descriptive model I mean a system description only and so two examples just to sort of pin down the qualitative to quantitative spectrum the first mention here is to Bruno Latour's actor network theory or ANT and it's an awesome piece of maybe meta sociology not sure exactly what Latour would call it that just says the way to approach the system is by showing up finding out what are the traces and being open with respect to which actors are involved in which processes through which networks of influence so it's a very unbiased description or moving towards unbiased not to step into that sort of trap I guess and then it's very qualitative it's relational it's also about the observers knowing and relationship with the system and the different aspects of the system are associated with each other so often those things are left out in quantitative or in some scientific world use and on the other end of the systems description only spectrum I've pointed to a package of complex systems design tools called CADCAD now CADCAD goes beyond systems description it turns out to also be able to do things like simulation and other more dynamical approaches like signal processing but what I mean by putting CADCAD here is that it can be used purely depictively to specify a complex system especially one that's computational so there might be a question when you're actually trying to model an organic ecosystem of how do you measure every single piece of the ecosystem and how many variables is enough to describe the fineness of the temperature gradient or something like that but when the simulation is about a digital system it can be more deterministically and controllably simulated if one can imagine so there's one type of world modeling related to system description but that obviously enables simulation and inference as well the second kind of models are action oriented models so action oriented models were assigning meaning to states voting with your feet, voting with your dollars it's when we want to have effective action or at least the system acts like it wants to something like maybe what Dennett would call the intentional stance so the descriptive modeling might be a question that you're asking the computer like given this scatter of points which axes capture the most statistical variance and that would be just it running some sort of algorithm defined the maximum variance explained whereas another type of algorithm like more of a type 2 action oriented algorithm might be learn the relationship between this input and the optimal performing behavior in the output so that's what action oriented models are about next question how does the multi-level perspective influence our answers above so if we're going to have a story where there's nature's being carved at its joints maybe around the Markov blankets maybe with sense coming in and action coming out even if we have that at one level so we have an agent based model of the ants that are bumping into each other and at one level the sense of one is the action of another and so we have a sort of bumper car model where does the multi-level perspective come into play and that's kind of thinking about the bumper car one it's where you would model first the cars bumping into each other and then you could go into the engine or you could go to the power grid and to the people who are riding on the bumper cars or something like that so how are we going to deal with the complexity of causal stories relationships some of what might which be really important and like the example of a molecule that binds to a receptor others which might be spurious and the reality is that because of the combinatorics most of the options across levels will be spurious so most of the ecological relationships can't be for example one to one because there's so many that are just bumping into each other all the time just to give one example from ecology so how are we going to carve nature at its joints do it cleanly are we trying to represent stuff like one are we trying to act like two do one and two fall out as a function of doing one do we get one and two as a function of following out just two how does emergence and emergent properties fit into all of this so by emergence or emergent properties people often mean a sort of system outcome where there's some property or a characteristic or attribute that is arising at a higher level again bigger broader spatial and temporal scales based upon interactions or some sort of interfacing of the smaller level so sometimes these emergent properties using the classification here of Badau are in the weak category and in the strong category it's not the only way to break down emergence not the only take here but I find this one pretty helpful first strong emergence Badau equates with basically magic you can read the papers more if you want to explore more nuance but the strong emergence is from something that's totally disjoint to something that's has a total integrity like language or awareness for example and then weak emergence is contrasted and that's most of the physical systems where even if the relationships between subunits are really nuanced or the computational capacity required to stimulate the system would be extreme those systems are still weekly emergent in that it still just is ants bumping into each other now they're developing and that's sort of crazy and evolution shapes that and everything but still we're talking about a physical system the genre for example of awareness arising spontaneously so how is that going to play into the discussion with active inference showing up on the scene where will this relate to emergence these are things anyone's welcome to chime in on also we can tie the idea of emergence and the multi-scale systems approach to this debate that we often hear about reductionism versus holism so reductionism is simply a method of explanation where bigger things are made sense of by appeals to the properties of their smaller things like the bigger wall is orange because each of the smaller pixels is orange or something like that there's a variety of reductionist explanations and it's just one of our hands one of our approaches or our wings holism is kind of flipping that schema of reductionism saying actually smaller things are made sense of in terms of the bigger thing and that is kind of the opposite edge viewpoint and so we have some sliding toward a holistic understanding some sliding towards a reductionist understanding a lot of philosophical work in this area and the thing that we would just want to note here would just be first ask continually how is the free energy principle or active inference relating to reductionism versus holism because sometimes it may feel like there is a sort of a philosophy of science shift associated with taking on the active inference framework and so what are the implications of taking that seriously where does that put this reductionism versus holism is it going to be put into a similar bin as nature as kind of a turn of phrase or a false dichotomy that was just eventually seen through or will there be people who still think that that sort of binary phrasing whichever side they find themselves on is going to be appropriate and again this is where Dennis Noble's work on the bottom up and top down is related the other work here is Gertel Escher Bach which is the 1979 book by Douglas Hofstetter and here's one of the figures from the book where it says Mu I don't know how you'd say it which is a allegorically at least a sort of innovative response or a canonical response depending on who you ask of Zen koan and Zen is a topic that's brought up in the book and the M is written of letters that are containing smaller letters that say reductionism and then the U is made up of letters that spell out the other words so it's kind of this multi scale thought loop really captures the spirit of the book well and also it captures at least informally through art as often as the case what it looks like to go beyond the reductionism versus holism debate so first if only in a text illustration but then eventually how does that relate to a computer screen how about a person interacting with a computer screen how about two people interacting with their computer screens alright few more perspectives on systems modeling in action how is world modeling related to pragmatics and action so the questions to ask here is really is there a best map of the territory short answer no and this is true for geospatial maps as well as fields of affordances which we talked about in the previous act in streams which also often demand to be mapped for example skillset mappings or concept mappings so there's a lot to say about map in territory of course but for here it suffices to say that the best map is defined by the mission by the context by the degree of certainty by all these other features and factors related to the user and the situation so we're talking about making maps of meaning maps for the world we're talking about doing world modeling for effective inference and action as we were talking about previously so here's just one quote from the paper to motivate you towards the things that you might be able to hear them expand more on they write the multi-scale free energy principle model allows us to cast the boundaries of cognition as assembled and maintained in an informational dynamics across multiple spatial and temporal scales crucially we shall show that this multi-scale application of the FEP free energy principle implies both ontological and methodological pluralism so a few thought questions whether this is before or after reading the paper you could ask is the free energy principle pluralistic with respect to non free energy principle theories or frameworks or principles which levels or types of theory is the FEP consistent or discordant with and one starting point there would be searching for Carl Friston's interview in the 2018 alias bulletin and it's an interesting question to ask about any theory is ok well who is this changing the mind of or what is the opposite of this theory and is it true or does anyone hold the true opposite of this theory does anyone hold a 50% opposite 50% by outcome or is it 50% by axiom in that they diverge so you can always ask that and I found that that was a very interesting route to go down as far as the FEP another quote from the paper is just because it's such a direct claim our claim is that which among these which are the situated barriers of talking of systems which among these are the most relevant being studied and the explanatory interests of researchers and so there's a few notions like Markov which we talked about earlier is that sense and action piercing that's related to ecological psychological concepts as well the Markov blankets are defined in a few different ways they're defined by statistical covariations but one type of those is going to be causal and also another type of those could be like a measurement and so the kinds of measurements that we make the types of causal relationships that are important and then which models we apply to them is going to depend on what is enacted by the researchers because they're also part of embodied and cultured cognition so briefly what are methodological and ontological pluralism so methodological pluralism means using a variety of methods or ways of doing ontological pluralism means having a variety of ontologies or ways of knowing and pluralism is referring to there being multiple now there are other schools of thought that are sort of higher order than pluralism as to how do you cut through that is it just theory anarchy like Farabend suggested where the pluralism can just be taken to this extreme equivalent to almost a novelty search in theory space or is there going to be some way to cut through that and determine which of the pluralistic options or possibilities or actualities is preferable because ultimately we do have to act that's that type two type of model so ask yourself for direct action or for more philosophical topics what is utilitarianism or pragmatism how do such ideas relate to pluralism so it's one thing to say we're scientists and whichever level of analysis is most relevant well that's going to depend on what we're studying and what we're interested in explaining but should it is that really the best way to approach these systems should we really knowing that we can never remove for example individual bias and we're still wanting to model systems so that we can act effectively how are we going to balance just this sort of ruthless utilitarianism pragmatism whatever ends justify the means whatever preconceived world you whatever your Bayesian prior is just stick with that no matter what happens how is that related to cutting through the noise of pluralism these are again just questions to raise in active inference what kind of ideas or mental states are there there's a few kind of interesting categories that we perceive at least experientially various schools of thought on that but where are we going to fit these into the active inference framework are those just different loops in our generative model things like emotion or desires or dreams or secrets where are those going to fit into this active inference framework how integrated is that going to be across types of ideas and how are our conserved or novel ideas respectively meaning orthodoxy or heterodoxy associated with the expression of conserved or novel actions so that is ortho practice or heteroproxis and linking that to active inference which is kind of just framing this two stroke engine or this continual O O D A loop a lot of ways to think about it framing this continual flow between action and inference so how are those two linked here's another way of asking it and just to conclude with two books to study how this has been studied from a philosophy of science perspective on the right is scientific pluralism edited by Keller Longinot and Waters and then on the left is a book called studying human behavior how scientists investigate aggression and sexuality by Helen Longinot and these books talk about the question of pluralism in science and different ways that people have sort of cut through the massive theories or not or contributed to it I guess in some cases and there's just a really interesting body of thought and so it's useful to think for people who are in the free energy space as well as from the outside what are the bridges that link what's happening with the free energy principle of inference to more classical philosophy of science questions and so hopefully in the first in alias paper from 2018 and also some other excellent work from the last few years will come to a better understanding of that so thanks for participating which I guess was me and you as the listener we will provide a follow-up form to live participants and we would welcome any feedback, suggestions questions you have and yeah stay in communication with us so thanks again for listening and we hope to either see you at 5.1 or at a future discussion


Hey, aloha and welcome to stand energy man here in think tech Hawaii Stan, awesome It means you live in direct from Honolulu Hawaii, I think I look which is in the county of Honolulu Hawaii and I've been on the road a whole lot in July a lot of traveling some to the mainland a bunch to the big island and That's given me a lot of time to think about things and a lot of time to observe things going on I think when I got home from my last Trip I made maybe it was a tactical error actually looked at the news for a while and That really makes you start to wonder about society right now.  I'm not sure But it's really it's really kind of annoying to me because I've done a bunch of shows that I've where I talked about experts and How we can't be listening to experts all the time We have to literally sit down and get our hands dirty or get our fingers into things and start doing things and researching Personally and investing a little more time We talked about critical analysis Where you really have to go into second third order of facts when you start to make a decision on technology and Really really think I mean, that's what we have brains for is to think I've also pounded the table on good design for starting, you know a project if you're gonna build something or if you're going to design something new You need to really think about the function of the materials Where the materials come from? What happens it end the life on the materials all that cradle-to-grave stuff that I've talked about also But maybe it's just that most people lack perspective and real appreciation for expending time and expending energy What I mean is that's kind of gets back to my lazy comment Maybe it's not that we have forgotten how to do all those critical analysis and cradle-to-grave analysis and critical thinking and You know, maybe it's just that we've kind of forgotten how hard it is to really do work and this is an energy show and the whole idea of expending energy is to get work done The reason that we have a society that focuses on energy right now is because we use computers We use machine we use technology to make our work faster and better When computers first came out computers were the Justification for every person or every family or every household having a computer was It would make us so much more efficient that we would have more free time To relax and enjoy our family and do Tell me that's that what the computers have done in our world today We've got phones that could design the space shuttle They take pictures they can communicate voice they can take video they can communicate via tech They can stream images in They can stream messages out They can tell you where you're at flat long down to the probably a square meter They follow you they gather data on you. They sell the data to other people. That's just your phone Just in the last few years. I think we've forgotten How hard it is to really work So I was thinking in a personal sense Maybe this is the problem today The generations that have grown up in the 80s and 90s or at least the 90s in the 2000s really just don't understand the concept of Energy and work and time the way us older generation Thinks about them. For example Imagine you're in college now because I got my master's early late in life I was in my 50s and I was totally shocked when I saw all the tools available to a college student When they actually had to do their term papers and things When I did my term papers in bat for my bachelor's degree I Had a typewriter and I was lucky I had an electric typewriter But the problem was your professors wanted no typos on your paper so you could sit there and type a whole page of paperwork and You make a spelling error and you can't use white out and you can't use correcting tape and can't use You have to pull the paper out and start typing that whole page all over again. I Think if students had to do that today They would probably all revolt and and just refuse to do any any work because it's too hard Maybe that's why people in my generation Appreciate the technology we have and the kind of time savings and energy savings that these Beautiful machines and technology Get us, you know to do So can you imagine, you know what it's like if that stuff goes away I Can because when I go to the big I live in a cabin out in the woods with no electricity no water no toilets and I get by amazing All the lonely electricity I use is generally a little bit of battery power from my truck And I just recharge my battery when I'm driving But anyway What really kind of got me started on this this whole topic of people just don't understand You know really thinking hard about stuff and and the whole energy concept was I had a really great meeting last week with with one of our political leaders and we were discussing Energy efficient vehicles and clean transportation and During the conversation one of my colleagues mentioned that he had forwarded an article on Electric buses and wanted to know if the rest of the group on the zoom meeting and received the article And everybody said oh, yeah, we got it and then one of the gentlemen on the meeting said yeah But you know that really ticked me off and and all of us just kind of it Well, it was it was really a good informational article. He goes I Don't want to be talking about batteries and hydrogen and competing and having a war between batteries and hydrogen and Transportation we need all these technologies to work together to give us the solutions we need and We all agreed with that We've said that several times that apparently he mistook the article as a criticism of batteries But it wasn't a criticism of batteries It was a criticism of Design it was a criticism of failure to do critical thinking It was a criticism because the people making that technology Failed to do cradle-to-grave analysis.  They just push it really hard. They You might call this corruption, but they take a whole lot of municipal bus heads of departments and stuff out to dinner and schmooze them and Next thing, you know these counties and cities and municipalities are buying these buses and Committed to big contract and then all of a sudden a couple cities say hey We've got 20 of these buses and 18 of them are down for hard-broke chassis because the batteries practice chassis so When I'm trying to say when I titled this should it go It's about make energy not war we have to e-couple the marketing and the corporate, you know obnoxiousness is the best way I can describe it That we we push sometimes especially when we push it to politicians and Say hey, we've got a technology and we spend a lot of time researching it and we've done our homework And this is what it can really do They can't do that You need to be up front about it need to be honest about it If you need to improve your product or change your product or put limits on your product You need to do that because if you don't you have things like we have an aloo Where you have a three billion dollar rail project and it suddenly ballooned to about 12 billion dollars Well billion dollars is an entire squadron of B2 bombers And the Congress wouldn't even fund more than a couple squadrons of B2s because they were too freaking expensive Well the County of Honolulu certainly can't afford a Project that has gone three six nine twelve four times over budget and Still growing and late to need as well But that's the kind of decision-making we see a lot of times by government local state and federal When it comes to latching on to project and it all goes back to failure to do good design failure to apply critical analysis failure to do cradle to grave analysis and just Being in a big hurry You know being in a big hurry is that ringing the bells with some of you with a green new deal and Ten years if we're not all cleaned up carbon-wise. We're all gonna die You know, it's a big threat Everybody's jumping in this bandwagon and pushing stuff left and right pushing technology faster than should go I can tell you there's one business law That an economic law that never ever failed is almost as good as supply and demand and that is if you want it fast You're gonna pay a premium for it. If you need it in a hurry, you're gonna pay way too much you need to sit down and Put this thing in perspective Time it the way you need to to buy it in the right time frame When the technology is developed right when the the economies of scale have gotten caught up When the scale of the whole project is where it needs to be and if you have to start slow and build up So be it but if you rush Guarantee you're gonna pay too much and it turns out today that paying too much not just talking about paying Dollars for a product of making big mistakes that cost huge dollars in the long run And unfortunately when governments make big mistakes, it's taxpayer dollars It gets spent because the government doesn't other than the federal government print money And when the government the federal government prints money you can almost guarantee its inflation It's gonna catch everybody and like a tax at some point so we I keep I keep harping on this critical analysis and Cradle-to-grave analysis and really thinking Because I think we've gotten too lazy with computers with with iPhones with iPads with cell phones We've just gotten too lazy to do the real noug work that it takes to really get through a project So when we have this meeting this government meeting We got it back on track and and I explained to the gentleman in probably much nicer terms than I did just now That the real issue with the article wasn't our hydrogen buses better than electric buses because they're both electric buses It's just that that company did a poor job of Getting their product out too soon before it was properly designed and marketed And that what we need to do is we need to find the right tool for the right job So to focus in a little bit on the energy war I was talking about When I'm a hydrogen person. I really support hydrogen fuel cell technology. I think it's the right answer I know it's not perfect, but it's really in my view a lot more perfect than almost any other solution I've ever seen and Furthermore as it develops as we develop new technology most of the developments that we have are going to actually help hydrogen. I Don't dislike batteries, but there are certain aspects of batteries that aren't compatible with transportation One of them is weight There is no way that batteries can ever compete with hydrogen or weight as a energy storage solution But that's not the only reason you choose Maybe batteries are cheaper in some respect and you can get more energy into energy out so Maybe battery buses that travel relatively little terrain And travel only certain routes and have a time to recharge and stuff where you can stop them and Plug them in for six hours or whatever to get a charge without having to expend a lot of money on rapid charging technology Maybe those battery buses fill the bill in certain areas And maybe hydrogen buses fill the bill when you have a lot of terrain or you have long distances or you have you have Challenges with the technology that hydrogen overcome So hydrogen isn't as efficient as batteries But it's much better at long-range transportation and climbing hills and things like that and battery technologies Because the batteries way too much But battery and hydrogen people what i've noticed is battery people Almost hate hydrogen. They as soon as anybody criticizes the battery vehicle They immediately come back and say well hydrogen's, you know Elon Musk hates it and it's inefficient and it costs too much and infrastructure is not there And it's like just hold on. Hold on. We need both. We need battery plug-ins We need hybrids and we need plug-in. We need fuel cell electric vehicles all of them We need to get all those technologies rolling and do them well And get them out there safely, efficiently, effectively So that we can solve the issues that face our society now, which is we're trying to reduce fossil fuel use And we should be saving that fossil fuel those organic Oil and things like that that are available for future generations to make durable goods with instead of arguing over whether coal and oil and natural gas You know should be eliminated today Or maybe we should find some ways to use that to back down off of natural gas and the coal and oil In a nice steady Programmed direction that keeps the price of prices from going volatile and solves things so I'd like to propose that we really look hard When we're discussing technology and energy At finding what solutions work best and picking technologies and companies that really work hard at Critical analysis and cradle to grade so You know, there's so many things I did a paper for the Air Force one time where I sat down and listed I think it was like 11 different considerations for energy And I was comparing batteries to Hydrogen and in some cases and natural gas by the way in some cases batteries one In some cases hydrogen one in some cases natural gas one in terms of like safety weight availability price Different technologies and ways of using them um It was it was a really I thought a very broad look at The pluses and minuses of those technologies And what I did was I said, okay Well hydrogen one here and batteries one there and natural gas one there and when you added up the scores For this particular use which happened to be in support equipment for the Air Force The hydrogen came out way ahead It wasn't the winner in every category But when you took all of the cradle to grave discussion and lined it up And said okay, which one works best because of safety which one has the least amount of Rare earth metals involved or materials we have to purchase from other countries that are become a national security issue You know when you add all those things in And and put the scores out you can pick the best technologies I just don't think that a whole lot of people are using that kind of technique that kind of analysis When it comes to picking the right things As we try and eliminate fossil fuels from our daily life Which is a good goal Whether you're a climate change person or not I mean like I said before I'm going to show As people actually give me heat for it If you wouldn't want to wrap your lips around the exhaust pipe of your car and breathe it Then we shouldn't be doing that technology You know, it's like just common sense. I wasn't meant to shock anybody but You know, if it's not good enough to breathe it yourself, then why are we letting out into the air? That's a problem. We're solving climate change or no climate change. That's a problem. We have to pick so as we as we look at Developing new technology and whether we sell them to the private sector or to governments I think one of the most important things we have to also consider is whether it makes economic sense on its own merit um, one of the things that I've seen over the last two decades Is things like cap and trade Where you basically give people you pay people To use less carbon and people that that that put out a lot of carbon CO2 and stuff You basically tax them and you can trade these credits back and forth and things like that tax breaks for certain technologies subsidies for certain technologies grants for certain technologies And this is all government money that gets injected into the private sector to help incentivize good decision And to a certain degree I'm all for the carrot and the stick approach and that's what governments use They see they either reward you or they spank you either tax you or they where they reward you to give you a tax break or certain things that you do And to a degree I guess that's okay But I think it's kind of gotten out of control and my point is If a company can't make a profit on its product in the competitive You know space economic space they're in Um, then it's probably not the right time for that product and if it is Maybe it just needs a little incentive That incentive should if it's a government tax break or something should be there for a limited time and stop For the example, I'll give you of a bad example is california And i'm a hydrogen guy. I love hydrogen in california They've have subsidized hydrogen stations to the tune of 50 percent of the cost of the station And they've been doing that for a decade Which is great except they still haven't made met their first hundred station goal They just haven't done it So the taxpayers are are paying and paying and paying and they're not meeting the goal and I just saw an article a little while ago where They want to build more stations and the peeps the companies that want to build more stations Well, where's the next round of money coming from for the government to incentivize us to build this in other words These companies are depending on the government to subsidize them just to keep their profits, you know, they're their profit margins up I think that's a bad place to end up when we're talking about government spending So you can translate that into energy issues. You can translate it into Uh, military industrial complex spending, you know, you've you've heard the ten thousand dollar toilets and things that they see in in doD spending Those kind of things are just a little out of control Well, not to be a Worry work um, I did read a really great article in specific business news this week and I wanted to Read it to you. It's not a real long article. It's a good news thing And it's a good news thing because here in Hawaii We have Hawaiian electric that runs the public electric utilities virtually on all islands except for one island island of kawaii and kawaii has the uh distinction of having own utility cooperative, it's called kawaii island utility utility cooperative k i u c for short And they just received an award and I like to brag about companies that receive awards for doing the right thing and these guys do and And I'm telling you this even though I've talked to them about using hydrogen and they've said we're not going to use hydrogen And here's why and the reason was we don't feel like the the industry is ready for taking that kind of risk So we're intentionally not looking at hydrogen for energy storage. Not that we won't in the future but our current Corporate philosophy is we won't take risk in energy storage right now And and I went wow So anyway, they won an award. So this article is written by mr. Brian McKinnis From pacific business news. He's a reporter at pacific business news And it says the kawaii island utility cooperative received a national recognition recently from the smart electric power align or sifa A mainland based non-profit affiliated with more than 700 utility companies Deepa named k i u c one of the eight power players of the year an electric cooperative of the year The non-profit said In its announcement that k i u c is unique in the world in achieving 100 renewable or nearly On nearly a daily basis k i u c's Transition to renewables has resulted in more stable lower rates As members are increasingly buffered from financial impacts of volatile oil pricing And benefit from a majority of their power being supplied via long term power purchase agreement That are competitively or lower priced compared to fossil fuel It was the first such award for k u c having been selected over fellow finalists Cobb electric membership corporation of georgia and southern maryland electric cooperative in its category for electric cooperative In the video compilation of the winners k i u c president the ceo david vissle talked about k i u c's eight utility-scale photovoltaic systems and 5500 5500 customer installed systems He said three of the utility scale projects have battery systems that can store the project's full capacity at four to five hours at a time And the most recent of those is a 14 megawatt system operating at eight e s specific missile range, which is a navy Navy facility parking staff with microgrid storage capability k i u c has entered international recognition Has earned international recognition by moving at small island grid assertively forward Towards a hundred percent clean power generation in just 10 years This will told pacific news in an email by achieving 67 percent renewable in 2020 Operating at a hundred percent renewal on almost daily basis for a cumulative total of thousands of hours since 2019 They're leading the state in reliable Reliability last year and providing great stability for members the k i u c demonstrating clean energy future is within reach And I picked the story because it's it's exactly what I was talking about k i u c Didn't try and convert their system in one year or two years And they're not a big utility by by state standards or certainly by national standards But they're not a simple utility either. They have some pretty isolated communities. They have They have limited space to put these photovoltaic arrays They have a lot of tourism so they they don't want to be spoiling their natural beauty by Putting in wind turbines and and and other things like that And they've managed to do it and they've managed to do it in a thoughtful way that uses cradle and grave analysis critical thinking and I just think that it was great to see uh, k i u c Get recognized for for doing doing what we've been talking about and not fighting a war over energy But just fighting to make clean energy That's going to do it for stand the energy man this week and I look forward to talking to you Next week until then


What is that freedom family? I'm here to show you a cool app that it came across a couple days ago If you've ever wanted to know how many days hours minutes a YouTube channel has I guess compiled over the course of uploading all of the videos so Playing back each video that they've uploaded back to back. How long would that actually take for any given channel? So I'm gonna give you an example with the freedom channel So if you see in the corner right here, I actually recorded myself Calculating this out with this app And it looks like at this time. There's a little over 24 hours of content on this channel I guess that's a lot. What do you guys think? I'd love to hear how many hours days minutes your own YouTube channel has Collected over the given amount of time that it's been active. So guys leave it in the comment section down below Maybe I'll throw my own channel in there. We'll see. Anyways, I've been Alex Adams the senior manager at freedom and you've been watching Let's discover freedom Click the first video to learn what is freedom and how it helps you grow Click the second video to learn about sponsorships for all freedom partners Even if you have just 10 subscribers and click the other videos like how do I leave freedom to learn more? Click get more views to learn how to build your audience faster on YouTube Click get more CPM to learn how to make more money from your channel and click get more music to learn where to get More music to spice up your videos Click the first playlist to watch the George show on freedom That's my show or watch the Anthony show or the Alex show also on freedom And we will grow together as a family because this is the freedom family You are part of it. We are all part of it and we're all growing together so grow with us and Partner with freedom that play now button right there on the video bar is all you need to click to get Started your secrets if you really look at yourself, you will be speechless What happened to being doctors and teachers what happened to being your brothers keep


So everything big happened, before everything big happened, always something happened, right? Every time, always like this. So here I was very happy to come here to give a speech about open year. The topic is open year, bringing new opportunities to diversify the computing year. So I'm Rishu, I'm the member of the technical committee of the open year community. Okay, so the first question is, so when we talk about the open year, maybe somebody say, okay, is it kind of another brilliant OS distribution? The answer is no. So let's clarify what's the problem we try to resolve. Personally, I think there are three tough challenges for the OS industry. The first one is the fast development of chipset bring tough challenges for the OS development. I think the chipset has been very booming in recent three or four years. And in the future, we can forecast there are more and more new type kind of chipset will appear. So the second one is the OS need more aggressive innovation to bring things to be lighter and faster. So personally, I think that nowadays the OS, especially for the linear system, it can become bigger and bigger and heavier and heavier. So our idea is how to reduce it and reduce the size, reduce to make it a lighter and faster. And the last problem I think is the gap between the so-called and the embedded system because the linear system is divided to be server and embedded system, not true world. They don't think about it well. So there's another kind of challenges. So what's the obvious way to resolve, I think the one word is, okay, aggressive. So we will do some aggressive innovation or modification to resolve this kind of challenges. Okay, so I think the latest has been the most successful OS during the last several decades and that kind of spread from the server cloud to the add computing to the embedded system. It has been very successful in the industry, but everything looks fine, but is it so perfect? I think it's still a question for us. So first one is the chip set, the challenge chip set. Well, OS OS can work with the chip set. If you look back to the chip set development in maybe five or 10 years before the chip set evolved slowly, you just pick up because chip set is enough, but the more and more chip set has been appeared in recent years.  It's very easy to understand. You take out the chip set and you put the feature to the upstream kernel and the upstream kernel, maybe it's not that easy. Maybe spend a half and a one year to do that. And if the upstream kernel accept the feature and then the OS vendor will take the feature down and build the OS, and then spend, this may also spend another half a year and prove to the OS to the customer, maybe spend another one year maybe to be mature. So it take around one half and a two years. But the chip set, generally speaking, a chip set has three year life cycle. So that means half of the life cycle, chip set life cycle will be spent to do this kind of job, but the customer can access it then. And consider the kernel evolved very quickly, four, five, six, and four dot one, four dot two, and also the OS vendor also has a lot of kind of distribution. So they also exist a lot of OS vendors, right? So that is also a problem between the chip set vendor and OS vendors. And in addition, we consider more and more chip set type. If everything is, 86, it's fine. It's fine, it's not so complicated, but now more and more ARM architecture have came into the market, especially for the server and the cloud. The more and more company will adopt the ARM server to use, right? And additional, a very shining star with five appears and especially for in China, I guess there are maybe 50 company, kind of company, not bigger, small or medium company, they produce a lot of kind of this type of chip set, as I paid out, paid out. So when we consider all of the things, the OS and the chip set will be a big mess. It's called very complicated. So how can we handle this in some degree? So open URL, we will have adopt this kind of way. We will have the release, that's normally, right? Release a version two times per year. One is in the March, another in the September. So this number, those releases, we call the innovation release. You can put everything in material and the bleeding features into those kind of release. You can try, make a try. So we provide some environment to do the verification job. And then for two years, we will release RTS, long-term service version, which can help the company. We will make sure the quality and we will maintain the RTS for six years to ensure the company will adopt mature product. So that is the way. So always, if you want to try something new to verify some chip side, you can go very early to the innovation version cycle and do the verification and go back to RTS version. And so we will adopt more aggressive release cycle to meet the aggressive chip set development. And secondly, for the new architecture, especially for the ARM and RTS 5, we will adopt a very aggressive strategy to adopt these new features. So a new feature, especially for some big feature, it's not easy or spend a long, very long time to for the upstream, for example, kernel, JLBC to accept the feature. But for OpenUler, we open the door to those kind of feature to promote the usage of the new architecture. And then we have another very important feature is we share the same code base. In this point, we have released two RTS for the second RTS, which is the 202.03. In this very milestone version, in this version, no matter what you are, what chip side are you using, as to say this ARM 645, they share the same code base. That means one code pool to create three kind of versions.  If you are a device producer, the driver will face the same kernel version. So we will maybe reduce the gap between the usage of the new architecture. Okay, so that's the general information how we handle the chip side of the issue. But it looks not so aggressive, right? That's a regular way. Okay, let's move on. We would just consider the general CPU to as consider has been very complicated, but more complicated is coming because we have more and more GPU, DPU, TPU, or XPU, a lot of kind of PU. So for those kind of PU, how to handle them? And they evolve very, very quickly. For example, the DPU in China, I guess there were over 10 companies, startup company to do DPU, very different and very different SDK. And also, for a very complicated OS, every week we can receive over 40 CVE issues, vulnerable issues, how to handle them. And then, as we release, you have to update the kernel, update the OS in the cloud if you have millions of machine in the cloud. So the only way to make the kernel to be more flexible cannot be fixed. So if you consider kernel, kernel is the interface between hardware and the USB and the developer. It's a very traditional way for us to do it. But the problem is why we cannot handle both the tripside environment and so many new tripside type. The root cause is kernel is highly coupled and unchangeable. Unchangeable doesn't mean you cannot adjust it. You just can put some parameter into the kernel to do some adjust. But it's very slight. It cannot change a lot of things. So generally speaking, when you change something in kernel, you have to compile it to be a new kernel and then deploy it again in cloud. So that means changing everything means changing everything. So that is the problem we have faced. So here we have a new idea. So is it possible to make those kind of key components of the kernel to be more localized? So for example, we know nowadays the kernel will adopt the EPPF mechanism. EPPF is very good, but it's only used in the network in the beginning. Now it's expanded to more everywhere, but most of the user is still limited into the network. But it's a very good mechanism because you can make some policy in your space and compile it and inject into the kernel and the kernel will run those kind of policy to do that. So it's a perfect design. That means the policy is divided from the framework. So framework is framework, policy is policy. Framework is only to load the policy around it. So we can bring those ideas. Is it possible if we can modify or redesign the kernel to follow this way? So that means the kernel only to run the framework that we can make a different kind of policy in the user space and compile it and inject into the kernel to let kernel to always flexible. You can change something. Another way is in the left of the PPT slide, you can see we can the driver. In this system, especially for the kernel, we have a lot of kind of drivers. Driver is very complicated and now easy to migrate. But it's possible for us to make a new driver framework. That means you can write the driver once but it can run in different kind of kernel version. So that is also kind of an idea. If we can finish this two kind of step, that means we can handle some difficulties we are facing. So that is the framework we are doing. We call it kernel as a service. We call it CAS. So the first is for this step, I suppose we can release the first photo step, photo type by the end of this year. So welcome to come to OpenViewer to see it in this year. Okay, so the idea you can see, we all idea to make the same current to be more lightweight and streamline kernel. But OS is not only kernel. We have a lot of things. For example, the virtual machine level and the container level, right? The kernel visualization and the container, the three levels. The same idea, we think Docker is too big to sink. And also we think the cumul is too big to sink. We get together and everything in the same image. So we develop a two-project, one is for the sort of word, which is try to replace the cumul system. And also we develop the asula. Asula is also to replace the Docker. So it's a very slight. It's only the 10% the size of the cumul or the Docker. For example, the sort of word is only, I guess for megabyte is the first small and very fast. So it can be deployed from the cloud to the server to the app, even to the embedded. So embedded system also can enjoy the virtualization work and the container work. So that is the idea. And also, we said this kind of actually the structured component of the OS. We also want to do some grass moon changes. We want to modify the number one process. And then the one process we all know that is the system D, right? It's very big. So also we develop a new project, which is called SysMaster. It uses Rust to rewrite process one, to make it lighter and safer. Because you've got it used to the cumul the system D will find out, always have some CV problem, always affected by the bugs. So we also, for the server, we also use the Rust language to write the program. So we have so many things though. And also we want, all of the project, we want to make the things lighter and maybe faster, but it's only for this. No, we have bigger vision. So then it's a universal OS platform. Somebody will challenge that. Universal is a too big board, right? Okay, let's explain what it means universal, right? Actually, if you check our industry, we find that there is a very clear line between the server side and the better side. For the current side, we often use the CentOS, the SUSE, or Ubuntu. In the embedded system, you always use the Wind River, Wind River Linux, or the Yuktu system, right? But unfortunately, the two systems are not totally unlinked. They share this different architecture. They share the different, they share nothing. We don't have the same code base. And if you use it, it's not totally different. And when you build a system, you want to do the CRCD, the server side will use Koji or OBS, but for the embedded system, I always use the Yuktu, that's totally different. But everything should be connected, not should, it's doing the connection around the devices and the device to add computing and connect with the cloud. So everything of the system will connect together. So in theory, the ideal word is, I wish you should share the same thing and that application can run smoothly from the cloud to add to the embedded. And if I'm a chip side vendor, I just need to work with one group and they can make the embedded, add and the cloud or server, you share the same thing. I don't need to, what complies with this vendor, that vendor, this OS or that OS, it's very tedious and consume a lot of effort and money. So is it possible to do that? Okay, so let's consider, what is OS? No matter it's the embedded or add or server or cloud, actually OS is a collection of packages or component. So no matter you use as an embedded or server, you share the kernel, kernel is one of the packages, right? So we came up to an idea. So can we make the component to be component? And then if we want to do some OS, we can use some language or some configure file. For example, the YAML file is very easy to understand, very easy to run and just give the system a YAML file to describe what kind of OS I want. And then the component system will produce the OS, what I want. So in China, we call it the tenon and the socket structure. It's a kind of structure used by the Chinese traditional building, the component is very similar, but you can use a very similar component to form a very huge building and also very small building, but internally it's similar. So we build a system which is called OlaMaker, but of course it's still under the development, also in the middle of this year, we can release it maybe the alpha beta beta version or call it a 1.0 version, it can reach the requirement that we have a very big component pool. You share the same code base, no matter it's X86 or M64 or RIS5, they share the same. And then we provide OlaMaker Composer System. And you can put some description or requirements for the OS to the OlaMaker and the OlaMaker will produce this OS for you. So OlaOpenUla is not an OS, it's not an OS. It's OS platform which build different OS. So that is the, I think, a more accurate definition of OpenUla. Okay, so let's do a smooth summarize. So we optimize the OS component for OlaMaker and the Modular because we want those components can be deployed in cloud and the devices. So we need to make every component to be smaller. And also we can use those components to reorganize to be different kind of OS. So that is to meet the different scenarios. So that is the idea. Okay, when we talk about we replace a lot of things, but it doesn't mean we abandon all the ones. So for the Docker, for the QML, it's still in our package pool. So you can use it to do the, to compose the system. So we have just provide a second choice. Okay, I've told you, but I came to the end of the speech. More than that, we have developed a lot of new things. You can come to the web scientist, for example, a tune, AI based performance tuning too. You can do the performance tuning by AI. You use this come to, you can have the kernel hard replacement, which can enhance the cloud or ops technology. And then we have bitching JDK, which is optimized for the M64 and it was five. And also we have an FS plus. We reorganized protocol, an FS. An FS is very popular, right? But it's not fast. It's not a robust and not stable. So we redesigned this protocol to enhance and add to six times speed and more robust. And then we have QMS, Gazelle and AI ops. We use AI technology to do the DevOps. So until now, in OPU, we have around over 300 kind of new project. So if you can go to our website to find those components, of course, you can use the component to other platform, for example, Red Hat or Ubuntu. Okay, so here is the, I don't remember, right? It's very big. At least in China, it has to grow very, very big size. And we have accumulated a lot of developers and we have accumulated a lot of your organization and companies. Okay, finally, so it's the end of the speech as a very quick introduction of OpenUR. So here is the website. Of course, some of the material content is still written in Chinese. But if you find some, this can be, so you can reply easier to help us to improve the project. Here is the website, but before, after the website, you still have the project. We have GTI repo. Over here, HottingGager. So you can take the picture and we can communicate in those channels. Okay, everything is new. So we try to bring some new things to the old OS industry. So welcome to John OpenU Learn to enjoy the new world of the year. Okay, thank you.


Bah! What's up everybody? Once again is Brand Man Sean and today we're gonna go over seven genius moments of the Wiz Khalifa brand. So the first thing I want to hop out the gate with is brand consistency. A lot of people don't realize that Wiz Khalifa knew two things early on that he wanted to be a part of his brand. One, his city. If you look at Prince of the City 2005, his mixtape in Prince of the City 2 which was in 2007 and then grow season which was also in 2007, city weed. Wiz Khalifa has used these two pillars in his brand and branded them through his mixtapes obviously through visuals, he's done it in movies and just clothing. He's extending his brand and if you know Wiz Khalifa I don't really have to go into too much detail about that. Number two I want to get into the fact that Wiz Khalifa has been really early on some of these types of branding, marketing tactics it seems. When he was on YouTube 2006 2007 I remember watching Wiz Khalifa on YouTube nobody else was really on YouTube it wasn't a thing like that. I'm up here watching them I don't even know them and realize I'm becoming a fan of them at this time because rappers aren't really being made on YouTube at this time like that. Soldier boy but pretty much nobody else and Wiz Khalifa was doing early content marketing and lifestyle branding. I remember him going around the city video recording of him and his friends and putting up on YouTube and I'm watching some of these videos. He was doing lifestyle marketing but he was also early on it which actually gives him a competitive advantage because when you're first mover to a platform then you're gonna get views before everybody else. Why? Because when other people move to the platform and it starts to take off you're gonna be somebody who's already established with content for people to watch. So keep an eye out if there is a new platform that comes out. It's worth at least taking some risks on using those platforms early on just in case you don't have to leave whatever you're currently doing but use those platforms too just in case they start to take off and you'll have that advantage. Number three 2008 when he came out to say yeah it was kind of a interesting rebrand but it sounded so signically different that it helped him cut through for the first time. I don't know how strategic and premeditated of a move that was maybe he just liked to beat but it was a brandy genius moment because it allowed him to stand out. Video was actually kind of a viral video feel. It really put him on the scene in a different way and probably expanded his audience to a less urban part of the world. Number four remember when cavern fever 2 came out? If you don't remember all the specifics just know that it was already cavern fever 1 and it had a lot of hype behind it and not long after cavern fever 2 came out ONIFC came out. He didn't push his album what he did was maximize attention for himself just in general and then push cavern fever 2 which was a free mixtape and having people come to see this mixtape which was an area that already had a lot of attention because number one was so successful he leveraged the momentum for cavern fever 1 push it into cavern fever 2 promoted that and then within cavern fever 2 he actually advertised the fact he was going on tour advertised that he was coming out with ONIFC so if you don't really understand what I'm saying is happening there it's that he already had momentum but maybe you don't have the momentum he pushed something for free first adding value out into the marketplace he already had people that effort him and then through that he promoted something that cost all right in a number five moment of branding genius for Wiz Khalifa was black and yellow his city he had been branding himself with his city since the very beginning you have Pittsburgh pirates stillers and penguins black and yellow this is genius in the sense of okay you're wrecking your city but many people have done this before but the bigger genius in this situation is just the fact that it didn't limit itself it was colors the way you did you know you had welcome to Atlanta welcome to Atlanta was limited to Atlanta and there's so many city songs that do that this was ambiguous enough where if I'm some baseball team in another city I'm a recreation team black and yellow if I'm Green Bay which Green Bay had many people who did it for they did green and yellow green and yellow someone can say blue and yellow their team colors are blue yellow so you have this innate way for people to copy easily I forgot about this it was so bad that I was out with these girls where I'm waiting for them to get out of the car this Asian dude walked up to me and he was like hey yo black and yellow black and yellow black and yellow point to him and me number six Wiz Khalifa rebranded himself multiple times and one of these times he used Snoop Dogg so I'm just going to use brand association but listen to the rebranding portions of it too it's in two ways aligning himself with Snoop Dogg who had already crossed over and mastered the weed lane when you look at Wiz Khalifa many people have thought about him as a young Snoop Dogg even though you got this dude nipsy yeah so who's out there looking just like this man and talking just like this man in so many ways in one way with Khalifa actually found a mentor because Snoop Dogg really did walk him through a lot of the game so he also was able to skip a lot of steps by Snoop Dogg just put him in a position and showing him how to get that brand thing because Snoop Dogg and Wiz Khalifa the two strongest parts about them is not the weed but their brand weed just happens to be a part of their brand number seven there was two big rebrands in Wiz Khalifa's career so far he had the one portion where he rebrand himself as the new weed prodigy and then the next portion was he became the weed rock star realizing that there was relevancy in this whole rock star branding thing today other than that you know what to do hit that subscribe button


I'm here on Muddy Mountain in the Laramie Range in central Wyoming and this is a glorious autumn day and I want to talk to you about fall color and the changing of the seasons. Now we all know that as day length decreases, so does chlorophyll production in our plants leaves decrease. And what really happens is it allows for new pigments to come on board. As we look at aspens and the yellows to the oranges and reds, they're absolutely outstanding. Just consider too that there are some subshrubs in plants that are changing colors as well. Take for example our native buckwheat. Here it is coming from a dark green leaf to a red. And then also the creeping Oregon grape. This is a native of our mountain ranges. Again, they turn from dark green to a brilliant red and persist that way through the winter. But there is also another change happening in the forest and that's with our conifers. Now let's even take a look at this pine tree. Look closely and you'll see the needles, the interior needles in fact, turning brown and falling off. That's a symptom of fall as well. In fact it occurs system wide in the northern hemisphere beginning in September. And actually we have a term for it. It's called fall needle drop. Now that can occur on the mountain, but it can also occur in your backyard on your pine trees as well. So as you enjoy autumn's fall color change, just remember that there's more to the change than aspens. This has been Tom Heald from the University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service exploring the nature of Wyoming.


Hi my name is Raghu Das and I'm at the ID TechEx show and I'm currently here with one of our exhibitors GeoMatic. Welcome to the show. Thank you very much. GeoMatic I think are a very innovative company working in coating solutions. I'm going to show you a few things they're working on. Firstly just take a look at these two pictures. Okay this is a film called GMOS. We named it and as you see those those two grass substrates are very different and the features of GMOS are mainly three and the first one is super clear transmittance. That means anti-reflective over 99 percent. I put GMOS film on the grass surface on both sides and that realized in over 99 percent transmitters. Secondly GMOS film realizes the water and oil repellent like described here. So as you see here as you see here because of the MOSI effect and our specialized MOSI effect surface it realized about 150 hydrophobic degree right here. And the other competitive GMOS structure film usually have the feature of the hydrofilix but our product GMOS is kind of opposite and that's going to be very useful for showcase and show windows applications right here because your fingerprints to be easy wipe off that feature is hydrophobic or the MOSI for the surface of GMOS so that's going to be one of the you know really competitive feature of the GMOS. Thank you and I think as they say in the UK the proof is in the pudding and if you look at these two images it's really quite striking the amount of reflection and glare off one on the left. You know we could see the camera man here versus one on the right and you don't even think there's any glass there do you?  So you stand in front of that you could probably see the reflection in your picture but if you move to the one on the right there's a huge difference. Great so thank you so tell us a bit about the technical film. Can you grab on the t-shirt? Here's a decorative film described here and it realizes the you know different color from the different angles. It uses sputtering coating technology to make it beautiful like this before and actually this watch I have Cascio Oceanis has also our technology decorative film. You can see a deep brew around here and this is this coating is provided by Geomatic. Can you stand there and explain? The features of the decorative film is you know here and it realizes it realizes a brilliant color and valuable and controllable eco-friendly. So maybe you can apply this coating technology to a lot of electric devices like smartphone and even in the interior parts of the automobile and actually yesterday some people from the middle east asked to you to use this decorative film on the some luxury interior as a wall big wall so maybe we can hopefully provide that you know some luxury wall in the middle east like UAE Dubai here. Brilliant fantastic thank you very much. Thank you.


The study found that a paper-based and region-adapted food frequency questionnaire, FFQ, designed to assess cardiovascular disease, CVD, related food and nutrient intakes of adolescents from northwest Mexico was moderately validated. The FFQ overestimated the intake of all food groups and nutrients, while Cohen's Capocoe efficiency were lower than 0.20. This suggests that the tool may not be reliable enough to use alone, but could be useful when combined with multiple administrations of 24-hour recalls, 24-hours, as a critical mean in future interventions intended to reduce cardio-metabolic risk in adolescents. This article was authored by Ricardo Terminalz-Origaza, Sonia Vega-Lepiz, Gabriela Alloa-Makedo, and others.


reality we think is quite the opposite. So we push a totally different narrative.  It's called climate change and resource constraints. Even in the best case, there will be climate change equation how much even the best case, there will be resource constraints. The question is how much because it's a misspounce. So this is storm coming of climate change and resource constraints. What's the benefit of waiting fixing your boat? Why are you not fixing your boat to make it see worthy for the storm that is going to come? It's not like a pandemic, the next pandemic may come or may not come. We know for sure, like the that it's only measurable the storm that's coming. And the good news is also if everybody refers to a boat, the storm will be much less. But think about your boat. And that's kind of the weirdness that we all do as first, we have to have perfect global agreement before we can act that they can tell you silly