Good afternoon, everybody, we'll go straight to questions. So if there are any questions, there's a plus one. Hi, DG. Hello, Murphy from Royches. I have a few questions. I hope you don't mind if we do them one after the other. Just want to get to exactly what has been agreed between you and Iran. It seems to me that we have three issues here, really. So one is FORDOT, one is the monitoring equipment in general in Iran, and the other is the safeguards investigation. So I'm just going to go through those quickly. On FORDOT, was anything agreed during your trip on verification and monitoring that wasn't already agreed at Maxaparo's meeting in Tehran on February the 23rd, which was mentioned in your JCPOA report? You know, the report says Iran confirmed that it would facilitate the notified further increase of the frequency and intensity of agency verification activities at FORDOT. That's my first question. OK, thank you very much. Good to see you all. Yeah, I think you are spot on on the three main areas. And in fact, that corresponds to what I had said before coming. These were the issues I wanted to discuss. So regarding the first issue which has to do with the implementation of the comprehensive safeguards agreement that you identified as FORDOT, I would say that, yes, during the technical trip that preceded my visit, there were a number of things that were agreed, but they needed some consolidation and confirmation. So it was a continuation of what DDGE had started. And we consolidated all of that. There had been some exchanges that we were not seeing Finally, it was possible for Iran to understand what we needed, what was the technical evaluation, justifying the increase, which is quite a marked increase in the verification or inspection intensity at that place. So that was done. Then on the monitoring, well, yes, we agreed on the opportunity. Yes, please go ahead. So on the monitoring, which you were just getting to forgive me for interrupting. But so to be clear, Iran has Iran sorry, given you a firm commitment that it will allow the reinstallation of all the monitoring equipment that was installed under the JCPOA, including online enrichment monitoring, and will Iran hand over the monitoring equipment data that has stayed in general terms? Yes, but you may have noted that in the joint statement there is a reference to certain modalities that need to be and this is an important point because we were never expecting the process or this monitoring capacities to be interrupted in the way they were. So we will have to discuss about this, how do we do it? We have our ideas and this will be part of the technical discussions that are going to be undertaken as a follow up to my visit and to the joint statement. And a technical team will be traveling to Iran very soon to do that. OK, so then in a similar vein, so then on the safeguards investigation, there's slightly more specific wording there in a way. You say Iran expressed its readiness to provide further information, but so how firm is that commitment? And you mentioned some things in your airport press conference, but are you sure it's going to include access to all the places, information, and people that you want? You did specifically mention persons of interest. Or is this just an agreement to hold a meeting about it? As you said on the monitoring equipment, there's reference to another meeting. But on this issue as well, is there some kind of firm commitment or is this just an agreement to hold a meeting about it? No, it's not an agreement to discuss this issue. We have been discussing this issue for three years. So we don't need an agreement to continue discussing. We continue discussing. The idea is to move on to, as I said before, to concrete results, which will include all of these things. If you ask me, is there a list of places, people, et cetera, that first of all, this might be confidential, as you know, as part of the normal, not only Iran related, normal safeguards implementation between a country and the agency. And secondly, apart from this principle, there are many things that we still ignore. Because when the interaction starts and we visit something, or if we take environmental samples of material or equipment, this will prompt yet another set of meetings, places, et cetera. So it is virtually impossible to have a list of detailed list of places or dates related to this process. I understand. It's very hard to distinguish between what you have received, what has really been, you know, what Iran has committed to, what is told you it will give you, and the fact that a lot of this seems to depend on future meetings. Is there any more clarity you can give us in terms of where the distinction between these two things lies? Why don't you let us do our job, unless you want to join us as an inspector, which could be interesting. Who knows? We know how to do these things. There are going to be places, lists. Some may be useful. Some may be less. So what the agency does is that at certain moments in the process, we come up with evaluations. And as we have done, when we are not getting anything or we are not going anywhere with this process, then we report it. We say it. We complain, if you want. So bear with me a little bit when we say we cannot give you, at this stage, full lists of dates, places, people. It would be impossible. It has never happened. Not only here, but in any other safeguards, inquiry of such a sensitive nature. But what you can be sure about is that the agency will be informing regularly that you will get as much density as it is possible. What I can also say is that I sense that there is an understanding that we need certain concrete answers from them on certain things. They have been given us some, as you know. And we, after evaluation, consider that they were not technically credible. And we were in this vicious circle, if you wish. So my impression is that there is a chance now that we can be moving away from this thing. Whether I'm sure or not, Francois, what can I tell you? We are trying to do our job in the best possible way. And I'm sure the conversation will continue. I think if I could just follow up on that. What we're trying to understand is what was different about this visit. We've had frequently the case that just before a board meeting, we've gone to Tehran. What is the difference now? Well, I think there are many differences. But first of all, it was the first time I could have a serious conversation with the president of Iran about these things. This has enormous importance because, of course, he's the president. And I had an opportunity to explain my vision, the way in which we want to work with them. We also had a very substantive discussion with the foreign minister, Amir Abdulahiyan, one of the most substantive discussions I've had with him about these things. And, of course, Mohammed Eslami has been my more, I would say, regular interlocutor. But with him, there was also. But apart from that, which you may say, well, OK, these are conversations, although in international politics and in politics in general, talking to the decision makers makes a big difference irrespective of the results you may get in the end. But apart from it, when you look at the statement and following the logic of Francois in the three areas that we have, we see real substance in all of these areas. We see real substance when it comes to Fardo, where the agency will be inspecting almost every other day. We see substance and important commitments and agreements when it comes to additional verification and monitoring mechanisms. And a technical team of the agency will be traveling very soon to start working on these modalities. So I believe that there is a good opportunity. I cannot guarantee. Of course, when people say these were promises. Well, first, it's not promises. We do have certain agreements which are concrete. And at the same time, I need to do my job and never give up and continue and continue. And I may have been as frustrated as many other people, perhaps the most frustrated when there is lack of results, could have been me. But we continue. And I think this was a step in the right direction. Let's put it like that. Hi, DG. Jonathan Tyrone with Bloomberg. Two very brief questions. Israel's prime minister addressed you directly in a statement yesterday. Under what circumstances would it be permissible for Israel or any other country to attack Iranian enrichment facilities? You're asking me? Good. Well, yes, I saw that. I would say I would like to precise something. I wouldn't comment, of course, on what the prime minister of Israel had to say about me or my statement. But let me precise on the issue. On the issue, I think there is nothing new, really, on what I said. What I said is I reiterated international law. International law from the Geneva Protocols in 1949. And thereafter, several resolutions of the General Conference of the IEA, border governors, have reiterated that attacks on nuclear facilities are illegal, are a violation of the UN Charter, the statute of the IEA. So I did not say anything which should be considered as departing from what is in the public domain. So then maybe that caught the attention of the prime minister. That's fine. And I just want to follow up on that. So what are the risks that the IAEA unwittingly helps to advance a military intervention in Iran by not immediately addressing all the potential causes of the episode of 84% particle sample? Because speculation was allowed to linger for a couple of weeks now. Yes. Well, maybe, first of all, on the 84%, I think this is a matter that perhaps warrants a separate discussion. But in general terms, I would say this, when people tries to establish links between my reports or what the agency does or does not do and possibilities of military action. I think what is clear is that at every turn, on every opportunity, since I have been in charge of this IEA from my election in 2019, I have been always, always opening doors, looking for possibilities, trying to confirm that diplomatic technical solutions are possible. This is my job. Maybe military people think otherwise. But my job as a diplomat, 40 years of work in this area, I will always try to do this. So I think it is obvious that what the agency has been doing is exactly the opposite. What we have been doing is trying to find spaces, looking into ways in which what we do, the agreements we have, the promises we receive, I don't know, can help continue in this way and diffuse and deter any possibilities of the use of force, which of course as a diplomat, as I say, I tend to dislike. Hi, Rakhida Bahnam from Al-Arabiya. On the investigation that the IEA is doing in Iran, you said that this trip, you found something different, you agreed on something more specific. And I know you don't like to put deadlines, but there must be some framework you have agreed to work on. Do we expect to have this investigation solved before the next June meeting, for example, or when do you expect to have tangible results? Thank you for the question, because this is something that I think we always try to learn from past experiences. And one of the lessons that I learned is that perhaps having roadmaps, dates, calendars might not necessarily respond to the realities that we are confronted with. So now we are focusing on the problems that we have in front of us. And of course, we do operate against the background of political realities. And we know that this cannot be a process that continues dragging on in this way. So if you ask me, I would like to have it solved by next week. But of course, it will take time. As I was saying, responding to previous questions, here we have three different locations, with three completely different characteristics historically and in terms of what we want to ascertain. So the process is going to be a serious one, a systematic one. And you can have as well as the international community my assurance that we want to move promptly with this. Whether it coincides with the calendar of the Board of Governors, I don't know. I hope it will, but perhaps much earlier. We have a question on the back. Of this optimism with which you have come, could it open the door to a new round of negotiations between Iran and Qatar Plus 1? Thank you. Thank you. For those who concern with resolutions, as you know, it is something that is in the field of member states. So it is to them to judge and to see if, in front of the elements that are there, the reports that I made, the results of my mission, the joint declaration, etc., they want to react or not. It's not me who will say, do I need a resolution or not. That's a speculation and the question is asked. And frequently, but I still have the same answer. You say, I am optimistic. I would say I am not neither optimistic nor pessimistic. I believe that we are in a constructive way and as we always say, we have confidence but we check everything here at the agency. So it's kind of the spirit with which I came from the land. For those who are in a possible link between what we did, what we obtained and the possibility of a reliance in the negotiating process, etc., and once again, I would say it's not me who decides to take back these negotiations. But I am aware of the fact and the question was actually mentioned during my discussions in the land. I am aware of the fact that with good results in the agency space, it would be much easier to move forward in these other areas, in particular when it comes to establishing the information bases on the activities that we had access to through the cameras, etc., that we had lost in June. I think that with these arrangements, with the idea of re-establishing the capacity of the agency, we will be able to facilitate and create a more positive pH for a negotiation in these areas. Yes. I just wondered whether you feel dismayed by what has been said in Iran since the end of your visit. In fact, a few hours after you came to Vienna and you had the press conference at the airport, the Iranian authorities seem to have walked back on some of these promises that they made to you. For example, access to individuals, they say there won't be any access to individuals. In terms of the three undeclared places, they are saying that they basically promising that they will cooperate as before, as we've been there before, kind of thing. It's been going on for four years, the kind of promises or the promising that you will have more opportunities for monitoring or verification. Are you dismayed or, if not, are you over-optimistic with what you have achieved? Neither nor. I'm not dismayed. I read, I see what is being said, and in this process, if I was to be guided by press comments or press statements, I wouldn't get too far. Disastatement, yes, I talk to them, I don't talk through the press. I hear, I listen, there are contexts, political contexts in which things are being said, but when they tell me that they are not going to be doing something, I will look into it with the seriousness. I'm not dismayed, I'm not dismayed. I think we are at the beginning of a new phase. It's not a new process, it's a new phase after certain agreements that we have come to get. Over-optimistic, no, I'm not even optimistic, as I was saying. I try to be realistic. I know that these things were important. I was trying to obtain these results, so in a certain sense I'm satisfied that we seem to be moving into more firm ground and that certain things are going to be done. But of course we walk with caution and point by point issue by issue. Albert Otti, DPA, German Press Agency. I have two questions, if I may. Yes, please. One, it's something that François asked, but I'm still not quite sure. Have you agreed with the Iranians that the IA will be allowed to access the previously recorded surveillance data and the future surveillance data of these cameras that are supposed to be switched on again? Or is that something that you have still to agree with the Iranians? It's my first question. And my second question is, if for whatever reason there were another spike of enrichment in Iran at 84 or above, under the new more frequent inspections at Fordot, how quickly would your inspectors, how many days would your inspectors find out? Okay, well on the first one, I think in my reply to François, I think I addressed that. There are certain things that we need to clarify because you must remember, maybe this is getting into too much detail and I don't know if for the general public it is clear, but in the previous agreement we had had about this kind of information, there was a specific mechanism that they would keep the information but it would be under the seals of the IAEA. So this is something we will have to sit down and discuss if we continue with the same logic or if there are any modifications to that logic. But this is a technical point, number one. On the spikes, well, first of all, I would say we were able to determine and spot this issue without an increased regime. I would say in general, the IAEA would be able to identify any type of level spike, non-spike at any time. This is important. It was judged by my inspectors as important given the modality of operation of the cascades, the modifications that were introduced to that particular area of the facility, the functionalities it allows. So they felt it would be important to have a more regular presence, but it is not as if without it, we would not be able to get it. I think even without it, we would be able to get any type of reading which would be relevant and pretty confident as it was the case before. Hello, Satsuko Inaki with Nippon Television. I have also a follow-up question on Iran. At the airport, you mentioned about the new baseline for the JCPOA, which construction of the activities of the IAEA. And the wording of the new, I kind of sense that, as you also mentioned right now, that the data missing data may not be available immediately. Therefore, that you perhaps have to make shift and to create the new baseline. And then later on, when it's back again, then you would be able to easily, a little bit more easily reconstruct. Is that what you envision? And is that why you, what do you mean exactly by the new baseline? That's the question number one? No, no, I don't know about the exact, thank you for the question, about the exact wording of that, new or not new. What's important is that, and my answer is quite hypothetical, because your question is also a bit of a speculation, because we don't know first of all, whether JCPOA will be revived or not, et cetera. But in any case, what I had been saying and also in my reports was that, given that the information had been lost, I mean not lost, but the flow of information for the agency had been lost, we would not be able to provide this kind of, call it baseline or however you may wish to call it, to provide approximate numbers, ideas of how much has been produced, et cetera. So clearly we were having a deficit, I referred to applying a tourniquet on the bleeding because things were happening constantly without us being able to get any information. So now this will hopefully stop. It will be a very, I would say, painstaking work because my inspectors will have not only to interpret, to read all this mass of information, but there will be some gaps, actual gaps, because what was not recorded or taped, we cannot re-enact, all right? So there will be a need for us to sit down with our Iranian counterparts, look into records, agree on certain specific measures in order to try to reconstruct the JCPOA. This is what I was meaning. Sorry, the second question. The second question was that, I mean, for us, the Japanese, you know, the near weapon degree protocol is a really a huge deal and we're still a little bit not clear of how and why it happened or actually, well, Iranians are saying that this was a mistake and is IAEA taking that as their world as it is? Or would you be probing a little bit more on that? And also, like, if a facility, even by accident, is capable of having a peak of such a high level, shouldn't IAEA for though or any facilities in Iran with 60% or more be monitored like Rokasho, which means on-site inspection, real-time flow measurement? Well, thank you very much. So many, many, many issues in your question, but I try to simplify. First of all, yes, we continue to look into this. My report says that, and of course, if it's made public, you may see it, but if not, what I can tell you is that we continue discussing with our Iranian counterparts because it is true that certain oscillations are possible in this type of cascades. So you may have readings higher than the expected levels from the operator, but the inspectors are able by looking at the information and at the way, the flows and the way in which the cascade is operated, they would be able to determine whether this is one shot or a one time occurrence or whether there was a more dedicated activity there. So we agreed that we will continuing the discussion. And regarding the second part of your question, which is even more complex, you cannot compare too much Rokasho in terms of volumes, technical characteristics and photo, but in any case, I can tell you that as we were discussing just now, with the frequency of inspection, which is going to be very, very intense, I think we will have a very good coverage of the functioning of these cascades. Hello, DJ Gurusi. This is Ahmad Samadi from Iran International TV. Hello. I hear your response to my colleague about what Iranian said in contradiction of your remarks, but I want to know about this point of your remarks about the access to persons, materials and also facilities. Iranian side told there was no discussion about access to persons and there was no text about it. Mr. Kamal Vandy told also Iran would definitely reject such request if they were made by IAEA. I want to know what is your precious response to this point? Well, again, I would not comment or enter into a polemic with the deputy director of the AOI. He said that to the press. We are discussing all these things with Iran. It is correct that we did not put things on paper. We are discussing. These are sensitive matters, as you can imagine. The agency has an idea of what he would like to be, where he would like to be, or with whom he would like to talk, or the places he would like to visit. But of course, we need the agreement of Iran to be able to move on that. So here there is no imposition whatsoever on our part. We are undertaking a professional technical conversation with them about this. Yes, you can, of course. You seem listening to you today during this press conference and also yesterday, the day before. I get the impression that you're not overly concerned about finding uranium enriched to 83%. I would have thought everyone else is, but you seem to have taken it in your stride that this kind of thing might happen and we will look into it. No, no, no, no, no, let me, so immediate or urgent as far as you're concerned. It's not, you know, it is serious development and this is why I erased it with the government and we have acted on it. What we do not do as an international inspectorate is to react emotionally or making political statements which are not fitting our role and our mission. We identified something which is, of course, serious, but we need to go to the bottom of the issue before we can reach a conclusion. When we say spikes occur, it's because they do occur. I have to say it, otherwise I would be jumping immediately to the conclusion that this was part of a deliberate campaign of enrichment at almost 90%. So that would have very serious consequences. So this is why we have to take it in a way that it is technical and very transparent. So we are trying to explain to you and to the international community that of course this is worthy of our serious consideration and this is what we are doing. We are not saying, we are not dismissing anything. We are saying this is a serious matter. We are looking into it. And how long are you giving yourself time to get to the bottom of this? Well, we are looking into this. I guess that this one should not take a very long time because what we are looking is at a very, if you want, the snapshot is quite clear, it's precise around the time where this reading was or through the samples we took happened. And let me also say that the agency has also informed that there has not been production. This is also very important. There has not been any accumulation. You are saying or they say? I am saying.  Thank you very much.


Hey guys, welcome back to Six Sister Stuff. Today I'm making French dip sandwiches in your Instant Pot. So I'm Kristen. I am sister number two from SixSisterStuff.com. Now don't worry if you don't have an Instant Pot, I'm going to put a link in the description for you so you can find a slow cooker recipe on how to make this also. But let me just tell you the difference. In the slow cooker it takes about 10 hours. In the Instant Pot it's about an hour. If you love French dip sandwiches making in the Instant Pot is so easy. Now on this channel I love sharing simple, easy Instant Pot recipes and other recipes too. But the easier the better. So I use very few ingredients and I make it taste delicious. So if you love watching my Instant Pot videos every single Monday, don't forget to like and subscribe and of course share it with your friends so they can get my Instant Pot recipes too. Alright you guys let's go into the kitchen and make delicious Instant Pot French Dip sandwiches. Alright you're going to start with a three pound roast. Now it doesn't have to be the best cut of meat because it's your Instant Pot it will cook well. Next you're going to add two cans of beef consomme. I think that's how you say it. You can find those in the soup aisle. Then that is all there is to it. You're going to put the lid on, make sure that it's sealed really tight and you're going to put it on sealing, not venting. I like to push the manual button. You can also push the meat stew button if you'd like but they're pretty much the same. So I go manual and I'm going all the way up to 60 minutes. If your roast is frozen you can do it for 120 minutes also. Then when it's done you can either let it release on its own or you can flip it over and do a quick release.  So you can either take your roast out and shred it up or you can shred it right inside of your Instant Pot. Now when you're all done shredding it you're going to pull the meat out kind of with a strainer and put it to the side. You're going to leave the drippings or leave the juice because that's what you're going to dip your sandwich in. So now I'm getting my subs ready and I'm going to put my meat right onto my bread. Now notice my bread is on a cookie sheet because I like to broil my cheese. You can put other things on here too. I like to add banana peppers and my husband really loves jalapenos so I'm making banana peppers for myself and then the jalapeno sandwich for my husband. Next I'm going to add some provolone cheese and then I'm going to take this and broil in the oven for about a minute just so the cheese is melted. Then I'm going to put my bun back on and dip it into my juice. Now you don't have to add cheese and the other ingredients you can just put your bun on and dip it in your juice and just eat it just like that. I like to add just a little bit more flavor. Well guys that's all I have for you today. Thanks for stopping by on my Instant Pot Monday. I will see you next week. See ya, bye!


Well Mark, if your entrance music were to be Beethoven, which symphony and why? For those of you who do care and know who Tyler Cohen is, this is how his podcasts start. This is how he intimidates his guests into submission. First of all, I just wanted to say thank everybody for being here with us today. We're really grateful that you were all able to spend time with us and hopefully it's been useful. Second is I'm going to get new business cards printed up that say you either know who I am or you don't care. Or both. Or both. I mean how can you possibly, let's see, I mean I guess we have to rule out Beethoven's ninth symphony because that's the official music of the European Union? Is that right? That's correct. That's the official anthem of the European Union. That's right. Which is just such a terrible mean thing for them to do to such a great piece of music like that. We should lodge a formal diplomatic protest. I guess probably Beethoven's fifth in retaliation.  Now how will AI make our world different five years from now? What's the most surprising way in which it will be different? So there's a great kind of breakdown on adoption of new technology that the science fiction author Douglas Adams wrote about years ago. He says any new technology is received differently by three different groups of people. If you're below the age of 15 it's just the way things have always been. If you're between the ages of 15 and 35 it's really cool when you might be able to get a job doing it. If you're above the age of 35 it's unholy and against the order of society and will destroy everything. AI I think so far is living up to that framework. What I would like to tell you is AI is going to be completely transformative for education. I believe that it will. Having said that I did recently roll out Chad GPT to my eight-year-old. I was very proud of myself because I was like wow this is just going to be such a great educational resource for him. I felt like Prometheus bringing fire down from the mountain to my child. And I installed it on his laptop and said son this is the thing that you can talk to anytime and it will answer any question you have. And he said yeah. And I said well no this is like a big deal. It answers questions. He's like well what else would you use a computer for? And I was like oh god I'm getting old. So I actually think there's like a pretty good prospect that like kids are just going to like pick this up and run with it and I actually think that's already happening right? Chad GPT is fully out and barred and banging all these other things. So I think kids are going to grow up with basically you can use various terms assistant friend, coach, mentor, tutor. But kids are going to grow up in sort of this amazing kind of back and forth relationship with AI. And anytime a kid is interested in something if there's not a teacher who can help with something or if they don't have a friend who's interested in the same thing they'll be able to explore all kinds of ideas. And so I think it will be great for that. I think it's obviously going to be totally transformative and feels like warfare and you already see that. The concern quite honestly I actually wrote an essay a while ago on sort of why I won't destroy all the jobs and the sort of short version of it is because it's illegal to do that because so many jobs in the modern economy require licensing and are regulated. And so I think the concern would be that there's just so much sort of glue in the system now that prevents change and it'll be very easy to sort of not have AI healthcare or AI education or whatever because literally some combination of like doctor licensing, teacher unions and so forth will basically outlaw it. And so I think that's the risk. If we think of AI and its impact in sociological terms, large language models, who will gain in status and who will decline in status and how should this affect how we think about policy? Yeah, so first of all it's important to qualify sort of exactly what's going on with large language models, which is super interesting and kind of this thing has happened that you kind of read about a lot in the press which is kind of there was this general idea that there would be something called AI at some point and then large language models appeared and everybody said, aha, that's AI just like we thought it would be and then that sort of everybody sort of extrapolates out and that's true to a certain extent. But large language models are the success of large language models is very unexpected in the field and actually the origin story of even chat GPT is this is not what Open AI actually started to do, they started to do something different and then there's actually one guy who actually his name is I think Alec Redford and he literally was like off in the corner at Open AI like working on this in like, you know, 2018, 2019 and then it just basically was this revolution building on work that had been done at Google. So it was kind of this very surprising thing and then it's important to sort of qualify like how it works because it's not just like some sort of robot brain.  And then basically what happens is when you when you ask it a question or if you ask it to like, you know, make a drawing or something, it basically traverses it's essentially does a search it does a search across, you know, basically all all of these words and sentences and diagrams and books and photos and everything that that human beings have created and it sort of tries to find the optimal kind of path through that and that and that's how it sort of generates the answer that it gives you. And so it's just it's philosophically it's just kind of this really profound thing I think which is it's like it's like basically staring it's like you as an individual using this machine to kind of stare at the entirety of the creation of all human knowledge and then sort of have it played back at you. And so it sort of it sort of harnesses the the the creativity of, you know, thousands of years of human authors and artists and then and then sort of, you know, derives, you know, new kinds of answers or new kinds of images or whatever, but fundamentally you're sort of in interaction with our with our civilization in a very profound way. In terms of who gains and who loses status, there's actually a very interesting thing happening in the research right now. There's a very interesting research question for the impact on on on job skill, you know, for example, for people, you know, who work with words or work with work with images and are starting to use these technologies in the workforce. And sort of the question is, who benefits more? The high skilled worker and, you know, think, you know, lawyer, doctor, you know, accountant, whatever, graphic designer, the high skilled person who uses these tools to become, right, an additional quantum leap high skilled, and that would be a theory of sort of separation. But the other scenario is the sort of average or even low skilled worker who gets upgraded. And of course, just that, you know, kind of the nature of the economy there, you know, there are kind of more people, you know, kind of more people in the middle. And at least the research, there's been a series of research studies that have been coming back that it's actually the uplift average is actually more significant than the uplift to the high skilled level. And so actually what seems to be happening right now is it's actually a compression by kind of lifting people up. And so I wouldn't, you know, social questions are often a zero sum game of who gains and who loses. But there may be something here where just a lot of people just get better at what they do. Why is open source AI in particular important for international security? Yeah, so for a whole bunch of reasons. So one is it is really hard to do security without open source. And so there used to be, there actually used to be, there's actually two schools of thought on kind of information security, computer security broadly that have played out over the last 50 years. There was one school of security that says you want to basically hide the source code. And you want to hide the source code precisely. And this seems intuitive because presumably you want to hide the source code so that, you know, bad guys can't find the flaws in it, right? And presumably that would be the safe way to do things. And then over the course of the last 30 or 40 years, basically what's evolved is the realization, you know, in the field, and I think very broadly, that actually that's a mistake. In the software field, we call that security through obscurity, right? And sort of we hide the code, people can't can't exploit it. The problem, of course, is OK, but that means the flaws are still in there, right? And so if anybody actually gets to the code, they just basically have a complete index of all the problems, and there's a whole bunch of ways for people to get to code, they hack in. You know, it's actually very easy to, it's actually very easy to steal software code from a company. You hire the janitorial staff to stick a USB stick into a machine at three in the morning. So like, you know, software companies are like very easily penetrated. And so it turned out security through obscurity was a very bad way to do it. The much more secure way to do it is actually open source, basically put the code in public, and then basically build the code in such a way that when it runs, it doesn't matter whether somebody has access to the code. It's still fully secure. And then you just have a lot more eyes on the code to discover the problems. And so in general, open source has turned out to be much more secure. And so I would start there if we want secure systems. I think this is what we have to do. What's the biggest adjustment problem governments will face as AI progresses? For instance, if drug discovery goes up by three acts, all of a sudden the FDA is overloaded. If regulatory comments are open, AI can write great regulatory comments. What does government have to do to get by in this new world? Yeah, so I think for every scenario, and by the way, hopefully at least the first of those two scenarios happens, maybe also the second. For anything like this, what there should be is there should be a corresponding phenomenon happening on the other side. And so the government, sort of correspondingly then, should be using AI to evaluate new drugs. And so a company shows up with a new drug design. There should be AI assist to the FDA to help them evaluate new drugs. A regulatory agency that has public comments should have AI assist for being able to be able to process all that information and be able to aggregate it and then be able to reply back to everybody. And this is kind of true of basically every possible threat. This is a very interesting thing about AI. Sort of every possible threat you can think of AI posing, basically there is a corresponding defense that has to get built. I'll pick another one, cybersecurity. People are quite, I think, legitimately concerned that AI is going to make it easier to actually create and launch cybersecurity attacks. But correspondingly, there should be better defenses. There should be AI based cybersecurity defenses. By the way, we see the exact same thing with drones. Weaponized AI autonomous drones are clearly a threat, as we see it in the world today. So we need AI defenses against drones. The cynical view would be this is just a classic arms race, attack defense, attack defense, and does the world get any better if there's just more threats and more defenses. I think the positive way of looking at it is we probably need these defenses anyway. So even if we didn't have AI drug discovery, I think we should be using AI to evaluate drugs. Even if we didn't have AI drones, we should still have defense against standard missiles and against enemy aircraft. Even if we didn't have AI sort of driven cyber attacks, we should have AI driven cyber defenses. So I think this is an opportunity for the defenders to not only keep up, but also build better systems for the present day threat landscape also. The Biden AI directive, what's the best thing about it? What's the worst thing about it? It didn't overtly attempt to kill AI. So that was good. You never know with these things what they're going to, how much teeth they're going to try to put into it. And then of course, there's always the question of whether that it stands up in court. But it wasn't, there were things that were being discussed in the process that were much, much worse. And I think much more hostile to the technology than ended up being in it. So I think that's good news. I think it was quite benign in terms of it's, it's just like flat out directives, which is good.  My opinion, the issue of it is it kind of green lit, you know, essentially 15 different regulatory agencies to basically put AI under their purview in sort of undefined ways. And so, you know, we will now have, I think a relatively protracted process of many regulators from many agencies without explicit authority in the domain, basically inserting themselves into the space. And then, you know, presumably at some point, there will be a determination of who, you know, has purview over what, but it seems like we're in for a period of quite a bit of confusion as a result. So how much more green energy do we need to in essence fuel all of this AI? And where will it come from? What do you see the prospectors like for the next 20 years? Yeah, so the good news with AI, the good news of AI and the good news with also, by the way, with crypto, because there's always a lot of controversy around crypto and Web 3 and blockchain around energy use. The good thing with these technologies, the good news from energy is these systems lend themselves to centralization of data centers, right? And so, if we need a, you know, if we need a, you know, a million to go into 10 million, go into 100 million to a billion AI chips, you know, they could be distributed out all over the place, but they can also be highly centralized. And because you can highly centralized them, you can think, not just in terms of building a server, you can think about building basically a data center that's an integrated thing from the chip, basically all the way to the building or to the complex of buildings. And then the way those modern data centers are built by the leading edge companies now is they're sort of built on day one with an integrated strategy for energy and for cooling. And so basically any form of energy that you have, you know, that you could do in a very efficient way, in a very clean way, you know, or new energy technologies, you know, this AI is a use case for developing and deploying that kind of power. And so, you know, just building on what we've seen from internet data centers, that could be geothermal, that could be hydroelectric, that could be nuclear fission, that could be nuclear fusion, solar, you know, wind, big battery packs and so forth. And so the, I think the aspirational hope would be this is sort of another catalyst to more advanced rollout of energy. And even if there's sort of net energy increase, the sort of motivation to get to higher levels of efficiency will be net good in helping us get to a better energy footprint. And which of those energy sources in your view is most underrated? Oh, I mean, nuclear fission for sure is the most underrated today. And so, you know, there ought to be, there ought to, yes, the Wave of Magic one. We ought to be doing what Richard Nixon proposed in 1971, right? We ought to build what he called project independence, which was build a thousand new nuclear power plants in the U.S., and then cut the entire U.S. grid over to nuclear and electricity, go to all electric cars, do everything else. Richard Nixon's other, you know, great, great, corresponding, you know, creation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, of course guarantees that won't happen. The plan is exactly, exactly on track. But we could. And so either with existing nuclear, you know, nuclear fission technology, or there's actually a significant number, you know, now of new nuclear fission startups, as well as fusion startups working on new designs. And so this would certainly be a great use case for that. So if the nations that will do well in the future are strong in AI and strong in energy, thinking about this in terms of geopolitics, which countries rise in importance? For better or worse? Yeah, so, well, so, okay, so different things. Add a couple more things to that, which is, which companies are in a position to best invent these new technologies? And then there's a somewhat separate question of who's in the best position to deploy, because it doesn't help you that much to invent it if you can't deploy it. And so I would put that in there. But, I mean, look, I would give the US, I would give the US like very, very high marks on the invention side. I think we're, you know, we, I think we're the best. I think we have the best R&D innovation capability in the world in most fields, not all, but most. And I think that's certainly true of AI. And I think that's at least potentially true in energy. I don't know whether it actually is, but it could be. And so, you know, we should be able to forge ahead on that. You know, China is clearly the other country with critical mass in all of this. And, you know, you could quibble about the level of invention versus sort of fast follow and talk about, you know, kind of IP acquisition, things like that. But nevertheless, whatever your view is, they're moving very quickly and aggressively and have critical mass. You know, big internal domestic market and a huge number of researchers and a lot of state support. So I think by and large, you know, we're looking, for sure on AI, and then I think probably also in energy, we're probably looking at primarily a bipolar world for quite a while, and then spheres of influence, you know, kind of going out. You know, I would say Europe is sort of a dark horse in a sort of a strange way in that the EU seems absolutely determined to ban everything. So they've sort of put a blanket ban on capitalism and within that ban AI and ban energy. On the other hand, you know, we have this incredible AI company called Mistrel in France, which is probably the leading open source AI company right now and one of the best AI companies in the world and the French government has actually really been stepping up to help, you know, the ecosystem in Europe. And so I would actually like to see sort of a tripolar world. I'd like to see the EU kind of fully punch in but I'm not sure how realistic that is. So let's say you're in charge of speeding up deployment in the United States. What is it you do? State level, local level, feds? What should we all be doing? Of AI specifically? Everything. Is it all increasingly interrelated, right? AI, energy, biomedicine, everything. Yes, yes. Well, and AI takes you straight to CHIPS, which takes you straight to the CHIPS Act, which does not yet result in the creation of any CHIPS plants, although it might someday, the most basic observation is maybe the most but all, which is, you know, stagnation is a choice, decline is a choice, you know, as Tyler's written at great length, you know, the US economy downshifted its rate of technological change, you know, basically since the 1960s. You know, technological change has measured by productivity growth in the economy was much faster prior to the last 50 years than the most recent 50 years. And, you know, that's just the result of just sort of a, you know, you have big argument is exactly what caused that, but a lot of it is just an imposition of just like, you know, blankets and blankets and blankets of regulation and restrictions and controls and processes and procedures and all the rest of it. So, yeah, so, you know, and then you could start by saying step one is do no harm. And so, you know, this is sort of, this is our approach on AI regulation, which is, you know, don't regulate the technology, don't regulate AI as a technology anymore than you regulated microchips or software or anything like operating systems or databases, instead regulate the use cases. And the use cases are generally regulated anyway. It's no more legal to field a new AI designed drug without FDA approval than it is a standard designed drug. And so, apply the existing regulations as opposed to hamstringing the technology. You know, so that's one, you know, energy exploitation. Again, the energy is just pure choice. Like, we could be building, you know, we could be building the, you know, the 1,000 nuclear plants tomorrow. My favorite idea there, which always gets me in trouble and so I can't resist is, so the Democratic administration should give Koch industries the contract to build 1,000 nuclear reactors, right? Everybody gets revenge and everybody else. The Democrats get Charles Koch to fix climate change and then Charles gets all the money for the contracts. So it's kind of a, everybody ends up happy. Nobody yet has bit on that idea when I pitched it, but maybe I'm not talking to the right people. So, you know, look, we could be doing that. You know, we'll see if we choose to. Look, the chips plant thing is gonna be fascinating to watch. There was this really, you know, we passed the Chips Act and in theory the funding is available and you know, the American chip companies are generally pretty aggressive and I think trying pretty hard to build new capacity in the U.S. But there was this actually very outstanding article in the New York Times some months back by Ezra Klein where he sort of goes through and he says, okay, even suppose the money's available to build chip plants, like is it actually possible to build chip plants in the U.S.? And he sort of talks about all of the different regulatory and legal, you know, basically requirements and obligations that get layered on top and, you know, it was sort of speculating as to whether any of these plants will actually get built. And so again, I think we have here, we have just sort of a level of fundamental choices in society, which is, you know, do we wanna, do we wanna build new things? I can't say how exciting it's been, at least on the West Coast, how exciting it's been for Las Vegas to get the sphere because like it's now impossible to visit Las Vegas without like, like everybody's always complaining the Egyptians built the pyramids, like where are our pyramids? And it's like, ah, we have a sphere.  And by the way, I'm just talking about the view from the outside. I understand that the thing on the inside is also amazing. So, you know, we clearly can do that, you know, at least in Vegas where Ben lives now, you know, in London, I think they just gave up on building the sphere. So that's, you know, that's the other side of it.  You know, it's a little bit dispiriting to see the liquid natural gas decision that just came down. But are the roots of this stasis quite general and quite cultural? Because parents coddle their children much more, their higher rates of mental illness amongst the young. Young people, it seems, have less sex along a lot of cultural variables. The percent of old music people listen to compared to new music. There seems to be a more general stagnation. So how would you pinpoint our loss of self-confidence or dynamism? Where's that coming from? Yeah. Well, so first of all, to be clear, we're very much in favor of young people not dating because that's very distracting from their work at our startups. So that works out fine. And fortunately in our industry, we have a long experience without having dating life when we're young. So that works out well. So it's not all bad. So it is really interesting. I mean, the view is experience, I mean, look, Silicon Valley has all kinds of problems and we're kind of a case study for a lot of the, I mean, look, it's not like you can build anything in Silicon Valley, right?  So we have our issues. The view from the Valley is, yeah, a lot of kids are being brought up and trained to basically adopt a sort of fundamentally pessimistic, sort of pessimistic or sort of how to put it like, stagnation oriented, have very low expectations. Basically, a lot of what passes for education now is kind of teaching people how to complain, which they're very good at. The complaining has reached operatic levels lately. And so there is a lot of that. Having said that, look, I'm also like actually really optimistic and in particular I'm actually quite optimistic about the new generation coming up. I think Gen Z and then I think it's Gen Alpha and then it's whatever my eight-year-old is. We're seeing more and more kids that are coming up and they're being sort of exposed to a full load of basically programming, sort of cultural programming, education programming that says you should be depressed about everything. You should be upset about everything. You should have low ambitions. You shouldn't try to do these things. And they're coming out with sort of a very radical, kind of hard shove in the other direction and they're coming out with just basically, coming up with tremendous energy and tremendous enthusiasm to actually do things. And so, which is very natural, right? Because kids rebel. And so if the system is teaching stagnation, then at least some kids will come up the other way and decide they really wanna do things in the world. And so I think entrepreneurs in their 20s now are a lot better than certainly my generation. And they're frankly more aggressive than the generation that preceded them and they're more ambitious. And so, now, we're not dealing with them, we're dealing with a minority, not a majority, but I think there's quite a bit, like, yeah. Every hour I get where I can spend at 20 year olds is actually very encouraging. One emotional sense I get from your walk on music, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, it's just that the stakes are remarkably high. Now, if we're looking for indicators to keep track of whether, in essence, things are going your way. Greater dynamism, freedom to build, willingness to build, American dynamism. What should we track? What should we look at? How do we know if things are going well? Yeah. I do not come here, I do not come to the world with comprehensive answers. I mean, so the overall answer is productivity growth in the economy is a great starting point. Economic growth is a great starting point. So the overall questions are there. Most of our economy is dominated by incumbent institutions that have no intention. I don't think of changing or evolving unless they're forced to. Certainly most of the business world now is one form of oligopoly or another that sort of has various markets locked up. So I don't think there's some magic bullet to hugely accelerate things. Having said that, I think attacking from the edges is the thing that can be done, which is basically what we do, what Silicon Valley does. And then when you attack from the edges the way that our entrepreneurs do, look, a lot of the times they don't succeed. It's a high risk occupation with a lot of risk of failure, but when they succeed, they can succeed spectacularly well. And a lot of our, I mean, we have companies, we have companies in the American economy that were venture backed in the 1970s, and actually even some that were venture backed in the 1990s and 2000s, that are now bigger than most national economies. And so when these, was it Apple? I think Apple's market cap is bigger than the entire market cap of the German stock market. I think that's right. Just one company. And Apple was a venture backed startup, two kids in a garage in 1976, not that long ago. It's bigger than the entire German basic industrial public market. And so attack of the edges, sometimes you can get really, really big results. Sometimes you just prod the system. Sometimes you just spark people into reacting and that pushes everything forward. And then the other question always is just like, what are the tools, from our standpoint, what are the tools that startups have in order to try to really change things?  And one is just what's the magnitude of the technological change in the air that can be harnessed. And so we're always looking for kind of the next super cycle, the next breakthrough technology, in which you can imagine a thousand companies doing many different things, all kind of punching into incumbent markets. And AI certainly seems like one of those. And then yeah, the other is just the sheer sort of animalistic ambition, energy, animal spirits of the entrepreneurs and of the teams that get built. And like I said, I think those are even, I think those are, I think the best of the startups today are more aggressive, more ambitious, more capable. The people are better, they execute better than at least I've ever seen. So I think that's also quite positive. Who's a social thinker who helps you make sense of these trends? Oh yeah, my favorite is James Burnham, is my favorite. Who? And why Burnham? Why Burnham? Yeah, so Burnham is a famous, Burnham is not famous, but he should be famous. He was a, Burnham is a fascinating story. He's a thinker in the 20th century who talked a lot about these issues. He started out life as a lot of people do in the 1920s as a, in 30s as a dedicated Trotskyite, full on communist. But he's a very special guy. Burnham was a very brilliant guy.  And he would have these like huge arguments of Trotsky, which is not the safest thing in the world to do, but apparently he got away with it. And very enthusiastic communist revolutionary through the 30s. And then sort of in the 40s, he's a very smart guy and he started to figure out that was a bad path. And he went through this process of rethinking everything. And by the 1950s, he was so far to the right that he was actually a co-founder of National Review, magazine with William Buckley, who always said he was the intellectual, kind of leading light at a national review. And so he's kind of got, he's got kind of works that he wrote that will accommodate the full spectrum of politics. But in his middle period where he was trying to kind of figure out, this is like in the 1940s, he was trying to kind of figure out where things are going. And there was enormous questions in the 1940s because it was viewed as like a three-way, basically war for the future between communism, the far left, fascism on the far right, and then liberal democracy kind of floating around there somewhere. His best, most well-known book is called The Managerial Revolution, which talks a lot about the issues we've been discussing, and it was written in like 1941. And it's fascinating for many reasons, part of which is he was still mad about communism, so a lot of it is he debunks communism in it, but also he, you know, they didn't know who was gonna win World War II. And so it talks about this battle of ideologies as if it were still an open topic, which is super interesting. But he did this very kind of sort of Marxian analysis of capitalism. He made the observation that I see every day, which is there are fundamentally two types of capitalism. There's the original model of capitalism, which he calls bourgeois capitalism, which you could think like Henry Ford is the archetype of that. So A capitalist starts a company, runs the company, name on the door, ownership of the company, control of the company, you know, sort of dictator of the company, you know, sort of complete alignment of a company with an individual. And then he talks about this other emerging form of capitalism at that time called managerial capitalism. And in managerial capitalism, you think about today's modern public companies, right? Think about Walmart or whatever, and any public company where, you know, in theory there are shareholders, but really what there are is there are millions and millions of shareholders that are incredibly dispersed, you know, who own small, you know, everybody in this room owns some, you know, three shares of Walmart stock and a mutual fund somewhere. You don't wake up in the morning wondering what's happening to Walmart. It doesn't even occur to you to think about yourself as an owner. And so what you get instead is this managerial class of actually both investors like fund managers and then also executives and CEOs who actually run these companies. And they have sort of, they have control, but without, you know, without ultimate responsibility, right? Without ultimate, without ultimate ownership. And the interesting thing he said about that is he said, look, managerialism is basically, it's not that it's good or bad, it's just, it's sort of necessary because, you know, companies and institutions and governments and all the rest of it get to the point where there's just too big and too complicated for one person to run everything.  But there's a flip side of it, which is the people who are qualified to be managers of large organizations are not themselves the kind of people who become bourgeois capitalists. They're the other kind of person. And so they're often good at running things, but they generally don't do new things, right? They generally don't seek to disrupt or seek to create or seek to invent. And so one way of thinking about kind of what's happened in our system is capitalism used to be bourgeois capitalism, it got replaced by managerial capitalism without actually changing the name. That will necessarily lead to stagnation. And by the way, that may be necessary that that happens because the systems are too complicated, but that will necessarily lead to stagnation. And then what you need is basically the resumption of bourgeois capitalism to come back in and kind of at the very least like poke and prod everybody into action. And that, you know, aspirationally is what we do and what our startups do. Mark Andreessen, thank you very much. Good, great, thank you everybody.


This presentation will be about building a scalable and flexible MySQL HA environment with Ansible MHA and ProxySQL. Proxy in the new player. We like it really much and see how it works with other tools. My name is Miklos Mukaseyel. I'm from Hungary and I have a pretty long history with Linux and MySQL. I used to be a backend developer then as an end-of-guide. I worked for Walt Disney and after that I joined to Palo Mino DAB as I was a consultant for many pretty big companies and I'm a freelance consultant since working for Edmodo. Here you can find my contact in case you have questions. So I built this thing called DEMP. That's a DEMP naming but still. So keep in mind this is a testing environment so this is not the use case for Docker but I want it to be as portable as it could be and I didn't want to install anything on the testing computer so you only need Docker to run and GNU Bash. Nothing more. So it's built on Docker, Ansible MHA and ProxySQL is licensed in GPL3 and the important part is the Ansible Playbook is eventually an excerpt from our production where we use it with MHA. So this is an enterprise grade code you have here. You can take it and implement it on your own environment and you can forget about the Docker of course. Okay, let's move forward. So yeah, as I already mentioned I chose Docker because I've been using it for a while to testing the Ansible Playbooks and because it's portable. Ansible is my favorite choice when it comes to config management and its simple agent test is just SSH in and execute the command that's necessary if the change is already there it won't touch the server. It has templating, pretty good one and what is important from our standpoint that it has modules for MySQL and ProxySQL. Thanks for Ben Meldon for the letter. MHA is an old but proven and stable open source HA utility written in Perl. It's easy to configure. It's automated, non-interactive and interactive master feelover but it doesn't deal with moving with VIPs or any other aspect of the feelover. It only deals with changing the topology to the desired. And ProxySQL, thanks for Colin for the great presentation. It's a crediting, rewriting, killing tool based on rules and patterns. It's also a loot browser. You can split reads and writes. It is also, it can be used as a query cache, supports connection pooling. You can prioritize queries based on the importance and it supports many more things but what it is not, it doesn't execute replication topology changes. What MHA does, so they eventually really good pair because of this. So this is how ProxySQL looks like in nutshell. This is the application server. ProxySQL has configuration interface can be accessed via standard MySQL client and it stores the configuration items in tables. You can, by default, you can just log in the interface on the port 6032 and the default port for the application is 6033. And based on the routing and other settings, it will route your queries to the desired cluster. And instead of using master and slave, it uses concepts of host groups. So, for example, the master down there is the host group three and the host groups four are the slaves. And once the topology changes, it automatically detects the changes based on the read-only flag and move the servers from one host group to the other one. I'm going to show this how that works soon. So this is what I built. There's a web server and everything is running on the docker. This is not the use case for docker, but it works fine. So we have two clusters here, for example, one with three slaves, one with two slaves and there is the admin host. And within the admin host, an Ansible is running locally to configure ProxySQL and MHA based on the inventory file generated during the cluster creation. I'm going to show this not rocket science, but the automation works pretty fine. And the whole point is you can rerun the playbook once you change the topology or add another cluster and it will regenerate every possible configuration item within ProxySQL and for MHA to do the failovers, do query routing or pre-write queries. Basically, that was the presentation part and let's see the demo. I'm going to create a cluster. So can you see the... Let me increase it a little bit. Can you see it from the behind? Yes. Okay. How is it now? Thanks. Okay, so let's create a cluster. Okay, it created cluster one, two, three. I mean created a cluster called Zephod with three machines, one master and two slaves. We wait for the Docker containers and the MySQL inside to be available. Yes, I'm going to use Hitchhiker guides to the Galaxy references. Okay, now the application is set up. Let's create another cluster called Arthur. This is going to consist from one master and one slave. And it will... And this little bit script will also set up the replication. So let's see. We have a host file here. See the inventory, the standard inventory file, Ansible file is generated. Once the second cluster is ready, there is the inventory entries for the cluster Zephod and the Arthur. And we are going to use the host group one for Zephod. Oh, sorry. Yeah, again. So we are going to use the host group one for Zephod and host group three for Arthur this time. Okay, let's start running the playbook. So it's going to use two files as the source of truth. One is the inventory file and the other is the groups, group words per all. And you can change the ports. The IP is listening. The default application user and password, the credentials, it will set up on the MySQL and the privileges for this given MySQL user. You can change the proxy SQLs, global variables here. And we're running the playbook. We'll apply these changes. This should be done in 60, 90 seconds, depending on the speed of the internet connection. I'm running this on remote machines because it installs dependencies for MHA. That's the most time-consuming part. Once it's ready, I wrote a little script that makes it easier to demonstrate use cases for the proxy SQL and MHA. I'm doing some sysbench. Yeah, sysbench is the last part of this playbook.  And the list of features is pretty long. So let's see the servers configured in the proxy SQL. Everything is done. So we have a fully set up environment that can be used from an application. There are MySQL servers and clusters behind. And proxy SQL is absolutely aware of everything. So if you see, there is the host group one. That was for Zephyrd. And the two slaves are in the host group two, which is the host group for readers. Let me show you how this looks like in proxy SQL. So the writer host group for Zephyrd is one is a writer, two is the reader host group. And it's three and four for the author. So it also generated users. That was it again. Users is selection three. The users are duplicated because there is one for the front and then one for the back end. But the point is proxy SQL is set up to use the credentials. So the credentials we set up in proxy SQL is based on the host group. So it will be used app one, app one for host group one, and app three, app three for host group three, and so on. So let's see a failover with time h a. Oh, by the way, every comment we execute here, the terminal is pretty big. I printed above the menu points. So if you go to this menu and start playing with this tool, you can have the actual commands so you can figure the rest out and you can customize it whenever you want. So 20 is the interactive failover for my SQL. Yes, we want to run this. And we will change the topology from so using this master to using the three as the new master. Yes, we want this, please. And switching to master was completely successfully. Check the servers. And we will see that the host group one is now contained the IP with the three and the rest is in the host group two. So proxy SQL detected the change and it moved the servers to the proper host group. This is how easy to do a failover with mh and proxy SQL. You don't have to do anything. It's absolutely transparent from the applications perspective. Which is a great thing. Okay, now let's see some statistics. Oh, unfortunately. Mm-hmm. Okay, very digest this empty host groups. It's still empty. Okay, let's run a benchmark. To run a sysbench we have to prepare the database. It's I'm going to run the sysmatch prepare. Which is basically this command. It's going to fill the sb test one table. Once it's done, we can run the let's run a short sysbench read only test. It's many points 16. I started. No errors. TPS is pretty okay. So now we are going to generate some traffic to show you. So I can show you the statistics. It looks better if you decrease the size of your terminal. So you can see that every reads and writes went to the host group one because that's the writer host group. And by default every application, the app one is rooted to use the master on the host group one. You can have statistics by the host group. So the summary time of some time spent on the given host group and the number of queries ran there. Now let's change the game a little. Let's run the split read write which is basically a simple command running replace into. You can see that we are going to add the rule which is active that every select should go to the second host group. I mean this rejects that queries that matches that this rejects. We'll go to the second host group. Now you pull the query rules table. This is what is inside the runtime configuration of the proxy SQL. Now if we read on this test and check the statistics we will see that a lot of queries were being re-routed to the host group two. It's a little bit long for this presentation. Yeah, it's done. So you can see that these lines, these servers with the host group two also received reads. You can check the statistics about the host groups. Let's see it over here as well. And there is also a statistics about the query digest. So you can see these selects were run on the host group one during the previous run. But later on all the selects were executed on the second host group. So this is how easy to set up proxy SQL to send, to set up a really basic read-write script. Split. Okay, how much time do I have? Five minutes, that's nice. Even better. So let's have two consoles here. And we are going to execute, we are going to see what happens if we are using proxy SQL for reading and doing a failover in the meanwhile. So in one of the windows I'm going to execute along this bench. That's 60 seconds long. And in the other window I'm going to execute a non-interactive failover. Eventually it just doesn't stop you to confirm that you want to change your topology. No worries. Okay, so we switch the master successfully in this window. And the other window, there is this part when the failover happened. Right under, way under one second, by the way, around one second. There were some reconnects, but proxy SQL can resend the select queries. If the underlying database dies. So it's really cool. Basically, this is what happens when you experience a failover during reading through proxy SQL. And, well, I also added some minor things like created word database. Since we have some minutes, let me show you how to add another cluster to this setup. Damp. Let's stick to this example. Let's add the cluster with two machines called Trillian. And it's done. Let's check the host file. Here you can see there is a third cluster appeared with the host group 5. So the users will be f5 f5 file on the MySQL server. The credentials on every MySQL server is up and down. Which is configured here. So don't mix the two. These are the credentials on the MySQL servers and proxy SQL makes it transparent. And you can use different kind of credentials there. Just saying, okay, now we have this new inventory file. We can just read on the playbook, which is basically this command. We should wait like 60 seconds. We don't have to reinstall everything. So if the proxy SQL is already installed, Ansible won't install it again. And it won't execute most of the part. Only the part when it says changed. Adding new servers, that's something we want to add. We want to change with Ansible. Yeah, we are now generating the config file. That's it. And if you check the proxy SQL menu. And the second is the show servers. The server truly appeared. It's user appeared. It has its own host group. And, well, yeah, that doesn't change at all. And, for example, there is also a log part of this little script that can show you the most important log files. Read only the ping and the connect log. And here you can see how it maps the servers in order to move it to the proper host group. Basically, this is what I wanted to show you. Questions? Yeah, proxy SQL also adds the writer to the readers by default. Because a master is a source of it. And you can also set up weights for the servers. So if the master outweighs the slave, then the queries are sent there more likely. This is the expected behavior when you want your data back immediately. And there is no chance of having replication lag. By the way, proxy SQL checks the replication lag and you can set up a threshold. So it won't send reads for a slave that's higher than a given threshold. Sorry, by the way, Krzysztof asked, why is the writer in the reader host groups as well? That was the question. So the writer by default is also part. The proxy SQL monitor also puts the writer instance to the reader host group. Anybody else? Thank you.


Hi students, welcome to Year 12 Chemistry and Module 5, Equilibrium and Acid Reactions. This is video number 6, where we start to look at how we can change what's happening in an equilibrium system. So we're going to focus on the effect of temperature, first of all. In order for us to start analyzing these equilibria, what we need to do is realize that there are certain factors that we can change with respect to each of these different equilibrium systems that we've been examining in order to see what happens as a result. Now what we're going to be doing is we're going to be invoking Lyscia-Telier's principle. Lyscia-Telier's principle says when a system in equilibrium is subject to a change in concentration, temperature, external pressure, or some other factor which upsets the equilibrium, the system reacts in such a way as to counteract that change. Basically, if you do something to a system, the system tries to shift in order to undo that change, to reverse what it was that you did. There are three factors which are very important in equilibrium systems, the first of which I have already mentioned, temperature, and that's one that we will have a look at in this particular video. The concentration of both reactants or products can be important as well as the pressure and for gases, the volume specifically relating to gases that are present. When we talk about equilibria, we tend to talk about two different types of equilibria, homogeneous. These are often easier to deal with because say all species are gases. There's ways that we can deal with the fact that all the species are gases and look at them both in terms of their concentration and their pressure or volume. But occasionally we have heterogeneous equilibria. So something where maybe we warm a solid, the solid turns into perhaps another solid and or liquid and or gas. And then we have a combination of different types of states of matter as well as different substances being produced. And this can sometimes make things a little bit easier, sometimes it makes things a little bit more complex.


Hi, yeah, my name is Steve Berryman and I'm from a testant a testant is a an Ethereum only staking company and what we're going to look at today is an Alternative to liquid staking liquid staking has been phenomenally successful phenomenally successful and as with anything in the Ethereum ecosystem something that becomes that successful becomes centralized and then becomes an issue so we We're a testant and been talking to some other staking companies Try to come up some other ideas around how to transfer validators from From one owner to another without going through the exit queue So really this is one idea that we've been floating around and we are looking for you know other staking companies to to To be part of this building this out if if we think it's a successful direction so I've kept this quite light in the way I want to go with this is is It's to really give the justification for what we're trying to do and the detail and getting into the weeds Really, I think if you're interested come and speak to us and we can talk through some of the detail But it's really the rationale why we're doing this so Let's have some context around what what is staking in the first place? What is staking in Ethereum? So this is a very high level clearly There's a lot of complication goes under underneath the hood of this for Ethereum staking but in from a very high level in how we want to view this is We're locking up funds 32 ETH you send 32 ETH to the deposit contract. This was that this started in December 2020 You sent your 32 ETH to the contract and That basically gave you a ticket onto the beacon chain and that that ticket Enables you to build a validator and go through a certain number of steps and duties and if you carry it out Then duties you receive the world's So some of the things you see receive rewards for a testing. That's the You're doing that every six minutes. It's the bulk of the rules you receive and if you're online and you're testing You get a very small Small amount anybody's used the the blockchain Website has got a validator and you'll see that the rules keep chipping in And proposing a block doesn't happen very often now. There's 7,200 blocks a day There are 44,000 validators out there so roughly every 62 days you'll get a block But they were the only two Places to get rewards back in December 2020 then we had the Outer thought and that introduced sink committees sink committees are even lower than blocks What proposals you'll get one of these I think maybe now once every three years But when you do when they do turn up you make a lot of money during that period is only for two days So if you're flying in two days, it's unfortunate And then of course what we've seen with the merge The merge and this is really everyone's excited because now we can we're not only getting Transaction fees which used to go to the miners, but now we can spend it and we couldn't spend before so this You know is exciting for the first time after almost two years of having money locked up finally. We've got some we can spend and Of course, no comes in here as well. You know, so that that's that's staking in a in a nutshell Ethereum Okay liquid staking so briefly what liquid staking is and it's hard really not to Really not mention Lido because Lido is the biggest player clearly and there's going to be try to be other players But again, it's another centralizing force. So what is liquid staking and why do people go for this this approach? Well, currently over 30% of the staking rules go to Lido and that's not great But then again Lido runs under different node operators. So it's not quite as centralized as you may feel But still, you know, it's a ecosystem with lots of various different options But why has this become so popular? Well However easy, you know, some of us techies think it is to run a node It's just not easy and there are lots of complications and you have to keep the thing updated And you know number of people I speak to go oh, it's stopped working Well, you know, you just not committed enough in what's going on the community. So it's difficult It's difficult to stay on top of things and so And so with that people are gonna want an easier solution to pick up some rewards and of course you got slashing I mean you mentioned slashing to somebody and they're going that's it. I'm not even gonna touch touch home staking But being in the staking company. We always try to get people to stake at home But I mean, you know the technologies for most people is probably out of reach and they've got to be want to do it So when you know Lido came along, it's just a perfect. It's convenient.  You can go and mint it directly or you can go and buy that buy them for on the exchange uni swap and and Basically, you're there. That's it. You stick it into cold storage. You forget about it Lido uses a rebase token. So your rewards go straight to your wallet. There's there's no messing about cost you 10% But you haven't got a set up a box and you haven't got to worry about it So so and it's been you know a phenomenal big success What's the downside to it?  There's also some other issues Which are very interesting regulatory issues You're in a pool. Paul gets tainted with tornado cash It comes tricky So people don't want to necessarily large institutions don't want to be involved in in a pool system And of course there is a taxing in some jurisdictions going from one token to another can be seen as Disposal and a taxable event So that is something I think probably a lot of Lido users probably don't realize that many jurisdictions put that as a as a taxable event Okay, so So so what isn't an alternative approach we've been throwing this idea around for for a while But the thing is is you know, there was this little thing called the merge that sort of kept us busy for a while But now that we're sort of over that and you know It is think Danny said, you know, it was uneventful which was for a staking company. That's what you want uneventful So now some of these things come back on the radar and also they do require some extra changes to the EVM in order for some of this Stuff to work But our idea is that we make validators Transferable so that they can change ownership now When I say transferable, I'm not talking changing staking company the the validator will stay with the same staking company, but you can transfer the ownership to somebody else and At the moment the way validators work You have a validator key and that's the thing you have online to create your rewards and you have a withdrawal key the withdrawal key is Just a regular aetherium or in fact it can be a theory in one address or it can be a BLS address but when submerged once the Once you get past to the withdrawals So it means go and Get to withdrawals this thing doesn't have to be just a withdrawal key it can actually be a smart contract and We've already got a smart contract that handles this sort of thing very well NFTs So we could use an NFT smart contract which issues a receipt to the to the validator and now the validator is transferable it can be moved around and It's also an NFT. It's actually valued something. It's not You know, it's not a JPEG underneath. He has actually got 32 ETH under it. So so this idea Once once you've got once we create this smart contract, then we've got a lot more flexibility and It's in one way. It's not up to us decide what the market does with this It's just quite interesting to put the great thing with DeFi You put stuff out there and see what happens But you know, I've got a couple of my own use cases where I think this would be particularly useful For example, you've got a large institution wants to buy a thousand validators and Somebody wants to sell a thousand validators now. You can off-board it It takes at least 15 to 24 hours if there's no queue or and you then somebody else on board It's quite heavy on the network as well for Ethereum to do that and also both sides are losing a crude interest So if you think if this is a bond, you know You're losing money For for the 24 hours and if there's a queue, it could be a lot longer So wouldn't it be more convenient if there was a marketplace where two people just Bought the validators off each other. There's instant settlement The Ethereum network handles it extremely well. It's just a transfer. We've still got the same validators running and You know, it just becomes a much easier way of large institutions about to buy and sell I mean clearly the marketplace has got to have liquidity to do this, but you could imagine You're just about to get rid of a thousand validators You would go to the marketplace first if there's a liquidity You're gonna get a better price or you're likely to get a better price Then just unwinding it because you're gonna lose a day's worth of interest and rewards Some other stuff you could do with a receipt And I don't know if this is an advantage or disadvantage or let you decide but it could be used as collateral in DeFi So all them wonderful things and the great thing with this it comes with a revenue stream So anybody's into financial engineering could come up with many different views of ways this could be used And it could be very interesting and I think a marketplace where buyers and sellers can come together. I think would be very interesting and As I say, it's for the network for the Ethereum network It's also better not having these ether huge amounts of ether coming in and out of the system And and you know, why wouldn't this why wouldn't this be the better way of transferring and providing liquidity to staking assets without You know without going through the the on and off building Okay, so What are the benefits? I mean the biggest one is you still own the ether is it is a receipt You still own it it's yours. It's not pulled. Okay, so it means decentralization because you know, we're You know people are not pulling this thing into Lido or into another pooling system So and the other thing with this is Something as a staking company we think about if you're a good staking company in Lido or you're a bad staking company Nobody cares because all the rewards are just mixed with this We start to find out who are the better ones because the marketplace can monitor it and marketplace can can do Can look at all the stats for all the different validators and clearly we think that's a good idea and It's something that also if you think of these things are starting to look very much like bonds Credit spread could actually be these are like credit spreads. So the the staking The staking companies become credit spreads and I think that would be quite an interesting marketplace I think this is also the vanilla vision We've got but I could imagine we could take a step further and a lot of this stuff and we could build insurance We could build fees we could be a lot more because now it's a smart contract. So everything's up for grabs really So why hasn't this already been done the obvious question? Can't do it or we can't do it easily. We can't do it easily The biggest problem is that we've had the merge So what's the problem these two things and now talk to each other, but they don't they don't We we did the minimum to get the merge over the line and so at the moment the EVM Can't talk to the beacon chain So we've got no way have been able to test the state and test you actually own that validator So there is actually an EIP which is aiming for Shanghai Which is the 4788 and what this does is produces an opcode for the EVM Which allows you to see the beacon route the state route and what does this able to do? You can build a Merkel proof and you can prove the validator is yours and then you build the NFT So it just needs this little bit of glue and then we're away and hopefully this will get included into that Shanghai and we will be testing some ideas around this. Yeah So so really that's the main thing of this not being done is just we're waiting for the next the next thing for You know this this EIP to come through hopefully in the next Hopefully in the next round of updates Right potential issues. There's always going to be some You know It's the same thing as the advanced you see it can be used in DeFi You know, and you know, we we see we've seen the good and bad of that. So It's just be wary of it And we could have bugs. It's a smart contract You know seen a few of them as well in the last few years I think with the bug sting though, this stuff is using the standard technology. We're using an NFT contract We're not doing it. We're not putting any innovation in new stuff. We are gluing it together differently So clearly lots of audit very around that but we're not going out and building some new smart contract We we're using technology that we've all been using for the two or three years All right, and that is the end of my talk It's a it was quite lightweight to give you a rationale of why we of why we're looking into this If people want to get into the weeds, please come and contact me We you know, we're looking for getting more staking companies involved This thing only really works if other staking companies is a network effect, you know It's if it's just a test and it's not going to work So so clearly we need other people involved to build the tools out to to make this You know if if if the community thinks something like this is is an alternative and even if it takes a small Percentage from people using Lido that's going to help the decentralization and I think I've Thank you, Steve We have four five minutes more. So maybe a question from sure. Yeah, so here Thanks for the presentation. So you mentioned that The staking a liquid staking tokens are subject to a tax here We are also like receiving a receipt that receive will include some yield, right for staking rewards So, yeah, I think it's the same disadvantage here correct. You mean from the tax point of view, right? So you could be I mean it does depend on jurisdiction because you could argue and you know, we're I'm not know much about tax But you could argue that a receipt is different from a token transfer, you know It is all you're doing is like a receipt for goods I know the UK government doesn't do that So I know you're right in that fact, but there is a lot of debate going on about it But really there has not been a transfer of assets. So that would be the thing I would like tax authorities to look at to go look you've just got a receipt. You still own these assets, right? You're right in that it's a it's messy so messy it's a messy field and as for the collateral I mean that sounds messy, right because as well because Collateralizing NFTs, I mean NFTs are non-pungible by definition. Yeah, so Yeah, I mean I mean NFT as a collateral for a DeFi. I mean it is already done So and I'm not suggesting this is a good idea. It's already done We've seen there are many platforms already doing this and you know It's not it's not for us to try and decide where the market takes this stuff It's it's just the point that you can use it for collateral and I'm sure somebody will do that. So, right. Thanks. Yeah Hi, thanks for the talk. It was great. Oh, sorry This may be a silly question, but I'm gonna take the chance to embarrass myself so validators don't they run with hardware? I think so, how how are you then going to kind of transfer the hardware with the right? So I didn't go too much into that but it is it is a good question because I'm there's a certain assumption I've made in the presentation that this would be done by staking companies, okay? So we as intestine we would still be running it So it's not transferring from the point of a staking company So if you're if you've got a validator, you're still and it was with us You're staking with a test and you're just selling it to somebody else So and a testant is still doing its job. So the the hardware and all that stuff doesn't stay I mean a validator is basically made up of two keys a validator key, which is what a test and Hold and then the withdrawal key which the client holds So, you know, all you're really doing is is changing the ownership But what we're not doing is changing the people that are doing the validating Have you all thought about what this looks like with shared operators inside of the NFTs? So it's not just one staking company, but it's a collection of people running together I'm not really I personally not really thought about that we've kept it very Very simple in a way of you know providing some liquidity To clients who would need it this where this has really come from and you know It's just a way of taking the pressure off the network that you know It seems silly to me. We've got a lot of validators coming in a lot of validators leaving and Really, it's one big organization wants wants to buy it and another big organization wants to buy it So it seems a natural way to do this I mean, there were some other things that like you may you know One institution may have all their staking with one company and another institution has all their staking with another company And I could imagine for risk management. They may actually swap some of the validators over to split the risk So, you know, I'm sort of making up use cases But this is sort of thing that once you've got a marketplace then then and it's liquid enough I think people would probably use that sort of facility So you mentioned Lido, I'm curious if you think there are ways to synergize with existing like pooled staking derivative projects or if like if you have any thoughts in that direction I mean definitely we talk a lot with Lido. I mean we write a Software stack called vouch if any of you are familiar with but vouch 22% of the Lido operators use vouch So that we there is constant communication and with these guys Whether they will get involved in certain things, but certainly Lido don't want to be 40% of the network I can tell you that so it's in their interest to have You know options that work to to spread the load So, you know, we talked to them about various different things So they will certainly be in the conversation Could do again, I think let the market decide all right because you know You could would it make sense to do many things with this stuff Well, I think I think being able to transfer ownership is the big use case For my thinking but you know there I can imagine there'd be lots of funky project product built off the back of it So, you know, I was somebody involved Thank you