Hey, good morning. Welcome to Morning Prayer, 8 a.m. We are downtown Kalamazoo at the Radiant City Center, and this is part of our rhythm, our routine as a body of Christ, as we consecrate three times a day. Morning, noon, and night, where we lift up our intercession, our praise, and we pray. We're so glad that you're joining us online, and with some of the room. And this is a privilege we have as believers, as children, really, of God, to come into His presence, to know that He hears this. First John says that God not only hears this, but we know that if He hears this, we have the things that we're praying for. Like, God moves when we pray. Circumstances change when we pray. Our ability to know and love and comprehend the goodness of God increases and changes when we pray. So I just want to encourage you. We're going to spend some time in the presence of God worshiping, singing. Whether you're in the room or at home, your voice, it matters. Like, when you sing, it moves the heart of God. And you don't have to be a great singer, a good singer. Your praise, your lips, it's something that the church, believers have been doing for thousands of years, is just singing to the Lord. So I want to encourage you with that. And as we're praying and as we're interceding, just repeat a phrase back. Say something out loud, even if it's just amen or yes, Lord, but confirm that in your own heart and with your own voice. And you'll find that the engagement piece and how we come together in unity is so much more powerful. So we're actually going to pray out of Psalm 145. And we're going to pray for the next generation. We just had baby dedications this past weekend at both of our locations where we took young children and with parents as part of our family-oriented value. We gave them and their lives and their futures to the Lord. And we ask God to just lead them and guide them and bless them. And it's such an important part of who we are. And now, currently, right this moment, we have over 100 student and leaders from Radiant Church, high school children at the Bold Conference in Kansas City with David Perkins of Radiant Church. And they are just having an amazing time, but they're, again, encountering the love and the presence of God. And so I want to make sure we lift them up as well because God is doing something powerful. In this generation, in Gen Z and in young people, and we want to be a part of that as He does it. So I'm going to read through Psalm 145 and then we'll pray. And I just want these words. I love it. It says, a praise of David, a song of God's majesty and His love. And this is one of my favorite songs. I just want the words to... I want the heart that David had for who God was to him to become a reality for us.  And I will bless your name forever and ever. Every day I will bless you. And I will praise your name forever and ever. For great is the Lord and greatly to be praised. His greatness is unsearchable. One generation shall praise your works to another and shall declare your mighty acts. I will meditate on the glorious splendor of your majesty and your wondrous works. Men shall speak of the might of your awesome acts and declare your greatness. They shall utter the memory of your great goodness and sing of your righteousness. And this is the heart of God towards us this morning. The Lord is gracious, full of compassion, slow to anger, great in mercy. The Lord is good to all. And His tender mercies are over all of His works.   Your word says that your mercies are new every morning. That we recall that to mind and it gives us hope. God, that you're not pointing the finger at us. You don't keep track of our sins. David said, if you, O Lord, should mark our iniquities, who could stand? But there is forgiveness in you. There is new mercies in you. There is strength according to your Holy Spirit. So we walk in that this morning. And just like David, we say we will extol you. O God, our King, and we will bless your name forever and ever. For great is our God, greatly to be praised. Among the gods, there is none that are like you, O God, nor are there any works that are like your works. All nations whom you have made shall come before you. Worship you for you alone, our God. Father, receive our praise, receive our worship. God, we stir it up in our hearts. Even now, just begin to say, God, you're good. And your mercy endures forever. Just tell the Lord a simple prayer. Begin to stir faith. Begin to stir an expectation for the love of God to encounter you. We say you are good, God. Your mercy endures.  You're abounding instead, fast love, God. You're so faithful. Even when we're faithless, you remain faithful, God.  Your love never fails. It always endures. And God, we stand in that reality this morning. We stand in the truth of who we are. And we minister to you through the Holy Spirit in Jesus' name. Who is He that brings me? Turns the better. Who is He that makes me happy? Who is He that gives me peace? Who is He that brings me calm? He is Yahweh, the great I am. He is Yahweh, the Lord of all. He is Yahweh, righteous Son. He is Yahweh, three in one. He is Yahweh. Something so powerful in that statement, in that word when we sing of God's goodness. You know, and our vernacular good is not great, not the best, but in Scripture, goodness is seen differently. Bibles is taste and seed that the Lord is good. Moses asked God to show him His glory after He had talked about His presence. And God said, I'll make all my goodness pass before you. People of Israel, they would sing a simple song. The Lord is good and His mercy endures forever. And the enemy would turn on itself and God would miraculously move on their behalf. The goodness of God is the foundation, the love of God. And I just love how when we sing those words, like it's coming after me. Like God's love is not passive. It's not apathetic. His goodness is not there. And if you try hard enough and if you exert enough effort, you can somehow experience the goodness of God. No, it's literally running after you. Desire is to overtake you. It reminds me of Luke 15 with the prodigal son and the father who waited day after day and looked across the fields day after day to see as my son returning, as my son there.  And the Bible says that from a distance the father sees him and just begins to run.  The father hugs him and braces him, kisses his neck but to ring on his finger in a robe on his shoulders declares that my son who was lost is now found. And I just, I know that not everything that happens in our lives is good. And that's not what the Bible says. The Bible says God has been able to make all things work together for good to those who love him and are called according to his purpose. When we say that phrase and when we sing and when we pray all my life you have been faithful. Like that is a true statement. That is who God is. He is always faithful. And St. Timothy says even when we're faithless he will not deny himself. He can't deny who he is. And so I want Natasha to even sing that again just that confession. Like all my life God, you've been faithful. I haven't always seen, I haven't always understood. It's not always how I would have blueprinted or planned my life but I declare this truth over myself, over my family, that you are good and that you are faithful and that your goodness is not a passive afterthought. It's chasing, it's running, it's coming after my life and I am a recipient of the goodness of God. And I taste and see that my God is good and that all of my life, God, you have been a faithful God. You have been good. You have been steadfast and immovable and we declare that. And so I want us to just sing that again but I want you to declare it even. It's just not words but like this is a life statement. Like God, I haven't always known or seen or understood but I will not be moved off the truth that you are good and your mercies endure forever. The Bible talks about meditating on God's word and God's truth that isn't like an eastern mystic thing in scripture.  And I feel like the Lord's doing that even now concerning his goodness. There's so much in our world and our culture probably in our lives that we say this isn't good and this isn't easy and this isn't how I would have planned. I just feel like again even with Moses as he's asking God, hey show me your glory. I can't help but think Moses probably thought it'd be a different response. Like there'd be something other than God saying I'll make all my goodness pass before you but that is the glory of God is that he's always good. He's always faithful and then when we draw near to him he draws near to us. There's no distance, there's no separation. I feel like the Lord just wants to download his goodness. Into our lives, into our hearts, into our spirits. A reminder that we don't have to give thanks for everything but we can give thanks in everything because the promise is that I will never leave you. I will never forsake you. My goodness is not contingent on your goodness and my grace isn't sufficient for some things. No, it's sufficient for all of your needs, all of your weaknesses and so God we just confess that. We ask for a greater revelation of the goodness of God. It's such a simple phrase and God we don't want to minimize it or downplay it. God we're asking like Moses did. Let your goodness pass before us. Isaiah 55, God 10 says that my ways you said are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts. It just says the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. So God forgive us for when we thought that our ways should be acknowledged and our ways should be how things are happening. God we say well you are God and we're not. Your ways are higher but your ways are good. Every good and perfect gift comes from above from the Father of lights in whom there is no variation, no shadow of turning God. There is no nothing apart from your goodness ever comes out from you God ever. And so we meditate on that. We receive that and we ask for revelation of the goodness of God. We ask for the ability, the grace to see our circumstances through the lens of the goodness of God. Not see your goodness through the lens of what we're experiencing or what we're going through God. We declare you are good. Your mercy endures forever. You are faithful and true and you are worthy of our praise in every season of our lives and you are the giver of every good gift God. And so we ask you Father let your goodness fill our hearts. Let your goodness fill our minds.  Let it be a declaration of who you are and what you've done God. You are good. You are good. We taste right now God. We taste and we see that the Lord is good that the steadfast mercy of the Lord is unfailing. It's never ending. It's always who you are God. Goodness exudes from your presence in every season in every situation and we ask God for greater revelation greater spiritual revelation spiritual knowledge of your goodness not a definition not cerebral not what we think goodness is but God let your goodness the true goodness of God be revealed to us this morning. Because my praying team because my praise is not dependent upon any team because my praise obsesses not just our praise is not dependent singing we ask you for new perspective new eyes we want to see God as you see we want to see our circumstances the way you see them we want to see the world around us as you see the world God we want to see the broken and hurt lost the prodigals as you see them God moved with compassion God like their sheep without a shepherd God we want to we want to pray into the harvest want to pray into the need for laborers as you did God we don't want to be moved off of your goodness by our circumstances we ask for new perspective new eyes to see new clarity God a greater dimension of the reality of your goodness versus our circumstances God we pray like Paul who said I may be hard pressed on every side but I'm not crushed and I may be perplexed about some things but I'm not in despair and I may be persecuted but I know I've not been forsaken and I may be struck down but I will not be destroyed for greater is he who is in us than he who is in the world God we are overcomers by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony God and so we stand steadfast and immovable and what you've done the finished work of the cross the truth of your goodness the truth of your character God and we ask you to help us see that better help us see that better break our heart for what breaks yours God draw us closer to you God give us as proximity to you God grows as we get closer to you God we see like you see we feel what you feel we're moved by what moves you God we do not want to be at a distance we do not want to process things through our natural minds or through our flesh we want to be one with the spirit and God we pray as Jesus did make us one God unite our hearts unite our hearts to fear your name give us to God as we pray God is in the world forsaken I am pressed for not faith God not by what we see by what we know is true through your word through your promises God even now as we song of your goodness we ask God that you would feel that God to the students who are on the bold conference God not just even our church thousands of students gathering that they would encounter your love encounter your goodness God push past religion push past fear push past the the doubts that they may have the the things in culture that are vying for their attention and God let the gaze of their hearts be on King Jesus God move in that conference move in their lives God we pray for this generation we pray for those students God we know that when they encounter the love of God they'll never be the same and so we pray meet them there reveal your goodness your heart and your love for them God thank you for this hour thank you for this time to consecrate ourselves and set aside to pray and to seek your heart Jesus name amen amen thank you for joining us if you're online thank you for joining us as always we're here at noon and 6 30 Monday through Friday we hope to see you in person downtown Kalamazoo God bless have a great day


In Cambridges, usually noisy central square have your moment of zen. This is Awakening for Earth, a meditation group that quietly aims to bring attention to the climate crisis. Meet David Duraco, a newcomer to the group. He's been a part of it for a little over three months. I was excited to find Awakening for Earth because they're a group of people who publicly demonstrate their concern for the climate crisis in a calm, peaceful manner. No one likes getting out of that. So walking by, I think people appreciate the stillness and the space that they hold. Some people ignore, some stare, some come up to talk. This time two passersby join in on the sitting. As someone of the younger side of the generations, our future is pretty dependent on the state of the planet. And honestly, all of humanity is dependent and part of the Earth, so its health is our health. The Awakening for Earth group meets here in Cambridge every other Sunday. For BUTV10, I'm Shannon Damiano.


Yn y cyd-diw, mae'n gwneud i'w prifysgol yn fwyaf i Ff�r 1, 2, 3, 8, 6, yn y ffellyd Irobuson yw'r gwaith gyda'n i gynnwys Cymru yma, newid i'r Cymru. Felly, mae'n gwneud i gyd, i'n gwneud i'w prifysgol. Mae'n gwneud i'w prifysgol yn ffellyd i'w prifysgol. The next item of business is the debate on motion 12551 in the name of Tom Arthur on economic activity of public bodies overseas matters bill UK legislation. I invite members wishing to participate in the debate and to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion. Minister, around eight minutes please. Presiding Officer, the UK Government's economic activity of public body overseas matters engages the legislative consent process because it would limit the executive competence of the Scottish ministers in relation to devolved matters. We must of course be mindful of the context in which this bill is being brought forward. The Parliament has made its views clear on the terrible on-going situation in Israel and Gaza. Although that might sharpen the mind in relation to the implications of the bill, it is important that we realise that this bill and its impact on the Scottish ministers is a broader application than just in relation to current events. I will therefore keep a focus in my remarks on the implications of the bill for devolution and why the Scottish Government does not recommend that the Scottish Parliament agrees to give its consent to it. The bill would apply to all public bodies in Scotland and across the UK, but our consideration today is particularly in respect of its impact on the Scottish ministers, which triggers the need for legislative consent. The bill would limit the executive competence of Scottish ministers by preventing them from taking a moral or political disapproval of any foreign state conduct into account in devolved procurement and investment decisions. Not only that, but it would also make it unlawful for the Scottish ministers to publish a statement saying that they intend to take such matters into consideration or even that they would intend to take such matters into consideration where it is not unlawful to do so. It places the policing and enforcement of that into the hands of UK ministers. The Secretary of State is given sweeping powers to compel the Scottish ministers and other public bodies to provide information. They are given powers to issue compliance notices, setting out the actions that the Scottish ministers should take or refrain from taking, and they are giving powers to fine the Scottish ministers. Subject to interest should he or she conclude that the terms of that compliance notice have been breached. All of that, remember, is in relation to decisions that the Scottish ministers may take about otherwise entirely devolved matters. That displays a complete disregard for devolution for this institution and, frankly, for democracy, limiting, as it does, the actions of Scotland's elected Government. The bill not only potentially prevents the Scottish ministers from taking a decision, now or at some point in the future, in relation to a devolved matter that they consider to be the right decision, but it also prevents the Scottish ministers from seeking to advance debate and discourse on the matter. Scottish ministers will not even be able to publish a statement to say that it is this bill that is stopping them from acting on devolved matters in the way they think is appropriate. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to include the Scottish ministers in the scope of the bill in order to mitigate against the threat of boycotts, which it says undermines UK foreign policy. However, what evidence do they have to support such claims? Public procurement is a devolved matter. Our devolved Scottish legislation makes explicitly clear that goods, services and bidders from a country with which a relevant trade agreement applies are entitled to be treated equally to domestic bidders. It makes explicitly clear that, if a public body in Scotland, including the Scottish ministers, discriminates against a bidder on this basis, that bidder is entitled to bring remedial action in the domestic courts. What all of this means is that it is already unlawful for the Scottish ministers or any public body in Scotland to operate a blanket boycott policy against such countries. The provisions of this bill are completely unnecessary. Procurement and investment decisions must always be taken in compliance with international obligations, but that does not mean that they should be taken in an ethical or moral vacuum. It is important that Scotland is able to take a values-based approach to international engagement. I set out in our international strategy and the vision for trade. It would be unacceptable if the bill were to prevent this Parliament, the Scottish Government and Scottish public bodies from doing what is morally right now and in the future. The bill significantly restricts the Scottish ministers' ability to take rounded, proportionate decisions about the stability of individual bidders for public contracts. Finally, aside from our concerns with the policy content of the bill, we also have concerns about the way in which it is drafted. Clause 14 sets out on the face of the bill the relationship between IT and the Procurement Act 2020-23. That act will largely only apply to UK, Welsh and Northern Irish bodies. Devolved Scottish bodies will continue to be subject to existing devolved Scottish procurement legislation. However, in relation to the procurement legislation in Scotland, Clause 14 takes a different approach. It confers an enduring delegated power on UK ministers to set out that relationship in secondary legislation. We see no justifiable reason for this difference in approach, and no reason why the impact on Scottish devolved legislation should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as the impact on UK legislation. I have asked UK ministers to consider amending the bill to address this point, but I understand that they have decided not to agree to that request. This bill, and in particular the inclusion of the Scottish ministers within its scope, is an unacceptable restriction of executive competence in relation to devolved matters. The threat of fines for the orwellian thought crime of daring to set the simple effect that the law has on Scottish ministers' decision making would set a dangerous precedent. It is all just so unnecessary given the protections that exist in relevant international and domestic law already. I move the motion, and I ask the Scottish Parliament to withhold its consent to this bill. As we have heard, the economic activity of public bodies overseas matters intends to prevent public bodies, including local councils, NHS boards and devolved administrations, making decisions about procurement and investment based on political considerations. The bill is currently in the House of Lords continuing with its parliamentary progress at Westminster. The fundamental point is that the matters of foreign policy and trade are reserved to Westminster. It is therefore not a matter for councils or public bodies to run an alternative foreign or trade policy. Indeed, there are many. Many local councils might not be well equipped to consider all the relevant factors in arriving at such decisions, where issues might well be complex or heavily disputed. Westminster and its committees, which have the responsibility for foreign and trade policy, are the correct avenue for those matters to be properly considered and debated. Foreign affairs are not under the remit of the Scottish Parliament, and I hope that the Labour Party will share our view on that particular matter. Daniel Johnson, I am afraid that I am going to disappoint Murdo Fraser. Ultimately, is it not the job of public bodies to use their judgment in accordance with their values, and if people do not think that that is appropriate, is the mechanism to deal with that, not the electorate at elections? Murdo Fraser. If people want to change the foreign or trade policy of the United Kingdom, they can do so in a general election. However, I do not think that they should be tearing up the devolution settlement and rewriting the UK constitution just because of Mr Johnson's concerns. I am not surprised that the SNP and Greens object to this, because they do not want the UK Government to have foreign or trade policy. I am a little bit surprised that the Labour Party seems to share that view. However, despite the minister dressing us up as a great matter of constitutional principle, there is another angle to that that should concern us. The member makes the point in his view that that relates to trade and foreign affairs. In that case, why do the explanatory notes to the bill published by the UK Government state that it triggers legislative consent requirements? Murdo Fraser. I am going to come on and explain why I have wider concerns about this piece of legislation than the minister should listen to this. There are many oppressive regimes and states in the world, many with appalling records of human rights towards their own citizens and their others. There are numerous examples that I could give to the chamber, space sponsorship of terrorism by Iran in the Middle East and elsewhere, Myanmar's treatment of the Rohingya population, China's treatment of the Uggers and its atrocities in Kashmir and Tibet and many more. I am not aware of any organised campaigns to boycott, divest or sanction any of those countries or any of those regimes. There is only one country that is subject to campaigns to boycott, divest and sanction, and that is Israel. Criticism of the current Israeli Government is perfectly legitimate, but Israel still has a track record of human rights far better than any of its neighbours. For minority religions, for women, for those of the LGBT community, it is streets ahead, centuries ahead of any other country in the Middle East, and Israel is the only fully functioning democracy in the region. Yet only Israel is singled out for boycott, divest and sanction campaigns. Why? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is directly linked to the ethnicity of the majority of the population of Israel, in other words, the Jewish people. This is the world's oldest hatred, reading its hideous head once again. There is no other reasonable explanation for Israel alone being signalled out compared to other countries. We might be the only party in this chamber prepared to point out the double standards of the boycott, divest and sanction movement, but we make no apology for doing that. If the UK legislation is blocking that, it should be supported and not opposed. That is not just our view. It is also the view of the Scottish—let me just make this point and I will give way. It is not just our view, it is also the view of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, who are extremely concerned at the stance taken by the Scottish Government on this issue, as the minister will know. To the member for giving way, Israel is already part of the relevant agreements that give bidders from Israel relevant protections and domestic procurement law in Scotland, and Mr Fraser always had a long-standing concern with legislation being required and necessary. Why, in that case, does he think that this bill is necessary? Lord Fraser, I will give you the time back for the interventions. I understand why the minister does not recognise the concerns that there are in the Jewish community in Scotland that I have just referred to about the approach that has been taken by the Scottish Government on this particular issue. We have seen since the 7th of October a significant and well-reported rise in anti-Semitic incidents in Scotland. We have reports of Jewish people in Scotland feeling unsafe in their own country. We should do nothing here that increases those fears. In the words of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, it is a cause of concern to the Jewish community that the decision to issue special procurement advice about Israel alone may inadvertently encourage anti-Semitism from those who conflate the local Jewish community with the state of Israel. I will quote directly the conclusion that we have from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, because it is important. While I am undoubtedly welcome, ministerial comments that Jewish people in Scotland should not be a proxy target for those who dislike Israel or Israeli Government policy, or that dislike of Israel should not be an acceptable excuse for anti-Semitism. Pious sentiments do not change behaviours. Legislation does. We therefore urge the Scottish Parliament to take note of the vulnerability and anxiety of many Jewish people in Scotland, as demonstrated by the large majority view among the Scottish Jewish community in support of the Westminster Bill and so reject the Scottish Government legislative consent memorandum to the economic activity of public bodies overseas matters bill, so as to permit the UK Parliament to legislate for Scotland on this occasion. We would do well to listen to that plea. Avoid giving sucker however unintended to those in Scotland who would attack the Jewish community and reject this motion before us. Thank you, Mr Fraser. I now call Daniel Johnson in around five minutes, Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by agreeing with the minister? He says very clearly that the context that this legislation is taking place. We are right to acknowledge and repeat that what happened on October 7 was an act of terrorism. It was barbaric and it was horrific. Similarly, what has happened subsequently in Gaza is nothing short of a humanitarian disaster. We must make every effort to stop the killing and get the support that is required in place, and we must take every effort to ensure that there are no further acts of terrorism. That may be very clear with Mr Fraser. My views on those issues are a matter of record in this place. We must have no complacency about antisemitism and that may be very clear. Any procurement policy that singled Israel out specifically would be an act of antisemitism under the IRA guidelines. Let me say that unequivocally, but it is unfortunate that he approached this debate singling at that particular issue, because this is legislation that will go far beyond the Israel-Palestine issue, as difficult as that might be. I am very happy to give it a word. I am grateful to Mr Johnson for giving way. Can you name me any other countries where there have been campaigns to sanction? Any other countries with human rights records far worse than Israel have been campaigns to sanction, because this debate is only about Israel? They may well not receive the prominence, but there are campaigns against procurement from Myanmar, China because of the Uyghur situation. The situation in Israel-Palestine receives a lot more attention, but it is incorrect to say that it is the only situation that receives that attention. More importantly, although I agree with the Government motion, the issue goes much further, because it is about stifling local government. Critically, we need to remind ourselves that local government has a long-standing, historic role—dare I say—constitutional role, given that that has been mentioned by Mr Fraser in this country. It is because of local government that we have seen much of the social progress through municipal socialism, just in a moment, developing healthcare welfare systems that we would not have if it was not for local government. Likewise, the position that it has taken over key global issues has been important. In 1981, Glasgow district council permitted the freedom of the city to Nelson Mandela. Subsequent that the campaigns undertaken by local government were instrumental at a time when national government did not want to concede the issues regarding South Africa. Thank you, Mr Johnson, for giving way. The point that Mr Johnson has made about South Africa and the campaign against anti-apartheid South Africa was largely led by local authorities here in Scotland and throughout the rest of the UK. Thank goodness that they played a part. The other aspect of that is that many of our local authorities have twin cities, and sometimes hardship has gone through with some of those twin cities. I have seen in Aberdeen two twin cities—Boolywale, Zimbabwe and Gomel and Belarus—where the local authorities have chosen to break links for certain points because of political situations in those countries. Is Mr Fraser and others really saying that local authorities should be unable to do that? I think that Mr Fraser and others would need to answer for themselves, but in my view it is important that democratic bodies such as local government reflect the values of the people that elect them. I think that it is important that they are able to use their economic judgment, and it is not just matters of global import, but other issues such as fair work, fair trade, the environment. It is only right that local government is able to exercise its economic judgment using its procurement powers to ensure that its procurement is following in line with its value judgment. If that is deemed to be unacceptable, exceeding their parameters, there is a mechanism for that. It is called an election, and local people can judge for themselves about who they return to local government in order to do that. What does it say about the state of this Government's foreign policy that it is so weak that it is undermined by the procurement positions of local government? That is a nonsense, but what is worse is that it goes further because it is not just local council that supplies to bodies such as universities. Universities that are supposed to be independent, and I worry about what that does in terms of their independence and what further ramifications it may have. Universities guard their independence with great pride but are also very cautious about anything that would undermine it. It is useful and important to note that the University of Scotland has said unequivocally that they would want universities removed from the provisions of that. Ultimately, I think that that is the sign of a weak Government, a Government that would rather stoke culture wars because it struggles to deal with the consequences of the ruin economic decisions. A weak Government that would rather seek division because it struggles to be relevant of the day-to-day issues faced by people. Ultimately, it is not no wonder that this is a Government that is seeking to avoid an election itself because it fears the consequences and what the people's judgment will be when the general election comes along. Mr Johnson and I call on Tom Martha to wind up the debate minister around about five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and to members for their contribution. The strength of feeling in relation to this bill is obvious for anyone who is watching this debate. It is clear that, whilst the effects of the bill are felt in relation to decisions that may be taking about relatively technical public procurement and investment matters, it provokes a range of views about issues that are the utmost important, including the current situation in the Middle East. As I hope my opening remarks made clear, I do not think that a half-hour debate on legislative consent is the place to do justice to those issues. The Government's view on those issues is well known and I do not propose to go into detail on it again here. Indeed, the current constitutional settlement means the consent of the Scottish Parliament is only needed in relation to the inclusion of the Scottish ministers within the scope of the bill and the limitation of executive competence as a result. However, whilst we may recognise that there are a range of views in those matters, a recognition that there may be a range of views is precisely what this bill fails to achieve. It would, by force of law, prevent Scottish ministers from even publishing a statement saying that they would do things differently with it not for this UK Government bill. I will state that again, Presiding Officer. It would, by force of law, prevent the Scottish ministers from even publishing a statement saying that they would do things differently with it not for this UK Government bill. It would allow the Secretary of State to investigate issue compliance notices and even levy fines on the Scottish ministers if they do not comply. That cannot be acceptable. The nature of parliamentary democracy means that there will inevitably be some members who think that the Government should be doing more in relation to a given issue in its procurement and investment decisions and, inevitably, there will be some members who think that the Government should be doing something differently or not at all. The effect of this bill is to remove the ability of the Scottish ministers to take those views into account and to make decisions on them in relation to what are devolved matters. It will also remove the ability of this Parliament to hold Scottish ministers to account for those decisions because Scottish ministers will be unable to act or, potentially, even explain why they have not acted. The Scottish ministers would only be allowed to take a disapproval of foreign state conduct into account in procurement and investment decisions such as we have done in relation to Russia if the UK Government had first permitted this by way of regulations. If members will forgive the understatement, I am not sure that it is optimal to always have to rely on sound judgment from the UK Government on such matters. However, that is not the point. The point is that on devolved matters such as in relation to public procurement, devolved ministers must be able to make the decisions that they see fit, albeit always in compliance with international obligations and international law. The bill is to roll a rolling back of devolution and we must stand firm against that. Let us not forget those international obligations. They already prevent boycotts, they already give bidders from Israel and elsewhere the right to bring legal action against discrimination and they were put into domestic law by the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. The limitation of executive competence imposed by the bill on the Scottish ministers is unacceptable. It is disproportionate and unnecessary and it runs contrary to the basic principles of democracy and devolution. I therefore ask members to agree the motion and to send a message to the UK Government that its proposal is deplorable. Thank you. That concludes the debate. Time to move on to the next item of business. And there will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business while we change front-bench.


This video is part of a series. Be sure to check out the description of this video for a link to the full playlist. And today we're building on, again, we've been working with functions in our shell. So let's go ahead and go to the function script that we've already created. And here we've passed some variables to it, but let's talk about global and local variables. If you've done anti-programming before and you've used functions, you are probably very familiar what global variables are and what local variables are. And if not, we're gonna go over it today in shell scripts. So basically a global variable is a variable that you set and anywhere in your program, you call that variable, it is going to use it unless that function has a local variable and a local variable is set to a certain function. It does not leave that function. So what we're gonna do here is we're gonna create a variable and we will call it x and we'll just say x equals 20, okay? So anywhere we use dollar sign 20, or sorry, dollar sign x, we should get the number of 20. So let's go ahead. I'm gonna delete this line, this line, and I'm gonna change this line to be an echo command. So we're not calling our function at all at this point, but I'm gonna say global x is dollar sign x. So when we run this, which is script is or even aid executable using change mob, we did that in a previous video, forward slash meaning current folder, run this script, you can see x is 20. Now, let's go ahead and go into our function here. And here I'm going to say global x is still dollar sign x. And here I'm going to call my function. So what's happening here is we're saying, okay, x equals 20, echo this line out with the value of x, then call this function, which is going to display this. So let's go ahead, save that and run it and it works just as we would think. So even inside our function currently x equals 20 and I can change that, I can come up here and change it to 10, run the script, you can see now both say 10. Now, let's say we want to have x inside our function that is a different x than the global x. Well, we can do that by saying x equals 20 at this point, let's say, but we're gonna say before that local, meaning now we are changing x or saying the value of x, but only inside this function. So now I can say echo local x is dollar sign x. So if I run this, now we get our global x is 10, global x is still 10, but local x, so anywhere in this function from this point on, x is now 20, but that doesn't change our global variable. So if we go back into our script here, I can now say echo global x is still dollar sign x. I run this now and we can see global x is 20, global x inside our function is still 20, then we changed x inside our function to be, I'm sorry, I said 10, I said 20, it's 10, local x. So anywhere inside that function from that point on x equals 20, but then we move outside that function back out into our main portion of our script and x is still 10 outside of that function. So that is global and local variables in bash in your Linux shell. I hope you enjoyed this video, I hope you found it useful. If you did find it useful, think about becoming a supporter over at Patreon.com, forward slash metal x 1000, even a dollar a month is very useful, a very appreciated, if you can't support financially, think about becoming a supporter by commenting below, liking and sharing this video and also subscribing to my channel. I thank you for watching and I hope that you have a great day.


Hello everybody, welcome to the Latin America Women are on Physics. I'm Camilo Garcia-Selli from Desig in Hamburg and I'll be your host today. This time we have a very interesting talk by Laura Lupe Sonoris who will tell us about Higgs-Copol Minimal Dark Matter. Laura is a permanent staff researcher at the University of Liberia de Bruzelles in Belgium. Laura did her PhD in the same institution, but before obtaining her permanent position she held postdoctoral positions in Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg in Germany, and at the Frey University of Brussels. And okay before we start the talk I would like to encourage you to ask questions. You can do that by typing them in the designated box in YouTube which you can find on the right hand side of your screen. At the end of Laura's talk I will read the questions loud. Thanks Laura for accepting the invitation to present your work and please go ahead. And now you have to share your screen with us. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what is happening. So the screen is mine now? Yeah, you have to click on the left corner. So anyway, thank you. So as you can see, now everybody is supposed to see me, so I'm going to share my screen. So I think he won't see me after that. I hope everything is going to go well. Yes, I think everything is going well so far. Okay, I completely forgot to open in advance the thing, so let's go. Okay. Oh, thank you very much for being all there. Sorry for this beginning a bit chaotic. So I'm going to talk about, sorry, okay. So I'm going to talk about six couple of minimal dark matter scenarios and this is a work I've been doing in collaboration with Michel Tiguet, Brian Saldívar and Patelis Sivello-Glu. So let's first begin by describing what I mean by fermionic, I mean, to a minimal hex dark matter models. So I mean, first there is minimal dark matter. So in the minimal dark matter scenario, you have, I mean, you need at least one component in the dark sector, which would be your dark matter that talks to the standard model through a certain portal. And let's say that in minimal scenarios, you can have actually your dark matter that is made of, I mean, one single add to the standard model that could be a Majorana fermion that talks to the standard model through the standard model gauge portal. So this is the idea of the so-called minimal dark matter scenarios in which case you have fermionic dark matter. And in particular, it has been already, it's already well known in the literature that for fermionic dark matter scenarios, you typically end up with a possible triplet or a triplet kin triplet as a good candidate for dark matter. If you just take the standard model plus this single Majorana multiplet, I mean, let's say the kin triplet, let me remind you that, so I assume that this beast has a Majorana mass up there in my screen. And that the Majorana component includes, I mean, this fermionic kin triplet is composed of a neutral component that is going to be the potential dark matter candidate and some charge component that actually are going to get a mass, the smallest mass splitting with the neutral component thanks to a gauge loop contributions. So at the end of the day, you end up with the neutral state that is going to be potentially the right dark matter candidate. And if you just go through your combination of the Relic Abundance at this level, you end up with a potential triplet with a mass of 2.4 TV as a good candidate and a quintuplet with a mass of 4.4 TV. Now things are not so simple, in particular, when you are considering particles with such a large mass compared to the mass of the mediator, in this case the gauge bosons, actually the gauge bosons act as a very light mediator. And in this case, you can have actually non-perturbative effect that enters into the game, none under the name of Sommerfeld effect. And also you can have, so I mean, this is what is represented here, you have multiple kind of exchanges of light mediator that are going to affect the computation of the annihilation cross-section of your dark matter candidate into a standard model finite state. And you can also have actually bound state formation with the emission of a vector boson in particular photon and some bound state that is also, I mean, that potentially can also affect your dark matter relic abundance computation. In the case of the triplet, it's mainly Sommerfeld effect that plays a role. You go from a mass of 2.4 TV to 3 TV when you take into account all these effects. For quintuplet, there is a recent paper of a metadata and collaborator which have been computing the effects from this 4 TV approximately to the Sommerfeld enhanced case, which goes up to about a 9.5 TV. And then on the top of this, you have bound state formation that can bring your dark matter quintuplet with a relic abundance, which accounts for all the dark matter in the universe, which are mass of 11.5 TV. The question now is this minimal dark matter scenario constraint. It is constrained and actually constraints can be very strong, especially when you look at indirect detection searches for dark matter. So here in this plot, the annihilation cross section is shown for a quintuplet scenario obtained in this paper as a function of the mass of the quintuplet. So as I just said, you expect taking into account bound state formation your quintuplets that give rise to all the dark matter to be in this window, in this green window. Shown in this plot, you have also the typical annihilation cross section for annihilation to W, W, and photon into photons. Actually, here it seems that the constraints are a bit far away from the cross section itself, but if you look at the latest constraints from the HES collaboration, a paper of Rin Chiusu, sorry for my not good pronunciation from ICSE 2017, they actually get to to constrain the annihilation cross section into gamma gamma up to cross section of 10 to the minus 26 centimeter cube per second with gamma ray constraints from the galactic center. So this is with a CASP profile with more, I mean, more core profile. You can potentially evade these constraints. You have also a recent paper of Cuoco and collaborators for November 2017 where they look at cosmic ray constraints. And in this case, it seems even more difficult to evade, actually. Yeah, cosmic ray constraints in the case of quintuplets and triplets, dark matter. At the level of direct detection, things are pretty much different, actually. You have in this other plot of Fizeno and collaborators from 2015, the scattering cross section on nucleon as a function of dark matter mass and this blue dots dashed line correspond actually to a quintuplet dark matter, which do not depends much on the mass.  So this is not a cross section that is going to be tested soon. So I mean, at the end of the day, you have to keep in mind that family dark matter, minimal dark matter scenarios is a possibility, but it might be excluded due to indirect detection searches. So the point here is actually to look a bit of what can we expect if we extend a bit this portal to the standard model, including X, so the standard on the scalar. If you want to play with, I mean, if we scale out dark matter, it's very easy to take this into account for family dark matter. You cannot just play with a single Majorana candidate. You have to add two wild fermions into the game. So I will go back to this.  So I mean, the idea indeed is to include the Hicks into the game, into the portal. What I mean, what we got as the main feature of this model is that at the end of the day, in these Hicks-coupled fermionic-medimal dark matter scenarios, you always end up with a typically very compressed spectra between the neutral candidate that is going to play the role of the dark matter and the charged candidate, with typical, I mean, mass differences for couplings of the order of one that are the order of the GV compared to the masses of the dark matter that are multi-TV. An important point is, as I said in the previous case, I mean, you have to be very careful because not perturbative effect play, I mean, change much the parameter space where you expect to have the right dark matter abundance. So this is something you definitely have to take into account, playing with these kind of models.  So, okay, let me go step by step now and begin by the treatment of these Hicks-coupled minimal dark matter scenario at the intermediate level first. So this is the picture I had before. As I just said, I want to include the H particle into the portal and we firmly dark matter, it means that I'm going to have to have not only a Majorana fermion, but two white fermions into the to play this game. I'm going to have to introduce a two symmetry for dark matter stability. So in the case of just minimal dark matter scenarios, the quintuplet is actually stable. But here I'm obliged to introduce that to symmetry. For this, this combination, one Majorana plus two white fermions, I mean, this is something you have this is a setup that you have already seen somewhere before. It's, for example, in super symmetry. You have the singlet doublet, which is a bino-exeno system, the triplet doublet. This is a Wino-exeno system. Actually, you can go to higher representation. So here are the possibilities. Singlet doublet, triplet doublet, those I just said. You can also consider the triplet quadruplet case combination, which has already been considered in the literature before, but not taken into account non-perturbative effects. And the quintuplet four-plet is another possibility that was not considered before. You can even go to higher representation, but I mean, this many as it has been typically done in these minimal scenarios. If you want to keep a little bit of activity until M-plan, at least at least high energies, I mean, you don't go to a larger representation than the five-plet four-plet. So here, somehow I'm going to try to give a general view of these x-couple minimal dark model scenarios, considering four models. Singlet doublet, triplet doublet, triplet four-plet, and quintuplet four-plet. Good. So what does my Lagrangian look like in this scenario? So it's in this Lagrangian you see here, I have the kinetic term, so which involve all the gate interactions, Dirac term, these two, vile fermions, psi and psi tilde, Majorana fermion, Majorana mass, and two Yukawa couplings for the coupling of the two vile fermions of opposite hypercharges. Good. So from this Lagrangian, you can actually extract the very generic mass pattern, which, I mean, in the generic in the sense that you always get the same result, whatever the model you are going to consider. And the main point, as I said before, is that at least when you, I mean, you just go to the custodial symmetry limit, where you take Yukawa one equal Yukawa two, you can directly see that you always, except in the Singlet doublet case, have a neutral, I mean, the lightest neutral component, so you get a neutral component from one vile fermion, a neutral component from another vile fermion, and a neutral component from the Majorana, they mix together, so you have to, I mean, you have to recognize the mass matrix, but at the end of the day, the lightest neutral component of the game is always going to be degenerate with at least the single Singlet charge fermion, and maybe the doublet charge fermion in the higher representation. But this is in the exact custodial symmetry limit. So this, for example, if I look at the quintuplet fourplet model, I show the masses of the different components of this game as a function of the Yukawa. This is Yukawa two, okay, I have a variant Yukawa two, and this is Yukawa one, which is equal to one. So the custodial symmetry limit is here, for example, okay. I see that Yukawa two equal Yukawa one equal one, okay. I have actually the neutral Singlet charge and doublet charge particles that are completely degenerating masses. At Yukawa two equal minus Yukawa one, so this point, I see the continuous green line that is degenerate with the dashed black line, which means that actually the neutral component is completely degenerate with the Singlet charge component. So okay, this is at the custodial point, right? Now if I go, I mean, if I go further from these points, you, I mean, by, just by eye here, you see that you always have very degenerate spectra. Actually, the mass difference between the lightest neutral component and the Singlet charge component is always going to go as the Yukawa coupling entering into the game, to the square, to the fourth. The VEV of the standard model kicks divided by the mass of the heavy component in the story, the Majorana or the direct. At the end of the day, this corresponds for Yukawa for the one to mass differences of the order of the GEV for, I mean, this kind of scenario. So the message here is that the neutral component is always, I mean, at three level, at least the lightest and get a rather compressed spectra. So small mass differences with at least one charge component. This is another way of, I mean, showing, of giving you the results for all cases. So all models, Singlet doublet, triplet doublet, triplet quadruplet, quintuplet quadruplet. What we want to say here is that at the end of the day, this combination always appear to split into Singlet triplet and quintuplet combinations. And that the neutral component is always going to be either in a singlet, a triplet or quintuplets at these custodial points. So this is shown for the quintuplet quadruplet, but you find this generic situation in all the models that we consider. Okay. Now, let me go to the case, I mean, to what is, what do we expect as the parameter space for in this scenario for the lightest component to be the dark matter where what is the typical mass we expect for this, for this dark matter candidate. When I have a single dark matter, I mean, the minimal dark matter model, okay, let's say just the quintuplet or just the triplet or whatever, my annihilation cross-section always goes as alpha 2 to the square, okay, electric coupling to the square divided by the mass of the dark matter, square, okay, just in the, let's say, SU2 symmetric limit, I forget about the gaugeables and masses. You have some pre-factor here that depends on the representation of the, of the, of the multiplets and n square for the dimension of the, of the multiple that comes into the, but okay. So these are somehow the, the limiting cases I have here in my Higgs coupled minimal dark matter scenarios in the sense that when the yukawa are very small and let's say the mass of the Dirac component here is very high, I expect to recover the minimal dark matter scenario with just the, the, the Majorana dark matter candidate. In the case of, for example, the five-platform combination, if I consider very high Dirac masses, I should recover the pure five-platform case, remember at the perturbative level, I has, I had 4.4 TV. In the same way, if I consider very high Majorana masses, okay, small yukawa couplings, I expect to recover something, I mean the Majorana completely decoupled, I expect to recover something that looks like a pure four-platform and the pure four-platform actually has a mass around 2.3 TV to give the, all the relic abundance where, where you forget about the fact that this could give a too strong Dirac detection signal. Okay, so now what happened when I mix these two guys, I mean, when I'm in this region, what happened there? How can I extract the limits of the, the viable parameter space for dark matter? Actually, it appears that, I mean, considering very small yukawa, I mean, yukawa small enough, so that the Majorana candidate and the Dirac candidates are talking to each other, but where still the, the, the annihilation effect, the inco-annuation effect are completely driven by gauge interaction. So by this type of, this type of annihilation cross-section, I end up with an effective annihilation cross-section that takes this form. I mean, this is just the, the, the, the sum of annihilation cross-section where I take into account all the degrees of freedom and the relative mass difference between them. This is just the recent cycle, a typical computation of co-annulating dark matter cases. If I take this formula into account, I just get as boundaries, I mean, where I expect to have the right relic abundance in this situation is the red line here. Okay. I expect that when I take into account the possibility to have a non-negligible yukawa, I'm going to add up interaction. I end up in this, I would, should I end up in this ballpark for the 5M4D model? And actually this, this is what we expect, the red contour. And this is what we get in putting the 5M4D Majorana 5-flat with two four-flat vile fermions. If I put this into this public code, micro-Megas, and I try to do a scan in order to get the typical scenario that are going to give me the right relic abundance, I end up with this, this exact form I obtained before. The red line, the red dashed line, this is, that is on the border there is the same red line I had here before. Oh, sorry. Okay, very slow. I go back. Okay. So in this region here, you see that I have, I go from blue to green to yellow colors that corresponds to larger values of the yukawa. The boundaries correspond indeed to the lowest values of the yukawa, smaller than 0.5. So and, okay, so I just confirm the, the guess we could obtain just using a recent circle like formula taking into account, gauge on the interactions. This is how the picture can be enlarged to other x-minimal couples that are not a scenario. So the four-flat five-flat is here. Three-flat four-flat in green is here. You see it's with, yes, here. The dot-flat three-flat is in the region here. So all the blue region that is allowed and the singlet dot-flat is actually in the gray region that goes in that direction. So this is the region that are going to give rise to the right-relief abundance, making use of this, I mean, from simple, very simple formula taking into account mainly gauge interaction and assuming that this particle stalls to each other to the presence of non-negligible yukawa. Just to go back to the, to the five-flat four-flat model. So this I already said before, yukama swanodorm one, I'm in the envelope, yukawa a bit larger, I can begin to populate the interior. I want to go from this picture, I mean to this, this gradient of color corresponding to the, to the yukawa to a gradient of color that correspond actually to the scattering cross-section on nucleon. So the scattering cross-section on nucleon at three levels is completely going to be driven when yukawa is non-negligible by x exchange here. Okay. What you see is that you typically get yellow colors corresponding to the highest value of the scattering cross-section on the diagonal here. It's actually very easy to check that this is exactly the region where you expect to have the highest scattering cross-section for the mass, the Majorana mass equal to the direct mass when you work in the custodial symmetry limits. Also, I mean, you see that you have the lowest value of the scattering cross-section on nucleon where the yukawa's were the smallest. So this is nothing special. And you have also some blue points here, some low value of the scattering cross-section here. Actually, you can check that these blue points correspond to cases where actually yukawa one goes to minus yukawa two. And this is also something you can very easily work out that this is just due to the exact form of the coupling of the dark matter to the Higgs here. So, okay, but this is at three levels not taking into account the, the, the, the sum of the correction. So let me go to this, to this problematic now. So what we are going to, I mean, what we are going to use here is that given that we have seen that we anyway expect all that matter to be in the multi-TV range, we are going to work in the SU2 symmetric limits where actually, so the isospin is a good quantum number that is conserved in annihilation. In the latter case, actually, instead of having to, to, to, to, to compute a complicated set of, I mean, this is going to simplify largely your computation of the sum of the effect. So the only thing, I mean, the only thing we have to compute at the end of the day is the long range potential that are going to depend directly on the quadratic casimir of the, of the representation entering to the game. So here I have, for example, a quintuplet that is going to, I need to, we have the quintuplet. I see five times five and this corresponds to a sum of representation. Okay. I have the associated casimir, quadratic casimir that enter to the game and give me just the, the, the long range potential enter into the game. And this allows me to compute the sum of felt corrections that I didn't show exactly here in this, in this, in this slide. I'm sorry. So once I have obtained the potential, the long range potential, I can extract the, the sum of an enhancement that just depend actually on this overall factor here. And the annihilation cross-section for, I mean, whatever representation of issue two can be, I mean, very easily computed through this very simple formula where you have the isospin of the beast that enter into the game that comes into the game here. Annihilation cross-section at perturbative level. I'm sorry. This slide is completely unclear. So let me show let me just go to the, to the next slide because it's going to be much more, much more, much more simple. So, so, I mean, as I just said, we work in the multi T we, we, we have that matter in the multi TV regime and the, and we consider the free start to, to happen in the asymmetric limit. So we have considered the combination of a billion like some of felt correction and just in order to obtain it, we have just used, I mean, group theory, the composition which was what is substance enters into this formula. I'm really sorry for the, for, for being so confused in explaining this. At the end of the day, so for any representation of issue two, doublet, triplet, quadruplet and quintuplet, which are the representation I have been considered. So I consider just the pure case this year. And I just associated isospin representation of the pair of annulating particles that entered into the game. Okay, I can compute the relevant coupling that then just let me go back in the computation of this long range potential due to the exchange of issue two gauge bosons. From these, I can extract the soma felt factors. Okay, considering a billion like soma felt correction, where at the end of the day, the coupling that enters into the computation of your soma felt correction is alpha two to the square multiplied by these numbers. Okay. And these soma felt factor multiplies each time scattering cross section for a given pair of a given I just be so this is what's the entry here. Okay. And the total annihilation cross section for whatever representation can be seen as the sum over the isospin of the pair of annulating particles. I hope I have not lost everybody. So, okay, at perturbative level, we can compute the total annihilation cross section for doublet, triplet, quadruplet and a quintuplet. Remember for triplet, I say I was obtained 2.4 TV, a quintuplet 4.4, a quadruplet, for example, this has not been computed in literature as before, as far as I know, maybe as a perturbative level, yes, it's also 2.4 TV. Now if I take into account the soma felt factor and the formula I was trying to explain before, it gets to a dark matter that is going to give me the all the dark matter abundance for a triplet. For example, I go from 2.4 TV to 3 TV. For a quintuplet, I go from 4.4 TV to 9.3 TV. And remember, in the case of quintuplets, you have an extra enhancement of the annihilation cross section due to the presence of bonds, the formation that brings you to 11.5 TV. Okay. The quadruplet, you go from 2.4 to 3.9 TV. So this is the picture I had before. So the one I obtained considering that I have potentially a quadruplet that can coordinate it with the quintuplet, so the red region, thanks to the presence of eukahuas, and I populate this considering non-negligible value of the eukahuas. Okay. If I go to the picture when soma felt enhancement entered into the game, I'm going to move my limiting case of the quadruplet and quintuplet, for example, to the quadruplet here and the quintuplet there. Okay. And now I take into account the fact that they coordinate it and I should change completely the boundaries of my viable parameter space. Okay. So this is at the end of the day what I expect for the viable parameter space for my models containing a quadruplet quintuplet model. Okay. A model containing a quadruplet triplet model, a doublet triplet model with the blue colors and a singlet doublet that didn't change much and that affected much by the soma felt corrections. So let me just, I don't know how much time I have because I don't have any time here. But so let me just comment on the prospects for dark matter detection. So as I just, I mean, as I said before moving to soma felt correction, in this case at three level you are, I mean, driven by this kind of diagrams for the scattering cross section of dark matter on nucleons. I mean, given that you have a eukawa coupling, you increase the sensitivity of Higgs coupled minimal dark matter scenario compared to minimal dark matter scenario, which has only loop contribution to this. So you can, I mean, definitively test these Higgs coupled model scenarios. So I mean, this is the picture seen in the usual form of scattering cross section as a function of the mass of the dark matter. I mean, the quadruplet mass in the perturbative case is here, quintuplet mass is here, and this is the scattering cross section due to Higgs interaction. It's the cloud of point that you have here. So you see that you have definitely already models that would be completely excluded by, you know, one time if I could stop at particularly level computation. Okay.  So I completely shift the parameter space. But at the end of the day, we expect the general form of this cloud to be, I mean, to not to change. So meaning that the models in which the relevant coupling to the to the Higgs that depends directly on the UK was large UK was are expected to give you, I mean, anyway, a stronger scattering cross section up to a certain specific cases where the UK one equal to minus UK two, you have model that can be tested in the future back then on one ton, but you still have model that can completely I mean, if it is constraints, and at the end of the day, you get to the NL O correction computation.  And that we're getting to to the 10 to the minus 46 centimeter square for the, for the case of the quintuplet dark matter. Um, for what concern indirect detection searches. So we have actually now larger splitting that then in the case of the pure minimal dark matter scenario in the pure minimal dark matter scenario, it was hundreds of MEV here, we can get to larger splitting. So this we expect anyway to change the summer felt effect and potentially move the, the position of recent peaks. I mean, we didn't go into this detail, but I mean, we expect that this could help into evade against the stronger current gamma reconstruction on these models. And finally, I'm considering collider searches of this scenario, even though there are multi TV in the multi TV range. Actually, you could test these guys, especially thanks to disappearing tracks when the splitting is small. So this is among other things a study that I was done in a paper of Chilean collaborator for the triplet, for example, where they have shown that I mean multi TV dark matter candidate of this type could be tested at a 100 TV collider, which is okay, which is not the case right now. Right now we can, we can test this model up to some hundreds of GB, which is way beyond this parameter space is concerned. So as a conclusion, we have extended the non viable parameter space of X coupled minimal dark matter scenarios with the five plate four plate model that has never been considered in the past triplet square plate models had been considered in the past, but not taking into account summer felt correction. So this, this changes, this shifts the viable parameter space. In all cases, you'll have to be very careful. I mean, summer felt correction are going to affect your viable parameter space and your expectation for dark matter detection. And okay, so we argued that X coupled minimal dark matter scenarios could potentially if they didn't write detection searches and definitely be tested by direct searches, which is nice. So thank you very much for your attention. And no, I don't know what I have to do. Thank you very much, Laura. Now it's time for questions. I guess I should start with the people in the audience. Does anybody have questions? I have a couple of questions. Yes, I can hear you. Okay, so Laura, thank you very much for the nice talk to have a question.  I don't know. You can't hear me. Laura, can you hear me? Okay, but I hear you. I'm too, I mean, I don't, I hear you are talking to me, but I don't understand anything you're saying. So it's a matter of how do you? It's like, yeah, I don't understand anything. Maybe I can write the question. I think this is the good connection really, really sorry. So you could hear correctly. Can you hear us now? Now I hear. Now? Ah, bien. Now I hear. Okay, so I was wondering about the bounce state because you mentioned them several times. So I guess you were Oh God, I hear you but you're very, very, very slowly. Ah, mierda. No, it doesn't work. Ah, sorry. Can you check the chat, Laura? Can you check the chat? Because the question is there. Where is the chat? Just in the icon about the screen chair. You mentioned several times, bond states, I guess you're referring to me as a bond state, right? So this is the question of Nicolas Bernal. Yes. Okay, good. I'm really sorry. Okay. So, um, yes, I mean, these bonds, that's right. So I mean, this is definitely not my, uh, my, uh, expertise. So this is this, this paper of, it was a paper of a meter, the laborator, and it was a paper of, uh, of three, six later on this topic, right? So they, uh, get this bond state and indeed this bond state can decay and you can get specific signature of the presence of these bond states and you can have specific lines at lower energies. So I don't know, this is the question. And, uh, I mean, they, they argue that this could give you an extra potential signature of these scenarios. But I, we didn't get into, uh, into, uh, into looking at that into the details. What we just did is to, uh, account for the fact that you have to consider a higher mass, uh, into the game. So from this, you can extract some whole, the couplings that enter into the game that allows you to extract the, the, the, the, the borders of your, uh, of your, um, variable parameter space. But for example, in the case of the quadruplet, one can expect that bond state formation could affect, um, the abundance, but we did not, I mean, computed them explicitly. The point is that in order to do that, you would need to, uh, to compute the typical, um, uh, energy of the bond state. So this we checked at least, and we have seen that the bond state energy in the case of the quadruplet is lower than in the case of the quintuplet. So this is already something that will imply that we will have a less, uh, uh, turn off the video. My God, how do I do that? Like this. So, okay. I think I turned off the video. Another question. Okay. So I, did I, I didn't answer to your question, Nicholas. Yes. Thanks. Sorry. So I mean, I just wanted to say that in the case of the quadruplet, we expect that we can have an effect of the bond state, but the effect should be intermediate between the case of the triplet and the quadruplet. Okay. In the sense that, uh, the, the, the questions are much, much, much, much smaller. Uh, the energy of the bonds is much smaller in the case of the triplet and intermediate in the case of the quadruplet. Why it's been dependent scattering cross-section independent of the dark matter mass? Oh, just because the dark matter mass is a super high compared to the mass of the mass. So this is the usual thing you have. Can you read the question loud? I mean, the question is now why is it, it's been independent scattering cross-section independent of the dark matter mass of in slide two. And the answer is that, I mean, just given that the mass of the dark matter is super high compared to the mass of the nucleon, at the end of the day, this, uh, this goes out of the, the question, the, of the, of the problem. Okay. I'll present everyone. Otherwise, you can present me. Okay. Okay. Uh, Laura, I don't, I think I hear you're still a bit crying. No, no, I don't hear you. Okay. Because I'm not talking. Now I can, I can ask a question. Can you, uh, uh, can you elaborate a bit more on the interior detection signals? Because, uh, you mentioned that, uh, the mass plittings are different than in the standard scenario. Can you explain that a bit more? So, I mean, I'm not sure I understood your question. Okay. But I'm just going to, to say what I could, I have understood. So you said that, uh, I mentioned at the end that mass plitting could affect the soma felt corrections, right? Yes, that's, that's indeed a detection. Okay. Yes. So, I mean, at the end of the day, you get a strong enhancement of the, of the, I mean, you get the soma felt effect that, that gets important when you have the mass plitting between your, uh, uh, uh, neutral dark matter candidate that is very near to the, to the, that the, that the mass is very near to the, to the, the mass of, uh, the charge partners. Okay. So like this, you can go from the neutral to the charge partner exchange several times the gauge balls and then get to two photons, for example.  So this has been studied by 36 later in 2009. Okay. Um, and there are two things that interest into the game. First, uh, the bond state energy, I mean, no, sorry. First, the, the, the typical kinetic energy you have, uh, at hands compared to, uh, uh, the typical, the mass differences you have.  So this is the first thing you have to compare. But the next things that enter into the game is to compare, um, to take into account the bond state, uh, the bond state, uh, energy. And yeah.  Okay. I have no idea how to do that either. Okay. So, okay. So yes. So you can reduce, I'm sorry. I'm a bit, uh, lost between sharing my screen and so on. So yes, you can, you can potentially evade. I mean, you can have a less a large important sum of an enhancement when you have a large mass splitting between the dark matter and the partner that enters into the exchange of, uh, of multiple, uh, um, uh, gauge boson exchanges. And this has been studied by Tracy Slater in 2009 in, and another paper that I mentioned in my previous, uh, in the, in the last slide before the conclusion. And the point is, uh, that we didn't do this analysis because we have worked in the issue to symmetric limit. Okay. So we just assume that the mass splitting between the partners is, uh, is zero. Okay. But I mean, definitely when you look at, uh, indirect detection sources should take into account this mass splitting. And we didn't do it explicitly, but we expect this for some value of the mass splitting, uh, compared to the bond state energy that should, it should, it should make an effect and allow to evade potentially. So we didn't compute it explicitly, but it could help in evading, uh, indirect detection searches. I'm sorry. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. No, I hear you. Okay. I think it was an issue with the, with your screen. Okay. Now, uh, I have more questions. I'm really, really sorry. I mean, this is completely a mess. Don't, don't, no, no, it's, no, it's a relax. So, uh, does anybody have more questions? Oh, yeah. Hello. I have a question. Yes. Did you consider different signs for the Majorana mass and actually the Xenomas or the other mass parameters? I mean, I'm asking because I know in the neutrino case, the, the, actually the sign of the masses on the Bino and Xeno, or even a complex value for the Bino mass parameter can have a strong effect on the coupling to the Higgs. So I don't know. No, we didn't take this into account. So we have considered, um, positive mass contribution, but we have, uh, and this is a, this is something important when you want to extract the, the, the sum of field correction. And when you want to, uh, to compute this, um, this, I mean, because we have been computing the addition cross-section for a given isospin pair. Okay. If you want to go from the, and the way we did it is to compute, um, uh, okay. We had to go from the, the annihilation of a pair of particle of a given charge to a pair of particle of a given isospin. Okay. In order to go from one to another, we have been using clubs Gordon.  There are different signs there, which are very important, but I don't think this is your question. So your question is, have we considered complex masses and so on? And this definitely we have not been taken into account. So you think it would help to do something interesting? No, no. Also, also the science I was asking, but no, the science, we have been taking them into account. Okay. Thank you. The relative signs of the masses of the charge particles and the neutral particles. Yes. But we have not been playing with, uh, with, uh, with, uh, with complex masses and so on. Very good. Um, is there any other question? Yes. I have a second one, another one. Okay. Go for it. So, uh, Laura, when you introduce this Higgs portal, so you also have to introduce a Z2 symmetry by hand, right? Yes. I hear you know, I'm really sorry. I mean, this beginning of questions was Terry, but I'm really, really exclude, I say it's extremely sorry. But when you put this Z2 symmetry by hand, you're not like destroying one of the nice feature of this minimal dark matter. Yes. Okay. So this, I agree. I mean, but this is only good. I mean, it's the, I fully agree. I mean, we are not making something as beautiful as the quintuplet case, but I'm sorry, but the quintuplets sincerely struggle with the, with the indirect detection searches, right? So, okay. So, so I, so, okay. I agree. We are destroying the nice feature of the minimal dark matter scenario in the sense of the quintuplet dark matter scenario. I agree. But at the end of the day, this guy, somehow, I mean, as far as I understand from the studies of, I mean, this paper of Cuoco and this latest constraint from Hess is in serious trouble. So, okay. Definitely. We know that. Do you actually, I mean, in this sense, do you actually consider constraints from a land-out pause in your work? I mean, for choosing your representations, did you take that into account? Yes. So, I mean, this is, this was, I mean, I cannot show this again, because I don't want to go to share a screen. But I mean, yes, in the table, I showed at the beginning. So, the, the, the, the effect on the land-out pause has been considered by the, by, by, by, by Pantelis in particular. And in the case of the, the five-plates four-plates, we were getting to a land-out pause into the 10GV, not much, blank mass, but I mean, so we stopped there five-plates four-plates. I see. I have another question and I'm, I'm a bit curious. You said that before some of the corrections, the triplet and the quadruplet have the same mass. Yes. Yes, they have similar mass. Is this a surprising coincidence? Ah, I mean, this is a surprising coincidence. So the difference between the two is that one is, one is a complex field.  Okay. It's, it's not equal to the, it's not self-conjugate. Okay. So you have an extra factor of two. So if you have, if you didn't have, the fact that one is, I mean, Majorana and the other is Dirac, you would have a mass difference between the two. But given that one of them is not equal to its, it's not, it's, it's not self-conjugate. Okay. You have an extra factor of two that you have to take into account of the indignation for section that really plays a role at the moment you compute the Relic Abundance. Okay. I see. Okay. So at the end of the day, it's not surprising. I mean, yeah, at the end of the day, it's myrology, I think, but just, I mean, they end up with the same mass just because one is self-conjugate and the other is not. Okay. Does anybody have more questions? Because I have a long list here. Okay. So just out of curiosity, at the very end of your, of your talk, it's like 13 or something like this, you showed Xenon limits till 14 or 13 TV. So I guess what you're doing is you're just extrapolating the, their limits from, I don't know, I have seen their limits till one TV or so. It's, it's correct with that. Are you allowed to do it? I mean, did I really extrapolate? I don't remember. I mean, the latest paper of Xenon one tonne when they, they, they show their first limits, they don't show it up to there. I'm not sure anymore. I think they show it till one or two TVs. Well, maybe in the last paper, they show it till super high masses. But I think you can constrain high masses for sure. It's just, if I have, I have continued the, the, the, the constraints, I mean, the limiting constraint, I just extrapolated the, the dependence to higher masses because I mean, I just expect the same, the same, the same dependence due to the number density that, that, that, that is, that is changing it the same way. So it's possible that one of the line I've extrapolated, but I wonder if the latest Xenon one tonne constraints or the, which was the continuous magenta line I had, I wonder if this is not exactly what I, I don't remember. I'm really sorry. I don't remember if it's possible. Either I just extrapolated or I just assuming the same dependence just because of the number density that decreases in the same way. Okay. Thanks. Okay. More questions. So Camilo, you have more questions? Yes. Well, actually it was along the same lines, like, I mean, along the same, this question of the detection, because you, you show a scan with, Yes. Perturbative level. Exactly. With the Perturbative level. And then you argue that somehow if you include this summerfell effect, you will shift these lines to the right, right in the detection plot. Yeah. Do you also mean that the scan itself, I mean, the points on the scatter plot will move and then therefore that will be, I mean, you will not constrain your points after summerfell enhancement anymore? Oh, yeah. So I'm not sure I understood the, it's okay. So what I, so, I mean, you can explain the plot again. Yeah. So that was maybe a tour. So in this plot, so I'm sorry, I'm not going to share my screen, but in the, so in the plot that was on slide seven, people can see my slide or not. The slide does not appear somewhere else. No, they, at the moment, they cannot see it. So I'm going to share my screen again. And then I will, I don't know how to make not, not screen, not, not share it anymore after one. So let's do the share. So you see something? Yeah. Okay. So, so this was the plot. Okay. So scattering cross-section as a function of the mass. And the, the plot, the scatter plot you see here is, I mean, only three level perturbative level using micro megas. Okay. Okay. What I'm sure of is that, I mean, you see that these two, so you have a bunch of points that are above the momentum limit. Okay. And so these points right now, they are obtained at perturbative, in the, in the perturbative computation. And if I take into account some of the correction, I have not only to take into account some of the correction in this range due to, to the exchange of gate boson, but also due to the exchange of the Higgs. Okay. And this makes the thing even more complicated. So I don't know for sure all these points are going to move. Okay. This is, this is absolutely clear. Now, if I go to lower values of the scattering cross-section, you see that I typically end up, so for lower values of the Yukawa, I typically end up with models that are still viable and that are in between the pure four plate case and the pure quintuplet case. Okay. And that are populated in between thanks to the presence of non-Yukawa coupling. So I cannot exclude the fact. Okay. So, I mean, what I expect is that definitely, ah, okay. So I mean, even my, my own computer is going bad. I'm getting there. I'm sorry. My computer extremely slow. I hope you're still hearing me. Can you, can you maximize the window so that I just trying to, I mean, even on my own computer, I cannot get to the right side. It's super slow. Laura, can it be because you have to hang out windows open? Ah, I don't know. Because you have the principle one. You have another one. You are right. I have to hang out to open. So let's try. Okay. So, I mean, here is the, you still see my screen? Yes. Okay. So, so, okay. So this is what, what I wanted to say. So I have this, I mean, this is the, the, the ballpark where I expect to see the viable points right now. Okay. I thought about the level between the four plates and the pure four plates and the pure five plate case. Okay. So somehow I expect that I expect to have also these points to be somehow shifted. I don't know where exactly, but at least in this ballpark, I expect to the viable dark matter scenarios in the case of a Higgs couple, minimal dark matter scenario taking into account the sum of failed corrections with the, I mean, the gauge coupling plus the Higgs coupling to end up here and to be potentially tested by Zenone. So I don't know if this is clear now. Yeah. It is clear. Yeah. Of course, looking at the screen, it's much clear. Yeah. Well, it's already one hour and it was a very interesting talk. So I would like to thank you again and I will also like to remind the people in the audience that they can subscribe to the YouTube channel and to follow us in Facebook and Twitter. And thank you very much again. And let's talk again in the next opportunity. Thank you.


The rise of cloud native concepts created a rush to cloud, enabling a more agile development and deployment for applications. The challenge is multiple clouds create complexity in terms of variances in operating environments, tools and processes. And with me is Sadeer Srinivasan, who's the Senior Vice President of Multi-Cloud and Data Solutions at Dell Technologies to talk about some of these issues in studio. Welcome Sadeer, thanks for coming in. Thank you Dave. Thanks for having me. Yeah, you're welcome. Now about a month ago we met with Shannon Champion from Dell Technologies to discuss your new family of Apex cloud platforms. And today Sadeer and I are going to discuss what's new and we're going to take a closer look at how this next generation technology is bridging the cloud divide for IT. So Sadeer let's recap if we could, the Apex portfolio approach, the strategy, the challenges that you're focused on for your customers and then specifically, what should we know about Apex cloud platforms? Awesome, thank you, thank you Dave. And I think it starts with what you said, exactly what you said, which is the complexity. The number one problem that we see our customers facing is more and more complex operational complexity because it's multi-cloud. I mean most of our customers are still trying to get hybrid done right and now they're having to deal with multiple clouds. So we talked about in the past our multi-cloud by design strategy and that really has three legs or three pillars I would say. The first is we're enriching the public clouds by bringing our storage, software defined storage assets into the public cloud so we can offer the same level of capabilities, enterprise grade storage capabilities in the cloud. That's what we call our ground to cloud piece. The second piece is connecting the cloud operating environments back on-prem and that's what we call cloud to ground and that's what we're going to talk a little bit more about today, the announcement we're going to talk about. And then the third piece is optimizing that experience, multi-cloud experience to be able to give that cloud consumption experience subscription as a service no matter where you are, whether you're in the cloud or you're on-prem. So it's this, we've taken a holistic approach to multi-cloud that really simplifies operations across cloud, on-prem, edge, wherever. And the trick is how do you deliver that consistency at all layers of the stack, right? All the way from infrastructure, all the way up to the application layer. And that's where this new stuff comes in. Okay, so the new stuff, the Apex Cloud Platform family you're saying addresses operational consistency and this includes on-prem, correct? Can you tell me more about what these are? Yeah, so if you think about sort of cloud native, as you said, there's a lot of applications, modern applications are being developed in the cloud or in modern app dev environments like Kubernetes and containers, right? So what we set out to do was to bring those operating environments to the customers on-prem as easy as it is to consume in the cloud. And we've done this in the past with on-prem infrastructure like VMware, right? We've had a lot of success, years of success delivering that level of ease of use and automation in hyper-converged infrastructure on-prem. We're doing that now for multi-cloud as well. So we, just like we did in the past, we're now collaborating very closely with three partners, Microsoft, Red Hat and VMware to co-engineer these turnkey solutions. They're really turnkey solutions that dramatically reduce your operational complexity in ease of use. All right, so you got to giving customers choice, that's important and we've talked before about the need for this. So sorry, we're giving choice, consistency and control. That's what the Apex Cloud Platforms offer. Okay, you got the three Cs. Choice, consistency and control. Okay, so choice is, in other words, any cloud on-prem, consistency, we've talked in the past about sort of the need to abstract all that underlying complexity and have a common experience that obviously gives you control. How do you actually do that in these platforms? Yeah, great question. I think the three Cs actually start with consistency. That's the founding, the base capability. And we achieve that through using common building blocks across all of the Apex Cloud Platform family. And the building blocks are actually three of them, right? The first is the hardware. So we bring to our industry best, industry leading power edge servers. The next generation is sort of the latest generation of power edge servers, which are all based on the Intel fourth generation Xeon scalable processors. So you're getting the best compute across all of them and it's common. The second piece is the software defined storage. Now that again, independent of which stack you're using, which cloud stack, you're getting the same software defined storage across all of them. So you get that consistency. And then the last piece is the management and orchestration software that makes this platform be what it is, which is a turnkey solution, right? Extreme levels of automation that give you fast time to value. And that's also common across all of them. So discussions like this, I like to invoke Einstein, like an adapt an Einstein saying. So my take on this is move as much data as you need to, but no more. Now, but you still have to have data mobility. So how are you addressing data mobility for customers? That's actually, we talked about infrastructure complexity. Data is actually another, yet another level of complexity for customers. Data is everywhere. Sometimes you have to move the data to where the application is. Sometimes you move the workload to where the data is. And we set out to solve this using what we call our universal storage layer, right? We talked about the common storage. So it's this storage stack that's available both on-prem and in the clouds. That's how the two pieces come together, the cloud to ground to cloud. So we get, the customer can get the same storage services and operational interfaces everywhere. And not only that, because it's the same storage stack on both sides, we can actually leverage very efficient data mobility techniques or mechanisms between them. So we're moving data in much more efficient ways. And because it's the same operational interface, customers don't have to re-platform their application, whether you're going from in the cloud to on-prem or vice versa or so. Yeah, so obviously moving data can be time consuming and expensive. So you could give us some use cases where data mobility, where you're kind of making that an enabler as opposed to a roadblock for customers. Sure, I mean the most common one we get is again the application delivery one, right? Where customers might want to spin up a development environment in the cloud to enable their developers to actually develop the application, but they may choose to deploy it in production on-premises. You can do that now without having to worry about it being different across the two locations. The one that's even more compelling I would say is the world of data and especially now with AI, right? The speed at which or the rate at which customers need to consume resource infrastructure to do analytics and to do AI is just incredible. And so you may not always be able to have those resources in one location. And with the universal storage layer now, you can actually move data to wherever you need, wherever you might have the GPUs for example, to be able to do your AI over or machine learning over there and then bring the results back. Got it. Okay, so you got this common framework for management and orchestration. Can you add a little bit of color there and tell me more about that? Yes, that's what we call our Apex Cloud Platform Foundation software, you know. This is the software that we have spent years now developing in the world of, excuse me, in the world of hyperconversion infrastructure and software-defined infrastructure. What we've done now is taken that software which delivers all the automation and lifecycle management and make it available to beyond just the hyperconversion into this multi-cloud infrastructure. And because of the experience that we've built into this, we're seeing customers are seeing as much as 90% reduction in deployment time, for example, or 88% reduction in the number of steps required to deploy a stack, a development environment stack. And this, not only do we do the automation across the Apex Cloud Platforms, we've also integrated this foundation software into the partner's management plane. So what that does is it gives a customer that similarity with their cloud environment so they can still leverage that, but it also gives consistency across the cloud environments. So it's the best of both worlds. This is good. I mean, it's impressive. You guys taking a holistic approach to the problem.  Any closing thoughts, Sidir? Yeah, look, we are very excited to bring the Apex Cloud Platform family. Last month, we announced the one for Azure and today we're announcing the one for Red Hat and OpenShift. And it's going to bring tremendous value to our customers and partners and giving them choice, consistency and control across their multi-cloud estate. That's good. You guys doing some good work. Thanks for coming into the studio today. Thanks, Dave. You're welcome. All right, about a month ago, Dell introduced the first platform in this new Apex family with the Apex Cloud Platform from Microsoft Azure. Now it's time for everyone to hear more about the next offer to market the Apex Cloud Platform for Red Hat OpenShift. So stick around as Chris Morgan, who's the Senior Director of Product Management at Red Hat joins Caitlin Gordon, who's the Vice President of Product Management from Dell, to dig into this exciting new offer and explain its potential to transform OpenShift operations on-prem.