Well, this lecture is on scientists and psychics, and the next lecture is on, which is the last lecture, is the importance of replicability. Because, as we said from the first, the important thing is if you're going to think well about any problem, you have to have good information.  And now you know lots of reasons why you can't trust unaided observation, intuition, personal validation, etc. And I wanted to tell you how, many years ago, when I first got my PhD in psychology, I got fascinated by reading about or hearing about some really prominent scientists who got themselves involved with a psychic of some sort and ended up endorsing a psychic. And so I made an effort to look at every case I could find, and then I was hoping, how can I study this as a psychologist? I'm an experimental psychologist. And for experimental psychologists, you get people in the laboratory and you randomly divide people into groups and give one group one treatment and another treatment. I can't go back in history and dig these guys up and do experiments with them. But I did find over the years, I would go and read their studies. And in one case, a couple of cases, I actually hired people to translate from the French, some particular French scientist. Because I found that in some cases, these people wrote a lot, very prolific. And somehow I finally could see how their minds are working and figure out from that alone. Get a pretty good idea what is going on, how this person could be so competent and smart, and at the same time, get themselves into bizarre beliefs. And so I collected over the years a lot of these cases. And I was always thinking of maybe writing a book on it, and I still haven't had the case enough to write a book, I suppose. The hope was that, even though it's not the science that I'm used to doing, that in some ways I could, and I'm going to give you one example of what I have in mind, I could use their own writing and through that writing you would see the parts of their mind and how they're getting themselves into trouble. One thing I want to emphasize is that, I mean, he heard of Coombe, Theodore Coombe. He became a sort of a hero of the outsider type groups of people in science and stuff like that. Thomas Coombe. Scientific revolution. He had this idea that science proceeds in normal science as puzzle solving, and we go along solving puzzles. And everyone's a mile within a disciplinary matrix of a scientific specialty. You're building up theories and stuff like that, and you keep adding a few more things to the system and keep tweaking it every once in a while. Within any scientific field, there's enough anomalies, as you call them, that accumulate. So it's too much. And eventually this leads to a complete revolution, an overthrow of the old system. And this chaos and then the new system takes over and you're now back to normal science again. It takes as well as this big revolution again. And this was very controversial, and it still is. It's not as clear-cut as that, and many things he called revolutions could be seen as revolution, but also be seen as consistent with science as usual. But anyways, he used the term paradigm. That's why all the new ages and stuff like that, paradigms, they're the most used word, and you don't hear it so much anymore. But everyone was talking about a new paradigm. Parapsychologists say they're creating a new paradigm, and all these other people who were trying to be, thought they were going to challenge the establishment, they're going to create a new paradigm. And a lady, I'm trying to think of her name. I think her name was Masters during one symposium and it's in a book. She uncovered 42 separate uses of the term paradigm in his book on scientific revolutions, and they're all incompatible with one another. He admitted that. And the later article, he said, she's right. And I did, it was inconsistent, the use of paradigm. And so he restricted paradigm, and he changed what he originally meant by paradigm. He called it disciplinary matrix. What he meant by disciplinary matrix, he meant that in any field, well-developed field of science especially, there is a confluence of facts that they've accumulated, theories, hypothesis, but even more than that of ways of understanding how you will do this kind of research, what kinds of instruments you need, what controls you need, what controls you don't need within this field. And all that becomes, and ways of doing things, that becomes part of the disciplinary matrix. And within any field of science as well, especially well-developed ones, you're working within a disciplinary matrix. And the reason I wanted to bring that up, because I think that's a very important concept to help us explain, how is that top-notch scientists, the ones I've paid attention to, many of them just go out and test psychics suddenly and they fall for everything. It looks like they're, it's ridiculous. How could a conference scientist do non-science and think they're doing science? And it dawned on me finally, after reading what they say and figuring out a lot, that most scientists are not aware what they're doing. In other words, they learn implicitly. They become like a prentice, many, most of the scientists, you have a prentice, you have post-doctors and some of that. And you work with colleagues and first you have your supervisor. And eventually you implicitly absorb what we call the aspects of the matrix. So you implicitly know what to do. And you implicitly know if you want to figure out whether this guy's experiment was correct or not. You explicitly know what questions you should ask and what you would have to do to do it right or wrong. And you understand these things, but it's implicit. Very few scientists can explicitly tell you what is good science. That's why their philosophy of science is trying to tell them that. But some scientists do write about what science is and they are more explicit about it. But most scientists, even the best of them, they're good in their fields, but they can't tell you why they're good. They don't understand why they succeed as good scientists. They can do good science. But when they step outside of that matrix, they don't have that supporting context. They don't have the background, all that information, what we call a good mind-ware. That's implicitly underlying everything they do in this field. They don't realize that they're outside of that. This field can be consistent. We thought of it as a, I'm not supposed to move around like this, as a safety net. So as long as they're working within the disciplinary matrix, they have the safety net. The safety net consists of colleagues, but also rivals within their field. And they know what the rivals are going to say if they do this and that. So they're always aware of these things and they keep them honest and keep them also from doing boo-boos. And this is how they can be good at their field. But they don't understand that. So when they leave their field, they get, they're going to study your psychic. This is the, so this is one of the things. Okay, now, I can go to other reasons for that, but I wanted to, rather than talk about, let me tell you some of the examples of the past, but I don't want to give details of that. We don't have the time. There were civilian crooks, very famous chemist, physicist, well, just before the turn of the ninth, it was in the middle of the 1800s. And he did some, obviously some, he was editor of his own journal in physics. And he was a well-established scientist, but he became also notorious, you might say, or famous, whichever side of the issue you're on, for dealing with Daniel Douglas Hume. H-O-M-E is his name, he spelled his name, but he called himself Hume. He was an American, but there was, he thought he had a Scottish ancestry, and maybe he was related to the famous David Hume. He was one of his ancestors, so that's why he called himself Hume. He is known as the, even today, among Paris psychologists especially, is that the one medium who never was caught cheating of any kind. Well, he's never caught cheating because he never allowed himself to be tested by any inadequate way. But he still has his reputation of never being caught cheating. He got a famous reputation, I won't go into all the details. But the only time he was scientifically ever tested at all was by Crookes. Crookes did some experiments with Hume, and he had some, I won't go into it, he made some special equipment, and he said that Hume was able to move, he had a level of move supposedly by spirits, you know, without touching it and so on. The other thing he said came notorious far was Florence Cook. She was a young, sort of a tractor supposedly, spirit who could materialize a psychic, a spirit who came from the other world but who once lived in this world. And those people who tend to say this with Florence Cook at Crookes' home were very much impressed with how wonderfully similar to Florence that this spirit medium looked, I mean spirit that came from the spirit world. She materialized. And when she materialized, Florence Cook was supposedly in a trance behind a curtain. But she never saw the two together. And so it's not really suspicious of it. And for some reason, even though Crookes claimed he'd done a scientific type of work, a laboratory with Hume, with her he just described the phenomenon to pictures, and at one point he did say he did see them together, but it was very vague. So that was a notorious case. I won't go into all the details, I just want to give you a kind of case. Alfred Russell Wallace is my favorite of all. He's the co-founder with Darwin of the Theory of Evolution by natural selection. In fact, many people think what happened was that Darwin's working for years on the theory and not ready to publish yet because there's always some things he still might have to work out. Wallace, living out in the East Indies and stuff like that, what we now call that, in the jungles all by himself, gets one of the fevers there from the, the fevers out there, and malaria maybe. And he's in his camp all by himself, high fever, and he gets this big idea, which is basically the theory of natural selection. And he writes it out and he sends it to the only person he knows in the field back in England, who's Charles Darwin, and this created, you know, this big dilemma for Darwin, what does he do about it? This guy got his theory scooped him in a way, but they made the powers that be realized what the situation was. They fixed it up very nicely and they had a joint paper and it was called the Douris-Wallon Theory for a while, of the Wallace-Dawin, many people put it the other direction, the Wallace-Dawin Theory for a while. You don't hear about Wallace anymore in relation to that, and you won't hear about it because soon after he came back to England after the years out, being, uh, picking plants and sending, being a naturalist out in the wilds, he, uh, became friends with Darwin and all the other people, although he was from a lower class, self-educated. Almost all the scientists at that time were very wealthy people, who had the time and the money to carry out research. And Wallace was an outsider. He was very poor all his life. He always was struggling to make money and stuff like that, uh, by somebody keeping himself going so he could do his research. Top-notch scientists, though, in many ways, as a naturalist, and he's known for the Douris-Wallon Line and he did some other famous things, but today he's not that famous. And many biographers think he's not that famous because he became an embarrassment. Uh, he even challenged his own theory of natural selection after being the major champion of it. But right when he got back to England, he said it doesn't apply to the highest spiritual levels of man. That's an exception. And, uh, that came about because he would get sitting in unscences when he came back and one of his own, his house lady, house worker, um, uh, she became also a medium and produced some phenomenal farm and stuff like that. Okay, so that's a big, many other things that Wallace defended. Wallace was his whole life. He defended phrenology and stuff like that. At the same time doing very good work. And it's hard to dislike the guy. I've read almost everything he's ever written. He's very prolific. He lived a long life to his late 90s. And, um, obviously a smart guy but self-educated, never would, had the opportunity to go to any colleges and stuff like that. And a very likable guy. He'd read his arguments for phrenology and stuff like that. They're fascinating. And, but you learn how his mind works. And, uh, then there was several others. We can go all the way down there and several famous ones. But I'm going to jump down to the present. Of course, we already talked about Russell Targ. And, uh, I mentioned also his buddy Harold Pulloff, who were the two physicists at the time. I went to Stanford Research Institute in 1972. And I told you the story. They were studying Erie Gellin. Okay. There were some other scientists that also looked at Erie Gellin. And in, uh, about 1974, I think it was, uh, Nature, the top general science magazine in the world, a very conservative paper, by Haystead, John Haystead. And, um, David Bohm, some of the very top scientists, physicists you could get together in England, about five years. And, uh, it was on there. The idea is about how you study something like Erie Gellin. How you deal with a person like Erie Gellin. And now I want to show you how you can get into them. Haystead's people, by what they write, even. Here we are. So, this is a later book by one of the people that wrote this thing. This is the cover of a book. It's called The Metal Bending. It's John Haystead. One of Britain's top physicists at the time. He passed away only fairly recently. But Haystead, here, let me get this down so you can see the top. There it is, like that. Okay. Uh, I just want to show you the cover of his major books. On primary, he called this primary metal bending. And he's not only studied Gellin, but he's studied a lot of other, uh, some other students, children especially that he studied, who apparently, after seeing Gellin, they could bend spoons as well. And metal. And so he had to, had to, had to vote his laboratory to do it. He was the major supporter of, uh, the reality of things. But here was this article that appeared in Nature in 1975. Okay. It was 1972 that Gellin burst on the scene here. And I went to see him at Stanford Research Institute. But John Haystead, David Bohm. Those of you who have know about physics or history of science, David Bohm is one of the top men, uh, at the time. And Bayston and O'Reilly, the other side, physicists as well. So these four physicists wrote this article and got it published in, uh, Science and Nature, rather. And the point of the article was, when you're studying someone like Erie Gellin, a psychic, or a claims psychic like Erie Gellin, you can't treat him as, like he's a particle or something like that, like, or an object. You've got to realize that you're dealing with a sentient human being who has feelings and stuff like that. So this is an article that they wrote in Nature and how you have to deal with a psychic like that. It's strange you never consult a psychologist who's dealing with real people all the time, or almost real people, college sophomores, but they're going to come real people sometime. Okay. So I'm taking these quotes. I'm just going to show you that. You go even to their scientific articles and you can see, we can learn something about how the minds are working and how they can get themselves into trouble. These are physicists. They never, physicists don't know anything about people at all, right? You know that. They get into laboratories and they look at bubble chambers and they look at equipment and stuff like that, but they never see any living thing, right? Okay. So now they, but they're confronted by Gellin. They've had some experiences with Gellin and he does things that, wow, and they have no idea how it happened. So they feel this is worth, important to study. So we have come to realize that in certain ways, the traditional ideal of completely impersonal approach of the natural sciences to experimentation will not be adequate in this domain. This domain to me studying psychics like Gellin. Rather, there is a personal aspect that has to be taken into account in a way that is somewhat similar to that needed in the disciplines of psychology and medicine. Why didn't they call in psychologists and medicine? They're at the universities and they have colleagues there, but they talk to one another. That's strange, okay? This does not mean, of course, that it is not possible to establish facts which we can count securely. And remember the whole point of this course is how to have facts that you can count on before you think. If you're thinking with facts that you don't know, you can't count on as being secure, then you're having what we call contaminated mind wear. And contaminated mind wear is one of the major reasons how intelligent people can be stupid, right? Rather, it means that we have to be sensitive and observant to discover what is a right approach which will properly allow for the subjective element and yet permit us to draw reliable inferences. So as scientists, they want to draw reliable inferences, but they realize they're going to have to not do it quite the way a physicist does it. So in the study of psychokinetic phenomena, psychokinetic phenomena, how many don't know what psychokinetic is? So we're thinking with your mind? Yeah, that's right, exactly. The idea of psychokinesis is that part of parapsychology which has to do with mind over matter, okay? So in the study of psychokinetic phenomena, such conditions are more important than in the natural sciences because a person who produces a phenomena is not an instrument or a machine. Any attempt to treat him as such, this is before they had to say him or her, I guess, that any attempt to treat him as such will almost certainly lead to failure. Rather, he must be considered to be one of the group, actively cooperating in the experiment and not a subject whose behavior is to be observed from the outside in a cold and impersonal manner as possible. I suspect it's one reason they didn't want to bring in psychologists because we are people who study subjects. I guess I think that's a bad, that's already something bad. Isn't that right, Barbara? Yeah. Okay. Anyway, so we see here there's a start of a problem here, right? We have found also that it's generally difficult to produce a predetermined set of phenomena. Although this may sometimes be done, what happens is often surprising and unexpected. Now, if we go back to the first lecture on key-betting, the reason I did it is because I want to emphasize that when you don't know what to expect, you can't rely on what is described afterwards, right? It's very important to have a plan. That's the whole point of science, is that they have to plan their observations so they know what to expect, what to look for. But they find that studying psychics like Gallard, you can't do that. Because what happens is often surprising and unexpected.  If it's expected, they'll catch you, okay? We've observed that the attempt to concentrate strongly in order to obtain a desired result, for example, the bending of a piece of metal, tends to interfere with the relaxed state of mind needed to produce such phenomena. These guys are getting themselves into real trouble here, right? However, they're aware that this is going to create problems and that some people are going to say, you're setting yourself up to be tricked.  They're, as I said, they are, at that time, the most eminent physicists in England. And sometimes in the world, perhaps. One of the first things that reveals itself as one observes there, is this a duplicate where I just spread there? Oh no, okay, it's closed. Is that concisory kinetic phenomena cannot in general be produced unless all scientists who participate are in a relaxed state. Now, I don't know about you, but if you're doing experiments, you want to not be too relaxed, because you want to be at the right moment, you want to be focused on what's going on. Okay, a feeling of tension, fear or hostility, on the part of any of those present, generally communicates itself to the whole group. The entire process goes most easily when all those present actively want things to work well. In addition, man has seemed to be great, by the way, this is published in the major magazine, Science Magazine in the World, right? In addition, man has seemed to be greatly facilitated when the experimental arrangement is aesthetically or imaginatively appealing to the person with apparent psychokinetic powers. Okay, this will be the last one and we'll give you a quote from them, but I still can't believe it, I'm not caring. How then are we to avoid the possibility of being tricked? They're aware of that. They're setting themselves up to be tricked, but they want to avoid the possibility, but still be not antagonized and not threaten the phenomena they're studying. It should be possible to design experimental arrangements that are beyond any reasonable possibility of trickery and that magicians will generally acknowledge to be so. In the first stages of our work, we did in fact present Mr. Geller with several such arrangements. Notice that they presented Geller, they actually worked out arrangements they thought could be meet all their conditions and yet be devoid of trickery. But these proved to be aesthetically unappealing to him and of course they've already said in the previous statement that it's very important that everything be aesthetically appealing to the person. Unfortunately, this was up and so they couldn't get away with that. They were hoping in that article, the whole point of the article, they were writing that they had some, a lot of experiments with Geller, but they realized that there was magicians and other scientists weren't going to prove of their controls and stuff. So they were showing that the reason they had to be, I had the kind of control that scientists ordinarily would use in the physics laboratory is because of the nature of the subject matter and the sensitivity. But they also wrote this article show but they had no doubts they had confidence that they'd be able to develop the right kind of arrangements that would not threaten Geller or inhibit him but still avoid the possibility of any trickery. And of course they did get Geller never came back to be tested for them and that never happened. Now, the next thing I want to tell you about related to that, which relate to things, is that in 1967, 87, I'm sorry, Deborah, it's a word about, a little more, about 10 years, just about 10 years, no, the same year, 1987. Oh no, that was 1970. Okay, so this is about 10 years later. Deborah Delanoi, I think she still is, was a parapsychologist at the laboratories, the parapsychological laboratories set in Scotland by the, some fund, I'll give you the name of the fund. It's actually a fund for parapsychological work and I wanted to use it for Cambridge, for Cambridge in London. So they offered this Oxford-Oxford in London. It became a kind of a scandal even that it allows money for departments of parapsychological research was being offered to major universities and major universities had not wanted. So finally the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, I took it to the Department and they had Robert Morris, a very good parapsychologist, I was a good friend of mine actually, high respect in some ways. And Robert Morris took over, he was a parapsychologist, a believer, but a very good one, a very careful person. And took over. His strategy to sell it to the rest of the people at the University of Edinburgh because this is controversial, he means the department, the parapsychology department, but also one that studied deceptions in ways people can be tricked. And you can get a degree in either one or combine it to parapsychology under him. And one of his parapsychologists was there. And now Pablo and the top skeptics and top people in England all over the world actually, and he has websites and books galore and he's quite a guy. And he was at, was he at TAMD? He's been at TAMD. Yeah, at TAMD, right. And a very colorful person and obviously a good skeptic does a good work. And his girlfriend though is a parapsychologist at the University of Edinburgh and I don't know how to get along, they maybe get along like other people I know who are mixed that way. They just don't discuss it. She's very good though, but anyway. So, let me give you some clues. Oh, at Delanoie, Deborah Delanoie at the University of Edinburgh, the parapsychologist, she, this young high schooler came to her laboratory and said that he wanted to be tested because he has psychokinetic palsy and has been spooned with his mind and stuff like that. And she was charmed by him and thought it was plausible and he seemed nice fellow and she liked him and so she did some experiments with him and actually ultimately took well over a year I think that they spent coming to that and doing some things with him. They weren't quite pinning it down. They then at one point contacted Randy because one thing he did, one time he came into the laboratory with, by the way, every time they did think they had the cameras on him and put him on, I'm sorry, but they had the cameras on him, a camera on him. Nothing would happen in the range of the cameras but outside the range of things would happen. Fires started, metal would bend and stuff like that but by the time he was under the camera it just didn't happen. And so it was very, you know, just like what was going on in SRI earlier. But one day he came into the laboratory and he had these puzzles. It's in a plastic box, you know, it's like a square, a cube and it's a coiled thing in there where you have a little ball in your key. It's a puzzle where you try to move it while everything's sealed in that thing there. He came in and the track, the metal tube or whatever it's in that thing had been twisted in a very interesting way and the cube was still sealed. And he said, he just looked at it and that's what happened. It bent like that. They couldn't figure out any way this could have been done but they sent the cube to Randy. He mailed it to Randy. Randy is excellent at this. By the way, Randy is good among the best psychic investigators and stuff like that. Not because he's a magician. He says it's because he's a magician. That's why the people say you always have to have a magician. Magicians were very badly fooled by Geller and there's a history of magicians endorsing psychics and stuff like that. A magician, because they are a magician, are not necessarily the best person to catch trickery by psychics. Most magicians when Geller came along didn't know anything about spoon bending or how he bent and stuff like that and some magicians made a fool of themselves by endorsing Geller as a psychic and one in England, a well-known magician actually still insists that Geller is a good friend of Geller and still insists that Geller has some real powers. So magicians, and I've thought history but magicians will endorse it. They're like the world of science. You can find scientists who go and endorse psychics but you also find magicians who do it. So Randy is great because he's a renaissance man. He knows a lot of things. People don't realize that Randy knows quite a bit about science even though he wasn't educated. He knows a lot about other things. He's a, what you call, a powering math. He knows lots of things. And so Randy looked at this box. He knew what to look for. He knew how to study it and he could see that it had been tampered with a little bit. How they'd open it. So he sent that back to them and was showing how it had actually been open. He could see it when he pointed it out. They hadn't been able to see it until he pointed it out. He also sent them back another box which he said, if he tampered with it, this one, they would be able to leave it. They hadn't fixed it so it was tamper proof in the sense that if he tampered with it, it would leave a trace. And of course he wouldn't do anything with the box, he couldn't. But even that, even their contact was Randy and they talked to Randy, communicated with him, otherwise he gave him some advice what to do and stuff like that. But still they continued with this guy and he kept coming back. And I said for about a year and a half maybe. Okay, so eventually, and by the way, they had two cameras but they only kept one camera on. The idea was that it would be immoral and ethical to put a secret camera on them. So they had that kind of thing. But they finally, Randy, I guess may be convinced, they finally got to the point after working with them so long and I think not me and McCaffrey or anything, they finally also used a hidden camera and everything grew up at that point. I think I'm gonna lose. Friday, cheating. Okay, so here's just two quotes for Vera. During the time we had worked together I felt I came to know Tim fairly well. We had established what appeared to be an honest, friendly and trusting rapport. If he was fraudulent, I thought he either deserved an Academy Award for a most convincing performance or that he was prone to severe self-delusion at the least. By the way, this is a problem all the time is when people assume that they can tell judge people's honesty of sincerity we've got trouble, okay? On the other hand, you can see what's going on here. These people feel they want to do this because they really aren't, they feel that ideally as a sensitive human being you've got to treat them as a sensitive human being. Unfortunately, you're in a catch-22 situation. If you really let them be part of the process and stuff like that, you're opening the door to, you know, I could, even I could get away with anything under those conditions. They're gonna give me the keys to the storeroom, okay? Why had I been willing to give Tim's PK ability to benefit a doubt when evidence was against doing so? In considering this question, I discovered two aspects of my relationship with Tim which may have contributed to my apparent reluctance to recognize that Tim's claims were false. Firstly, I was biased towards liking Tim both initially and as our relationship developed. Secondly, I was biased towards believing him. So this is how she explains that. I can find out if you're interested. So what we're talking about always throughout this course and using the framework is how to make sure you've got good evidence or to be sure you have good evidence before you begin thinking about it. So I go back to one of my favorite people, Claude Bernard was a very important person in medicine in the beginnings of medicine and he helped establish the experimental basis for medicine and his book, I'm trying to remember, an introduction to medical research or something like that, it's in paperback and Dover and it's my favorite book. Many other things. He was well ahead of his time and this is a quote I love of his which I think is very central to this course. A good method promotes scientific development and forewarns men of science against those numberless sources of error which they meet in the search for truth. This is the only purpose of the experimental method. Think about that. A second quote from the book which clinches it for me. If the facts used as a basis for reasoning are ill-established or erroneous, everything will crumble or be falsified and it is thus that errors in scientific theories most often originate in errors of fact and again, as I say, it's a recurring theme in this course and it's the garbage in, garbage out and it's the basis for several things I've been pointing out here. Okay, and it's what Staniewicz would call contaminated mind-wear and once you have in your memory and everything else, you have contaminated mind-wear your thinking, unfortunately, is going to be very, very problematic. Another thing related to this is Richard Feynman and in his fascinating book, Cargo-Caltz Science, Feynman said this, the first principle of science is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. Keep that in mind. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's not easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. So that's the other important thing. Now we jump to some psychology here also related to the fact that good mind-wear there is having good mind-wear, good knowledge, good facts as well as being able to know when to allocate your precious cognitive resources is the best thing you can do in trying to think correctly about duties, claims. These are two psychologists who have a long history of studying logical thinking and stuff like that. They say when an argument is compatible, its conclusions seem probable and it is unlikely that there will be a fallacy in it. Hence there is little justification for engaging in the mentally costly deliberative search of memory. In contrast, when an argument is incompatible its conclusion seems improbable and it is likely that it contains a fallacy. Classically there is a good reason to devote extra mental effort mental work needed to find a fallacy. Now this could be very controversial actually. What is the definition of compatible? Compatible is that when someone comes up to you and says look I just did an interesting experiment where I tested therapeutic touch and it doesn't work. There is a young girl at the time Emily Rosie may have heard about her and she did as a science fair project at her school she was 11 or 12 I think, 12. She tested some therapeutic touch people to see whether in fact they could detect when they couldn't see where a hand was here or over here. I just because they claim they can feel hours around the body. With the science fair project she showed that they couldn't do it apparently. Well this is compatible with apparently the JMA and a lot of other skeptics, skeptical scientists and medical people who don't believe in therapeutic touch. And until Emily Rosie's science fair project got published as a JMA paper. So it means compatible with withdrawal or anything? Yeah, that's right. That's what compatible means. Is that a kind of awkward razor? What's that? Is that similar to awkward razor? We'll know what he's saying. I understand what he's saying is that look when someone comes along with a proposition a statement that's consistent with what you already believe or know you don't spend much time thinking about it you don't waste your time thinking about it. But if someone comes along with something that is incompatible with what you know so if Emily Rose had tested those people in her little experiment and they had come out with the, since she came out saying they body, it worked. They can detect where my hand is better than chance. She would have gotten flack from everyone. Every skeptic in the world would have turned their experiment in part, which is very easy because no experiment is perfect. And she's a little girl at a science fair and it was just a very simple experiment but it was so pleasing that it did come out the way a lot of people wanted to come out that the Journal of the American Medical Association even published it. They're very tough at what they published. They're very incompatible with their viewpoint. So this is it. But this can be a dangerous approach but yet there are sins to this. They want to make a point that in fact if we're always questioning everything the same way we never get to the day. And in fact there's some sense to doing that but you also got to realize there's some problems with it. But anyways I'm pushing that issue there. I've used that to get into this. Here's a foster of science. We will, as a result of belief perseverance, I mentioned this earlier, belief perseverance which is a psychological term, we'll taint our perception of new data. So this would be like our new terminology we talked about in this course. This is like saying contaminated mind wear because of belief perseverance, I'm sorry, perseverance. We'll taint your perception of new data. It's another way of saying that however whatever your background, whatever knowledge you have is going to color it, you can't help it. You always got to approach any new data. I mean I'm doing something with in terms against the background of what you already know. So by the same token however, belief perseverance will serve to color our perception of new data with our pre-existing beliefs when our pre-existing beliefs are accurate. So what he's saying simply is that look if you have mistaken beliefs and you take in new data and you assimilate it to those mistaken beliefs you're going to be wrong. You're just increasing your... On the other hand, he says that's a good-bad feature of it of our belief perseverance but on the other hand, at the same token if in fact your beliefs prior to encountering new data are correct. When you encounter a new data and the token in terms of your color beliefs you're going to be even more correct, right? So he wants you to point out that there's another side to the coin and I'm pointing this out for another reason. How many of you have heard of a read St. Matthew? There are several sources for this but this is famous. According to the Gospel, according to St. Matthew for unto everyone that hath shall be given you've heard this before and he shall have abundance but from him that hath not shall be taken away even at which he hath. This is the principle of Republican economics. Rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer. This is the basis of it, right? This is died by the idea why they don't want any more tax proposals that are going to touch that very rich up to 1% of the wealth we were very wealthy. It's a religious gospel with them apparently. Anyways, this is a famous thing. It's called sometimes it's used in sociology by Merton. He called it many years ago. He was a sociologist of science in the good sense. There are sociologists of science now who are really anti-science. Anyway, Merton applied to call it the Matthew principle. The Matthew principle he wanted to show how fame gets about them. If you become famous very early in science that makes it easier to become even more famous if you very, very begin your career without even knowing about you it's going to be much harder as you progress in your career to get more and more into the backwaters and become unknown. That's the Matthew principle. The idea of the Matthew principle is that things develop. Those who settle an advantage are going to have even more advantages. It's going to multiply. It's going to get worse. That's the idea of the Matthew principle. It's used a lot of ways. It's used by psychologists of reading to try to show that early getting kids to begin reading very early early is a very helpful one. So children who grew up in families where they're encouraged to read and stuff very early gather certain kinds of modules in their mind and stuff like that to make it easier to now read new things and read better things. They get better and better and better. Whereas if you start off in a disadvantaged environment where there are no books and no one encourages you to do that you get worse and worse as you go up the educational scale. That's called the Matthew principle and is applied to reading. But as we see it's also applied to how come scientists and smart people go badly wrong. I will term the idea of knowledge projection. Here's how Keith Sandvich puts it in his book who is rational. This argument that in a natural ecology where most of our prior beliefs are true projecting our beliefs onto new data will lead to faster accumulation of knowledge. I will term the knowledge projection an argument. So that in the natural state of things if most of your prior beliefs about this situation are true beliefs you will accumulate more and more new data which will be consistent with the true beliefs and you'll be even smarter. Best knowledge projection which in the aggregate might lead to more rapid induction of new true beliefs may be a trap in cases where people in effect keep reaching into a bag of beliefs that are largely false. Using these beliefs to structure the evaluation of evidence more quickly adding incorrect beliefs to the bag for further projection. So if you're starting with false beliefs and you start going further you're going to build up even a bigger get more and more into a situation you believe in falsely. Without going further you can begin thinking how you can apply it to scientists who go astray. Within their disciplinary matrix they've already built up to other scientists and through a whole matrix, this matrix they built up a body of beliefs well tested over and over again of good information. So when they account to new information new experiments they can simulate that new stuff the new information to the old stuff tweak the old stuff so it's even better and they're a total amount of information of useful and good information and correct information is even bigger. On the other hand that same thing goes with the person's people start with wrong information. Now when a scientist is in his matrix and he steps out of that matrix begins looking at spiritual media and stuff like that the only information available is the stories not scientific information by people who believe that they do see spirits and these spirits really can do what they claim or if they start to work with Geller they step out of their physics laboratory and work with Geller the only thing they can see is that and they've heard stories about it that's why they go to see Geller that this guy can bend metal with his mind so they're already starting with a basis of wrong beliefs they're already getting the idea that this guy really can bend metal with his mind they start that way and then as they accumulate they only get worse and worse deeper and deeper into puplu so they're in trouble so this is called the Matthew effect when we apply it to why scientists go astray and again I quote from who is rational by Keith knowledge projection from an island of false beliefs might explain a phenomena of otherwise intelligent people who get caught in a domain-specific web of falsity and because of projection tendencies cannot escape they cannot escape otherwise competent physical scientists who believe in creationism and indeed such individuals often use their considerable computational powers to rationalize their beliefs to ward off the arguments and skeptics this is another point which I should have made that I will make now I could have made earlier but I'll make it now is that one of the ways, in fact there's a book called Who's Stupid Wife's Not People Can Be So Stupid that was the title of a book that a collection of articles by experts on this by Robert Sternberg I think we're about 10 years old now and then no less than 10 years old and Sternberg got these experts, different people in different fields of psychology to write what their analysis of how it could be that smart people could be so stupid and then he asked me to read all of the chapters that have been accumulated and write an overarching chapter at the beginning of the book and see if I can put together all the theories that the other people had and write a chapter and I did, so I write the introductory chapter of that book, it's the wrong one and I concluded that smart people can be wrong and stupid just because they're so smart which is the basis of this thing as well in other words, they can now starting with the wrong basis of information if they now have brains and intelligent the kind of smartness to be able to do it they can use that basis to very cleverly argue for their physician which is wrong and make it even worse so one of the ironies of that smart people can be so stupid just because they're so stupid isn't there a similar type of thing that they may even be arrogant about I'm so smart that for somebody's not capable of fooling me that could be, yes could be what Kathy is saying which is a good point is that there's also a motivational part a self-importance aspect to this, that I am so smart, you know my self-image is so smart that it's unlikely no one's going to be able to fool me because physicians and deceivers of all kinds scammers love that kind of thing turns out that the famous book on con artists was written during the 30s by David Maurer called The Big Con and later was republished as the American Conference Man he was a professor at University of Louisville and Professor of English was interested in the language of the underworld and as he wrote several books on the argot as he calls it of pickpockets and the different language that housebreakers had each subgenre of outlaw had a different kind of language and he called the argot and he wrote books on them to compile them as an English professor who's interested in that but one day he used to be on some Sundays while he was resting at home and he would drive up to the street and come in the front door and say hey, we've got to talk to you you've got the language while you've been publishing on language of different kinds of criminals and stuff like that but you missed us because we don't ever get caught we're the conference men they're very proud of themselves and they're con artists and as they talk to them and try to teach them about their language they talk a lot about what they do so you got very fascinated in the psychology of how they do it and it goes on that way and in his book The Big Con which is still a fascinating book to read he shows that the most easiest of people that other conference men can most fool are other conference men because they know how the guy's mind works too, they can take advantage of it and also conference men think they're the cream of the crop, they're so smart that they can't be fooled that makes me more vulnerable to another con artist by the second most successful people to be con, I think it was clergymen and then bankers anyway okay, I got five minutes so less the Matthew effect is and what is implied by the term false beliefs false belief are they trying to imply that there are such things as true belief or I mean would not go down that path just in philosophy it's justified true belief, but Ray would you if you have by the, would you mind just focusing on the replicability thing that's my last lecture but I'm not in my last lecture oh no, then I misunderstood this is the next to the last lecture I thought this lecture was the importance of replicability okay, so I'm not there yet don't rush me maybe I'm just reading the lecture 9 it says the importance of that's lecture 10 well, not in the handout that means you misprinted it no, the importance of replicability is the last lecture, which is next what's that? replicability in the 9 also oh, what they did was I had a heading for each pair of lectures and that was the heading for the pair of lectures they've reedited this I can show you my original one okay, so I'm always right I believe you okay, so I have one minute, two minutes three minutes, okay so we've covered a lot of ground in some ways in some ways, not so much maybe but everything is pointed to making sure we've got good data and the reasons why we want to make that why it's hard to get good data and some of the reasons are because we are cognitive misers and the other reasons are because of the lack of adequate mindware or having mindware that's contaminated in other words so from there I'm going to go just one step further because we've been talking as if you can do an experiment that's going to give you adequate data, good data and it turns out that's not true a single experiment, no matter how good it is even though there are people that can talk about crucial experiments and stuff like that there's no such thing because as I said at the beginning science is inductive and it's a probabilistic thing and the best experiment in the world could have unanticipated reasons why it is wrong and also just by fluke things can be wrong but because of our auxiliary conditions initial conditions you can't handle everything a single experiment by itself is not sufficient to give you the kind of data you want this is the importance of replicability and I'm going to get to that next lecture and show you how pseudo-replicability I think I'll call it I just made up that word can create a whole field which has lasted for over 150 years or so called parapsychology that's the week of next


More than 2,000 students have had awards conferred at winter graduation ceremonies at the Australian National University this week. We spoke to two graduates about career paths they have taken after finishing their studies. My name's Curely Hughes and I completed my undergraduate honours degree in Asian Studies here at the ANU in 2003 and I've just completed my PhD in Asian Studies in 2013. My name is Annabel and I just graduated from the Master of International Affairs and the Master of Diplomacy. Most PhD students select a different university from their undergraduate university to complete their PhD studies to give them more of a rounded education. I couldn't choose another university because when you've done your bachelor's degree at the best university for Asian Studies you've got to come back for your PhD. So I'm currently a Reparation Officer with the Defence Abuse Response Task Force. My role is to sort of analyse complex information which is sometimes quite confronting. When I returned to the ANU to start my PhD I worked part-time for the Australia-Indonesia Business Council and one of the highlights in that role I knew my professional career so far was meeting SBY, the Indonesian President, when he visited Darwin in 2012. We hosted a lunch for him and I actually got to introduce him to a room full of people which was definitely a highlight. Well I think the main thing to take away from it is that there are so many jobs available.  When I began my studies at the ANU I was in a programme called the Distinguished Scholars Program and one of the under-distinguished scholars for Indonesian studies was Jennifer Robinson who's gone on to have a really fantastic and amazing career in human rights law and is based in London and has been working on the Julian Assange case. I've also studied with other students who've gone on to win Rhodes Scholarships and other prestigious international scholarships as well. But also students who've gone on to have really great careers here in Australia and Australian Government and also working in Indonesia for different multinational companies who are working there.


Hello. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening. I'm Audra Martin Marek. I'm a secretary of the Drupal Association Board, and I am very happy to welcome you all to this session. You may have heard about the Olivero theme, which is an official Drupal core initiative to create a fresh and modern default theme for Drupal. My cursor and Putra Bonacorsi are here to discuss the history and future plans, and I'm very excited to welcome to the stage Mike and Putra. Throughout, if you want to ask some questions, you can put them in the chat, and if we've got time at the end, we'll get to them. All right. Over to you, Mike and Putra. Welcome. Thank you, Audra. Yeah. Yeah. So this is turning a wild idea into a core initiative, and we're talking about the Olivero theme. Basically, we're going to talk about our process of taking our wild idea and putting it into an official strategic initiative, and the thought process is you can hopefully take your wild idea and make this into an initiative and get it into core, too, if that happens. I also want to give a huge shout out to everyone who made this possible, and that's especially the Drupal Association. I've talked to, I think, people from 18 countries, which is completely wild, places like Bolivia and Cameroon and Rwanda, and I've talked to people from there, and my mind's been blown. This is definitely not a substitute to meeting people in real life because I miss you all, but at the same time, this is really, really amazing. Yeah, and I just wanted to echo the same testament as well, too. Especially during these challenging times, I'm so glad that we're still able to get together in this virtual conference and still be able to share ideas and also be involved in this amazing community. So thank you to the Drupal community. Yeah, totally. So my name is Mike Herschel. I'm a senior front-end developer at Lullabot, and you can find me on Twitter at Mike Herschel. Hi, my name is Putra Bonacorsi. I am the technical project manager at Lullabot and also a formerly front-end developer as well, too. You can also find my handle at Putra Bon, and my website, I am puttra.com as well, too. Yeah, so as soon as we work at Lullabot, Lullabot is a strategy design and development company, and we also do support and maintenance, which is relatively new if you're into that type of thing. We tend to do like strategy, and when we do strategy, we always mix around cards like this picture. And we also make websites, and here's some screenshots of websites if you've never seen one before. And yeah, and we're essentially the leads of the Outbound Initiative. So for this particular sessions, we'll be going over how we actually found our ideas as far, too, and also identifying whether or not your ideas and the works. We're also going to be putting together your, or going over how we put together our initial team in addition to identifying stakeholders. We're also going to be walking you guys through our design and also documentation process in addition to how you can submit your formal proposal to the community. And at the end of the presentation, we'll give you a sneak peek of the algorithm as well, too, as far as the current updates that we have so far. So yeah, so this is essentially just a quick outline of what we are going to be discussing today. So I'll hand this back to Mike as well, too, just so he can talk about the beginning of our idea. Yeah, totally. So thank you. Yeah, so let's talk about like finding your idea and maybe like how we found our idea. So what are you passionate about? You know, for us, we were passionate about like making Drupal look good. Drupal is this amazing, amazing content management system, but Bartik is a little bit older, you know, it was great for a very long time, but it's kind of getting a little bit dated, you know, and something else is like, what are you good at? I am, I'm not the best backend developer, everybody, I'm a fairly competent front end developer. And so that, you know, I can, I can work on this. And I also have access to like designers through my work and things like that. And a third, a third item to think about is someone already working on your stuff, you know, or your idea. If someone's working on it, well, you know, it's time to join forces. So for Olivero, this kind of started last year at Drupal Con Seattle, and this kind of reiterates like the importance of these meetings are between all of us, you know. So I ended up having this conversation that was with Putra, Lowry, Angie, Lowry Escalas, the front end maintainer for Drupal, if you're not familiar with it, Angie Byron, aka WebChick, is everything to Drupal.  And what, what would we want something to look at? And is, is that, is it already in the works? And so what we found is like, well, you know, Angie and, Angie and Lowry were in kind of a similar frame of mind as us. And, you know, our idea was not so wild, you know. So if you want to find out if your idea is already in the works, the first thing to do is look for the Drupal ideas issue queue. So the Drupal ideas issue queue is basically a Drupal.org project is Drupal.org slash project slash ideas. And there's no code up there, but there's a huge issue queue. And if I want to say like, you know, I want to make Drupal, I don't know, pink, or I want to, you know, do this with Drupal and add in maybe this type of feature, or something like that, I can go ahead and create an issue and say, I think we should do this. And then you're going to have people, people respond to that, and they're going to say, well, I think that's a great idea, or I think that's not so great of idea. And it's really cool because you can get buy-in from people in the higher echelons of the Drupal decision-making process before you actually, you know, start committing your time into code. Thanks, Mike. And, you know, now that you have an idea that you like to include in Drupal core, let's stop and ask yourself, what's your motivation and why this project matters to you? So for us, our main motivation is to create a good first impression for the users, which is typically the first experience that people get when they first install Drupal. The current BoreTech theme has served as the default Drupal theme for almost a decade, as Mike mentioned earlier. And the design had begun to look dated and no longer spoke or reflects the kind of modern backend that Drupal ships under the hood as far too. And basically, we want to change that perception, bring something fresh and modern to this default front-end theme. So our initial goals for the project is to essentially have an updated modern design. We want a theme, like I mentioned before, to feel more modern and also convey a better perception of Drupal as a CMS as well, too. We want the design to support new features as far, too. Leverage the amazing out-of-the-box features that Drupal provides as far, too, like second-level navigation, embedded media, layout builder as far, too, which is amazing, and more as far, too. And we also want the theme to be fully accessible as far, too. So aligning with the WSCAD AA performance as far, too. So setting these goals helped us stay focused on what we needed to do. It got us prepared to open the idea queue, as might mention, for the redesign and development of the theme that could shift the beliefs of Drupal 9 as well. So as our idea started to take shape, we continuously documented all of the discussions, right? We had, we got on the project. And here's just a screen capture of what many, the many documents that we have sorted for this initiative between Mike and I. Documentation isn't fun or exciting as writing code, I'm sure. But it's one of the key factors to us keeping track and hitting the deadline for a release and a proposal to the community as well. And here is essentially a screen capture of our idea queue that we submit as far, too. So in this idea queue, we spent a lot of time outlining some of the key sections, such as our problem and also motivation. We also took this time to also outline our proposed resolution as well, too, in addition to highlighting some of the processes and tools that we like to incorporate for this initiative. In addition to some of the key features that we want to see such as secondary navigation and also other features that we felt that was great to include as far, too. We also try as best as possible to also include the timeline and also scope of work for the project just so that people can have a sense of the workload. And also the initial team as far, too, which is really important because you need a good solid team to help bring everything together. So basically putting the team of what I would call Mike's epic scheming to bring people to participate in a work and work with him. It's important that you form your your band, the core team that's going to be helping you out with this effort. So like I mentioned, with any big or small initiative, you can't do everything all by yourself, right? You need a core team that can bring new perspectives and fill in areas that are outside of your discipline. So in the case of Mike and I, we're just front end developers. We don't have any great design skills. So for us to kick off the project, we need to make sure we can bring in talented folks. And luckily, we, I mean, Mike knows a lot of people. So we were able to form the band with the following folks to make this initiative happen. So we have Mike, who is our community coordination and also project manager and a front end developer for this project as well, too. And myself, I am part of my responsibility as part of the community interaction and also finding development as well, too. And we have Jen Bakowski, who is our lead designer, and also Jared Ponchan, who is also our design architect as well, too. We also have Mike Tiff, who is our community interaction, and also Kat Wranglin. He runs our weekly Slack channel, Meetup as well, too. And we have Katcha, who has been helping us out with some of the accessibility as well, too. Here's a group shot of all of us from DrupalCon and SDM doing tree snows presentation, which I'm sure you guys have probably seen as well, too. So now that you've formed your core team, it's time to identify stakeholders that would help with the proposal process, which was one of the key points for us getting traction and building excitement for this initiative, to be honest with you. So this phase was really crucial for our team for sure. However, before I talk about who are stakeholders for the Alware Project, let's take a step back and examine how you can identify stakeholders as well, too. The following are questions that we ask ourselves, like, who is the person that will make a break my idea, right? Who is the maintainer of the issue that I need to follow up with as well, too? And what core committers or product managers might be interested in my idea as well, too. So here are some of the questions that went through our minds as we're going through this discovery phase of figuring out who would help advocate for our idea, essentially. So the following folks are chosen as stakeholders for the Alware Project. We have Dries, who is the creator and project lead of Drupal, as you all know. Dries' motivation for this initiative is similar to ours as he wants to create a better first impression of Drupal, especially for new users as well, too. And we also have the lovely Angie Baron and also Gabor as well, too, who are the core committers and product managers. They help us out tremendously by letting us know the key players that would help advocate for our idea. So a big thank you to them as well, too. And in addition to Christina and Larry, who were involved in the design process, and just be there to answer any of the questions that we have as we navigate this crazy world of core contribution. So here's the screen capture for all of us in one of our design meetings. As you can see, we look really serious. It was a fun and productive design review. Yeah, so the next one that we have up is essentially document and also design as well, too. Now that you have your issue queue, take it, create it, and identify the core team and also the stakeholders, let's get into the weeks or what I would say, the fun stuff, right? More documentation and design. Documentation. So documentation not only clarifies our thinking, it also helps others to understand what we want, may and also want as well, too. Having a clear documented vision keeps us focused on the scope of work. In addition to that, it also helps you avoid scope creep from other contributors as well, too. So defining the requirements for the user interface for the minimum viable product is definitely very important as well, too, and also helps us keep focused as well. So during the discovery phase, as a team, we started to conduct an audit of all the components and features that are available within Bartek. Here's the screen captures of all the available components within Bartek. We use, you know, a simple dropout paper to gather all the patterns to help us better understand what we were designed for and feature that we feel that's kind of outdated, right? Once we identify all the key components, we create five frames to review what our stakeholders to ensure we capture all the important elements as well, too. So at this point of the project, we have several documentation created, and it's difficult to try and keep track of everything, especially if you're also balancing a full-time job as well, too, right? So we created a centralized document that houses all the notes for all of our internal meetings, and that also includes notes from our stakeholders meeting as well, too, and other design documentation. This was really helpful for us to keep track of the many conversations and makes it easier for us to say no when something doesn't really fit within the scope of work, as mentioned in the previous slide as well, too. It also makes it easier for people to pitch in, also help out as well, too, by providing just some background and contact of the project as well. So design, what I've said, the fun stuff as well, too, right? So once we felt like we were at a good place with the component documentation and also discovery, we were able to start with the design phase as well, too. I won't go into in-depth detail about this phase of the project, but I highly, highly recommend checking out Jen's and also Jared's talk, which is going to be epic, actually, as they go into more detail about the design process behind the alabaro theme and some of the pain points designed for the masses, right? However, in this section, I'll be outlining some of the key exercises that we went through in order for us to form a proposal for the community. So this here is what we call the spectrum analyst. This was a great exercise that helps us figure out what the stakeholders are thinking when it comes to the voice and tone of the project. On the one end that you see here is an action that could describe the look and feel of the site. And the other end are action tips that usually come fixed with the first one. So basically, what we want to get at is that should it feel more formal or casual? Should the theme be more friendly or professional? So luckily, all of the stakeholders were in agreement on what the new theme should look like and become what a really awesome list of design principles to go by as well too. So here are the design principles that came out from our exercise. We want to make sure accessibility is the top on the list. We want to keep the theme and design simple. Avoid unnecessary visual clutters and effects or complexity. We want to theme the field modern. So take advantage of the capabilities and strengths of the modern browsers and also interaction patterns as well too. And we want the theme to last, you know, maybe for the next five to 10 years as well too. Again, that's a big challenge there, right? And we want the theme and the design to be focused as well too, like embracing high contrast, saturated color and also negative space to draw the eyes to the most important information within the page as well too. And we also want it to be flexible as well too, providing options to override any type of white features and also preferences as well. Weekly meeting and also feedback loop. So once we have established the design principles for the new theme, we set up a weekly internal meetings with the stakeholders to discuss our discoveries as well too and also present them with some design options as well too. So here are some calm explorations that Jen and also Jared put together. As you can see, we explore different styles from your typical traditional default theme to once a little bit more modern, like the one that you see on the right-hand side. We were able to incorporate the edge tips from the spectrum analyst exercise and use them to help guide us through the design process, make sure that we're on track and in alignment with the goals that we set out in the beginning as well too, which helps us land on the design direction that would be best fit this new front-end theme that we're trying to get into Drupal 9. Here is the final design mock-up that we end up with, excuse me, big thank you to Jen and Jared for putting this beautiful design together. We couldn't have done it without them as well too.  However, with the current theme, Boatech being named after Gene Boatech, who was one of the original programmers, we wanted to continue in that tradition and name the theme after a pioneering female programmer as well too, which I love. And we named the theme in honor of Rachel Alvaro. Rachel had touched many people in both the Drupal and also accessibility communities. She worked at the National Federation of the Blind and she was committed to making technology accessible for all people, which is incredible. We chose that name Alvaro not just because accessibility is one of our goals, but we aspire to build this theme in our community in a manner that is consistent with the qualities that Rachel embodies, which are patient generosity and also inclusivity as well too. Yeah, so especially that shout out to Teran Amadero. I'm sorry, I think I put you your last name. So I think you have this name and how about us name this theme after Rachel was supposed to. So thank you so much on that. So I'll toss this back to Mike. He's going to be talking about our proven concept process. Yeah, so totally. So at this point, we have a design. We have a beautiful design and how is this design going to look and function? So we needed a way to investigate the use of the header and scroll interactions on mobile and tablet devices. Will this work like we think it will work? Will it be intuitive? In addition, we have some technical challenges like validating the use of CSS grid. We want to use modern technologies like CSS grid, but we support Internet Explorer 11. How is that going to work together? And on top of that, if we do that, is it all going to be accessible? Are these header components going to be accessible? Is CSS grid going to be accessible? How is all this stuff going to work together? And one of my favorite quotes that I have right here, and this is not just regard to literature, but also websites is the first draft of anything and what that means is once you create your website, if you can create it exactly the way they explain it to you, well, they're going to see it in person and they are going to say, well, can you move that over there? I really don't like this. I don't like the way this functions now that I've actually seen this. So we wanted to have this first draft within our proof of concept. And we wanted to do this and we wanted to do it in the most simple way possible. So that includes just like using static HTML. So we don't have to muck around with twig templates. We use minimal JavaScript without behaviors or anything like that. And I didn't even worry about architecting CSS. I was just plop right in there.  And I was actually looking back through our initial commits. You can see it's an open repo. It's at the Lullaby GitHub account.  And that was like my whole thought process of getting this in there and kind of starting to validate stuff. So you can kind of see what the proof of concept looks like right there. And the URL for the proof of concept is at the bottom. And it's actually kind of interesting. Like you can kind of take a look at this. Like obviously the URLs are not dynamic or anything. This is static HTML. But compare this with the actual theme itself. And it's pretty close. And in some cases a little bit different. Thanks, Mike. So now we have the proof of concept to validate our complex design elements. We need to start to draft our proposal to the community and start feedback for the work that we have done as well too. So this phase is definitely really important. Here's our design proposal for the new Jupyne theme. This announcement issue included several processes that we took to get to where we are today. I must admit I was nervous when we submitted this issue. And I'm sure it was the same for everyone else within the team as well too. I wasn't sure what the response would be, whether or not people would be receptive to what we're introducing or what we're taking out from what they're used to in Boat Tech as well too. However, the response was overwhelmingly positive. And we were thrilled to see the excitement that folks have within the community about this initiative. So that was fantastic to hear. So now that we have the proposal out in the world, it's time to start setting up your project page as well too. So here is an example of our viral project page where we include the description of the project in addition to some information about our weekly meetings and how people can also get involved as well too. So in addition to the project page, we also added some contribution documentation just so that folks can come in and just say, hey, what are you guys working on? How can I get involved? And there are some helpful links that folks can get into to get started as well too in terms of creating a patch and also contributing to this theme. We also set up a documentation page for the involvement setup as well too just so that we have the necessary steps that folks can come in and use in order to get everything in place as well too. And a big thank you to Clara and also Umami, the two initiatives. They really done the hard work of getting post-CSS into core. So we were able to leverage a lot of the tools that they introduced into the our viral project as well too. So a big thank you to the teams on those projects for helping us out when getting our initiative at a spot of where we at right now. So speaking about where we at right now, let's talk about the update of the status of the Drupal viral theme. So right now we're at the final stages of alpha. We're mainly focusing on stabilizing regions, bug fixes. And to be honest with you, I feel like the version that we have right now are fairly stables and we have some early adoption as well too. Like I've seen a couple folks actually download the theme and also install on the page as well too. So it's kind of nice to see the theme in a while but also kind of nerve-wracking because we don't know what it's going to break but it's good that people are adapting it and also utilizing it as well too. So here is basically what the theme looks like and so as you can see it position nicely with the Drupal other box menu bar. Here we also have a screen capture of the drop down as well too which includes some indicative content but here it's just like a preview of what it looks like but I highly recommend you guys checking out this link which is essentially you know a placeholder site where we have indicative content that showcases the complex navigation that we have in addition to forms and it also gives you like a list of what the views look like looks like as well too and a big big thank you to Tuckball for hosting this site and helping us get our preview in place as well too. In addition to that I just want to give a big big thank you to the following contributors as well too and also the folks that work on the project as far as like creating tickets, testing patches and also just being there on our weekly Slack meetings as well too. Thank you all for all your hard work we could have done this without you, without you also. I'm sure I'm probably missing some names here but I just want to make sure that you know folks who have contributed you know are being highlighted as well too so yeah so right now our main focus is to get the theme into core so here is just a list of our roadmap to core essentially so as I mentioned earlier we're at the final stages of alpha but we also want to get into the beta release as well to making sure that for our beta release accessibility and also code quality and bug fixes are at a good place and we definitely are looking to get the theme included into Drupal 9.1 version and work into getting the theme set as the default theme as part of Drupal 9.2 release as well too so those are the areas that we're currently focusing on as well so once we have everything in core post core roadmap is essentially looking into some of the features that we're not in our VP list so the Drupal mode featured and also color changing is also something that's on the top of our list we also want to make sure the theme can also be a sub theme as well too and other possibilities that are in our issue queues but we can't get to it right now given that you know we just want to make sure that we have a stable theme that can be included in core as well so I'll toss this back to Mike he's going to walk us through some of the challenges that we face within this project yeah so Mike take it away yeah so you know this is my first significant this is our first significant core contributions you know so and there's been a there's been a learning process involved right here you know talking about managing scope you know nice to have versus must have like I've been fairly strict on this if it can't be done at the theme layer well then you know yeah let's do it but we'll push it back to some other time you know or yeah managing enthusiastic contributors are very skill levels holy cow there's a lot of people that really want to help out and it's I'm so thankful because a lot of people are just like kicking butt and taking names and it's just it's just pretty amazing but geez keeping track of everyone managing people being able to review and stuff like that is a heck of a lot of work and like and honestly just like kind of managing my own mental health I know you know it's it's easy to to look at other people and and and say like hey settle down it's not that important you know we're going to get by regardless but like when you're in the middle of something and just like you have you know people saying you know there's so many issues that are either rtbc or ready for review and you have like a whole bunch of work it does get a little bit stressful and like like there's that thought process you know that we do have like you know a deadline to get it in decor and there's there's a lot going on and that's something that like I've been like struggling with managing you know myself and I'm pretty sure Putra and others have too and on top of that you know it's finding finding the time to contribute you know like we are we work you know we work for Lullaby and and we do our you know our full weekly allotment of billable hours and on top of that is when we do our aloe vera contribution and like other contributions and you know on top of that we have to balance you know our lives and our families and stuff like that you know I also want to highlight some dependencies that we need that we want to get into core I'm kind of switching gears here I'm going to add a number of post-css plugins post-css is already in core I mainly thanks to declare a team and thank you we want to add some some additional functionality some plugins to this and I'd love it if you all could just like kind of click on these and comments and and you know tell us your thoughts on these issue cubes that'll that'll kind of inform the conversation right here so custom media is just one that allows you to use like the equivalent of like CSS variables in your media queries post-css RTL is just a plugin that basically converts your your you know your your you know your left to right layouts to right to left layouts so you know you could you I might be typing in margin left and it will convert that to you know dear RTL margin right and it's just like super handy and works perfectly post-css nested talking to Larry it's kind of like a long shot but I'm still hoping we could get it in there that's one where you can use like kind of like SAS like nesting syntax within CSS and and it just makes the code so much readable for me and then there's another plugin called picks to RAM and it just converts all pixel units to RAM units which are more accessible because they scale at different and different scenarios where pixels do not and right now we're just writing our our CSS and pixels because I find it personally easier to kind of understand and so like join us we need help like I like I tell you like there's a lot to do there's a lot to do yeah yeah and um so I know you can't click on this link right now but we're going to share our slides and and then you can do or you can just like navigate to our project page and there's documentation link at the bottom right and then you can you can find it right there we have a we have a weekly Drupal Slack meeting it's in the D9 theme channel and if you're not in Drupal Slack you should totally join it's a lot of the community conversations there and we do weekly meetings Matthew Tift moderates the thank you Matthew and yeah um so coming up right after this like so like after we're done with our question and answer session you know maybe go get take a little break and go into sessions and take a look for designing for casts the process behind Oliver that's Jen and Jared who are the amazing designers that put this together and I've seen this presentation before and it is fantastic and if Jen and Jared if you are listening no pressure but but it's it's awesome so yeah uh so uh question time if you have questions uh for getting your uh idea into core and or questions about Olivero uh go ahead and go ahead and ask him and I'm gonna I'm gonna bring up my dog here too I'm gonna bring in my dog as well too everybody wants to see the dogs everybody wants to see the dogs we also have a slide for the session evaluation as well too um if you can provide some feedback for us that would be helpful as well yeah totally this is Dexter all right welcome welcome to the stage Dexter um so we did have a couple questions that came in um during the presentation um so and if anybody has any others um please do pop them into the chat quickly as we can get to them um the the first question I was gonna pose to you is from Gabor he says um how did you make the case for your company to sponsor the effort yeah so we just kind of did it and didn't like really say we were gonna do it and then we said by the way we're doing this you know and you know this is gonna make it yeah I think when it comes down to it like um Lullabot as a company um you know we're open to like um collaboration and um we also like to encourage people to um contribute back as well too and when Lullabot we also have 20 percent time so you know we can take spend some time on um you know doing contribution work so it's it's really the culture at Lullabot that allows us to you know take the time um to really dedicate into this project so thank you to Lullabot as well too did you ever have a formal conversation like once you'd already been doing it with 20 percent time did you ever have a formal conversation that said we're doing this you know let's kind of make it an official thing totally not yeah yeah Lullabot has a very rich uh rich history of contribution like like going all the way back into like Drupal 4 like we've done like a lot of work on the form API Karen Stevenson was like getting like fields uh into like Drupal 7 core like CCK and like all of like Lullabot has a huge a huge uh um culture of doing that and honestly I didn't feel the need to say hey can we do this you know because there's kind of an implicit understanding you know in in addition to that Jared Poncha is one of the directors um our design architect is one of the directors of Lullabot and and we're like we also have a culture of just like being open and and you know we have these team calls and I said well hey I'm starting to work on this you know I'm doing this and you know it wasn't so much of a conversation but like hey this is what's important to me at this given time and this is where my efforts are going that's great another question we have from Tim it says what advice do you have for someone who wants to propose an initiative but doesn't feel ready or feels like an uh has imposter syndrome um that is holding on that I have the same feeling as well too going to this project to be honest with you um because you know I've never done any contribution work until the Albuero project so it's essentially you know that imposter imposter syndrome is going to come up but at the same time I think if you do your due due diligence as far as like doing the appropriate research and also forming your documentation and have a really solid um you know game plan going in it I think people would be receptive and would be able to you know help advocate for what you want as far too I think the goal here is making sure that you have um your roadmap in place and laying out all the different work that are going to be going into it so that other people understand the work and also help make it happen as well too yeah I want to reiterate what Putra said like having a solid plan just makes things better so you can kind of like talk intelligently about it um you know you I would say throw your ideas into the Drupal ideas issue cube but like that being said like there's always a possibility that you might not get like some responses and stuff like that so in that case I would I would say like number one you are welcome to reach out to me personally like on Twitter or through my Drupal.org contact form or my email address is mike at hershal.com if you can spell my last name properly and I can help you through there um I can tell you that Angie and Gabor have been like very helpful for me because you know I remember having these conversations with Gabor and saying like listen you know like we're creating this like you know we're exposing our designs to the community here what do we need to convey and uh you know I think he was saying like you just need to make sure that you know people understand that there's a thought process behind this whole thing and then you know and and and he like he and Angie have just like so much experience and and I I would say like um I don't want to kind of put them on on on like out there but like you know if you're able to reach out to them uh like they're super great resources and like you know part of their job title I think like if I recall correctly is Gabor is like the initiative manager of initiatives or something like that sorry Angie and Gabor great thank you very much um any questions I'm just looking at the chat to see if anything else has come in uh it does not look like it Gabor says Angie and I are happy to help and get started with my initiative so there you go totally awesome well I hand it over to Tim thanks very much guys thank you thank you all so much it's wonderful to have both of you Mike and Putra talking about the process of actually starting a core initiative and using using your amazing work on the Olivero theme as a case study for that I think is just extremely cool as someone who's proposed a couple core initiatives myself um having that end-to-end example of how it worked and how it works so successfully is incredibly valuable and I think um I suspect we might take this recording and put it right on the core ideas page of here's how you do it right so we'll get that out um yeah you say you say that now but we're not in core yet we'll get there we'll get there um uh so um Mike you mentioned that you'll be sharing the slides I think there's some folks in chat asking so if you want to just let folks know where you're going to do that we can also upload speaker slides to the nodes on events that Drupal.org so we may repost them there for anybody who's asking um in the meantime I'm going to briefly stop our broadcast here we're going to be coming back for a live intermission with some desk yoga so if you're like me and you've been sitting in an office chair for 12 hours a day you'll you'll probably really enjoy that get energized um and then we will have a session on uh making the transition mentally and technically from CMS to DXP CMS to digital experience platforms so stick around if you want to join us for that or take a look at the rest of the session schedule thank you again to our speakers and we will talk to you all soon thanks everyone bye everybody


Building integrated photovoltaics, BIVs, and vehicle integrated photovoltaics, VIPs, are both solar energy systems that utilize photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight into electricity. However, these two types of systems differ in their ability to capture solar radiation due to the presence of non-uniform shading objects such as buildings and cars. To address this issue, this paper proposes a new method for calculating the solar irradiance of BIPV and VIPV systems. It uses an aperture matrix to accurately calculate the horizontal and vertical planes affected by non-uniform shading objects. Additionally, the proposed method can be used to calculate the solar irradiance on a VIPV by applying a local coordinate system. The 3D model was validated with simultaneous measurements of five orientations, roof and four sides, front, left, tail, and right, of solar irradiance on a car body. Finally, the combined use of the 3D solar irradiance model is effective in assessing the energy performance of solar electric vehicles in various zones, including buildings, residential areas, and open spaces. This article was authored by Kenji Araki, Yasuyuki Oda, Akira Nagaoka, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


Live from Barcelona, Spain, it's theCUBE. Covering Cisco Live 2018. Brought to you by Cisco, Veeam, and theCUBE's ecosystem partners. Okay, welcome back everyone, this is theCUBE's live coverage at Cisco Live 2018 in Europe. I'm Geoffrey, cohost of theCUBE with my partner in crime this week, Stu Miniman, analyst at wikiman.com. Also cohost of theCUBE at all the events we go to, most of the events, I should say. Next guest is Ashutosh, Madeline Gakar, who's the principal engineer at Cisco DevNet, involved in a lot of the great projects at Sandbox we're going to talk about. Welcome to theCUBE. Thank you, thank you for having me, Jack. Thanks for coming on. One of the exciting stories here is the DevNet momentum continues. Congratulations to your team. Thank you. But you're involved in a couple cool parts of the projects that we noticed was getting a lot of traction. Yes. Co-create at Sandbox. First, take a minute to talk about what that project is and why is it so popular. Yeah, so as you know, DevNet is becoming the key core for Cisco. And one of the things that we did in DevNet is it's a strategic initiative where we said that we are going to call it co-creations. And what that means is we are co-creating with Cisco's strategic partners, that's one. The second is that we are taking our top customers, like our top 10 customers or top 100 customers, our partners, and our developers. So we are looking at each of these three categories and saying, how can we actually help and take that to the next level with DevNet. So you're sharing a lot of resource. Is it the same project that people bring their own? Project to the table? How does it work? Yes, so it's both. So for example, I'll talk about, first let's talk about strategic initiatives where a strategic partner, sorry. And in there, we have Apple and Google as our strategic partners. With Apple, what we have done is we have actually created a Fastlane validation program. And what that does is with Fastlane as a product, what we are doing is any app developer who wants to use application quality of service, we actually help them validate their application in DevNet. And one of the things that we noticed is app developers really don't understand quality of service, QoS. And as soon as we say quality of service, they freak out, right? And so we have to actually hand hold them, let them understand what it means, and then we actually help them take their application on the path. I mean there's a lot of things in networks that are like that, deep packet inspection, people freak out and QoS, but QoS is a very important feature. It is. Big time. It is, and that's one thing that we are basically saying, how can network be the platform where you can use performance as a building block? So, and if you heard Susie in her keynote, that's what she was stressing on, right? We want to have that as a building block for developers. Yeah, really interesting points. We've been, one of the things we've been digging in the last few days is kind of a changing partner ecosystem. There's some partners that have been with Cisco for decades, networking, infrastructure, but Apple, not a traditional Cisco partner. The other one that you mentioned, Google. I did, yeah. So, believe Google's here doing some presentations. John and I have been digging into all the CNSEF projects, so what's Google doing here? Yeah, so with Google, what we have, Cisco has done is we are coming up with our hybrid or multi-cloud strategy, and in the hybrid cloud strategy, what we are doing is there are things where, like if I'm an app developer, on-prem app developer, and I want to access services which are in the cloud. Now, what the partnership does is we have our security services all the way from on-prem to the cloud, deployed in the Google cloud system, and as an app developer, I can do my services on-prem but access some services which are in the cloud. So that's one application. Second is that if I'm an app developer working already in the cloud, but I want to access some of the services which are on-prem, then how do I do it? And that's what this partnership is also helping out. How's the reaction been of the Cisco Live audience here? How many people are lining up to come listen to Google talk about STO? Yeah, so STO is one part, but Kubernetes, if you look at our sandbox, we have, it's becoming one of our most popular sandbox in DevNet, and Kubernetes is hot, and with the Google partnership, we are also working with Google on STO. It's an open-source project, and what we have done is we have created a sandbox for STO. And that is also like, it's kind of an industry first, where developers are able to understand, like go through a learning lab to actually understand what it means. Yeah, absolutely. John and I were at the KubeCon show, we interviewed Lou from the Cisco team, heavily involved in the open source, but yeah, one of those things, how do we simplify it? How do we help people get the on-ramp? Sandbox is a great way for people to get started. That's correct. One of the things that we're excited about, and this is something that we're going to be doing, digging into all year, is the impact of Kubernetes. And the sandboxing points to the trend of how people are partnering. I think you guys struck a really interesting form of this co-creation model, because if you look at what service meshes are doing in markets, is that the more that you can make it easier for developers, and at the same time, enabling the engineering side of it, getting down and dirty. We're talking about QoS, we're talking about plumbing stuff, right? There's still a lot of automation being done under the hood. This is the network opportunity, this is where we're seeing automation around provisioning and configuration management, all that good stuff. That needs to get done, but it has to be addressable for true programmability. We're not there yet, but we're almost there. You're getting there, yes. What's your reaction to that? A 19 year veteran at Cisco, Cisco has an inherent advantage, having the network. So looking up, that's been enabling, but now you have people who want to look down and program it to you. Kind of a new dynamic. It is, it is. How are you guys looking at this? So the way I look at it, as you said, I've seen Cisco grow, I mean, I've grown up in the company, and one of the things that Cisco being the expert in networking, we have experts now, which are getting to doing everything, right? In the sense like now, the edge is where a lot of stuff is happening. And when you deploy edge services, you also need stuff that needs to be done in the cloud. So for example, one of the examples I like to do is, give you is, let's take machine learning as a good example, where I want to download some models, machine learning models onto the edge, but the traffic is actually all at the edge. So I'm taking all the inputs from the edge, taking at the edge, calculating things, and then the models are being built in the cloud because I can't build those at the edge. So that's the thing that is happening now. And what we see here is that Cisco is in the midst of both edge as well as cloud. And IOT was going to be very instrumental. I mean, if you talk about the, if you talk to the pure networking nerds and geeks out there, they're going to say edge, we've been doing edge of the network for years, but now the edge is extending, right? To IOT. So it's not a new concept of Cisco at all, is it? It's not, it's not at all new at all. Because like, as I said, like, you know, something very similar to what we are doing for the Apple Fastlane, as I told you before, like now the app developer has the ability to give QOS right at the app level, right? The same thing, like with IOT, it's like all the devices are connected to Cisco, right? And this is what's going to be fun to watch because you guys now have compute to throw at the edge. You have cloud that you can connect to the edge, but this is going to change the nature of programming. Stateful and stateless applications become a really interesting dynamic. What's your reaction to that trend as developers start to really start thinking about state? Sure, so one of the things that like, again, I go back to the edge thing where like, you know, if you have a train, like if you have a tunnel and then there are cars passing by, you are actually like looking at the cars as let's say a stream of dots, right? Now that state, you cannot be like, giving and storing it somewhere. So you basically keep it at the edge, you figure out what's happening, compute and take some actions there itself, right? That's where the action is. Ashutosh, thank you for coming on theCUBE and sharing your knowledge, appreciate it, congratulations on the co-creation, Fastlane service you guys have among other things. The collaboration model is the future. Cisco is really demonstrating that in the DevNet zone, so props to the team. It's theCUBE, we always collaborate, share the best content here live in Barcelona with you. I'm John Furrier with Stu Miniman. More live coverage, day two of our two days wall-to-wall live coverage of Cisco Live 2018 in Europe. This is theCUBE, we'll be right back with more after this short break.