Hi everyone, in this lesson we're going to talk about that how to convert any decimal number into octal number in Python programming language. Let's say that we have some integer number for example 125 and that we want to convert it to the octal number. We'll do that by using oct function and inside that function we will provide as an argument number that we wish to convert to the octal number and we will get value of octal number 175 and as representation of octal number we will get 0 and 0. So number 0 and letter O are obviously representation of octal number in Python programming language. Let's check, does it work correct? Let's see if our calculator will give to us the same value if we take decimal number 125 and if we try to convert it to octal number. So yes we will get the same result 125 in decimal number in integer number is same as 175 in octal number. That's all in this lesson. Thanks for watching. Happy coding.


Hello everyone. This is Melissa with thestockswish.com and welcome. Welcome to an update of the SPI. I thought I would do this today. Very interestingly, the market held extremely bullishly the last few days. Let's just take a look at it. Yesterday, the market closed with this bottoming tail. Nice little bottoming tail here with a small range body. And today, I wasn't sure where the market would actually open in gap. Initially, it was a little bit neutral and then we opened lower. So it was a gap down that actually took place in the SPI today. But I called it as an immediate buy. And it was an immediate buy. I go look at the one minute chart, but you had to get out when it ran up here into the reversal time. Then the market took a dive. Actually, let's look at the one minute first. There is a ton of Econ out in the next two days in the market too. I mean, a ton of reports between Thursday and Friday. So we're just going to get some movement here in the market. This next two days, for sure. All right, let's look here. So initially, I called in the room to buy the market in a one minute high if it's set up or the first buy set up. The buy set up worked. The buy set up worked in the market here. If you bought it and didn't do a one minute high, but you could have bought it here or here, 9.35 reversal time. This you could have bought and held. It pulled up.  Then in here, here was the second set up here into 10 o'clock, and here's where it lifted on through right at 10 o'clock. Look at this. Really nice move here in the market. So the entry was 179.20, and it ran out more than a buck. Really, really nice trade in here to go long. I did not do this, but I said to go long immediately this morning in the market, and it was a good call because the market had a huge rally. Then it actually triggered on the buy set up. Triggered in the buy set up, and I thought it was going to go out and make new highs. If not in the spy, at least retest the area the queue is about to make new highs over 86. But it didn't. Instead it triggered a few pennies, 180.39 is here. It triggered on the buy set up, 10 pennies over, but then all of a sudden it crashed down through into this reversal time for some reason. Around 11 o'clock into 11.15, the market came in, set up and actually set up to do a 15 minute buy set up to go long, and then right at noon, which is a major reversal time in the market, it fell off a cliff. I mean, it obviously collapsed and it fell off a cliff, and I don't know why it just did. It held then, held, rallied all the way back, rallied all the way back and completely retraced the drop off, and closed bullishly on the day. But we'll have to wait and see where we actually open tomorrow morning. You know, my call for tomorrow is bullish. I think we hold in here. If we wanted to fall and fail and go red and really crash through the bottom of the planet, we could have today. Market did break the low, made that bottoming tail thing. If anything, I'm seeing this here, this is sitting here on its butt, acting like a very nice support. Like this, the fact that we actually open here and did the tail is actually a better support than if we just had a small body day here up and closed like this.  I think it's a good place to go higher tomorrow. So we're either going to rally up tomorrow and go higher and fall through the buy set up the trigger today, or we're just going to have a neutral day and not really go anywhere with any momentum. But that's low odds because the market has a lot of reports out tomorrow. And I think we're going to get some movement. And unless the reports are negative, the market reacts negative to them. I think we have a move to the upside, unless for some reason I get up tomorrow and we're capping down, but we're not capping down here tonight. So here this is where we came in. Look at that. Beautiful. Really nice move. So this is Melissa with the stockswish.com. If you're interested in more information on how to read charts and do technical analysis and read things in the matter that I do, which is taking a look at price and gaps in the chart of a stock or the market, you can email me at Melissa at the stockswish.com. I teach a class on how to read gaps. And it actually is focused on technical analysis and the reading of price and charts. To me, that's really the only way to trade. So if you're interested in more information, reach out. Thanks, everybody. Have a great night.


We will 7-1 go for need then. Yes sir, flight level 270, request immediate descent back to the RKO container. We are in Iraqi airspace, not entering Iran airspace. Just confirm on radar. Negative failure also. We have a good speed to lower, I want to warm up honey a little bit. No number is 96204. Zero nine, I'm starting looking for 10k please. Do that, you're clear to contact when you're ready. Zero nine.


Good morning. This is a work that a judiciary was rejoining you.  Did we have a, we have a redraft brand or do we have anything here. Got the same draft that you looked at last week. I think that you heard from should be dropped 2.1. On your committee web page from I believe the 21st. Yep. You say that again. It's up on the website. I can share my screen for the committee to look at it. If you'd like. Yeah, please. We've already had, we've already heard from all of our witnesses. I believe so. Yeah. And folks are here now during markup. So yeah, it would be appropriate. So can everybody see that? Okay. Yeah. So I think that you looked at these, there are just a couple of changes to this 2.1 draft that you looked at last time. We added that motivated in whole or in part. And then in subsection B, we removed the word substantial. So now it's that the victims protected category. Need not be a predominant or the only reason for defendants conduct. So those are the two changes from draft 1.1. In addition, section three, we added. And then we also added that. This is the, this is like the civil statute, the civil counterpart, and we just dropped or the national guard in there. So it matched the change that the house made to the hate crime statute. That's just a technical. Fixed there. So those are the only changes from the, from the first draft that you looked at. Okay. It's good to me at the point. Anybody, I think that has a question. Please. I was just going to ask if the. If predominant I get, I understand the sole reason, but is it, do we. Just predominant just means that it can be parked as opposed to, is that the way we did would interpret predominant reason. So court would, would. Would interpret that would have to develop some jurisprudence about how to interpret the word predominant. I do think that you may have heard some testimony from witnesses that if you include that language about in whole or in part. You may not need subdivision subsection B there. But again, that's a question for the, for the committee. If you want to include that language about predominant reason, because then you may. You may be directing the court to. To find that even if it's even if that motivation based on. Protected category isn't largely the reason. They could still find that a defendant was subject to this enhanced penalty. I guess I, I, I, the way I read it is that B gives a little bit more directive to the court than the language in whole or in part. So Bryn. I guess now that I look at it. I'm wondering about whether we might better say. Need not be the predominant reason. And, and my thinking there is. That way we're staying among factors. It doesn't have to be the largest. But if we say a predominant reason. We get into more. More gray area. I think about. Whether it is. Or whether it is the predominant reason. Or whether it is the predominant reason. One of the predominant. I think it's easier to interpret the predominant. And that and sole reason exclude. Cases where. Or, or, or make it clear that it doesn't have to be the only reason. Or the largest reason. In order to trigger them. That makes sense. Yep. Okay. Well, where do we want to go from here? I can't see if anybody has a handle. I don't know. I don't know if anybody has a handle. I don't know if anybody has a handle. I can't entertain a motion, Mr. Chair. I certainly would. I would move that we report this bill favorably as. Amended right up to the last moment. Any comments from anybody who's here. Witnesses. John Campbell. Julio Thompson. Okay. I'm all set. Senator. Thank you. Anyone else. Right. Committee. Any further discussion? The motion is to report. To amend the bill as seen in draft. 2.1. I. Senator. I was going to say that I, I originally really did like what was proposed by the ACLU about the. Intentionally selected victim. But then when I heard the example of the two guys that get in a fight at the bar and it had nothing to do with that, but then the guy turns around and there's a black guy standing there and so he. That was a reason for him to continue into. And to continue beating up on the guy. I was swayed by that. Example. Because it was a reason, but not the predominant reason it. Added to the. The fire. That's not me. No, sorry about the background noise. Unfortunately I'm on a corner in Linenville. Oh, okay. I was afraid people would think it was. I was afraid people would think it was a reason that was wrong. But I would agree with the. The committee. Was in distress. I just want to interject here for a moment to say this will be draft 3.1. If you vote on this, just cause we made that one change. Senator. That we report. That we amend. Are there any further discussion? Hearing none, Peggy, could you please call the roll? Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. All right. Somebody move the bill as amended. I think I did. Oh, I'm sorry. That's all right. Senator Baruth has moved that we report H428 as amended in draft 3.1 that we just approved. Are there any further discussion? Hearing none, Peggy, would you please call the roll? Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Did you say yes? I'm sorry. Yes. Okay, thank you. Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. I don't know who would like to report this. Sure there's. I can report it. Thank you, Senator Baruth. Senator Baruth will report H428. All right. That gives us an opportunity to spend a little more time since Brent is with us and Brent is the draft or eight S7 the expungement bill will give us a little more time to work on that bill. So I see you're going to give you a brief, you're not going to believe what happened on the way to the forum explanation. After all of our work on expungement over the last several years, somehow different groups and the administration began to question the expungement process and what we were doing, blah, blah, blah. So Representative Grad and I got, Representative Grad first got approached about S7 and asking it to be held off into the next year and not to deal with the expungement bill. And Peggy, would you just let David Schurr know we're dealing with S7 right now in case he's available? So anyway, we got a letter from J. Johnson, the legal counsel to the governor, Commissioner Schurling of Department of Public Safety, Commissioner Baker of Corrections, and Commissioner, I'm going to say Berkshire, I messed up his name, of Department of Financial Regulation. Exactly, yeah. Thank you, I almost said Berkshire and I know that's a senator. Anyway, there had various complaints about S7 and when we looked at their complaints, we were kind of dumbfounded because many of them were expungements, expungement and the idea of an additional email from the Vermont Bankers Association suggesting that they wouldn't be able to check the records to find out the records of the person we expunged to particular events, they wouldn't be able to check the records to see what that person had done 20 years ago, which is obviously the reason that we have expungement. So it became quite a, I don't know what you might call it, I am really appreciative of the Attorney General's Office, P.J. Donovan called me, I'm sure, Maxine and as well as David Sher, who then prepared a letter, many of you may have seen the column that was in the paper about S7 to move forward with some significant changes to S7, assuming that we would deal with some of the concerns expressed by the administration and others next year. We don't know if that'll satisfy them, but David went through various sections of S7 and Bryn has drafted a amendment for the House to consider. Now, obviously they're still working on the bill, but I wanted to give some time this morning for us to be aware of where the Attorney General has suggested changes to the bill and trying to keep it alive and hopefully avoid a veto by the governor of our expungement. I don't know, Bryn, I'm gonna turn it over to you and if David, if you wanna make some comments while before Bryn, you're welcome to do that. Thank you Senator for the record, David, share with the Attorney General's office. You know, I'll keep my comments brief for now and happy to engage with discussion after Bryn presents, but I do very much appreciate the committee in our office and the Attorney General very much appreciate the committee looking at these issues. We really do think that a lot of the concerns of the administration are things that are addressed and we're happy to sit down at the table and do that. We've presented some possibilities here and we simply don't agree that we need to dramatically stop progress on a bill that passed the Senate unanimously and we think we can really move forward with addressing a lot of their core concerns and again, we're happy to continue with this process. So I'll let Bryn move forward and then we can dive in in more detail after that, but thanks again to the committee for working on this. Remember, this is still the House action will be on it so we don't know exactly what's going on. That's right. And obviously we defer to the House and this committee to the side on timing that's outside of our purview, but we appreciate you working on this. At some point we're gonna be asked to hopefully, but at some point we're gonna be asked to either concur or call for a committee of conference. And I think it's helpful to know how the Attorney General and both representative Grad and I've had a number of conversations about this. We really do appreciate these. Senator White. Can I just ask you if there concerns were the fact that they couldn't look back many, many years to see somebody's record, somebody who had committed some kind of a crime and then it had been many years because there's a long process before it gets expunged and they hadn't committed a new crime and they were concerned that about that. Is that the basic concern that they had? One of them, one of the concerns was and we had left, we may have made a mistake and left open the possibility that somebody could be incarcerated and expunged in a law that could be incarcerated in an entirely different matter and could get something expunged even though they were still incarcerated. That possibility and there was a couple of other issues. They are efforts to correct something for one particular person who had been on probation for failure to pay tuition, if you remember. That created also some questions for them and so that's another one that was raised. Okay, thank you. But yeah, it's the basic correction saying how can we do a risk assessment if we don't know what they did in the past? Especially 20 years ago. Right, or 40 years ago. Oh, man. So, but I may have missed something, David, but that was basically the objection. That was one of the main... They kept to talking about transparency too and I don't know what that meant. Yeah, I understand it. That's right. That was an issue and some of this as you're correctly identifying is sort of a philosophical issue here. Is it important that we remember and keep on the record forever? Very old offenses and we don't think that that serves a public safety purpose and does a lot of harm that is unnecessary. So, and then there were other sort of more technical issues around making sure that nothing's overlooked. And those pieces I think we can really address. Senator Baruth. I was just wondering to what extent this overlaps with what Judge Grierson has said in the past about wanting us to move to a single system of just sealing. He's made that argument more than once where we would basically walk away from the idea of expungement and have sealing with different levels of who can access that information. David, do you have a sense of is there, is that the same way of viewing it or do they just have a certain amount of overlap? That's a good question, Senator. And it was not instated explicitly in the letter that a regime that looked more like just sealing would be something that they would prefer. So I don't want to speak to that without having them say that directly. I don't want to mischaracterize what they were saying. That may be the case that that would be something that they'd be more comfortable with, but since that wasn't explicitly stated, I wouldn't hazard an answer on that without them weighing in. Because I have always taken Judge Grierson's point would obviously simplify things administratively. It would make it easier for the judicial system, but it gets rid of the central goal for the person involved, which is to have the offense gone, to have it existing somewhere under seal. I think we all know how that works. Information's gonna leak out in various circumstances. So anyway, I just thought I'd connect those pieces. Yeah, and I appreciate that. I mentioned one other thing that we sometimes forget. Other than a few sections, the one dealing with one particular person's issues, S7 was based upon the recommendations of the sentencing commission, on which set several members of the administration. It's not like this, you know, and so as the house started to go through the letter from the administration, they were somewhat dumbfounded because while there's a new commissioner of corrections and a new commissioner of public safety, the sentencing commission did have representatives of the administration on it. And that's where the generation of S7 came from that was not just pulled out of, anyway, pulled out of the sky and all of a sudden somebody came up with this wonderful idea. And it was a unanimous vote out of the sentencing commission. An anonymous vote from the sentencing commission. So if people start complaining about what crimes were in there, they should look back to their own sentencing commission. The vote are unanimously to recommend that S7 be the way it was. Given all those concerns, I'm gonna ask Ren, unless there's other questions, to walk through the changes, or at least where we're headed. I mean, there's a lot of changes, obviously, or to try to get something through this, to get the basis of the S7 to be, if you go to page five, I think that's where the significant change takes place. Yep, that's right. So good morning, committee, for the record. Are people rather have it posted on the screen or can you read it on our, it's on our webpage? Yes, it is. The only concern about that, Dick, is anybody watching on YouTube does not necessarily have two devices going at the same time. Okay, so go ahead and post on our webpage. Okay. Thank you. Sure. So thank you. That was a good introduction, Senator Sears, because I was about to start off going through this by saying this is a House Judiciary amendment that that committee hasn't looked at yet. So there's quite a bit of yellow highlight in this draft and some of it reflects the proposals as offered by the Attorney General. Some of it reflects some technical changes or amendments that I'm proposing and some of it reflects some of the work that the committee has done with other witnesses. So I'm going to try and limit this, my walkthrough to just those portions that are proposed by the Attorney General's office because it sounds to me like that's what you guys want to really hone in on. Okay, so page five is where the substantial changes begin and the first one is the definition of qualifying crime. So the committee will probably remember that the version that passed the Senate provided that all criminal offenses were eligible for either ceiling or expungement except for listed crimes and drug trafficking offenses. So the definition of qualifying crime is quite substantially changed here. So instead it provides all misdemeanors except for listed crime misdemeanors and misdemeanors involving sexual exploitation of children are considered eligible for either ceiling or expungement. And then, so we've kind of cut off that unlimited felony category.  So subdivision A here are the misdemeanors that aren't those two types of misdemeanors. So B will be what is already existing law, the certain types of burglary offenses this committee will well remember. And then what will be subsection C are offenses relating to the possession of regulated substances. Sub D will be offenses related to the sale or dispensation or transport of regulated substances. And then sub E will be qualifying felony property offenses which is already defined in the bill with one addition, which I'll talk about. And then any offense for which a person has been granted an unconditional pardon from the governor. So that's a limited set of felony offenses, much more limited than the version that passed out of the Senate. So qualifying felony property offense, these are all the same crimes that you looked at before in the Senate passed version with the exception of one. And this is that 18 BSA 23 or 42 23 which this is a prescription fraud felony. And that's, so that's right now that is eligible for sealing or expungement. So I just popped that right into the qualifying felony property offense there. So the parameters for sealing or expungement that apply to felony property offenses will also apply to that type of offense. So is that relatively clear how we've changed what is eligible for sealing or expungement? I think it is, but it doesn't tell us what's not there anymore. Nope. Right, and I think that that was really intended to address the concern that was, are there all of these felony offenses out there that we don't really want to be making eligible? Okay, so I'm gonna... Yeah, I mean, it takes any crime of violence out. Right, all of the listed crimes are out as they were before, but it also eliminates those sexual exploitation of children crimes that some of which are misdemeanors. Okay, so I'm gonna keep going here. So now we're, this is section four. This is the actual expungement and sealing statute. Yep. And then we've got some language here that the house is working on, I think I'll skip over for now, because that was not part of the Attorney General's proposals. Here on page 11, this is that language that was, this committee works to craft about those particular circumstances where a person has served a probation term for which their probation was tied to their payment of restitution. So you'll notice that this is struck through. The proposal is to take that section out. And instead we've put in, we've dropped in some language here that says that a person who's under, who is under the supervision of the department at the time that they file a petition to have a criminal conviction record either sealed or expunged, that record is not eligible for sealing or expungement if the person is under the supervision of the department at the time they filed the petition. I'm gonna keep going. So this is all the same language that applies different standards for when a record could be sealed or expunged based on the type of offense. This is all unchanged until we get down here to J. This is the qualifying felonies. And you remember this was the section that provided that all other felonies that didn't fall into the other categories, which included the felony property offenses or the drug, regulated drug offenses were treated in a certain way. And we've just removed that section because there won't be any other felony offenses apart from those that were defined and dealt with earlier in the bill. So that's pretty straightforward, I think. And then I'm just gonna do a quick scan here. I think that may be it for the attorney general's proposals. Yes. Oh, and so I just wanna scroll to the very end to talk about section eight, which was the study. And although this, so this is not one of the attorney general's proposals, but I thought the committee may be interested. Well, actually that was my proposal. Yeah, yep. So this was the directive to the sentencing commission to ask the sentencing commission to study the issue of sealing and expungement and specifically how to make all offenses except for big 12 offenses. No, no. Eligible for either sealing or expungement and also directed the commission to look at taking one, should Ramon take one avenue or another either just sealing or just expungement. And so the proposal here is to change that directive. So instead of going to the sentencing commission, it will go to justice oversight committee and justice oversight will introduce as proposed legislation any recommendations that makes concerning a policy to make all offenses apart from big 12 offenses eligible, who should have access to sealed records and whether Ramon should continue to take both tracks, sealing and expungement or if it should just take one track and then how to implement a petitionless process to seal an expunge. So all of the same directives but now going to justice oversight instead of the sentencing commission. Well, the reason I chose justice oversight was because the sentencing commissioners already recommended those by and large. Mass. Senator White, sure. So, Bryn, going back up a ways, I don't remember exactly where it was, but it said that if somebody is under the supervision of the department of corrections, they can't apply to have a previous record expunged. And I'm just wondering if when somebody is 20 years old, they do something and it's not related at all to it and then 20 years later or 15 years later there, they do something else. They're not related at all.  Does that mean that the person can't apply to have that previous record expunged even though the time has gone and they did not have any crime in the intervening except during that time period and now they did something else? Yes. I mean, I think that the idea here is to eliminate all possibility of a person being under the supervision and being eligible to have a previous record expunged or sealed. And this, I think this proposal is in response to the department of corrections testimony and the House Judiciary Committee that they were concerned about the possibility of a person being under their supervision and having a record expunged because they were concerned about their risk assessments being able to make a record. It just seems a little draconian to me to say that if you did something when you were 20 or 21 years old and now you're, that had nothing to do with what, anyway, I, it just. Yeah, I would, I think I would, that was part of the letter from the four commissioners. Yeah, I know. The three commissioners and Jay. And, Well, we certainly don't want to forgive people for past indiscretions. Well, no, actually we do. I don't know that we intended to have somebody who was currently under the department of corrections to be able to get an expunging or something, but that we just, that's trying to, again, get a bill. This was the governor's letter was for the administration, but it was April 22nd, happy birthday Sears. I mean, we had started this bill in January. I know. They write on April 22nd. So, does that explain it Senator White or not? Yeah, I did. I just think that it's, I mean, I understand that, but I just, anyway, I think it's a bit stupid and I'm thinking about the grandmother that you had that wanted to go on field trip with her kid and she couldn't get that expunged because she had a DUI or so. I mean, anyway, I have nothing to do with what she did before. I will note, if it's helpful, I think that under S7, as it passed out of the Senate, I think the circumstances under which a person could be being supervised and have an offense eligible for sealing or expungement are very small. Because if you remember, most of those provisions for sealing or expungement provide that the person, if the person committed a subsequent offense, they have completed their supervision for that subsequent offense before they can apply for an expungement of their prior. So. Yeah, I get it. This language is really intended to appease the department, I believe. Yeah. Are there any comments from the audience? I can't see you. Oh, there we are. Any further comments? Marshall Paul, John Campbell, Judge Greerson, I think, did you have a comment? I didn't, good morning, Senator. Thank you for the letter, Brian Greerson, Chief Superior Judge, I'm sorry, I joined the discussion late and I don't know if Bryn had a chance to review the language on the Judicial Bureau was. I did not, Judge, I did not review that with them, if only because the House hasn't looked at that part yet, so. All right, so I don't have any comments on. Okay. Otherwise. Good, thank you. David? Senator, the only thing I'll add is, which I think is clear, we supported the bill as it came out of this committee and through the Senate and this is an attempt not to disavow, disabuse us ourselves with that good work, but simply to try to get something that could become law and some improvement is better than none. The letter from the administration did seem to indicate that the governor's office is not enthusiastic about letting the bill become law as it stood. And so we, again, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good here and let some improvement move forward. And that's the impetus behind these changes, which some of them are significant. I actually think that some are less significant, including somebody currently under the supervision. I actually don't think that's a big practical change, but yeah, just wanted to make that clear in case it hadn't been. No, I really, once again, it does make me wonder about the effectiveness of having a sentence in commission with a wide variety of membership of the courts, the defense part of the prosecution, the attorney general's office and many members of the administration. And then to have that commission make recommendations on legislation, which is what we asked them to do. And then roughly four months into the legislative session they're concerns about this bill that was basically released upon the sentence. That's more of, you know, it's problematic, quite frankly. I believe in the bill earlier this session, the sun set in the sentence in commission in 1922. It probably was a good idea. Anything else? No? Marcia? I was not gonna say anything, but I would just sort of chime in to echo David's share's remarks. You know, I think we are disappointed. This has been a lot of work in the Sentencing Commission and in the legislature and in subcommittees of the Sentencing Commission. And, you know, this was a proposal that received broad support in the Sentencing Commission.  I mean, what this bill amounts to at this point is something that we could have developed during the session that's, you know, this didn't really require any of the Senate, you know, basically the work of the Sentencing Commission was sort of undone here. So certainly we had hoped to see something better. I think that it is what we very much support is the change to have the Joint Justice Oversight take a look at this because, you know, like I said, I think the Sentencing Commission has done its work in this area. And so frankly, you know, we still support the bill. We still think that something is better than nothing. We think that this is a step forward. It's just a very, very tiny step. And that's all. Thank you, Marshall. Anyone else? John Campbell. Thank you, Senator. I'm glad that these changes were made. I actually was the one who brought up the issue of the exploitation, sexual exploitation of children when I was in the house. That was the first time that I had seen it. I was not on the commission. And I think it really goes to the fact that you put a whole number of people, some of them who've never had any experience in the criminal justice system and not realizing that the way the laws are written that there's a lot of laws out there or that that could have been swept up in. And so I think it's a good idea that you are putting this into the hands of the Judicial Oversight. I just saw this draft this morning, so I haven't had a chance to go through. But again, as you pointed out, you guys have been working on this for some time. I'm just hoping that we caught all the potential problems that might exist. And I think the Judicial Oversight will surely have the opportunity to do that. Well, James Pepper was the main person from your office working on it. He testified extensively on the bill and worked to make adjustments that S7 is not the Senate. I might add unanimously. Well, we're here to try to help, you know. Oh, you've been a great help. I didn't mean that way. I appreciate the work of the state's attorneys. Well, thank you. It may have come out as, that it did not come out the way I intended it to. Well, you know, those things happen. Thank you for your help. I meant, thank you for your help, sir. Yeah. I'll leave it at that then. I'll say goodbye. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? I don't think we need to, we're actually gonna get done a little bit early today, which is fitting. Senator White. I don't mean to take us off track here, but while Marshall and David are here, I just wanted to mention that there was a fatal car accident down here last weekend. And they released, they did not release the name of the driver. And because the driver was under age was a juvenile. And when they were asked why they didn't do that, the police officer said the law has changed around releasing identifying information about, and it hasn't really changed yet, but he talked about that. And because it's going to family court, they did not release it. And I just wanted to thank the two of you for helping us work on that. I think that one interesting aspect of that is the media has been reporting this. And in fact, members of the media have been testifying house government ops that they were upset that the state police did not release the name of the victim. And they saw that as a new change. And what's entirely inaccurate about that is that's a law that's been on the books for a long time that the state police are not supposed to release the names of the victims of any crime, regardless of age. It's been, it's being spun as if that is some new change that, yeah, and it's not a new change at all. It's been the law for certainly as long as I've been practicing law that, and the press can still report the names of victims. It's just that the state police can't release the names of victims. Right, but they did talk specifically about the driver. Yeah. About not releasing that name. Yeah, but if you look at like the article that was in CAX today, they go on about how there's been some change that prevents the police from releasing the identity of the victim, which just isn't true at all. I mean, that's been, that's a law that's been on the books for a long time. And now it's being sort of lumped in with this other, this other circumstance. I'll have to check that out. Well, that building comes through. That was the government ops. Right, right, right. It was, but it was. That's one all seven. Yeah, and it passed out of the house on a 10 one boat yesterday or the day before. And that was also in the Bennington banner this morning. But the story related more to the failure on that particular case in Putney. The Putney where they're actually not releasing the names because of the rules. Right. I have sent everybody a copy of the Bennington banner of the article this morning on H 183. So what are we doing now with S seven? We've had this information. Well, the house needs to act. We passed it. They will need to act. My hope is that they end up somewhere along the version that was just passed. And that we'll be able to concur with them. But I wanted to, because the change is so huge, I wanted this committee to be aware of those changes and the ask of a study. And I don't know if we'll put it in or hopefully the house will put in that study by the justice oversight committee that Marshall just referred to that. Originally I thought the bill was gonna die over the house and then David and the attorney general resurrected it. I appreciate that. And so the house has taken testimony and believed marking up the version that we just looked at. Okay, okay. And then assuming they pass a bill out of the house, we would then We'll be ready for it. Be ready for it and decide whether to concur or ask for a committee of conference. If something happens and they don't pass the bill, my conversation representative grad would have put that section regarding the study into the miscellaneous judiciary bill. Okay, thanks. Good. Thank you all very much for the hard work this morning.


Hello everyone welcome to Card Village. Today the first presentation will be from Tencent Blade Team. Yesterday they have won the Card CTF so let's welcome. Good morning everyone. Today I want to talk to you about the transferable and adversary applications and before the talk I want to introduce you our team members Bruce Ho, Dr. Zhou Wen and Meng Yongtang and Aiyun Zhongchen. We also attacked the last year's non-targeted adversary attack and defense of NIPPS competitions and today is only a brief introduction about our methods so if you are interested you can find more in our ECCV paper. We all know that deep neural network is easy to fall but the black box attack is still a hard job so our message have two basic idea. The first one is the maximizing the distance in the intermediate feature maps that can improve the attack transfer ability and the second one is the way introducing a smooth regularization of our adversary applications which can make it more efficient when the network is well designed. It may be some defense methods such as denoist and adversary trade neural network so in this situation the report is very important so first I will show our results. You can say that this method is our methods. This is the last feature maps of the neural network. We see that the distance of our adversary examples is far away from the original images and we also compare two basic methods that is FGSM and BIM. We can say that in the feature space they are very close from each other so the large distance will make our transfer to different models because different models have different architectures and parameters so the distance of the feature map is very important. How do we do it? The first row is maximizing the loss of our adversary examples from the original label and the second row is our is is one to do is maximizing the distance of the feature maps and the t-faction is our polynomialization which can which can decrease the contribution of large values and make the feature map more stable and the last one is a smooth regularization which can punish the discontinual noise and can improve the robustness. Also we compare the different ways they influence the recognition accuracy. Sorry I'm a little bit nervous. We say that ending our smooth linearization can benefit a lot when the neural network is the adversary trade. We can say that the recognition accuracy is decreased a lot the white one and maximizing the feature maps distance can decrease all of those networks no matter that is a white box attack or the black box attack. So finally we choose the ways that is a trade-off that we choose the last one yes this one so we make all the network have not bad performance so that is the optimization step. We do it several times and our experiment the k is equal to 5 so we compare our methods to some basic line methods and also a state-of-edge message and we found that if the neural network have too many layers that only maximizing the loss function is not enough so maximizing the feature maps distance can get better results because such as the rest network that is our very very deep network so ending the feature maps distance we can make a good performance and the robustness that is influenced by the smooth regularization and the way say that for all the networks no matter white box or black box. We got the best result compared with all the other methods so motivation by our attack methods we designed our defense methods in the attack we maximizing yes we maximizing the feature maps distance but for defense we want to minimizing this loss so this is the original input the key image and this is some image generated by adversary methods so we put it together into the neural network and minimizing the distance of the feature maps for all layers and then end with the last loss factor and the softmax loss and together that is our final loss factor fourth so to do this we just say that as all the attack model architecture and parameter is different from us but if we maximizing the map distance and we will make it's more close to the original one so we maybe get the right label at the last so like so today the idea our method idea is easy to understand or we only use the so one way for sorry for a track we want to maximizing the distance of feature maps and for defense minimizing the distance and a smooth regularization is very important when someone of when one more people notice that the security of AI method the security of different neural network so a smooth regularization can make your noise more smooth and maybe there are denoised filters and some well-designed neural network smooth regularization can make your attract more efficient so today that is my talk and here are some references about all the methods I compared with my methods and thank you


Hey everyone, Nathaniel Rumpeljantz here and we are giving away a copy of Paper Mario the Origami King. You just need to like this video, comment down below, subscribe to the channel, and hit that bell icon that gets you one entry and you can enter in every single video and or livestream we do from now through the end of July and I wish all of you luck. Hey everyone, I'm bringing you two stories in this video. We're pairing some PlayStation 5 news or PlayStation news, I guess, and Xbox news all together. And you know what? Without further delay, let's just get right into the Xbox stuff, which deals with their second next generation system. So as you can see here, I'm getting this report off of the verge. It claims there's a leaked Microsoft document hinting at the second next-gen Xbox. And we've known about the rumors of Lockhart for a while and that the pricing for it might be half of the price of the Xbox Series X, which was Project Scarlet originally, but let's just get into what is actually being reported here. There was a document that supposedly leaked that has information coming out for the system from a dev kit for the Xbox Series X in terms of a profile that seems to be at the power of what they're targeting. And this system does seem to be targeting 1080p or 1440p gaming, which are still the most common resolutions over 4K, especially in the PC gaming space. The leak document mentions a Lockhart profiling mode and sources familiar with Microsoft Xbox plans that are telling the verge that the special Lockhart mode is part of the Xbox Series X developer kit. The dev kit, codenamed Dante, allows game developers to enable a special Lockhart mode that has a profile of performance that Microsoft wants to hit with this second console. We are understanding that this includes 7.5 gigabytes of usable RAM, a slightly underclocked CPU speed, and we assume this means in comparison to the Series X, and around 4 teraflops of GPU performance. Now that's been rumored for a while, but now we have more of a confirmation. The Xbox Series X includes 13.5 gigabytes of usable RAM and targets 12 teraflops of GPU performance, and obviously we know the exact clocks now of that CPU. It appears it might be the same CPU, just underclocked. Developers will be able to use this Lockhart mode to test their games against this performance profile and do validation checks. Microsoft is expected to position its Lockhart console for that 1080p, 1440p, blah, blah, blah. Take advantage of Game Pass, all of that jazz. You know, there hasn't been an acknowledgement from Microsoft on that Lockhart codename. It can be found, however, in the Xbox One's current operating system, which we now believe will be the operating system brought over to Series X just with new changes to it to include the new features. They're saying it's going to be called the Xbox Series S, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Xbox All Access subscription, all this jazz. There's all this stuff that they're going to be doing with it. Obviously, the game streaming is something that this system will be touted for, especially there is an Xbox One S All Digital Edition subscription for 1999 and a month that includes Xbox Game Pass Ultimate, et cetera. So there's a lot of things that people are expecting to make this in terms of their budget system and all that jazz. And we'll discuss that in a moment because I also want to make sure we get into the PlayStation news today. And the big news for PlayStation today is that Last of Us Part 2 sold through more than four million units in three days, which is the biggest launch for Sony ever. This is the biggest launch for the PlayStation 4 in terms of exclusives. I think the previous high was the Marvel Spider-Man game at 3.3 million. Yup, you see that here. It also got a war at 3.1. The original Last of Us was the largest launch ever on PlayStation 3 and that sold, I believe, 3.4 million. So, yeah, 4 million is record breaking. We heard about it breaking records in the UK. Now we know from an official PlayStation channel here that it has sold more than 4 million copies and broken. Obviously, all of the current sales records, some additional info gathered is the best Sony launch ever in the UK. And this is just in terms of physical sales, not even counting digital. Best Sony launch ever in Spain, Russia, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Biggest launch ever in Russia for a game released on a PlayStation platform, which beats up Grand Theft Auto V. The biggest launch of 2020 in Germany. Most pre-ordered Sony game ever in Brazil. And the Last of Us Part 2 is more pre-ordered in Europe at the same point than Spider-Man. Now, obviously, this isn't going to deal with much in the US and Japan because clearly it wasn't necessarily breaking records in two of the biggest sales countries out there. But it's overperformance in a lot of other countries in combination with good performance. We know in Japan, it debuted at like 170,000. We don't know the US numbers yet.  Naughty Dog also put out a tweet to all the fans that played the Last of Us Part 2. And been part of this journey and helped us reach this incredible milestone. Thank you. The Last of Us Part 2, blah blah blah, all that stuff. Neo Drunkman came out and said thank you to our fans. We couldn't do what we do without your incredible support. So we'll get into more of this in a moment because The Last of Us Part 2 is kind of a controversial game. But let's first get back into the Xbox stuff. So obviously, that's two really big news stories for both of the companies competing with Nintendo. And when we talk about the Xbox Lockhart stuff, I think the biggest question I have isn't so much where this console fits in the marketplace. It's clearly a budget system that's meant to get next-gen games that might outperform the Xbox One X. Although, you know, that's six teraflops of performance versus four. But there's a better CPU, SSD, all that jazz. So I don't know. We're not going to know until it comes out or we can actually do game comparisons. But I feel like the issue isn't so much where it fits in the marketplace. But if these systems launch concurrently, a.k.a. the Xbox Series X and the Xbox Series S launch at the exact same time, I do wonder how that's going to impact the market and how it's going to impact sales. Because I don't know how these systems can coexist in the same launch period. I would understand the Series X came first and then say in the spring the Series S came out. I feel like doing a delayed release like that opens the window up and gives people an opportunity to realize what they get with the new stuff before they consider buying a Series S versus just launching it right away and people wondering, is this even better than my Xbox One X? We don't know beyond the SSD. Is it actually better? There's no answer to that. Maybe we'll have that answer next month as we expect it to be unveiled, I suppose, along with pricing and all that, along with a whole bunch of games at an Xbox Series X event. But again, we don't actually know. And I think that's the mystery here is that, okay, now we have some specs. We have some ideas on what developers are going to expect out of the system. But now what? I don't know. Developers probably know more than we do. We'll just have to wait for the event. The Last of Us. Oh boy. The Last of Us Part 2 is the most successful launch in Sony history. And that's great news for Sony, great news for Naughty Dog, great news for PlayStation. The big question obviously is, is this what they want to be at the best launch? The reviews for Last of Us Part 2, the media reviews are huge, right? Really, really well performing. And there seems to be some people that legitimately love the Last of Us Part 2. You can't ignore the controversy surrounding the game. I don't want to get into too much spoilers with it. But basically, a lot of people aren't liking the story, especially the beginning of the story and then a certain part of the story that forces you for quite some time almost half the game to play as a completely different character and try to sympathize with that character when it doesn't really connect the way that Last of Us did. And I think the hard part for Last of Us Part 2 is just how incredible everybody seems to agree the original story was in the Last of Us. And it feels like the Last of Us Part 2 kind of marginalizes a lot of that story and people are not happy with the end result. Now, that's some people, there are obviously plenty of people that are also happy with it. Well, with the review bombing, it's clear that there's a lot of fans.  That's not going to happen, by the way. It's not a brand new game, highest selling game in Sony history, like fastest selling anyways.  But still, it's really good news for Sony, obviously. They have now ended the PlayStation 3 generation with Last of Us. They've ended the PlayStation 4 generation with Last of Us 2. If there is a Last of Us 3, we're not going to probably see that until the end of the PlayStation 5 era. They seem to want to end their systems now with one of their best games. And that's incredible. We obviously know about a new potential Spider-Man game, or is it DLC? We're not 100% sure yet. It's coming with PlayStation 5, like the launch and all that. So I don't know. Sony's kind of killing it right now, even though I know system sales are kind of just dead in the water even with the release of Last of Us Part 2. That doesn't change the fact that this is a great way. One thing I got to give Sony credit for, and I love this over what Nintendo does. Nintendo at the end of their system lives tend to abandon the system. Skyward Sword notwithstanding, there really wasn't much up until Skyward Sword. And I feel like Nintendo, just sort of when they are starting development for a new system, they just throw the old system in the trash for a couple of years and just let it skate by. Whereas Sony hits it hard, and we still have Ghost of Tsushima coming. Sony hits hard at the end of a generation, which usually means the start of the next generation is a lot slower. Like the start of PlayStation 4 didn't really feel like it got going until about two years in. We got Bloodborne, but it really took two to three years before PlayStation 4 really started catching up the steam and it relied a lot on old games and ports and remasters and collections and obviously third-party support. So Sony's strategy is almost the opposite of Nintendo. Nintendo ducts to front-load their systems. Sony back-loads, but Sony back-loading has always seemingly led into massive success for the launch of the next platform because people are like, look what they just did for us, we can trust them to do that again on the next platform. Whereas Nintendo front-loads so much that by the time we get to the next system, people feel like kind of hurt, I guess, by the end of the generation and wonder can Nintendo really give us games, even though they consistently do. Anyways, thank you guys so much for tuning in. I am Nathan Roppeljant from Nintendo Prime. Be sure to enter our giveaway for the Paper Mario game.  Otherwise, I'll catch all of you guys in the next video.


So here's a quick problem solving example for capacitors in parallel circuits. And the most common thing you're going to have to do, and sometimes the first step of what you have to do in another problem, is finding the equivalent capacitance. So we want to go back to our previous notes and find the equations there, which tell us that for parallel capacitors, the individual capacitances will add up to give us the equivalent capacitance. So it's a really simple equation here. And as an example, we can just add two capacitors. So let's say I've got a three-farad capacitor and a two-farad capacitor, and they're combined in parallel, then the equivalent capacitance is just going to be five farads. Now most of the time, five farads would be really high because we typically have very small amounts. So instead, maybe you've got microfarads. As long as both of your capacitors have the same metric prefix, you can just add them up and it's five microfarads. So nothing really that different about it. But what if instead we had microfarads and nanofarads so they don't have the same metric prefixes? Well, in that case, you're going to have to be much more careful in terms of how you work with this. And you would actually have to go in and take your microfarad to be ten to the minus six, then your nanofarad to be ten to the minus ninth. And when you add those up, you would have to work that out with the calculator, which would give you 3.002 times ten to the minus sixth farad, or almost three microfarads. And that's because the two nanofarads is really small compared to the microfarad. Now that's if I've got just two. So what if instead I had three capacitors? Well, this equation is pretty close because it's pretty much just add up all three. Same concept here. So it's not really that big of a deal. And if I were to have a one farad, two farad, and three farad, just to make life easier for myself not working with the metric prefixes, again, you just add them up and in this case would be six farads. So there's nothing really special about the number of capacitors involved here.  One of the special cases, though, if what if instead of just random values for the capacitors, you actually have equal or equivalent capacitors. So your first capacitor, your second capacitor, your third capacitor, and your fourth capacitor all have exactly the same value for the capacitance. Well in that case, however many values you have, in this case I have four, is that number of capacitors times the individual capacitance. Or you can only do this if all four capacitors actually have equal values. But you could do that up to n. So if you had 10 capacitors, it'd just be 10 times the original amount. So again, values here for capacitors in parallel are really easy to just add up even if you're working with more than one or with things that have metric prefixes. So all of these are examples of finding the equivalent capacitance for a parallel circuit. Really the simplest capacitor circuit you could possibly work with.


An incompressible flow has the velocity components of u is x cubed plus 2 times z squared, and w is y cubed minus 2 times y times z. I want to determine the most general form of the y component of the velocity vector, which would satisfy the conservation of mass. To begin with, I recognize that I have an incompressible flow. That means when I deploy my conservation of mass, I can use the simplification partial derivative of u with respect to x plus partial derivative of v with respect to y plus partial derivative of w with respect to z is zero. We can use that simplification because incompressibility means the density doesn't change. If the density doesn't change, then we don't have to consider the change in density with respect to time, the change in density with respect to x, nor y, nor z. We can take that form of the conservation of mass and plug in the derivative of this equation with respect to x and this equation with respect to z. The derivative of u with respect to x is just going to be 3x squared because the second term is treated as a constant. The derivative of w with respect to z is just going to be minus 2 times y because the y cubed term is treated as a constant. When I plug those into this relationship, I can solve for the partial derivative of v with respect to y at which point I just have 2 times y minus 3x squared and that's the derivative of v with respect to y. That is not the v. It is not the y component of velocity. To get to the y component of velocity, I have to integrate both sides. If I bring del y to the other side of the equation, I can write this as two integrals. The integral of the first term with respect to y is going to be just y squared because we're taking 2 divided by 2. The derivative of the second term with respect to y, this comes out, this comes out, we're treated as a constant, so we have 3 times x squared times y. So the answer to the question is v is y squared minus 3 times x squared times y plus, theoretically, we could have a function of x and z as well because those would appear as constants.


If you want to lose weight, get better sleep. It strongly affects behaviors. In fact, I pulled up a meta analysis and it found a 41% increased obesity risk among adults who slept fewer than seven hours a night. It changes your behaviors, it changes your cravings. You're less likely to numb yourself, you're less likely to overeat. Why this is so important to make this connection if this is you? When you know that you had the poor night's sleep, it's easier to fight that. So knowing that because I didn't get good sleep, there's gonna come a time today where I'm gonna want something weird, like Jack in the Box tacos. I haven't thought about that since I was 22 years old. Like seriously though, if I have these weird cravings for junk type foods, it's always been correlated with a bad night of sleep. There's a lot of reasons why this makes a big difference. Optimal sleep is more likely to produce a hormone profile that's healthy. It changes catecholamine production. Sleep can affect serotonin and dopamine. And so studies across the board show that people crave hyper-palatable foods, something that makes them feel better.


Okay, hi everyone. I hope you're well. Last community call Vargas for this year, because we are having more in 2023. And as the agenda in our invitation mentioned, we are going to talk about two new features that we are launching in this in the latest release that will be taking place right after we are back from Christmas, so in January. And those features are the possibility to deposit your DMP, to push your DMP and expose it in more than one repository. So one is this and the other one is the possibility to create a template that supports a table that is machine actionable. So maybe you want to create a table to list things. That is now possible to do it and I will show you how. Let me share my screen. Okay, let me see this. So let me start by showing you the feature with the table. And this feature can be used as the administrators want, depending on how the information that they want to add in the template they would like to be visible on the export. And let me minimize this to start showing you how to do that.  So let me create my data set template and let's now do a test for say that we want to create a table where we list all the or basic components, basic information for data sets that we want to have in a collection of data sets. So I will quickly create a chapter for table data sets in a table. Okay, and then I click to add the question as I would normally do. Nothing has changed as you can see here. I can add my the name of the question.  So first, I need to know what I want to include in this table. So what I want to include in terms of content. Let's say that my table, I would like it to give any information about the title of the data set, the vocabulary, the data that have been used for this data set, the PID of the data set, a license of the data set and the repository of the data set. So I have five key things that I want to address. I will start by creating them separately. So I will start by adding a free text because this is the field that the researchers will need to add the name for this for this, for each data set. So name, data set, right. Then I can add more below. Let's say that I want to add next the metadata of data set. And here I chose the API so that I enter this information from the trusted source. The one that we use for metadata, for example, is the RDA and University of Bath director of metadata standards. Then I can add another input to include the PIDs and maybe a select to provide options for maybe a DOI. And I can see below how this is done, right. And let's make it multiple, maybe more PIDs are used, maybe it's multiple as well. So they have the possibility to add more things for, provide more inputs and then add one more for the license from the APIs again, the licenses, right, from the API. And then let's say that this is more, let's say that I want the data repository. So this is how it would look until today. You have all these different inputs added right below one to another, making up one question. So this is one question with multiple inputs. And now if I want to change it and view it as a table, I click the multiplicity here. I go up where the multiplicity is.  So let's say I want them, I want 10 times. And I select view inputs in table. And now with this, the 10 times become rows. So that means that I will now view what I did, what I created in a table, which supports the addition of input for 10 rows. And if I go back, I see how this is done. I see that there's one, two, three, four, five rows, five columns. And I can add up to 10 rows. I could have picked another number, let's say 10 for now. Okay. And then I save it. Before I save it, let's see how this is machine actionable. It is machine actionable because for the name of the dataset, I can select this field that is expected from the RD standard to be found in the JSON export. So name of the dataset will be dataset title. Metadata will be, let me see where the metadata is. So here we don't have the descriptions of the data. We have the identifier type. Then for, yes, so as you can see, this is how we do it for every input. So for every input, we go and map it to the RD standard, and then we save it. And if I go back to Argos, as a user now, not as an admin, I can start my DMP. I can start create a DMP. So let me hide video button. Hide floating. Start my new DMP. Start the wizard. Quickly create a DMP. Save it manually. Now if I go here, this is the question that I have created. And I can add the title, choose the metadata, add the PID for this dataset, choose the license. I don't know maybe related comments. And choose a repository where this dataset will be hosted. Save. And I can add more. So as I told you, we haven't launched it. We are still finalizing things. So for example, here you cannot view the input from the APIs, but you can see that in the export. So before it's released, we're finalizing this. Here you will be able to view also whatever comes from the APIs. And similarly, I can add the title of second dataset, add the metadata to it, and provide a PID, and so on. And then I can save it. I can go and check what I have just created. And I can finalize it. Yes, I will finalize it. And then if I export it, for example, in PDF, can you still view, do you view the PDF now? Yes, we can see. You can see the PDF. Perfect. So you can see that it has the information that I selected in this table, right? Oops. Let me go back. Okay. And I could again choose any other export and see this information like this. Yes, I think before I show you the next, I would like to know your views and how you find it. Maybe you want something to change. We have time before the release so we can change it. If something is not very, you feel that it won't be very useful, of how we have it today. Let me see. Do we have any questions regarding the table? Please feel free to open your mics. We have a question in our document. Yes, for Andrea, we have a comment to create. Yes, you have to have admin roles to create a template. Yes. And in our Google Doc, we also have a question. Once the table roles are filled in, can we use the fields on one column as a scroll down menu? Suppose I have an answer that applies to a few datasets and it will be nice to choose which ones via the scroll down menu. So let me see. I don't find this in the minutes. Where is this question? It's below the table. Okay. Once the table roles are filled in, can we use the fields on one column? So you want to be able, like you do in, so as you do in the spreadsheet where you copy and click everything, like scroll through the whole column, for example, and paste it, right? Is this the action? Hello, that is me. I have this question. So suppose you have dataset one BNC and you have all your questions, then the follow up questions in your DMP and say question X applies to dataset one NB. So it would be nice to get to say to which dataset this answer is relevant. And then you would be able to have a nice little scroll down menu with, say, the column name of the dataset. And you could just click and say, oh, it applies here and here. That is the question. I'm saying this because this is something. This is a question and a feature which is discussed in DSW, for example, as well. But from my perspective, it would be a very nice feature. And from the way you show the mapping with the RDA common standard fields, I think. You can do it. I have the feeling that technologically speaking, it should be a possibility in your case. But then I find this extremely interesting as a feature, but maybe not everyone. No, it is, but it's something that we have. We didn't think when we designed this table, but I will pass it over to the development team. And I can let you know next time what might be the challenges. But again, maybe the community might want to say if it's something they would like to see, etc. But again, from your mapping with, for example, RDA common standard, I have the feeling it's feasible. But then that's me. Thank you. Very nice. Thank you so much. Very nice. Thank you. Yes, does anyone support this possible new feature? We have Roddy with their hands raised. Yes, I have another question. So I don't want to interrupt the feedback on that one. But if there's, if there's nothing else. Yeah, okay. So yeah, my question is, yeah, it looks really great about the, about the PIDs. So you got a, I see you've got a, you can add a PID. Could you talk a little bit more about what that means? What, what PIDs are available? How does it work? Because the PID needs to be minted and all those things. So how does, how does the PID aspect of this work? So you, so I just created it like free hand. I didn't use any API, for example, for this or any source to infer information from. So I, for this particular example, I did it free hand. So using the multiple choice field to create it. But there are many ways that we use PIDs, for example, in Argos. And well, which one should I, which one should I touch upon? Do you have a specific? My question is, so if you're, if you're, okay, if you're, if you're, so you get this field, you get this option, right? You see PIDs and you can, you could put something in. But what happens when you put it in? Does that, it's not, it won't just, if I put in a DOI, it's not going to magically produce a DOI for me, I assume. So how does, how does that, how does it work? No, no, no. So let me, where was the export? Do you still see the export now? So do you still see my screen? No, we are seeing your brother. Okay. Let me open it here. No, you can see now. Yes, yes. Okay. So here, for example, so this was a free text field. Everyone can add what they want. Metadata, we get, we infer the information from the director of metadata standards. PID, I did it to give the possibility to add this as an answer by a selection, a pre-selection of answers. License, this was from the, again, the API and I chose creative commons for, so creative, CCBI and repository I chose for the one, and much for the other one, I didn't add anything. So I had this repository. When I use an API to get information, so for the case of metadata, license and repository, there are different things that are shown in the export and in the JSON, according to what is expected and how I have formulated this template. So that means that although here you might be able to suggest the title of the metadata, in the JSON, you should be able to view more things that are related to the data, like the identifier, if it's any language, if it's available and so on. In the same way, if we had a PID API, we could get the title of the system that we want to show here and then decide what information we want to cover in the JSON export according to the metadata, according to the standard, the NPKOMO standard. But another way that we use the PIDs, for example, is to infer information in the template. But this is different from how we use it here, because to be able to infer metadata that are relevant to a DOI, for example, a record with a DOI, that's a different feature, the prefilling feature that we have. And this is, let me show it maybe quickly. Let me add a data set in the system. No, I have to define what it is. Let me quickly do that. Starting with the NP, very quickly, prefill. So when I click prefill, I search a data set that I want that I have deposed somewhere. Let's say that this is the one that I want. I click Next. And so I could search with the DOI that I didn't show you, but I can search with the DOI and then whatever is in the metadata record appears here, as you can see, prefilled in my DMP. So this is another use. I think this is the one that is closer to your question, Rory. Yeah. So I don't want to take up too much time. I've actually, along with some other people, we've just put in a, we have a new RDA interest group called Working With Pids and Tools. So I'm quite interested in this whole issue of how do you incorporate Pids into tools? And it's very complex as this discussion is kind of demonstrating. So yeah, my question, what I thought you were trying to show was associating a particular PID with a particular data set, but that's not the case. No, no, no. I was just communicating the new feature that we're going to launch. And this is the table view that we will be offering from January. And your table tells you what type of PID it is, not the actual PID. It's like a DOI, for example. Is that right? Yes. Unless you define it to be otherwise. So in my particular scenario, I didn't want that. But you may configure an API that supports something else and you can use it here, also in the table, in another way. There are infinite ways that you can use over different inputs and fields that we have that we provide. So it's basically up to the admin to use it. All right, great. Thank you. Thanks, Ellie. Thank you. Any other questions or feedback for this feature? I see lots of thumbs up. So that's good. Regarding PIDs, we have a question from Joachim. I assume PIDs still have to be mined outside the ARGOS, example via data site or mining facility, right? Correct. So they are minted from a repository infrastructure. If there is the case for us, it is the case. And for other ARGOS instances, it's also the case. But we are also, we're having a call again next year with data site. So we're planning this to see how this can be done maybe without the assistance of the repository. So we were contacted basically by data site to check another way of minting DOIs. We also have a question from Roberta asking about how can you create a DMP template or a data set template? I wish I had the time to show you now, but this is not the topic of today's community call. But maybe that's a good thing to add maybe in the next demo. Maybe we can have another administrator demo next year, either January or February. If that is interesting to you, I can make it happen to see how you do it. But very briefly, you have to have admin rights. We provide you with those rights. And then you go, then you will be able to view all those things that you do not see as a simple user. And data set templates is the one that you want to use to create your data set template. Very briefly, this is how it's done. But I noted it to have an admin demo probably next January or February. Any other question? Okay, we'd like to get admin rights too. Okay, whoever wants to get admin rights, please let's contact me or we can leave your email in the collaborative document so that I contact you. Okay. Do we have other questions for this? Okay. If not, then I will move to this, the other new feature, to the possibility to be able to select the repository that you want to publish your DMP and then make all the links with the outputs and so on. And we have expanded this feature to include more repositories. So we are currently working in a national use case where we support two universities to create their DMPs with Argos. And the two universities have two different repositories where they add their publications and their business outputs. So both repositories have the same software, so they're both this space. They don't share the same storage. So the researchers should be able to select which one they want to send the DMP to. And we have created a plugin for this to support it. I will show you where this can be found in the code if you want to have a look in a minute after I show you how this works. And well, yeah, let me not say more things. Let me just show you how it works. So let me say, let's say that I started DMP, DMP, to DMP deposit. And let's see, I selected template and then let's just provide some answer to that. Okay, and then I save it. I can now go and view my PID when I'm ready, finalize it, select the data sets that I want to finalize. In this case, I have only one. So I want to finalize only this one. And now I can deposit. Now, instead of going, giving me the possibility to use only Zenodo, for example, now I have the possibility to use Dataverse or this base. So in this test that we're showing you today here, it's, for example, Dataverse. So let me select Dataverse, for example, since I have showed you how Zenodo works in the previous demo. Again, similarly, automatically, we'll have the creation of the metadata record on Dataverse. And I can view it. Do you see the Dataverse now? Yes, yes. Oh, perfect. And then I can view it. I mean, I haven't added many things. So this is why it's very minimal information that it has. And then, okay, and then if I go back, and I want to deposit again, for example, now the Dataverse is not an option. Zenodo is an option. So I can do both. I can push to both reposters. But of course, this is not something that is very common. Or I don't foresee that this will be done. But yeah, and here you can view the DOI and access it and so on. Yes. And I promised to show you where this is in the code. And it is here. The plugin is here. Where is it? Where is it? Oops. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. I cannot find the, what happened? I cannot find the zoom. Maybe can you please add something? Okay, in the shot, okay. In the shot. It disappeared from my laptop. If you can try the pressing the alt type in the keyboard to find the zoom. I cannot find it. Maybe cycles through all your windows. Maybe I will stop your sharing screen and you will be able to see and then you can start sharing again. This is the Christmas. Oh, yes, I see. I thought that was someone telling us to stop working and go to have Christmas holidays. But it's, yeah. Okay. Now I see. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you. So this solved things. Yeah, but now I cannot exit. Now I'm stuck in here. Let me do the search screen again. No, before I do, let me add in the chat here. This is where you can find in the code. And now I can share my screen again. And you see, yes, where this is. So here it is with the documentation so that you can use if you want. Do we have questions for the deposit? How do you find the feature? Thank you for would you like something to change and in what direction? Yes, I agree. It's a great push for research in the DMP public. Yes. And we are, you know, we are working also since you mentioned, Julia, we are now merging parts of our workflow to do exactly what you say to close the DMP life cycle and push for publishing the DMP so that they become fair objects as well with all the links to other tools and outputs. So we are doing that and we will have more to say in 2023, early 2023. Go ahead. It depends if the admins or if people that deploy Argos are doing it themselves, we support them. We can support them if they have questions and at least in the long term. And in the long term, I don't know what you mean for the plugin in the long term. Do you mean the Argos in the long term? No, what I mean is when I talk about the admin, it's not the CIS admin I'm talking about. It's the admin, the people who have admin rights in Argos when they do the DMPs etc. That means something that like a skeleton plugin where you put the pop information and then whoops, you have created a new plugin. That's what I meant. Not from the CIS admin perspective, but from the, if you want data, you would admin. If it's feasible, I would just thinking about that. Okay, well, that's a good approach, a good perspective. But it's true that those plugins are meant for the CIS admin, so the people that are working on the platform to deploy things and configure things. Okay, any other question or idea based on what you saw? Or any comments by using Argos, what would you like to change, what disturbs you, for example? And we could simplify it and make it better. Because the table, you came from your input as well. Many things actually came from your requests. Then if we don't have more questions, can I ask, thank you very much, can I ask what would you like, where would you like to concentrate in our next community call? Because we have ideas, of course, that maybe you want something more urgently that we need to show to you. I added the admin demo. I think I will stick to the admin demo. Let's say that either January or February, we'll have it done with demo. Good. We have a suggestion in the chat. Yes, I think Table is helping in this, but about making conditional questions, Ingmar, what about the conditionality? How to do it practically? Yes, so again, there are many ways that you can use the table. Maybe having conditional questions with that is difficult, but I think from what I've tested, it's feasible to attach, let's say, when someone answers one cell in the table to be redirected to, I don't know, question that is below the whole set of inputs of the table. Yes, I wanted to, it was more about that, for example, when you have yes or no question, and you have several inputs, and if you put condition yes and this input, then it shows only first input, and I don't know, and if no, then I mean, maybe I haven't understood it correctly, have to make it, but I would like to, if I put yes, then you can get all the inputs in the same question, or if no, then none of these inputs, something like that. I see what you mean, so you have a question yes or no, let's say, and then depending on if you answer yes, for example, then the table opens, right? Also that could be yes. That is how it happens today, but you say something else, so you say that when I click yes, or in yes everything will open, in no, I want two things to open from the table. Yes, then what you need is to create another, to clone what the whole template is, and delete what you don't need, and attach this to make this conditional to the no. Yeah, like the next question. Yes, so the one. Okay, I was doing something like that, I thought maybe it's possible to do it with the same, with the inputs in the same question. Okay. With the inputs in the same question. Yeah. No, okay, that's a good one. So have conditionals in the same inputs. Yes, let me get back to you on that. Let's see how it works now, and if we have time to tweak it, to support it, and I will fill up with you in an email about this. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? If not, in the background, I hear bells ringing, so it's Christmas very soon, so I wish you all a Merry Christmas, or Happy Hanukkah, it depends. And generally, please have a good rest and enjoy your time offline, and yeah, I wish you all the best, and we'll see you very soon next year. Thank you, everyone.