to go, Andy and I, Andy and I were friends there, founder of Kuchibot, and I started talking. And in this sort of crazy January festival season, we wanted to really have some time to just create context for the work and have opportunities for the artists to engage and dialogue with each other and with the audience so that there is just more of a circularity and a dialogue going on. And so this is where the partnership with Kuchibot got created. And so we're very happy that you're here for the conversation. We are also streaming on HowlRound, so any comments, any of you are asking questions, just know that it's out there to the public. Hello. And I just want to introduce you, Mary Pan and Nicole, it's who has, since those five, six years ago, been located to the West Coast, but very proud of him because he just gets into a position as the director of programs at the Skrubel Computer Center in Los Angeles. Woo! He's there and I'll just leave you to it. Hey, great. Hi, good morning, morning. So, I'll just stand up over. Just really quick before we jump into it, so I, culture by, exists in the eyes of Mark Russell. I was working at PS122 in 2002 and 2003 and he kind of said, oh, it sounds good to do it. We wrote an NPN grant and that was how all things started and so I, the reason I'm saying that is because when I moved to the West Coast, I was like, how, what does this mean? And so one of the things I learned from Mark was learning how to give the next group of people an opportunity to do their thing and make things their own. So, as I've stepped away from culture by, I want to introduce right there, we've got Dan, Sarah, and Lydia, and they're the sort of new core culture by team. They've been holding on to the board for about the past year and a half and familiarize, meet them, say hi, get involved. They've opened up the range of people writing and events, really exciting. So, and then also at the end of this is Eva Peskin. Eva has been a great partner in organizing and thinking about these conversations and I'm actually gonna sort of have asked Eva to kind of take the lead on this. I'm gonna be here. I usually can't restrain myself in talking, but so anyway, thank you all for being here and find the new culture by people and yeah, and Eva, turn, take it away. Thank you, Andy, thank you. So, yesterday we were talking about wrong strategy of media and this term came up in familiar elevation. And so, this talk today is kind of cheekily titled, Destroyer of Worlds, which Andy kindly gave to his mind from what Robert Oppenheimer said about the Manhattan Project, the idea that you destroyed the world and it also comes from the idea of Shuba, the Destroyer of Worlds. I have become death, Destroyer of Worlds. Right, and so we're thinking about theater and its compacting to destroy the world, change the world through this defamiliarization. And so, to start, I would love to just hear how that concept resonates for you all in your work, this idea that we do familiarize something in the theater to be able to see it differently. If anyone, does that make, I mean, a call to speak? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Okay, let's start. I'm Abby Brownie, I'm half of Sixth High Women. We make the creation of the work moving forward where the categorization of the work becomes a process of organizing structure with which to actually make and show the work that is it theater, is it dance, is it performance, pushes you into, obviously, the infrastructures that are built for funding and presentation and marketing, but they are also the space where things can exist in overlap and form is sort of complicated, so maybe that's one way in which worlds should not be destroyed. And I also think we tend to work with bodies of performers and performers who are not typically, who are not always seen on stage, and we ask them to behave in ways that are perhaps not, according to a scripture of virtuosity that is best described by our poets and now we're working with theater. I mean, initially when I get into the story of worlds, when I think of me, how much destruction and violence it took to get us to the point where we are right now. How much blood there is in the land that we are sitting on, how much we inherit, and it's this legacy of ongoing and continual violence, right? And for me, the idea of journalism, like the profession of journalism has always been a really weird one to talk about, the experiences, especially under colonialism and capitalism of communities that I align myself with, right, because the idea of journalism relies on the idea of news and novelty, and of objectivity, I don't think any of that exists. I think what theater allows us to do is to destroy all those concepts, throw them out, right? Say all of this is ongoing, it has never stopped, it's been here since forever, it's been here like in the United States in particular, right, since 1492, we have had resistance on the base of race, gender, and sexuality. It's not some sort of new fangled thing or a trans tipping point or whatever these terms that the media comes up with to describe particular moments that we're in. I think of things in cycles and non-linearity and emotion and feeling and trauma, right? And I think that theater and art and poetry ultimately are all just different attempts to scream in a way that journalism and news and all these whatever other apparatus don't allow us to. It's a space to say something loudly or to whisper it or sing it, something that is totally irrational and illogical, right? Something that actually should not be expressed in a way that is boring. Yeah, if there's anything that I wanna do with my work, it's to destroy boring. Because if boring is so violent, it makes it seem like the world is not doing fine. And it's just not true, this has not been true for millennia. So I just wanna make things that are beautiful and interesting and honestly so beautiful that it destroys someone's world, right? That's the goal. It's like I wanna make it so beautiful they can't look away and they have to listen and then a moment of crisis happens and that's where you open people up and whatever. Have a conversation, initiate moments of transformation. Just to add, I feel art is one of the only places we have left to scream. People go to the university to scream and it becomes an incomprehensible situation. Sure. Art is one of the only places we have left to scream anymore. People go to the university to scream and it becomes an incoherent dissertation. People go to the streets to scream and we get arrested. People go home to scream and it doesn't resonate beyond there. People go to the internet to scream and we get dismissed as angry millennials. Or censored. Yeah. So I feel like what I love about theater and why I think that we have really enjoyed moving into the theater world is that it's given us a space to actually just create a space like I kind of think of it as like a watering well or sort of an oasis to just like be sad, angry, depressed, hurt. Frustrated. All these parts of ourselves that I think get cleaved from us in order to survive in a world where we have to become desensitized in order to exist. And I think it would also add that I think a lot as a trans person, I'm already always on the stage.  So I've learned from a very young age how to survive through performing. And what I found is that actually ironically, the theater allows me to be myself in a way that nowhere else would because everywhere else, the rules are structured for me where I have to wear pants or a suit or whatever or whatever. But in theater, I can actually in some ways make people familiar with my strangeness through my ordinariness, which is like a very strange equation. But I can actually tell a story about heartbreak or corniness or loneliness. And people are like, whoa, this person that looks so different for me is actually experiencing the same thing as me. And I'm like, duh. Like, we're out here not just like being some alien. I am an alien, I identify as such. But I also am an alien that experiences heartbreak and loneliness and sadness in a way that other humans might as well. So I think also what's interesting is that the destruction isn't just about like blowing up, explosion. It's also just about the destruction of these arbitrary borders that have been imposed on us by this heterop patriarchal system where actually only 4% of people know a trans person and their lives, which is like ridiculous to me. So when they actually see our work, they're kind of like, whoa, trans people are just like everyone else. And I'm like, duh. So I think that that destruction is like the quiet sort of explosions. What I'm interested in theater too is that it's not just about like setting fire to something which I'm down to do, but it's also about the sort of like setting fire to all these socially constructed borders and identities and labels that we've created as a way to keep ourselves in the distance from one another. I want to pick up on word resistance and also, because I saw, this is Guillermo Calderón and in his piece, Escuela. And it's very much about resistance, political resistance to you, right? And I kind of lost the thread of my question. Maybe I could talk, I wonder if you're in your piece, or if you're learning about how to do the revolutionary. And so there's this really process that we're watching. And can you speak to why that is your brain device for that piece that relates to this idea of destroying the world or creating a new one? Oh no. The place about a group of young people getting a sort of parameter training during the late 80s in Chile in order to destroy the big dealership. I'm using the word destroyer, sorry. Not only the dealership, but capitalism as a whole, a state. So they think, of course. So the play is about trying to destroy but failing to destroy it. So it's a play about failure of the possibility of destruction and also what comes after that failure of theater. So theater is in many ways, I don't know, a way of acknowledging failure of a true political change. So for us, we have basically feelings about the political freedom. We feel the impulse of destruction, but then again, it happens on stage inside of a beautiful theater. So it's a play about that contradiction. I think we think about maybe flipping failure into something like trying. And I feel like in your work, I feel like Abby, there's a real aesthetic of trying. And I wonder about how you choose the performers that you choose to work with. Like you specifically work with non-professionalized performers and the way that you have to use their bodies. I feel like what we're seeing is we're seeing them trying something. I don't know, but how do you experience it? Just to contradict you slightly, we also do work with professional and trained performers, though we are often asking them to strip away the habits or the skills or the vernacular that they've acquired from a training so that it's getting to a more unbehaved body, I guess, or an unbehaved way of being in a room. I think we're interested in vulnerability, which is a word that gets thrown around a lot. I think there's something about what a vulnerable, I think there's something about vulnerability on stage that recalibrates the experience for the audience and somehow can make them think about the event, think about what's happening here, think about why we're here, what being a witness to this is. So I think we are generally trying to put some kind of vulnerability on stage so that we can raise the stakes, so that we can wake the audience up, so that they can think about what we're doing. So I think in terms of who we put on stage. Well, can you speak specifically about working with these young children and how that changes the conversation about vulnerability with children are more vulnerable in a lot of ways? I think on a mechanical level, I don't know if anyone has seen Employee of the Year in the show we're doing here. The people who are on stage are between, now they are between the ages of 11 and 12 and they each are performing a fairly complex intricate choreography while each performer has about 15 minutes of a monologue and the challenge of that has changed as we've been working with them for such a long period of time when they were nine years old, like getting through the whole thing was like, can they even do it? It was like giving these five girls a piece of the car and then saying, okay, go, you can't reach the brakes. I think that that has changed now that they actually understand and have a deeper level of awareness of the story and the words that are coming out of their mouth and so the vulnerability is less about the sort of apparatus of the show and like the actual mechanism and more it's actually about, though this is still present.  And I think we are asking them to make contact in a way that pushes their level of comfort but I think that now it's almost like inside of the storytelling in a way that it's used to be when they were much older. And so, Susan, it feels like what we're witnessing is this de-familiarization of the compositional tools. You have presence, like the presence of the bodies. We have time, which I feel like functions in a very interesting way, and we have story, which is not necessarily the only or most important thing that we're paying attention to. And I wonder if you're, maybe for Guillermo, although if you think about these specific elements that you're putting together at the screen, or as your storytelling, like your storytelling is a very different way than you might normally experience in play, or is that a story in this experience that you're operating? I think you're crafting the arc of our show as in like what poems we're able to do first and then what poems we're able to do in the middle of the show versus last, all these things, right? I think there are sort of two calculations that go on and it's like what do we want to perform? And then also how do we make sure that this audience who is not used to seeing people like us having things to say and having, you know, beautiful words with which to express them say the thing, right? If we're trying to like be heard, create consistent moments of rupture and then opening and whatever. I think of this as kind of like cellular transformation, right? So we all have to die in order for them to be replenished and so I think of each sort of arc in our show as moments of micro transformation that allow them. So we start with a lot of humor, like very queer tradition of campiness because humor becomes this, like, there is joy in resistance, right? And so humor becomes this way where we're able to make people laugh in a really uncomfortable way and then like shove truth in while that's happening. And then later on in our show, I think there's more and more of our personal stories that get unwrapped. And then the end of the show is like very solemn. It's a little bit more universal, right? Because people think universal things are things that are not explicitly about recent under. Most of those things are also universal. And there is this sort of resign madness to the end of our show that isn't giving you happiness, but maybe a true one. I don't believe in people. I just believe that every person is a constellation of story. And I find it very difficult that we just in a world that tells us like, oh, I know a lot, oh my God, I know a lot too, they're great. It's like you both know fundamentally different people. Like I'm simultaneously a million people. And it's just really ridiculous to me that we keep on pretending like we're individuals. Like so funny. And so for me, what really frustrates me is that we exist in a system that affords infinite complexity to whites as gender straight men and increasingly white gay men.  And then like, honestly honey, you have 600 years of cinema to look through to get advice. When I think about flirting, I'm like, wow, I could die if I flirted with this person, that's great. And I just think about how actually I've seen every flavor of sadness that ever exists from white men. Like there's sadness about losing your mom, so that every single thing has been explored. And I've been taught at a very young age to think, wow, people, sorry, you love me for a phrase because under the society of people allowed humanity are white men. White men are so tortured and complicated and wonderful and brilliant and exclusive. And then when we look at representations of my communities, it's like we literally have to say, from the moment I was born, I knew I was a girl. And I touched a doll and I found myself and it was incredible. And from that moment I was trapped in the wrong body. Then I went to a nice white doctor in a white coat and I said, doctor, I've always wanted to wear a dress and he allowed me to explore my own truth and now I'm a happy, wonderful, full woman. Oh my God, no, we're not allowed to actually be like, hey, I kinda like cars too and that doesn't in any way invalidate my gender at all or like, hey, actually I didn't need to have medical examination of my body in order to dictate the terms of which I live my life. Oh, so what I think what we're also trying to do in our show is show, hey, actually these people who you've been taught unidimensional narratives about immigrants, brown people, people who you perceive as Muslims, trans people, gender nonconforming people, sexual people, queer people, we're actually just as complicated as your boring white ass and actually you're not gonna come to my show and hear some boring arc of like how it's been so hard for me and now I've overcome because it's part of the same wanky level establishment where you're not actually allowing me infinite complexity and I think the project of what I'm both trying to do as an activist and as an artist is to make people recognize that people are terribly complicated and that the state in particular relies on very traditional and boring narratives of oppressed people. That the reason we get away with supporting undocumented people which we're doing more than we've ever done before in our entire lives, hundreds of thousands of undocumented people are being deported every single year.  So I feel like for me, the reason that we make our show so contradictory and one sense we're like saying this is the politic, like one sense we're saying we hate white people and the next sense I love white people so much and the next sense it's like I hate myself and the next sense it's like I love myself is because the truth is we're all going through that process. I've never met a person who's so self-actualized where every single man on the day they wake up and they're like I have an assured sense of myself and they're like it's a shame to say this and I refuse to be contained but I think part of the way oppression works against my community is at the level of narrativity that we cannot actually be contradictory and paradoxical in our narrative and I think that we lose so much in politics if we require oppressed people not only to experience violence but then to narrate their violence in a way that is appetizing for other people, boring. So I wanna get narratives of violence that are actually contradictory and complex and the way that we layer that in our show is we're literally taking you from like elation to like trauma, to sadness, to rage because that's kinda like what it's like to live as a person by the way. Thank you. Thank you. I wanted to pick up on so much. But you know that we're all in those people and that identity or personality or character is not fixed in a way and I think actually every piece, every maker on this team is actually negotiating that the work is homemade. You know I feel like the girls are always the girls. They tell the stories, they become the thing but we're always very aware that they're young girls and so there's this tension. In your piece, we don't ever know their names really. They tell their names of the people or their resistance names. They're masked the whole time. You know, so I kinda wanted to ask Fred the other question. How do you, do you think of them as like, how do you think of them like, are they based on real people? Is it an idea? Are we supposed to all be able to sort of imagine ourselves as revolutionaries? No, they aren't based on real people. People are doing the whole thing. They are masked. You don't see their faces at all. So that's because they engage in political violence so once you do that, you are sort of tainted, whatever, you're not supposed to talk about that. You know, that's a unique of everywhere. And also the mask, to mask your face, has a feeling sort of a strong, iconic, what's the right word, or black torture in fact that will make you ISIS. And it's a very common thing. We are, it's also a very complex thing but the way we use it, it's a way of saying that basically we're all engaging in political violence either actively or passively. So if you live in the US and you pay taxes, you are paying for war, you are engaging or whether you like it or not.  So the idea of hiding yourself is, it means that you are doing something illegal so you might as well hide it because you don't want to be sent to prison but it's also, it's a matter of hiding yourself because there's something shameful about engaging in violence. So that's the best way to use it, yeah. I mean it's interesting that there's sort of like a local, I'm sorry. Yours is all about not hiding. It's kind of like your work is about this particular piece is about hiding but it's both in the service of resistance in a way. I don't know, it just feels like there's a, well I'm especially interested, I'd love to hear about, I mean the idea of a mask, you know, using a costume name as a framework for understanding how you're meeting resistance to not just non-analog, you guys have a real like political fashion aesthetic that is both like super rigorous and super playful and I wonder how you would think about playing and identity. And I think it's also, I also love to pull this through with Aria and Michael, we can feel like we're seeing these girls play it really interestingly in a way and just this idea of being playful as a way of resisting being. One of the things I really loved about the magic patient is that to me it felt like everybody at one point was teaching somebody else something and so there wasn't like this summon of the teacher all the time. And they also were to play becoming characters like the capitalists of the state. Anyway, that was the, I think there is a different sense of pickleness that you get from wearing a certain thing versus not. But I think it is actually related to this question about political fashion because putting on whatever particular piece of clothing, ostentatious or not, I think it does unmask the idea that clothing itself is a mask, right? That regardless of what gender you're presenting as, who you are trying to be at a particular moment, everyone is performing something. They're trying to be seen as something, whether consciously or unconsciously, whether purposefully or like without agency, right? Without the ability to actually choose and purposefully craft that thing or somewhere in the middle, which is where most of us are. Most of us don't have the ability to like completely choose the aesthetics that we have to fall into, right? I think for us, part of this aesthetic project is yes, about like, yes, everything, everybody is making these conscious and unconscious choices about who they are at a particular moment. And it's like really ludicrous that transgender and alcohol people are like spat on, like kicked for particular choices that everyone is actually making. But then honestly, I think it's like another way of dismantling the board. Like I'm tired of, I don't know, like living in a world that is not saturated with bright colors, where we've lost this sense of like playfulness and fun and being children, being weird. If there's like any sort of group of people that I really wanna fight for, it's weirdos, strange people who fortunately through touring get to meet all over the place in like really unexpected places. We have like this internal list of weird people. We also have an internal list of nice people. Because these are the kinds of things that I think, you know, like we can talk about brown people, whatever, trans people, et cetera. But I think there are these like categories that are outside of those identity frameworks that also get lost to the violences of the everyday world we live in. One of them is strange people. One of them is babies. Because we are just told to like grow up and be professional. Interesting people, nice people. Anyway, these people are fighting for it to be taken. Well, in case you didn't know, there's a genocide going on against trans women of color in this world. Every 32 hours on average a trans woman is murdered. And that's a conservative estimate because when trans women are murdered, we're often misgendered in our deathbeds by our own families, by our own communities, and called men. And then on top of that, I identify as non-binary, which means I'm not that a man or a woman. So we don't actually know what violence against our communities look like, because we're always already, our dead bodies are always, are more poorly designed at birth. So I would actually say that it's probably even higher. And in 2015, there were almost over 30 murders. And to one transform a murder, there's absolutely no news coverage. And the news coverage that does exist blames us for our own death and actually misjudges us and calls us poor and slut than terrible people. And that actually there's no human outcry at all. And we often say trans women aren't murdered, they're disappeared. And it's a very different politic when you have no one left to grieve your body. And so I think a lot about issues of murder a lot. Because these are the communities that I'm fighting for and by.  And recognizing that these are all mutually informing systems. And a lot of this is negotiated through fashion. Because if I wake up and I say, today I'm gonna wear a dress, I have to prepare myself. Because the minute I step out of the house, I have to fight for the integrity of my life. I have to justify my ability to breathe. And I have to, I have all of society's hatred of everything, not just femininity, but of everything thrown on me. And I have to literally just sit here and be like, okay, this is your projection of your insecurity around your own gender, got it, great, cool. Just trying to live my life, just trying to drink a juice. But I have to deal with all of that. And I've been thinking a lot about that because it's a very different reaction when I'm on the stage. When I wear what I would normally wear, because everything I wear on the stage, we always joke, because being independent artists, we have to file our own taxes and so we can list costume wear as a tax deductible. But I'm always like, wear all of this off the stage too. So, I don't know, my life is costume wear, I guess. The trans privilege looks like you can't work back here, everybody clothes is costume. I know, everything is costume. So, I always think this is really weird for me because like online, when I post a photo of myself or like at a show, you look amazing.  And I've learned how to run in these platform heels really, because I have to.  But anyway, so I think about that disconnect of what's actually happening there. And I actually think the reason trans people are getting murdered is the same reason in which people congratulate for me for my fashion. And they're mutually informing systems because you still think that we're performing as something that we're not. And that the only way you can accept trans people is when we're on a stage because we're making literal what you already felt, which is what we're making literalist of the society, which is Western colonial society, hates femininity, hates it so desperately that when we see someone who we read as, quote, a man who would dare wear, quote, women's clothing or, quote, women's makeup, that's disgusting. And what you're hating is not actually us, it's femininity. And the only way we've been taught to understand femininity is as theatrical and as performative and as excessive, which is a logic that facilitates the mass murder and atrocities of cisgender women as well. But the secret is cisgender women rather than aligning themselves with trans people say, oh, that's gross because they've also internalized their own misogyny. So for me, I think it's really, what I'm trying to do in my fashion is make explicit people's misogyny. The reason you're uncomfortable seeing me, quote, with a beard, quote, looking like, quote, a man, quote, wearing, quote, women's clothing, quote, is because of your own internalized misogyny, darling. And that you've been taught from a very young age that femininity is weakness and that's something you need to recalibrate in your life because it's leading to your own repression of your divine femininity, which is making your sex life boring, which is making your relationships boring and it making your fashion choices utterly drab. Work out of it. So that's what I'm trying to do in my fashion. It's really confront people's misogyny to survive. I want to pick up, I'll keep yours, but. One of those things you talked about is the culture of violence in America.  The nature of systemic government violence against the citizenry of America is quite different. It's not much more quiet and it's certainly not explicit. And this is why, so I want to ask, having watched, I'm not going to say that there's, if you see us quite a lot, there's a moment where we know that you experience this systemic repression under edictatorship personally. I guess my one question is how, how does, I mean, this comes from your experience. So I guess my first question is like, and you talked about the failure of resistance. Like how does making this work? How is that part of your making reconciling with the failure of that and of the revolution?  Do you think we can actually understand and experience your piece and really get inside it? Or do you think there's been a difference because you have never experienced that in that way as it's too far? Ah, good question. So sometimes you read that you write a play or you direct a play only to say one sentence. So then I, when I, when I sort of see my own work, I realize that in this play there's a sentence that says that our armed forces are powers and players. And that's great, that makes me feel really proud because it's in a little anger. So I think that this play is sort of, it's just a bad word for expressing anger and frustration. So, and that's, it doesn't cure me of anger, just sort of recycle time and sends it into a new stage. And I think what I presented the play here, it's wonderful, people really connect and they mostly are really sort of generous and making connections with the current violence all over the world. But I think there's, there's the experience of living under a leadership that is pretty unique and people who have experienced that really can connect to that. And it's a matter of, if I can explain it briefly, it's basically having someone, I don't know, I don't know, something like China financing a coup, a making alliance with a sector of the armed forces in the U.S., bombing the White House and killing Obama and tens of thousands of people and basically closing the Congress and taking over the country and then staying in power for more than 15 years. So what would that do to the country? So that's what happened in my country. So that's, as I described it, as in the context of the U.S., sort of explains a little bit of what's the impact on the sort of the core of the countries, the soul of the country, if you can say that sentence. So that's my experience. So that's what fear is trying to deal with now, basically. So that experience, I think people in the U.S. cannot completely relate to it on an emotional level but definitely in an intellectual level. So definitely it's completely satisfying the way people are understanding what you're working on. I think the scenario you described, I think you can sell that to Hollywood. I'm pretty filled with that. If I can, I'll pick up on what you're saying a look in this idea of femininity and I really feel about that. And I really wonder about, like when Abby went, like did you work specifically with girls and it's weird that it feels like that's such a, amazing and powerful choice, but it does and it feels really valuable to see a bunch of girls who have completely manned the stage in this really interesting way. What led you to that particular choice? We actually didn't, oh when we started the piece, we didn't know it was gonna be performed by young people, by children. And then when we made the decision to work with young people and we held auditions, we didn't just exclusively audition girls. We auditioned a lot of children with various stripes. And it was actually, it was a default. I mean it was like there was one boy who we were really interested in, but then we thought the politics of having one nine-year-old boy and several nine-year-old girls was gonna be a really complicated social experience. And also frame, would frame something in the room really specifically. And so we started working with the girls. I mean, honestly we were inspired by a girl we saw in a movie. It was as easy as that. And we saw the movie and we thought, let's do that. When we were testing out the idea, I think it was sort of like really trying to, we were writing the play at the same time and we were working with different actors and performers at various ages and genders. And we, I think we were sort of trying to concoct the scenario and like who should be the messenger of the story and who should we see on stage and who should, whose truth sort of brings a layer of complexity to the story that we're telling and bends it and shifts it into a more complex way than we can do just by putting the story out there alone. Like who's the right person to tell the story and who's the wrong person to tell the story. And usually there's something more interesting in the wrong person. And so I think the idea that as this, as the narrative moves forward in time and it's the story of one woman's life and that as she ages it diverges from the performers so that you know that these people are telling you about experiences that they have not had so that there is a sort of widening of the gap between the character on a theatrical level and the performer on a real human level. But actually I think a little bit there that in the widening of the gap there's actually a contradiction that happens that because of the amount of time, because of the different command of the room because they are very powerful presences and also because of the sort of seduction of the actual story that you actually come deeper in. The widening of the gap actually is a closing that you actually get closer into the story and you can have more command. But so do you always have the idea of having a story to be about this whole life? Yes, that was a constant, that was a constant thing that we had. The inception of the piece was that it was like a lifetime. You do have a part out of there at once, so do you want to open it up to the audience? Do you have some of your possibilities yet? I actually wonder, it seems like all the people on this stage act and transform and destroy both in the theatrical fence and in the world. You know, it's just in the theater. But we also know that a lot of people who are coming to see these performances have all the courage to experience that and there may be some particular file or how you choose to act both in the world and in your work to be destroying and recreating in the world and not just in the theater. I'll be very explicit. I'm here to recruit. Every time I speak, every time I act, every time I dress, every time I think, I'm talking about the struggle of this whole period. There's never an apolitical moment for me because there's a type of urgency of which one year friends are done and you don't have to fight like hell for that, right? And for me, I realized from a very young age that people are much more likely to pay me and listen to me if I say what I'm doing is art versus if I say what I'm doing is activism. Because we live in a culture that hates activists even though activists have created the conditions with which all of us are living. There'd be no such thing as theater. There'd be no funding for arts if there wasn't for people screaming, historically saying this is important, right? And so what I think about with what we're trying to do is we actually have an organizing strategy and philosophy. So we think how do we bring in people into the room who wouldn't normally be there? We have a really sexy social media presence. We are constantly thinking about ways to bring in people through really neoliberal things like our fashion, our selfies, like some liberal love narrative, whatever. Whatever breaks people in. And then the first thing you learn when you're a social movement organizer is you do base buildings. We build that base online. Then we do political educations. We teach them about the issues we're experiencing. And then we give them opportunities. So we say, come to our show. The show sells out, great, phenomenal.  But they're not just going to do this white liberal thing where they come and see us and like, wow, diversity. I'm gonna give you an experience today. I'm gonna go and tell my children, wow. But actually I'm gonna be like, I feel deeply implicated and I'm going to actually support. So then we do that in our art and then we say follow us on social media. We bring them in and then we present the new opportunities to go and support other artists, activists, jump into other campaigns, actually support different issues, recalibrate their politics, right? So for me, I think one of my biggest critiques of the theater world is that it sees the job as ending when the show is over and that's just when it began, darling. What's your follow-up? How are we gonna bring them in? How are we gonna actually build with these people? How do we get people to understand these concepts? Because people don't learn in a two hour span. They just don't. They learn over a lifetime. So that's why I think we always need to be thinking about how does theater and how does art fit within a bigger strategy of what we're trying to do? And I hear a lot of people say these really nasty things about young people all the time. Like, oh, young people's attention spans are so small and they can't enjoy theater or oh, the turn towards digital has made it so people just don't want to go in there and experience. No, it's because your work is boring. It's because it's irrelevant and actually young people aren't discerning enough to recognize I'd rather watch Netflix because they're actually giving me things that actually interest me than going to go see Dead White Old Man and make really boring theater at the public, right? So for me, it's really about recognizing that it's not enough to just be like, oh, my theater's amazing. But actually make it relevant and make it accessible and make it actually relate to the people who need to be in the room, not the people who are already coming. I think to add to that, this one question I've been trying to grapple with is a question of how regardless of who we are, our right to some extent, we've been influenced by this culture that tells us to individualize, or put it in particular, receptacles. And so much of what has happened, and it's relevant to what they're from, but so much of what we have experienced, right? Whether it's the on-going genocide, the complex religious people here, whether it's the slavery for the accumulation of wealth, whether it's like now this thing called the war on terror that we justify by saying we're sad, that we're gonna bomb everyone, right? I think there is this sense that people don't know how to grieve in ways that are broad and empathetic and lovely and hold that pain, and instead they put that pain in things like marriage or deportation prisons. I think it does become this sort of cyclical thing to the spiritual fabric of who we are when the only ways we can think of dealing with things that are uncomfortable is by incarcerating them, deporting them, bombing them, right? And I think to a certain extent that's what we've done in the realm of culture as well, and that reinforces all these other systems, right? Again, what the local saying about how if we have these flat representations of people, then it is okay to call them terrorists. If we have these flat representations of people, then they are illegal, right? So I don't think it's, when I say I wanna make spaces for people to grieve, I mean, I want them to be able to grieve for unmarked bodies and for systemic violence and for all of history and all of time. And anyway, to your question, I don't actually think that most of the audiences like at the public are generally used to going through those kinds of processes. I don't think that much of our work is initially intelligible to a lot of the people we perform for, not to see it all over the place. And that's part of the beauty of it. I don't wanna agree with everyone I perform for. I want them to challenge me on my ways. I wish I could say that I was preaching to the choir, but the choir wouldn't be preaching to it so small. Like so small, there are not that many non-binary, like, anti-colonial activists out there. For us, like, popularly to show with them, we would never make money. But if we even have a great theater space where we can do that, we would totally do it. If you wanna pay for their tickets, like, feel free. My question up there. Okay, I have a question. I'm curious about theater's role in not just deconstructing or storytelling or destroying the current world, but actually ways that you're seeing, and I love the point of theater doesn't end off the stage, and it's actually connecting to education and activist opportunities. But where are you guys are seeing examples of theater that's actually imposing a vision for a new world? So instead of carrying down the current world that we have, who's being really effective and actually visioning things for people so that this is to be inspired by theater, and then go out and create your own world, but to actually see a proposal for a new world. I just wonder if that's happening. I haven't seen it in a long time, if you have. I feel like I see it a little bit in your work, like on Avenue, really in a particular way, in that you ask us to spend different quality of time together. Sorry, I don't even see it for you now. I just really speak to that. I feel like you slow things down in the way that you're asking them to experience, like things that we understand, like story and actor and stage, but we experience it. But I feel like in a lot of the shows that I've seen in yours, I'm surprised when a time's passed, or I feel like something's happened for a long time. I feel like that is kind of radical to be spending time with something. What do you guys think about it? I think we're kind of interested in boredom in a way, but I don't know how to defend that quite. I think it's because it's just our own. Well, I mean, I think it was interesting that Shani brought up boredom as something to fight against. And I do think that our fascination with it is a bit of a fight in its own way. That changing a time signature with which you are, if you can change the time signature of a group of people with which you're experiencing the passing of time, then we can reframe a theatrical event, that the lifting of an arm, or a simple act of intimacy between two people is, all of a sudden, can be perhaps more, there's like a magnitude, to perhaps something that might have been on YouTube. There's so much that's, it's, you know, I have like, you know, notes of my kind of love to actually, you know, the kind of dig into boredom much more is because I think boredom is massing me. But I'm thinking of on like, on grief and boredom and all these things. I just want to ask, actually, and your question about envisioning other worlds, and I think that behind the title of destroyer worlds is the idea of destroying what exists to create new ones. In Escalar, they're very clearly articulating a vision of a sort of post-capitalist Marxist utopia that they want to achieve. We know, because we're watching the play, that they fail. It seems that there is, my experience, the players, that there is grief about that. How, I guess, as the playwright, and sort of, do you feel that they, or as an individual, do you still feel that the impulse to try and create a sort of utopian, better world is an important one? Yes, definitely. Of course, I used to work pessimism, but there was also idealism. Here, I guess, under a few years. We don't know what's going to happen. Maybe capitalism is going to destroy the planet, and something new is going to arise from that. So, and that new thing, it better be better than this one. And that's going to motivate us for a long time, I think, for the rest of our lifetime. I think now we live in a sense of the middle of a big crisis, a crisis that's just going to keep growing, and I think that we're going to need to sort of gather all the ideas in order to create something new as soon as we can. So, and I think that's one of the things that fear is now desperately doing. I think that's a great place to end, which is to gather all the idealists. I see you've got a bunch on the stage and they're doing that. Eve, everybody thank you, Eve, y'all.


Hello and welcome to the final video of the February scary series over the past four weeks I've systematically exposed the disturbing ways that human beings sexually exploit innocent animals in their reproductive organs for monetary gain What is insane to me is that although these practices seem to be legally sanctioned We can also find laws across the Western world which strictly prohibits sexual acts with an animal aka bestiality Bestiality is defined as sexual relations between a person and an animal bestiality laws in the UK are as follows Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery committed either with mankind or with an animal Shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be kept in penal servitude for life or for any term not less than 10 years Looks like all those who tamper with animals in animal ag could be looking at a life sentence in the UK Buggery is defined as anal intercourse Is this not what the UK dairy industry does to non-consenting male and female animals when they probe Restrained bulls for semen collection and use a fist to penetrate the rectum of female cows for insemination It seems we found a clear contradiction here according to animal legal and historical Center College of Law There are only four US states who do not have laws prohibiting the sexual assault of animals So that leaves 46 states where animal agriculture is committing crimes against animals in the form of bestiality Moving on to Australia every state has laws prohibiting bestiality in New South Wales You could be looking at 14 years for fiddling around with the privates of an innocent animal Looks like Australian animal farmers might be at risk of legal action for their offenses against young and vulnerable sentient beings What baffles me is that we live in a society that defends children vehemently against sexual predators We understand the vulnerable and innocent nature of children Which is why we have hefty sentences and even street justice to combat sexual offenders We also understand that children just like animals are not capable of giving consent for sexual acts And let's not forget the trauma a young confused child might experience after falling victim to this type of abuse So couldn't we too compare the trauma experienced by beings of a similar sentient capacity like those innocent animals in animal agriculture Who are literally sexually molested every second of every single day worldwide for animal products Here we see Exposed by surge investigators a worker who works at a dairy farm linked to the deputy president of the National Farmers Union inappropriately interfering with the young cows vagina Watch as the young cow cowers towards him confused as the offender comforts the cow by patting her on the face This disturbing act resulted in disciplinary action against the perpetrator Yet the same type of animal abusing hypocrite dairy farmers who would discipline an individual like this for such a depraved act are every day facilitating the rape of male and female cattle under the guise of Artificial insemination on dairy farms all across the world But if it truly were artificial insemination shouldn't a subject be consenting It's legally required that human women give consent before artificial insemination or any sexual act for that matter if they are non Consenting or like a child unable to consent. It's no longer artificial insemination It's rape through the victim's eyes from the animals perspective How are they to know the difference between a worker inappropriately touching them for sexual gratification or a farmer inappropriately touching them for artificial insemination through the animals eyes.  Or what about those good-hearted people who pay via supply and demand for the same sexual abuse that society appears to Morally condemn.  Is it not you who are putting the animal abuser in business? Animal agriculture does not exist as it stands without the systematic sexual abuse of animals So if you oppose these crimes against animals then it is an obligation that you oppose animal agriculture via your Consumptive choices to be vegan is to oppose all animal abuse. Thank you for watching the February scary series Please share these videos far and wide and let's create a world where all beings are free from harm Thank you


Rock guitar weeps stridently, drums reverberate to a vigorous beat and the keyboards provide the electronic tenor. Bangra, reggae, folksy rock, metal and rap, everything you wanted to hear and more. Welcome to the Indian Pop Music Factory, which is today belting out a smorgasbord of sounds and new voices as its shining stars gyrate and hip-hop their way into the high energy MTV generation. In the 80s, the Indian pop scene had only a few stars to boast of. In a climate not encouraging anything much original and innovative, the effervescent go-and-singer Remo Fernandez struck a chord with the masses with his home-strung renditions replete with Indian flavour. Things began to change in the 90s. Indiscreet, earlier known as Rock Machine, the country's leading rock band started the search for trendy, world-class music videos with their MTV Asian viewers award-winning endeavour Pretty Child from their second album, The Second Coming. First pop star to exploit the medium of music videos was the desi rapper Baba Sagar, who scored runaway successes like Tanda Tanda Pani and Dil Dharke. The Indian Madonna sound-alike Alisha Chennai, known for her foot-tapping albums like Baby Doll and Bombay Girl, opted for the more popular Bhangra Reggae beat in her album Made in India, launched in the market last year. In the West, Hindi pop music too is attracting the not-too-successful and the lesser stars from Tinseltown. The best example is screen and television actress Suchitra Krishnamurthy, whose album Dole Dole was one of the hot-selling releases of 1995. Here's a show that explains to you how and why not to get hooked. Here we go with this week's special. Where Indian pop is finding acceptance, music groups like the Bangalore-based Pulse are experimenting with newer forms of fusion. With a string of pop releases slated in the coming months, the Indian music charts might never look the same again. And more interestingly, these non-film numbers could be giving Hindi film music a stiff run for the listener's ear and money. But perhaps in the not-too-distant future, the new competition, spurred by the spurt of music channels in the country, could throw up talent that would find a ready place in any international hit parade.


Creativity and enthusiasm – I can get people enthusiastic with me and have great fun and as an adult I can choose the things I'm interested in rather than be bored. We can think of a million solutions to all things that need sorting out or get it sorted and gather a team to help us. Creativity – seeing links in wacky bonkers ways that nobody else would ever connect but just works. Hyper Focus – getting things done at a phenomenal speed and with impeccable outcomes, excitement and passion, topic dependent, that is infectious. I am relentless, I will not stop until I have resolved an issue. I will put all of my energy into it and if it's someone else's problem such as a patient or client at work, that's even better. Hyper Focus allows you to do things people swear is impossible and can't be done. I power through when most people would have given up when I have a purpose. I have a friend with ADHD and her passion and enthusiasm for what she enjoys is both inspirational and infectious. It's hard to feel anything other than optimistic when I'm around her because she has such a lust for life. Creativity, empathy, energy, focus, dry, grit, PS, it's also relentlessly exhausting. I'm a veterinary surgeon and professionally the ADHD superpower is our magnificent capacity for pattern recognition and also possibly more importantly pattern unrecognition where something looks very much like a specific diagnosis but there's something off about it. I am the person you want around in an emergency. I can't follow a recipe to save my own life but if you need emergency care I am on it. Big picture thinking combined with having multiple interests means you make more imaginative links and problems of. ADHD allows me to be a better nurse. I can feel every emotion, manage every aspect of care for 16 patients at one time, anticipate needs and solve things before they even become problems. The ability to bring 300 ideas to a table at a moment's notice, normally one of them is brilliant. Unfortunately the meeting has to listen to the other 299. Also at 40 I've retained the ability to play. Creativity, thinking outside the box as there is no box.


CHAPTER 17 THE CHURCH AND THE END It completes, so to say, the dignity of Piccadilly, that St. James's church should stand in it. And it is fitting, I think, that with the church my book should end, for whatever better and happier thoughts a church may suggest to others, to me at least it means first and last and insistence on mortality. It is always sad to come to the end of a thing one loves, and in parting from Piccadilly, which has been a labour of love to me to write about, I cannot but feel a sorrow not altogether sweet. St. James's church and the memorials of its dead are not an unfit theme for my last chapter. Not that the personal associations of the church are all melancholy by any means. Harry German, who owned the ground on which it is built, was only sad in another sense, and so was Charles II, who issued the letter's patent for it. Yet death, in a way, presided over its beginning, for both Harry German, made Earl of St. Albans and privately married to Henrietta Maria, and Charles himself, died while it was building. It was finished and consecrated in 1685. To enter on an architectural disquisition on its merits is happily not part of my duty. The reader probably knows them, or he can go see for himself. I do not think it, Sir Christopher Wren's masterpiece, or fancy that his ghost haunts it in preference to St. Paul's, quite the other way, in fact, for he had architectural troubles in connection with it. The steeple he designed was judged to be too expensive, and one designed by a carpenter in the parish called Wilcox, which cost £100 less, was preferred. Bitter thoughts of Wilcox must occur to Wren if he revisits his work. But he was proud of the interior, and surely with justice. I know many churches more sympathetic to me, but the symmetry of the columns and roof, the whole fashioned with a sort of fine simplicity to seat as many worshippers as possible with the means at the architect's command, contents our vision. The adornments I care for less, but will not dogmatise about taste. From the first, since James's church was fashionable, and its memories are mainly of fashionable folk and their ways, in Sir John Vambrer's relapse, which was produced ten years or so after the church was finished, Lord Foppington, the type of all that was modish, tells us what sort of congregations sat there. Foppington, why faith, madam? Sunday is a vile day, I must confess. I intend to move for leave to bring in a bill that players may work upon it, as well as the hackney coaches. Though this I must say for the government, it leaves us the churches to entertain us. But there again they begin so abominably early a man must rise by candlelight to get dressed by the psalm. Verinthia, pray, which church does your lordship most oblige by your presence? Foppington. Oh, St. James's, madam, there's much the best company. Amanda. Is there good preaching, too? Foppington. Why, faith, madam, I can't tell. A man must have very little to do there that can give an account of the sermon. Verinthia. You can give us an account of the ladies, at least. Foppington. Oh, I deserve to be excommunicated. There is my lady Tatl, my lady Prate, my lady Titta, my lady Lear, my lady Giggle, and my lady Grinn. These sit in the front of the boxes, and all church-time are the prettiest company in the world, step, my vitals. May unto be hope for the honour to see your ladyship added to our society, madam? Amanda. Alas, my lord, I am the worst company in the world at church. I'm apt to mind the prayers of the sermon. What? Foppington. One is indeed strangely apt at church to mind what one should not do. But I hope, madam, at one time or another I shall have the honour to lead your ladyship to your coach, there. I have copied out the whole passage, because it gives us more vividly and truly than I can hope to, an idea of the church and its worshippers, as it was when it first was used. We see the fine ladies sitting under grinning Gibbons' altarpiece, and my lord ogling them, and leading his favourite to her coach. Carefully the while, how curious are those changing affectations, mispronouncing his o's. He led her, by the way, not into Piccadilly, but into German Street, on which the church then fronted as the more important street of the two. It is possible that if my lord Foppington had listened to the sermon, he would not have understood it. But it is probable he would have heard a good one. The preferment has usually been held, one of the prizes of the church, and many of the incumbents have been made bishops. A few archbishops. Archbishop Tennyson was the first rector. Lord Foppington sat under Dr William Wake, Dee Dee, who also became Archbishop of Canterbury in due time. None of these incumbents, I hope and think, is likely to haunt the worldly scene of Piccadilly, though perhaps some of them like to linger now and then, in the pleasant rectory house, which suggests a dignified domesticity, and seems out of place in that part of Piccadilly, now so little domestic. One of the curates, however, was so much at home in Piccadilly, or wherever else fate bestowed him, that I must, by no manner of means, exclude him from my pages. I mean the late Prebendery Brookfield, that gay and accomplished humorist father of Mr Charles Brookfield, the player and playwright, who was curate under John Edward Kemp. Prebendery Kemp died at the age of 97, on the day I wrote this chapter. He used to relate how the Lord Darby, who was Prime Minister, sat in a gallery pew right over the pulpit, and would write notes for a speech there, sometimes looking over the rector's shoulder to see if the sermon was near its end, end footnote. Those of my readers, and I hope this means all of them, who have read the book Mr Charles Brookfield and his wife wrote about the former's parents, will perceive at once that Prebendery Brookfields, I say it without the least offence to his clerical character, is one of the most delightful ghosts they could meet in Piccadilly, and quite in touch with most of the spirits I have imagined there. So human was he, so sympathetic and debonair, his sermons in the church drew London, one of them in which some incautious mistrust of the literal acceptance of divine writ was expressed, caused almost a scandal, and the good Lord's shaft spree protested that the man's an atheist. They were strikingly dramatic in tone, as one who used to hear them has told me, and indeed in Mr Brookfield the father, a fine actor was lost to the stage. It is recorded that he once kept a party in Trinity Cambridge. It included the great Dr Thompson and other serious and mature persons rolling on the floor in laughter for an hour with his comic deliveries. He was of course an eagerly sought guest at great men's tables, and among others that in Bath House, Piccadilly saw him often. There was a touch of the abbey parson about him, just a suggestion of Thackeray's reverend Samson, pour le bon motif, as it were. Could I leave out such a jolly spirit as this? The reader would never forgive me, but he must forgive me if I do no more than mention a few of the celebrated people who were christened or buried in St James's church. Their connection with Piccadilly is not sufficient for my rules. If the reader's imagination is equal to the picture of Lord Chesterfield, him of the letters and the manners and morals, Dr Johnson so bitterly described, of the famous Lord Chesterfield as a polite baby, I can gratify him with the knowledge that here Lord Chesterfield was christened, so was the first William Pitt, who should have been a still more remarkable baby. Mrs Delaney, who lived so long and knew so many people, was buried here in 1788. James Doddley, the bookseller, lies here, and James Gilraith, the caricaturist, who threw himself from the window of Miss Humphrey's print shop in St James's street hard by. Tom Durfey was buried here, and Dick Steele had placed a tablet with Honest Tom Durfey on it at the entrance to the church in German Street. Mr Wheatley tells us that the tablet was taken down some years ago as unsuited to the sanctity of the place. It is not recorded, however, that the remains of old Q have been removed from underneath the altar. And now I come to the end. Like most goodbyes, this too is best said quickly. I confess to some sentiment in the moment. In spite of the horrors which an evil-inspired and absurdly called civilisation inflicts on the place now, I still feel something of the charm of Piccadilly, and I have laboured my best in gratitude. Well or ill, the work is done, and the ghostly figures fade. One looks after them as they go, sadly. One self to fade also sooner or later, and be like, since the life of the dead is in the memory of the living, to fade far more completely. Harriet Mellon and Emma Hamilton, Fox and Byron, the Duke and Palmerston, and old Q. I take my leave of them, and Frederick Locker-Lampson gives me a too-sadly fitting envoy for its Hale-Ani Fugakes, the wise and the silly, old P or old Q. We must quit Piccadilly. THE END OF CHAPTER 17 AND THE END OF THE GHOSTS OF PICCADILLY by G. S. STREET


Museum in the heart of Silicon Valley. It's theCUBE, covering OpenStack Silicon Valley 2016. Brought to you by Morantis. Now, here are your hosts, John Furrier and Lisa Martin. Hello everyone, welcome to our special live presentation of theCUBE, SiliconANGLE Media's flagship program. We go out to the events and extract the signal from the noise. We are here live in Silicon Valley in Mountain View right around the corner from Google's campus in the heart of innovation. As we're covering the OpenStack Silicon Valley where OpenStack community comes to Silicon Valley. Obviously put on by Morantis and obviously we're glad to be here. We've been covering every OpenStack event since the inception of the open cloud movement of OpenStack. I'm John Furrier, host for the next two days with my co-host Lisa Martin. Lisa, we have been covering OpenStack for a long time and it's exciting to see a lot of, I would say, coalescing around the industry forces. M&A, companies trying to be successful. This open cloud initiative is still alive. The flame is still burning. But yet the big guys are getting bigger. So we're going to be here for the next two days analyzing, squinting through the noise to get the signal. We're going to extract that signal from the noise. So great to see you. Great to be here, John. Thanks for having me. So I want to get your thoughts. What's your impression so far? It's kind of an interesting Silicon Valley crowd. A lot of developers, a lot of industry folks. Right. Walmart Labs is here and also we're interesting to hear about from those guys. Very interesting. They have any comment about jet.com, big acquisition of billions of dollars. Interesting company taking on e-commerce with Amazon. Right, right. So we're at the Cloud Show, AWS, Amazon Web Services, a dominant force. So it's going to be super exciting. It is, I agree. I'm very excited to be here and co-hosting with you, John. From a keynote perspective, one of the things that was really clear that both Marantis talked about Alex Freeland on stage this morning. From a thematic perspective, technology has changed. You talked about that. It's now this ecosystem of collaboration. It needs to be the big guys, as you said, John, getting bigger. They have to be. They have to embrace OpenStack in order to do that. Progression of this hybrid world is becoming more of a reality. A lot of challenges within that we'll explore today. Also that what they're seeing from an OpenStack perspective is workloads are now being optimized, which to them shows, hey, the industry is maturing. Very excited to get your take today on what your thoughts are, given that you guys have been following OpenStack for its entire history of six years. It's interesting, a lot of times. The last time we were here, we had interviewed folks from the previous year that were no longer with their company. CEOs of startups that have moved on. Some went to Pivotal, some went to Google. But what's really happening is a maturization of the reality of the OpenCloud. And that is, is that the OpenStack community is kind of at a period of really soul searching and really looking at where's that breakout point in their community because a lot of things have changed. Certainly public private cloud has kind of given some swim lanes to the vendors. Private is where the enterprise action is. Public cloud is where all the growth is. You see Amazon Web Services and certainly Microsoft Azure dominating. But it's that hybrid intersection. And I just put a post out there that was quoted from the Wikibon stuff that said, friends don't let friends build data centers and BlueBox, Jesse put an image up. I was going to put that up. I pitted the fool who builds their own clouds. And that really comes down to it. The cloud business model is changing the execution operations of enterprises. And that means investing dollars on a capitalization standpoint versus operations. And what that really means is how you write it off. But more importantly, what your business model is. So as the business model shift to the cloud, the revenue models and the business models of the companies have to be aligned with the how people consume. And that is subscription. So subscription based revenue has to match the expense models of the build out. And that's really where the action has been on the business side. And that's been a forcing function for this community again to consolidate around what's expected and how can they grow in a very healthy way. So to me, it's always been every show we've gone to the death of OpenStack. Will OpenStack survive? And I think unlike the Hadoop ecosystem, there really is an open cloud opportunity for hybrid IoT, certainly NFV has been a great use case. So, you know, the successes around NFV and now IoT bring down the value proposition to a lower bar. I think that's hopefully what we'll see today. Exactly. And one of the things you talked about forcing function that they talked about, Jonathan Braisted in the keynote this morning is another forcing function is sort of moving a little bit away from the technology challenges that are prevalent with OpenStack deployments, but it's also a forcing function of cultural change. And as you look at some of these large enterprises, it's not just aligning the business and the IT, but it's also the alignment within IT, leading from an IT C level perspective. How do they align with what the developers need in order to make cloud deployments successful? We've seen some interesting stats. In fact, an OpenStack survey that they did in the last few months demonstrated that of 1,100 survey respondents, over 65% of their clouds are in deployment. But then you also see John Converse to that, a CIO.com survey that was also then recently showed that over 50% of enterprises trying to deploy OpenStack are failing. Why are they failing? What's the rub there? I think we're going to learn from that today with Joe Weiman from some other folks as well, wanting to understand how are these enterprises going to be successful going forward? So, forcing function on the culture side is another element. Culture of OpenStack has been about surviving. And I think one of the things that I tip my hat to to the community here is that they've been survivors. They've always been navigating very turbulent waters in terms of how the market's been growing. So, the community really has been tight-knit. Yeah, certainly contentious at times, but they've been surviving. And I think they've been digging and zagging at the right times within the trends. But the OpenStack community in the foundation particular has done a good job of understanding OpenStack's role in the bigger picture of cloud computing ecosystem. And I think that's been positive. The question on the table is, can they reduce the complexity of getting the technology in the hands of the customers? This was the challenge we've been seeing in the big data ecosystem around Hadoop, which has moved to things like Spark, and you're seeing that friction force customers in a certain direction. So, the question to the OpenStack community, can they continue to decide will they zig at the right time and zag at the right time and will they have the right approach? And ultimately, it's going to come down to the success cases. And to me, it has to be beyond NFV. To me, it's about IoT and having those kinds of capabilities with the business model, which is kind of in place with the subscription. Can they knock down the operational complexities and be in position with hybrid and private cloud for an IoT solution? To me, that's what I'm looking at and swinting through to see some success points for OpenStack. Speaking of success points, one of the things John and I were talking about before we went live this morning is one of our guests today, Sean Roberts from Walmart Labs. Really going to be exciting, especially given the news that was just announced a couple days ago with the biggest deal in U.S. e-commerce history. A lot of people think of Walmart as a retailer. In fact, you mentioned NFV, a big use case that has been shown success with OpenStack, but also now retail and the transformation that these companies are going through from becoming a retailer to becoming an agile technology company. John, talk to us about what you're looking forward to with Walmart on the program today. Well, first of all, I don't think Walmart guy is going to talk about the acquisition, but we certainly will ask, but here's my take. The Jet.com sales at Walmart really absolutely is a proof point of why these ecosystems are very, very relevant and valuable, because Walmart dominates the commerce business. This company, only a short time ago, was founded to take on Amazon's retail. A bold bet, they grew like a weed and they had a real technology differentiator around the data analytics and the guaranteed pricing. Essentially it was the Costco online and that really was disruptive. So at any given times, anyone in the ecosystem could put together a disruptive enabler, whether it's big data analytics or some tweak in the stack that could put a big incumbent on their heels. Essentially, Walmart's model, and certainly their model is deep with technology, wasn't in position to compete with Amazon. That ultimately proves that one, can little companies take on Amazon, you'd say if Jet.com continued, maybe they could have taken on Amazon's e-commerce value, but the value to Walmart was so much more because their potential failure in digital was 10 times more valuable than that. So you're seeing that and I think that proves that Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, a lot of the big comments are potentially at risk by this open cloud initiative because the innovation could come from anywhere. And I think that to me is the tea leaves that I would read from that deal and that again, a young company, $3 billion plus acquisition, proves that innovation could come from anywhere. And that's why I love this open stack community because they are survivors and I can't tell you how many times I've heard the death of open stack. They're not doing this right. They've been digging and zagging and navigating the waters effectively and again, putting it into a position for a lot of these companies to be successful. Speaking of news and digging and zagging, Rackspace, one of the, obviously with NASA, one of the founders of open stack back in 2010, recent news, they beat the streets expectations, but there's this sort of cloud, no pun intended, looming over them from an acquisition perspective. What's your take on the future of Rackspace and what that will mean to open stack? Well, Rackspace is one of the really initial founders and they didn't take the credit for open stack because they did justice by the community by making it a community event is under a lot of turmoil and they're basically, I believe, under pressure because of the forces we were talking about with the cloud and the big guys. They're stuck in the middle between being an agile innovator and a public cloud big vendor. They're obviously losing to Amazon and everybody else with Microsoft and now Google and others with the cloud presence, has huge scale. Rackspace is struggling at the cloud level. So the news about the private equity potential buyout really is the state of the art move financially to do a pivot. So startups can do a pivot by just changing strategies. They have enough money in the bank, they make new changes, they go into new markets and we report on that all the time. But what's interesting about Rackspace is they have to pivot. So I expect Rackspace not to fail in any way. I think it's private equity or if they do some things internally, they have to pivot. And I think we'll see Rackspace pivot quickly probably to some sort of private cloud or some sort of hybrid position and use this open cloud initiative and a lot of players that are around the table that they could take advantage of versus going frontal attack on the big whales themselves. So I think Rackspace is in pretty good shape. I haven't been impressed with Rackspace but they have challenges. So they will pivot, we'll see that happen and we'll see what they can do. So taking a look at the lineup that we have today, we've got a great lineup of guests today. We mentioned Walmart, going to be talking to them momentarily this morning. That's Sean Roberts, who's the director of the technical program management there. We also have Lisa Kaywood on the show today, director of ecosystem development from Open Daylight. Probably going to hear a little bit about NFV from Lisa. And then John, you're going to be talking with Michael Miller, who's the president of strategy alliances and marketing at SUSE alongside of Kamesh Pamaraju, the VP of product marketing for Morantis. They're going to be on the show today talking with John. And then we also have the host or the emcee of OpenStack Summit SV today, Joe Weinman, who's noted author of Cloud Nomics, the business value of cloud computing and digital disciplines. Obviously quite a comedian from today's keynote this morning. I like his dry sense of humor. And then we've got John also talking with some folks from Giga Spaces, Gershaw and Diner, EVP of strategic alliances, customer service and technical support. Amir Levy, director of solution and solution architect in the office of the CTO Giga Spaces. And then our last three guests today, we've got Matthew Lodge, the COO of Weave. We've got Andrew Randall, the CEO of Tigera, John. And then we also end the day with Alex Friedland, the CEO of Morantis who's sponsoring today's events. We talked about Walmart from today's lineup. Who else are you very interested in speaking to today? And what are some of the things that you really want to learn from them? The lineup that you mentioned is really interesting and unique. And when we put the lineup together, one of the things that the folks don't know and we have our production meetings, we look at the lineup and we want to kind of have a cross-section of what we think represents the top stories. And if you look at that list, it's really diverse. You have a lot of Linux-like background players, kind of raw technology. And then you have app folks. So you're seeing a blend between folks who understand the convergence between unified communications, voice, video, apps, and mobile, because they're the ones who have to essentially live on the cloud. And then you have the people under the covers, under the hood, as they say. So people building the engine of this open cloud. So to me, I'm excited to really tease out, I like to use the car analogy. You know, what is this race car going to look like? What is it going to look like? What's the engine, what's under the hood? Let's get it down in the weeds on the geek feeds and speeds. But more importantly, what is that disruptive enabler? Because the app guys have to run these seamless applications that have a convergence of technology. So, you know, Joe, for instance, has a ton of patents around voice and switching, all that stuff. And also he knows understand the economics of cloud. But that really teases out where the app guys are. They don't want infrastructure. They want infrastructure as code. And a lot of their customers are actually enterprises. So it's an interesting blend. This Linux kind of, you know, DNA, you have the cloud DNA, they also have the application DNA. So to me, that's what I'm most excited about. One of the things that I'm excited about is understanding the enterprise conundrum. And wanting to get some advice from, like you mentioned, success cases. In fact, that's actually one of the things that Jonathan Bryce talked about on the keynote is, is moving to this collaborative innovative future direction with OpenSec and being able to share successes, being able to duplicate them. One of the challenges we mentioned a few minutes ago that's been historically present with OpenSec John is deployment and management. I'm excited to hear from Morantis what their 9.0 product is doing to help facilitate and mitigate some of the challenges there. But I want to understand from Joe's perspective, what advice would he give to those enterprises? You know, recent CIO survey that said 50% are failing when they're trying to deploy clouds on OpenSec. What advice would he give? Not just from a technology perspective. It's something we talked about earlier, culture. It's the people and the processes and the things that have to change, which presumably are much harder for enterprises to be able to pivot and turn, like you mentioned earlier. One of the things I'm excited to learn about today is what is the future for enterprises to be successful in this open cloud era? Yeah, and to me, the thing that Wikibon research guys have pointed out, that the OpenSec community and the technology behind it really has stabilized around the private cloud value proposition. And those deployments are becoming more realistic for enterprise customers. And customers should be exploring the breadth of consumption opportunities. So to me, that really is fundamentally the high-level value proposition that OpenSec has today. And certainly from there, you've got IoT, a variety of other use cases, and that V and IoT. But what that will do is it'll be interesting is to see how the IT departments transform some of their blocking and tackling workflows, like the provisioning storage, provisioning networks, provisioning servers. Building and operating basically the cloud from the trunk of OpenStack can be difficult. So who from the ecosystem is going to enable the IT guys, the guys in the trenches, the ones who want to transform the business with applications in top-line revenue, not just consolidation. Can they bring the OpenStack in as a change agent to really allow the businesses to explore these new consumption models of technology and provide their business with real enablement for application development, for top-line revenue growth. And again, private cloud is the nice beachhead that a lot of these guys can plant and grow from. So from that spot, they have access to the hybrid cloud, and then IoT would be a complete land grab at that point. So again, these are the forces that we see kind of teasing out with on our team at Wikibon and SiliconANGLE on theCUBE. So we'll see, we'll be covering it live and it'll be exciting, and we're going to ask all the guests the tough questions. And of course, bringing the Silicon Valley perspective here on theCUBE, our hometown, and of course we're going to get the innovation questions in there. If you have any questions, hit us up on Twitter at theCube, at Furrier, and we'll be answering those questions. Not a crowd chat up yet. We'll see if Bert Lattimore's online. If he is, we'll get a crowd chat going. I'm John Furrier, Lisa Martin, kicking off day one of coverage of OpenStack Silicon Valley. We'll be right back after this short break.


Hello Slush. I'm really excited to talk to you today and I'd like you to join me by thinking back to the start of your day. After you woke up, maybe you woke up in a hotel and thought, where am I? That typically happens to me somewhere, somewhere new. And you realise you're in Helsinki and maybe you actually realised you've got a bit of a hangover after the night before. Then what products did you use as part of your morning routine?  And then maybe if you're like me approaching 40, you're now reaching for the age-defying daily moisturiser as well. You put that on. And then you get to the finishing touches and you might put on some hairspray, some hair gel, maybe some makeup. And then you're all smelling great so I know that you've put on some perfume and some aftershave as well. Well before you've even eaten anything, you have used many, many different products in the day. And on the back of the pack, there are hundreds of different ingredients in these products. And that's before we've even got into our full daily routine. And it's great that humans are thriving but sourcing these ingredients is leading to the destruction of our planet. But there's good news because solutions are within our reach. And one of those solutions is an application of engineering biology where everyday ingredients such as palm oil can be made more sustainably. Tiny living microbes are reprogrammed to convert waste food streams into useful ingredients that typically come from industrial farming or fossil fuels. Sounds great. Let's do it. Only it was that simple. I'd like you to imagine that you're in a huge maze and you're trying to find your way out. This is what it feels like when you're trying to engineer biology ahead of you and many different pathways that you can take. And it's difficult to know which is the best route to go down. And typically you aren't armed with much more than your opinion when deciding which way to go. And unfortunately this is the reality of engineering biology in industry today. We've got some really clever scientists and they're trying to find a pathway to re-engineer some microbes to get to an end product. And they're basing those decisions on their experiences, on their ideas.  And it's akin to playing the lottery. We're basically gambling with funds hoping that we make it. Sometimes we do but it's difficult to replicate. But there's good news. Because we are on the cusp of a biorevolution. Advances in wet lab testing, robotics, automation means that scientists can test hundreds of thousands of different micro variations at the same time. And as well as a biorevolution, we're also experiencing an AI revolution with new tools and techniques that can provide next level insights. But you might be thinking, well, you've been doing science for a while as industry, surely there's a load of data that we can leverage. But sadly it has not been collected with AI in mind. We might have a lot of data but our new tools are struggling to provide the next level insights that we need. But there is a great new company called Twig who is here to revolutionise how we do that. So at Twig we combine rapid testing in our wet labs using our robotics to generate really large data sets that feeds into our machine learning models telling us what to test and where to go next. It means we're not led by scientific opinion, not the ego of one scientist or the wisdom of a crowd, but by our machine learning models that make connections across the complex landscape of biology. And at the heart of our discovery is our Twig tree. We could copy industry like at the top and play the lottery and try and find a pathway that we can connect together to get to that end product. But instead at Twig we follow a collection of reactions. We build data using our process in a systematic way that we can layer on top, build knowledge around these reactions and unlock multiple products. It's a different way of thinking about engineering biology. So what's the result? Well, in a few years the tyres on your car will be made with rubber from microbes rather than from fossil fuels. If you start reaching for that age-defying moisturiser or maybe you're already using it, the vitamins in the moisturiser will be made with microbes rather than from industrial farming. And just as good as all of that new technology, we can also bring supply chain security because our ingredients can be made anywhere in the world. All we need is a large steel tank called a Bioreactor, a bit bigger than this, but you can picture it. And in that we put our microbes, water, the nutrients we need, some energy to keep it warm and to get the ingredients making, making what we want. So nations and companies can have the ingredients that they need on their doorstep. So I'll leave you with this. I'd like you to think back to that morning routine. What product do you absolutely love that you wish that was just a bit more sustainable? Or the twig way of thinking about it, what ingredient do we need to start making with microbes? If you're excited about combining AI, robotics and biology all together, then please do follow us because we'll have lots more to share in the months and years ahead. Thanks very much for listening.


Everybody forced here ripping 2021 Origins football hobby 8 box half case number 39 picker team style. I've got Brandon T. Saints, Brian E. Ravens, Charles M. Niners, David E. Giants, Greg B. Falcons, Joe M. Titans, Joshua M. has the Steelers, Justin R. Raiders, Kevin F. Texans, Kyle B. Packers, Mark J. Bills, Martin W. Rams, Seahawks, Matthew L. Cardinals, Colts, Chargers, Patriots, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Broncos, Dolphins and Chiefs. A lot of teams. Matthew, I said Martin L. I said Matthew L. I'm Martin L. It's Matthew L. That has all those teams. There is a Martin L. Michael S. Panthers, Ryan S. Jags, Todd C. Bears, Bengals, Troy A. has the Browns, Lions, Vikings, Eagles, and Washington, and William L. has the Jets. Good luck, everybody. There's a few people with a lot of teams in this. Best app for card pricing. eBay, yeah. We'll have the most there. Let me take a pick with. I'm not sure what you mean. Got Ravens, Mark Andrews, the 299, and Fields for the Bears, the 25. Packers, Ricky Jumbo, Jersey, Christian Watson, 25 out of 99. Patriots, Ricky Yonkart, Otto Pierre, Strong Jr. Just been getting some more playing time recently. And Johan Dotson, Ricky Jumbo, Jersey, Otto, Commanders. The little tunnel is pretty cool. I'm so excited for the first class. Where is it at? It's an outdoor hockey game at Fenway Park where the Red Sox play. Gotcha. He was outside there. Yeah, a change. There's a stadium game in North Carolina this year, too. Joe Burrow to 299 for the Bengals, and to 99 to Vikings, Adam Thielen. Patrick Mahomes, patch card to 49. Chiefs, Texans, Ricky Yonkart, Otto, John Metzi, the third, and Packers, Ricky Jumbo, Jersey, Otto, Christian Watson. Not she, Harris, Kyler, Aaron Donald to 299 for the Rams and to 75. Patriots, Damian Harris. Patch card, Mack Jones, 13 to 49. Patriots, Bills, Ricky Yonkart, Otto, James Cook, Titans, Ricky Jumbo, Jersey, Otto, Hasan Haskins. You guys got flames or cracking. I'm going cracking, cracking. Brian Robinson, Jr. We got Daniel Jones, 10 out of 10 Giants. Tyler Lockett to 199, Seahawks. Jersey card, Chiefs, Patrick Mahomes to 99. Cardinals, Rookie Otto, Trey McBride on card and the redemption going to the Titans, Traylon Birks, Rookie Jumbo, Jersey, Otto. Last spot mojo there on the Birks. What day is it? Early Sunday morning. New Year's Day flight. Let's go. It's going to be the slowest airport I've ever seen. Jay Perry, got Zeke to 99 Cowboys and a 299 Dolphins to a tongue of my loa. Falcons, Rookie Jumbo patch, Drake London, 3 of 15. Nice patch there. Three colors. Browns, Rookie Otto, David Bell, numbered to 99. Irrevenz, Rookie Jumbo, Jersey, Otto, Redemption, Kyle Hamilton. We should see if we can get rich to take us all to a Solar Bears game. That'd be cool. It would be very affordable, too, as far as I like that goes. I'm talking like less than 15 bucks a ticket. Be more feasible than that guy. So much more. We do like a little LSC thing. Ceremonial Puck Drop by Rocco. Zach Wilson to 199 Jets. Got Aaron Rodgers to 299 Packers. Two Jersey Card Dolphins to 99. Eagles, Rookie Yon Card Otto, Carson Strong. And Lions, Aiden Hutchinson, Rookie Jumbo, Jersey, Otto. Yo, Lions. All right, moving on. We got a Sauce Gardener Rookie for the Jets. Godwin to 299 Bucks. And a 75. Ville, Stefan Diggs. Jets, one of one. Rookie NFL Shield Laundry Tag, Breece Hall. Congrats, Jets. William L, there you go, buddy. William was in chat. That's awesome, man. NFL Shield Laundry Tag as part of the Laundry Tag. We'll get that magged. Yeah, I don't know if it'll fit 130. Skymore, Rookie Yon Card Otto for the Chiefs. What do you mean, JJ? We're getting a new helmet for QBs. And Redemption, Damian Pierce, Rookie Jumbo Patch, Otto Blue for the Texans. There you go, Texans. Good box there. Really good box there. All QBs next year have to wear the Guardian. Oh, is that a new helmet? Is that actually a helmet? It's, you remember the protective like thing that they wore on top of the helmet? They're like... All QBs have to wear it during the game. And I'll see why not. I think all Dolphins players need to wear it. That's what you're telling me. Yeah. Because they're at their greatest risk. They'll leave you out there. Book time. David Bell's at Otto. Yeah, it is. Rookie Otto Devonte Price to 99 Colts. To 75 Packers, Aaron Rodgers. And to 199 Cardinals, Marquise Brown. Derwin James Jersey, Card 1099 Chargers. Had that nasty hit last night. Yeah. Cheap shot. Not cheap, I guess dirty. He just lowered his head right into them. Patriots, Saquon Thornton and Pierre Strong Jr. 5 of 49 on the RPA book. Four colors in each patch. There you go, Pats. Ooh, nice. Thornton and Strong. Rookie Star's book. That's one of the books you see four colors per patch. Yeah. Those are Rookie Premier patches, I would think. And a Carson Strong Orange RPA to 75 Eagles. That will do it. Thanks again, everybody. We've got the other half of that case coming up next.