A book in Moodle is a series of connected pages. You can think of it as a mini-website or as a manual, as for example this book on a school Moodle, which is a departmental policy document. A book is useful because you can include not only text but links, images, sound and video, such as a YouTube video here. Our Teaching with Moodle course uses books for the tutorials and you can see that books have a block called a Table of Contents showing the different sections or chapters. To add a book to our course, we first turn on the editing either by clicking the button top right or going to the course administration block and clicking the link there. And then in the section we want to add our book, we click Add an Activity or Resource. This brings up Moodle's activity chooser. Book is a resource because learners just read it, they don't interact with it. Clicking the button once gives us information in the right pane about how best to use a book and clicking twice takes us straight to the setup screen. We give our book a name and if needed a description and if we want to display this description on the course page we tick the box. In appearance we can decide how we want the chapters which some prefer to think of as pages of our book to be displayed. For example, Numbered. We can also choose how we want to move around in our book. We could simply have the Table of Contents and No Navigation or Images which are the arrows you can see in our Teaching with Moodle books here. They're using Numbers for the chapter formatting. Or you can use Text. This means that the names of each chapters are shown as you can see again in our Departmental Policy document which has no numbering. It's up to you to decide the best one for your learners. When we click Save and Display we can start adding content to our book and once we've made one chapter you can see its name appears over on the Table of Contents. We can add another one by clicking the plus icon and when we've saved a second one you see there is an arrow allowing us to change the order of the chapters. The Configure icon lets us do some edits, the X will delete our chapter and the I will hide it from students. So we can continue with our book by clicking the plus icon again. Finally if we look in the book administration it's useful to note that books can be printed as PDFs and you can also import chapters into a book if there are HTML files in a zipped folder.


Okay. Again, this little exercise may seem kind of dumb, but it's designed to put you in the right frame of mind for what's coming up. So, I think everyone who listens to this probably knows the answer to this. How much is a dozen? It's one group of twelve things. That's what one dozen means. So, you can have one dozen eggs. That's one group of twelve eggs. You can have a dozen roses. I think that's coming up. It's one group of twelve roses. You can have a dozen donuts. So, hopefully, that's what my wife gets me for Valentine's Day. Not that I need it. You can also have, again, a dozen doesn't really tell you what you have. It just tells you how many groups of twelve you have. So, you can have a different type of dozen eggs. You can have the local eggs, right? One dozen of those. You can have bigger eggs, right? You can have the jumbo eggs or something like that. If you had a dozen of those, it doesn't really tell you what type of thing you have. It just tells you how many you have. So, a dozen means twelve. And at this point, I usually ask my students in the on-ground class, well, how do you know this? And, you know, invariably they say something like, I learned this in second grade or I learned it in third grade. And so, if you were maybe a foreigner, the word dozen might seem a little strange. It doesn't really come as part of our normal assortment of numbers. It's not, you know, one, two, three, four. It's a little bit of a weird word and it's tied to this number. And the only reason that it doesn't seem weird to most of us is because we've heard of it all of our lives. There's a number coming up that you probably have not heard of all of your life. It's a little bit of a weird number, but the idea behind it is very similar to the idea behind a dozen. A dozen just means twelve of something. The number that we're going to talk about a little later will mean a different number of something. So, keep that in mind. Again, two dozen of something is just twenty-four things. Or, if you want to, you can say two groups of twelve things. But two groups of twelve things is twenty-four things. So, if I have two dozen eggs, I have twenty-four eggs. Two dozen roses, you know, that's twenty-four roses. And if my wife really likes me this year, two dozen donuts. So, again, there's nothing earth shattering behind two dozen. That's just twice as much as one dozen. Again, just trying to get you in the right frame of mind. So, we're going to shift gears now and talk about counting atoms and weighing atoms. So, first of all, we're going to play How Much Does It Weigh? It's a very exciting game, I know. This is supposed to be a typical hydrogen atom. That's one red circle. That's one proton, very tiny one, written there. How much does this hydrogen atom weigh? Well, it weighs about, that's my about symbol, about one AMU. If I have two hydrogen atoms all together, both of them together, they weigh about two AMU.  I know you can't really have a bag of hydrogen atoms, but pretend you did. Could you actually scoop out and assume that you could scoop out two hydrogen atoms from your bag? Could you put them on a scale and actually weigh them? The answer to that is no, because, well, they're too light. Conventional scales just can't, they can't weigh one atom. They can't weigh two atoms. Could you, if you had three atoms, that would be about three AMU. Could you weigh those on a scale? Could you scoop them out and weigh them on a conventional scale? Again, the answer is pretty clearly no. These things are really, really tiny, and you just can't weigh them on a conventional scale. Here's another question, maybe a little bit more difficult to answer. It's 100,000 billion. What if I had a billion? What if I could scoop out a billion hydrogen atoms? Would I be able to weigh a billion hydrogen atoms out on a conventional scale? If you're honest with yourself, or maybe if you're not delusional, the answer to this is I don't know. Or at least if you haven't had much chemistry before, your honest response to this question should be, I don't really know. I don't know if a billion is enough to actually put on a scale or not. Seems like a lot, so maybe I can weigh it out on a scale, but maybe it isn't. Maybe it isn't as much as I think it is. The answer to that is going to be no. Even a billion hydrogen atoms, if you put them on a conventional scale, even a very good scale in a lab, you wouldn't be able to weigh them out. These things are really tiny. So this begs the question, how many atoms do I actually need to have before I can weigh them out on a conventional laboratory scale? This is a question that people thought about for a long time. They might have even thought about it in the backward sense, that they were weighing out certain amounts of chemicals, and they wanted to know, well, look, I'm weighing out a bunch of water or some other type of chemical. How many water molecules do I actually have that I'm pouring into a little container? How many of those little guys are there running around in there? It turns out that you need to have about one times 10 to the 23 atoms before you can get to weights that are enough to be measured on conventional scales. This is a rough number. You don't have to be exactly at one times 10 to the 23. You could be a little bit under, and you can definitely be over, but you have to be in this neighborhood, and this is a lot more than a billion. It's a heck of a lot more. It's this many zeros, right? That's about, that should be about 23 zeros. So that's a lot of atoms. Again, some of the stuff that I'm going to tell you is a little bit, let's just say I'm bending history a little bit, but it doesn't really matter. All you really need to know is that this was sort of done in relation or with these types of numbers in mind. When you look at hydrogen, I said your average hydrogen atom weighs about 1.0079 AMU. That's the average weight of hydrogen atoms. What people did, what chemists did, is they reused this number. But AMU is a unit, and one AMU is not really enough to weigh out on a conventional scale. And what they basically said is, look, why don't I use this number, but shift to a unit that actually can be weighed out on a scale? What if I had 1.0079 grams, and the abbreviation for grams is just a lowercase g. What if I had 1.0079 grams of hydrogen atoms? How many hydrogen atoms would there actually be in my 1.0079 grams? So ignore the dolns here. 1.0079 grams is about the weight of a paperclip. So imagine that I had a paperclip's worth of hydrogen atoms. How many h's, how many little h atoms are there in my paperclip's worth of hydrogen atoms? It's going to be somewhere near this number, because I said you had to be near this number before you can actually start weighing things out. And a paperclip is definitely in the neighborhood of things that you can weigh out on fancy scales. Turns out that the number of atoms that you have, if you have 1.0079 grams of hydrogen is about 6.02 x 10 to the 23 hydrogens, which is close to this number up here, right? It's about six times bigger. This is 1 x 10 to the 23. This is 6.02 x 10 to the 23. It took people a long time to figure out what this number is. If I have 1.0079 grams of hydrogen, how many hydrogens do I have? And this number, it's not complete. There are more digits that go on after this. And people still don't know all of the digits, but it's usually written as about 6.02 x 10 to the 23. And we're going to sort of skip the extra digits that we may or may not know that come after this 2. This number is a special number in chemistry. It has a couple of special names. It gets used a lot. And guess what? You're going to use it a lot. And it is related conceptually to the dozen that we talked about earlier. 6.02 x 10 to the 23 things is called one mole of things. So if I have a dozen things, one dozen things, I have 12 things. If I have one mole of things, then I have 6.02 x 10 to the 23 of them. I have an awful lot. That may be confusing, but I think part of the reason or two of the reasons is this is a new word that you haven't heard every other day since second grade. And this is a weirder number. But the idea is very similar to the idea behind a dozen. One dozen things is 12 things. Two dozen things is two times as many things. One mole of things is this many. It's 6.02 x 10 to the 23 things. And we're going to practice this coming up and we're going to sort of do little drills and hopefully pound this into everybody's head. But this is a new term that you should know. It's going to show up a lot for the rest of the course. One mole of something is 6.02 x 10 to the 23 things. And that's about the smallest number of things in the neighborhood of the smallest number of things of atoms or molecules that you can have before you can actually start to weigh them out on a conventional scale. This number is also sometimes called Avogadro's number or Avogadro's constant sometimes as well. It's there's a dead Italian guy named Avogadro. He is not the person who discovered this number, but they named it in honor of him. So sometimes this number, this name is used as well. Okay, I want to go back to counting and weighing. We said that one hydrogen atom is about one AMU, two hydrogen atoms together weigh about two AMU, three hydrogen atoms together weigh about three AMU. I want to talk about helium now. And we need to pay attention to this number down here. One helium atom weighs about four AMU. So if I compare that to one hydrogen atom, like I did much earlier in this unit, the helium atom one helium weighs four times as much as one hydrogen because this guy weighs four AMU, this guy weighs one. So the helium is four times heavier. If I have two helium atoms, they weigh about eight AMU altogether. And two helium atoms weigh four times as much as two hydrogen atoms because the two hydrogens weigh about two AMU and eight divided by four, I'm sorry, eight divided by two is four times heavier. Three helium atoms weigh about 12 AMU. So three helium atoms are still going to be three times heavier than three hydrogen atoms. Sorry, let me rephrase that. So three helium atoms are going to be four times heavier than three hydrogen atoms for the same reason that two helium atoms were four times heavier than two hydrogen atoms, et cetera, et cetera. No matter as long as I have, as long as I have equal numbers of heliums and hydrogens, my pile of heliums will always weigh four times much as my pile of hydrogens. And you can kind of see that here as well. This means the heliums are about four times heavier than the hydrogens. So to summarize, the average helium atom weighs about four times more than the average hydrogen. Two heliums weigh four times more than two hydrogens. 100 heliums should weigh four times more than 100 hydrogens. Hopefully that makes sense. A billion heliums weighs four times more than a billion hydrogens, correct? Because as long as I have equal numbers, my pile of heliums will always weigh four times more than my pile of hydrogens. If that's all true, then 6.02 times 10 to the 23 helium atoms must weigh four times more than 6.2 times 10 to the 23 hydrogens, because I have the same number of each and every helium is four times heavier. If that is all true, how much does 6.02 times 10 to the 23 helium atoms actually weigh in grams? And you can think about this. You can pause and unpause. But the answer is that it has to weigh this many grams, because I told you on the previous slide that 6.02 times 10 to the 23 H atoms weighs this number, but not in AMU. It weighs that number in grams. People reused this number. They switched the units from AMU to grams and they said, look, if I have one, roughly one gram of hydrogen, how many do I have? I have 6.02 times 10 to the 23 of them. What that means is 6.02 times 10 to the 23 H atoms weighs about one gram. Now weighs about 1.0079 grams, but I'm just rounding to the nearest number. If that's true and your average helium is four times heavier, approximately, then 6.02 times 10 to the 23 helium atoms is going to weigh four times more than this. It's going to weigh four times more than a gram, roughly. And what it's actually going to weigh is this number, but without the AMU unit and instead it's going to have a gram unit. So if I have 6.02 times 10 to the 23 helium atoms, it weighs about four paperclips or approximately four grams. So now we have a way of converting between number of atoms and mass of atoms or weight, if you want, in grams. Grams is something that we're at least somewhat familiar with. I'm telling you a gram is about the weight of a paperclip. So for the longest time, people wanted a way of figuring out, look, if I weigh out some chemical in grams, I want to be able to count how many things are there. I want to be able to know how many things are there. What I'm giving you now is a conversion and it deals with this number and whatever number is the average atomic mass in a box for an element. So 6.02 times 10 to the 23 H atoms weighs about one gram. 6.02 times 10 to the 23 helium atoms weighs about four grams. And you can do this for any of the elements in the periodic table. It's not just hydrogen and helium, it's all of them that you can use this number and this number as a way to interconvert between how much some material, some pile of atoms weighs and how many atoms are in that pile. So I think this is probably a good point to stop. Maybe you can digest what we just covered and we'll cover more going forward. How well everybody said about the bird.


Hey, everyone. I am so excited for my discussion today at the OpenJS World keynote interview with Alan Worsbrock of Worsbrock Associates. Alan was a project editor of ECMAScript specification from 2008 to 2015. Alan, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks. It's great to be here. It's great to be keynoting here at the OpenJS conference. Now, Alan, you're going to have to tell us a little bit about this paper and the conference that it was supposed to be a part of. It was supposed to be about from the history of programming language conference that happens every 15 years, but it couldn't happen this year. Tell us a little bit about this fascinating conference that makes me think of Tolkien almost. Yeah. Well, the ACM, Association of Computing Machinery, holds this conference. It's every 12 to 15 years, depending on how they get organized. And it tries to get into the conference, the people who are involved with major programming languages, to write down and document how that language came to be, to provide the history and really a record of where we came from. And so as we go forward, people understand why things are the way they are. I'd really like to borrow from Douglas Crockford, who you write about in your paper. And Douglas Crockford was very instrumental in the evolution of JavaScript. And he said JavaScript is the most misunderstood programming language. Well, it starts with the name, right? Because it has Java in its name. So people assume that it has something to do with the Java programming language. Yet technically, it's a very, very different language and is designed to do different sorts of things. But people come into it expecting it to be like Java and it isn't. Now, the reason of that actually goes back to the really very origins of the language. Because in 1995, Netscape was trying to introduce for the first time programming into the capabilities that people developing webpages had. Before that, all there was was HTML, declarative HTML. And they thought they would do that with a scripting language. But at the same time that happened, Sun Microsystems came along with the Java programming language and started promoting it for web technology. And so there, within Netscape, there was essentially kind of this race between a simple scripting language and this more complex language that Sun was promoting. And in the end, there was sort of an internal datant that said, well, we'll do both. We'll incorporate Java, but we'll also have this simpler scripting language to not confuse the world, although it ended up doing just the opposite. We'll name the language JavaScript to make it appear that they're tightly integrated. Now, you wrote in the book that Brett and Iker calls that the rallying cry articulated by Mark Andreessen, who was at Netscape at the time and is famous for his time there, was saying Netscape plus Java kills Windows, which seems to me now kind of funny because this was really more a discussion. If you think back about really the conversations more about the web, really, then Java versus Windows. But in 1995, it was Microsoft and Windows that was dominating all of personal computing and stuff. And for anything new to be introduced that wasn't originating with Microsoft was very unusual and very difficult to accomplish and stuff. And so if you think of the web as a new different sort of platform, that platform to some degree needed to compete with Windows. And so that's part of that slogan. Really, then what were the impacts of JavaScript at the time? What about it showed how deeply integrated it was into the web stack? How did that distinguish it from Java? Yeah, that was really probably the biggest difference. Java was its world onto itself. It wasn't really native to the web. It was an add-on to the web. And their slogan was right once, run everywhere, and they would run the same in the browser as it would on a desktop, as it would on a server. And it was Java that was defining everything about the world, what the UI would be like, how you'd interact with it and stuff. JavaScript, as it was developed at Netscape, it was highly integrated with the native web technologies. The first versions of JavaScript, the only way to include JavaScript code was to include it in line within your HTML files. There were script tags contained JavaScript, but there wasn't the option to point off at an external file containing your code. It had to be there right in line. And then the interface from JavaScript into the browser technologies in the HTML, JavaScript essentially invented the DOM at the same time. JavaScript was invented. The DOM was invented. And so when you programmed in JavaScript, you directly manipulated the same abstractions, the same concepts that you used when you wrote the HTML. So now looking back on it, before we get into the discussions about the standard, because things were developing so rapidly at this time, but who are the people? What was it about this group of people that made them so unique for the time? What was it about them that really you think is special? Because JavaScript, in some respects, has always been underrated. But this was actually a time when there was just really intense innovation happening. What is it that you reflect upon about this group of people? Well, I think the people who are most successful, like Brendan with JavaScript, was people who understand what their piece of the technology fit into everything that was going on around them. So trying to make the system that they're part of work versus there's always lots of people who have their own thing, their own technology they developed and try to find a way. Well, can I use this new thing to leverage what I'm pushing or what I'm devoted to and stuff? And so I think in the case of the web, it was the people who really embraced the ugliness, if you will, as a web. There's a phrase, worse is better. We originated from Richard P. Gabriel, who is one of the developers of CommonLisp, and he's basically saying the technologies that tend to succeed are those that are just barely good enough. They're good enough to get the job done, but they don't try to be the best possible solution. And those tend to be the most successful. Worse is better. And this also was a time when now that you were opening up the browser for programming, you were thinking of it as a web stack, but there were all kinds of different developers who were building things and all had to work together. Right? And so now you have this, what you call, browser game theory developing. And how did that manifest in creating a standard? And I want to move into that part of the discussion. Well, that really started with as soon as JavaScript was introduced, we had Microsoft, who was creating Internet Explorer to compete with Netscape. And the original HTML, they kind of had to be the same. But now there was this new thing, JavaScript. And if Microsoft didn't have JavaScript in IE and Internet Explorer, then web pages that used JavaScript wouldn't work in Internet Explorer. So even though they hated the idea, they wanted people to use basic for scripting and stuff, they realized they had to provide JavaScript to simply, or people, web pages wouldn't work. And the whole point of the web was anybody could create these pages and anybody could have a browser. And there were multiple people building browsers. And so you had to have the same technology in all of them. And part of what we call browser game theory is this idea that if you're a Netscape or a Microsoft or a Mozilla or even a Google, and you have this great idea for browser feature, and you add it in, you add a new part of the technology scrap, a stack that a developer could use, well, if it's only in your browser, nobody's going to use it. Yeah. And it really then laid the foundation for a lot of the web technologies that we see today. And how we think about interactivity really, I think, you know, at the most abstract, in terms of how you think about, you know, we hear a lot of discussions today about microservices and all the components that must work together. But here we're talking about the browser. And so the standards became incredibly important. So you say that there were essentially, what we started to see was like this bifurcation though, there were these two separate design efforts that were happening. What happened there? So Brendan and I created, basically created the first versions of JavaScript. And that was copied fairly closely by Microsoft and other people who were working on browsers and stuff. And that, and that then led into the creation of an official standards effort under ECMA. And for the first four or five years, through what's called ECMA script three, most of what that committee did was was simply rubber stamp, Brendan's design, cleaned up some rough edges, clarified some things that were not clear, but it was really the original design work was Brendan Ikes. But by the time in 1999, when ECMA script three was completed, Brendan was had gone off to help create Mozilla. Netscape was in decline as a company, Microsoft's market share was growing. And it had less interest in JavaScript. That the standards committee was still there and was responsible for moving the language forward. But nobody on the committee had actually done any design work with the language before. They'd only sort of done maintenance up to that point. And now suddenly they had the job trying to move the language forward. You know, so now we then came into the next phase of your book where there's the failed reformations, when we started to see the difference between really those web technologies versus the more traditional technologies who said, this is just not really applicable. You know, really, this doesn't make any sense to our, you know, to a traditional technology practices. Right. So essentially, if you go back to worse is better, you can kind of say, well, the worst is better people launched a web to the point it was was well on the way of taking over the world. And the better is better people came in and said, well, this is this is kind of ugly. This isn't so good, we could do better than this. Let's, in many cases, let's start over and see if we can replace what's there with something better. And this wasn't just happening with JavaScript. It was at the same time X HTML was being introduced and the W3C even said, I think it was in 1998 that HTML was going to be put into maintenance mode and that hopefully nobody was going to create any new HTML pages anymore and stuff. Well, similar thing was going on in the standards group is JavaScript. They're saying, oh, we're going to create this new thing, a script for and it's going to be a serious programming language. And we're going to, you know, do all the technology we have available that all the academic programming, academic language designers have come up with. And we're going to apply this really going to make a good language here. That's good enough for the web. You got involved in around 2007. So you were witness to some of these failed reformations. What did you find that was noteworthy now? I mean, you talk a little bit about it in the book. Perhaps you could highlight some of those for us. Well, sure. I mean, the the main thing in my experience as a language designer and working with various technologies is so I actually came from a small talk background. And one of the things I recognized there was that when people try to drastically change the language to fix a perception that usually didn't work out because for various reasons, because the language technology didn't fit together and the existing users wouldn't adopt it. And so when I was asked to look at what was going on with that script standardization, and I kind of recognized this is one of these situations where somebody is taking what was a dominant versus better style solution and saying, we're going to fix this. And the way we fix it, here's a whole long list of things that are kind of fundamental to what the existing language is. So static typing versus dynamic typing, for example, was a big one. But we're going to take this long list of features. And we're going to change the language so it embraces all these other things. And that was where I said, well, efforts in the past I've seen to do this was other languages tended to have not worked out. That's why I personally thought it was worthwhile trying to get things on course of one more where you build upon what you already had there in JavaScript and what the developer community was doing and what they were used to and yes, recognizing there are improvements that could be made, things that could be added, but had to be done in a way that preserved the existing web. Or as we now say in the standards area, don't break the web. It had to be done in a way that didn't break the web. So you were part of the 3.1 working group, correct? What impacted ES6 out of 3.1? Well, the bits of ES3.1 did was show that there was an alternative to this complete redo effort that was ES4. It showed that it was practical to do something that was incremental building upon the existing standards and the existing languages and use and that there could be agreement among the people in the standards group and among the people who build browsers on how to move JavaScript forward in an incremental way. Feature-wise, there was a few new things in ES. ES3.1 eventually was named ES5, so there was a few incremental things like the addition of JSON support and what have you, but the most important thing about it was saying here's a way we could go forward. Here's a way we could work together on the foundation we have and add to it. Now we're 2020. So what are the developments that you're following now? Are they related to JavaScript? Who are the people that you're following? What is the story that you're following as it moves forward? Well, so boy, the world of JavaScript now is completely different. When I first got involved, there was literally a handful of people who were involved in JavaScript standards and over the course of development of ECMAScript 6, there was really only about, there was various people involved, but there's really only about 10 people involved continuously through the effort who really set the direction now. Because of the success of that and the success of JavaScript that's come onto it, there's probably over 100 people who are officially registered as participants now in the ECMAScript standardization process. So it becomes a much more different thing and there's lots of people now each with their own idea of what direction to go. And so it's a more difficult process to move things forward because of that popularity. One of the problems with programming languages is if you add too many features, even if they're all good features, the language itself becomes too complex. So I think the balance today and going forward is one of choosing what are the really important things to add. And there definitely have been a few over the last five years that are really important. And there are others that people are thinking about, but there are so many good ideas and you can't add them all. And when you're dealing with a large group of contributors, it's hard to sort those out because people don't become involved with a language design effort or standardization effort to not do stuff. They come there to, oh, this is my opportunity to add my favorite feature to the language. And if everybody does that, you get a mess. Well, Alan, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to talk with us for the OpenJS World Keynote interview. Alan Worsbrock, who was project editor of the ECMASPIRIP specification from 2008 through 2015, and the author of the book-sized journal, ACM History of Programming Languages Conference. So we're coming up with a 25th anniversary. So thank you so much for joining us, Alan.


is as mentioned those agents probably would have found um the dead director by the way probably and i mean what's to be concluded other than she might have been a part of it that's yeah that she might even admit it at this point she seems to have a change of heart yep don't know but yeah none of that made any fucking sense the shape yeah um yeah and she sits down to die but uh not before explaining a little bit but she doesn't die because an agent catches up with her and it's like oh i feel a hobby she's gonna be okay maybe i'm just like i wonder how much of a gap do you think there'll be between this movie and the next one and in universe i'm like oh i have no idea uh well what's actually on a big timer right now and a nothing uh and the thing is that's what i'm yeah that's what i'm just in case you can have a finding the sabastopol i think it could i mean we try i'm thinking maybe uh do you think it'll be over or under a month oh well so a big reason i assume it's gonna be over so that we can justify uh mantis healing coming back yeah that's true it's really weird that they would highlight that she's a how would she if they're not going to bring it back i guess yeah but she can be back but in like a because she could let's say they just go she made it and that's nice that's it but i think she'll be in custody so she won't be able to like do any action sequences anyway so i bother like i'm sure she'll be by the next movie everyone can join the imf i think the longer the gap is i think the more implausible it will be because the more real world events will either have to be overlooked written off screen or probably just forgotten about entirely that's the backfire of this the more time the entity has the more it wins because well you know it has it has plenty of leverage it has many ways to threaten people is it giving the cure i'll kill everyone would be one um it can do a huge amount of damage in that time so i i wonder if they will actually have it over a month but the film will feel like it's less because they just haven't done anything i think it's weird too it's worth acknowledging uh because i know that the tunes we want to talk about this i think but it is switch over it doesn't really just you look broadly at the film she's the crazy murderer person who runs through the whole of like several areas she's she's practically ran over women and children right she didn't give a fuck but then she's like wow ethan hunt he didn't kill me what a nice man you know it's like i should reward him for his good behavior but it's like was she not aware that like she's going to encounter plenty of people that don't just want to kill her it feels a little weird it's like that was going to be enough for you to switch what was your investment in all this were you're paid job this is by playing up next time playing up the idea like we did with salt and pepper about the whole like who should we give to you know who should we give this kind of power to and what happens to me if this plan comes a fruition that should be littered throughout the entire movie and how all the characters like deal with that so that we can at least try and set up reasons why certain characters might do certain things like swap allegiances or something i think i would have tweaked the the earlier scene when um gabriel turns around and says you'll betray me because he saved your life i think i would have cut that entirely i would have had him try and kill her because she's overheard the important information and if you combine that with the fact that ethan saved her life then she has a reason to turn coat it wouldn't be very good reason it would be a better reason than we have yeah i was kind of thinking about that earlier we're like she when i when i asked how she knew i was thinking oh yeah why would he let her overhear all that he would tell her to go outside or something right so she can't hear he'd want to be the only person who knows this like and the entity would give orders make sure no one else i mean ideally not even you but make sure no one else finds out we would be like why would the entity have allowed her to be in the room it should have anticipated that she might learn something that would mean you'd have to get you know i mean like this variable is the problem with it every decision that leads to a negative in any way for the team entity should have been avoided with how much it how insanely powerful uh it is sometimes sucks yeah uh she has a pulse they're gonna get her to a hospital i assume and um tom cruise has to leave on his speed jute or something and it can only take one so grace gotta be left behind but that was kind of the original plan anyway because he told her to stay to ketridge that she's willing to accept become an imf agent i thought that was really funny because he could have just been like you're under arrest but i want to be an imf agent he's like that's great you're under arrest yeah well people in hell want ice water so i don't know what you want me to say man we've got so much to fucking ask you about ethered about the keys about the fuck all of this shit this was insane we you you're in trouble you've been a naughty girl well and yeah it ends with ketridge saying this key brings you a new challenge ethan the world is counting on you good luck and by the way your usual insubordination will not be tolerated yes i don't even know what time this is your last warning again um and that that's i mean you kind of just doubled upon it that that's the end that's mission impossible dead reckoning part one yay uh i mean hey before we do conclude the Tory thoughts chat what do you think what are you uh what do you think you think it's incredible do you think it's do you think before you say your opinions chat say you've seen it or not seen it and then dash and then your opinions so that i can because i know some of you have but a lot of you haven't um yeah let's let's do what we got here that's um a bad mid seen it bad you know oh they didn't have an opinion they've seen it hey man i've been there i still like it a lot i haven't seen it confused pretty good to be honest masterpiece i've seen it oh we got a little too many to read now i haven't uh oh plans have been foiled seen it all right good sounds a wee bit on the wombo site fast approaching multiverse amandas and the flash levels of bad how about that i wouldn't go that far i mean it's there's no multiverse in it for a start so it can't be quite that bad it's time travel for that matter still a high tier of like an all-knowing ai gets you in trouble all right and stuff not as bad as multiverse fun but flawed seen it enjoyed it seen it had two screenings booked and cancelled my second one well okay um i guess who wants to go first about like sort of how they feel about it as a whole after all that i mean it's like deeply flawed yeah a lot of problems a lot of problems and a lot of missed opportunities too which almost hurts as much i just can't get over the it's it's the ridiculousness of the premise i think that just makes the entirety of the rest of it nonsensical um there's some really good long fun action sequences i can see a fun film in there somewhere but every time you have to go back to the stakes and the premise and the villain and the villain's actions and capabilities and none of that makes any goddamn sense the entity is something that bleeds throughout the film causing all kinds of issues but even if you got rid of it there's so many other issues that uh that are just general like man this is probably the worst dialogue in all of the mission impossibles i've come across maybe except two um which is so bad like to say like too is awful uh and like heavily disappointed how could this come after fallout what happened yeah i'm incredibly disappointed uh yeah i was expecting a lot better it's very jumbled it's stretched out it feels like the a lot of people are other scraped over too much bread absolutely a lot of people are hoping i guess that part two makes all of this work just like i mean let's get real it probably won't but like i don't even think is that what part ones are supposed to be films that we go well i yeah i don't even know how we feel about that idea right a lot of people i'm included in this claim fellowship as their favorite law of the rings movie the first one i do it's my it's my favorite i don't need the other ones to make fellowship good fucking brilliant i don't know and there's only so much you can fix so yeah there are certain open plot threads which need to be resolved and that there's more work you can do with some of the characters but in terms of like people who are already dead and the basic setup of the villain and inconsistent abilities i don't think any of that's going to be fixed by a part two the main thing is going to be more of the the nature of the savastopol and what happened there and then what the entity wants and what we can do with it ultimately what's what's ethan going to do to it because you know i'd be surprised if it's the we get both keys we put it in and he deletes it or kills it whatever that's probably too simple they're probably going to want something different to happen a little bit more complicated yeah i would imagine that they wouldn't do that that just does sound too simple and you know we're going to find out all about this past that ethan has that i'm not looking forward to because i'm really annoyed that they didn't use their actual past how many film franchises get to fucking seven entries that's crazy use it the first one was eight years ago history use it use your history come on make shit up why would you do that um yeah and then of course there's ilsa who got completely fucked over in this film yeah the villain like gabriell is like incredibly lame and stupid compared to says solemn lane holy fuck lane and uh walker yeah and that's two of them the same movie you got two awesome villains this film ain't anywhere near as coherent as uh fallout fallout rises above mission impossible as a franchise in much in the same way a lot of really good individual entries to like franchises i love fallout i'd recommend people watch it you don't need to see any other mission impossible though you should probably check out rogue nation i guess if you want it because fallout hits a bit harder with that um yep but i would never recommend this i'm sorry this is incoherent very hard it is it's like well wouldn't you recommend the action season like i'm so sorry but maybe you should go to youtube's clips for that at that point well i mean if it's like a huge portion of the movie isn't action scenes i get it it's like this room godzilla oh well the action scene it's like so it's right at the end and there's like a substantially larger portion of the movie that isn't the action scene humans being stupid as fuck but like i don't know is that yeah i guess it's just lame that it's like yeah well i enjoyed the action it's like yeah but i mean we've seen that you can have great action and a good story as well possible and it's possible in this franchise it was the last movie why not do both why well yeah why not do both isn't that it's possible doesn't that tend to be a pretty important how could it be worse how could it be worse if the story was more coherent and the action was good you know like all the all the a lot of the great um action movies that were made even you know decades ago they have good characters and writing in them and they have the really cool action and it helps the something to last fall out will last yeah well you know but then again it seems like uh i don't know something i get a little bit concerned about is like damn do we appreciate fallout for the same reasons like do we or do we not i don't know i get a little bit concerned especially like if someone was saying like that this film is as good it'd be like damn because like i don't know it seems like on its face that it's uh it's just not it's not the same it's not the same and in a lot of ways it's similar in terms of you know like the filmmaking like cinematography acting composition like soundtrack you know sound design and everything but like in terms of the actual storytelling itself it's yeah it's not the same thing and and fallout's not the same as rogue nation either it's just it's just this it's this strange sort of film that somehow managed to come to be yeah and it has a lot of positive will because it's well there's the difference factor is one thing i think if you'd had a decade or more of almost nothing but action films this one would probably not stand up to as much screen or wouldn't it wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt just by being different um because it wouldn't be different so there's an element of well at least it's not cape shit um also at least it's not preaching anything at me also uh at least it's not your generic girl boss story also tom cruises says nice things about fans like there's all of these other things that i think predispose people to be charitable toward the film this is probably the best time for this film to come out is a way to put it yeah pretty much it's just that i think if you really compare just on the story level there's a huge amount in this film which just replicates all of the flaws we're used to seeing in say the superhero meta this temptation to always blow up stakes and having comprehensively big bad guys and it must be the world that's at stake it can't be a personal story too much and who really cares if character decisions make sense like a lot of it is not that dissimilar in terms of story structure and pitfalls to the mcu stuff but because it doesn't look the same and because it says nice things to fans sometimes i think it's probably going to get given a pass much more than it perhaps should it's being praised to i haven't i've seen people say this i mean it's i think it's got a 99 on rotten tomatoes some 99 percent of reviews were positive and i think the meta critic is 80 this reminds me of john wick four where are similar and it's i don't know i just uh the impression that i get when that's the kind of response that a film gets is not just yeah no i i mean i really enjoyed the action scenes usually what that represents in the broader conversation about these movies is people saying no it's not just that it has cool action it's like a quality film um i feel about fallout i think fallout is a quality film i think that's yeah i think that fallout is quality um but i don't know it's frustrating when it seems like you know the takeaways yeah it's a great movie and then when you start talking about the storytelling sort of run away from that back to well i mean i like the action scenes and stunts it's weird because well mission impossible with all these silly don't you know it was always silly so it doesn't matter that claim really doesn't work very well when fallout is the previous film and it's it plays itself pretty seriously for the most part and it has a really all of more complex and varied layers between all the characters i mean rogue nation plays itself seriously too for the most part it's definitely got some moments of levity in there but it's definitely like especially from rogue nation which makes sense right considering that's christmas quarry there is like a unified tone of trying to play it somewhat seriously better than john mc4 you don't get exhausted from the action which is better this or john mc4 this is better i don't know damn you that was gonna be my answer i'm not sure as much as i appreciate the grace aspect i'm not sure there's anything in john mc4 this is damaging as the entity i i mean the entity yes the entity of being a villain it's the first kind of fucking counters like well yeah because by the time we're in john wick four there's nothing left to be invested in there's no character to describe the character whereas coming from fallout into this there's a lot to be invested in in terms of character i think i'd much rather watch this again than fall out or uh john wick four but oh man i might go the opposite way because john wick four is quicker oh plant because it's a little bit shorter this one takes a little longer to get through well um all right possible well we'll be there for the final entry number are we gonna give it a number out of 10 um the people will be very sad if i don't think people will be happy with that yeah oh okay they know us so well they know what number we'd give it why would we need to do that like we've given you all of the arguments that you guys know exactly what number we'd give it probably a seven do you think seven seven seven eight maybe even a nine possibly ten yeah yeah so yep they uh look at them how about that and wow that was coming up to seven hours jeez flew by for me i think it's because i was just so ready to get all of these this stuff out because like like i told you this this movie was difficult to untangle there is so much that and i don't blame people for this but i don't know that anybody knows who the fuck anybody was working for at any point or what they wanted like yeah what did you get dialed destiny that too if i had asked people after they'd seen this movie who was the white widow working for they probably be like well she's kind of she's like a person who well i guess it was was it the was it the and you'd be like kind of the cia is the answer to that that's who she's ultimately working with and for but she's afraid of the entity and she broke us between everyone that um that feels in keeping with what you were saying as a conclusion that you were kind of forming that people don't really remember the mission impossible films they don't remember them very well it was unfortunate i'm not sure how many people remember solomon lane anymore yeah like if they could yeah or like what his goals were or how he conducted himself i think most people change between rogue nation and fall out most people remember henry cavill don't think they're gonna remember his name no and and yeah yeah it's it's like you remember the most prominent set piece from the film seemingly and even then yeah i don't even i don't know it could be interesting to see how they play that in part two as well like the fact that you can get away with people out not paying too much attention and i think it's probably understood that they don't expect people to pay too much attention to what's going on or to remember it i reckon that makes it much less likely they try and resolve all of the many open questions than more well because you're right by the time you know when all said and done is this story this one in total going to be like five hours more than that uh and then expecting people to remember all of those elements you know for the because i think part two comes out next year and i wonder how much everybody's going to remember about uh good old part one i think their shot can come back to back oh okay yeah so two is coming out next year i believe part two all right and then i think that's the end of uh at least on cruise mission impossible stuff go back to the next film the the broker is played by ray winston and then the fans are wondering was she was always played by ray winston that's what it was like in the first film wasn't it that's what i remember i would i at this i wouldn't mind if like if we can't if we can't do fuller again just go to space fight demons whatever i'm just it's kind of or are they wait they're currently filming but then it's i thought they shot back to back i have no idea if the film was coming out next year they wouldn't be shooting now right they would have shot like two years ago well in the strike would stop them from right now right uh i mean if if the film is in post production i i guess probably wouldn't be no i mean if if they need to film right now then it's yeah then then they they can't do anything everything's come to a halt like deadpool stopped mortal combat too i think stopped like yeah everything that was actively being shot right now is stopped well how how much money is this film made it's opening weekend how's it doing a whole bunch probably uh apparently the initial projection for its first five days in america was 90 million and now it is 78 million so it's down from what they projected by about by about 10 million dollars i really like um i really do think that if this script was as tight as fallouts that it would make more money i think it does matter i don't see how i don't see how it being better would mean that it would do worse if it had the same action well if someone was to say it'll do the same because people go into mission possible for action it's like i really do believe the idea that when you have that kind of character work that people get more invested in the action i think yes of course do people get less invested when they care about the characters i care about i don't know well it's just like look at john wick at this point the character shit is just hilarious you know it's you just sitting there like you can make more money if you wrote it properly just say it oh man oh what what happens if what happens if this film underperforms compared to on a 300 million because it's yeah 300 million dollar but 291 million dollars well budget it'll get that second one and then they'll end it i guess oh well i mean the second one happens no matter what what's the same right with fastx right that that film costs like 350 million dollars right and made twice that which i don't know what that means that they made their money back and then they announced they were gonna make two more films it's like oh maybe they're gonna maybe they're gonna shave it down to one you know like and and finish it off oh oh man huh i guess we'll have to see how this one does well see how it performs if it's got long legs i imagine that this film does knock all of the wind whatever wind there was out of a dial of destinies are sails i think that was a wild wasn't it he's gone i think it's i mean pretty much but this is i like the idea that like this is it's a pile of planks and sails of the water you'd drop a batch on it and it's like like how much how much money has dial of destiny made so far 263 million dollars and this is third weekend right so we're gonna find out soon how much oh dude it's over yeah i think just just to break even it has to go over 300 mil well i mean we i read that it needs to make i read that it needs to make uh just shy of 600 million to break even oh no way no way it's just not going to happen it's not going to make it halfway there and i just saw someone saying i guess we're mission impossible it'll be fine no competitions like i mean isn't barbie and oppenheimer coming out this week yes but i really i know they're not necessarily competing for the same audience but still like they're yeah yeah maybe maybe that won't be as disruptive as i imagined that this was to uh i mean to our indiana oppenheimer will bump it off of a few i max screens won't it but i don't think that uh gonna be a yeah i love the idea by the way that there's like a huge cross section of fans between barbie and oppenheimer i mean i know it's it's i know it's like a funny meme but barbie wins that competition right as far as i'm aware yeah yeah what my money would be yeah i do not know what's gonna happen for the box office with barbie or oppenheimer i have guesses but nothing concrete no barbie would be surprisingly well it would be my guess i think it would be well yeah i think it'll make a lot of money oppenheimer i'm not so sure about uh oppenheimer barbie's ready to be v13 right i mean probably yeah that alone has me curious oh yeah because oppenheimer is all right it isn't it harder yeah he said he want he's got there's some sex scenes gotta be in there so all righty oppenheimer all right and then uh isn't this aren't it so well not the mushroom i thought i'd see you know and then uh and then a couple weeks after that right we got blue beetle blue bill it's coming out in a month right yeah it'd be great oh wow i'm gonna take a guess and say that one will underperform what my old guess why why was the question be like does it make more or less money than shazam because i think that's uh less i think it'll make less um i mean like it's gotta be less right like i don't know i have no idea i think i think the reason i think the trailer is less i think less is the reasonable expectation as well i think so too but at the same time like shazam kind of it was like a foregone conclusion that that film was a joke i don't know if blue beetle is quite got i don't even think it has the notoriety to be considered a joke or really to be considered at all yeah the trailer for those who have seen it is just like this is who was this for this looks like shit yeah this looks actually terrible for a genre that's widely considered to be completely running out of ideas it's probably one of the most unimaginative responses to that criticism it could be funny and it could make like like 50 million if i wake up one day and i was like oh yeah blue beetle it made 56 million dollars total global i'd be like oh and then and then what would i expect you got aquaman at the end of the year and how's that first film inexplicably made a billion dollars yeah how the fuck i don't know i don't know that this one uh i don't know that this one even makes half that with the way that dc is looking and then flash is out on digital this week so you don't make up for all those lost sales people will just be eating up those blue rays and as i understand the flash is going to be one of the biggest box office bombs ever uh yeah i think so and uh as well and they worked hard to do that yeah this back to back with dial of destiny is like man lot of movie not a lot of money to be lost in hollywood and elemental it's not doing well either so like it's a lot of a lot of films this year have failed like a lot of films this year have just failed undeniably categorically they failed they lost money um fuck off it's kind of it's kind of crazy isn't it the only two like runaway successes this year was mario and guardians and even with guardians it's like did about as well as last two so what's the yeah qualified success it's going to be rough as well because i think as recently as a 2021 when more than a third of total box office was marvel on its own and then you add in a few other big marky things like avatar for example which put in inexplicable amounts of money but now that's all sort of going and it was masking a general decline in the box office we all knew that would make a lot of money right uh inexplicable in the sort of uh i know inexplicable is the wrong word yeah um unjustifiable maybe it's it may yeah like it made uh an unfortunate amount of money so it's those three movies like the main successes of the year and everything everything else that was presumed to be a success and mario was best mario was the highest grossing film of the year and equality wise wasn't mario the best of them all you think mario's the best movie of the year wait what i mean of those i mean well what else between avatar avatar mario and well of the ones we just listed that made like a lot of money success wise of the so like avatar guardians mario and what was the other one was there another one you mentioned about big box office successes oh with spider vs no good one i went spider well oh it was mario better than spider vs you prefer marriage do we know yet um what yes i think i do well i don't know i will be willing to figure out what my position on spider vs is once they release the second story yeah i'm not sure how i feel about a bunch of things in that movie just yet um which is probably something worth mentioning like some people might have said like well why would you cover this then it's like well not all part one part two stories are the same they could recontextualize some things in this movie and that some of those could be justified with inferences from this one but i doubt much is going to change and the majority of our issues are still isolated to this film quite a verse there's a very specific and large all-encompassing mechanic that i need the answers on because it not only tells me how things worked fully in the first film but also what every character thought and what they were doing i'm missing a lot of information um so i really don't know what i think about spider vs yet but i'm pretty sure what i think of dead reckoning yeah i think spider vs has a much better chance of being improved by its sequel than this one does i don't know how you retroactively fix a lot of these issues um but i'll check out part two of dead reckoning and i will yeah for the best hope for the best we're almost yeah hope for the best action set pieces i wanted to be good damn it yeah yeah but this little platoon thank you so much joining us for this this insane deep dive into a movie that no one wants to hear you talk about the plot on thank you so much for having me it was great fun as always always appreciated you want to tell the nice people at home what you're up to where they can find you what you've been doing lately yeah i've got a nearish four hour indiana joins five video in the works and i'm hoping that will be out next weekend i'm the only editor yeah for this one i had a friend do some of the audio for me just like cut some mistakes out and things but um yeah and then i'm yeah might try and put out a shorter one for this film we will see and i might try and hire an editor for that one just so i have time but those are the next two things i think oh exciting stuff you uh you've been covering a lot of the giant calamities that have come up here i've uh shortage of calamities unfortunately i've fucking subscribed so many people they're all on my to watch list i've seen a couple i caught up with uh i was up to date uh little it was almost a little mermaid that's where i was and then i got distracted with all kinds of things so i'm gonna i'm gonna get to them listen to your mollusk probably sick of mission impossible right now well you won't be making a video mission possible so i'll be fine on that refer unless you are i don't know i don't want to tell you maybe you hated that much yeah follow your heart or whatever if you have one little platoon if you have one or if you just hate art anyone destroy it when we're on uh open bar and there's a new movie that me and him don't like the audience would be like wow do they like anything like no they don't do things possibly all the time what do you mean but yes also no it's not our fault all the bits where you say nice things about mission impossible fallout that doesn't count the fact is you hate this one and that means you hate all mission impossible i'll tell you this much man if fallout were a bad film i probably wouldn't have cared that much about this one would have been like well there goes mission impossible just another yeah just another in the franchise of basically man bad movies with that one exception but yeah well this is so weird because at that point it would just be mission impossible one the rest yeah go on all this weird shit uh yeah uh rags free anything you guys want to mention uh might have a video out tomorrow sunday but i'm not sure i got some family stuff that'll be happening but i might be able to wrap it up and have it posted tomorrow before i leave in the afternoon and if not it'll be out monday uh work carries on on the main channel stuff in the background um and i'm sort of back in the saddle so to speak on that so yeah just expect some you know dog bite stuff coming out here and there while i work on the big boy and one day that'll be out i think i'm working all right just that's all i got uh i will say since we're around about a month out uh the anniversary is on the 22nd but since that's a tuesday this year it's going to be the 26th and uh round about now is where i'll start trying to organize all the different things to do with it and it's worth mentioning i suppose since yeah it's a month and three days uh the 19th everyone the 19th where i will release next video gonna be um more than likely around about five and a half hours been tooled on every single day by uh myself and frie um been been a large project they have been working very hard on it um most of you will be able to guess what it's gonna be maybe next defab maybe next defab i'll tell you it's definitely happening at this point a little secret or longer yeah longer if you think about what it could possibly be but don't get too crazy excited you're going to be like what i tell you you'd be like oh right yeah okay probably um but yes uh probably five and a half hours it's not quite finished but it's mostly they've been nightmarish to edit but i think you'll you'll you'll really like the editing of this one we've we've got some crazy different sources all over i know i'm looking i'm looking very forward to seeing it um so yeah that'll probably premiere on that day and we won't have an efab because we're still one ahead and we still got we recorded another meme fab so that's going to go out at some point um good memes by the way this will be good memes for meme fab don't miss it so that's just crazy good well obviously super chat catch ups are on wednesday we're still trying to get them done and we've got uh been cool on the way i guess i can't say much yeah it's yeah it's something pretty cool on the way i think some cool stuff some cool things something new not so new maybe who knows say this for anybody who doesn't already but yes the what i'm referring to on the 26 will be anniversary the our fifth year of efab which means uh boy 24 hour stream i'm gonna be doing all kinds of things all kinds of guests hopefully little platoon shall join us well i'm pretty sure i'm around yeah he's been pulling his weight around here on efab so we'll get his big graphic phone have you done that before yeah i have seen you guys play and i have always wanted to but i haven't also my drawing skills are abysmal so oh good oh and then and like tiny penises and otherwise i'm basically done excellent tiny penises uh tiny penises all right then well that's that's about that uh thank you all for joining us uh hopefully you enjoyed the breakdown even though i'm sure yeah everybody loved this film except that's okay good memes and we will see you in the next thing that we do whatever it may be yeah everybody you guys have a great day and wait wait we gotta do the thing do the fringy do the thing oh yeah mission accomplished


So the next presentation is by Jochen Heming of Wageningen University, talking to the development of mobile fish phenotyping device. Welcome again Jochen. Hello, my name is Jochen Heming and I work as a senior researcher, computer vision and robotics at Wageningen University in Research in the Netherlands. Today I would like to talk on one of our research projects. This project is on the development of a mobile fish phenotyping device. Wageningen University in Research has the mission to explore the potential of nature to improve quality of life. On our campus we have a group on agro-food robotics that researches and develops computer vision and agriculture robotic systems for the different sectors, such as the open field agriculture, the protected horticulture, fresh chains and food, and also livestock and last but not least marine. We have a group of experts in artificial intelligence, sensing, especially multispectral and hyperspectral sensing, on machine learning, deep learning and computer vision. The Aqua Impact project is a European funded Horizon 2020 project with a consortium of 11 companies and 13 research institutes from 9 different countries. In Aqua Impact we integrate the fields of fish breeding and nutrition to increase the competitiveness of European aquaculture. Aqua Impact developed products and services based on genomic selections on the four spaces you see here on the right. Currently measurements of trades in breeding programs of fish are labor intensive, they are subjective and they are also slow. And part of our work in the Aqua Impact project is to develop technologies for high throughput phenotyping using machine vision methods. One requirement of such a device is that it must be able to measure on living fish. This fish is out of the water, it is sedated or anesthetized, but we have to limit the time that this fish is out of the water for the well-being of the fish, for example. The prototype we are currently developing can be seen on the picture here on the left. It is a small mobile device because it should be able to get transported to different places where measurements are taken place. It consists out of a box that shields environmental light, there is artificial light included. And a conveyor belt goes through that device transporting the fish that is manually inserted here. And next to a tag reader that reads the tag by ID of the fish, the most important components are the cameras we have inserted. There is one camera here on the top that takes images from the top of the fish, from the side. And there is another camera here that faces the front part of the fish and produces images as shown here on the right-hand side. We developed this apparatus together with the company Dorset in the Netherlands. And as cameras, we use not only color cameras, but we use color cameras that also produce depth images, 3D images based on active stereo. To give you a little bit an idea how that apparatus works, I will show a very early stage laboratory testing of that device. So you see here that the fish gets inserted and gets transported. Inside the cabinet it stops to take the images and make the measurements and then the fish is transported out. Normally in normal operations it was closed of course to shield environmental light. Also there is an integrated scale in the conveyor belt that measures accurately the weight of the fish on the conveyor belt. Here are some example images and some basic image processing operations that come out of this machine. In the middle you see the distance image, the 3D image, where the color tells you something about the distance from the object to the camera. So the more yellow-orange, the closer the object is to the camera. And we can use that 3D information for volume measurements. From the set of images we can easily extract all kinds of 2D trays such as length or width, the area, shape properties, roundness and other derived values. Next to that we can also measure calibrated color features. And as already said we have the full access to the 3D information so we can also measure volume of the full fish or certain parts of the fish. The big advantage of having a 3D system is that we can make use of automatically extracted landmarks to assess difficult to measure variables. Difficult to measure by hand variables such as specific body areas of body volumes. And that gives us much more possibilities than the manual trade recording that it used at this moment. The next step in this project is that we will combine the output of the image analysis with the genetic information we have available from our database about the genetic correlations for example. And by that we hope that we can unlock the full genetic potential for the breeding programs. We will develop machine learning based real-time selection algorithms for these breeding programs such that the machine can directly classify the fish into a fish that will be used for the breeding program and a fish that will be sorted out. Our key needs for further progress on that topic is that we need a very good contact and interaction with all kinds of stakeholders such as fish breeders but also machine builders. And on the other hand we always seek to team up and to share knowledge and also facilities on the area of artificial intelligence, of deep learning, also on the fish breeding and all related topics. And we do this typically in joint research projects. What we really need is funds that subsidize these kinds of high-tech developments because only then it will be able to set the next big steps on these developments. This already concludes my short speech. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much Joachim and your team for giving us the insights there. That reminds me very much of the value of the crossover that exists between fisheries and aquaculture and the ability for, you know, in your speech how we link expertise and link ideas and it brings me back to Amanda's suggestion of an AI marketplace. And I wonder if you mentioned you're looking for funds to develop but what opportunities are there for collaborations to see working across teams that are working on similar questions to offer advantages instead of battling alone on certain issues. And I wonder how I already see that you're linking the genetic teams with the engineering teams with, you know, in controlled environments and the aquaculture but how would you see, for example, the Barton and teams linking in with maybe an international cooperation marketplace where we try to set out key themes where people working on different areas could go to share ideas, share codes, share opportunities. For funding and so on. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for the question. Yeah, this is, that is the, the topic I would say, indeed, as a little bit explained and also my colleague Anzalo explained yesterday so we are not coming from from the marine sector so we come from the plant but we are coming and then the interesting thing was to see that the same hardware if it comes to cameras but also the same software that we use to classify for example, a flower or a plant can be used in a very similar way to different products like the fish. Of course, there are also new challenges there but so that is, that's very nice because the same kind of technologies can be applied to very many different domains. And indeed, and that also comes very clear when listening to all the other presentations during the past two days, that there's a lot of things going on in the world and it does not make so much sense to reinvent the wheel so really we have to team up and that is also what we always try to do we always seek collaboration and then of course there are different mechanisms to do this and the European Union they have these European projects that we can, where we can acquire and that is also already an international cooperation but but yeah, there are also possibilities beyond that and yeah also sometimes it's a sort of bilateral agreement server several countries have to do joint projects but but it goes much more beyond that and we in Wageningen we are always open to step into these kind of collaborations. Max, do you have any questions for you? Yeah, sorry not so much collaboration but really sort of technical thought process. I've worked in high-respectful multispectral sensing in agriculture on drones and also underwater transects of reefs and aquatic ecology and gathering 3D spatial data as well. Obviously, can be incorporated with LiDAR if you're looking at crop production. What lessons have you learned from combining 3D data and hyperspectral data with fish and how have you handled the 3D data as well? Are you producing vector data sets, meshes and then giving the algorithms measurements from those to look at the reflectance value? How are you handling that data pipeline? Yeah, I mean, first of all, it's a massive amount of data so we're really talking about this magical big data you have to deal and and certainly if you want to approach that in real time that then it gets a big challenge. I think we are still quite at the beginning when it comes to having combined data of 3D and hyperspectral and 2D and so on. So that is there, the research is really at and just had started and there are so much more possibilities still. But we also see the last potential of course because 3D is something when you go more into detail that you cannot assess easily and objectively with the human eye. So and also for sure the hyperspectral I mean this project which I just showed here that that does not make use of any spectral information but there are other projects that are doing this and there's a lot of things to win actually to use this information. But then the issue or the challenge is to get this data processed in the available time. And maybe it's a little bit comparable to what in the previous presentation there's an enormous amount of video data collected and you only need a very small fraction of that to really extract the information. If you record the full hyperspectral data set then you have a lot of information that is not useful, and then you need clever and smart tools to extract only the useful information. That's great. Now I've actually got another question for you from Anton Ellenbrook. He's from the information and knowledge management section of the issue. Yes comments from your data collection perspective. So what is, are there any steps where they are going on for calibration of and for the validation of instruments to measure fish or plants or whatever. That's in front of your camera and do you also see that as a role where international organizations like FAO can have a sort of a stake or help to define the standards and classifications for optical and other measurements on life and in eight objects. That's a good question I would say. I think if it comes to project that like these documented fisheries and so on where you have really sort of legal tasks, or where you try to use these automatic systems for for doing like sort of certified measurements. I think it will be essential also to specify and to put some norms out or to develop them and to specify them when it comes to calibration and these kind of things. Yes, sure. That's not something we are looking to at the moment, but I can imagine that certainly in the fishery. There can be a very important task. And if you if you use that information not only to sort of to make the profit for the, let's say the fisherman better because they can sort their fish or something like this but you really have to supervise and you have to be sure that you collected the right information, then, then the question of giving out norms and regulations will be a very important one. Yes. Thank you very much. I just want to add one point that the idea of norms and standards is not necessarily only for compliance. It's the ability for these data sets to then become very shareable between groups so we can try to agree. And this is one of the things about an agency like FAO. It's not really an agency it's an amalgamation of all the country's governments and getting them together to decide on the standards that they will use often allows great sharing. Let's see where we're going with this but let's let's move on. Thank you very much for the presentation.