I'm going to go ahead and get started. My name's Jeff Borek. I've been working in open source for over a decade at IBM. And for the last six years, I've been running part of the IBM Ospo, the open source program office that's associated with the IBM license clearance function. And I'm going to spend about a half hour to kind of bring you up to speed on what's happening around the evolution of the supply chain security concerns about open source. You've heard a bit about it already, I'm sure, if you've been at some of the keynotes. More than happy to make this really interactive. So if you have questions, feel free to just raise your hand or shout out. And we'll make this as interactive as you guys would like it to be with that. Also, feel free to follow me on Twitter or if you have any questions that we don't get to today. My contact information is up on the main slide here. All right, I'd like to not be trapped behind the podium, so I'm going to move around a little bit. But I think one of the things I really connected with when I was doing some research for this talk was this concept of the interplay between cybersecurity and regulatory compliance. And this is some findings from a MIT management Sloan School report from earlier this year. Cybersecurity is responsible for the internal procedures established by a company to basically protect itself. And compliance, on the other hand, is essentially what companies have to do to make sure that they're on the right side of legal and regulatory affairs. And regulatory is this ongoing process of adhering to these guidelines to make sure that you're doing everything you need to be compliant. They've got similar goals around securing data and assets. They want to do the right thing for the organization. But compliance is primarily driven by enforcement risk. Anyone have an idea of what that means? Enforcement risk? Essentially, the concept is, it's like obeying the law. Don't jaywalk. Don't speed. You've got to stay on the right side of the law. The cybersecurity is focused on the concept of protecting the business. And to use the same metaphor, it's like, don't walk down a dark alley. Don't go or don't allow your business to go anywhere where you might get ripped off or be vulnerable to a security risk. And that sets up an interesting dynamic. Because the stakeholders that are looking at these two issues, they both agree that they're important, but they often have different conflicting goals and priorities depending upon their perspective. And you can see the various constituents that have to get involved and play and all have something to say about this space. Whether it's your legal group or your organization's leadership, the security professionals that your group employs, and there's a whole mix of different security professionals that can weigh in on this, financial professionals that look at the numbers behind trying to assess what the legal risks are, country and international stakeholders. And what I think is really fascinating about this is that you can be compliant without being secure, and you can be pretty secure without being at all compliant. And that's sort of like nonsensical to me at first. But the more I thought about it and the more I read on this, the more it really makes sense. And so it really sets up a situation where there's this complex interplay and it creates opportunities for getting off the rails or misstepping or not getting your organization to where you want it to be. Poor compliance oversight and management, difficulty in developing and implementing these regulations, appropriate allocation of resources, how do you, everyone's got limited resources, especially throughout the pandemic and now with the other economic shocks that are happening. So there's never going to be all the resources you need to completely cover the basis. So you've got to make good choices about where you do invest. And another big part of this is just the whole culture issue. Does your organization have not just a security group that's kind of off to the side or a GRA or government and regulatory affairs group that worries about this or a product security group within your organization if you happen to be a vendor in the industry? And at the bottom line, the cyber world is just moving too fast. Standards bodies are having a hard time keeping up. And there's an interesting metaphor or analogy, if you will, to this with respect to how open sources change the ecosystem in the last 20 years, because go back 20 years in information technology and industry standards were how interfaces got established, how customers dealt with trying to avoid lock-in, how different vendors tried to establish interoperability. That was all done through traditional standards bodies. And then over the last two decades, but really accelerating in the last seven or eight years, is that standards organizations have kind of taken a back seat because the open source process generates code so rapidly that they outpace the standards organizations. And so the same thing is happening here in the security space. And that's both potentially a good thing because it could be part of the solution, but it also could be problematic. And I like to look at both of these graphs when we talk about what's really changed. Because some people say, Jeff, open source, is it inherently flawed? Is it bad? I mean, I've had some management start to push back to say, maybe we shouldn't be using open source because it's not secure. And actually, studies have proven that whether you develop code out in the open in a distributed fashion versus behind a firewall in your corporate data center isn't the primary determinant of how secure that code is. There are other factors as to how secure that code is. And so open source is neither more or less secure than proprietary code. So why is it a problem now? Well, as you can see on the graph on the left, about five years ago an average enterprise application had a little over 80 open source packages bundled in under the covers. And that's something that's been going on. IBM is an early entrant where it saw the value of consuming open source and essentially code reuse as opposed to writing everything from scratch. But fast forward to today, that same enterprise application is now likely to have over 500 open source packages bundled under the covers. The applications are more sophisticated. What you can do with the components and reuse is more compelling. And it's just created this huge attack surface. So again, it's not like open source is inherently flawed or bad. But the other low hanging fruit of how to attack an organization through software has already kind of been substantially deterred. And so the sheer volume of open source and the inherent nature of being frictionless and the fact that you can just, a software developer can go out, grab a package, adopt it, use it in their application has created part of this challenge. The other graph on the right side here, spending on enterprise software worldwide. So clearly we're in the era of cloud, right? And cloud was going to, according to some analysts, seven or eight years ago, cloud was just going to decimate the enterprise software business. Well, guess what? It's kind of like everything else in the information technology industry. It's like customers never stop buying things. And customers rarely unplug things. And so therefore, you can see by this graph, the enterprise software business is vibrant and growing rapidly. And we'll have to wait to see what happens in 2023. Everyone quickly light a candle for the economy. But the point is, is that all of this enterprise software, you can imagine that you can change the color on that bar at the three quarters mark. And that would tell you how much open source is in that software. Boom. So that's part of the reason why this has become critical now, is that the sheer volume, again, of open source consumption in the enterprise has just gone off the charts. And this process of source integrity and build integrity, when a developer is putting together a solution, this shows you a representation of all the potential weak points in the chain where a bad actor could bypass a code review, or they could intercept the CI CD package. They could, any one of these links in the chain is a area of higher risk. And as you can see by the statement at the bottom there, 84% of open source code bases had at least one vulnerability in them with an average of over 150 in a typical code base. So it's, again, software is written by humans, at least it's up until maybe another year or two or three. But for the most part, humans are flawed, and there's always going to be opportunities for threats to emerge. So I started losing sleep about this in my role at IBM about five years ago. And I started talking with my management, talking with the open source community and the context that I had. But there was still a lot of uncertainty as to, is this, sure we're going to have to address this sometime, but maybe not this year, and maybe not right now. And finally, about three years ago, there was this collective understanding that, look, we can't kick this can down the road anymore. And so conversations that IBM was having, Microsoft was having, Google, everyone started to kind of get their head wrapped around this idea of that this is one too big of a problem for any one company to solve. This is a problem that occurred over the last 15 plus years. And I'll be transparent with you and maybe make my management uncomfortable. But when IBM first started doing open source two decades ago, it really invested in a crack legal team that understood this emerging open source license space and invested time and figured out that, yeah, this is kind of sketchy, this early open source thing, but we can collaborate with it. We can come up with ways to sort of sandbox the IP or legal risk associated with these OSI open source licenses. And yes, in general, and we won't turn this into a license review, but you've got restrictive and permissive licenses. So IBM really was ahead of the curve with this how to nurture and at the same time, protect open source. There's something called the OIN, the Open Innovation Network. IBM actually donated patents to that to help bolster the industry and to kind of put a dent in patent rolls in the early days. Lots of other interesting background. But the net of it is that just going into just about two and a half years ago, we gathered at the Linux Foundation and said, hey, now is the time. And then the pandemic hit.  But there was a lot of best efforts, collaboration for the last 18 months or so in the actually last 24 months around, let's see if we can get something done without a lot of funding. And some things were accomplished. But by and large, last fall, the industry got back together again and said, hey, we delayed another 18 months. We can't delay anymore. And this press release went out. And as you can see on the right side, there's a quote from the GM that I worked for. Jamie Thomas, a great individual. And this is actually one of the more significant accomplishments that I was able to help pull off in IBM last fall. Because Jamie, as a GM, is the most senior executive at IBM directly engaged in an open source community in the last 10 years. And it's really been good for both the community and great for IBM to have someone at her level understand exactly what's happening here. And she happens to have been elected the board chair of the organization. So there are some working groups that are a key part of kind of think of this fall announcement is OpenSSF 2.0. So the governing board kind of did a reset. The technical advisory committee of the organization, they elected some new memberships. So that's kind of another reset. And right now, the working groups have been making some progress. And they're going through a bit of a reset as well. There's also some really interesting projects that have been emerging. And companies like Google and Red Hat and Microsoft and others have all been bringing forward interesting concepts about not just working groups, but let's bring some code here. So Salsa, supply chain levels for software artifacts, it's a framework you can use to help measure your organization and its performance. The graphic in the middle is a scorecard. It's a way of trying to automate and evaluate projects to look beyond just how many security vulnerabilities they may have to other metrics that would help determine, to some degree, the quality of the project. And SIGSTOR is another, Alpha Omega is another. So lots of interesting things that are coming up on the radar. One of the other things that has driven this focus is that almost exactly at maybe 54, I was going to say a year, but 54 weeks ago, the White House issued an executive order on cybersecurity. How many heard about that order? I'm just curious. Just about 95%. So it's funny how when the White House does something like that, people tend to pay attention. Certainly one of the most significant drivers of this was the SolarWinds incident, which wasn't an open source related cyber attack. But there's this realization on the part of the government. And if you haven't heard this metaphor, I think it's also somewhat useful. What's happening in the software supply chain today is not unlike what happened in the package goods food industry in this country about 50 years ago, plus or minus. And when I was a little kid, the cereal box that was on our table didn't have any information about what was in the box, really. And now you can't buy anything in a grocery store without a detailed analysis of the ingredients. That's what's coming for the software industry. And that's what's coming for open source. So one point, though, I want you to take away from this topic, how many have initiatives within their organizations that are trying to produce S-bombs currently? About half. So the other half of the room, you're not that far behind. But what's key about this is that what you hear from the government is that create an S-bomb and publish it. Publish your S-bomb. That's where we're all going to eventually have to go. But if you take away only one thing from my talk this afternoon, it's that, yes, get started with S-bombs. S-bombs are part of your future. And you want to start your learning curve now. But once you produce them, don't share them. Use them to begin to remediate the challenges you find when that S-bomb reveals exactly how exposed you are. And God forbid, we'll have other interesting issues if I'm here a year from now. And in the last 12 months, people have been passing S-bombs around like baseball trading cards. That wouldn't be a good thing at this stage of the industry. So some minimum requirements. And I want to leave some time for questions. So I'm going to be very brief on this. But S-bombs are not inherently as scary as you think. But it's going to require a cross-collaboration throughout your organization. So don't leave here thinking that, well, the Office of the CISO or the product security team or the IT department is going to be the one that's going to take care of this for the business. It's going to require a multidiscipline approach in your organization. And the other thing that I'll say about this is that it's a great opportunity for you to just modernize your software development organization in general. Because if I had a dollar for every time I've heard CICD at a tech conference in the last three years, I'd be a wealthy man. But the truth of the matter is that organizations aren't changing or adapting as fast as they need to. And this is an opportunity to both begin to become compliant as well as to improve your chances of continuing to evolve to be a leading digital organization. The other thing about this is that that table shows you the bare minimum. But there's a lot of interesting things that you might want to collect when you start to put this kind of infrastructure in place in your organization. So think of the data schema and think of what else you might want to do to capture information about your supply chain so that you can improve your business's performance. And then you can decide for yourself looking at the regulations as to what you really need to or have to share. So I mentioned the fall reboot. In the first quarter of this calendar year, there was a follow-up meeting that was, again, hosted by the White House. It ended up being a virtual meeting. But it brought back some of the leadership that had attended the initial kickoff. And it focused specifically on open source. And that led to this follow-up meeting that happened in Washington DC just a little over a month ago. And the Linux Foundation, to their credit, saw that the follow-up from the first quarter meeting was delayed because of world events, conflicts in Europe, et cetera. So the LF raised its hand and said, hey, look, we'll host this meeting for the second quarter because we think this is too important to delay. So it was really well received by the White House. It was really well attended by both industry leaders. Why is that? Pardon me one second. And in the run-up to that meeting, the governing board and the subset of the open SSF created this open source software security mobilization plan. I don't have time to go into it, but the net of it is I'd encourage you to use the QR code, get a URL, or just Google it and find the PDF. But it's a basically think of those early working groups and the work that was done for the last 18 months. This meeting used the opportunity to step back and say, well, if we could bring additional resources, what are some of the other major things that we really learned in the last 12 months that need to be addressed? So this 10-point plan was delivered to the government. It was really well received. And as you can see, other organizations stepped up and added to the funding, Amazon, Ericsson, Google, Intel, Microsoft, VMware, all pledging up to $30 million. And it's definitely moving in the right direction. So what has IBM specifically been doing in this space? Well, one of the things I'm very proud of is that in that meeting, the original meeting at the White House back in August of last year, Arvind Krishna and the center there flanked by the Apple and Google executives came out and stated that we'd partner with more than 20 historically black colleges and universities to establish cybersecurity centers in their organizations to try and help grow the funnel of cybersecurity experts that can help with the next 10 years of remediation of these challenges. And another interesting fact that came out of my looking into this was that IBM teams use cloud and AI powered software to manage 150 billion cybersecurity events each day for more than 17,000 commercial and government clients worldwide. So again, that just gives you an order of magnitude of just the challenge that the industry is facing. When we went to the meeting in the first quarter, we went with our colleagues at Red Hat. And Red Hat's division of IBM, it's an independent division of IBM. And they brought a point of view from a Red Hat perspective on the challenges as they saw it. We at IBM established another policy statement that went up again about a month ago. And if you have the chance to check it out, it's only about a five minute read. But it talks about this from a government and regulatory affairs more of a policy perspective. So your colleagues in your own respective GRA organizations will be interested in this. So I'd encourage you to check it out. So how OSPOs can play an important role going forward. So we've talked about some of the advice that I've shared throughout the talk. But to reiterate, this is going to be a team sport. So if you're starting your journey towards creating OSPOs, start to look at your data schema needs, start to look at your use cases, think about the different constituents with your organization that need to address this. Lots of vendors are popping up saying, hey, you can buy my tool and it'll produce S-bombs for you. And I'm certainly not here to throw shade on any vendors. But it's not that simple. And you don't want to just believe that you're going to be able to spend some money, spin up a tool, check a box, and sleep well at night. It's going to take a bit more than that. The other thing I'd like you to encourage you all to do would be to consider getting involved directly in the open SSF. There's a number of different tiers of participation. You don't have to write a $10 million check to start to participate. And the TAC, the OSSF TAC meetings are open to everyone. The next one's going to be Tuesday on June 28th, so just about five or six days away. The presentation is uploaded into the system. So all of these are links to those connections. The meeting minutes are also posted there and then there's a, if you're not getting enough business meetings during the day, at night you can go on the open SSF YouTube channel and start playbacks and catch up with some of those meetings you might have missed. Yes, exactly. I don't know that it's going to make it to Netflix, but it is up on YouTube. Mailing list, Slack channels, GitHub issues. So there are lots of relatively efficient lightweight ways for you to start getting up the learning curve and getting your organization involved. It's going to take a village. It's going to take broad participation across the industry to address this. But I'm looking forward to sleeping better at night. I don't know about you, but when these, the other thing I guess you could think of this as well is if this is something that you're getting involved with for your business, I can almost guarantee you it's three to five years of guaranteed employment at your organization. Because there's a lot to do and it's going to be a high priority for them. If it isn't now, it will be in the not too distant future. How am I doing on time? I've got a minute or two for questions. So feel free. If I don't know, I'll readily admit it. If I kind of know, I might make it up a little bit. Have a microphone coming around. Thanks, Jeff. Good presentation. Beyond the S-Bombs, and I know you had a very large host for organizations, so can you share with us some of the activities that you do around security, around making sure that the software that keeps changing, opens our software that keeps changing. You want insider knowledge. You want water cooler dialogue. Well, no, I'll be, again, up front with you. So if you think about an OSPO in its simplest form, an OSPO is all about how do you consume open source in the way your company believes is the right way to do it? And the other is how do you contribute back to open source? And hopefully your organization does it in a balanced way. When I talk about IBM, I like to say I stand on the shoulders of giants because IBM leadership 20 years ago, when I couldn't spell open source, really understood the complexity. And sometimes I use the metaphor of open sources like a large crystal. And if you see it across the room, it just looks interesting. But it isn't until you walk across the room and pick it up and hold it up to the light and look at all the different facets that you start to realize just how complex and how powerful the open source ecosystem can be. And specific to your question about interesting facts, IBM, I spent the last six years prior to this fall focused on trying to help lead IBM's renaissance in open source while also managing that compliance function and doing all sorts of other things to energize IBMers to get active in open source again in a more meaningful way. IBM never left open source, but I think it's fair to say about a decade ago, IBM instead of leaning in like it did for the first year started kind of leaning out, focused more on like intellectual property or other innovation areas. But an interesting data point is that when working with Jamie on this issue, she said, well, where is IBM contributing today? And you can go on to our website and you can see a list of some of the featured innovative product areas that we've been working in. And that's all great. And if you take IBM's participation in open source and add it to Red Hats, even though we're independent and they have a strategy and we have a strategy, those two numbers put us on par with all the other major companies. So in fact, one shows that we're the leading contributor. But what we also found working with Jamie is that IBM had been contributing in these new innovative areas like Kubernetes, K-Native, and IBM's participation in some of the more traditional open source areas that had been around quite some time had fallen off. So if you drew the Venn diagram of where IBM was participating and where a lot of our products are still dependent, it was not the kind of overlap you'd want to see. So one of the things I'm doing today is helping to re-energize some activity in some of those traditional spaces where IBM might have been or has been missing. So great question, thanks for that. They're gonna give me the hook soon, but there's time for one last one going once. All right, well, really enjoyed the session. I hope you found it interesting and I hope you enjoy the rest of, gosh, what do we have? One session or two left before the day is done and a half day tomorrow. So thanks again for being here, appreciate it.


Sleeper team to win the NBA finals, and yes, you can say who you're thinking of. Pacers. Pacers. So no Nuggets, no Celtics, no Bucks. Yeah, no Bucks. The Mavs, maybe? Well, I grew up in the Bay Area, so I'm going Warrior all the way. I like how the Sacramento Kings play. Deer and Fox is a stud. I don't know if this qualifies as a Sleeper, but they can get healthy together, the Suns. Warriors, oh yeah, yeah. I know they're not doing well right now, but when it comes to the playoffs, they got that experience. He said Dub Nation all day.


Live from Toronto, Canada, it's theCUBE. Covering Global Cloud in Blockchain Summit 2018. Brought to you by theCUBE. Hello everyone, welcome back. This is theCUBE's coverage in Toronto for the Global Cloud and Blockchain Summit part of the big event also happening for two days, Wednesday and Thursday, the Blockchain Futurist Conference here in Canada. I'm John Furrier, Dave Vellante. Our next guest is the founder and CEO of DigitalBits.io as well as FuseChain and a serial entrepreneur and also the mastermind behind this inaugural event, first time at Cloud Blockchain Conference, has come together bringing the two communities together. Al, great to see you, thanks for coming on. Thank you for having me and thank you for coming to Toronto, Canada. It's our pleasure, certainly as you know, we love Cloud, we cover all the big Cloud shows. We're dominating that market in terms of coverage and access and we just started covering Blockchain in 2018 with theCUBE, although on a silicon angle, since 2011 with the written word in journalism. But this is interesting.  You're bringing the Cloud DNA and that could go back to like classic networking and think of big hosting providers, the exodus and the equinox of the world, the big plans who built, these guys are the same guys who built YouTube's back end and Facebook, large scale network guys with this new emerging Blockchain world because there's some connection points and it's super important and no one's ever done that before. What's the motivation behind a Cloud and Blockchain summit? Well, I mean, if you think of the internet, all of that data, all of that traffic, substantial majority of it is flowing through data centers, infrastructure providers globally. And within many of those data centers you have Cloud providers, whether it's Cloud computing, SaaS software as a service Cloud providers, you name it. And now we have upon us this emerging technology, Blockchain technology, many are referring to it as Web 3.0 and I'm obviously a big believer in that this is the next evolution of the internet. We had internet 1.0 in the 90s, we had Web 2.0 with social, sharing economy and so forth. And along the way, each step you had of your first movers, your willing followers and then the unwilling followed. It's been that powerful, the last two occurrences that we saw with the evolution of the internet. Web 3.0 is that next thing. First movers, willing followers, the unwilling. Every time you have this, something very innovative, obviously there's a big engineering or initially starts amongst community of engineers and then it starts to go mainstream. Obviously a lot happens in between conception and it going mainstream. And if we look at the 90s, Linux played a substantial role in the acceleration of innovation. It really extracted, it took a different approach to really leading open source. And- It took down some proprietary incumbents. You know. Absolutely, absolutely. And free and open source software, but it still needed to be supported. Which version of Linux should enterprises embrace? And at that time, it was very important with what we saw merge with things like Intel, IBM, Dell, HP and so forth, getting behind organizations like Red Hat and their version of Linux, known as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. IBM put a billion dollars into it. Yeah, exactly. So with regards to that, it was all about the hardware validating, right? These trusted vendors to the enterprise. And them kind of validating a company like we're endorsing a company in effect like Red Hat, really helped provide a guiding light to the enterprise. Now it's not about hardware, it's about the cloud, right? Cloud computing providers and so forth. And it's, you know, in that ecosystem, it's not just AWS, it's not just Microsoft. There are many data center providers that have built a cloud computing offering that are supporting substantial financial institutions, substantial organizations within healthcare, space insurance and many, many other industries. So they play a very important role in supporting an enterprise with their implementation, integration and consumption of technologies, including new and emerging technologies. And so as we have sort of before us, this emergence of blockchain, what I was finding, obviously having lived in the cloud and infrastructure community for a number of years with the last company I had founded, know a lot of the key stakeholders. And even though I'm all in on blockchain, you know, I've popped in every now and then in that world. And what I found was two different extremes. You had CTOs and even CEOs of cloud computing organizations and others within those organizations, totally, you know, high get it factor. And you had the other extreme, multi-billion dollar cloud computing organizations, you know, data center organizations, where, again, the leadership team is still trying to figure it out in some respects, not fully paying attention yet. And I saw that this is definitely emerging. You know, again, you'll have first movers, willing followers and the unwilling, they're all going to get there, but it hadn't gone there yet. And so with regards to this event, I saw a huge opportunity to really put something out there, allow it to ultimately take a life of its own. And there's a new organizer that's going to be coming forward and driving the ship with this event. But ultimately, there needed to be a forum, not just here in North America, but in every corner of the world, the Global Cloud and Blockchain Summit, providing this opportunity for that convergence and for both communities to really share knowledge and accelerate, fill that gap. And I saw it, it's there, it is there. There's amazing things being spoken of on stage as we sort of are sitting here, with leading innovators and so forth from both sides. There's an amazing keynote today by Anthony Diorio, one of the co-founders of Ethereum, founder and CEO of Decentral and Jax, really helping support the event today and making a contribution was, his talk was phenomenal. So that's kind of the thought behind it. And it's, here we are. I want to pick up on something you said for our audience. I mean, for guys like you, Al, that are deep into it, you understand this very well, but you talked about Linux and how essentially the web was built on Linux. So if you were a Linux developer back in the day and you wanted to invest in Linux, you didn't have a vehicle to do that. You could put your time in, you could maybe join a company and maybe get some stock, but there was no way to directly invest in Linux. But today there is with blockchain and crypto economics, you actually can, whether it's tokenize your business or participate, you could buy tokens and so it's a whole different incentive structure. And many in our audience are sort of new to this, kind of the unwilling, if you will. And that's an amazing new way to create capital structures. And very powerful. I mean, prior to this tokenized revolution that we're seeing here, it was a cool open source project as an entrepreneur, or sorry, engineer, you wanted to kind of be a part of this, contribute time. And quite often you would ask your employer to permit you to have 10%, 20% of your time to commit to these projects, or maybe you would even ask for that in your job interview. And you'd maybe get the thumbs up. And so your employers in effect subsidizing your time to really contribute to projects and code that you're very passionate about. But if they got busy, economic cycles and what have you, and it's like, you know what? We need you to 100% focus on your day job. All of a sudden that community that opens up to me is losing perhaps a very valuable contributor, right?  And that's really what this is now. Projects can be created. You can think of some blockchains like an operating system, you now have to use the Linux comparison. Now, let's say a operating system can have its own incentive reward or compensation structure to really help attract engineers and other valuable contributors to not just give birth to a project, but help make it sustainable. And eventually maybe you're quitting the day job and because it's able to be free open source and providing an enlightened self-interest. I'm getting some messages here, direct messages. Listening to you talk, want to share that with you. One says, one guy says, hey Al, what's the deal with the different blockchains? How do I tell? So I'm not an unwilling, I'm a want to believe. I'm like, I'm not at the front end, but I just, what do I pay attention to? And there's so many different chains. You got people promoting certain things. I don't know whose stats are real. You got two kids in a garage, just did an ICO. So the question is what, essentially, what's the difference in all these chains? What do I have to look for? Is it latency? Who's solving these problems? What's the big deal? And how do I determine better chain from another chain? Are they all going to work together? What's your thoughts? Things are moving incredibly fast right now and it is difficult to keep up to speed. Maybe it was just Bitcoin at one time and won one chain to focus on. And then there was a theorem in all these others and now there's many, many more. So ultimately it is about information, staying current with that information, doing your due diligence, but you really need to have a community that you're a part of, that you can kind of share in your evaluation and monitoring of what's new and emerging. So community is important. Very important, very important. Really, you know, to say trusted advisors, trusted peers, and you kind of take a collective approach at this. Nonetheless, we're in this pioneering era. Mass innovation happening. What's winning today may not necessarily be continuing to win tomorrow, but you really need to maintain a discipline and take a peer approach to stay in current with it. In terms of public chain, private chain, they're all going to play a role and they are playing a role in different use cases. There's clearly a use case for private chain within enterprise, within a trusted circle of supply chain participants where maybe you want to bring some efficiencies to all of that, but what's- So use case drives the chain. But public chain is a phenomenal phenomenon and among other things that we hear a lot about it's giving birth to the ICO, this new way of capital formation that is unbelievably awesome. The world has never seen anything like this. Explain that. Well, capital formation dynamic. Yeah, so, I mean, the traditional way, as we, you know, whether it's in Silicon Valley or any other part of the world, you have an entrepreneur that, maybe they haven't had a big exit where they can fund their own next venture on their own. You know, smart, intelligent people with a brilliant idea and they're doing that friends and family round, right? The due diligence checklist isn't that long. It's like, you know what, love my son. He's the smartest kid on the planet. You give him a few dollars and a few other friends and family, start this new emerging entrepreneur. And if that gets, you know, there's evolution there. Things are picking up traction and so forth and maybe you're doing an angel round and there's this sort of structured process that history's sort of defined for us. And then from an angel round, you have this early stage company emerging and new milestones being reached and then maybe there's a venture, you know, a series A venture capital round and what have you. And then you have the, you know, the series A, the series B and so forth, right? The typical approach to things. Very regimented, you know, Silicon Valley has been a dominating force for the venture capital community and in that form of capital formation. But the dynamics are different than the venture capital. Yeah, so I've just sort of, that's the way that we've always sort of known, right? Many, many early stage companies, the process they go through, many, many meetings, behind closed doors and so forth. Colk and Dagger, Black Box, how's it work? This whole concept of crowd sourcing, who's, you know, still beholden to the financial systems that are up there. How do you really foster community out there and raise maybe a few million dollars? So it's easy to raise money now? It absolutely is.  Highly efficient, you have this sort of universal, these universal currencies now emerging and it's an amazing sensation and it's a new form of capital formation and with capital formation, you have innovation. So I believe we're just going to continue to see this, an acceleration of innovation globally happening and not just in certain pockets of the world now in many, many corners of the world. I mean, what's happening in Asia is absolutely phenomenal in the blockchain space as well. It's not just interesting here in North America. In fact, in some respects even more interesting depending on how you look at it. Describe what's happening in Asia. You guys talked about this last night on the fireside chat. Well, I mean, some of the publicly available information is that you could just simply see on many of the cryptocurrency exchanges out there an insane amount of volume, you know, more so than any other corner of the world. And so you have a very active investor community up there, trading community, token buyer community and what have you. And where are the pockets? Very healthy. So was China and then things shifted sort of to Japan? Well, maybe where the centralized exchange is happening, but I think it's still a lot of the same people. It's not like it got shut down in the country and those people just lost their desire there. They just found an alternative means to continue to participate, but you know, South Korea, it's phenomenal. You have Hong Kong, you have Japan, you have Singapore among many of the pockets, but then there's, you know, it's everywhere. You're meeting people from Vietnam, Thailand, India, they're all the very active investor community and utility token buyer community. And it's very healthy and it's, yes, you have a correction every now and then in this market, but you have that with any sort of new exciting innovation, but it continues to thrive up there. It's phenomenal. And you're seeing one of the main uses of Bitcoin to buy alternative currencies.  It's an easier currency to, I mean, in a matter of seconds or minutes, you can have a currency go from a bedroom in Florida, you know, here in Toronto to a project in Singapore or vice versa, you know, without going through a bank. So getting some more questions from the crowd. You want to reach us, tweet us either direct message or tweet at Furrier, at D-Valante. Happy to take your questions for the guests, but one says, do we buy now? Second was does China, there's this sidestep, the tariffs of China, Japan, U.S. thing, obviously outside the United States with the world power on the United States, but now that power is shifting. You see China here in Canada, a lot of crypto DNA here. So interesting, your thoughts on buying on the dip or crash or have we look at it? And then the international dynamic with China and Japan and others. So, many are seeing it as a dip. I mean, the reality is, if this is a new form of capital formation, it doesn't have, it does share similar characteristics, nonetheless still to traditional early stage investment in venture capital in many respects. Not every startup succeeds. In fact, you know, over 90% traditionally don't make it. Even if they make it to series A around they may not make it to a B round, right? And so the fact that you have, you know, some people were kind of referring to the Wild Wild West, I don't necessarily see it that way. It's just finding its way, right? And it's going to get to a mature state. I think people look at the bubble and they think Wild Wild West, but the interesting thing about, you know, we talked about this off camera last night around international is, and this is, no one really knows what the standards will be. This is going to be a completely different landscape than anything we've seen before, whether it's standards or execution. And I hear the argument all the time of, oh, it's unregulated, certainly the United States is taking a more regulatory approach. You know, the SEC essentially scaring straight everybody and saying- Well, they're trying to figure it out. Oh, and they're trying to figure it out, but also they've kind of slowed things down in the process, but that being said, it doesn't, it might not have to be formally regulated because you mentioned Linux, the role of self-governing communities is very interesting dynamic. No one's actually said and said, no one's actually analyzed what a regulatory regime globally would look like if you factor in kind of the open source concepts with self-governance because communities are very efficient and we got money involved, it could be even more efficient. That's called a marketplace.   And where we put that money, that the value we have that we wish to exchange for something else, some of it goes into some regulatory worlds and some doesn't. I don't want to go buy you some commodities at the grocery store. I mean, it's a free and open source trend, free and open transaction. There's no KYCAML per se. But that food's got a shift, but the food has to get to the supermarket. My point is, marketplaces exist. It doesn't require regulation. That's my point. That's my point. Or additional red tape, right? But where we put other capital does, so whether you're buying a share certificate, early stage investing, yeah, there's SCC files. Who regulated Linux? Who regulated Linux? I mean, it was self-coverting in a lot of ways. It was a benevolent dictatorship with Turbles. But the capital formation was different in the Linux industry. It was a more traditional path that you just described. And so that those were... But what I guess what I'm saying is that, you know, have a token, some token could represent a commodity, some token could represent a security. So there needs to be that distinction and a framework of clarity so that we understand what needs to be regulated and go in that path. And so I think that's kind of part of finding its way over the past 12 months or so is this distinction. Some countries have, we're very quick to say, hey, here's a framework like Switzerland. That clarity here has taken a bit of time. In the US. I think they should let things foster and incubate a bit because you don't know the gestation period with real technology. And I think I'm cool with community-oriented governance because people will lose some volo to cash, some will gain, but that'll all sort itself out. And with good community involvement, it'll happen faster. I just find that a better path.  They overreact. Some people can handle the risk, but you got to see how it plays out at some level. You do, you definitely do. But there was also an opportunity for self-governance. You have with, there's the regional internet registries, right? So you have Aaron Wright in Europe and so forth. If you want an IP address and so forth, it's a self-governing body that defined policy and how these things are going to be disseminated here in North America. The government kind of stayed out of that. That's a good one, the DNS system. Absolutely. I mean, this is valuable. You have national security with internet, but it's how IPs are disseminated, it's self-regulated. So at the end of the day, if the community doesn't decide to say, hey, some of these things will, let's define self-governing bodies and if they could play a great role in it all, fantastic. Otherwise, maybe the government steps in. If that's the type of country it is where they like to engage. Al, everyone's reimagining new opportunities with blockchain and crypto. You certainly got a good venture with digital bits. We'll certainly have a conversation later here this week about that. Congrats. I know you got to get back in for a panel and then you're going to go on now. So thanks for coming on. And congratulations on the inaugural Global Cloud and Blockchain Summit. Looking forward to talking more about it. This is theCUBE here live in Toronto for coverage of the Global Blockchain event here with cloud. And then tomorrow kicks off the big show here, the Blockchain Futurist, about 2,000 attendees. That's going to be really about connecting the dots of the future. theCUBE will be there as well. Stay with us for more live coverage after this short break. Thank you.


It's a thrill for me, and Linda is one of my heroes, so to be introduced by a giant like her, I already have my day started out on a happy foot. But I'm going to talk about the world's happiest places and the lessons we learned from them. But first, I want to start with you. I am going to identify the happiest people in the audience. And in order for me to do that, I need to ask you two binary questions. And the first question is about whether you think life is long or short. So raise your hand if you think life is long. Now raise your hand if you think life is short. Wow, OK. Take advantage of it here. The second question is about whether or not you think life is hard or easy. Raise your hand if you think life is hard. Now raise your hand if you think life is easy. Wow, it's hooked up in the middle. I want everybody who thinks, who raise their hand thinking that life is long and easy to stand up, long and easy to stand up. Don't worry, I won't humiliate you too much.  Stay standing up if you would. Please stay standing up for just a second. So a few years ago, a Harvard researcher by the name of Mike Moreton organized a team of surveyors and working in three continents. And he asked these exact two questions and correlated it with happiness, civics, and generosity. And that team found that the least happy people think that life is short and hard. The happiest people think that life is long and easy. They're about 40% happier, 30% more likely to vote, and about 60% more likely to donate money. So can we give a huge round of applause for the happy people who are here? Thank you very much. I want to invite them not only to your next cocktail party, but your next fundraiser. So for the last 15 years or so at National Geographic, I've developed somewhat of an expertise at finding remarkable populations around the world and then learning the lesson from them. Something called the Danish twin study established that only about 10% or 20% of how long you live is dictated by your genes. The other 80% or so is dictated by lifestyle and environment and a little bit is how good your health care system is. But based on this assumption, we hired a team of demographers to parse through census data to identify five pockets around the world where people live statistically longest. The Adventists of the Loma Linda, California, the Costa Rica, the Highlands of Sardinia, the longest of men in the world, the Island of Ikaria, almost no dimension there, an alarmist of women on the planet, Okinawa, Japan. And then in a sense, we then brought on another team to, in a sense, reverse engineer longevity. Find the common denominators explaining longevity no matter where you go in the world. And we found nine of them. I'm mostly going to talk about happiness, so I'm not going to talk in depth about longevity, but I will give you the bottom line. And what I'm about to tell you now took me eight years to figure out. And that is, when you find a place where people live a long time and you have spry 90-year-olds who can stand in their heads and 100-year-olds who can water ski, it's not because, at age 50, they said to themselves, oh, darn it, I'm going to get on that longevity diet now and live another 50 years. They didn't buy a treadmill or sign up for a diet plan or take the latest new supplement. The fact of the matter is they have no idea why they live so long. Longevity happened to them. It was not something they pursued that we tend to do in our cultures. It's something that ensues. That the aha moment, that longevity ensues.  They're nudged into movement every 20 minutes or so, so their metabolism stays high. But that's underpinned by a strong sense of purpose. It is energized by a social network, a tribe of people who share these healthy habits and keep people on the right track and facilitate it by the right community. And this interconnected, mutually supporting cluster of behaviors allows you to do the right things for long enough so you don't get a chronic disease. There's no short-term fix for longevity. You have to avoid doing the wrong thing for long enough so you don't get a heart attack, diabetes, or cancer. And this seems to keep the right behaviors in place for long enough so you can live a long time. Now, the foundation of any kind of study like this requires that you're able to carefully, incredibly measure. And when it comes to longevity, measuring long-term places is a fairly straightforward exercise. You go back 100 years, say between 1915 and 1920, and find a swath of birth. And you follow those people for 100 years, correcting for immigration and immigration.  That's a slight oversimplification. But it's a lot easier than measuring happiness.  You could find somebody who's laughing today, but they may have been depressed all month or they're not quite sure what happiness means, or they maybe just had a few cocktails. So how do you measure happiness? It's actually an exploding field. About 20,000 studies have been undertaken by 12,000 researchers in the last 15 years. I'm proud to say that I brokered one of the cooler ones in the last year and a half or so. We're so collaborative between Gallup, University of Pennsylvania's World Wellbeing Project, and Google analyzed five billion Google searches in 200 communities and correlated it with subjective well-being. And they found that what you search for on the internet is a better predictor of how happy you are than income or age even. We found out also that people who own dogs and are googling about their dogs are happier than cat owners. That people looking for action movies or comedies are happier than people who are looking for romance.  And don't worry, this is anonymized data. We do not know who you are. So for this story I wrote for National Geographic Magazine, it was the November cover story and the book Blue Zones of Happiness, we took a more straightforward approach. And it turns out for the past 40 years, governments have been deploying these standard subjective well-being or happiness surveys. It's been done in 151 countries over 40 years. And with them you can discern where the happiest places in the world are and you can start to see some of the characteristics that accompany happiness. So let me explain this a little bit further. Now academically speaking, happiness is a meaningless term. You can't really measure happiness. But you can measure a few facets of happiness. You can measure life satisfaction.  And when you ask enough people that it averages out the extremes, you get a pretty good answer. But the problem with this kind of evaluative question is you only really remember about 2% of your life. If I asked you what you had for lunch a week ago Tuesday, you probably couldn't tell me. So this kind of evaluative happiness only gets at a small sliver. That's why they ask a battery of questions about your daily emotions.  And they can aggregate those and get a pretty good idea of how you're experiencing life. These two only have about a 0.5 correlations. They're sort of weakly correlated. And then they can ask you a question about your strengths and if you get to use them every day and get at your purpose, another very strong, fast and happiness. And then when you ask those questions and a number of other, about 80 other questions about your demographics and your values and your life characteristics and through the magic of regression analysis, you can see with remarkable consistency what sorts of characteristics are fueling these three facets of happiness. And that gives us a pretty good idea of what we should be doing if we wanna be happier. And I'm gonna tell you what those correlations are, but first in the spirit of National Geographic, da-da-da-da, you know, I'm gonna take you to a few parts of the world, the happiest parts of the world and tell you a few very quick stories. So first we're gonna go to the happiest place in Asia. Does anyone wanna guess the happiest place in Asia? Bhutan, Japan.  It's mostly a PR, a whitewash. The happiest place in Asia is at the end of the Malaysian Peninsula in the very unlikely destination of Singapore. And believe me, you're not the only one rolling your eyes right now. My editor tried to kill the story when I told her this, but when you look at the data, they report the highest level of life satisfaction. In 1965, Singapore was more or less a fishing village. Their GDP, their economy has doubled 15 times in that time. They have the highest, one of the highest GDPs, one of the highest healthy life expectancies in the world, very highly correlated with happiness. The three ethnicities there, the Indians, the Malay and the Han Chinese live together in remarkable harmony, given their vastly different culture. And this whole place was, the happiness here, I argue, was largely manufactured by this man right here, Lee Kuan Yew. I had the honor of interviewing, Cambridge educated attorney who became the, they call mentor minister, but he supremely understood Confucian values, the values of his country, harmony, order, security, respect, and went about building a nation built on those values. So making sure that everybody spoke the same language. He made English the lingua franca. He made sure everybody, almost everybody could own their own houses. And in every one of the high rises that were built had to reflect the ethnic diversity of the nation. So you did not have a Malay ghetto or you didn't have a gated Chinese community. Kids went to school together, they worked together. There was almost no segregation of ethnicities. Very hard on crime. And he did this very consciously, not only tough on crime, but also he made sure there were consequences. So this joke about people spitting, he actually told me the reason there's a log against spitting is because he was trying to build a first world country when it was kind of third world in the 1960s. He needed to attract finance.  If you get caught with more than 15 grams of an opioid, you'll be put to death. And though a few dozen people are put to death every year in Singapore, they don't have an opioid crisis. Where I come from the United States, 45,000 people die every year because of opioid overdose. And that public health problem ripples through the economy, children suffer, prison systems are full, et cetera, et cetera. I'm not arguing for one or for another, but I'm just saying from a very utilitarian point of view, it wasn't a bad decision. And also, women and children can feel safe to walk in the streets in Singapore anytime during the day or night without really having to fear for themselves. So when it comes to the continuum between freedom and security, United States trumpets a lot about freedom, but actually security is more important to our happiness than freedom ends. If you had to take one or the other, most people would pick security and Singapore delivers security. This type of happiness appeals to the type of people who like a very clear path in life to success.  And this type of high life satisfaction is mostly happiness in the rear view mirror.  On the other side of the planet, we found another very happy place, but a very different type of happiness in Northern Denmark, mostly Ohus and Alborg. We found a nation that has the highest levels of equality, trust, and tolerance in the world. Actually, when it comes to GDP, GDP is important for happiness for poor countries, places like Bangladesh, but added GDP to a place like Switzerland does almost nothing. Trust, tolerance, and equality predict happiness much more than higher GDP does in a place like Denmark. The old cliche that Danes are happy because they have low expectations, nothing could be further from the truth. Danes have among the highest expectations in the world. Every man, woman, and child in that country expects to have free healthcare. And when they have a baby, they expect 11 months paid vacation to make sure that baby gets a good start in life. They expect not only free education and tuition, but when they go to the university, they expect to get paid and they get it. They expect a secure retirement and indeed the happiest cohort of people in the world are Danish people over the age of 65. They have it made. So Denmark's happiness is, I believe, mostly explained by the fact that all their needs are covered. We tend to think of happiness as the attainment of joy and pleasure, but actually it's also getting rid of the things that graded our psyche. Like, well, I have enough money to pay if I get sick or when I get old. Danes don't have to worry about that because ambition is not celebrated there and their needs are taken care of. They're free to pursue their passions in their work. 80% of Danes love their job and America's 30%. So the type of jobs that suggests flow are the jobs that the Danes excel in. Furniture design, art, architecture. They work 37 hours a week. They sort of knock off at about 3 p.m.  This is the type of happiness that will appeal to people who want to follow their purpose and their passions, rather whether it's a rabbit jumping competition or bicycling, all-natural. Which I don't recommend at home. By the way, I want to shout out the great photographers who worked on this story, David McClain and Corey Richards who brought this story to life so beautifully. And then the part of the world, this is the convergence of both longevity and happiness is Costa Rica. Longest live people in the world by one measure, Nikoia, Peninsula of Costa Rica. Healthy life expectancy, by the way, is one of the six top correlates to happiness on a national level. But the happiest people are in the middle of the country, the Central Valley, the Highlands, Perpetual Spring there, best coffee in the world. But this is the place where people enjoy their day, the highest positive affect of any place else in the world. This is the place where the highest values are placed on family and religion. Believe it or not, everywhere you go in the world where people purport be religious, they're happier than non-religious people. By the way, also gender equality is important. It turns out the parts of the world where women are treated equal to men, the men are happier in those societies. And the places where women aren't treated equally, the women are happier than the men. So it's in men's self-interest to treat women properly.  The happiest people in the world are socially interacting seven to eight hours a day. And I don't mean Facebook, sorry, Facebook's here, I mean face-to-face meaningful conversations. And the way that Costa Rican communities are set up, they're walking to church, they're walking to their friend's house, they walk to the market, where they have environmental nudges to interact that six or seven hours a day. They'll almost never work an extra couple hours and forego a good social opportunities. No matter where you go in the world and you see happy populations, it is not a coincidence. It is not because there's a bunch of happy natives who collectively decide to think positively and appreciate their day and are therefore happier. It is always because 50 to 150 years ago, enlightened leaders shifted away from just economic growth and focused on a bundle of policies that have yielded this happiness. Education, and I don't mean manufacturing PhDs, but making sure that every kid can read and get the equivalent of a high school education. Most important is the education of girls. Remarkably, Denmark and Costa Rica were the first places in their hemisphere to educate the daughters of peasants, which was a pretty radical idea back in the 19th century. But when you do that, girls grow up to be mothers, educated mothers have fewer children, more educated children, healthier children. Those children grow up to be better parents, more productive, they make better voting decisions and it starts this upward ratchety of well-being.  Healthcare, and I don't mean the back-ass word sick care system of the United States. It's actually the kind of health that Linda Freed focuses on, which is public health, making sure, catching a chronic disease or infectious disease before it's a 911, six-figure problem. And then equality, making sure that the ladder between the haves and the have-nots is very short. And that boils down essentially that $100 buys much more happiness for a single mom than it does for a millionaire. So in all these places, there's efforts put in place to create a sense of equality or equality. When it comes to individuals, the picture's slightly different. So when it comes to happiness for individuals, about 40% of your happiness is dictated by your genes, about 15% is dictated by life circumstances. It's very hard to be happy if you're chronically depressed or you have congenital pain, or you have to wear shoe spikes to walk to your session in the snow. But about 40% of your happiness, or lack there is, is under your control. And I argue that the way to get it is to balance your portfolio, just like your financial portfolio, between daily emotions, purpose, and life satisfaction. And when you run these vast regression analysis of this ocean of data in 151 countries, you see very clearly that working full-time and achieving financial security favors life satisfaction. But for purpose, it's more important to do an internal inventory to know what your passions and values and what you like to do with your time, care for others. And to enjoy your day best from day to day, you might want to forego some work and make sure you're getting at least seven hours of sleep, laughing dailies and taking all your vacation. There's another set of factors that will favor at least two kinds, having a faith, going to college, have kids, favors life satisfaction and purpose, doesn't do much for your daily emotions. And then when it comes to enjoying your life every day and having very high life satisfaction, trying new things and getting laid twice a week. And that's not me speaking, that's the science. But there's a sweet spot here. Five things you can do that will favor all three of these domains. Picking a job that you love over money, socializing seven hours a day face to face, owning a dog. There you go, cat lovers. Being in love or essentially being married, you're three times more likely to be happy after 10 years if you stay married as opposed to throwing in the towel and then living in the right place. And this is the most important one. So happiness were a cake recipe. And the ingredients in that recipe include the necessities, you need food, shelter, you need some healthcare, some mobility, you want to marry the right person, you want to have meaningful work, you want to give something back. The most important ingredient in that cake recipe, the variable with the most statistical variability is where you live. In other words, if you live in an unhappy place and move to a happy place, that's about the most powerful thing you can do to get happier. And I'll offer some evidence for that. When you follow unhappy immigrants from Moldavia to Denmark or unhappier immigrants from Africa and Asia and follow them to Canada within one year, those unhappier immigrants start reporting the happiness level of their adopted home.  What really changes is simply where they live. Now I know most of us can't change our where we live, but I'd like to suggest a few ways where you can change your surroundings or your median environment for the long term. And I've identified six domains of our lives within about eight kilometers of where we live. The first one's your inner self. So I'm not a big believer in these positive psychology tricks, savoring and gratitude and appreciation so forth. I believe they work in the short run, there's no evidence they work in the long run. However, there's some good evidence that if you learn how to meditate, a deep meditation training like Vipassana that you can permanently re-hardwire your brain to appreciate the moment more. When it comes to your finances, you actually get more happiness out of financial security than you do out of consumption. In other words, if you have a little bit of money left over after your paycheck, you're better off paying down your mortgage, buying insurance or signing up for an automatic savings plan than you are buying a new pair of shoes or a new gadget. Because the luster of that new thing will wear off in nine to 14 months and financial security can last decades. When it comes to your home, putting in big windows, we're happier with natural light. Plants, because we should be nudging to social interactions, better to have a front porch than a back deck. Dr. Ed Deaner gave me a great idea for something he calls a pride shrine, which is one place in your house that you walk by every day that you have pictures of your kids, awards you've gotten, pictures of your favorite vacation spot. And every time you walk by that, you'll feel a little surge of pride. Remember, one of the fastest of happiness is the aggregate of the pleasant moments throughout the day. When it comes to your social network, we are indeed defined by our five best friends. And we know now that obesity is contagious, unhappiness is contagious, and even loneliness is contagious.  When it comes to work, making sure you have a job you love, but if you can't leave your job, the most important thing you can do, and this comes from two million Gallup surveys, is make a best friend at work. If you're a boss implementing a program that facilitates workers to create best friends about the best investment you can make in workplace wellbeing, and finally picking the right community. And with National Geographic and Gallup, we identified the happiest communities in the United States. And uniformly they were places that were very bikeable, they had healthy food environments, and they were places where the city government focused on quality of life and not just development. So the headline here is trying to change your habits is mostly a fool's errand. If you wanna get happier or live longer, don't change your behavior, it'll almost certainly fail, change your surroundings. I wanna end with a toast from the happiest man I've met in the entire world. His name is Armando Fuentes, they call him El Caton, he's an 80 year old sort of lantern jawed journalist from Mexico. He writes four columns a day, I spent two hours with him. And after two incredible hours, I was just typing like somebody on, like an auctioneer. I asked him if he could sum up the secret to happiness and he closed his eyes and he thought for a minute and he said yes. He said, you wanna eat without gluttony, drink without getting drunk, love without jealousy, you can argue but don't go to bed mad and occasionally with great discretion, this behave. Thank you very much. Thank you Dan, very much. I would like to welcome everybody who has joined us today both on the online viewing audience and the people here in the room for a very happy morning. I'm Linda Freed, I'm a physician and scientist and I have the honor of serving as the Dean at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and today I'm partnering with Dan Butner who's taken us on this happiness quest. We're going to invite questions from those online and also those in the room and I'd invite you to contemplate what makes you happy and what really matters. But Dan, you've done a great job of taking us on the journey of what the individual experience is and linking it to the conditions, both of people's lives and the environments in which we reside and even the policies and practices of good governance that creates the stability and opportunity for wellbeing. In public health, we know that 70% of any population's health is created through these kinds of factors outside of medical care delivery, 20% from the right medical care and about 10% from our genes. So you're focusing on the 70% that creates a healthy population, wellbeing and longevity. How do you think, I'm going to start with one question and then we'll turn to the audience both here and online to hear what you want to suggest or ask about. But what lessons do you take from all of this if you think about the WEF theme for this year of creating a shared future in a fractured world? What lessons are there from the wellbeing of individuals and communities that we should take to thinking about our collective wellbeing and the principles we should be trying to enhance? So we only have about a minute here and I know this is going to end and by the way, I'll step outside and answer all your questions. I know you want to get to your next session, but I'll say this, that most governments and we have a lot of world leaders here, most governments focus on maximizing GDP as the main measure of quality of life. And we now have a sea of data that can inform policy that can help leaders better choose what they ought to focus on if they want to really deliver a happier nation. And I didn't get in this today, but we recruited a team of 17 of the world's top economists and psychologists and sociologists and ran something called a Delphi consensus. Took us nine months to get consensus between these top experts. And it turns out policies like increasing trust. That's about the best investment that a government can make to increase happiness. And these boil down to things like making sure police are planned, being really hard on corruption. If you don't trust your politician, that creates all kinds of problems. And even doing simple things at the local level, like making better lighting and also cleaning up graffiti. So, and I say these things because when it comes to happiness and longevity, you can't really pull the two apart. So, if you can manage to manage your life to get in the top quintile and the happiest people in your community, that adds about eight years of life expectancy over being in the lowest quintile. So, I understand from the back that we are, we have a minute maybe to take a question from the audience here. A little out of time, yes. How much is what? Weather. Weather doesn't affect happiness much at all because we adapt. And we actually, our brains are hardwired for novelty. So, there's actually some gratification we get when summer goes into fall, fall goes into winter. But I will say one thing, when you control for everything else in this worldwide body of data, you're about 5% more likely if you live in a sunny place or live on the water. So, if you're gonna choose your next home, you know, a place on the beach and the tropics is probably not a bad decision. So, we'll take one more question here. Look from your examples that population density doesn't really, population density doesn't really enter into it. Is that the case? The question was population density and entering into the equation. I would say yes, the happiest places tend to be middle-sized cities, often college or university cities. So, you want it big enough where people can find jobs and work that meet their passion and find the right mate. If the pool's too small, it's hard to find a good match there. But, big anonymous places also don't completely optimize the human experience. Middle-sized towns, so. Any last question before we end? No, well thank you. I wish you a happy day. And take care.