is global connections. And, you know, when we say global connections, we mean connecting all the dots in all the places, including dots and places that have spoken about other places. And I think it's very important we recognize that the world is completely interdependent now in what happens on one side happens in the other. So the question is, should Chuck Schumer be calling for regime change in Israel? There are some people on one side of that, some people on the other side of that. Is Chuck Schumer serious? Or is he just following orders, perhaps from the administration? And to help us understand this, we have Dr. Rupati Khandekar, our global strategist. Welcome to the show, Rupati. It's lovely to have you here. Aloha, Jay. Always my pleasure to be with you. So a few days ago, Chuck Schumer made a big speech in Congress on behalf of his role as a senior senator. And in that regard, the press covered it from stem to stern. And then he went on the media and repeated himself and was involved in a campaign over several days where it dominated, dominated the news. Can you summarize what Chuck Schumer was saying in this remarkable speech about calling for regime change in Israel? Yeah, Jay, it was a shocker because as Israel supporters and as Israel side always views Chuck Schumer as a supporter, as a proponent or proper, you know, who has always taken the right side. And to come out, it's such a critical juncture of this Israel Hamas dispute and talk about how domestic politics should change and how people of Israel should vote against Netanyahu and end this regime, which is not doing anything for Israel is share and direct interference in another country's domestic politics. And that is a no no for any country to be so openly. He was very overt in his conversation. And Jay, we have seen Netanyahu has been in power for the last 15 years with coalition without coalition independently. So he is at the helm of Israel politics and Chuck Schumer to be dictating or to pretend to be guiding Israeli people against Netanyahu is was kind of a little bit of there was no I couldn't believe it technically just because Netanyahu is leading a country against a terrorist attack. So at that time, he needs all the support not only from his domestic but international allies also. And Chuck Schumer was very overt in his conversations day in a speech when he spoke that now Netanyahu after going through Gaza has to go forward to the Rafa crossing and Rafa crossing is near the Egypt border. And this is the southernmost town of Gaza. And Jay, as we know, after the terrorist attack of October 7, Israel had guided the entire population to move towards Rafa cross. And with that, within the civilian she is battalion of Hamas undoubtedly has gone so if the end goal is to eliminate Hamas, Israel forces have to move towards Rafa. And when Netanyahu presented this, Schumer is saying that if you do this, it's crossing the red line. And that red line is to move towards Rafa. So he's stopping the Rafa border. Well, I just have some rhetorical questions for you. I'll lump them up. What would happen if Netanyahu called for the election of Donald Trump rather than Joe Biden made a big speech about it and said that I don't think Joe Biden can do the job and I want Trump to do the job. What would happen if Macron calls for the election of one candidate or another or Olaf Schultz called for the election of one candidate or another or any number of world leaders? What would happen if Xi Jinping called for the election of one candidate or another in the United States? We would be outraged, wouldn't we? That, as you said, that doesn't go. It doesn't wash. It's an absolute no-no interference in domestic politics, especially of a democracy. It's not like Israel has been avoiding elections, Jay, at such a critical juncture when the economy is not in place, when people are not in place, you're talking of elections. Election requires campaigning, election requires coalition building, election requires so many other things. They are right now at heading a war against a terrorist outfield. And as we have discussed, six antagonistic countries against them. So to concentrate on domestic politics and somebody from the outside while telling or propagating to the domestic population to vote against the leader right now is wrong. It hurts the morale. They are at a war front and that is the leader of Israel at the war front. He's leading a democracy which has just been attacked. It is as clear as that, as simple as that. And he is at the bitter end of a PR campaign, which is so well-funded. It's propaganda at its best. Like you said, if you can repeat that point of how New York now, on the propaganda, I woke up thinking that. And gee whiz, the atrocities were visited on those kibbutzim near the Hamas fence on October 7th. And the Israelis didn't actually make war on Hamas, didn't enter Gaza for, what did you say, two or three weeks. But on October 8th and 9th already the propaganda was starting. And there were people in Europe, protests in Europe favoring the Palestinians, favoring Hamas, favoring Hamas. And ripping down the photographs of the hostages where they had been posted. This happened in New York, it happened in other places in the United States, long before Israel ever attacked Gaza, long before we got into any of this humanitarian issue. And who's using the hospital issue? And it's really quite extraordinary that the propaganda war was all set to go, just like all the other elements of that attack on October 7th. And they let it fly on October 8th. And it has been successful. And I take your point, buddy, that what effect, there's so many effects of what Schumer has done. I really don't know if he's thought about it. I don't think he has thought about it. But one of the many effects is the morale of Israel. Most people in Israel support this war. Most people see it as a war for survival, which I think it is. And against all kinds of enemies who are sworn to kill you, sworn to push you from the river to the sea. And so now you have your erstwhile friends criticizing you and telling you to change your regime and telling you how to conduct yourself in so many ways. And you say, gee whiz, this is our war, not their war, it's our war. Furthermore, I want to add that the bill to support Israel and Ukraine is stuck in Congress. And Trump has it stuck. And the aid, the support, the weapons, the money that was supposed to go to help Israel isn't going. So it's really ironic that Schumer or Biden should get up and criticize Israel, call for regime change, try to tell Israel what strategies to use in dealing with Hamas when it is not actually supporting Israel. I find that really intolerable myself. But let me ask you this, though. Why did Schumer get up there and make these statements to the Senate? Why did he get on national TV on every channel he could find and make these statements over and over again occupying the airwaves for days and days and days? Why did he encourage and interview with the newspapers to make these statements? I mean, it was a blitzkrieg of news that he created. Why did he do that? You know, this Schumer has come out at a time when the Mike moment happened with Biden and he said that come to Jesus conversation he wanted to have with Netanyahu, that has come to the point. And he was being a bit frustrated with Netanyahu. And this happens like it happens in a series, in a linear progression that takes place. And when you have these officials who you feel that they are in support and they go against and they make these statements, it's a progressive line that they cover you up with. Now Netanyahu at the same time has told an asset that he at the Foreign Affairs Committee of Israel that he needs to go into Rafa with a ground incursion to take care of if they want to achieve the end goal of eliminating Hamas. See the end goal is eliminating Hamas. Israel is put blinkers on it. They are very clear about now America because the American administration because of the pressures of PR, the delay that is taking place, the humanitarian crisis that is being advertised, they are giving into the pressure and trying to suppress Israeli movements, maneuvers. So Jay, but on the ground, he is at the war front and he knows if he wants to eliminate Hamas, like he said in the committee statements that if he eliminates 80% of Hamas and leaves 20% in Rafa, it will be like the world war leaving 20% of Nazis still waiting. They will again come back together and they will re-attack. They will re-take the strip, they will re-attack. And Jay, has the Hamas ever said that they want to surrender? Has the Hamas said that they will lay down their arms and like you always say, have they released the hostages? So where is the giving in from Hamas on even a single front? And Israel has to take in the terrorist attack, themselves be the sufferers, give up the hostages, give up the livelihood, lifestyle, live in terror and bow down to external pressures as well as internal pressures. I think it's really an important number of important points you've made because all the while Hamas is still fighting the IDF and killing them. Every day we hear about additional casualties and deaths among the IDF and that's Hamas shooting them from everywhere they can from every building, every room. They haven't stopped, they haven't surrendered. Finally, furthermore, they've been firing rockets into central Israel and their friends in Hezbollah have been firing rockets into Israel. So, you know, exactly what kind of irony is that? And they still have, as you said, they still have the hostages. They haven't released them and the quote cease fire talks and quote have not gone anywhere because they haven't agreed to it. And so the result is that we are telling Israel what to do even while these things are still happening, even while Hamas is alive and well and making trouble. And so I wanted to ask you these questions. Suppose Chuck Schumer's his demand is met. Suppose Israel goes through an election. And of course, he's saying, I don't want Netanyahu to be reelected, although that's a logical possibility. He's looking for a change, someone else, a regime change. And suppose Israel doesn't go to rough.  Suppose they listen to Schumer. This is kind of what you were talking about. What happens if Schumer prevails? What happens if the Israelis are forced to listen to him and take his advice because he's essentially threatening them with some kind of punishment or lack of support, which he's already incapable of providing? What happens then? What happens to the morale in the Israeli army? What happens to the morale of the people where most of the people in Israel support this war and support Netanyahu's conduct of the war? Whether they like him politically or not? What happens if Israel accepts Schumer's demands? His overt use of language was what was stunning. He talked about Netanyahu losing his way. He's calling for new elections, everything. Now, if we listen to him, the next in line is the war cabinet minister, Benny Gantz. And tell me one thing, anybody in this situation or any leader at the top of Israeli politics, will he think something lesser than what Netanyahu thinks? Each person over there, each individual, each citizen of Israel is fighting, as you always say, for existential points. They're not fighting for luxury. They're not fighting for land. They're fighting to exist. And that any person in the cabinet, any person takes the charge will always think for Israel. Do they want a person who will think below Israel? Do they want somebody who will think below national interest?  Any leader of any country, if he doesn't think about the country first, the country will decline, the country will disintegrate, the people will not be able to have a developing or progressive lifestyle. So any leader who comes, even if it's Benny Gantz or if Netanyahu continues, Shuma has to understand that Israel, each and every citizen of Israel will fight for Israel because the other person is oppressor, oppressor of a terrorist level. It is not somebody of a country who's fighting. They're terrorists who are willing to give up their lives to eliminate it. And giving of arms, America supplies arms to Israel to defend itself. And in this ordeal, America is supplying arms to Israel. But even if nobody supplies anything, I know and think Israel will fight to lead. It's always that. I hope so. But you know, when you say you want to get rid of Netanyahu, you're also saying you want to get rid of his conduct of the war. And you want the Israelis to pick somebody who would not conduct the war the way Netanyahu is conducting the war. And what does that mean? That means conduct the war in a less aggressive way. I don't think I don't really think that's appropriate. And I don't think it would work either. So he's really, you know, all his remarks about regime change is he's trying to change the war policy and the strategies of Israel. Really, that is completely utterly appropriate for one country to tell the other one Western democracy. Arguably, the U.S. is still a democracy for one Western democracy to tell the other. And the other thing is he stands up and says, I am the senior Jewish person in Congress. The implication is that he represents the Jews in this country. He doesn't. He doesn't represent me, I'll tell you. And in fact, he created a huge argument among the various Jewish communities when he made that speech, because many of them don't agree with what he said. Many of them are more like, you know, on the Netanyahu side of the equation. And on the, you know, the existing war strategy side of the equation. Because they have seen all the attempts at peace over the years. And they have seen, you know, the steps necessary to subdue terror groups like Hamas. And giving in is not one of those steps. It's proven by history. And so, I mean, look at how, look at Gaza itself. Israel gave in on that one. And look what happened. War after war after war, attack after attack. Anyway, so Schumer thinks he knows best. He knows best than the Jewish community, the whole Jewish community in this country. That's not true. And I'm really offended by the fact that he would purport to speak for me. He doesn't speak for me. And he doesn't speak for a lot of other people. I don't know why he did that. I don't think he consulted Jewish groups. I don't think he tried to bring them together into some consolidated statement of one kind or the other. He just came out, all by himself one day. And I would like to ask you to examine with me why, what forces were operating on Schumer that he should do that? Did he wake up in the middle of the night and say, oh, my conscience is bothering me about these humanitarian things that are more important than anything else. So I am going to, I mean, throw the state of Israel under the bus. Why exactly did he do this? He has a proponent of the Biden administration when they speak about the red lines. So many Jewish, organized Jewish people, Jewish supporters have said that that's the red line. If America stops support to Israel, that would be the red line to vote for Biden. And then you have something like this, you know, they're talking of support to Israel as such a critical juncture, democratic process has never stopped in Israel. This state of conflict that Israel is in has been in its condition since 1948. Since 1948, since it's born, you know, this has been the state, but they have conducted elections, free and fair elections. They have spoken about the will of the people, everything that a democracy has, except that they have been the ones who have really been struggling to protect their sovereignty. They have been struggling to protect their borders. And when Shuma talks about regime change, it's giving a bad effect not only to Netanyahu, it gives a bad effect to the kind of support that, but like you said, he's not the voice of the entire Jew community from America. How they support Israel is an altogether different issue, totally different. So, you know, one thing is that it all seems to me, and I like your thoughts about it, that this is a kind of an organized campaign to bring Netanyahu down to undermine his leadership in Israel. And the fact is, you know, that he is the duly elected prime minister, and he's the guy. And that was under a democratic, you know, arrangement that's the way it worked. And he's still there because that's the way it worked. And if the democratic process in Israel wants to bring him down, they can bring him down. There's no reason they can. People in Israel know how to express themselves. But what, you know, what I'm thinking is that Joe Biden, for his own political reasons, remember, he's running for office. And there are many people who are very vociferous in this country who don't want him to support Israel. At the same time, he doesn't want to alienate that part of the Jewish community that does want him to support Israel. So he gets proxies to speak for him. This is my theory. He gets proxies to speak for him. So, Tony Blinken goes over and he says, Benjamin, you got to cool it. Kamala Harris goes over and says, Benjamin, you got to cool it. They all go over there and say, Benjamin, you got to cool it. And he himself, Biden, has been over there, and he's said the same thing. You know, you got to step back, make peace. We can't have this humanitarian crisis, and you can't be so aggressive in trying to eliminate Hamas. Okay, doesn't work. Netanyahu is still, you know, aggressive. So he's got to find somebody else. So my theory is that he goes to Schumer. And he says, Schumer, you're Jewish. How about something from you? How about getting up there in front of Congress and telling them how I feel? And you can be the humanitarian of the week. And so now there's another American official who is, you know, contending and criticizing Netanyahu. This has all kinds of implications and we talk about that too. But do you agree? Do you feel the same way? It's only, it's speculative, but it's just funny that you can connect the dots and find all these people who are singing the Biden's song, and all of a sudden, now they include Schumer. They election politics at its peak. So they are trying to doing the lobby. They don't want to isolate the pro-Palestine supporters. They want to show that we are each way. They want to have both the hands in all the places. But I feel politics requires a very clear-cut position that you have to take in realities. If you're leftist, you're leftist. If you're rightist, you're rightist. You can't be left-right. That creates a confusion amongst the people. And see, like we support Biden on so many issues, but we would not support him if he wants to cut aid and stop being an ally of Israel at this critical juncture. So you understand 1,200 people killed on October 7th, and six months you have this number which is inflated coming up. That itself, you know, if a person has reasonable logic. You mean the 30,000, the claim that Hamas has made, the 30,000. Over six months. Over six months. And they have, you know, they compare it to the same thing. Just imagine, you flip the sides and imagine Israel at the receiving end. Would they have had any pity? If Hamas comes back, will they not come with a stronger attack? First they started with apathy, then they started with malnutrition. It's more than Somalia. It's more than everything. They come up, the UNRA was UNRWA was involved in more propaganda and indoctrination than any other organization which was possible. It was under the guidance of the United Nations. Where do we talk about this? Where do we appeal against this? So so many factors which are not in pro-Israel territory. Still Israel is trying to make it possible to, you know, for an amicable solution. Bring back the hostages. Get Hamas to lay down their arms. Do something concrete. You're just on one side. You're trying to just put down Israel. And you have, you know, beacons of democracy, fake pseudo-democracy like Canada who will come and say, you know, that we support a two-state solution and we want to stop arms to Israel. Oh, yeah. That's the other part of this, that he's campaigning. All of these guys that I mentioned are all campaigning for a two-state solution, which many people in Israel and in the U.S. do not believe can ever actually happen. And it's only going to lead to more terrorism. And as I said, it's been, you know, it's been the case at least half a dozen times in the past when Israel has agreed to a two-state solution. But the Arabs and Palestinians have projected it, even under Bill Clinton. And so one thing I want to mention is you mentioned Canada. And Canada announced that because of Schumer's speech, it's not going to support Israel. So what you have, everybody, I think is the beginning of a whole international movement that Schumer has set in motion about countries who might otherwise support Israel are no longer going to do it because they think Schumer is very authoritative and represents, you know, the Jewish people in the United States and also the government somehow, or at least the Senate, which the Democrats still control but can't do anything. So I wonder about Trump. You talk about political. So Trump, whatever Trump does is to unseat Biden. That's what he does from morning till noon till night. So he takes the position that, of course, Biden is wrong because he, well, I don't know why, why is Trump criticizing Biden on this one? Biden is not doing enough. Biden is doing too little. Whatever Biden does, it doesn't do Trump attacks him. Do you have the idea about what Trump would actually do if he were able to get back into the Oval Office? I think we can agree that whatever Biden does, whatever Blinken does, whatever Kamala Harris does, and whatever Schumer does, Trump will attack him, them, all of them, for their policies around Israel. Jay, Trump will come in like an angel. Like he claims he will make good to the world, but like you said, every policy is going to be anti-Biden and in a reverse, Biden's policies, whether it be on immigration, whether it be on economic, everything. And Israel, Jay, Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, has already spoken of it being a waterfront property. So they support Israel in the sense that I feel America as a whole, Republican, Democratic, Red, Blue, always supports Israel. Because Israel has always been a good ally, Jay. It's a reliable ally in the Middle East, which has supported America also technologically. They have defense mechanisms, which we have developed together. There are so many things which are interdependent to so many Jewish people living in America. So many, you know, that's a base in the Middle East for a reliable partner. Yes, there are a lot of factors which make Israel and the U.S. a very strong ally bond. And that bond has to be maintained by every president. That's what I believe, whether it's red or blue. It has to be maintained by every president. And right now, like so many other times in history, Israel is really at a critical juncture. And this time Hamas has thought it out. I feel that it was just a provocation that they did. They knew all these factors that they had played out beforehand. They knew that they had to get into a propaganda war. They knew they had to long-drawn effect. You know, taking hostages, they have just taken out the heart, the vulnerability of Israel. This terror attack was really well thought of. And it's a strategically long-drawn battle that they have brought us into. And Israel is taking it one bit at a time. After they have gone into Gaza, they have achieved the knowledge of fighting the tunnels, you know, seeing the... Oh, I think that's such a good point. If Israel pulls back and doesn't do the strategy as designed, that encourages Hamas. And Hamas will do it again. If they are not eliminated, just looking at the flip side, if they are not eliminated, they're going to use the same playbook again, not only in Gaza but elsewhere. It's going to be a no-solution solution. And that includes the West Bank, but it also includes other places, other countries, because the techniques that they have learned, including, you know, the human shields, including the street fighting, including the hostages, including getting legislators in other countries to speak for them, and animating, activating the kids on the college campuses to riot for them, and activating anti-Semitism for them. This is all going to be, again, this will be played out. And so this war is a dress rehearsal for the next one, as all the wars around Gaza have been. But I want to ask you about the proxy issue and about Iran. I would assume that anything that happens bad to Israel, anything that makes Israel pulled back or worse yet get into a parliamentary crisis over new elections, such as Schumer has called for it. Emboldens Iran, and they say, good, we've got them on the run. Let's do more of that. Let's provide more weapons through the tunnels in Raqqa. Let's keep fighting. Let's hold on to the hostages. Let's keep giving them rockets and missiles to fire into Israel. And indeed, their whole proxy system would be emboldened. Do agree? Absolutely. Draw the parallels. The proxies are very vocal at critical junctures. South Africa coming to the ICJ, Schumer talking in the Senate. All these things weaken the leadership of, or a very unstable election would weaken the leadership. And that would strengthen the access of evil which Iran leads. So this kind of geo-strategic advantage that it would give the enemy and weaken Israel at the same time would cause a very critical support system to the other side, other than Israel. So this is a point which is very, very important that these proxies are supposed to be ignored at its best. Ignored. I mean, really, when you have something like this which just books and does not do any good to further your cause, it has to be just ignored and let go of. Because Israel is very clear in its aim to eliminate Hamas. This two-state solution, J. Gaza and Israel were staying side by side. Gazans were employed in Israel. There was democracy. There was every bit of freedom that was given within Gaza. But still, this attack was planned and innocent civilians were killed from their home. The next attack is going to be deadlier. And they are very sure about it and they keep on saying it. And we cannot discount Hezbollah and the other people around it. And we have doctinated minds which are there. Like I told you, we were talking of release of hostages. They were talking of release of prisoners who were criminals who have offended Israeli territory, people, everything. So there's an imbalance in that. And the proxies speak this. They try to level it. Let me ask you about Putin. Putin was only too happy to see a conflagration in the Middle East because, A, that takes the heat off what he's doing in Ukraine. B, it gives him a chance to be the kind of backroom leader among the troublemakers in the Middle East. He's been doing that for a long time. So recently, he's gone out again for another recruitment. And he made a speech the other day about how he was winning this war. And indeed, he is slowly but steadily taking territory against the Ukrainians who don't have ammunition. This is very problematic. And I think it emboldens Putin clearly, physically. The other aspect is that Putin has troops on the Golden Heights. And I don't know what he's doing, but he's there. And he may be offering some kind of help through the terrorist organizations. Against Israel, on the Golden Heights with troops and tanks and aircraft and what have you. So we can't overlook that. I don't think the press has done enough with that. But here we are. And Putin is likewise affected by what happens in the Middle East, what happens with Israel. And he must be doing a kazasca that's a dance over Schumer's remarks. What do you think? I really write it because somebody is speaking his language. And when America is involved, he never stays back. If it's Middle East politics, he'll jump into Middle East politics. If it's Afghanistan, he'll come into Afghanistan. So it's his fifth term, Jay, and we are in for a ride right now because he's come out stronger than before. And when he has troops in the Golden Heights, remember that he has long-term plans over there. And he wants to be in the midst of things. He doesn't want to be away from international politics. He counts himself as one of the main slayers of international politics, and he wants to be one of the determinants of the way international policies go. Now, Jay, Israel will be isolated by all these nitty-witty countries at every international platform or national platform. Everywhere they will be isolated. And this verbal letdown of the policies is going to be a topic. These proxies give people a talking point against Israel. Now, the focus shifts to elections and democracies being weak in Israel when that's not the case. So these proxies are very important in giving the talking points to the international media. How many articles are being written about elections, elections, Netanyahu being a bad leader, everything comes up in international media and creates pressure so that his whole family has been in the war. He knows Israel politics from the beginning, Jay, when you listen to Netanyahu speak, he speaks about 3,500 years history all the time. They know the value of Israel. You speak to a supporter on the street. He will not know anything what is happening. He will talk to you about yesterday's news or today's news. Do they know the integrities of Israel politics? Do they know the conflict? Do they know what was before? What was before Alaska mosque? They don't know that. They think of Alaska as the third most important Islamic, but they have to understand. I hear you saying that the media has not done a good job in representing the Israeli side of this state. They're going for the humanitarian thing and all the Michigan, the United Nations, South Africa, what have you filed that claim that war crimes claim against Israel? All of this, but they don't really tell you about the Israeli side that you've been talking about here. Do you agree with me that the media really hasn't given us a balanced view of it? And as a result, there's a lot of people, places, and for that matter, public officials who are uninformed. Your thoughts? Yeah, Jay, media has been very, very unfair, emphatically unfair to Israel in this entire conflict. Like you said, at the beginning of the program, the next day, there were people supporting Hamas when they have killed 1200 civilians, Israeli civilians in their homes taken 300 plus hostages. People were supporting on the street. When do you expect the support to not be there for Israel? When these people are so, they have heartfelt hatred, Jay. And that is what makes the determination more strong to get rid of the terrorists, because whatever you do, you cannot please these naysayers. And media is so biased in its reporting. When you see malnutrition and you see civilians being killed, they do not write articles of human shields, tunnels, Hamas using hospitals and civilian places as their access points. They don't tell these points, Jay. They speak just about civilians, civilians. They don't speak about the warnings that Israel gave to people to cross the Rafa border. They don't talk about why Palestinians are not being taken in by Jordan. They don't talk about why other countries are not taking these Palestine immigrants. They have so much of empathy and sympathy for them. They should help them by just blaming Israel. If you cannot keep your own breath in of your own kind, you expect people who are at loggerheads with each other to mend them and take care of them. That is not possible, Jay. So media never reports these things, Jay. Talk about how this would affect the mindset of the terrorists, of Iran, of Putin and Russia. What about in this country? The people who have sensibly put pressure on Schumer, how emboldened are they? The people who support the Palestinians, the people who support Hamas, the people who are anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic. What effect does Schumer's remarks have on them? I'll tell you in one line, they would care less. They would care less about what Schumer said. And they will ignore him the next time he opens his mouth, because when you can't support a person in need, when you can't support your own person in need, Jay, that is when the trust is broken and you leave that person. So exactly Schumer has done this. When at this critical juncture, you needed him, just if you can't support, be quiet. But don't go against. And he talking so overtly about regime change and domestic politics at a time when they are really struggling to fight Hamas. And it's not a Palestine-Israel issue at all. It's a Israel versus Hamas issue. So equating that to domestic politics didn't make any sense. There is no it is absolutely senseless that he talks about domestic politics. If Netanyahu wants to skip an election because they are in an emergency situation, what would he say about that? They are at war. They would delay the elections. Doesn't mean that they have less of a democracy. That is not important at this time. Yeah. We're talking about war. If the United States was at war, maybe we'd understand it better, but we haven't had a war that affected our national politics very much. Okay. Anyway, thank you very much, Rubani. That's a very interesting discussion. You've made some incredible points and very important points. And my reaction is we're not out of this yet. Schumer has not finished making his remarks. They will probably be other, may I say, proxies for the Biden effort to require the Israelis to back off. And we'll hear more about it. So you and I should plan to discuss this further as it evolves. Thank you so much, Rubani Kandekar. Aloha. If you liked this show, why don't you give us a like or subscribe to our channel? Thanks so much.


Guten Tag, ich darf Sie ganz... CCCC, Patricia Espinosa, Janusz Wojcikowski, Kommissionär der Europäischen Kommission for Agriculture and Rural Development, und willkommen zu all of you, as well who are with us today virtually two things in advance. This press conference is being translated into English and German. You can choose the language you would like to listen to via Zoom, and we will listen to our speakers today in the order that I just mentioned, and then we'll have time for questions. Minister, thank you Mr. Powell, welcome Mr. Jü, welcome Mrs. Espinosa, and welcome Mr. Wojcikowski, ladies and gentlemen who are joining us online. Thank you, thank you for your interest in this press conference. The Global Forum for Food and Agriculture is indeed a unique forum. It has become more clearly than ever before this year, especially in times of global pandemics. It is important that we stay in touch. Many events were cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and it is key that we don't lose sight of each other. The world came together for this forum to help each other. Food security was one topic. We also addressed questions of food security in times of pandemics and climate change. We all do that at the national level with national measures, but we also must close ranks internationally. That is why I am all the more delighted that many of my colleagues followed our invitation. We actually reached a record number of more than 80 agricultural ministers from all over the world. 90 countries were represented, 13 international bodies at the highest level joined us. There clearly shows this is a very topical issue, the topic of this year's GFFA, which was how to feed the world in times of pandemics and climate change. It clearly shows one thing, it is of utmost importance that we find solutions because the Covid-19 pandemic has clearly showed to us that all of our health is quite vulnerable and also that resilient food systems and strong supply chains are key. Let me just mention one quite drastic example to illustrate this. In 40 countries, the reality is as follows, these countries do not have sufficient agricultural land to even feed their own population, their own people and they are forced to import products. And Covid-19 is of course adding to this struggle against hunger. Let me give you some specific figures that also show how severe the situation is. According to international estimates, the number of people suffering from hunger could grow by another 130 million people or has already risen to that. So on top of these 690 million people who already didn't have enough food on their plates before the pandemic, so we discussed solutions because this is a dramatic issue and indescribable suffering. We can't just sit idly by, we can't wait for another pandemic to come around No, we talked about how we can actively fight the impacts of the pandemic, how we can prepare better for the future. We also need to assess the root causes of such pandemics. It is a clear signal of strong unity that we agreed on a common communique together. This communique is probably available to you and will be made available to you. And it is rich in its contents, the negotiations were very long and of course the wording was discussed. Let me just mention three key aspects that I consider relevant. First of all, a clear demand. We need open markets, we need access to food and we need stable supply chains. Locally and internationally. Borders were closed and travel restrictions were issued, especially in Africa and Asia. Many people lost their jobs due to that and of course also their income. This exacerbates hunger. Funktioning supply chains are a prerequisite for food on the plates of the people and also for stable and affordable prices. Just take a look at a family. Maybe small children, babies, adolescents, we all are aware nutrition and food and good as well as balanced and appropriate nutrition is key in this stage of their life for their further development. If that is not guaranteed, then well the situation may easily turn quite dramatic. So yes, supply chains on the local level are key. We often don't have the necessary infrastructure in terms of transport and storage. So half of the foodstuffs is lost along the production chain in many regions of the world and on the other hand, we are wasting a lot of food. The impact is dramatic. Some people are starving and others are throwing away food. A second aspect. In terms of agriculture, we need to reconcile climate change stewardship and food security. We need to enable farmers to act. We need to feel that in all of our statements. That is why it is a pleasure and honour that the Secretary General of the United Nations spoke to us, Mr. Guterres. All the young farmers who joined us, they issued their own statement, a common statement of international young farmers and handed us to us. We need sustainable agriculture as a key to feeding the world and to fight climate change, especially because agriculture is often a victim of climate change but can also help to mitigating climate change. Of course this means responsibility. Agriculture needs to be enabled to face up to climate change, to withstand it. Agriculture needs to be able to live up to the expectations and requirements that are easily put out there. On its own, agriculture will not be able to fight climate change. How do we make this a success? We address this as well. We need climate resilient and locally adapted crops. We need to use and develop them. We also need to make sure that we do not cut down forests any longer. A forestation is important and climate adaptant forestry. We need to cut down on fertilisers and crop protection agents. We need to use technology. We need to seize the opportunity of soil to bind carbon. Strengthen their role as a carbon sink. Now let me come to the last aspect. One health. The one health approach needs to be strengthened to reduce the risk of zoonoses. One health. What does that imply? It implies that we don't distinguish between health protection in terms of animals, humans or the environment. We need a comprehensive approach. Zoonoses have been mentioned. Covid-19 is not the first virus that was transmitted from animals to humans. 70% of all pathogens of infectious diseases over the last 30 years in humans have been of animal origin. Animal health is therefore critical for animals themselves but also for human health and humans. In Covid-19 we currently believe that this close contact between wildlife and humans has led to the transmission. There are other examples of zoonoses, rabies or Ebola. These diseases cost many millions, thousands of people their lives. Animal health is a prerequisite for human health. In order to prevent future pandemics and to analyze root causes, we want to have functioning early warning systems to implement them and also to have better health management for wildlife. That's what we agreed upon. So, let me conclude by saying where we are heading. This question will probably come from you as the journalists. The communique will also be one of our contributions to the UN Food Systems Summit this year. In September 2021. I handed it over to the Special Envoy to the UN Food Systems Summit, Dr. Agnes Kali-Bata, as well as the Secretary General of OIE, Dr. Monique Élois, as well as the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, Patricia Espinosa. Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Dr. G, you have the floor. First of all, I would like to congratulate to my friend, the junior minister, the clock man. You know, you are doing right things at the right time. You know, when you started the initiative that the collaboration between the UN and the Germany Minister of Agriculture and Food, we designed this year's theme and it's come to the three categories you present. I think that time it was September or October, so it's still is not like now. So since early this year, I participated in the One House approach summit, one planning summit, and now come my third, it's G-FAFA. So G-FAFA, you know, it's a long history impact kickoff meeting every year of the new year. So I really sincerely congratulate you on your efforts. Especially during this pandemic, people, if you are accountable, responsible, you needed to do something and for the people, for the global. That's, I think, the FAO always stand in line with you, with Germany government. Last time I saluted to the Chancellor Merkel also for her leadership and together with President Macron and FAO and also WHO. Und so far, we, myself put a lot of efforts on the One House approach. We started global leadership on the AMR and One House. That was already had the first meeting in early November last year. So we will have more and high level meetings to get the One House approach. It should be understandable and build more consensus this planet. Second, as F.A.O., we have to specify how to transform agro-food systems. You know, during the pandemic, luckily, we have prevent the food crisis so far due to the international agro-trade is functioning quite well. Even if we face the big challenge. And also the some lot of disruption of the trade and the supply chance and the transportation and even labor forces in Europe and some other parts of the world also. But I'm happy to see that due to all the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the farmers, producers, dealers, at least we didn't see that big disaster for the human being. But at the same time, we saw the fragility of agro-food systems from the environment to the production, to the processing, to the marketing channel, as well as also most variables are affected by severe, you see. That's why we want to build the international consensus to have the variable first. So agro-food transformation should be feed to the different members, because different members have a different agro-food system. And we want to keep the international trade functional, effective first, and then we encourage local producers more. And then, of course, we encourage to produce more and better, and also with less impact, less input and others. The solution, if we are encouraging, is to have more innovation. That's also last time I enjoyed the meeting with Bayer Economy Summit with Minister Julian, because I think also Germany government also one of the key players on that area. We need the more high technology for agricultural seeds, chemicals, fertilizers, vaccines, annual vaccines and other inputs. So the solution for agro-food transformation to build also one health approach to prevent another pandemic. We need innovation, innovation policy, innovation on the technology, innovation on the business model. That's why I salute also organize of the SG55 to put this on the stage. And in combined with one approach, one health approach as a holistic design. And the last and not least, FAO, we're willing to encourage all the members to have a more political engagement, because agricultural and food is fundamental, and the food is the basic human rights. As the US Secretary General just mentioned this afternoon, I always said that also publicly, without food, without the basic rights as a human being, because we are now in the modern civilization. We should have all the tools to end the hangar, unless we have a strong political willingness. And the more investment in agriculture in the rural areas, I said also we need also the international cooperation, because the development nation can offer more, and also the development nation can learn more. And also at the same time we can also south-south cooperation, developing countries, learning from different countries. So that's why the FAO we encourage triangle cooperation. I expect all the members, especially from Germany government, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Economy and others, have strength in collaboration through FAO. That's why I come to the handy-handy initiative, because we want to bring the matchmaking relationship between FAO and the members, from the daughter members to the recipient members. And also, as you pointed out also, egg hatchery is suffering from the industrial revolution during the past 200 years. And also, if we manage it very well properly, egg hatchery will be buffer for the society and the environment improvement. And the last, not the least, I think, finally, egg hatchery systems will become play the role in the contributor. So from the suffering to the buffer, and finally will be the last contributor. And to keep the inclusive sustainable green development. And that is real and go, and we can end the hunger, left no one behind. And also we can offer them high nutritional food, das. For the people who wish to. And egg hatchery food transformation is not a one-day-one-year job. We need the persistent and close cooperation globally, holistically, and also collectively. I thank you of the chance again for the FAO to cooperation. And we committed to stress and cooperation with you and with other partners, multi-led partners, bi-led partners, and the civil societies. So I want to be at the FAO to be accountable and innovative organization, dynamic for the better world. Over to you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Director General. Und with this, I would like to hand over to Ms. Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC. Thank you. Thank you very much, Minister Klöckner. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for organizing this very important event. It has been really amazing to see the dedication of all the ministers. I'm very, very happy to receive the communicate and to know the dedication by all your colleagues, the agriculture ministers from all around the world that we're meeting today virtually to act on hunger, on climate change, on food production, forestry, and so many other vital issues. I would like to just make a few comments about why all of this is so important in 2021. Last week, the European Union's Climate Change Service reported that 2020 tied 2016 as the world's warmest year on record. And the UNEP emissions gap report tells us that based on current pledges under the Paris Agreement, the world is headed for a three-degree rise in temperature. This is a far cry from Paris's 1.5-goal. That's why we must work with renewed efforts to complete all outstanding work under the Paris Agreement, implement it as soon as possible, and significantly boost climate ambition under it. So while drastically reducing fossil fuel emissions is crucial to addressing climate change and enabling agricultural activities in the future, there is no debate that the agriculture sector can also contribute to emissions reductions. And it was really hardening to see the commitment by ministers to contribute in this regard. The IPCC notes that roughly a quarter of man-made greenhouse gas emissions come from land use, especially from deforestation and agriculture. In order to reduce these emissions without jeopardizing global food supplies, as you have very clearly explained, we must find climate-friendly and economically viable solutions for food production systems around the globe. It's clear that we cannot achieve success on collective climate action and food security unless the collective agriculture sector takes more significant and detailed action. And so this is why I welcome the positive signal that this meeting and this communiqué sends for COP26. Specially the leadership by agriculture ministers regarding the need to take climate action while providing the world's population with adequate and sustainably produced food. It's very reassuring that agriculture is approached comprehensively, including climate action on adaptation and mitigation, and also having at the center the importance of food security and sustainability. We also note the support for the coronavirus joint work on agriculture explicitly mentioned and look forward to working together on this matter towards COP26. I'm also pleased that Red Plus and the reduction of deforestation is included as a very important area in the communiqué. What we have seen from ministers today is exactly the kind of progress and momentum we need to see in 2021 and as we look towards the incredibly important milestone event of COP26 in November. The agenda ahead is significant, but as this communiqué indicates, we are moving in the right direction. And I thank you all for your hard work. Over to you, Minister. Herzlichen Dank. Thank you very much. And now I would like to give the floor to Mr. Commissioner Wojcikowski. Sorry for technical problems. Thank you very much for giving me floor. First of all, I'd like to thank and to congratulate the German Agricultural Minister Julia Kleckner for organizing and hosting this highly successful forum. It has been a pleasure to be part of this debate. I'm pleased to express my full support to the communiqué drafted by the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture. The text of the communiqué covers a broad range of issues that are central in the European Union's international engagement. Today we have made a commitment to concrete action to safeguard global food security in the face of the ongoing COVID pandemic. In that context, we have reaffirmed our commitment to the pressing matter of sustainability and sustainable development goals. We have recommitted ourselves to promoting healthy and sustainable diets, animal welfare and confronting the causes and the effects of climate change with a particular emphasis on the need for adaptation. Innovation, development, cooperation and rules based international trade are some of the important tools for addressing these pressing challenges. We do so in anticipation of the upcoming United Nations Food System Summit. This has demonstrated that the ministers and representatives gathered here, share most of our vision and objectives and our affirmations today reflect the spirit of the European's key policy initiatives such as the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy. Global and regional organisations are setting ambitious targets such as the sustainable development goals to be achieved by 2030 and the European's Green Deal objectives to become the first carbon neutral continent by 2050. These inspiring aims simply cannot be achieved without the contribution of agriculture and the equation. Much important work reminds to be done in the near future in a spirit of good will and cooperation. I'm therefore already looking forward to attending the next Global Forum. Hopefully live in Berlin next year. Thank you very much. Vielen Dank. Thank you. We would now like to start with our rounds of questions and answers. Please state your name and the organisation you're working for. Mr. Cockerrolls, please. I have the opportunity to ask some questions here, which I will now do in German. She has a Konstantin Cockerrolls. My name is Konstantin Cockerrolls. I work for Top Agrar. One moment, there is an issue with my channel here. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? All right, perfect. One question to Federal Minister Klöckner and Commissioner Wojcikowski. This morning in one of the GFFA panels, the quite restrictive policy in Europe as regards new breeding techniques was criticised, that also has an impact on developing countries. So they are not able to implement these policies. The Director General showed that he's demanded quite an openness to new technologies. And I just wanted to ask whether you can reciprocate that. Thank you very much for your question. Well, I would like to speak on behalf of the ministry and express my personal view. This is, of course, not news. The Social Democrats, for example, our of a different opinion, for example. But if we want to change something and not simply describe problems, we have to turn to new breeding techniques because we want to reduce the use of pesticides. We want to have resilient plans, plans that are resilient to pests and also to emerging pests due to climate change. We want to have resilient plans that are resilient to climate and weather events. We want to ensure that people don't go hungry and we want to be resource friendly. And if we take all into this into account, but simply state what the problem is and state, well, we reject new breeding techniques, this does not contribute to a solution. New breeding techniques such as CRISPR-Cas are not a silver bullet, of course, but rejecting them right from the start and rejecting research on these technologies and deliberating on how to make them accessible and available to those regions suffering from these extreme weather events. This is quite cynical, to be frank, especially in our situation, while we are quite comfortable with our food situation. And this morning we talked about the continent of Africa. On average, because of climate change, has a decrease in yields of on average 17 percent. So my opinion is it is not enough to simply talk about the problems we have to think about how to be able to use different measures to help those people. Commissioner, you have the floor. Commissioner, you are still muted. We cannot hear you. Thank you for your question. Also, there was a problem during the beginning of your question, and I'm not sure that I understood exactly, but generally in the common agricultural policy reform and the green architecture in this reform, we need to take into account from one side our environmental climate challenges and to make our agriculture more friendly for environment from one side from other side. We also should take into account the food security, and this is the reason that we need to use different tools, different instruments in the process of reform of our agriculture. But also taking into account the new breeding technologies innovative technologies like precision agriculture, for example. And from other side, I think that many positive results we will achieve first of all reducing the distance from farm to farm. We also discussed during this forum how important issue is this. It was also one of priorities for the German presidency, which was finished in the end of the year. Orientation to the local market, production for the local market, more connection between the farmers and the local food producers and local market. This is the chance that our common agriculture policy will be more free and before the environment for the climate, reducing, for example, transport costs and more economically friendly for the farmers. I'm sure that this is the best way for the strengthening of our agriculture to make them more competitive. And this is the main instrument. But we should take into account all possible instruments and the commission is open. And finally we are expecting positive results for the environment, for the climate, for the animal welfare, which is also important, very important in our reform and also for the farmers. Thank you. Vielen Dank. Thank you. If there are any further questions, please raise your hand virtually or use the chat function to signal to us that you want to ask a question. Noch kurz. We'll wait for a couple of seconds. I currently don't see any other questions. So let me now thank everyone who has joined us in their interest in joining us for this press conference. We look forward to seeing you face-to-face next year again for the GFFA 2021 here in Berlin. Thank you and goodbye. Thank you very much. Bye-bye. Innovation.


There's definitely a lot of confusion on the market. And it's one of the main driver for this investigation, this research on what constitutes open source AI. Hi, this is Johan Sapin Bhartia. And we are here at Open Source Summit in Bilbao. And today we have with us once again, Stefano Moffili, Executive Director of Open Source Initiative. Stefano, it's great to have you on the show. Wonderful. Thank you for inviting me. And this topic is also very interesting because it's about one of the hottest technologies on our topics these days, which is AI, Genetic AI, all those things. And when we start, like, of course, AI ML has been around for a very long time. But recently, it has been getting a lot of buzz because of the whole Genetic AI, chat GPT, and all those things. Not forceful in a while. And Musk also tweets about it. What is interesting is the relationship between AI and Open Source. Because AI is not just a lamp stack, just for components. It's much more complicated models are there, of course, technology. So I would understand from you, from Open Source community, and because you represent OSI as well, how do you folks look at AI? You really touched the most important points. And my experience was exactly that, looking at the generative AI co-pilot when it first was released and tools like that. I was like, wait a second. I mean, this changes everything. AI has been around for a long time. And for the first time, I was seeing the crisis that these new systems introduce into the Open Source definition. I checked the Open Source definition. Again, I went to look at it. I was like, wait a second. What is the source code, which is number two in the Open Source definition? What is the source code of co-pilot in this case? Or similarly, like, chat GPT. What do you consider the source code? So I started diving a little bit deeper and noticed how different the whole stock, or if you want the whole set of components that go into an AI system, completely different story from what goes into an operating system. And we need new frameworks. That's what I realized. We really need to start from scratch with a fresh mind. Thinking about the principles, still can be applied, the principles of Open Source and freedom can still be applied to AI systems. And I think we should be really making an effort to recreate the freedom, the freedom sets that have enabled fast evolution and innovation inside computer science. We need to have the same sort of safeguards and values reflected in AI. And that brings me to a not entirely different but related topic, because when you're talking about, you have to rethink when we look at Open Source licenses and AI, because if you look at the very basic definition, it can go all the way to OSI or FSF, when they came up with the 4 and U4, came up with 10. The basic idea is that there is source code and you are supposed, of course, when you make changes, when you distribute that code, I want to see the changes. Like Linus says that, I don't really care about what you do, but if you're making any changes, I would love to see the changes because it may improve my code base. Everything else is secondary. Sometimes just being able to see the code is not enough, I should be able to modify it. Which as I said, this may be not related because one of the questions that we are going to ask today or discuss was also the whole, we are seeing a lot of movement happening where companies are changing their license. It could be because venture capitalists are pushing, sometimes they say, hey, cloud vendors are pushing us. If you look at cloud, cloud does not redistribute any code. So when you're not redistributing, then you're not compelled to release the source code and then you can package everything in the service. So the folks who are actually creating the software and the cloud vendors are leveraging them, but they are not because the software does not ask them to do that. So when you brought this point because I think last time also we touched upon, do we need to come up with a new definition because the market has, when you folks wrote these, cloud was not there. We didn't even know these things. So I do want to talk about, since you did bring it up, so I'm putting you in a spot to talk about these two topics which are not related, but related. They are related. And if you want, there is a little bit of a continuum, at least in my mind, like 40 years ago, and we celebrate this week, 40 years of the GNU project. The GNU project started 40 years ago. They came built with after the GNU manifesto and after the practice of sharing code and sharing modifications and having those set of freedoms embedded in licenses also, in copyright licenses. They were set 40 years ago. 40 years ago, a computer was a completely different system than what we have today. And the open source definition came out 25 years ago, so 15 years after the GNU system. In these years, in the past 25 years, like you were saying, software consumption, distribution and execution, these concepts have changed. And they're changing even more radically now. So they're changing slightly with the introduction of cloud consumption or mobile consumption, because that's another place where I was giving this example before to another person. You have a phone that is napping a picture and the picture is being fixed on your phone after it's been uploaded to a remote service that does some analysis on it and sent back to your phone. Now, if you wanted to have the source code of that system, what that would look like? How would you modify? How would you rerun it on your own premises? We haven't asked those questions, but those are fairly, still fairly easy to answer. I'm not gonna say it's gonna be easy as PISOK, but it's still working in the same realm and in the same legal frameworks that define, that are fit for the open source definition. When we start thinking instead about the cloud systems, the, sorry, when we start thinking about the AI systems, we are in a completely different game. It's a completely different story. The open source definition really is thought and designed to work in the copyright law, which is a very fairly uniform, it's a very fairly common law that looks similar across the world. When we look at the AI systems, we start seeing the dependencies of data. Data is covered by different laws. There is copyright, yes, but there is also privacy law. There are labor laws that go around the data work. There is, it's a more complicated world. Once there is even contract law, terms of services, so many different pieces that make the whole scenario completely different. Looking at this discussion, and of course you also had a bunch of feather here, what kind of discussion are you hearing not only from the OSI community, open source, larger community, but also the larger vendor ecosystem or the user's ecosystem? There is a lot of confusion. There is a lot of hidden agendas, and there is a lot of fear in general on the market. Fear that is also being reflected by the rush to deliver legislation and regulation around a generative AI and systems. The birds of a feather, the conversations I've had this week have been very deeply focused on one of the crucial issues, the crucial questions that we have to ask ourselves. What are we gonna do? So the crucial question is what kind of dependency is there between the original training dataset that went into an AI system? Are we going to be considering the equivalent of source code, that original dataset for the model, the weights that have been trained, or can we be a little bit more relaxed and think of the model itself as the preferred form to make modifications to an AI system, the model and the weights? This is a big issue. It's not very clear what we can do because it really intersects the technical limitations that are still today existing in the space. Like there is no easy way, for example, if a model has been trained that contains private information, there is no easy way to remove the private information from the model itself without retraining the whole system, which brings us to the cost of training the systems. So is that hospitable? Like do we really want to force this running again megawatts? We're talking megawatts just to train something like Chai GPT, or do we want to have other technical solutions in place? Policies, what should they be? The complexity of the conversation is really daunting. But good progress, we're making good progress on the principles. What are the basic principles that we want to see reflected in an open source definition for AI? And the principles seem to be quite straight going into basically re-reading the GNU Manifesto by putting on the lens of AI. And we want to be able to reinforce those principles and it looks like there isn't much of a, you know, divergence of opinion on the front. The principles of the GNU Manifesto are still quite valid there. The fact that as a developers, for developers and for society, we want to have self-sovereignty over data and code. We want to be able to innovate without fear of retribution or without fear of having to ask for permissions at every single step. Now that said, the implementation phase is what's gonna be a little bit more challenging because especially on the data front, because as a community of open source developers, we haven't really thought about data much. We haven't paid attention because it's not, it was, there was, until yesterday, there was a very clear separation between the code you wrote and the compiler you used, what license it had, or the IDE, the developer environment that you were using, what it could be proprietary developer environment and compiler, and you would write open source code. Advice versus you use an open source compiler to write proprietary code. We know where copyright starts and ends. With data, we start to get a little bit more confused. One more thing that is happening with JADGPD is it needs access to the widely available data in itself. And now a lot of companies have started blocking JADGPD APIs from accessing that data but the fear is same, you know, you're pulling on, and you're talking about the GNU manifesto, when I used to talk to Richard Stallman also, their focus more on the users, the rights of users, the right of protection of users. When we look at the open AI, sorry, when we look at AI, especially I'm not talking about the legacy AI, and now we can use the word legacy also for AI, we're talking about AI, who is the user here? And how do we protect the rights of the user? Well, the user I think is the same user that Richard had in mind. I mean, I had many conversations with him too, and he always thought of a user as the, anyone who's sitting in front of a computer, whether they had the technical skills or the knowledge to program, or reprogram a system on their own, or because, or not, they still had the freedom to exercise by hiring a programmer if they were not a programmer. I'm thinking the same thing with the AI systems, we need to be able to have the person at the very end of the spectrum, or lifting a phone and asking a question. They, I think that we would want to have the complete control and self-sovereignty for that person to say, I don't like the answers that I'm getting, I need to be able to tell someone how to ask someone to modify the system so that it fits my purpose. The very basic things that we were doing when Linux started to appear on the horizon commercially was to go to policymakers, to go to politicians who were writing tenders for procurement, for public procurement of new software, new systems, and we were saying, you need to be able to change your procurement laws so that software can be deployed that comes with the freedoms, because citizens, by interacting with public administrations, they need to be able to say, give me the source code, I wanna see why that form that I submitted has been denied, or I wanna make sure that the information that I have submitted is being treated carefully, so this transparency and this control distributed to the society. With open source software, in the classic sense, we get one step closer to having control as a society. With totally opaque and obscure software, we don't. With AI, we have absolutely no control for a variety of reasons, including technical, I don't wanna say it's only the availability of source code or whatever the equivalent of source code is, but we still need to be moving towards that so that society as a whole has the possibility to control its digital information and digital interactions. Only difference that I see here, or the paradox that I see with the AI, when we look at the traditional open source, when it was Ganuji, the users is purely a user. When I sit in front of a computer to open an office document, whether it's LibreOffice or whichever it is, I'm simply a consumer. In the case of AI, if you can also take automotive cars, I'm actually, when I drive the car, the cameras, they collect data from my driving. When, as a journalist, most of the people who do consume are also the one who are creating content, so here the chemistry is a bit different. The user is also the one who is contributing, feeding the data, because without the data, AI will have no knowledge there. So that's where I see that it's a bit more complicated because we are not looking at pure users. So who is going to, what control I have over the data that I'm getting is used? I mean, it is complicated, but what I would like to say in a highlight, this is not a problem of open source though. Like I think that the, where I'm positioning and I'm thinking about the open source initiative, this work that we're doing to understand open source AI has, is going to have is, as a side effect, a more knowledge for the community to influence policies. I think our work and our job, in this case specifically, is to influence policies that tell that the society needs to have access to that data. In other words, I think that we should be carefully thinking about making it illegal. Some terms of service that deprive the collectivity from having access to data that is been generated by the collective society collectively. Like it's not the job of the open source movement to talk about, to say, to write licenses and to influence. I think that we're going to the place where by signing terms of services, like in the car case, or even the Facebook or Instagram social media or Reddit even that says, yeah, come to my community, come to my website, contribute your knowledge for free. So write your blog or things like that. And then I'm going to be exclusively capable of signing a deal to resell that information, that knowledge that you have created for free to a third party. I think we need to think carefully about who we vote for and get the policies made so that they defend collective creations instead of make it proprietary and give it to a hundred to someone else. I do see that when it comes to AI, there are a lot of folks who do talk about legislation who do talk about a lot of regulation, but their motives doesn't seem to be pure in a case. So they seem like there are a lot of hidden agendas, how to also ensure that they're not bad actors who are doing a lot of things, either to a civil competition to get a dominance there. How much is that concern to you? Oh, no, it's a big concern of mine. Frankly, the work that we are doing with finding this definition of open source AI is highlighting for me exactly that the existence of dark forces, and I'm not even sure where they are, where they're sitting. They're so dark at this stage. The one thing that I noticed is, for example, there is a strange convergence of people who like content creators, for example, who have absolutely every right to be upset about the privatization of their content. The material that has been written by people who have released the software under the GPL thinking or in hoping that it would be staying under the same conditions to start with, but also artists, comic designers, who even personal, I mean individuals like me, I have uploaded my pictures on Flickr and put the Creative Commons license on it. I never thought about the fact that at the time when I did it, that I would be feeding into a machine that is now capable of recognizing me when I go shopping because I train them to recognize my face even over time. If you think about it like changing when I was in my 20s and now, right? So that kind of information being in the hands of private institutions is really dangerous and bad and I get them for being upset. But I also see the contrary effect, like the push to reinforce, to increase the reach of copyright to say, you cannot use my blog posts, you cannot use my pictures, you cannot use my content in general because without asking me for permission, that in my mind leads to a very nasty side effect. The side effect that I see is that only large corporations like Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, or large governments or bad actors are gonna be able to either enter into commercial agreements with the larger aggregators of content, think Reddit or Getty Images. And they will be the only one who are able to create, to assemble large datasets and therefore train large language models or other of these large models that require a lot of data because they have the power to do so. And smaller groups like Luther AI or Lyon, they will not be able to do it or they will be sued out of existence also because they paradoxically, they disclose all of their sources. They go above and beyond trying to publish scientific papers and publish the source code of the data that they have, I mean, the tool that they have used to assemble the data, they try to disclose where the provenance. And by doing so, they expose themselves to take down requests, for example, which are starting to appear and lawsuits that are very easy to do. On the other hand, the spectrum, OpenAI, the company and others by not revealing their sources, they are protected. They can go, they will be sued and they are being sued, right? But now it's getting images who needs to prove that their data, their pictures have been used to train stable diffusion, for example. And it's, you know, they may not succeed and still, and they need to make also an investment. When it comes to AI, you know, there are, just the way in the political terms in the US, we use the word rhino and tino, republicans in name only or democrats in name only. In the open source word, we can also start using ozino, open source name only. Very good examples, lama too, you know? It was said that, but it's not open source. So what are your thoughts about things like that? We are a whitewashing open source or say, call it propriety, it should be okay. How much concern once again do you have about that and what is your thoughts on it? There's definitely a lot of confusion on the market and it's one of the main driver for this investigation, is this research on what constitutes open source AI. Lama too is not open source. Like the license itself, you can read it and then it has at least a couple of points where it doesn't make any sense. That said, I can see a lot of the scare tactics being used on, becoming popular on the market and these scare tactics probably force the hands of these large proponents or developers of AI systems. In fact, there is a very, very, very surprising at the very beginning, especially for me, surprising awareness from the AI developers about the impact of the software or the systems that they're developing. They seem to be quite afraid of the capabilities and they preemptively try to write licensing documents and agreements that contain like, hey, I'm releasing this, I need to do it because I'm a scientist, I need to publish my knowledge and research that I'm doing. At the same time, I'm aware that this thing put me into dangerous positions, like maybe this gets out of control and provokes, I don't know, a massive spam campaign or something like that. So I'm gonna put some disclaimers here and there as much as possible. The other awareness that I noticed, your Uber awareness, if you want, is of energy consumption and other issues that go into AI, these large AI systems that didn't go before. So developers seem to be more aware, it may also be a generational thing that the old neckbeards from the 70s had less concerns about the impact of the work that they were doing. One really thought about the risks of putting their software into missiles and cannons. But today's generation seems to be more aware and attentive. The problem with all of this goes back into the principles that we wanna see. The golden rule of the Gumball infesto is that if I like a program, I wanna make sure that I can share it with others who may like it. And I think that that very simple rule has enabled the tremendous progress that computer science has had. Because if you think about it, computer science and open source free software have evolved at the same together. Since the early days in the 70s when late 70s when the open source free software definition came out, that was also the beginning of the software industry. And the progress is really difficult to untangle. Now today, software that is open source that is distributed with freedoms is everywhere. If we wanna do, and I'm quite sure that it's not the progress of the scientific discipline, computer science has been enabled by the four freedoms. It could have not. It's not a casual correlation. It's a causation effect. I'm quite sure of that. Of course, one can disprove me. If we wanna make the same sort of progress, fast progress, we must try to have something written down, an agreement of what makes me, what do I need in order to share an AI system if I like it. Stefano, thank you so much for taking time out today and talk about this really, not only kind of, it is complicated but also critical topic today. It is still a lot of work in progress and we hope that, as you said, we do have to redefine what open source means in the context of AI. So I would love to chat with you again as we move some progress in this space but I really, really appreciate your time brother. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll be at all things open to really start writing down the very first draft of the open source definition for AI and hope that we can continue talking about it for next year too.


really suck at coming up with titles for talks but this was the only way I could do it so it's a kind of a mixture that we have of of the manager that necks developers it says are we done yet where are we are we there did we get there it's kind of like my kids in the backseat of a long journey right you five minutes out of home and so how much longer do we have you know that's the first thing that came along and at another level it was also a case of me just reflecting upon many years of working with teams my own teams and with other companies teams and being involved in this agile community for for quite a while and we come through these conferences over and over and there's a lot of repetition and I think the repetition is valuable it's a necessary repetition to start off with because there's always new people walking through the building so we need to hear that and maybe sometimes we need to repeat it so that we can actually start believing it as well but in all this time did we achieve this magical nirvana of software development that we seem to be aiming for okay so there's this mixture of something that's quite literal and something that's quite philosophical it's a kind of topic that I could actually do zero preparation for and ask all of you together at these round tables and I'll say here's a topic please discuss it in your groups and then report back and then we'll pick one or two things and say okay how about discussing that a little bit more detail and you know and then I do nothing you know I'll just facilitate it and you'd do everything so it's not that I have some evangelism and gospel to reveal unto you today okay I'm going to put down some ideas and things that I've tried in practice that seemed to have worked for me your mileage may vary you might walk out of here thinking well that's an absolute load of or bucket of whatever or you might pick up something and try it so I'm gonna try to speak for less than an hour I want to have a kind of a discussion from you okay so before I go on just a show of hands whoops I still got my pencil in my ear show of hands who's who's on the manager side of the world and who's managers first people who manage teams regardless okay I know it's a management track but I mean anyone here who has that like an architecture or lead developer role or basically got hands on keyboard writing code lying to managers about how far we are anyone with the dual role okay okay you're really conflicted right just like me okay so


Hello, I'm here.  Can you tell me where class one is? Wait my guy, this way, this way, this way. Thank you. I need to get there fast. I'm late Why are you taking you the wrong way, bro? Leave me alone. Why are you attacking me? Why are you that insecure in yourself? Leave me alone. Excuse me. I'm late. I got it Thank you. It's so easy when you have such a reliable guide and the boldness to skip the line I am so brave. That is why I am Gryffindor Oh my god, can I just say I am a huge fan.    There's no going back.  I'm going teaching my first class. Oh, yes This is the classroom guys. Come on. I'm all about freedom here. I don't want you sitting up left and right I want you down here. Everyone mingling. This is Charm's class get charming first I'm gonna see how good you guys are you're gonna have to try and charm me charm your teacher You don't need spells the only spell you need is charisma. Damn. Look at him dance. Oh my god This is great my first day on the job and all the students are hitting on me. Oh, hey big boy You want to learn about charming? All right class. I'm gonna level with you here This is my first day and you probably know more spells than me I'm not very magical and I'm not really sure what I'm doing here Oh you guys are the best honestly, okay, this isn't charming. This is just sexual assault get off of me All right, I am literally stuck here. I'm feeling so charmed right now like this charm. Yeah, I'm charmed I'm swept off my feet here, but I'm literally stuck. Do you need help buddy? Don't call me buddy That's really demeaning the only spell I want is you you are good at charms 50 points to Hagrid Cuz I caught you in my hot beard what all right guys I assume you learned a lot today class dismissed.  That's not how you charm. Give me spell dude. It's your soulless eyes. You're terrifying You're not getting one you haven't been charming. Oh my god. I hate being a teacher I Did it one spell now, please read the book and pass it along You had enough spells I taught you about life you learned a lot All right, you obviously missed the start of the lesson where I teach you to be charming Were you not paying attention I just taught you how to be charming does the guy with a sword over there You should probably try and charm him like me. All right. It's on you're gonna fight Billy Willie He's my champion. No, no, no, no. He's a pinata now. Why is that detective Hagrid in this cave? Detective Hagrid, please solve this mystery Why is Hagrid so sweary it's detective Hagrid look who it is. I think he's about to solve this mystery What is the mystery? I don't know. I think someone's been kidnapped. Wait a second. Are you the kidnapper Hagrid?  This is a twist detective. What do you think?  I've got a power belly mate You know a power belly is not really and I don't think I want to know drown horrible death in this river right here I'm gonna like put your head down. You're gonna drown. It's gonna be pretty horrible You can lick my power belly I think I'll go with the drowning please or if there's an option for a mystery box Then I might take the mystery box. Just give it a little bit. No, thanks. I'll take the drowning, please Yeah, I really want to drown myself Hagrid. Oh my god. You're so heavy. You're pulling me down This is the most terrifying image Okay That's me drowning Hagrid that's me drowning right now My last word sir, I really wish I picked the mystery box I knew he wasn't a real detective anyway didn't have it in him. I'm gonna tell people you tried to drown me Yeah, yeah, I will hey Pip Hagrid just tried to drown me.  I'll see you tonight. I hope so God. He's flirty.  I hope you have a good night.   What's the fun? Can I come in please? Okay? That seemed unnecessary. Hey detective Hagrid drowned any kids recently I'm watching you punk.   I got a case for you.   I know what he can do to people. He tried to drown me and I was like nah I'm not drowning. I kidnapped the The ground keepers cat and I put it in the Hufflepuff dorms and then I told them the Hufflepuff And they all got in trouble. It was sick. That is fantastic Next time we should take it a step further and eat his cat But like say it was Hufflepuff like as a joke a weird man in the forest gave me a rope as an ingredient I don't think you meant to have that maybe not, but I bet it makes a good potion Jason When will I use the rope you gave me? Oh? Sorry, I don't have rope and do you have a rope on you? I had but then I killed myself because I was afraid I'd get in trouble turns out the rope actually came in handy after all That Hagrid guys been drowning children down by the lake. I believe I didn't know you were there.  This isn't a confession box This is a bathroom stall get out of here. You don't seem to understand English. Do you this is occupado? This is the wrong classroom. We're not we're in class four. Oh wait. Oh, you're right Teacher. I'd like to tattle on someone. Please Tinky go up and tell him what you did Tinky go tell him tell him what you did.  He's coming out It's okay if you were lost you found yourself now I'm glad you came out wait. We could do a symbolic thing tinky get in the closet over there and come out It'll be really symbolic. All right. Yeah, go in. All right now now come out. Wow that is so symbolic I love that so beautiful. Does anyone want to tell me what a muggle is wait? Hold on come out the closet again I did it again. He's That sounds great. This is gonna be so organized get in the buddy system everyone What a bitches it's class one.  I want to know what a muggle is. We're studying muggles.    How you just met me actually I can understand that professor There's someone photos synthesizing over there. Oh fantastic. I am Voldemort. What's this guy doing? What why do we have him? Oh, he's a gift to you take him. I don't want it. Did you get the receipt? You want to set Voldy? What? Oh, yes, thank you. This will come in handy. I'm into some kinky Voldemort stuff. Oh, uh, Joey Go get tinky that guy tinky that just died Voldemort need tinky Voldemort. I brought you a gift. Oh, yes, Voldemort need tinky Yeah, it's a new experience for both of us. Don't worry. It's my first time too. I'm usually the hostage What can we do to him? I'm new to the the dark arts.  You think tinky? I saw him. I saw him dying All right, I didn't kill him. No, but someone else did Vada or a wolf bite or whatever it is coming any moment. I don't bite Unless you want me to That's a little fun thing. I say these guys might bite though Benjamin This is the part where you run away guys. I think I'm done being evil I just want to go to school and learn, you know what stopping you. You know what you're right I needed that. Thank you everyone. You're really looking out for me.  All right. Follow me. Come on. You too caretaker. You're with us All right, well, maybe you should learn to spell first.   Blurgus. All right, herbology bros. Let's move out. We showed them a lesson something they're incapable of Useless teacher. All right, let's split guys. We're here. I'm gonna gather around gather around class. What are we gonna learn about? well Class dismissed everyone you have a fantastic day Here what the hell no homework because you've done so well today in class Hey, there's no need for that language apparently it's got to be in the last 180 seconds of class I can't dismiss you yet. All right. Well, let's talk about our feelings then class No, we'll talk about your feelings everyone, please at the same time Plants have to do feelings You're starting right now keep going Just leave it all out you okay, I'll talk to you after class. I don't have any friends, dude Hold on class. I'm dealing with someone right now Look, I don't know who you're talking to but there's no need for that language What if I have a tiny, you know what? There's a spell for that. Oh, I used it on the wrong body part. You know what you look great a teacher Can you buy my woman for me? She's getting sold by the dark forces.  Let's go. Let me tell you they're gonna be shaking in fear when they see the Herbalogy teacher coming come on guys. We're gonna go deal with the dark lord. I am the herbology teacher I am the chosen one I teach her apology you think I can do magic I would be doing anything else with my life if I knew magic We're here to assist the class in any way needed did someone need a herbalogy teacher. I'm telling a story I'm telling a story. All right. Blurgus. I can see you're intimidated by my teaching abilities But I'll take over from here.  It feels bad. I just have to punch down your subject is not of importance Can you just let the herbalogy professor teach?  Yeah, you stand up through yourself, but not against me though.  Oh my god. We've broken him. No, no, that was good.


Welcome back everybody. I'm Peter Clausian. Welcome to Investor Intel for what will be a fascinating interview with our old friend, Dev, from Fish and 3.0. Hi Dev, welcome back. Well, thanks for having me back, Peter. Why do we call it Fish and 3.0? Well, because we first spun out our Canadian assets of coming off Strathmore Minerals, we call it Fish and Energy. We made a discovery with the help of our Korean utility called KEPCO. They funded it. We made a discovery. We sold that along with other. Huge win for the shareholders at Fish and 1.0. Yeah, so Fish and 2.0 came along. Well then, once we sold that piece to Lucas, we took the west side of the base and started a company called Fish and Uranium. And then when we had made that discovery, we took all the exploration assets, put them into Fish and 3. Maybe we could use a better name, but it's our third time around as a team. And thanks to those two weeks ago, we have our third discovery as well. So massive news flow the last few weeks, incredible content, but it's being driven by that quality team that you're talking about.  Number one is people, good projects, and having the money to do so. And the last point I always said was discoveries matter, because discoveries don't go up 10, 20%. They don't lift up with the boat. They go up five times, and or 10 times, 20 times, depending on the size of it, prove to be true. And we're seeing that right now. I know you can't comment on your stock price, but hey, I can. We were looking at five, six, seven cents, and now we're looking at 30 on massive volume. And I saw that you've announced a bought deal. Right. We've announced a deal for 5 million minimum. Make it adjusted, we'll see. As you know, you go out there with the minimum, it's a bought deal, so we know it's going to get done. But we don't know what will happen. But the bottom line is between the 7 million we have, hard cash, and this, we certainly have more than enough money runway for next year, drilling. And as we get more results, you know, our strategy has been, we've got a great discovery, lots of widths, and it has over 65,000 counts per second. Every machine is different, every centilometer is called a work it, collaborate, calibrate, but they, but we use ours before show up to 50% uranium. I know what I so did theirs, they were 20 to 70. So when they saw, when you see 65,000 counts per second, you don't know what it really means until you get the assays. But history says this. So we know it's high grade and the larger, pretty good pieces. It's got width. It's also on land, Peter, which allows us to drill all year long, except when it the springtime at Thos. We don't have to thicken the ice in the winter, like we had to do triple R. So it's all year round. And also this is still very, very shallow. It's 200 meters compared to most projects in the area. They started 500 meters and go down. So we know it's shallow, high grade, large, and assays and more drilling will tell us how big and etc. The fact that the financing is a bought deal shows that the street has a lot of confidence. The house is risking its personal money on you and your team saying here's $5 million, we hope we can backfill that shows a lot of confidence in you. And at 45% premium. Which is flow through, right? Yeah, it's charity flow through. There's no warrant. If you go back, there aren't many deals that were done in the last year that didn't have a warrant attached to the flow through. I fought against that for weeks. Once the discovery was made, I said, no, we're not doing a warrant.  But they're underwriters, that's their job. But we managed to get a premium and no warrant. Fantastic, right? So what are the next steps? Up in the basin, drill away? Absolutely. We've got, we made the discovery hole. We made another hole, showed that it continued. So the next thing is we got two more holes coming for Christmas. And then also we hope to get our assets back. We were told by the labs that we, that's not very busy. So they said within two to three weeks, we sent them, you know, a week ago. So we figure in the next week or two, we should get our results back for Christmas. So we have good news flow hopefully coming between now and Christmas.  One of the things we're, we are struggling with up there is the overburden. It's quite tough. And so we've got to use sonic drills, a bit more costy, but also trying to figure out how to get down to our targets. Because when there's hard ground, it can move the rig over.  So we have lots of news coming with this funding. Thanks to Red Cloud, Sprott and Haywood. We have some good money coming to us that will take the risk out of it. When you first get to deposit, you don't know where it's going up, down, whatever. And so you drill all around it with small step outs. And then when you do, when you think you've got an idea where it's headed, then you can throw a 50-yard bomb. But till then you don't. Thankfully, as a CEO, I know we have got a team that has done it twice before. They had a good discovery at Triple R. They knew exactly where to go. We had a discovery at the J Zone in Waterbury. So we have got two experiences of high-grade discoveries of how to watch how it moves and then try to try to see where it's going to go. So the real purpose of the next while is to understand what we have. Because once you've got it, you can predict where it's going to go. You try, right? What I found surprising when I was getting ready for this is you have 300 million shares out, but quote, only a 90 million market cap, which sounds like a lot of money. That's not a lot of money. No, not at all. When you think of, you know, we need a lot of holes, but if you look at Fission Uranium, they're on almost a dollar, not a long go. So that was 700-800 million market cap. But you've got to spend money to get there. You know, look at Aero, look at ISO. It all depends how big it grows. Is it going to be 40-50 million someday? Or will it be 100? It all depends. But you know, I don't, what I know is we've got a super good start. We're starting on the 50-yard line. We still got to take it down the other end. But it's the only discovery hole compared to anything in the last, you know, 15, 20 years where we have over 65,000 counts per second. Everything else is about 15,000. And there's some good slides out there people have put out. People asked me here and I said, I can't, but I can tell you what the past was. So it's the only discovery hole with 65,000 counts per second over a couple of meters. And so we know it's something that's there. We'll take time to figure that out. People got to be patient. You're going to miss on some holes because you're taking risks. High grade uranium, very, very, very, very, how would you say, tricky, right? You can literally be five meters away and not get there. You can miss. So you got to be careful because these are blobs of uranium. They're not widely disseminated like you would, uranium might be in the States or parts of Africa, you know, where it's very low grade, but it's all spread out. So you can take more like a porphyry in the out of the basket. Yeah. Okay. So the symbol is FUU. You have cash in the bank. Plus you're going to have more cash in the bank. I have a really good news flow and only a $90 million market cap. So 2023 is shaping up to be good. Look, no promises, but you've got a great technical team who's done this before, great discovery, and you got cash, right? So we don't have to count on bullish markets. You know, that's what you need. Great property, great management, and money to have runway, you know, to get things done. So I think we're in good shape. That's all I can say. Nobody knows where we go, but I like, I like where we are. Everybody, this is Peter Clausi from Investor Intel, Fishing 3.0 FUU. Bye, everybody.