Hello everyone. Welcome to the weekly TSC call. As you know, this is a public call. Everybody's welcome to join, listen in, participate. There are two requirements to doing so. The first one is to be aware and lead by the antitrust policy, the notice of which is currently displayed, and the code of conduct, which is linked from the agenda. So we have a fairly light agenda I believe today, but I wanted to take advantage of the time to try to make progress on some of the pending issues we have anyway, and for which we don't seem to get as much offline discussion as I was hoping for. So it's okay. We can use the online time instead. So, but let's get started with the announcements. I don't know that there is anything new per se. We have the usual reminder, but the newsletter, right? You want to do your spiel? Sure. It's a, it's a great way for projects to celebrate their successes. I know that a capy had a significant release in the previous newsletter, and we can't help you get the word out. If you don't help us, help you get the word out. So help us. All right. All right. Thank you. Is there any other announcements anybody wants to make? Okay. I don't hear anybody. Don't see any hands going up. So I assume there isn't. So in terms of quality reports, so we still have the cactus reports, reports. Sorry. On, on that's from the week before. I don't see any issues from what I could tell. Most of the TSE members have reviewed it. I didn't see any issues that required. Discussion at this point. We also got two new reports, namely from fabric and so tooth. I know they came in just a day or two ago. And so there's more mixed status there. We will just carry those over to next week. I didn't see anything that required discussion at this point either, but we'll give everybody a chance to raise any issues. Until next week. So I'll keep those two for on the next week's agenda. So let's get to this discussion. The main one I want to talk about, and there may be another one we can also tackle. We'll see. But first I wanted to get more into this incubation entry considerations. So. It's a, we had like three of our members. Four that really contributed to the document. And there hasn't been much comments beyond those like. Three or four people. I have personally read it and I have a couple of comments that I kept for this call. But otherwise I thought. You know, we should just take the time to read through this document together and decide whether there are any issues that need to be discussed or we can agree on what. The text says. So. Before I wanted to ask if any of body has anything specific they wanted to raise on this document. Or if not, it's anything her, you know, we can go through it as we go down the document. But I wanted to give a chance if there is anybody who has an urge to discuss a particular point to raise it now. Okay. I don't see a heart. Go ahead. Hey, I think I commented on this on the very end, but I was wondering if people thought we should have a community section as well. Obviously we want to separate this from the community requirements for active status. But it seems like we still probably want some.  So I just, I added some stuff in there in a comment and I just was curious what people thought about that. Okay, so this is, you're saying there's an probably a new section, we have those sections today touching different aspects. And you're saying we probably ought to have another sections around the community. Okay. So let's jump to that maybe, or do we go through this and then get to that? I don't know. Whatever's fine. We don't have to do it right now. Okay. Let's go over what's already in the document and then everybody will be on the same page and we can see, you know, we'll have better context for the section you want to add. So let's get going. So at first, there's the goal that Arun. Has stated. Has anybody had any comment on this? I hope everybody has actually had a look at this document at least once. I'm not going to literally read every sentence of the document. I just want to quickly work through this. And like section by section, ask if there's anything that, you know, needs to be discussed or if we agree, then we just, you know, say, okay, this can stay in the document. And then by the end of this process, we should have a document we'll feel comfortable with. So, yeah. So one of the things about the goal question I have, it states any use, but that's not even a requirement that have used in active unless I'm remembering all the requirements. Okay. Arun, go ahead. Hi team. So I saw a hard question earlier today and I commented on that on this question in the comment section in the wiki. If you can scroll down to this page. So my intent was that we identify that there is high potential for this project to be in hyper ledger space, either it can be a demand from the community that, hey, we don't have a project like this. And so there is a high, high need for this project to be within hyper ledger or other thing could be. Showcase that this project is really in production. So I mean, to grow it further hyper ledger could be a good place to grow. So that's, I don't know about the exact words. I didn't know that these two words could cause confusions. We could probably rephrase them. All right. So by the way, right pointed out, I actually meant to do exactly that, right? So thanks for pointing it out. There is a new chat system that we're supposed to try out. So. Right. Put the link in the chat. Window of the zoom meeting. I invite everybody to click on the link. If it works. And we can use that instead of the TSC. Right. Okay. Okay. We have a new no-profit chat channel we normally use. In the background. Thank you. Okay. With that. Dan. Let's get back to Aaron's point. So. I do agree with a bit with Daniel that, you know, I don't know that we've ever asked. Whether. You know, for project to be in use. And. Even less so like, you know, we ask some evidence of that or is just to claim good enough and does it do us any good if I wanted to, I can always claim that that's the case and I don't know why we would go to proving it anyway. So I'm not completely sure this is actionable per se. Tracy? Yeah, I think the in use phrase in that sentence was also something that caught me. And so I guess I was trying to see if in my mind I could combine conceptually and implement it in use to reflect the fact that, you know, if something is just an idea, it's probably better to start that in a lab space than it is to start it in as a top level project, right? But I do think that the in use phrase is definitely a question about what exactly we mean there and how do we enforce something like that because it could very well be that the developer who is bringing this to the TSC says, well, I'm using it, right? Is that enough? You know, there's no real point at which we would say, oh yes, this is something that is used by five people or 10 people or 15 people, right? What is that magic number that we would say? Yes, so I agreed to this as a project that is in use and makes sense to me. I think it's very subjective. And so I would recommend striking at least the in use portion of that goal. Okay, Daniel? Yeah, I agree with a lot of what Tracy said. I think one of the concerns I have is we don't wanna introduce standards that are probably appropriate for active status. You know, I think that the evidence of community use of actual production use, I think is a good one but I don't know that incubation is the right place to bring that in. And the standards you get are kind of, you know, how do we go about that? And, you know, if we could rephrase it too loosely, it just becomes, you know, the appearance of a standard but really it's the whims of the TSC. If it's the whims of the TSC, let's just leave it at that. But I agree with the premise that proof of concept is a good stage for bringing stuff in incubation. If you just have an idea that you should make sure that it works in at least one iteration, even if it is on your machine. And labs is the right place to pursue ideas. And incubation is the place where you start productizing those ideas into what would be an active project eventually then you have a path to get there that people reasonably believe. And I mean, one other data point, I mean, looking back, it's pretty clear to me that, you know, most of the projects when they started, they didn't have, you know, definitely production use. I mean, way back at the very beginning, obviously, everything was brand new just out of like development, still, you know, I mean, we didn't have enough in a kind of major version. When you think about the first project that came in with this fabric, so to any of those, they were really early on, so to just came out of research at Intel, right? And they didn't have anywhere near, they were nowhere near production use. So I think we need to be reasonable there. And indeed, try to, if I would agree that, you know, if there's no code at all, then I would agree and say, well, go do this in the lab. But if there's already code and you can already play around with it, even if it's not in production yet, I think incubation seems to be the right spot to be in. So does anybody disagree with that?  I was just going to comment that if we are going to leave things sort of at the whim of the TSC, and maybe, you know, like is a project relevant, is something that's hard to define, we should write some examples of things that are sort of like clearly relevant and clearly not relevant to sort of give people guidelines. Okay, yeah, we can illustrate a bit by giving some examples. All right, so can we go back to the beginning of the document please, right? And let's see if we can change this then to something we can agree with on. Would you prefer to share your screen so that you can type?  Okay, well, I'll- But I mean, and this is editable by all, right? Yes, yeah, everyone, you know, feel free to jump in and edit So can we agree to just drop any news? We can say the project shall be conceptually implemented, although that alone may be loaded as it was pointed out. Do we have to define what that means? Is your hand up, Hart? Oh, sorry, I meant to lower it after the last comment. Okay, so I'm proposing to just drop any news. Anybody disagree with this? Can we leave with this sentence? And I for one don't really understand what conceptually implemented means. Okay, so Arun, you wrote this. Can you explain what you were thinking about? Right, so when I wrote this, the thought was very simple. When a new project is proposed, it should not be just a thought that, hey, I can do a project with an idea like this, right? And for example, let's say somebody comes and says, yeah, I have a cool new project proposal which is like a multiparty system which would do something else. Now that Hyperledger is allowing multiparty systems, I would be doing these XYZ things. So I need a place, and I think this is the name of my project. So I'm coming to Hyperledger. So that's what I meant with conceptually implemented. It is to say that, hey, it's fine, you have an idea. The project is well-documented or well-approached towards it. However, for you to come and collaborate here, there should be something that you showcase and it should be in reality, right? And it should, when you say you are coming and proposing that project, it should be, it should have those things that you claim in the charter, projects charter. So we already have that next section on the code base. I mean, that does imply there is some code. Do we need to say more or isn't that enough? It says the code should exist as open source software in some form. And to me, maybe that's good enough. The rest becomes very subjective as to how much code there is, how much does it cover from the goal of the project? And then we, I don't know that it adds much to have that sentence. Maybe we drove the whole sentence. We need to have code to start a project. That's what we're saying, yes. I think for incubation, yes. If it's just an idea and code is being generated, I think labs or governance outside of Hyperledger might be a better place to do it. I personally would expect something to get booted up and run and say, oh, gee, that's neat if it's gonna come in incubation. Mark, do you think that's too much asking? You would think starting on an idea alone is good enough? I'm just wondering about efforts, I guess efforts that aren't code tend to be working groups or six. So maybe, you know, maybe this will help with the distinction between them to say projects need code. Let's see. Have we had a lab or a project that's come out of a working group or a task force yet? If there is, that would be an excellent example to put into this documentation. There have been labs from SEG, yes. They haven't, yeah. Tracy. Yeah, so I did make a edit so that people can see it on the screen with a suggestion of what we could change it to. So don't know if this is where we wanna go to move us forward or if we still wanna keep discussing the same thing. No, I'm happy to be with that. Thank you for taking the lead on editing the document. Bobby. Hi, just speaking from the Learning Materials Working Group, we had two projects, the university course and the starter lab go into hyperledger labs. And we're also working on a third one, which is the giving chain. So in my interpretation, we're going to go through the lab process first, copy code from one of the blockchains and tweak it for our project. And then we're going to test it on a project day. And if that works, that's when we'd probably do the steps for incubation. So that it's been kind of proof of concept once. And if it works, we would move it out of the labs. If it doesn't, we would still continue in the labs until it does. All right, thank you. Yeah, that seems too much other people's expectation. So now I'm wondering whether we should still have something about the code, given what we just said with Mark and all.  This is the expectation of a project is that it will have code, a project in incubation. Maybe we just put something about code for the project already exists. And that's it. We don't get into, you know, how much code. We just say there's got to be some code that exists. And then of course, if somebody comes with two line pieces of code, we're going to laugh and say, sorry, that's not good enough. It does seem like a strong pushback on the last proposal for entry into project incubation was based on code being available, but not having been publicly open source for a while. It wasn't even available at first. We had a push to get an open source. Right. Yeah, no, so let's be clear. I'm not saying to drop that thing, that sentence about the code base being open. I'm still talking about the goal, just adding something about the fact that the code exists, which now we have lost entirely. We went from the project shall be conceptually implemented and in use to nothing at all, which I'm worried that we're missing the distinction we've been stressing, which is that and for labs, it might be okay to just start with an idea, but for project, there should already be code that you can use. So I would like that to be present in that sentence if that's the main statement we people will look at. We've never incubated a project without code, right? That's the point. So I think that has to be in there in that first sentence. Tracy, is your hand up? Yes, my hand is up. Okay. I think we're confusing goal with the criteria or the considerations. I think the goal of, I think as I read a goal, it's the goal for incubation. What is incubation? It's not the considerations. And to me, the considering that the very first thing is talking about the code base and code should exist as a consideration. That seems to, I don't know, just seems duplicative. And that's a good point. Not goal-like. I think that's a valid point. So with that, I'm happy to leave it as is then. Okay, I'm really happy with the goal. Can we move on? So let's get to the code base. I mean, hot, I suppose that do you have, we have to, sorry, yeah. Can we get rid of your comment there? That's exactly what I meant to say. Yeah, go ahead and delete it. Okay. So the code base then added a bunch of points about the code being actually to exist as open source. There's a piece on Apache software license. I mean, is there any of this that anybody wants to discuss? Or are we happy with what's there? Or is there anything people want to add? So hot raise the question. Yeah. Can we just move the Apache 2 stuff under legal? It's probably a better fit there. And we can talk about other stuff as well, like dependent licenses, which are always a thorny issue. That sounds fine. While that's being moved, I don't think we should have CICD requirements in there because they won't have access to Hyperledger CICD and that's really what matters.  You mean, yeah, that's not something that's available to the labs. And so a project moving to incubation will get this as a benefit. So yeah, it's a bit unfair to request people to have that if we're not giving them the way to do it. The means to do it. Do we need to let people coming in know that that's expectation that they will have resources to handle CICD and things like that? I'm assuming Rai doesn't do it for every project, right? Yeah, that's old Rai. So you've touched on a really thorny issue that I am holding my tongue on because I don't want to divert this meeting. So let's just say that CICD is difficult and not drill into it very deeply in this meeting, please. Okay, sorry, sorry. This is the fact that it's not part of the labs, right? My goal would be that everyone migrates to get of actions and then labs get to do it for free because everyone gets to do it for free. So yes and no. The part that isn't is publishing to Docker Hub except we do allow labs to publish Docker Hub so there's not much incentive. There was a bunch of incentive when we were spending a lot of money on CICD, now we aren't, so. Okay, thanks. I think of a higher level goal of mine which is to never have a resource limit or a budget limit be a reason why we have to say no to taking on a new project. That's a goal and it's an ideal. Maybe ideal is a better way of phrasing it than a goal but I wouldn't want that to be a reason why somebody said we can't take a project on. All right, Chrissy. Yeah, so I assume we're talking about Arun's comment here in the code base. I'm wondering if, I mean, we don't have this checklist today. I'm wondering if we can take these individual ideas that Arun has put out here for the checklist and put them in the correct spots, right? So like DCO requirements would fall under the code base, the file structure repo requirement would fall under code base. Licensed copyright is probably illegal. I'm not sure where the release process goes but maybe that's under the community section that part one's to add. I agree with you, Chrissy. I think that's a very good point. I had the same thoughts when I read it yesterday. I mean, Arun, there are a couple of places where you refer to something that's yet to be defined and as if it's gonna be defined elsewhere. And I think we should instead define it right here so that we don't have this kind of interaction like this in this case, the checklist. Like, well, no, just put right here what you would have in that checklist. Yeah, no hard comments. The only reason why I put this over here is because this was related to code base and we had to make sure that these are met as part of the code base that is being brought in. Sure, I guess it makes sense. We can move them to appropriate sections and at the end, we could probably have a checklist for somebody and ask them few questions. Hey, have you done this as a reminder? Yeah, great. So for DCO, are we expecting that they're actually gonna have to have done the squash recommit if they don't have it in their full history before they sign off or are they supposed to do DCO the exceptions with lists and hashes that don't have it?  We're expecting that to happen pretty quick when they come into incubation. Good question. Tracy, you have an answer to propose.  No, I was going to make a comment and something else, I was gonna bring up something else. So I'll let other people comment on that and I'll leave my hand up until this is finished. We may need to actually have a conversation with LF Legal on that particular point with the DCO. Yeah, but Daniel's point, I think is valid, is that if people just want to make a proposal and imagine we say no, maybe they don't care to go through the old DCO stuff. So should the DCO be a requirement to be able to get into incubation as opposed to something they have to do as part of like importing their code and the, you know, once they have been approved? In the task for projects before DCO never existed before the project came in, but you needed to be able to pass the DCO requirements as part of bringing your code in. Right, and that historically that meant a squash commit. If you look at the Hyperledger archives org in GitHub, that's where all of the pre-squash fabric repos live so that we didn't lose that history. So I think it's reasonable to say you can get into incubation without actually doing the squash or doing the DCO piece, but when the code comes in, it needs to be compliant. I see Grace and Tracy still have their hands up. So Tracy, I suppose is still for something else. So I was keeping Grace maybe wants to react to what's being talked about here. Yeah, no, I just want to echo, right. I think it's fine to or my proposal would be what Ry just said, which was, you know, it can be as a, it doesn't have to be done before they are approved as an incubation project. I think that's reasonable and has worked all right in the past. Okay, so Tracy added, or is it Daniel wrote a sentence? I wrote it. To clarify, giving a bit of leeway as to, you know, whether the DCO sign off exists or not. I think that's reasonable. It sets the expectation and it doesn't make it a hard requirement to have the DCO sign off already in. It just is important information. I've seen other projects start doing DCO that don't have Linux foundation connection. So I think there's a chance we could see projects come in that are DCO ready. No, my question is going to be, does that really belongs to the code base or does it belong to the legal part? I think that's the challenge of these different sections is some things kind of overlap. Practically everything code bases is what it seems like. I'm assuming anything coming in from a lab would already have DCO. Yes, they should. I mean, we do request, we enforce that very requirement when they bring a new repository and they're instructed to keep the DCO sign off as they progress. I don't know, you know, so yeah, they should be in position to do that. Yes. Of course, we know the police, we don't go after them and check that they actually do it. So there may be cases where they say, oops, sorry, we forgot to do that, but at least the expectation is there. So repository comply with the common repository structure, I think is an interesting one. I also wonder whether this is something that couldn't be led to the incubation phase. Yeah, so no, this is where my hand was up. When I typed that, I was like, I don't think this is actually incubation criteria, even though it was included in Arun's comment here. I think that it's very possible that somebody comes in without having compliance to the common repository structure and then upon entry, they would add the required files. So I feel like this one, as well as the copyright one that I added under legal is really more upon entry, right? It's not something that we would consider and reject the project because it doesn't have the common repository structure. That's also my feeling. I think there may be things for which it's a must, like the copyright and the license, that you would expect the project to have that made. Could I propose that the TSC use the same requirements for the CRF as they do for existing projects? I think projects had two quarters to get into compliance or two quarterly reports to get into compliance with that. I mean, wouldn't that be a reasonable thing if you're bringing in the code base to say you have six months to get this stuff in shape or like your second quarterly report? All right, that's an interesting idea. So it's somewhere in between. We don't ask them to have it done to enter incubation, but we don't want to wait until they graduate for that either. So we kind of force them to do it in a, you know, shortly after they start the enter incubation. I like that proposal. Tracy, your hand is up. Sorry, I think I didn't order it. All right. Although I don't, I don't know that we need to put anything in this document. So Rune, I don't know that we actually need to put any statement in this. I think we could add it to the project checklist if it's not already there that already exists. Right? So yeah, I agree. I don't think it has to be here, but we somehow have to make sure it's captured somewhere. So I don't know where that is. We would, we should check. So I know it's a little off topic, but it ties in. I think all these things we're discussing would be requirements to get to graduating state. And so I think if we have a clear list of, you know, I mean, for existing projects out there coming in, you know, this could be why they're an incubation is to get all these things done. Does that sound reasonable? That's what's happened in the past. So I think you're questioning reality. Yeah, no, indeed. Okay, is there anything else we want to take from that point from Rune? Yeah, I would just say that all of these items are probably items that should be part of entering active state, right? Because I think the release process is even one of those things that, you know, in the past, we've had projects that have come in who haven't necessarily done releases in the open, if you will, and have had to figure out as a community how to really work through the process of doing releases. And so I would say like that's probably, if you're not doing releases by the time you become active, that's probably a reason not to become active. Yeah, I agree. So Rune, may I suggest you move that point to maybe the comments or at the bottom as a note or something we need to check that these things are covered as part of, you know, maybe the executive criteria for incubation, maybe something else if the case might be, but we don't have to have it there. I don't want to lose it because I think you're making, you know, these are important aspect, but I think they are not part of this entry considerations. So let's move on to the maintainers section. So there, I don't know that everybody is in agreement on the points that have been put forward. So anybody wants to speak up? Dhanu, go ahead. So I think whatever we do in the maintainer section should reflect what has actually happened in previous proposals. I know we have rejected a project for having only a single maintainer, but I don't know that we rejected a project because the proposed initial maintainers were all from one company. If there is, then I think, you know, we can go with that and should document examples of where that happened. So I have to admit not to know the answer which way it is regarding the history. I know that we, and this somewhat relates to, you know, there's been this question about sponsors and, you know, people committed to the project and there was a bit of confusion, I think rightly so, because it's not defined currently. Like what's the meaning of those things? What I think has been the case for the most part at least the main projects where they were at least two companies saying, yes, I think we should do this and I'm committing resources to this. And, you know, you can then debate whether they, you know, they live up to that commitment or not, at least to the extent that someone might have expected, but at least on paper at the time, they made the proposal, there was this expectation, this commitment. I think it's, I feel like this might be more important than specifically the maintainers aspect. So maintainers, let's be clear. I mean, what does it, you know, what does it translate to if there are, if there's more than one maintainer? What does that, you know, represent? Practically speaking, that we should care about. Grace. I think there are two questions you're asking. So I think it's one, maintainers should be, there should be multiple maintainers, potentially from one organization. I think the other question you're asking just to be really clear is sponsors and maybe we add a bullet in or declare what a sponsor is there means? Cause I think that's like an important distinction there. So maintainers could be, you know, the people that are actually working on the code-based sponsors or people who are excited. I think we should define what a sponsor is to make that more clear. Cause I think sponsors historically have been used as advocates for the project, but not necessarily contributors to the project. Does that mean? Yeah, I think you're right. Thank you for bringing that up. Arun. Hey, so I guess this question came up about maintainers in the last conversation because there was few open, I mean, open questions around the governance aspect for any project that is beginning to, beginning to get into open source. The item that was, I guess it was Daniel who brought out this, the governance part is more important or if they are more familiar with the way of working in silos in within the organization. And when they come to open source, that they should have a mechanism of getting others in as well. So if we can try to answer that part through this maintainer section, probably that might help. And my comment over there is actually to address that part, that in terms of governance, hey, what if you have somebody, I mean, demonstrate that you are collaborating with somebody else before you came in for this project. Yeah, that's my comment on that topic. All right, thank you. Mark. So I remember discussions in the past where I think we delayed projects because they did not have a diverse maintainers list. And the concern was always, well, if it's all from one company, what happens if that company tires of hyperledger? You know, what happens to that project, to that investment that hyperledger's made? When you have maintainers from multiple companies, then, you know, you have a better chance that that project's gonna live on if one company leaves. So I think that's where the distinction comes in between people, I mean, what has happened and before the proposal and what's expected. And that's where it brings me back to the point I was talking on earlier, which is in the past, you know, you had company that just opened source that code and then said, hey, we would like to bring this and another company had not necessarily been involved to that point, but we'd say, yes, and I'm interested and I, you know, I commit, I will commit resources towards it. So from that point of view, you know, they wouldn't have the maintainers yet. We wouldn't have the diversity of maintainers on the existing code, but the expectations we would get it and it's very much into your point mark where, you know, there's the survival of the project longterm, right, is at stake on that front. Tracy. Yeah, I just add that obviously that's part of why we have the requirement to leave incubation and to become graduated is kind of a multiple maintainers piece. I think we're requiring multiple maintainers from multiple companies coming in to incubation is somewhat adding a new rule that none of the other projects had to comply with per se. And I think that could be a challenge for bringing projects in that could very well make it to a graduated state at some point in the future after they, after people see and start to realize that there's something good happening with this project and they want to get involved. So how about, you know, I understand, I mean, Daniel started from what he thought was the kind of the status quo and how things have played out and around this notion of maintainers. Personally, I don't feel that, you know, focusing on the maintainers aspect is necessarily the right consideration. I would be happier to say that we have to have, you know, like committed companies more than one company committed to the project. And that falls under the sponsors, does it? Oh, no. So maybe, but as Grace was pointing out, I think historically sponsors have not always, we have this distinction where there are people who say, yeah, they want to be sponsored to say, I support this idea without necessarily committing to contributing themselves, right? I mean, whether it's a person or a company for that matter. So there may be a worthwhile distinction there between something that's like supporters and sponsors or I don't know how we call those things, but one where we say, you know, and I think that the heap template does have that. There is a section on sponsors and a section on resources. Yeah, so just FYI, I did go through all of the existing kind of proposals that we had out there for projects, at least the projects that we have today. And there's a lot of wiggle words being used when it comes into that efforts and resources section. And I think it would be very easy to have a lot of wiggle room and for it to be set in a way that implies that there's more support than there actually is. So we just need to be careful, right? That we're not restricting and adding kind of new rules to this efforts and resources section. Yeah, I recommend if you want to go read through some of the proposals and see exactly what I'm talking about because it was interesting. And then, you know, so open and honest here like the reason I went through and looked is because we're interested in bringing the blockchain automation framework as a top level project. And we do have people who have committed from multiple organizations based on the metrics but I can't guarantee you that they're going to actually commit to continuing that. But yeah, I could say, hey, we've got six different organizations that have committed to this lab. So, you know, I just, I'm a little worried, right? That we're trying to add something that can't necessarily be met and that could be easily wiggled around. So just some quick thoughts about that. No, but I totally understand what you're coming from. That's why, you know, I did say, you know, I think in the past we had companies that committed to certain project that didn't necessarily live up to that commitment. I think that's a fact. And that will always be the case. That's why also, I think there's a general agreement among the TSC members that, you know, we want these things to be as objective as possible. And yet we understand that there's always ways to, you know, gain these things either intentionally or not for that matter because a company might very well intend to commit resources and then things change for whatever reason, six months later they're caught. And what are you going to do? Sue them? So I think we have to accept that. But yet I think there is some value in asking, you know, if there are companies committed to this. But so I wanted to go back to the maintainers this moment there because my problem with what's the way it is now is that, well, we say a project should have multiple maintainers and yeah, they could be from the same company. And then I'm like, what is that achieving? Because, you know, very much in line with what you're saying, Tracy, if I want to submit a proposal, I guarantee my project is going to have more than one maintainer, that's easy to get. I can get any of my buddies to sign up even if it's just on paper, right? So we can always gain these things. So I don't know that we are achieving. I don't know. I would say don't try to solve every problem up front. I don't think that we've had anything. I don't think that we've had anyone acting in bad faith when they brought a project in. And, you know, things may have changed and their focus may have shifted but I don't think any company brought in a project and tried to like submarine it and get it in there and make it look like there was a whole bunch of interest in it when there wasn't. So I just leave room. I don't think that's the right point. You're probably right there. Yeah, just assume good intent and, you know. It's like when we discuss the eligibility list for the election, it always remind us that it's easy to fake it and have a whole bunch of email registered. I was having a good day. You had to bring up the election. Yeah, it's coming up, isn't it? Yes. Anyway, we have five more minutes. Let's take the topic at hand for now. So, Dan, no, I mean, I know you put that in because you thought this reflects what has been done in the past but how do you actually feel about this? Do you think this has value? I do because if there's only one person maintaining code and they tire the project and leave, you're completely high and dry. Whereas if there's multiple maintainers, if one person goes on vacation for too long, the other people can step in. And, you know, as far as open source projects, I think the magic number is three people. If one person, two people have a disagreement of code, the third person can break the tie. But I think the only thing that historically has been done so late was rejected because there was really only one person arriving the code and maintaining it. And I think that example is something that's been done and it's a precedent and I think we should go forward with it or we should explicitly repeal it. And I think the better project health perspective, it's a really bad sign if you only have one maintainer when you bring it to incubation. It's a great place for labs and you can grow it up to two or three maintainers there and then bring it in. But, you know, you need more than one person looking at the code. No, you convinced me. I think that's good.  They'll look at it and they've been working this project on their own for a while and then they'll say, oh, I guess not. And that's probably a good thing. Yeah, going from one maintainer to two is a lot harder than going from three to four. So that's the hardest problem. Yeah, okay. So then we have a couple of points from Maroon. Tracy, is there a hand up? Yeah, so for the first one, they plan to promote contributors and to maintainers. Again, I think this is a, definitely something that we would want for active but I don't know that it's something that is required for incubation. I don't know that I've ever looked for this when I've been looking at a project that's going to come into incubation. So I would suggest that we move this to the active criteria if you will. I'm sorry, I graduated criteria. Yep, I would agree as well. Haroon, is that okay with you? Oh, I had his hand raised before me. Oh, but yeah, I mean, going by the recent conversation that happened with one of the project that came up for the proposal, we did bring this up during that time. And we said, hey, do you have a plan for bringing in additional contributors? If you don't, I mean, this was brought up in that discussion. Yeah, but so do you think this is required for a project being proposed for incubation? That they already have that plan? Yes, so all that we are asking for is a plan. Hey, do you have a plan to increase maintainers or do you have you documented a weight so that if somebody is interested in this project, they can see this as an incentive that they become maintainers and steer the direction of the project along with you in open governance. Probably I still feel it is good to have a document. All right, so Haroon seems to believe that this is a requirement to enter incubation. Tracy said she thinks it's to exit incubation. So how do other people feel? We are gonna have to cut it one way or the other. I'm also with Tracy. I think this is something that can be left to the incubation phase. Hart has a hand up. Yep. Do even look, do most of our projects have this documented? So I'm just wondering whether most of our actual projects in incubation have this documented. So I, okay. So maybe it depends how you read this, I suppose. I mean, from my point of view, there's whether we have requested the policy on how to become a contributor to be posted, right? And I hope projects have that documented. I would say Bezu has the best documentation of process on transition of all the projects. So I would just use Bezu as a model. Yeah. I mean, I think most projects have like how to contribute posted, but I don't know that a lot of them have like, how do you become a maintainer? What's the process? Fabric does. I understand fabric does, but I'm guessing it's probably the exception rather than the rule. I think we need to know the six month mandate because I think how to become a maintainer should be established a priority, but maybe I'm in the minority. Well, I was, this is how to become a maintainer. That was the document I was specifically referring to, Bezu being a good model. So I agree by the way, Bezu has done that very well. I looked at it and I was like, well, yeah, that's cool. Okay, we're out of time, but Tracy, let's go back to Tracy. Do you have something else you wanted to bring up? Yeah, I think we're talking about two different things here. I think we're talking about how do we get more contributors to a project, which we seem to have a lot of projects want to enter incubation for that purpose, right? And then this statement as it's written is more talking about how do you promote contributors into maintainers, which was definitely not something that we have talked about in the past. So let's just be clear on what we're trying to accomplish with this particular rule. And I do not think that having a plan to promote contributors into maintainers is something that we should require. All right, thank you, Tracy. So let's keep hammering that one. I would be happy if people could continue the discussion offline so we can make progress. It's obviously a bit difficult to do that with everybody on. I mean, but we will keep doing it until we get that done. I think it's an important piece of work.  Thank you all for joining. We'll talk again next week.


What's going on my beautiful lovely people? Thank you guys for coming to one of the top five facts of the day number six Hopefully you guys enjoy it number five Music painting poetry literature and architecture all used to be part of the modern Olympic games from 1912 to 1948 number four in 2016 a man blamed a company for ruining his life with game addiction crashed the car into their head offices in South Korea number three When he first moved to Los Angeles the actor who plays the most interesting man in the world worked as a garbage truck driver number two Thanks to ice bucket challenge donors raised a hundred million dollars for ALS research in just one month of 2014 Compared with 2.8 million during the same period the previous year number one There's up to 60 billion in sunken treasures sitting at the bottom of the world's oceans and that's it for today's video Hopefully you guys enjoyed the video if you guys did remember to like subscribe and all that stuff Thank you guys so much for watching. See you guys next time


Let's turn our attention now to Tariq Cohen of the bears Jim is Tariq Cohen for real.   Yeah, it certainly does. I think you could look at the game script for the past two games and say, Hey, I mean, they've been trailing with both the games against the law or the dolphins and against the Patriots and both those are scenarios in which you would expect they would use Tariq Cohen more. But then he looked back to week four before they had they had their bi-week. That game is where they slaughter Tampa Bay and they still used to re Cohen in that as well. So I don't think this is just a game script related thing. I think it's pretty legit where Matt Nagy recognizes that Tariq Cohen is a good football player and he wants him to have the ball in his hands. If you look at back to week seven, he had a 51 percent snap rate Cohen did, which is his highest of the entire year. If we look at this three game sample where Cohen has been more heavily involved, he has eight, nine and 12 targets in those three games, which is really good. That's phenomenal for running back. But what's even better is that he's kind of getting used like a wide receiver. He has five deep targets in those three games. He has six red zone targets. And that is just tremendous usage that you do not usually get out of a running back. So I think when you're looking at Tariq Cohen, you kind of view him as being a wide receiver who gets a couple of carries on top of what he gets as out of the passing game because he is getting high leveraged targets, which again, you don't usually get from a running back. So the price in Tariq Cohen has gone up. He is seventy one hundred dollars a week, eight. But honestly, I think that's that's a fair price for him based on the usage he has gotten. Again, I think that the way that you look at Tariq Cohen, he's just say, all right, this guy is basically a wide receiver who gets a couple of carries. And if you would use a wide receiver who gets a couple of carries in that matchup, go ahead and use one. I think that in most scenarios, you're probably going to say yes, going forward with Tariq Cohen just because the leverage in the targets that he does get is so high. You always talk about how much more valuable receptions are for running backs than carries. And when you get eight receptions, you got to love having Tariq Cohen in your lineup, and you would have definitely loved getting over 18 fantasy points on FanDuel in week seven.


The story of Dr. Kildare. Whatsoever house I enter, there will I go for the benefit of the sick. Whatsoever things I see or hear concerning the life of men, I will keep silence thereon. Counting such things to be held as sacred trusts. I will exercise my art solely for the cure of my sins. The story of Dr. Kildare, starring Lou Ayers and Lionel Barrymore. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer brought you those famous motion pictures. Now this exciting, heartwarming series is heard on radio. In just a moment, the story of Dr. Kildare. But first, your announcer, starring Lou Ayers as Dr. Kildare and Lionel Barrymore as Dr. Gillespie. Mayor General Hospital, one of the great citadels of American medicine. The clump of gray white buildings planted deep in the heart of New York. The nerve center of medical progress where great minds and skilled hands wage man's everlasting battle against death and disease. Mayor General Hospital, where life begins, where life ends, where life goes on. Good morning, Molly. What are you doing here in Dr. Gillespie's outer office? Where's Nosy Parker? It's her day off. Well, you're supposed to be the head nurse around here. Somebody has to look after Dr. Gillespie. Oh, uh, you going in to see him now? Yes, he wants me to look at a patient with him. Take a good look at him, will you? He doesn't look very well to me this morning. Sure, I'll take a good look at him. Oh. Good morning, Dr. Gillespie.  Were you expecting someone else? No, not really. But a man can always hope, can he? Look, you invited me down here. I'm not forcing my way in, you know. How do you feel? Now, don't start in on me. Start what on you? All that how do you feel routine? I've been getting that all morning. I feel fine. I never felt better. I think I'll take your temperature. I don't need my temperature taken. Oh, these fledgling doctors that keep wanting to take temperatures all the time. And I've seen you in some bad humors, but you're really surpassing yourself this morning. Oh, I feel fine. I feel fine, I tell you. Are you all right? You feel fine. Now, who's the patient you want me to see? He's in 303. His name is Warren Jackson. He was admitted last night. What's wrong with him? Well, that's what we've got to find out. He's committed suicide. Slashed his wrist with a razor. His wife found him. He didn't do much damage, though. I want to know why he tried to commit suicide. He's newly married, apparently very happy. He's a successful insurance broker. There's no reason in the world for suicide. Was he sober? Completely. Yep. He should be waking by now. He's been under sedatives. Let's go and have a look. All right. Dr. Gillespie. I feel fine. Just fine. Couldn't be feeling better. You feel fine. Well, you may feel just fine, but you look just lousy. I never look very either. You and Kildare are alarmists. That's what you are, Molly. Alarmist. Nothing wrong with me at all. My color may be a little off. There's nothing wrong. I feel fine. Hey, your color is a little off at that.  We're going down to 303, Molly. Oh, Mrs. Warren Jackson just phoned. She's on her way over to the hospital. You told her to come at 10 o'clock. All right. If she gets back before we do that, she's gonna wait. Yes, Dr. Gillespie. Thank you, Miss Bird. Come on, Jimmy. I do not have a cold. A man can sneeze, can't he? Who are you talking to? Talking to you. I didn't say a word. Well, maybe not orally. But I could feel what you were thinking. You'll be caught.  You've got a head. I am not sick. And no matter what you and Molly Bird do to me, you're not going to make me sick any more than you do already. Why, Dr. Lennon Gillespie. Oh! Kill dare. How do you do, Doctor? Very happy to meet you, Mr. Jackson. And how do you feel? Too bad I bungled the job. Well, naturally, I kind of agree with you there.  She had quite a job getting her to go home last night, and she only went when we persuaded her that you were out of danger. I don't want to see her. What? I don't want to see her, I said. Well, then, of course, you don't have to see her, Mr. Jackson. Now, Dr. Gillespie, shall I ask the nurse to bring a sleeping woman on? If you would please. That's a frightening game of anything to have. We just want to test your blood pressure. It'll be right here, Dr. Gillespie. Oh, why don't you take care of Mr. Jackson? Perhaps I should speak to your 10 o'clock appointment. Oh, I'd appreciate it very much, truly. I'll take care of it right away. You mean to say that my husband refuses to see me? He's very ill. He's not himself. Don't let yourself be hurt by this. But why? Why? Mrs. Jackson, have you any idea why your husband would wish to end his life? No, I haven't. Has he been ill? No. Not since our marriage. Before your marriage?  Well, he told me he's had trouble with asthma and hay fever, but he never spoke of anything serious. I see. How about headaches? Has he complained to those? Well, yes, he has had some headaches, but he's been working very long hours. He works much too hard. Why did you ask that? Oh, Mrs. Jackson, I think your husband tried to end his life because of illness. I think it was that same illness that prompted him to refuse to see you this morning.  I know, but your husband isn't normal right now. What's wrong with him? I don't know yet. I have a theory, but it's going to take some study. What did Jackson's test show? His blood pressure is very low, and his pulse is very weak. That's a sick boy, I know that. Did you notice those rock spots on his skin? Yeah, yeah, yeah. He kept scratching them. He told me that during the past week, he'd fainted several times in the office, and that he had difficulty in breathing, and then he'd get waves of nausea. Those could be symptoms of a lot of things. Yeah, the rough skin might indicate an allergy or something. That was my thought, too. I think we'll proceed with the allergy test. Can't do any harm. Allergy illnesses have been known to provoke suicidal tendencies in patients before. It's worth some investigation. I'm tired. Must be almost lunchtime. Well, not for two hours.  I'm going to take your temperature. No, you're not going to do any such thing. It doesn't matter. I'm afraid you'll have one. Oh, I'm not afraid. I'll have one. I know, Doug gone well. I haven't got a temperature. I've just got sniffles. It's the change in the weather. You don't take long to take your temperature. I'll go and take your thermometer and eat it. Very well, if that's your attitude. Miss Bird? Yes, Dr. Tildare? Can you get Dr. Karoo on the phone for me, please? What are you going to do? Just going to tell Dr. Karoo that you don't look at all well and that you won't cooperate in the simple precautionary method of having your temperature.  That's what you are. No.  Do I take the temperature or does Dr. Karoo? Ah, go on ahead and take it. It'll make you feel any better. Oh, may I, Doctor? Help yourself, Molly. Here you are, Dr. Gillespie. Close those pretty little pearls of yours on this. Ah, splotch. What would you say about a famous diagnostician, Molly, who could diagnose everyone's ailments except his own? I'd say he wasn't as much of a diagnostician as he makes himself out to be. Oh, see, I'm not going to put up with all this. Keep the lips gently closed in the thermometer under the tongue. That's better. What do you think he's got, Dr. Kildare? If he's got what I think he might have, he's not going to be fit to live with. We'd better see if we can get him in another hospital. I've stood all I'm going to. Lips closed, thermometer under the tongue. Well, what do you think he's got? Something worse than a cold? I'm not going to say until I see how he looks tomorrow, but I have a pretty good idea and so does he. He simply won't admit it. Well, I think that thermometer should be just about cooked by now, so I'll take it out. Yes. You two think you're very funny. Gosh. Well, young fellow, you are hereby and officially ordered to bed. Let me see that thermometer. Well, I'll be there. Comes as a surprise, doesn't it? What do you know? Well, I did think I was feeling my groggy. You're sure you didn't have that thermometer under the hot water top? You saw me shake it down. Molly, get a room for Dr. Gillespie. An isolation room. An isolation room? You know why, don't you, Dr. Gillespie? I don't have that. I couldn't possibly have that. Why not? I'm too old for one reason. You know your medical history well enough to know that men of 99 have come down with it. Say, would it be asking too much to ask what you two are talking about? Yeah, and it certainly would. Besides, I don't have any outward signs to indicate. Have I heard them? I must have. But you don't really know. No, I don't really know. Well, and we'll know better tomorrow. That's what you do have. You know yourself. We can't take any chances. Splots. Double splots. Well, Mr. Jackson, Dr. Gillespie is ill, and if you don't mind, I'm taking over your case. I don't mind. It's about time I was getting out of here, isn't it? Have you ever had neology tests? I had a few tests when I was treated for hay fever. I'd like to have you stay at the hospital a couple of days for a series of tests. You may be able to find out what the root of your trouble is. You don't have to put me through any tests to find that out, Dr. Kildare. The root of my trouble is the root of all evil, money. I see. You see, I've taken on quite a few extra responsibilities lately. New home, new car. I went in a little too deep, I guess, and working late trying to pick up some extra commissions, but haven't had too much luck. You're in love with your wife, aren't you? Very much. Well, then, how would you account for her? My trying suicides? Oh, I got pretty depressed the other night. I've been feeling so rotten, and old Ellen and I had a fight about money. I got to thinking that she'd be better off without me. My health seems to be completely shot.  You'll only make the rash worse. I'm going to order a shot of adrenaline for you. That'll relieve your discomfort. Look here, Mr. Jackson, I think I can help you. I'm convinced that your state of mind, though, as well as your health, is caused by an allergic condition. Will you give me a chance to find out? You mean you really think you can fix me up? I'm going to do my best. Okay, Doc. But I guess you've got yourself a patient. Just as I thought. For your information, my temperature is 103, and I feel terrible. I can't chew and I can't swallow. I sure got a beautiful case of them, though. Never seen a better case in my life? When I get anything, I get it good. I suppose they know all over the hospital about it now.  Not at all. You just look as though you had a perfect case of the mumps. Mumps? Isn't that shocking? May not tell you something. They're not a bit unbecoming. Well, there, come closer and let me breathe on you. I've had the mumps. You have. There's no justice in this world. There's no justice at all. I'll give you this evening. I'll bring to you and your two mumps. Sublingual glass. Makes my work just that much easier. It also keeps you from poking around my mumps. Has he been a good patient today, Molly? Has he been a good patient? Blair Hospital hasn't seen such a commotion since he got the German measles during the First World War.   Well, now it's time for his throat application. You'll see how he acts. I don't want another hot strip of flannel around my throat. That's a lot of nonsense anyway. You see? Go get it, Molly. I know as much about medicine as you do, and I tell you, it's a lot of nonsense. It's your own prescription. What? I looked it up in your book. Every 20 to 30 minutes put hot applications to the patient's throat, consisting of 5% guaiacal and glycerin to be rotated by 2% menthol in land. That's a pretty low trick, you'll hear. A pretty low trick. Prying into a man's books when he isn't around to defend himself. Besides, I can't stand the smell of menthol. Yes, the application. Put it on him. Okay. Now! I swear on another human being. I suppose you put hot applications on his tummy. Then we'll dispense with the stomach treatment for the moment. But if you have any more trouble in that region, I've found several prescriptions of yours. Old ones that are real dillings. You'll pay for this, too, there. You'll pay for this when I get out of this bed. I know. That's why I gotta get my licks in now. Seriously, though, I'm sure you know how important it is for you to keep warm and quiet. We can get about it all we want, but mumps can turn out to be very dangerous and no one knows that better than you. Yes, teacher. Well, I'm going down. See Mr. Jackson now? Oh, how are his tests coming? Well, so far, all I've been able to discover is what he's not allergic to. He's been injected with dust, mold, pollen, animal hair, feathers, various medical drugs. He's been put on several different kinds of diets, and all the results have been negative. He hasn't improved any since he's been here either. His eyes have become very puffy. Might be allergic to something in the hospital. Yes. Possibly you. Possibly. Except that he was having these attacks before he knew me. He's getting pyrobenzamine now. That's giving him some relief. Has the man been given anything externally that might affect him? Have you checked his toilet preparations? Toothpaste and soap, shaving lotion? I'm doing that tonight. I'll be in to see you again, first thing in the morning. Be sure to get that next application in 15 minutes, Molly. Yes, Dr. Kildare. Yeah, I wish you had the mumps and I was treating you. I don't blame you, doctor. But say, lovey, say, lovey. How do you feel this evening, Mr. Jackson? Oh, I don't know. I don't think there's much good going to kill of all this, Dr. Kildare. Don't feel that way. These things take time. They're real riddles. You have to have patience. One man is allergic to wool, another is allergic to a bit of pollen, or a spice or some other seasoning. You may be allergic to an animal or to a blossom of some sort. It's a long hunt to narrow the world down until you find one man's enemy, but once you find it, you can help him. But you'll have to have patience, and so will I. Okay. Where do we go from here? What kind of shaving lotion do you use? Normally, I use a special prescription. I got it from a doctor in Iowa. He said it'd be easier on my skin. May I take a little of it? I'd like to have it analyzed. Sure you can, but I haven't any of it here. You'll have to ask my wife to bring them over. What have you been using here? Well, the hospital brought some up, and it's there on the dressing. I think I'll take that along, too. Well, I'll see you tomorrow, Mr. Jackson. Maybe I'll have something more encouraging to tell you then. Say, Doc, if my wife brings the lotion over, I kind of like to see her. She's willing to see me. Willing? Oh, she's been waiting for the word that you want to see her. I do want to see her, very much. All right. I'll have her bring over the lotion, and you can see her for a few minutes this evening. Thanks, Dr. Kildare. I appreciate that very much. Laboratory? This is Dr. Kildare. I want tests made immediately on two types of shaving lotion I'm sending down to you. That's right. Let me know as soon as you can, will you? Thanks. Hey, Gillespie, glad to see that you're coming along so nicely. Ah, good morning, yourself.  Would you prefer that I went away? Oh, I certainly would. All right, I'll go. I wanted to tell you that I think I've isolated Jackson's body. Oh, come here. Come back here. What is it? No, I think he's allergic to auras root. Auras root? Yes. He had a prescription shaving lotion that didn't use auras. But the lotion he was using here at the hospital did contain it. As I told you, his condition has been worse since he's been in the hospital. I've given orders now that he's not to use anything containing auras root. So we'll watch and see what happens. Well, I certainly hope you're on the right track. When do you intend to let me up, by the way? My temperature is down and the swelling is going down. Well, I'll let you know. How's your pancreas? Oh, mind your own pancreas. Shall I conduct an examination, or do you care to tell me? My pancreas is all right. Scout on it. Scout on it. Now leave me alone. All right.  Here, brought you a nice iron tonic you can start taking today. My iron tonic. I don't need an iron tonic. By your own hand it is written, quote, an iron tonic should be given patient during convalescence, unquote. All right. Leave it on the table. I'll take it. I'll take it. I'll take anything. Now go back to your auras root and give me a chance to convalesce with you. Mr. Jackson, it's good to see you on your feet again. Isn't it? All right. I don't mind telling you. I feel like the beginning of a new man. I can't get over the fact that I was the cause of war and illness. Wasn't you, Mrs. Jackson, it was the perfume you used. It contained a great quantity of auras. Warren gave me the perfume as a wedding present. I certainly didn't know what I was doing. How long will you be treating him, Dr. Kildare? Well, he'll have to come in quite regularly for shots for a while. We're giving him auras hyperdermically now in very small doses, which will gradually increase. Until we build up an immunity and you'll be able to lead a normal life. Well, I certainly thank you, Dr. Kildare. You've made a great difference in the world as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad to hear that. Dr. Gillespie. Hello, Dr. Gillespie. This is my first day up, too, but I didn't want you to leave the hospital without my having a chance to see you and wish you well. Thank you, Dr. Gillespie. You'll be seeing a lot of me. I have to come back for shots. You now sit down, Dr. Gillespie. Don't overdo things. Still under doctor's orders, you know. Careful, remember you're among patients. Well, we'd better be going. Thank you both again. Yes, thank you for saving my life, Dr. Gillespie. And thank you, Dr. Kildare, for making it worthwhile. I'll see you soon. Goodbye. Goodbye. Bye. You don't have to look so smug about it. Strange, isn't it? How a little thing like an allergy can have such a depressing effect on a man that it can drive him to suicide. Oh, I don't think it's so strange. Don't think it's strange at all. I'm getting more and more allergic to you every day. Well, I think you should be back in bed. Been up just about long enough for your first day. You know, you have all the makings of a first-class bully. I shouldn't be a bit surprised. You see, I was taught by one of the greatest bullies in the world, Dr. Leonard Gillespie himself. Ah, splice. And double-slice. And the story of Dr. Kildare. Slight sore throat. Nothing serious. Well, I suppose we just take your temperature and find out. Ah, look here, I've had the mumps. Well, son, I got some news for you. Unless I'm not the diagnostician I think I am, you are about to have the mumps again. That's impossible. I looked up your record. You had them when you were ten years old, and it is recorded in your very own handwriting that you only had them on one side. Ah, no. Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes. So open them out. Yes, yes. We'll put the thermometer under the tongue. No, there's no justice. Absolutely no justice. The thermometer up under the tongue. Under the, that's right. What are you laughing at? An old adage, doctor. An old, old adage. He laughs best who laughs last. Dr. Kildare, you are hereby and officially ordered to bed. Dr. Kildare, starring Lou Ayers and Lionel Barrymore. This program was written by Gene Holloway and directed by William P. Russo. Original music was composed and conducted by Walter Schumann. Dick Joy speaking.


Hey everyone, it's Gabrielle with Oxmerotic Group. I'm here today at Oxmer Toyota for our Facebook Use Vehicles of the Week. This week I have two certified pre-owned Toyotas that I like to share with you guys. So let's go over some information on this. This is a certified pre-owned. It's a 2017 Toyota Highlander. It is an SE. The exterior color is a midnight black metallic. Now it does have 19-inch alloy wheels. There is a sunroof. The vehicle is equipped with navigation. Bluetooth also has a backup camera. There is heated leather seating. The vehicle had one owner. It does have a clean car fax. That interior is a black leather. Mileage is $18,207. The price is $34,215. For our second and last, this is a certified pre-owned 2016 Toyota RAV4. It is an XLE. It is all-wheel drive. The exterior color is in a super white vehicle. It does have 17-inch alloy wheels. There is a sunroof. The vehicle was locally owned. It does have Bluetooth and a backup camera. It had one owner. It does have a clean car fax. That interior is a black. Mileage is $25,661. The price is $21,500. Now if you guys have any questions, please feel free to let us know. The best phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. You can also visit our website, it's oxfordtoyota.com. I'll have a link to each one in the comments. Thanks you guys. See y'all soon. Bye.


Rubyでオプティマイズを説明することを説明しますまず、私自身を紹介しますI'm ShoheiI'm a bit difficult to pronounce for youbut, call me ShoheiI'm one of Ruby Quark Committersince 28 or so, I rememberI was the moderator of 1.829or, I actually created Ruby Vipobut then, I was not active developer for a whilebecause my job was busybut I changed my job in last Februaryso that I can now develop new thingsI will show you the thing I developed recently todayso let me briefly overview this talkI implemented what we call the optimization density on RubyFusion 2.4under some benchmark, I'll show you laterit boosts execution up to 400 timesdepending on benchmarksalso, because this is the first very fast attempt of this kindit makes lots of rooms for future optimizationsnow, well, I knoweveryone has something to say about this butRuby is at least not the fastest language to runthis is a screen shot of language shooter sitewhich computes various languages in their speedsthe chart is comparison of several languagesoh, sorry, I can't show the cylinderokay, the orange line is Rubyso, you can see it's not theand the fastest one is on the leftthe slower one is on the rightso it is clear that Ruby is not the fastest languageyou can see it's in the right sideand what is interesting is that JRuby is on the right of Rubybut it's the chart shows JRuby is actually faster than Rubybut it's kind of mistakenly within the right sideit's very interestingso there are many reasons explained why Ruby is slowlike because we have GC or we have GVL or anything like thatbut I'd like to say this is all wrongRuby is slow because Ruby is not optimizedthis is actually disassembly of how 1 plus 2 is evaluateda bit noisy but all it does is put object 1, put object 2then send plusbut wait, 1 plus 21 plus 2, it might be 3 rightthe way we evaluate this is too complexit should be just like thisbut it's notthe reason behind why we can't do thisbecause I said 1 plus 2 must be 3it's actually wrongit could be very fine, dynamically and globallyso it is pretty difficult to make sure1 plus 2 is always 3 beforehandthere is a reason why we calculate every timethat being saidredefensions are rare kind of1 plus 2 is arguably 3 every timepeople are not able to break your first grade numbersso of course redefensions are the part of Ruby featureso they must work if they dobut the problem is should they really work fastso I'd like to introduce a mechanism called de-optimizationlet's just forget about redefensionsbecause they won't happenand only when they dowe can stop andslow away everythingthey fall back to naive evaluationthis is actually another headso it makes redefensions slowerbut like I saidredefensions are rareit works mostly fastnowwe're taking forward approaches to tackle firstwe do not compile the sequence into machine native oneswe do not introduce new binary formator new type of executionswe are going to optimize everythingexisting execution sequenceto a more sophisticated onesand doing so we are going to overrideexisting execution sequence on the flythis means we cannot change the length of the sequenceonly modification that preserves lengths are possiblein reality we can fill knobsso shrinking the instruction is kind of possiblebut to speak strictlywe can't change the lengthwell this diagram shows a part of Ruby's internalsin a Ruby processVM instruction is pointed fromIC encoded field of RBIC constant body structwhose length is IC sizeoh wait waityeah this onecan you show thiscan you see thisthe structleft side there's a struct RBIC constant bodyand it points to a sequence of the instructionapart from themthere are program counters somewhere outside of the structprogram counters typically resides in the machine stackso they apart from the management structurenow in our implementationtwo new fields namedICD optimized and created atare introducedthe ICD optimized is a simple copy of IC encodedwhat was mean about husband herewill visit the created at field laternow alrightI assume we have some optimizationsIC encoded got changed fromwhat was originally beenhow we cancel thisit's quite easywe save the sequencefor the reasonso just write them backthis is the actual implementationof the optimizationnznothing abbreviatedthis is the wholeof course you can seethe main procedureis MCPYin the last two linesso what is the advantageof this approach isit's firstit's expected to befile portablebecause it is written inpure Cand no G2native assembliesinvolvedalso the optimizationdoes not touchthe programcounter at allthis is particularlyimportantbecause wedon't have tobother any VM statesbecause the onlything thatshould be preservedis theinstruction sequencepreparation is doneonly onceat the beginningthis isalso an advantagewhen weencounterhighly evilsituation likewell tonsofredefinitionscontinuingto happennowbecausewe haveto knowwhenredefinitionshappenswe aregoingtohavea newstatevariablethis isthe globalvmstime stampwhich isincrementedwhensomethinghappensfor instancelikeconstant assignmentsmethodladderfinitionsandmoduleinclusionthis isimplementationa bit longsonoteverythingisshownherebutyoucanreadreintroducea newstatevariablestaticrbcotandblahblahblahandatmecinkthatpartit'sverystraightforwardthis isthewheretheautomizationhappenstheimportantpartisthebottomhavewhichisamacrownamedcallmethodsoreallyspeakingwedotheoperationrightaftermethodmethodmethodbecausethis is because theincrementationofstatevariableultimatelyhappensinsideofthiscccallcanyousee thiscancccallmethodsowhenthecall returnstherearechancessomethinghappenedwe aregoingtotestthathereanotherpointwheretheoptimizationcanbekeaktisvmpushframewhereafunctioncallstuckframeismade upthisoneaimsagoand becamestayatsomepointahugeadvantageofthisapproachisitaddalmostnooverheadsthegraphshowsapriminaryexperimentwithalltheoverheadsexperimentsoforitinvokesmethodsmanytimeswhichshouldbeshouldrunthemodifiedbud.thegraphshowsitactuallyitonly addsslightoverheadsitdoesaddoverheadsbutslightlywhich is within the margin of error.Okay, let me summarize what was shown.We introduced the optimization engine on Ruby.It's main characteristics include consistency of VM states such as program counter.As a result, the engine works very lightweight.Now, we are ready.Let's have optimizations.Like I said, we refrain from touching VM states under such restriction.It is still possible to apply some kind of optimizations like this.Elimination of methods, folding constants, and eliminating variables.Let's first see the constant following.It is how a sequence changes before and after optimization in this format.You can see that there are several instructions before.Several types of instructions like getting line cache against constant, blah blah blah.which was transformed into one put object in a sequence of naps.That naps are meaningless.They don't have anything.Just to fill the blank area of the sequence.So, ideally, it changes several instructions into one put object.This is in fact pretty straightforward.Because constants are already in line cache.Can you see this old one?Get inline cache and set inline cache is shown.That inline cache is already storing the result constant.So, we replace the set of sequence with already cached constant.This is implementation.Can you see the header?It is actual implementation to get inline cache.The complex if condition, you see, is testing if the cache hits.And if it does, before we jump to the destination,but before we const fold using the value.This is the IE6 const fold.Very simple.It writes the buffer with what we call a wipe pattern with a series of naps.Then, fill out the first two words.The first two words is put object and constant.By applying the same technique, we can fold one plus two.As you see, the generated output, put object, is identical to the case of get a constant.So, you can apply the same thing.This implementation might be a bit small to read, but it's up to plus.It calculates the executed value as usual and falls itself with that value.Not showing in the diff, but all the four basic arithmetic operations behave the same way.Now, next, send the lamination.In this example, we call method n of receive a self.But we are immediately guarding this return value by adjusting that one.It's a waste, so we squash them into a series of naps.That optimization, however, is not always possible.It depends on how a method is called and how that method behaves.So, in this optimization, let us call a method pure if the state is safe to be eliminated.The line is drawn like this.If it's right into a non-local variable like global ones, it's not pure.When it calls to a block, the method itself might not have any side effects,but the block itself can have side effects, so calling block is ng.Also, when a method is written in C, in this case, that C method can be pure, in fact.But we have no way to detect it.So, we can't say anything.So, we err on the side of caution.Lastly, when a method is calling another method, in the case, the entire call graph of the method should be pureto say that specific method is also pure.Let's have some examples of methods that are not pure.The left upper side, first one, is the accessing an instance variable, so it's ng.The upper right one is calling time.now, which is written in C, so it's also ng.The middle left one is yielding.It calls block, just it depends block, so it's ng.And hash withdrawal.You might think it's okay, but in fact, it's actually doing the calling a hidden C method inside.This is some implementation detail, but we do so, so it's ng.And lastly, of course, the RB define method, which is, of course, written in C, is ng.So, given the so many parts of methods that cannot be eliminated, there are actually, is there any method that's actually pure?So, it's, yes, there is.For instance, these two.They are, well, selected to be non-minimal, non-trivial examples.So, there might be other methods that can be pure, but for instance, the left one is the infamous left partner algorithm, which passes a string to another.And right one is, seems to be some kind of numeric algorithm, but it's in fact called a life needs formula that returns a value of pi.These methods are written in pure Ruby and has no side effects, so they are pure.Not however, that a method is either pure or not is too simplistic, because there are situations where we can't say if it is.Suppose, for instance, when we call a method and that results in a method missing.In that case, we can't make sure if this is pure or not until we actually use the method.So, in short, we have to detect a method's purity on the fly.At the beginning, everything are marked as not predicted yet, say, and as the evaluation progress, some part of the method is detected not pure or sorry, pure or not.And finally, when everything fixed, the purity of the entire method is set up and then propagated to its colors.All right.Let's say we know a method is in fact pure.Still, that only isn't enough.We have to check how the method is called.That is, if the method is, if the method's return value is used, we can't eliminate.So, we focus on the return value.If a method is immediately followed by a proper instruction, which means the return value is immediately discarded, then it's okay. Otherwise, the return value is used somehow, so we can't.This is where we eliminate the sender instruction.It happens inside of adjusted stack, not in send.That if it's mostly commented, it only was the VM eliminated instruction, which is this.At the site, it is very similar to the constant folder.It first washes the sequence with the pattern, which is not, not, not.Then, if argument RQC is not zero filling the first two words, the RQC maneuver is somewhat complicated.For instance, in this example, we call a method M with its argument M.If a method takes arguments, then that argument might have their own side effects.So, we, even when we can eliminate a method call, its argument must be retained, remain untouched.So, we have to, we have to fix the stack station state.The argument is pushed on the stack.The send is eliminated.We have to pop that variable.Next, variable assignments.In this case, we are eliminating the assignments of local variables.The set local instruction is eliminated in this example.Sendness is the implementation is not that simple compared to other ones, like 279 lines of code.So, it's a bit difficult to show you, but let me tell you briefly what is going on.It's not easy to tell you if a variable is not used at all strictly.That must be called lifeless analysis, and it's very heavy.Because we have to optimize on the fly, we need to do something like this.So, this time we check if a variable is right only or not.Also, because there are bindings, methods that are not pure might be subject to get bindingsand touch local variables from outside of it.So, we need to restrict local variable elimination to pure ones. Lastly, local variables are shared across blocks.So, blocks must be checked and if blocks can nearly be nest, so we have to check recursively.Okay, let's summarize what was shown.implemented stable optimizations.For those people who major compilers, it is obvious that what I did was very fundamental, very simple ones.No complicated new things.These optimization run on the fly and preserves VM states.I have not mentioned about exceptions at all because it has nothing to do with it.It doesn't interact with exceptions.Okay, now the benchmark.We tested what is proposed against 2.4 using Ruby's standard benchmark library.The condition is shown.I won't speak them out, but this situation I believe is somewhat normal.No new hardware, no new test suite.This is what you can do at home.This is the entire test result in one side.The speedup ratio 1.0 means the speed is even.The greater number shows our strategy is beating the trunk and the smaller, the slower.From what we see here, almost all benchmarks are slightly slower, actually, than the original one.Among them, few benchmarks achieve extremely fast results.Let's look in detail.The results shown are those benchmarks that got faster.This is an execution time, not the speedup ratio.If you look at it, you find there are several sets of benchmarks that speed up to the similar execution time like them.This is because they are optimized to generate identical instruction sequence.The benchmark meant to measure different things, but the optimization converted them into identical ones.The same result.At the same time, there are cases where we slowed down.One of these benchmarks that is interesting is this VM2EVO case, which has tons of what I said, evil activities.This example shows the overhead of the optimization.It's marginable, I believe, because the optimization can vastly slow the level,but this one only has a few percent overheads.This is, I think, acceptable.Other things slowed down.Notably, the block-related ones are slow.They are because we have to recursively scan blocks in order to detect local variable usages.However, variable emanation is in fact powerful because not only the assignment,but also the entire allocation of the object can be skipped.It impacts very much when they work.The fastest examples in the benchmark here, those variable emanation got effect.For instance, the VM1GC shot light, it got faster because not because we touched GC,but because we eliminated the allocation.Again, this is the entire benchmark results.You can see it's very simple, it's low.You can see it's very slightly slow in general when they slow down,and drastically fast when they speed up.So, let's have the conclusion.I implemented what we call the optimization under CVB version 2.4.Under some benchmark, I showed you it boosts execution up to 400 times depending on benchmarks.Also, because it is the first very fast attempt of the kind,it makes lots of room for future optimizations.Let's talk about the future optimization briefly.Subwork expression emanation.It can be possible because that should reduce the size of sequence.So, it fits perfectly to our strategy.So, it can be done right now.More strict libraries analysis and escape analysis has more overhead,but might work well.So, it is also the subject to do.Also, if you choose to allow modification of VM states such as exception tables and such,then there will also be other rooms of optimizations.That's all.Thank you.I'd like to have some questions,but you might be interested in this is actually fast in your application.So, this is Rails-wise.I tried running Rails on this very laptop.So, I got the result.It seems only as overheads and no optimization was in effect.But the good news is it seems no memory overhead.Just the identical memory consumption.So, the benchmark optimization is well, it doesn't work,but as far as it doesn't work, it has no overheads.So, we still have lots of things to do to make Rails faster.This is the current station.Right?Thank you.


Okay, this looks more like Breath of the Wild 2 than the actual sequel does.  We're also getting some Xbox goodness and then even Google Stadia is doing a conference.  And we are most likely at some point during the next month finally getting Super Nintendo games on our Nintendo Switch. As part of the whole Nintendo one line package because screw a decent messaging system and an actual party chat, I'd rather my money go towards more games I won't play. That's just me. And then apparently in the most exciting gaming news the Breath of the Wild sequel is releasing a lot sooner than we thought it was and exclusive to PlayStation. So there's that. Okay, let's start with that. I want to talk about this Breath of the Wild clone Genshin Impact. That's the name of the game. It has two trailers, a cinematic and a gameplay trailer and there's actually two parts about this story that make it crazy. There's the story itself and then there was the reaction to it and you're not going to believe that and we're going to get to it. I'll leave the judgment on this up to you. I'll give my opinions at the end. So let's take a look at both these trailers and compare them to a little game we like to call Breath of the Wild. Alright, so as my little skit at the start of this video shows you, from right at the start it's pretty ham-fisted. It starts with this character waking up on a beach, having a female character, call to him, beckon to him to open his eyes. Does anything else need to be said here? Like I can get being inspired by a game to make your game, but could you at least find a different way to start it?  Let's keep going. We see a bunch of beautiful landscapes that honestly, while they do look very crisp and it's exciting to me looking at this. Like I want to explore this world and play in it, but I can't tell if it's for the right or wrong reasons. Like I'm looking at this and I'm literally excited by it, but I'm pretty sure it's because it's either recent nostalgia for Breath of the Wild or hype for the new sequel that's coming. The character models, the grass, the creatures, everything is replicated from Breath of the Wild, not inspired in my opinion. And so I'm looking at this completely foreign to me game and I really want to play it because it feels so familiar. Now we do have our first big difference here. It seems like this world has a huge city in it that you're being welcomed into. And hopefully, and I'm saying hopefully like I'm going to play this game and let's be honest, I am most likely. Hopefully this town will be populated with, you know, NPCs, characters you can walk around, talk to, maybe get missions from, probably fetch quests, maybe shops, you can buy things. Just a huge populated city would be good. We were missing that in Breath of the Wild. I like how all of a sudden I'm like wanting things from this game. But it looks like that's what this is. Then we, um, there's no denying this one. We see some classic Zelda glider action. And that leads into the story about the game.  A lot of it is spoken in Japanese without subtitles. So I don't know. There's a giant dragon killing a village. To me, this all looks very different. So it gets a pass. Then we get a brief look at gameplay in this cinematic trailer. As I said, there is a separate gameplay trailer, which we'll get into in a second. But on the surface level here, the gameplay does look pretty different. However, I did notice a couple of things. One, like in this part, that grass, that's caught on fire. Not only does it look exactly like the Breath of the Wild fire effects, but on top of that, that fire seems to be causing a gust of wind to blow up, which I mean, that's almost like in lawsuit territory. Is it not? OK, so that's that one. It's pretty sure the next one's longer. I'll leave links down below if I missed anything and any more similarities. Just let me know. OK, so this next one starts. And yeah, it doesn't take long before you see what is essentially a Bogoblin. Is that how you say that? I think it is.  Like, I'm going to throw up a couple comparisons here and you can let me know down below. But I refuse anyone to tell me that this is not what these things are. The camp is set up the same way. You've got barrels, you've got some wooden spikes around the edges.  They're not trying to hide it. Then these dudes themselves with their clubs and even their animation when they react to seeing Link. I mean, whoever it is in this game, not Link, of course, since this isn't Breath of the Wild, although I wouldn't blame you for getting confused. We move on to a lot more gameplay and again, it's very different. And then we see some settings within the game and there's some shots here that stand out to me. I mean, all of them have that Breath of the Wild feel, but this one in particular, I think it's the chest that does it for me. And then the designs of the area in general feel very similar to Breath of the Wild's ancient theme. And I mean, this whole area just kind of looks like a challenge shrine. And it was here about one minute ish into the trailer where I started to hear some soft piano keys just lightly tapping in an inspiring way. I'll let you listen for yourself. OK, let's speed things up a little bit here. We have a lot to talk about in this video.  While cooking, the food bounces around the pot. It really highlights having a climb all over everything.  And while it doesn't really harken to anything Breath of the Wild that I can draw correlations to, you do finally beat it by jumping on its back and shooting it like a rock thing sticking out of it. I mean, it's a little similar to the rock golems in Breath of the Wild, but I don't think it's too close of a connection to really say that is copying, but I mean, when you're this far in, maybe. I will say the biggest difference between these games is clearly the gameplay. I mean, you get to play as what seems like a whole cast of different characters, each with their own varying movesets and magical abilities. It just, that whole side of it does look very different. Look, OK, this game is gorgeous. And honestly, it looks amazing. And there's enough differences here to make it feel like its own unique adventure. And even furthermore, considering MiHoYo, which is a developer at this game, only previously made mobile games, this is quite an impressive leap into a fully fledged console JRPG adventure. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so obviously copied from Breath of the Wild. It's kind of like taking an exam for the first time without practicing at all or even attending the lessons.  I mean, yeah, you did it. And it looks great, but is it right? I mean, to me, honestly, there's no issue here. Not unless Nintendo finds grounds to sue, but I doubt that. Like if I saw a lawsuit pop up between Nintendo and MiHoYo or whatever, I wouldn't be surprised. Like in the slightest. I don't know. What are you guys saying? Let me know down below. OK, but here's the second crazy part to the story. So all of this was unveiled at ChinaJoy 2019, which is a gaming expo in China that I had never heard of before. And apparently fans were not having it. There's photos of people holding their switches, flipping off this new game. Then there's this photo here of everyone raising up their switches like in protest or support or against, I don't know, this game.  Are you serious, man? Like look at everyone else's face. This guy legit looks mad. Like I get it? I get it. I get it, right? Like I get it. I get it, and I get it. But I don't get this. It's a bit much. I mean, what are you aiming to approve? What are you trying to achieve? Nothing, just you just broke your PlayStation 4 nothing. All right, sports fans moving on to the next piece of hot news. Super Nintendo games are most likely coming a switch. I'm sure you heard about this. This is blew up. Everyone's been talking about it. I want to talk about it, but let's talk about it. So for those keeping track at home or getting ready to pay their next Nintendo one line bill, Nintendo Online originally released back in September 19th of last year, which means it's coming up on a year. You know, next month will be the one year anniversary of Nintendo Online. And what a fantastic year it was. You know, we got some NES games. We got Tetris 99. We paid Nintendo money. The one thing everybody wants out of this online service, the one thing that's been the bane of my existence recently, I've been diving into a lot of Nintendo Online. Every time I think about this, I get annoyed. We need a messaging system and we need a party chat and we're paying for this service. And it's like Nintendo are desperately trying to find ways to justify this Nintendo service by giving us all these NES games no one wants to play, by giving us Tetris 99, which, okay, that was pretty damn good. I'll admit that. But now it's like, oh, what do we do now? What do we do now? Maybe sleep in Nintendo games? Maybe that will justify, no, what will justify the price of online is a decent online service. Video for another time, someone found a filing on FCC for Super Nintendo Control. Actually, while I'm talking about this, remember these bad boys that launched with the NES online? They're any old school NES controllers, but you know, click on your switch. I don't have to explain it. Y'all remember. Well, this new filing would suggest that Nintendo is planning on making Super Nintendo versions of these. Why would you possibly need that? Does Nintendo think that we wanna play their NES games with Super Nintendo controllers? You know what it might probably mean? Super Nintendo games, I mean, that's the whole thing. I mean, it's really cool. And Nintendo Online, it is so cheap. I mean, it's like $3 a month, $20 for a year.  It's essentially nothing. It's worth it if Nintendo caught this there, their NES and Super Nintendo subscription service. Nintendo's gaming Netflix, I don't know, whatever, if they marketed it towards like, okay, you're paying $3 a month and you get to play our old retro games. Their retro games subscription service is essentially what this is. But if they called it that, I would be like, $3 a month? Yeah, that's a great, that's a great. But the fact that it's called Nintendo Online, it makes me feel like we should be getting things for the online, services for online. None of this is online. They're free games you're throwing at us to satisfy us because we're paying you something for nothing. But I'm excited to play Earthbound on my Switch. I'm assuming it's gonna have Earthbound. I'm gonna guess the first set of games that'll come over will probably be the SNES Classic games. And finally, and I'm gonna find out about this today because apparently I've been living in a cave on Mars with my eyes closed and my fingers in my ears, Gamescom is like the 19th, which I think is Monday. And yeah, I talked about this at the start of the video, but I not only wanna say, hey, this thing's happening, pay attention to it, gaming news and all of that, but also I'm gonna stream it. But it should be really exciting. Nintendo's doing their indie direction. For those of you that are like, oh, I don't like the indie directs. I want the good ones. I mean, okay, maybe I can understand. But at the same time, we already know about everything coming out the rest of the year for Nintendo. We have all these big games. We don't need any more announcements. I'm down for some indie news. And also remember, the previous indie directs, like the last one was where they announced Cuphead and games like Super Lucky's Tale. There's rumor of another Xbox Microsoft title coming over to Switch and it's most likely gonna be Ori. So I'm gonna be watching it just hoping for that. And possibly other secrets and surprises. They put out a list of companies, publishers, developers, whatever that are attending and just some of the ones to keep an eye on. My doorbell just rang. Billy's here. He looks so spunky today. What do you mean?  I'm almost done. So subscribe to Billy. Just put out a video about Wonder Boy. About Wonder Boy. I actually only do a whole video on that. It was such a great game. Told you you'd like it. And then what was the other one? Oh yeah, Dead Cells. You took my copy of it like a year ago. Your hair wasn't that long ago. But it was called like nine, 10, 11 months. Anyway, so here's a list of developers and publishers that are gonna be attending that I'm keeping an eye on. Bandai Namco, Deep Silver Square, Enix, Sega, Ubisoft, Sony 2K, Capcom, Epic Games, Stadia, Xbox and more. There's a lot more. Look at the list. It's all there on the screen. You can see them. Hey ho, let's go. That's all from me. That's literally that he'd rang the doorbell when I was on the last sentence. Perfect timing. What do you think about the Zelda clone? Is it actually a Zelda clone or is it not? I think Nintendo will let us know when they decide to sue or not. Super Nintendo games come in a switch. Finally, we're getting our money's worth. Or are we? No, in my opinion. Let me know that down below. And games come. I'm excited. That's all from me. If you liked this video, then Sakurai Super Smash that like button. Half flip all over that subscribe button. Really weird doing this with an audience. And that's all from me. Hope you had fun. Love you, bye. Have a good, have a good whatever. How's the coffee? I like it. Oh, you're actually. Oh my God, I just noticed that. Okay, bye.