So my name is Shane Coughlin and I'm the general manager of the OpenChain project. Today I'm going to talk to you about how OpenChain, as a specification, became the international standard for open source compliance. This talk will be a little bit different to some of the other talks in this event. I'm not going to use slides, instead I'm going to talk to you directly about how we started, what we did, and what is coming next. First of all, the idea of having an industry standard for open source compliance came about through a discussion at an event just like this, but of course a physical event. Some people working in the field of open source who deal with matters in legal areas talked about how compliance activity was done company by company, yet all of the companies were probably using essentially the same type of approach, perhaps even exactly the same type of process and training material. The obvious question was, what if we standardized our approach? What if we could find a way to describe the processes that encapsulated all of the important points and allowed not just us in this room having this conversation, but everyone to approach compliance in a systemic effective way? A simple idea, and an idea that gained traction quite quickly. By October 2016, a conversation had turned into a specification describing the key requirements of a quality open source compliance program. This remarkable accomplishment was not done in a trivial or easy manner, nor was it done in a theoretical manner. It was wholly focused on the very practical matter of what do we need to do to bring products and services to market in an effective way that ensures in the best possible manner we adhere to the requirements of each and every license we're using. Open source licenses fall into various categories and of course they have different requirements, but there are common approaches to process management that allow us to adhere to the requirements of any open source license. The key is to have the structure in place to allow identification and adherence to the requirement of various licenses located in open source software. Being too prescriptive about any one point, let's say about any one license, would perhaps hinder the ability of an organization to deal with other licenses. Likewise, being too prescriptive in the precise nature of each process would naturally only fit the market segment and company size of those who determine it. The key was to find the common overarching processes, the inflection points, the points for a process should exist to help ensure effective open source compliance. Made very simple. Everyone should have inbound, internal and outbound processes to identify, understand and adhere to the licenses applicable to the open source software being used. By putting processes at these appropriate points, you can identify the terms that apply, what your suppliers are giving you, what your developers are doing and what you are passing on to your customers. An overarching gulf of making this definition of identifying those processes and describing them clearly in a manner that is suitable for companies of all sizes in all markets. The overarching goal was to build trust so that companies in complex supply chains could have increased trust in each other regarding open source compliance and this trust would be entirely practical. The likelihood of a supplier providing code that was in compliant with the appropriate open source licenses dramatically reduced. The likelihood of deploying to your customers while failing to adhere to the appropriate open source licenses dramatically decreased. And most importantly in some ways, the ability at any stage to stop, look at code and feel confident that you are doing the right thing in the right way. So we went to market in October 2016, a standard which was both simple and comprehensive. It is easy to read and easy to understand and adaptable, a truly open standard. Open Chain was created by hundreds of voices. It went to market and got feedback and evolved. Six months later, the first evolution, version 1.1, tidying up language to make it easier to understand and adjusting slightly terms based on feedback from new markets and new participants. Six months after that, exactly the same, another update incorporating real world feedback to make this standard easier to use and more effective for more companies in more markets. In April 2019, version 2 of the standard came to market. Version 2 was an interesting development. International communities had grown around the Open Chain project and the Open Chain standard and they provided a wealth of feedback on many topics, perhaps most importantly the topic of translatability based, of course, on ease of understanding. That informed many adjustments to the language to ensure that non-native English speakers could understand the specification and, of course, could translate it as a reference for their peers in their geography. Also important, Open Chain 2 included so much more feedback from companies in very different markets that it was, how shall I put it, more suitable for a truly global audience than anything that had come before. Now Open Chain 2.0 in market April 2019 increased in popularity quite quickly. Local communities in areas such as Japan, Korea, China grew at a rapid pace as peers invited peers to join the mailing lists, the calls, the face-to-face meetings when we still had them. The growing community showed us something very important. Our real-world standard for real-world compliance was working. People were able to use it effectively across multiple markets with a great deal of confidence. As this understanding was internalized, we began to consider an important point for the long-term future and mass adoption of the standard. Open Chain was a de facto standard, something that was created by companies for use by companies and adopted in a practical manner across the world. But of course, as well as de facto standards, there are what are termed formal standards. Organizations such as ISO create formal standards or approve formal standards in a manner that, well, gives an understanding that goes beyond a series of peers. An ISO standard can be understood as a standard and as something to use to understand, to even contribute to, by companies from any sector whatsoever, whether they are a company making food or jet planes or a company drilling oil. If they're thinking about open-source software management, it's so much easier to engage with a formal standard, an ISO standard, than with a de facto standard. The reason is really mental modeling. Companies in sectors who are not familiar with software per se and not familiar with open source per se, have greater confidence in formal standards and of course already have workflows for addressing and applying formal standards. For us, as a project, it was a simple decision to move towards formal standardization to ensure that the maximum number of companies around the world could benefit from our work and, just as importantly, could provide information, reference material and ideas to make open-source compliance even better. So, as we worked on this, as we collaborated with our own community, we came to work with the Joint Development Foundation. The Joint Development Foundation is designed to help projects which work on specifications, such as Open Chain, become more involved in formal standardization. They provide support and they provide a methodology of submitting de facto standards into an approval process. If you can think of standardization as being an area where people draft and then approve standards, it's also worth considering that there are mechanisms for existing standards to become formal standards and that's exactly what we wanted, what we needed and what Joint Development Foundation could help us do. As an existing standard, a de facto standard used widely in the industry, there's a mechanism called the ISO, IEC, JTC1, pass transposition process. I know that's quite a mouthful, but of course in standardization, as with law, the wording is important and we have to be accurate. Put simply, there was a methodology through JTC1, Joint Technical Committee 1, for existing de facto standards to be approved as formal standards. We entered that approval process in April 2020, one year after the launch of Open Chain 2.0. The document we sent into the ISO, IEC, JTC1, pass transposition process was essentially Open Chain 2.0, but of course with some of the formatting adjusted to fit in with the formal ISO style. We were very thankful to work both with a great editor who has experienced in the ISO process and also would pass mentors from JTC1. They provided the feedback and the support through Joint Development Foundation that we needed. Our submission went into the transposition process, which included several stages. The first stage was translation, so that various country committees around the world could review our standard and vote whether to approve it or not. Then we moved on to the ballot process, the actual voting process. This voting process provided a mechanism to approve or decline the existing standard. And it also provided a mechanism for providing comments, both for our education and for their education, a mechanism for two-way feedback, not connected to the approval vote, but adjacent to it. Standardization, above anything else, is about communication, to ensure clarity and to build collaboration. Those comments were part of that and provide a great foundation for future work, but I digress. The ballot process for our submission was successful. The voting concluded very recently and the vote was approved. Open Chain is now an international standard, a formal international standard. Indeed, as I record this, we are simply pending the publication of our standard. There is a six-week period after the vote, upon which ISO must publish a standard. And we're now two weeks into that. So within less than a month, we will be formally published as an ISO, IEC, JTC1 standard. At that point, we will have our ISO number. Prior to that, of course, you can check in the database, we are DIS5230 in the database. That was the draft international standard number used during the translation and ballot process. Long story short, our work started with a conversation. It built out from there. It built out through about 18 months of work among peers of exactly the people who use the standards to get things done. And that resulted in October 2016 in the release of the first standard for open source compliance. This standard quickly gained traction. It quickly built out across the world. And in April of this year, we were at the position, the understanding that our community had grown large enough. Many hundreds of companies, thousands of people. Battle proven, market ready, something that really did work and we knew for sure. And we could move with confidence into the formal standardization process.  How do you work with an ISO committee? How do you actually prepare a submission? If you want to turn a draft standard into a standard, do you use the past transposition process? If you want to turn an existing de facto industry standard into a formal standard, how do you get help? Let me explain. If you were just drafting a standard, then that is an interesting moment where you have the choice to either complete drafting the standard and build it up as an industry standard or to enter into things like national standardization committees and receive their help and support in drafting. If you have a pre-existing industry standard, such as Open Chain, what you probably want to do is to explore converting that into a formal standard, in which case you want something like the ISO, IEC, JTC-1 past transposition process. Whatever you need to do, whatever option, don't worry, you're far from alone. The organization that can and will help you is Joint Development Foundation. You can find it at jointdevelopmentfoundation.org. They help a great deal in contextualizing what you're doing and what is appropriate in the standardization world. The people there know standards inside out.  In fact, and if I was to give you one major message from this talk, it's that standardization, if you're working on a genuine, useful standard, and you collaborate with something like Joint Development Foundation, standardization is utterly painless. It's actually something you can do effectively without interrupting your ability to manage your community, without interrupting your ability to evolve the standard on your own. In essence, for quite a low cost in time resources, you can take an enormous step forward to broaden your audience. For Open Chain, I like to say that we are at the cusp of broadening our audience from hundreds of companies around the world to thousands. As an ISO, IEC, JTC1 standard, we are going to be super easy for people to use. For example, sales people can utilize it in their market to explain to customer companies that they do have the key requirements of a quality open source compliance program, and they adhere to the international standard for that. For customer companies, the ISO, IEC, JTC1 standard for open source compliance provides tremendous utility in purchasing discussions and actual procurement. When you're doing that, of course, you already ask for various standards to be used, quality standards, functional safety, export control, security. Our standard for open source compliance simply slots neatly into the pre-existing methodology used by these companies in sales and procurement. It enhances their work, it improves their clarity, it reduces the chance of errors, and of course, it reduces the amount of resource cost of dealing with open source compliance. Open source compliance is no longer something you have to do on your own. It's no longer something you have to contextualize on your own. It is something that is clearly understood, clearly defined, and entirely available to all parties. Now, the next thing I want to talk about is how does this work for a project with a specification like OpenChain? What happens after you get published as an ISO, IEC, JTC1 standard? Well, this is an interesting answer. Pretty much nothing changes. OpenChain will continue to develop our standard through the existing mechanisms and committees that we have in place. Our community will continue their work based on the practical methods we know have been effective. We are going to continue our meetings, our webinars, the publication of our reference material just as before. And indeed, you can access all of the material necessary to understand and use the standard for free on our website. Now, if you're familiar with ISO, IEC, JTC1 standards, you'll know that if you go to their website, you have to pay to download the standard. And, of course, our standard on the website will be exactly the same as anyone else, but we will host a document functionally identical on our website that will be freely accessible just as before. Anyone can self-certify. They can get independent compliance assessment or full third-party certification just as before. Our existing infrastructure, such as our self-certification web app, which is tremendously popular, our self-certification downloadable checklist also popular, our enormous library of reference material, exactly as it was. Though, to be honest, the reference material is always changing, we update it constantly and the corpus is growing dramatically. Our reference library has over 400 documents today. With the increased interest after our formal standardization effort, I expect that to bloom. Let me pause there. Reference library for a standard, what does that mean? Now, I mentioned at the very beginning, OpenChain defines process inflection points and it's flexible enough for companies of all sizes in all markets. That means that it says put a process here and it doesn't actually tell you in detail what that process should be per se. For instance, it says identify the software that is coming into your company. And you may ask, how do I do that? How do I do it manually? How do I do it automated? How do I do it for a small company? How do I do it for a big company? That's where the reference library comes in. We're not prescriptive about how you fill the processes out, but our vibrant community of user companies has provided a wealth of material to explain how to do precisely that. You can get reference material provided by companies of dramatically different sizes in dramatically different markets that tells you what to do if you want to. For example, a policy template that allows small or large companies to build out of blocks a policy appropriate for their youths. Training slides that contextualize some of the key points in open source training and allow people the flexibility to go where they want with that. And of course, any documents that might be guides for suppliers, for example, for sales of procurement, checklists for utilizing specific licenses all the way through to case studies and other material. Like I said, over 400 documents and growing rapidly. Let's sum it up. Let's come to the end here. Open Chain, the project created a specification. This specification grew to be the industry standard for open source compliance. Let's be very, very specific. The open chain specification grew to be the industry standard for open source license compliance. It identifies the key requirements of a quality open source compliance program. In doing so, it allows companies to trust each other more in the supply chain while reducing the amount of resources, reducing the amount of risk, reducing the amount of error that might occur otherwise. This standard is freely available. The material and mechanisms necessary to self-certify are freely available. There is a vibrant user community with local groups all over the world. Again, freely available. We have centralized activity and global work groups. We have bi-weekly webinars, bi-weekly tooling meetings, bi-weekly specification meetings, all types of avenues to engage, ask questions and contribute. We also have a partner network where various types of vendor organization like law firms or service providers or servifiers or tooling companies who happen to know Open Chain well and have taken the time to engage with and contribute to our community act as official partners to provide their various services. This vast user community has the solution for effective open source compliance. It was codified and battle tested and now it is graduating as a formal ISO, IUC, JTC1 standard. The process would have been daunting on our own, quite frankly, but it was not daunting. It was made possible by Joint Development Foundation because they helped us transition from de facto to formal standard. It is a tremendous leap to move from an industry standard to an international standard. We now have the ability to talk to every company in the world, to become part of every process that involves transactions of software from one legal entity to another in a manner that is perfectly compatible with what people expect. That is something new. Open source compliance is defined and standardized for the first time. Working with Joint Development Foundation allowed us to become a formal standard and the process in practice, painless, remarkable. If you have a project which has a specification, if you are a de facto standard, I highly recommend reaching out to Joint Development Foundation. If you're thinking about making a standard, if you're drafting, likewise, reach out to this organization dedicated to helping us with precisely these things and learn from them. And of course, you're welcome to learn from us. Open Chain is delighted to share its story. It's delighted to share the practicalities of what we did. Just bounce over to openchainproject.org. Join a meeting, join a call, send an email, and we'll be right there for you. Thank you for listening to the story of how Open Chain became a formal international standard. I hope it was educational, and I'm looking forward to working with you, maybe on conformance to the standard and maybe helping you with your standard. Find out more, openchainproject.org. Thank you for your time.


Hello and welcome to another video. In this video we will be taking a look at the Terranova Southern Cross 2, which is a four-season two-person tent. I got ridden by Hillyburg and I've been out in Milanshan during the winter months and a few other bits and pieces and I'm realising that I need some a little bit more sturdy and a little bit more four-season so we're taking a look at this which is a true four-season tent. It's my first look at it so we're going to pitch it in the garden, have a little look around and then I'm going to take it out for its first spin in the wild. Join me as I take my first little explore around the Terranova Southern Cross 2. I've also got a footprint for it which I'll put down first. The weather's been terrible of late so I've just had a little bit of a break in the weather so I thought let's get out in the garden, have a look at new tent. Wow smells good smells good and then in the pole bag he's got a separate area which is pretty cool separate velcro area to keep your pegs there she is set up so that was pretty easy pretty easy without reading instructions and one of my main things that I'm looking for in this one is ventilation especially to stop condensation which in winter can be a problem let's have a look I'm excited oh it's been a while mate been a while since we've had a a new tent wow there she is that's good it's not elasticated but we can live with it there we go get her on the other side there all doors open fully and there we are nice and roomy feels nice and sturdy let's have a look inside I wear it does look like this bonkers room but he's a wide angle lens welcome tails from the tent the vestibules are pretty big I'll tell you what we'll do I'll fasten it all up actually from the inside but first I'm going to go and get let's go and get my air bed and blow up my air bed and put it in and let's get a true test of how how much room this is and if it is truly a two person tent gives a sec let's have a look oh that's all right is that length wise there's a lot of room let's close this door the quality feels good I'm not sure you want to have a feeling of like you're in you're in a something that's gonna look after you when chips are down there's not as much room as in the alak to the top here it's quite a thin up top the inside is quite far away from the outside which is good for condensation my mat there's ample room at each side if I push that so it's touching and we have a look at the bottom we've still got 460 mil we've still got about 18 inches space there so there's a lot of room so it's if you're a taller lady or gentleman it's ideal for you could you get two mats side by side you're going to struggle I think they will cram down I haven't really got this for a two man tent I've got it for my one man winter tent four season and so it's perfect I mean for just me it's exciting there's enough room in here we've got some loops up top for for lanterns and I can string and which I will do is I'll attach a bit of string from this to that so that I can hang me socks over or whatever choose to do right let's have a quick look at which floor we're looking at 124 centimetres 224 centimetres in length from its highest point to the floor it's quite impressive actually and that is 96 centimetres it'd be very easy to get changed in here and just spend time in here it feels very it feels good you know you get that feeling of a tent now one of the things that I'm that I am keen on is ventilation and you've got these flaps here that comes down that's all mesh the outside there's a mesh layer there plenty of through draft there's one behind you to mirror that let's see what these are saying so you've got the main door so you can open that oh that's good this is what I was looking for this top section which you can zip down roll up and the material is quite it's quite silky and quite you know slippy and the loop and toggle the loops are pretty big for the toggles well it's fine it holds it fine see it holds it fine but it's it's still it's not very tight a little bit of farting about and that's going to come undone because why don't they put it like either make either elasticate it or have a toggle like you've done on the outside it works really well on the outside just put a little toggle on the inside because these are the bits that I like to I like to have all these squared away nice because they're the inside your tent that's the aesthetics in it if you're in if you're stuck in here for hours on end you want it to be all squared away nice and if I'm you know if I've got cold hands and winds are blowing and I've got a fanny around with this and it keeps coming undone my head's going to go in it head's going to implode but that is a lot of ventilation there and then you can open the main door and it's got this a little hood here with the wire in it to keep it up and that's going to stop rain coming in you can close that so you're not going to get any bugs in there and I said it closes one handed as well and then you've got your ventilation as I say it's a two man tent it's got two doors pockets we have a pocket down there and a pocket up here as well again mirroring itself there doesn't seem to be a side that's specifically for your head it all seems pretty symmetrical the only gripe is these ties on the inside oh I've got two zips so one you can zip it all the way down for your ventilation then one at the bottom brings it all the way back up it has this little clip so you can fasten the door at the bottom for when you're in high winds it also has this clip on the bottom so that you can I'll show you you can just open your door clip that onto your external frame and that's out of your way very quick I love that it was the same on the pioneer 2 a great feature it feels good I put you at the other side I mean it is it's symmetrical so you're not seeing much different from other side plenty of room actually for this bed my air bed and it's widest point we're looking at 62 and 62 and 62 so you're 124 all the way across and we're getting that at a push at a real push for two so I would say it's two man it is two man if you've maybe got thinner air beds or you don't mind overlapping them a bit as far as a person being in here more than enough room for two people just getting your air beds in I don't like solo camping a one man tent so much because especially in winter you're in there for a long time I like to be able to move around get changed and do what I want to do this seems to have a lot of room for that I like it the initial my initial thoughts are I can't wait to spend some time in this tent and that's when you get to know your tent in it is when you're out and about in wilderness again you're on the other side now so you've got this same thing there I'd be keen to know how it deals with condensation because there is quite a lot of ventilation options the material feels really good and the porch it's got a really good vestibular area you're looking at what there is widest point at 53 centimetres at its widest point plenty of room to cook plenty of room to put your bag and it all clips on so it pitches in and out at the same time which is a bonus especially when you're pitching in the rain where's my shoes or other side let's get my shoes on the southern cross 2 is a completely freestanding lightweight tent suitable for all season backpacking taking its design winning inspiration from the award winning laser range of lightweight tents but with an additional pole to provide extra stability and structure new for 2023 adjustable upper vent hoods on the flysheet to help with condensation revised adjustable flysheet door tieback for opening options and extra pegging points on the door the tent has two doors and two equal sized porches enabling easy access while providing plenty of storage for kit the flysheet and ground sheet are fully tapered providing complete waterproof protection there's a useful webbing loop at the bottom of the flysheet door to accommodate a trekking pole enabling you to create a canopy the packed weight of the tent is 2.43 kilograms the pegs are terra firma pegs 13 grams and the guidelines are dynamo reflective the cost of the tent as I make this video is 900 pounds they do offer a wide range of different tents on the website so it is worth checking out a couple of other tents that I can recommend are the helm compact 2 at 300 pounds and the pioneer 2 at 399 pounds I'll leave a link below if you want to go and check out their website and use the code here's 20 at checkout to get 20% off all non sale items as the clouds start to turn a little bit gray and ominous I'm going to wrap this one up so that's my first look at the Terra Nova Southern Cross 2 I'm excited by it and I'm excited to take it out into the wilderness to give it a proper run for its money oh there's Robert I'll never mind that never mind Robert she's a sturdy one as well I'll probably swap out the four corner pegs for my delta pegs put some cord on the inside as a washing line I own the pioneer 2 I've owned the helm 2 as well which is discontinued now but that was one of my favorite tents I've still got it upstairs but it's got a rip in it and one of the zips has come off because I did put it through its paces so I might get that fixed and see about I'll definitely be comparing and contrasting the Southern Cross 2 to the pioneer 2 I might get them pitched up in the garden at the same time and have a little look through but I want to take this out and do a couple of wild camps in it at least spend a night out in it so I can get a proper feel for it and spend some time in there and Terra Nova were kind enough to give me a discount code for anything on their store that's not in the sale tents, clothes, hats whatever they have you can get 20% off if you use the code here's 20 and I'll leave a link below so just follow that link and if you want this tent or any of the other tents they do they're a UK company and they make some quality gear so you get 20% off thanks Terra Nova for that I guess so the next video will be me camping in the Southern Cross 2 so stay tuned for that thanks for watching and I'll see you soon goodbye for now should I get intent look that's how you do it innit say goodbye come on just hide it best to be all because can't be bothered to open the door see you thanks for joining me goodbye cue music


It's a pleasure to be here. Can you hear me? Is this my con? Okay, great. So I'm Ken. I'm from Utah, and I'm going to be providing some external feedback, thoughts on recommendations for electronic phenotyping. Just as some disclosures, in the past year I've been a consultant or a sponsored researcher on clinical distance support for Office of National Coordinator for Health IT, primarily also some for Hitachi and McKesson-Inderqual. So just because I don't think I know many folks here, just as some background, so on one hand I'm primarily operational. I'm actually currently allocated about 80% effort to operational duties. I'm Associate Chief Medical Information Officer at our health system. I oversee our operational clinical distance support work, so things like the epic best practice advisories, health maintenance, the medication alerts, that kind of thing. I'm the person who oversees just the regular epic things around that. I've also done a decent amount of work in quality measurement, doing things like building quality measures used for physician compensation in our community clinics, things like that. And I'm spending a lot of my effort now on interoperable applications and services that we build on top of our epic EHR, things like smart on fire applications, things like external distance support that we're integrating. So that's one hat. And then on the other hand, I've been engaged a lot in standards development and implementation. I've been Co-Chair of the HL7 Clinical Distance Support Work Group for a number of years. I founded with NHRA support, actually, through a K-Award, OpenCDS a long number of years ago, and now we use that across our organization, number of companies, et cetera, for providing clinical distance support that's standards-based, that's all open source. I also coordinated efforts from the Office of National Coordinator for Healthy Decisions and Clinical Quality Framework, which were initiatives around developing and validating standards for quality measurement and distance support. I'm also a member of the Up and Coming Health IT Advisory Committee that's just getting set up. So with just that background, I'm going to go right into some of these questions. So the first one is, how can eMERGE improve upon the current labor-intensive phenotyping towards more fully automated phenotyping methods to increase phenotyping efficiency and validity using EMRs? And I'll just note here, George talked a lot about, you know, or some about the differences between what the purpose is, right? So for research cohort purposes, you really want high positive predictive value.  For distance support kind of purposes, you care about collecting as many patients because a doc doesn't like it when you miss 40% of their patients, when you're taking care of a patient and saying, oh, other 60% will recommend for you. I think along the lines of the clinical angle, too, there's also differences in those approaches in terms of how scalable you want it to be. So if it's meant for primarily research by eMERGE sites, then I think it's totally fine for it to be a highly resource-intensive effort that costs millions of dollars of research funding to get accomplished. I think that's appropriate. If you want to get towards how do we scale this to be able to be used at health systems, academic, community hospitals with relatively minimal resources and a lot of competing demands, then you have to think, how can I scale this without all those kinds of resource needs? So with that in mind, I'd say my biggest big picture recommendation is pretty straightforward. It's to learn from and synergize with related efforts. So I think this is kind of a straightforward recommendation, but it's actually really hard to execute on. It's just not something we typically do very well. So the underlying this is first understanding that electronic phenotype is really a common problem encountered in other areas, certainly beyond genomics. So if you think about most health IT, operational informatics kind of things we do research, a lot of it just comes down to how do you characterize, you know, you go from data to information. So this is certainly beyond genomics, beyond eMERGE. This goes all over the place, right? So there's a lot of efforts, obviously. There's efforts in data standardization, clinical distance sport, electronic clinical quality measurement, and I think what this means is if you synergize, you will have more resources because there are more people trying to solve the problem. And I think importantly you could have more adoption. I think one of the challenges I've encountered in my career working on standards and say the distance sport space is when you create standards just for your area, then people, the EHR vendors don't adopt it as much, right? I think the key question here is can you come up with standards that the EHR vendors will natively adopt that you don't have to wrangle, fight with to make it happen. I think I looked at the roster list and I didn't actually see any EHR vendors coming to this conference and I think that's something to think about, right? Like in the end, most of us use commercial EHR systems. We need what we do to be supported in those commercial EHR systems. And I think going with an approach that those vendors are looking to support is really, really important because otherwise there's a high chance when they adopt something you'll have to rework everything to meet their approach. So just getting into some specifics around that notion of working with others and using what I think are important trends emerging. One is I'd recommend using the HL7 clinical quality language or CQL. So this was developed by the own CCMS CQF initiative and the reason why I really recommend this, I mean there's a lot of reasons why you'd recommend certain standards because it's better or it's more semantically pure, that kind of thing. What I learned is it's really important to understand where this trend of the industry is going and I think the trend of the industry is going this way. I think primarily this is because CMS is announced that it'll start using CQL for its electronic clinical quality measures. Which means essentially if you want to get paid by CMS, you'll need to support the standard. I think it's the way it's going to happen. So I think EHR vendor support is likely to start emerging and I think aligning with that is a really good idea. So I won't go into detail but this just shows what CQL looks like in the human readable form. This is for quality measurement for diabetes food exams. Obviously it can do much more complex things. Just showing it's like any other standard. We've had numbers of standards. I think a lot of times the gist of the standard isn't necessarily, is it better than another? It's whether vendors are going to adopt them or not. And I think this probably has the best chance right now of being adopted. Along those lines, I would recommend building on the FHIR-USCORE profile. So this is where EHR vendors are focusing in terms of their support for FHIR APIs, which is their main approach they're using now for exposing their data. So anyone who's worked with this knows it's far from perfect, right? So like medications, they'll encode the medication codes using ARC's norm codes. But there's nothing in the US core FHIR profile that says the route needs to be an FDA code. So we end up pulling it from our Epic EHR and we get institution-specific route codes that we have to map. There's things like that that has to be addressed. But I think this offers a pretty good baseline of fairly wide support. And my recommendation to this group would be, don't ignore this, engage directly with it for things you want, try to get it worked on here, and work with the vendors to get it supported. Essentially what you need, the process ends up being, convince the vendors in the community and the healthcare systems that this is a really important use case that must be supported, and then work with the vendors to make sure it gets supported. And this just shows what that looks like on the FHIR website. Really not rocket science, but it sets things like, okay, the status of the condition needs to be from this value set, that kind of thing. Things we do everywhere. Every single group that's going to work on something like this is going to define this, you can make arguments of is this the right approach, is that the right approach? But I think the key question is, is your vendor going to support it? Because if it doesn't, then you're going to have to do the mapping. Here I just call out that there's really important work going on here for two initiatives, both led by Stan Huff, CMIO at Intermountain. One is the HL7 clinical information modeling initiative, or CIMI. Where the insight here is that if you want true interoperability, you really need detailed clinical models. It's insufficient to say you'll have an observation with the code in a value. It just, anyone who's tried to do this realizes that just doesn't work sufficiently. So what this effort is trying to do is to get from a position where we have standards where every time you try to implement, you make judgment calls. You say, should I implement using this structure, that structure, is it a procedure, is it an observation? What should I use for this code? What should I use for the value? What should I do for the units? Should I add a body site? This is all sorts of things. Anybody who's implemented this knows, this is what you do. It works for pilots. It works for highly resource settings where you share that kind of information. It does not scale. I think this has been the key to seal all the way back to the art in syntax days when this part was left out in the curly braces. We keep kicking the can on this one. I think if we don't solve this, everything is going to be built on a house of cards. So I think this is super important. And this effort includes tooling to generate and leverage fire profiles. And I do think if phenotypic efforts, at least for scaling, will likely fail without this error. So my recommendation is work closely with Stan, work on Simi. Another relevant effort is the Healthcare Services Platform Consortium, or HSBC. This effort includes efforts to build and share inoperable fire interfaces prior to Native Epic or other EHR vendor support. This is to say, we don't need to wait for the vendor to support what we need. We can build it and we can share it. And HSBC is engaged in that effort. And I think that's also really important because we don't, you know, for your use cases or our use cases, we don't want to wait three years until the vendor supports it. We can support it now and share it with each other. And this just shows, for example, this production smart on fire app that we have for ability management. The only thing I'll note here is that a number of these items here that you see that are supported, we have to create custom interfaces for. So for example, the phototherapy that's in the nursing documentation that's documented and shown here, that's a custom interface. Here we have the mother's labs, the blood type and indirect rooms. That's a custom interface we built on in Epic so that we can say, who is the mother of this patient? Now we're going to make a fire API call to that mother's record and pull on data. And we're going to be sharing all this kind of stuff to other Epic customers free and open source so that we can build. And I think this is the kind of thing the community can do to start saying, hey, how do we build on what the EHR, where the EHR is heading? And still support our needs. I'll briefly go through the other ones. I have much less to say about these others. So in terms of machine learning and other computational techniques. So at least for scaling, I'd recommend focusing on basic approaches that are easiest to scale, such as role-based processing of structured data. Again, not as relevant if you're willing to do this in a highly resource environment, but in a lower resource environment. I think that's definitely the easiest. I think NLP, machine learning, that kind of thing is certainly useful. Well, we use it for a variety of use cases in our institution as well. But it's definitely a higher bar and more resource intensive. So I think it should be judiciously used. And I'd certainly synergize with other related efforts. I'm just mentioning here, NCIU24 grant, where we're doing these kind of things, population management, NLP, all the asking patients questions, et cetera, and doing it on a standard space staff that will open source. And I think a lot of folks are doing similar kinds of things. I think we just don't generally collaborate, because it's not a natural thing for us to do. It takes more resources. And it's often not in the quote unquote scope of work that we're tasked to do. Last question on how can eMERGE assess immunotype comparability across diverse patient populations and diverse health care settings? Some recommendations, I do think, and I agree, when you try to do this kind of work, machine learning, NLP. The thing that always gets you is the amount of effort it takes to create the gold standard. So typical operational conversation goes like, hey, Ken, I had this conversation last week. Can you scale your no-show prediction model across our institution? And can you get it done by next week? So that's kind of the time scale a lot of the industry moves. And when you say, well, it's going to take us 12 months to do the chart audits with physicians. They just say, OK, forget it. We're just going to do what we do. So I think establishing gold standard phenotypes in less costly approaches is probably the critical issue. Once you create a data set, you can hand it off to any competent NLP person, machine learning person, and they can run their magic. The key is having that data set. So one thought here is you could leverage where significant effort has gone into establishing gold standards like the American College of Surgeons and SQUIPs registry. There's also, we make fun of billing data, but there are certain kinds of billing data that institutions spend a lot of effort to make sure they get right. Because if they don't get it right, they'll get a compliance issue. And if they do get it right, for example, you can get $4,000 additional on an inpatient admission, for example. So I'd say look for areas where people are spending effort to do gold standard chart audits, recognizing that in a lot of institutions, there's dozens of people running around manually chart auditing things. And the question is, well, why not leverage it if it matches your use cases? George already touched on this, but manual phenotyping efficiencies I think is important. I'll just note that ourselves included have tried to figure this out because we needed to figure out a more efficient way to do this in low resource settings and found things like, you know what? It actually makes sense in certain circumstances to provide the results of the electronic phenotyping to the reviewers so that they can be quicker about finding potential errors and such. And I think this is, again, a critical piece. The manual phenotyping is very expensive and figuring out how to make it cheaper, I think, is really important. I think another important part is leveraging, increasing EHR consolidation. So I mean, I think it's well known. Like, if you count the EHR vendors, that like 90% plus of us in this room are using, it's probably one or two vendors is my guess. So I think just leverage that. So when I take things like queries we've written on our Epic Clarity database and share it with other institutions to try to collaborate, more likely than not, it works. It just works and they just get the results back. And I think this is something that's a good thing. I think we should potentially focus on places where there's major EHR vendors and just come up with optimized ways of supporting those technologies. Because I think it could be a shortcut compared to the amount of mapping you might require in certain use cases. So just to summarize, and I think I'll be about 45 seconds over. I think the biggest one, Barnan, is learn from and synergize with related efforts, acknowledging that it sounds nice, but we almost never do it. There's almost no funding ever around that says, hey, we want you to work with other people who are working on similar things that's not in your network. It just almost never happens. I've seen it over and over again, people. It's just a hard thing to do. And then the rest are what I discussed. I think the key thing keeps coming down to try to figure out how to collaborate with other people that you don't typically collaborate with. Think of things like how do you go to HL7 and collaborate? A lot of the people in this room, I've never seen at HL7, for example. There are some folks from Emerge I know who go there, but it's the kind of thing that a certain number go. And I'm not saying that nobody goes, but I think it's the kind of place where it takes effort, it takes resources, but collaborating with others, working on similar things is really, really important. Thank you.


So a big theme of this conference has been the need to communicate and collaborate effectively in a remote first workplace In the next demo Fiona Soderbergh of Google for nonprofits will cover some tips nonprofits get the most out of Google forums calendar Hi everybody, my name is Fiona Soderbergh and I'm a program manager at Google org today I'd like to go over three quick tips for nonprofits for Google workspace First off, what is Google workspace? Google workspace is Google's suite of productivity and collaboration tools for Google workspace for nonprofits You get access to one addition and that gives you the familiar tools like email docs calendars and slides And then you also have the option to go to a discounted more advanced version if you'd like Like I said, it's the those familiar tools that are designed to work from anywhere on any device Which is specifically and more important during the pandemic It allows you to connect and collaborate in real time with team members donors and volunteers It gives you great storage of 30 gigabytes per user and shared drives And also gives you access to google classroom, which is great if you're hosting trainings or events The three tips that i'm going to cover today is google forums how to quickly and easily make a spreadsheet from your volunteer sign up Google calendar create and publish an events calendar for your organization And then google groups create groups to communicate with members and volunteers All three products within a google workspace Firstly, how to make a spreadsheet from your volunteer sign up form Do you ever send out forms to your volunteers get a bunch of data back? Wish it was already in a sheet so that you can manipulate the data and crunch your numbers as you like I can show you how to do that in one quick click The first thing that you're going to want to do is go to forms.google.com to see your database of all the forms attached to your account Click on the form that you would like to make the spreadsheet for It'll open up the list of questions that you have created for your survey or your form that you've sent out to your users There's a responses tab where we'll have a summary of all those responses that have come back to you And then the really neat thing is at the top on the right hand side. There's a sheets icon And with one click you can click on that And you create a spreadsheet of all of that data for you to be able to manipulate send out Do whatever you'd like with it The next tip is how to create and publish an events calendar for your organization So if you ever struggle trying to get all your volunteers to get the right details of an event You don't want to show your personal calendar or your work calendar Well, this is a way to create a calendar for the public for volunteers Whoever you want to be able to see specific calendar meetings and invitation First thing you do here is go to calendar.google.com on the left hand side above other calendars There's a plus button and you can create a new calendar Provide a name and description Here i'm going to make sure to give a description that reminds me that it is a public calendar So that I know that i'm posting public events here You can create the calendar and it'll show up on the left hand side navigation of all the calendars you own You can click into it and then have Access to all the settings like access permission for events. You can make the event the events public You can also copy the link to share the calendar with your volunteers wherever it is You can also directly add users to the calendar so they can edit and also share and use the calendar as well So I've made this calendar publicly available. I've copied the link. I can share it with who I want to I can also create an event on my personal calendar or my work calendar So let's say it's a meet and greet and I can change the calendar to be that of the public account events calendar that I want Click save it's color coded. So I know the difference and then it is available to all those users who have access to the calendar The next one is how to create groups to communicate with members and volunteers Have you ever struggled keeping a sheet full of all your volunteer email addresses? G-mails MSN yahoo whatever it is. Would you like an easy way to be able to email all your volunteers in one place easily and quickly? Well, we have google groups, which is a great solution for this. So if you're at groups google.com Left hand side click create group You want to name the group something that is indicative of those folks who will be joining the group So let's say nonprofit volunteers here that will be the first part of the email Aliens followed by your organization's domain You can create it and choose who can search for the group who can join for the group And then who can view conversations can post and view members This way you're setting up that group for only the people that you want to add And if you either add them directly yourself or you can go ahead and share the group with them And they can request to be added as well. You can add a quick welcome message for anybody who does join Just as a reminder of what the group is for So there you have it once you add all the users to this group Then you have one email address that you can send out an email to all of your volunteers So how do you get all of these great tools under google workspace for nonprofits? First you need a google for nonprofits account. You go to google.com slash nonprofits Review the eligibility requirements to make sure that your organization is eligible Request an account by clicking get started in the upper right hand corner Wait for verification with techsuit and then you can activate and use the suite of google products and tools that we have for nonprofit users Specifically for workspace that means signing up for google workspace Verifying your domain Submitting it for review and then signing into google workspace admin console and get going But all this can be found at google.com slash nonprofits. Thank you


on how bond markets are trading with Simon Michelle from Fig Security. Simon thanks for being there. Now the US bond yields are changing almost daily they're steady at the moment as what investors are turning back to equities. Yeah well good afternoon Helen we've certainly seen a little bit more activity in the equity markets there. Bond markets been pretty quiet yields fairly steady 10 years at 2.23% and the two year at 1.25% so that 10 years still about 40 basis points off its peak last month. All right now the June hike by the Fed what's the where's the market saying it's happening or not so much? Well we had a bit of a pullback on likelihood of an increase in June yesterday but that's recovered somewhat and I think it's on the back of a lot of commentary around the fact that the Fed is likely to look through this volatility look through the political uncertainty. We got that messaging about a month or so ago when we got a slightly softer growth rate there and the Fed said look we're going to look through this we want to stick to our path and so I think it's likely you're going to see that June increase come through Helen but I think the market's then going to say well that's two down will we get a third and what impact is this likely to have further down the track later in this year. All right now Aussie bond yields what's happening? Pretty steady as she goes as well we haven't seen a lot of activity there there off the Aussie 10 year off at about half percent from was its peak about a month ago at 2.47 so really there hasn't been a lot of activity in yields and I think that's why people are looking around and trying to get a bit of a view on this situation. All right Simon, Michelle from Fixed Securities, appreciate you joining me. Thank you Helen. That's all we have time for on trading day for today.


Well, this piece that Hume has given us, he's taken on kind of a big topic, and one of the things that he says, this is something that is interesting to all people. And that's dealing with morality. Now, morality pervades our lives, right? We ask ourselves what we should do, how we should live our life all the time, what's good, what's bad, what's right, what's wrong, what's just, what's unjust, all this goes on. We make demands upon people all the time based upon morality. We make demands about how they should behave or refrain from behaving. We make demands upon ourselves as well. Well, the question that Hume is dealing with when he's dealing with this morality, he's not trying to give us a specific moral code per se. Rather, he's asking this question, even before we get to which moral theory we ought to follow. He's asking this question, well, what is morality in the sense of where do these judgments come from? What is the importance of these judgments? And specifically, he's asking whether these judgments, these moral claims that we have, are the product of reason. In essence, Hume is asking whether these judgments, these moral claims, whether they're true or false, to begin with. So keep in mind that with these excerpts, Hume, with these excerpts, I've pulled out some very, very minimal excerpts from a very large piece of work that Hume has provided. So what that means is that it's going to kind of jump around a little bit. And we're not going to get the full picture of what Hume is trying to do and what's called the treatise of human understanding. But with these excerpts, I think we're going to get enough of a picture of what Hume is doing. So in this first section that I gave you, titled on the Influencing Motives of the Will, Hume is asking the question of what kind of role does reason have with the will, with volition? Now, as far as Hume's concerned at this point, we got just basically two parts to a person, the understanding and the passions. And the understanding has to deal with reason and the passions have to deal with volition or the will. Now, reason to give kind of a simplified answer of what it's dealing with here, reason deals with what's true or false. So there are lots of ways to talk about true or false. Hume is concerned basically with the relations of ideas, what we might call the relations of ideas, having to deal, the relations of ideas are contrary, right? So if this behind me is a tree, then it's false that this behind me is a dog. That's contrary. This is a tree is contrary to this is a dog. There's similarity, dissimilarity. This tree is much more similar to a bush than it is to a dog. We've even got implication, right? So if this is a tree, then this is a plant. So these are different kinds of relations of ideas. Matters of fact is what we discover in that experience or observation of what we might call an empirical verification. Now this is what's true or what's false. So that reason has to deal with the understanding. The understanding is what comprehends the world as it takes the world as it is, so to speak. Reason has to deal with what's true or what's false. Passions have to deal with the will. Now passions are, you know, there's lots of passions at Hume. Less anger, desire, joy, what? Sadness, right? You got some pretty basic passions there. This is what impacts the will or what the will uses to make its decisions. So the question that Hume is asking here is, well, you know, we've got reason. And reason deals with what's true or what's false. How does that impact the will? How does that impact the will? Well, I've got a fork on the road up here. I can either go to the left or I can go to the right. So what's the role of reason in this decision? Well, reason just tells me what's true or false with this, right? Reason tells me I can either go to the left or I can go to the right. But it doesn't tell me much else besides that. I can go down there and take a look at what's down each path. And reason can tell me what's down each path. So I'm going to do that real quick. I'm going to see what's down there. Well, down the left path, there's a creek bed. There's lots of shade. It's also some nice overhanging trees. It looks really cool. Down the right path, it's not down the creek bed. It's just along the edge. It's very flat and it's very smooth. Down the left, I would have shade. Down the right, I'd have a flat path. Now that's all the reason does. That's the extent of the power reason. Tells me what's true or false down the left path and down the right path. Passions come in and what, which one do I like the most or which one do I like the least? So looking down the left path, I really like to shade. Looking down the right path, I see a nice level walking surface. It'll be easier to walk down. So at this point, I got to ask myself, well, what do I want? Just looking down the path, reason doesn't tell me what I want. Reason doesn't tell me that I want the rock, the shady path versus the level path. To figure that out, I have to look towards my passions. Which one do I like the most? But reason doesn't have an influence on that. All reason tells me is what's there. The passions tell me what I want. All right, well, so that's the role of reason versus the role of passions. Now, you have said something a little curious, something that we likely don't like when we first hear it. He has this phrase that reason ought to be the slave of the passions. That seems extreme. Now, here's not what he means. He doesn't mean this, but just because you want something bad enough that whatever must be true to get it is true. That's not what he means. So suppose I really wanted a path that was both smooth and full of shade. Because I really wanted that. Reason's going to make this rocky, shady path flat. No, that's not what he means. You can't make what's true false, and you can't make what's false true simply because you want it bad enough. That's not it. Now, rather what he means is that reason helps find what the passions want. Now, in my case, I wanted, I like, I desire a shade more than pretty much anything else. So I really want a shade more than a flat path that's sunny. And so what reason does is it helps me find that path that has more shade. And in this case, though, I have to choose the shade over the flat path. And choose a shady, rocky path over a sunny, flat path. So that's what he means by that. And he says that reason is the slave of the passions. That reason helps us get what the passions want. Now, again, reason doesn't tell the passions what it wants, what they want. All reason does is discover things out in the world, and the passions say, want, don't want, want, don't want. That's it. So when we're thinking about this, when we think about what Hugh must have to say, it's really kind of interesting. The role of reason is kind of to serve the passions. The passions tell us what we want, and then reason helps us find it. See, Humus said that reason is the slave of the passions. Now, this doesn't mean that we just make true what you want to be true. Rather, that means that reason helps us find what we want. I want shade. Reason helps me find shade. I want flat. Reason helps me find flat. But if I can't find both of those, then I want shade more than flat. So reason helps me find the shade over flat. Now, this has a further consequence for him, and that is that reason can't be contrary to the passions. And I know that when we think of this, we're thinking of all kinds of unreasonable people because they're letting their emotions get away with them. I have to have coffee in the morning, so you must give me coffee. No, that's not what's going on there. That's just kind of weirdness. But reason discovers what's true or false. Passions just want things. Passions just want these two don't conflict because there's no ground upon which for them to conflict. So I don't know. To say that reason conflicts with passion in this sense is to say that the color blue conflicts with the sociopolitical environment in Venezuela. That's kind of a nonsense statement. There's no impact that the color blue has on the sociopolitical environment in Venezuela. It's like saying Venus conflicts with 2 plus 2 equals 4. No, there's no conflict there because one doesn't have an impact on the other. What's true or false is not impacted by what we want. What we want is not impacted by true or false. So the human's point here is that reason can't conflict with the desires. And the passions can't conflict with reason. Now, you might think of some example, I really want something to be true. So I love chocolate. So I really want all trees to be made of chocolate. OK, well, that's a mistake and reason to suddenly conclude that all trees are made of chocolate because they're really wanted. But that's not a conflict. That's just a mistake and reason. So just looking at what Hume has to say here. We've got reason and the understanding. We've got passions and volition or the will. Reason tells us what's true or false, and that's in the understanding. Passions direct the will. But reason doesn't direct the will. Reason can tell the will that the will wants something. Reason can tell it where it's at. But that's all the reason can do. Reason can't tell the will what to want. So reason's a slave to the passions, is a slave to the will, and reason does not conflict with the will. So we've got this distinction between reason and the passions. And so far, it kind of makes sense really. There's nothing too crazy about Hume has to say here. But we might wonder what does this have to do with morality? Well, Hume kind of plays his hand here. He tells you right up front what he thinks with the title of this next section that moral judgments, morality is not derived from reason. What does he mean by that? Well, to kind of explain that, let's take the argument that he offers. So either moral judgments are going to come from reason or moral judgments come from the passions. That's pretty straightforward. Moral judgments in this case is something like honesty is good or you should give the charity or don't steal. Or it's bad for you to smack random strangers on the street. These are all moral judgments. Now, the question is whether these are derived from reason or they're derived from the passions. Well, Hume says that if moral judgments are derived from reason, then moral judgments aren't going to have an impact on the passions. We aren't going to be moved by moral judgments. And this kind of makes sense. So if these judgments are derived from reason, there's lots of judgments derived from reason, that the anterior angles of a quadrilateral is equal to 360 degrees, not exactly moving. The chemical composition of water is dihydrogen monoxide, not exactly moving. The square root of 16 is 4. None of these have really made my day. None of these are just like, wow, that's so cool. I want 16 now. No, that doesn't do that. I want dihydrogen monoxide now. Learning that water is dihydrogen monoxide doesn't make you want dihydrogen monoxide. All right. So if moral judgments are like this, moral judgments are like these judgments from reason, they tell us what's true or false in the world, simply because something is true. It doesn't make us want it. So these moral judgments, if they're derived from reason, they work the same way, and they don't excite us. They don't move the passions. But it doesn't take very long when you're looking out into the world to figure out the moral judgments do excite the passions. It's one of the topics you really can't talk about in a dinner party, not if you want the dinner party to be fun and relaxed.  Wow, you got passions all over the place, or such as such as right. You got passions all over the place. It doesn't take long before our own political scene. There are moral claims made by different politicians, and it divides us really quickly with these moral claims because you got passions on both them, both desire and aversion. Well, yeah, so moral judgments, they definitely excite our passions. Morality is a very exciting topic, and it moves us. Well, since these moral judgments move us since they excite the passions, they're not from reason. They're not from reason. Remember, reason just tells us what's out in the world. Passions tells us what we want. And since these moral judgments are along those lines, it's not from reason. So if moral judgments aren't from reason, then moral judgments are from the passions, what we want gives us our moral judgments. What we don't want also gives us our moral judgments. So for Hume, as we said, this doesn't come from reason. Well, that means that moral judgments, whatever they are, are not things that are true or false. So first, we might like what Hume has to say here about morality, because we say this all the time. There's a wide variety of moral opinions out there. There's a wide variety of judgments out there, ranging from what kind of clothes you should wear or what should be allowed in the public sector or how you should conduct your personal life or shoot what kinds of character traits you ought to have. There's all kinds of moral judgments around out there, and they all conflict with each other. You get lots of different answers. And so a common response that we have to this is, well, that's morality, right? It's just opinions, right? It's just opinions. It's neither true nor false. And so we like to agree with Hume on this. It's neither true nor false. It's just opinions. It's kind of like your favorite flavor of ice cream, right? My favorite flavor of ice cream, I'll see you all right now anyway, is salted caramel ice cream. I love chocolate, don't get me wrong. But salted caramel ice cream right now is fantastic. So I say, hey, salted caramel ice cream is the best ice cream. Well, that's an opinion, right? It's not true or false, right? On top of that, that's just based upon what you like the most, right? It's just based upon my favorite. But just because it's my favorite doesn't mean that it's, first of all, is it gonna be anybody else's favorite or it's the kind of ice cream that everybody ought to have. Hey, it doesn't even mean anybody else is gonna like salted caramel ice cream. So we tend to think that Hume is right here, or at least some of us, we like to think that Hume is right here, that moral judgment is neither true nor false. So saying honesty is good is like saying salted caramel ice cream is the best ice cream. Well, that Hume is making this explicit. He brings us right up to the front. Moral judgments are neither true nor false. The only thing that's happening with the moral judgment is that you are expressing a desire, a want, a favorite. Now, you might think that sounds about right. Okay. Look at the price you're gonna pay for that, though. We make all kinds of claims about murder, about what should be allowed in society, about how other people should treat us. Are you really willing to claim that that's just an opinion? You claim a fundamental right to life, right?  Is that just an opinion? Well, what Hume has given us here is what's called emotivism. And emotivism is the claim that moral judgments have no truth value, they're not true nor false. All they do is express approval or disapproval. They express desire or aversion. They express what you want or what you don't want, but that's it, right? There's no more truth value to the claim. Honesty is good, then there is espresso is the best coffee. There's no more truth value to those. All that's happening there is I'm expressing my preference. Now, this comes with the price. The price is that all these claims, and we have lots of claims, right? So fundamental rights, I have a fundamental right to life.  I have a fundamental right for you not to steal my things. All those are just preferences. Well, like I said, this is called emotivism. And Hume is clear here, right? We are judgments, these moral judgments, he's very clear in this last section that I gave you. All these moral judgments, all they derive from are from what gives us pleasure and what gives us pain. Now, to be clear, Hume's not saying we should do what brings us the most pleasure, right? That's not what he's saying. All he's saying is your judgments about what's pleasure, about what's moral comes from what's pleasurable, comes from what's painful, but that's it. The reason why you say I have a right to live my life is because it's painful, because it's painful when somebody forces you to do something, but that's all that the moral judgments give us.  That's a moral claim. That's a claim about what you ought to do. But that's just expressing an opinion. That's the same thing as saying I prefer if you let me live my own life. So, Hume has given us emotivism, or at least one of the earliest forms of it. Now, you gotta ask yourself, is this right?