Okay. Thanks everybody for coming. I appreciate the time. I want to walk through a presentation this morning, kind of a presentation or training exercise or introduction or whatever you want to call it to a behavioral profiling tool called disk. Liam, Rachel, are you all familiar with disk? Have you used it before? I've used something similar, not disk. Rachel, did you do the profit training at Currency Cloud? I did the profit training at Currency Cloud and I've taken the FIRO B one as well. And then when I read the disk profile on Tommy's read me, I took the disk test online just to see what that was like. So I've done some reading there. Okay, cool. So we have some familiarity and I know Dallin, Mariner here and they've heard me talk about it a lot because it's kind of a default go to for me ever since I had the training.  What's my goal here? And then we'll walk through the basics of disk. We'll talk about the approaches that you can take to assess someone's disk profile because one of the things that I think is really valuable about disk as a tool is that you don't have to have somebody take a test in order to at least roughly place them on the chart and understand how they fit into the profile. We'll walk through some examples for each of the different profiles in the disk section and then we'll talk about what, you know, I see is some of the main takeaways in terms of how you can take this information and apply it and what I think our next step should be as a team in terms of approaching disk and how we might use it ourselves. So first, you know, why introduce any personal profiling? I think if you had asked me to do training around this or something like that a few years ago, I would have probably gotten a little indignant and laughed about it. I come from a mindset where personal behavioral profiles or personality profiles, things like Myers-Briggs or the Enneagram that's becoming popular even disk, I used to refer to them primarily as business horoscopes because the idea was you could get this really generic description of who you were and you could say, oh, yes, that's me. But you could say, oh, yes, that's me about just about any of the profiles and as soon as you accept that as your identity, you start living it out and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That said, the deeper that I've gotten into management, the more I've realized that obvious statement alert, right? Dealing with people is hard. So providing a good system for dealing with people means you need to provide a good system for talking about different classifications of people. And even just saying different classifications of people is already a troublesome statement, right? It's really hard to do that without getting into stereotypes or biases or other kinds of non-inclusive behaviors. So it's important to try to build a system where you can talk about it and you can have a shared vocabulary that is safe, that is inclusive. So if you do it well, having a good behavioral profiling system can help you do that. And you can talk about people and you can talk about different types of people and you can say things using the disk vocabulary like, well, this person's a D without it being a judgmental statement, right? It's also just a helpful tool as a result because it helps provide a framework around things, much like we try to provide in software engineering, we have concepts like the single responsibility principle or these other ideas that are very strongly tight and very strongly stated, but they codify specific wisdom about what makes a good software program. How can we evaluate that and how can we learn to deal with and make changes in the same way when we talk about interacting with other people, having a strong framework like something like desk where we can talk about it and we can say, okay, well, what does it mean that this person is a D? How should that change?  So why disk rather than any of the others that I already mentioned, Myers-Briggs, Anya Graham, any of that other stuff. I didn't put this as a main bullet point, but this is probably the main reason I'm doing the training. I like it. I've done disk. I think it speaks well to me. I think there are a few other specific reasons though. One is the simplicity. At heart disk is a two-by-two matrix. You have four quadrants in the simplest version that people can fit into. It's easy to learn. It's easy to use in the moment. It's not, you know, you think of something like Myers-Briggs where you have four dimensions, not two. So there's 16 different possibilities and trying to keep in mind what all those different possibilities mean and how you should interact with them is a lot as opposed to, you know, thinking about this in terms of the different, the two different dimensions that you have in disk that we'll get to later helps keep it simple and helps keep it easy to apply. I think it's obvious. Like I mentioned, once you get a good understanding of disk, you don't have to say, okay, great, sit down and take this test and share your results with me so that I can understand what type you are so that we can start working better together. I'm hoping, even as we go through this training, you'll start thinking in your head, oh yeah, that person on my team, they're clearly a very high D or they're very clearly a high S, you know, and like it'll start to click a little bit and then you can start to say, okay, well now that I understand that and observe that, I can start improving my behavior without having to go through a whole collaborative process with them in order to get them engaged and bought in on what the system means that the test results are valid and everything else. It's behavioral. So this is one of those things that's very, you have to be very careful when you talk about these things to say you're talking about a behavioral profile and not a personality profile. Behavior is what somebody does. Behavior is something you can change. Personality is an innate attribute of you as an individual. So if I start trying to describe your personality, then I'm putting you in a box and we're perhaps setting ourselves up for failure because I'm not giving you any opportunity to say, well, this is just how I happen to be behaving at the moment. I think disk does a really good job of addressing that by being very behavioral focused. I think if you do it right, you're being even more explicitly behavioral focused about what somebody does while they're at work and acknowledging that that can change over time and in fact even encouraging you to try to change depending on who you're interacting with in order to get better results. And then the final main point is the lack of bias. I was having a I mean implicit bias in this case. I was having a conversation with a fellow team member at GitLab a few weeks ago and they mentioned that they're they mentioned their Myers-Briggs type. And they said, usually I tell people that and they go, Oh, wow, you're weird, though. Because they have the least common Myers-Briggs type. It's something that's only 1.4% of the population according to estimates. And that I think that innately sets up kind of a bias. And that's one of the things that I think is really nice about disk is again, if it's done well, there have been studies suggest that you can pick a population of any kind of distribution, any kind of, you know, as long as it's an appropriate sample size, and you'll get roughly an even distribution across the four different groups. So there is no context, I think in which you sit down with this can say, Oh, well, those D's, that's just 3% of the population and they're crazy weirdos. And we don't have to worry about too much other than here's how you get out of their way kind of thing. So I think these are the advantages that disk conveys. And this is one of the reasons that I like to use it. And I like to try to share it and communicate across a few things I want to get out of the way up front. Starting at the bottom, we already mentioned, disk is not rigid behavior canon does change. I had a conversation, we'll get more into why this is a thing as we get into examining the different types. But I had a conversation with someone who's a very big trainer around disk materials. And he was saying he started as an executive with a very high D behavior profile at work. But then he got put in charge of sales, and being put in charge of sales, and he needed to focus more on networking, he needed to focus more on people side of things. And after a couple years of being in sales, he was as strong and high as he was a D. So his profile actually shifted based on the requirements of his job. And that's definitely something that can happen. And we want to be very clear that just because you figure out what your disk profile or someone else's disk profile is now doesn't mean it won't change over time. And it doesn't mean it can't change. Going back up to the top, this is not comprehensive. If you've looked at my manager read me, I have a link to my 25 some odd, I think page PDF breakdown of my test. And it gives you specific numeric scores for each of the four letters in the disk profile and gives you a full breakdown and tells me I think it's created it gives me some kind of profile with a start to start into one of those business horoscopes, like I was talking about earlier, if you pay too much attention to it. And it gets really specific, it gets down to the point where it breaks down a huge list of adjectives and tells you which ones are most likely to describe me and which ones are least likely to describe me. And the example that I always use for why I don't like to go into that much detail is if you go look at my report, one of the adjectives that it thinks is absolutely at the bottom of the pile in terms of likeliness to describe me is the word sarcastic. And I know some of you haven't had the opportunity to work with me all that much yet, but I see Dawa kind of laughing a little bit when I say that. So it's clearly inaccurate when you get down to some of those very specific levels. So it's not comprehensive. Let's try to make sure that we keep it at a very high level when we're thinking about how we apply this. And then the other thing that I want to make sure we're being very clear on is this is not discriminatory. Right, I did imply earlier, for example, a lot of executives at companies end up being high Ds. That does not mean that you have to be a high D in order to be successful as an executive. Those are two, those are two different things, right? There's a correlation there, not a causation, or perhaps the causation maybe doesn't go the direction you might think. So I definitely don't want to talk about this and have you take, for example, take it into job interviews or something and say, well, really, what we're looking for is a high C and this person doesn't fit that bill, right? That's absolutely not what we're intending to do with this. So that's all the introductory material. Not quite all the introductory material actually forgot about this slide. What I hope happens next, after we have this training just so that we're all on the same page. Really, the big takeaway I would like is that we have a shared vocabulary around how we talk about this stuff. I'd like for us to be able to have conversations about how we communicate with our teams, manage up, deal with difficult conversations. Having the shorthand of being able to say, well, remember, this person is a high S, so you need to do X, Y, and Z. Being able to have that kind of conversation, you can get to the same result without having to go through all the, okay, well, remember, this person is somebody who tends to want to avoid change and it gives you a good shorthand. Again, going back to the coding example, it's a lot easier to say this violates the single responsibility principle than it is to go in and say, I feel like this code is doing too much and go into all the details about what that means and essentially redefine the term to get there. I'd like to use this as a springboard for us to start more actively observing and assessing the personal composition of our team a little bit more explicitly. I think we do a great job already. We have a lot of great tools in place with the experience factor worksheet and all of that other stuff in order to assess the technical capacity of our team. But being able to assess more the personal aspect of our team is important for us as we're growing out of management culture and it's also important as we're trying to identify as we grow, who do we think is somebody who's going to be able to manage well? Who do we think are we going to be able to put on the team together and expect them to function effectively? These are all important questions that we need to start trying to get ahead of them a little bit so that we can start having these conversations for more of an educating standpoint, for more of an aware standpoint, then try to figure it out on the fly. And then finally, again, going back to the idea of the shared vocabulary in the shorthand, if we get to a point where we do adopt disk as a shorthand that we like to use, that's going to make it really easy for us to build other training on top of that down the future so that if we do need to get into details of how do we do career coaching? How do we do performance management? These are things that we can then talk about and it's very easy to go through and say, okay, well, if you're dealing with a D or an I or an S or a C, here are the things that you need to keep in mind. And we can cover a lot of detail and cover a lot of potential cases without having to spend a whole bunch of time, again, going back over what it means to be in those different groups. So all that said, and I'm sorry, this is going to be a little bit of an information dump as we move through the first part of the call and then I want to get into more questions and discussion towards the end. This is typically how you'll see disk represented visually. There's a lot of images out there. I'm not sure how they fit into copyright and everything else. So I recreated it crudely in Google Slides. But generally you see it represented, like I said, it's a two by two matrix and they typically represented as a circle. I guess circles are soft driven squares. So this makes people feel a little bit better. It's a little more personal this way, I suppose. But the two axes that you have for determining what quadrant somebody fits into in this two by two matrix. If you look top to bottom, which I have over here on the side, on the top end, you have people in the DNI group that are, they tend to express a lot of confidence and they tend to be people who feel like they have a lot of control over their environment. Okay, and we'll get into specifics about what that means here in a minute. On the bottom end, you have the opposite of that. You have people who tend to be maybe a little tentative. Maybe they want to collect more information first before they take action. And that's because they feel like the environment that they're in is very difficult to control or perhaps even impossible to control for some reason. The other axis that you have going left or right is do they typically think in terms of data, facts, logic? Are they more task oriented? Are they more analytical? Or do they tend to think in terms of people, emotions, intuition? This is another one of those spectrums. And it's, again, the nice thing about a two by two matrix is everybody fits somewhere on the spectrum. That's the old joke. There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who believe that the people in the world can be classified neatly into two groups and those who don't. When you have two kind of polar ends of the scale like this, you can put everybody somewhere on both of them. So this is where you get into some of the science again behind it. And why, if you have an appropriately representative sample, you can have people that are 25% D, 25% I, and so on around the group. So the way this typically works, and we'll go through the specific examples here in a second, is if you have somebody who feels like they have a lot of control over their environment and typically thinks in terms of data, facts, and logic, that means they're D. If they are, have that same confidence, but they think in terms of people, emotions, and intuition, then they are not. It's someone around the spectrum. So if we look at what that means for each of the letters individually, and this is where you start to get into some of the information that I think is really useful, and once you're able to identify where people are, this is the kind of stuff that you're gonna wanna come back to, I think on a regular basis. Like I just mentioned, Ds are top left, so they're facts, data, logic oriented, and they act as though they're in control of their environment. This means that if you have someone who's a high D, they tend to be viewed as being direct and firm in how they approach things. They're very results oriented. If you have somebody who's very much in the, it doesn't matter how we got there, the ends justify the means kind of thing, they put a little bit of a negative spin on it. That tends to be a very high D characteristic, strong will, forceful, confident, risk tolerant. Again, kind of going back to the ends justify the means idea, right? Like we're willing to take risks in order to get big rewards is the idea behind Ds. They tend to prioritize for immediate results. So they tend to prioritize for action and they tend to try to take on things that are gonna challenge either themselves or challenge others. They also have certain motivations. They tend to be motivated by competition, specifically competition they can win. Typically is how it comes in, or competition where they have a good chance to win and can challenge themselves in the process. And they tend to be motivated by power and authority. And this is one of those things where you have to be really careful about saying this in a positive way, right? We don't mean to say that Ds are power hungry landgrabbers, but we do mean that, you know, the idea of attaining more responsibility, of being able to drive more results, drive more action, create more challenge for themselves and others. That's very attractive to them as a result. So they're typically people who do want to try to climb the corporate ladder, so to speak, and get into those higher levels of authority so that they can get more done. As a result of all these traits, they can seem impatient, they can seem impersonal or insensitive. They can seem very self-centered because they're trying to drive their own ability to execute. And some common fears that you have to keep in mind with high Ds is they fear losing some of that power and control. They fear losing some of that ability to execute because the less power and control they have, the less that they can get things done, the less that they can drive challenges. And they also tend to fear vulnerability for very similar reasons. The more vulnerable you are, the less stronger position you're in to drive change. So that's kind of a quick overview of what Ds typically look like. Eyes are also on the top. So they share some of the same traits about wanting things to happen and drive action, but then they're on the right side. So they tend to be more focused around people, emotions, intuition, that side of things. So typically eyes are charismatic. They're the social butterflies in the group. If you're familiar with that expression, they're charming, they're outgoing, they're enthusiastic. They tend to be very optimistic about what the future's gonna look like. They're talkative, they're high spirited, they're very influential in this case, which is what I stand for. They tend to prioritize enthusiasm, where somebody who's more on the left side of the spectrum here may try to evaluate ideas based on the end result. And you get into the sort of financial aspect of let's calculate the net present value of this project compared to other projects and determine which one's likely to make us more money or see more impact, that kind of thing. Eyes tend to act more around, okay, which idea's more exciting? Which idea's gonna get more people excited? Which idea's gonna generate more enthusiasm for us because enthusiasm is the energy that I use to get going and get things done. They prioritize action in much the same way that Ds do. So eyes do tend to have similar drives towards quick action, immediate results, all that kind of stuff. But they also tend to prioritize collaboration. They try to create opportunities for collaboration between themselves and others. They tend to be motivated largely in terms of social interactions. So they like to be motivated by social recognition, opportunities to network, build relationships, strengthen relationships, motivated by the opportunity to convince somebody that they're right. Which again is another one of the things you have to be careful about. We're not saying that they're manipulative, although that can be how they can be perceived by other people at times. But rather that they see that as a challenge. You know, that they have this conviction that they're right about their vision and you don't agree with that. That's a challenge for them that's worth pursuing that motivates them is to prove that that vision that they have is worth following. They can seem impulsive as a result of all this because they will potentially flit around as the deprecatory statement goes after ideas that are in varying favor with other people in their network. They can seem disorganized as a result. They can seem like they're poor finishers because they're really quick to get excited about an idea and then get started. But then as soon as you get into the nitty gritty details of how you're gonna execute, for lack of a better way to put it, that's kind of boring. The enthusiasm isn't there anymore. We're in day-to-day execution mode. So eyes are really great at getting things started and building excitement around ideas. But then when you get to the point where you're having the eighth go-no-go call about this project or something like that down at the tail end, a lot of enthusiasm has waned and they tend to lose interest. They can also seem irrational, particularly for somebody who's over on the left side of the fence. This is one thing that I've had to deal with in the past where I've worked with a, I'm on the left side, by the way, in case you don't know, but I've had to work with folks who are high eyes and they've definitely been ties where we've gotten into arguments about things. And I've actually had one literally look at me and tell me, I think you're trying to out-logic me and I don't like it, get to your point. And I'm sitting here thinking in the back of my head, I'm not trying to out-logic, well, again, I am trying to out-logic you, but that's because we're having an argument and that's what arguments are. I'm trying to prove that my logic is better than your logic. So if you're not aware of that difference, it's really easy to fall into the trap where you say, okay, well, this person's just behaving rationally. You don't care about logic and how can we have this conversation at that point? What they tend to fear most is rejection, it's disapproval, anything that might cause loss of influence or voice in their organization. And you'll notice that all of these are obviously interrelated ideas, right? The same things that motivate them, losing those motivations tend to be fears for all four of these groups. So hopefully that gets to a point where it's kind of self-explanatory. S in the chart is steadiness. So this is bottom right. This is people, emotions and intuition, but not in control of their environment. So folks that are Ss tend to be viewed as mild-mannered, even tempered, very interested in kind of preserving an emotional status quo, right? They're not gonna have the same kind of dynamic, highs and lows that you might see with Ds and Is. They are typically seen as being helpful, humble, accommodating. They're people who want to help out. They get a lot of value from knowing that they've contributed and knowing that they've made whatever you're working on better. They also tend to be people who are very tactful and sensitive, because again, they don't feel like they're very much in control of their environment and they think a lot about people, emotions and intuitions. And so when you're in that kind of situation, you spend a lot of time thinking about, well, how can I interact with these people and preserve a good relationship? So that means they spend a lot of time kind of naturally building those skills of tact and sensitivity and learning how to productively interact with other folks. They tend to prioritize, like I mentioned earlier, supporting and helping others. They're typically referred to as peacemakers. So they love to try to minimize conflict and will even go out of their way a little bit to get involved in a conflict that they feel like they can help reduce it and bring things back down to normal, maintaining stability. And where I's were prioritizing driving collaboration and trying to create opportunities for collaboration. S's are very interested in finding opportunities that exist to collaborate and particularly in finding enjoyable opportunities to collaborate, right? So it's not so much just that collaboration happens but also the quality of the collaboration is important. You want it to be enjoyable. You want to feel like you have fun that you learned more about the people you were working with and built more productive relationships as a result. They tend to be motivated by stability, obviously. They tend to be motivated by sincerity, cooperation, like we mentioned earlier in the collaboration point. And they tend to be motivated by clear opportunities for them to step up and add value. So they don't want to try to create those opportunities. They don't want to toot their own horn for lack of a better way to put it. But they do want to find those opportunities and be able to feel like I'm in a situation in my environment where I can exercise my skills and exercise my knowledge and prove useful and make everybody else's life around me better as a result. They can seem passive. They can seem overly accommodating if you've ever worked with someone who you felt like was a doormat, you felt like let people walk over them a lot and kind of had trouble getting their own way. That person was probably a high-ess. They tend to be resistant to change because of their desire to preserve the relationships that they have and everything else. And they can also be seen as indecisive because, again, they're sort of waiting for those opportunities to come up.  And they balk at that and that can make them seem indecisive. They tend to fear that loss of stability and they tend to fear jeopardizing relationships or offending others. S's also tend to be people who are gonna be very much more prone to silence in situations where they're uncomfortable because they don't want to risk, they don't want to risk speaking up and offending someone or hurting their relationship with somebody else. They'd rather take on that pain themselves, that discomfort themselves than risk doing anything to hurt the relationship that they have with someone else. The last of the four going around clockwise like we do is conscientiousness. So those would be the C's. So they're on the bottom much like the S's are, they're on the left like the D's. They tend to be viewed as quiet, reserved, they're analytical, precise and systematic. They care a lot about being very detail oriented. They tend to be seen as skeptical because they're not willing to accept a lot on face value. They have to have the underlying data and reasoning behind it before they're willing to get on board and rigorous for the same reason. They're not willing to kind of skip steps in the reasoning process in order to get from point A to point B. Excuse me. They tend to prioritize accuracy and precision. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that probably if you know somebody who can very quickly tell you the difference between accuracy and precision, you're probably talking to a high C where the analogy that people typically use for that is if you're shooting arrows at a bull's eye, right? Accuracy would be how close your arrows are on average to hitting the target. And the precision would be how tightly grouped your arrows are. So you could have a very widespread around the bull's eye and that could be accurate, but it wouldn't be very precise because of the variation of the data. So that's my proof that I'm a high C, I suppose. They tend to prioritize challenging and eliminating assumptions. Assumptions are anathema to high Cs because why would you assume anything when you don't have data? It doesn't make sense, it's not logical. It's room for error because your assumptions could be wrong. So they like to prioritize challenging any assumptions that are made and doing their best to eliminate them rigorously. And then much like the Ss, they prioritize maintaining stability where they can. Because of all this, they tend to be motivated by opportunities to learn, opportunities to demonstrate their experience, opportunities to show that they have received the training that they've memorized the data that they have the insights necessary in order to make things happen effectively. They're motivated by quality and attention to detail. Again, because of that rigor, any little detail being off could be room for error. So we wanna make sure that we get that taken care of. And they tend to be motivated by clear-cut problems and frameworks. So Cs tend to love problems in the areas of mathematics or computer programming areas where there can be clear, right or wrong answers. And then problems around people or areas around philosophy or any of the other softer sciences, if you wanna look at it that way, tend to be, even the idea of it being a softer science, I guess I should say, is something that comes from kind of a high C mindset because they see those as rooms where you have to be willing to make more assumptions and be willing to accept more fuzziness in your data and your interactions before you can figure out the best way forward. They can seem nitpicky. They can seem overly critical. If you ever have a situation where you're talking with someone and you're like, I get it, the system is not perfect. You can stop telling me the 50 reasons why right now. That's probably somebody who's a high C. They can seem isolationist. They can seem to get very self-absorbed and kind of quiet and internalized. Not for the same reason that S's can, where S's can seem that way because they don't want to risk offending someone. C's can seem that way because they have what they need. They have the data they need. They can figure it out on their own and they wanna figure it out on their own. That's important to them. And they can seem overly analytical. My wife is a high C. This is an example that I like to share. When we had our first child, one of the things she did was she sat down and she built out a spreadsheet that tracked when our boy was sleeping and when he woke up and how often he ate and she was building the spreadsheet out to try to identify what the patterns were so that we could build a better schedule around his napping and eating times and everything else. And that's a very high C thing to do. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I don't share that example because I think it's embarrassing or anything else like that. I share that example because it's a problem that a lot of people might look at and say, we'll just figure it out as we go. But to a high C, it's an opportunity to say, let's analyze this and see if we can find the pattern because when we find the pattern, then we can solve the problem the most efficiently possible. C's tend to fear criticism because criticism means that I made a mistake as a high C and if I made a mistake and something was wrong with my data or something was wrong with my process and that's possibly the most insulting thing that could ever happen to me. They tend to fear being wrong for that same reason whether they get criticized for it or not. And they tend to be very apprehensive of any methods or processes that they perceive as being sloppy because sloppy processes lead to people being wrong. So they prefer to have things very clearly defined up front and they prefer to make sure that they know that they have a process in place that can cover for all the potential negative outcomes whenever they're diving into something. So that's a quick overview across the four. I mentioned at the start that one of the reasons I like disk is that you don't necessarily have to have somebody sit down and take a test in order to figure out where they fit in the profiling process.  And that's definitely one way that you can do the assessment as you start to recognize some of the traits or maybe you've worked with them long enough that you can reflect on the traits. But also an easy approach you can do is as you're talking to them, start trying to answer these two questions. Try to place them in that two by two quadrant. First, are they top or bottom? Do they feel like they're in control of their environment or not? And then second, are they left or right? Do they seem to focus on data facts, logic? Or do they seem to focus on people, emotions and intuition? And there's some more specific questions you can get into here. I've got examples on these slides. For the top or bottom, here's some things you can look for that give you good indications. Do they use big gestures with their hands? Are they doing this a lot? You know, I'm very much a talker like this as you probably noticed as we go through this meeting. In fact, one time when we were having a conversation, I was having a conversation with someone that was so vigorous that I actually knocked a co-worker's lunch into her face because she was walking up behind me to say something like this and chickpeas went flying everywhere. And do they easily make and maintain eye contact? If they do, that's typically a sign that they feel like they're in control of their environment. If they don't, if they tend to look down at their hands or look down at their computer or kind of are staring off into the corner thinking about what you're saying that tends to be a sign that they're more on the bottom end of the spectrum. Do they speak loudly? Do they speak quickly? These are, again, good indications that they feel like they're in control of their environment. Are they willing to interrupt or be interrupted in conversation? Folks that feel like they're in control of their environment, if they have something important to say, they have something important to say right now and there's no point in waiting until you're done talking for me to cut on say it. Conversely, on the bottom end of the spectrum, the S's and C's, remember, they want stability. They don't wanna do anything that's gonna risk offending people or seeming like they're not paying attention. So they're gonna wait until they feel like there's a good break in the conversation to jump in. Do they tend to speak actively about events? People that feel like they can control their environment like to say things like, hey, I got this shipped. We finished this project. There's a very active tone to how they talk about what happens in their world at work. Where folks who are on the bottom end tend to speak a little bit more passively and they talk about how things happened or this is the result that we got. Focused a little bit more on how the environment responded to them rather than how they influenced the environment. And then the final, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, but this is the top six, I guess, for each of these dimensions for me. Do they tend to push for action or do they tend to push for analysis? So folks that are on the top end of the spectrum, if you have a meet and you're trying to make a decision, they'll typically try to wrap things up and say, okay, what's the next step? Who's doing what? When are we making forward progress on this? Folks on the bottom will probably say things more like, okay, what do we need to know next? What do we need to discover? What kind of exploration do we need to do in order to understand where we should go next and in order to make a better decision? So that bias for action or analysis can be a good indicator as well. For left to right, that can again be easy if you start asking a few questions. Do they frequently mention numbers and metrics? So somebody who says our sales grew by 120% this year as opposed to somebody who says our sales team crushed it this year. That can give you a good indication of whether you're talking about somebody that's left or right. Do they use titles rather than names? Do they talk about SID or do they talk about our CEO? In some extreme cases, you can even say, again, I was talking with somebody else about this a while back and we were talking about another member of the team and they said, are we gonna replace, I'm gonna make up a name, are we gonna replace Johnny? And they said, no, we're not gonna replace Johnny, we're gonna hire a new head of international sales or something like that. And Johnny was the head of international sales who left, but that was a good indication of that person who said, no, we're gonna hire a new person to fill this role. What was important to them was the role and the value that they placed around that role, not the person who filled it, as opposed to the person who asked and said, are we gonna replace Johnny? What was important to them was Johnny, who was the person who was filling that role. And do they talk a lot about action plan rather than desired results? Which again is getting a little bit back to the whole idea of kind of task oriented versus people oriented versus effect oriented. So if somebody says, what we need to do is we need to do X, Y and Z and then the project will be completed as opposed to somebody who says, when we get all that stuff done, we're going to have a much more viable product or we're gonna have much more enthusiasm from our customers. That kind of thing, that indication of left versus right. Do they use a lot of bulleted lists? And I put bulleted lists in quote here because sometimes you see this in writing. And I am very much aware of the fact that this is a question about bulleted lists inside a bulleted list. But sometimes they use them when talking and I'm sure everybody's had this experience where you're talking with somebody and they say, okay, three things. First, blah, blah, second, blah, blah, third, blah, blah, blah. And so they're kind of using that bulleted list while they're talking to you because that's how they organize their thoughts. That can be a very good indication that they're on the task, data, factory, and inside of things. And then finally, do they avoid or do they lack interest in small talk? Does it seem like they have a hard time coming up with stuff to say? Do they come to you? And they very clearly have something they wanna talk to you about. And it's, I mean, we've all interacted with these people, I think, where sometimes they do that and they're going through the motions of small talk but it seems like it's almost causing them physical pain to do so because they really have something that they need to get to for you. That can be a good indication that you're talking about somebody on the left as opposed to on the right side of things. For most folks, there actually is an overlap. So if you've looked at mine, you'll see that I'm actually a DC. So I'm not just a D or just a C. That's, I tend to be in both. And what that happens is when you have somebody who has really strong results on one of those dimensions and kind of weak or middling results on the other. So for example, somebody who really feels like they're in control of their environment but oscillates pretty freely between caring about people or caring about facts is probably gonna be a DI. Sometimes if you do these assessments, you may notice that they change the order of the letter based on which one they think is more dominant. So if you have somebody who you think is more of an I, but still kind of both, you might call them an I-D rather than a DI. Somebody who's a strong right. Somebody who definitely thinks about people, emotions and intuition, but vacillates a little bit between whether or not they feel in control of their environment or doesn't have a very strong preference one way or the other would be an I-S. So that's just something to be aware of as you're thinking about this. And there may be some people where you can really quickly peg, you know, okay, the top or bottom question. I got that down, but left or right, I've talked with them four or five times now and I don't know, you know, I don't know where they fit on that spectrum. There may be an indication that they kind of straddle the line in that area. And in that result, then you have, you know, in the case of the I-S down here, you know how I's behave, you know how S's behave, you know some of the areas where they overlap and where they differ and you can still use some of this information in order to try to drive how you interact with them. So examples as I went through this and I'm getting some less, I did decide to throw in some popular fictional characters as well. A lot of military generals, so General George Patton who fought for the U.S. in World War II, a lot of CEOs, particularly a lot of CEOs that people have horror stories about working for. So folks like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, strong-willed political leaders like Margaret Thatcher, these are all characters that can be people, I should say not characters, because these are the real people. These are all people that demonstrate clear high D tendencies, right? They're very action-oriented, they're very much in charge. They're used to being able to say, hey, you get things done and get things done. In the case of people like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs, they can even trend towards some potentially harmful tactics where they, in a sense, almost abuse that power and start setting really unrealistic deadlines and unrealistic expectations for people on their teams. So that can be carried out to extremes. And then for each of these, as I mentioned, I decided to include examples from Harry Potter and Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings.  I've seen them for Seinfeld and The Simpsons and there are all kinds of interesting breakdowns where you can compare how these different characters apply across the different groups. For eyes, there's a high charismatic component to being eyes, obviously, based on the way that we describe them. So you see, again, a lot of eyes in entertainment. So folks like Robin Williams, folks like Oprah Winfrey, folks who like that platform to build connections with people. You see it in certain charismatic political leaders like Bill Clinton and Justin Trudeau. One of the trainers that I worked with around disc had actually spent some time in both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush White Houses. And he said the difference between the two in terms of their charisma, in terms of their ability to interact with people was so great that you could put them both in one room at opposite corners of the room and nobody would be in George W. Bush's corner of the room regardless of their political affiliation because Bill Clinton just had that kind of charismatic attraction and that's something that's very typical of eyes, extremely strong eyes. S's, the quintessential example that I like to go with is Fred Rogers, Mr. Fred Rogers because he did the Mr. Rogers neighborhood show that was popular in the U.S. But you think of, if you wanna see a good example, you can look up the testimony that he made to U.S. Congress in defense of the public broadcasting, funding and everything and it's just this very quiet, very understated, very simple statement of what the public broadcasting in the U.S. does and why it's valuable and how it impacts the children and why we need to preserve it and why we need to keep it where it is. And he's just making this statement and like congressmen are crying in their seats because of the power of what he's saying. Jimmy Carter, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, it's no coincidence that we described S's as being the peacemakers and there's a high correlation between people who are famous strong S's and people who have won things like the Nobel Peace Prize. So there's a very strong correlation there. And then C's, if the slide will load, Bill Gates is the famous entrepreneur, somebody who's very detail oriented and analytical. Harrison Ford, all the great method actors seem to be very high C's because they really get down to the nitty gritty details. And again, if you wanna get example of some very strong C behavior, Harrison Ford did an interview with the show Inside the Actors Studio and I believe you can find clips of that on YouTube and it's really impressive because the whole time Harrison Ford sits there like this and doesn't change posture or anything throughout the whole conversation except when he gets asked a question and he's not so he thinks about it for a second and then he says, well, and delivers this very carefully planned answer to the question and then retreats to his resting position to wait for the next query. So it's very analytical, very measured in terms of his responses. And then Einstein and Nixon and so on down the list there. So those are the some quick examples. And again, like I said, you can find a lot of examples all over the place. Communication, the biggest takeaway that I wanna impart is once you know someone's disc profile and once you feel reasonably confident in it, move in their direction. Okay, so if you're on the left side and you're trying to talk to somebody who's on the right side, if you're a D or C and you're trying to talk to an SI, take that time, talk about the weather, talk about how they're doing, talk about how their kids are doing, talk about how the people on their team are doing, try to move in that direction a little bit. Likewise, if you're on the top and you're on the bottom, try to tamp down your typical forceful, direct, action-driven impulses and try to pull them in a little bit more in collaboration, try to give them a little bit more time to think through the issues and make a decision on their own. The one thing that you really have to watch out for is when I've got it called crossing the diagonal and quotes here, but because this is a two by two matrix, if you're a D and you're in the top left and you're trying to communicate with an S who's on the bottom right, that's the one category that you have the least in common with, because you're both on opposite ends of both spectrums. So that's one area where you need to be extra careful to not fall into those traps. Like I was talking about when I was a high C and I was interacting with a high I and he felt like I was trying to help logic him. It's very easy for you to fall into those old patterns and almost make it kind of a combative relationship if you're not careful and aware of the impact that you have. There are some more, I'm not gonna go through all these slides in detail because I do wanna make sure we have a little bit of time for discussion and questions, but there are a few slides here that has some dos and don'ts for each of the specific groups, which again are really, I think just a summary of everything that we talked about before. So I'll share the slide deck out and everybody can kind of go through these and kind of review them and absorb them on their own time. And then if my slides will turn quickly. Okay, there we go. And then just a quick note here at the end about communicating with groups. Odds are pretty good that your team or really any other audience that you might have for a communication are not homogenous. You don't have a team that is all C's or all S's. So what I like to do is whenever I'm doing a message to a broader audience like that is I like to go through and say, okay, I've put this together, how would I expect the D would respond to this? How does this speak to their motivations, to their fears? Ditto for an I, S, C, go on down through the list. And what that exercise does is in some cases it may show you where you need to alter your message. Like I can't say this, like it's gonna make the D's really happy but the S's are gonna be freaking out and looking for a new job. So I need to figure out how I can massage that in order to speak better to both. In other cases, it may just mean, okay, now that I've thought through how they may respond to this I've identified what some of the potential questions are. You know, I'm communicating a lot of change and I've thought through how the S's and C's are gonna respond to this. And now I can predict what kind of questions they're gonna ask and have a more thorough prepared response for them ready. So going through that exercise can be helpful. I have mentioned here to some other resources. There's a lot of varied stuff out there. Disc was not copyrighted or trademarked. So you will find a lot of stuff online that disagrees with some of the stuff that I've said that uses different words or even different capitalizations. There is a trademark version out there where the I is lowercase and that's how they were able to get the trademark. So you see a lot of stuff like that out there. But there are some resources that I wanted to share. There's some cheesy YouTube videos linked here that walk through each of the different personality tests in animated form. There's also, come on, Google Slides. You can do it. There we go. Manager Tools is a company that, among many other things, produces podcasts on how to be a more effective manager. And they have a massive collection of discussions about disk and about how to use it in the workplace and go from there. There's also a very reliable, and I know Rachel shared a link to one in the site. There are a lot of free tests out there, but if you wanna really drill in and get one that has all the scientific backing behind it and everything else, it's not free, but the EverythingDisk website provides a good tool for that. You can also, as I mentioned earlier, Google disk examples, celebrities, or disk examples, cartoons, or like there's a whole bevy of lists out there that kind of go through and break down for different celebrities or politics or anything else and kind of put people into the different categories. And it's always an interesting exercise to say, well, do I feel like they put them in the right place and not based on what I know about the person or character?  Does, you know, can you figure out what their disk profile is? And do you think that changes how you understand their behavior? Do you think that changes how you should interact with them? This may be an interesting conversation for us to start having some in one-on-ones. Are there people on your team that you feel like you're having trouble figuring out? Or are there people on your team that you feel like it's really obvious? Maybe you already have some now as we've been going through this. So thanks just to think about as we go forward. And here we are, cheesy clipart and everything. Questions, discussion, concerns, anything not make sense? Anything seem hokey? I think that was really well presented, Tommy, thank you. I guess the question I would have is if you were filling a role, so you were hiring for a role into a team, would you kind of almost, Oley, I think you made it quite clear at the very beginning, you would not hire into a role because they're a very strong D, for example. But would you have in mind the letter you were looking for, for that role, or do you think it's more important to have a balance of everything within a team? I think, and this is always a tricky question, right? Because you don't want to get into an area where it's discriminatory in any way. So the way that I typically look at it is as the hiring manager, I know what my typical behavioral profile is. So I want to try to identify what a candidate's behavioral profile is so that we can have that conversation, right? So as somebody who's a high D, if I'm interviewing somebody who's clearly a high S, I don't want to say, well, you're a high S so you're clearly not a fit for the job. What I do want to say though is, okay, you seem to be a high S. I may not say it explicitly even, but I may just bring it up in the interview, like, okay, these are some aspects of my management style that I want to make sure you're okay with before we hire you. Because what I don't want to do is hire you and then find out we have this behavioral clash that is going to be either insurmountable or difficult enough for us to surmount that, you know, one of us wishes you hadn't been hired kind of thing, you know. Do you have experience with such an insurmountable clash in behavioral profiles? I do. I don't know that. It's not with me, is it? It's not with you. No, it's not with anybody on this call. I will say that. I have at prior companies had experiences with that both in terms of people that I reported to and in terms of people that I hired. And, you know, again, I don't want to say insurmountable because I think a lot of this stuff, remember, behavior you can control, you can change. I think it's really something which you can fix. But I do think, you know, if you back off the hyperbole a little bit insurmountable in this case really means it's painful enough that we probably should have addressed it more explicitly either in the hiring process or immediately upfront rather than letting it be something that impacts the relationship over years. Cool. Any other questions? Discussion.  I'm curious. No, I think it can definitely be a useful way of figuring out how to communicate and how to work with people. I think it just takes a lot of discipline to try and make sure that it doesn't become the only way that you work with someone. Yeah. Yeah, I like to say having worked at places where taking a disk assessment was part of your onboarding. One of the things that I always like to do with this is say, this is a good starting block. This is a good way for us to start building a relationship together and learning to understand each other. And it gives us a good framework to have an early conversation about how we do and don't work well together and things that we may need to change and things that I may need you to watch out for. But it's not a replacement for actually getting to know you as a person and getting to understand you. And while I may start off, while my boss, if my boss is somebody who knows and practices disk effectively, may start off thinking, okay, Tommy's a D, so that means I need to interact with him in this way. Over time, that should change just as it would with any other relationship to the point where it's like, okay, well, this is the stuff that's important to Tommy because he's Tommy and I understand him and how he thinks. This is the stuff that's important to Tommy because he's a D. So that's why I say like, I like to try to keep it kind of high level. I like to use it as more of an introductory example for starting to think through how do I interact with other people on the team? And I like to think of it as a high level, particularly for group communications. I found that to be really effective to say, I don't have to go through and think, how is Dawa and how is Liam and how is Marin and how are the 50 devs and the team each individually going to respond to this. I can instead really quickly say, okay, I know I've got D's and I's and this is in C, so let's think through kind of the high level responses that they might have and that helps craft a better message and make sure we're able to still communicate honestly with people, but communicate in a way that, effectively addresses their fears and motivations as we go. All right. Well, if there's nothing else, we're wrapping up more or less right on time. So I appreciate again, everybody taking the time. I'm gonna see if I can get this recording published somewhere so that we can share with other folks who may be interested. And yeah, let's plan to talk about this more in one-on-ones, the staff meetings and see if it's a tool that we can apply effectively here across our teams as we start thinking a little bit more about our composition and everything else. So thanks, everybody. Thank you, Dominic. Thanks, Tommy. Cheers. I hope you all have a good weekend. You too.


This is Witchspace news for Friday the 6th of March 2020, I'm CMDR Buur In this weeks news, a personal fleet carriers arriving sooner than we all thought, the return of Galnet and community goals is officially confirmed, a new community manager joins frontier developments and will also have a sprinkling of community updates If you enjoy this video consider subscribing and also click the little bell icon to make sure you don't miss any of our future videos. In an interesting post to the forums this week, community manager Steven Benedetti announced that the next patch and bug fix for Elite Dangerous was going to be rolled into the fleet carrier update rather than have two separate code releases as, in his words, it's always more efficient to combine content and fixes into a single update in order to reduce the time spent preparing and deploying those releases. So we know for sure that there will be no more patches to the game before the release of carriers, but the carrier release will have a bug fix rolled out with it. A recent live stream schedule posted on the forums shows that Will and Steven will be live streaming together on Thursday the 19th of March, if Frontier are going to announce something it will be on a Thursday live stream, likewise if they're announcing something it's almost a given that Senior Community Manager Will Flanagan will be present, Will isn't doing any other live streams in the evening this month, that's the only one. On last night's live stream Steven Benedetti said that an announcement would be coming soon, really soon. Frontier originally stated last year after the September update that bug fixes this year would be coming every three to four months. The last bug fix landed in January, by that schedule the next bug fix is due in April and we now know that the next bug fix includes fleet carriers. We initially thought that fleet carriers would be arriving around the middle of the year but in the announcement of the delay back in October, Will actually said fleet carriers would be deferred until the second quarter of 2020. This is obviously speculation and guesswork but if you connect the dots the general rumblings from Frontier do point to something on the immediate horizon, whether it's a massive frame shift surge remains to be seen but we'll be watching the upcoming live stream schedule very closely indeed. Answering a question regarding Galnet on last night's live stream Steven Benedetti confirmed Frontier's position that Galnet News still reports on things actually happening in the game like CG's, new ships or modules etc and that whilst nothing was on it at the moment that doesn't mean it's dead and as soon as Galnet has something to report it will report it. For those that didn't watch the Frontier live stream senior community manager Will Flanagan has further attempted to clear up the recent community confusion with a post to the forums that states very directly that in-game Galnet News will be returning at an as of yet unannounced point in the future as Will community goals so just to clarify Galnet is not dead it will be coming back community goals are also coming back whilst the game might be somewhat quiet at the moment we do now at least know that this stuff is definitely returning a new community manager joined Frontier this week and was introduced on the live stream last night Bruce Guerrido who goes by the online moniker of Gambit joins Frontier from Jagex where he worked on the MMO runescape whilst fielding questions about Elite Dangerous last night Bruce was inevitably asked what he thought about Fleet carriers and he said the following Fleet carriers are awesome they're gonna have a massive massive impact on the game and very fundamentally change the way commanders play together and with each other the systems they introduce are super exciting and novel whilst this information is of course quite woolly and non-specific it is still more information than we've had on carriers in well over six months without reading too much into what all this might mean it is starting to feel like we might know really really soon in other staffing news Frontier also took on a new PR and marketing manager for Elite Dangerous this week by the name of Jose Herrerez I hope I pronounced that right it's not frankly something I'm well known for and Dr. K Ross who is one of the developers most directly responsible for the creation of the one-to-one scale galaxy in Elite did announce that she was leaving Frontier for personal reasons recently but I'm very glad to say that she has in fact reversed that decision and is sticking around for the foreseeable future good news indeed and now for some community news if you're looking for some activities to participate in in the game this coming week Operation Ida are currently repairing Exodus Point in the Hades sector this will be their hundred ninth repair if you do join in with that repair be sure to register with the Ida Discord to log your deliveries if you're looking for a gateway into the world of player versus player combat in Elite then Commander Exegius runs a weekly Sidewinder slaughter event that is a fantastic consequence free way to learn the ropes of one of Elite's more challenging combat experiences you'll find links to his level 11 discord below to get you started and finally Commander Reney and I were interviewed on the loose screws podcast last weekend where we chewed the fat with commanders Kaizen and Tai on all aspects of Elite past present and future whilst also dwelling overly long on Commander Reney's obsession with Honky Donks. For more details on anything we've talked about in the show this week then check out the video description below if you enjoyed this video consider subscribing to the channel and be sure to click the little bell icon to make sure you don't miss any of our future videos and if you want to help support the work of this channel you'll also find links below to Patreon that's it for now thanks very much for watching we'll be back later this week with more videos until then oh seven Commanders follow the Greens on the way out and do keep clear of the toast rack we very much look forward to seeing you next time


Hi, my name is Augustin Barian, and I'm going to present the first part of our work, Crypt analysis of FoxSafers, by Getton Laurent, Nicolas David and myself. The FoxSafers from work was introduced by Henri Van Aal in Azure Crypt 2019. A FoxSafers outputs two safer texts, C0 and C1, out of a single plain text and a key. It forms a family of authenticated block safers, because the second safer text can be interpreted as a Mac. It is efficient for very short messages, as there are a lot of common operations between the computation of C0 and C1. They are constructed from block safers and two cable block safers. There are two instances of this from Mac from now. There is a fork AES derived from AES and fork skinny from skinny. The plain text goes through RI rounds of block safer, then the state is duplicated, and it goes into R0 rounds of block safer to output C0, and R1 rounds of block safers to output C1. Note that TK0 and TK1 are different tweaking material, and TK0 corresponds to the base block safer tweaking material, while TK1 has been derived from the original tweaking material. This framework gives a lot of freedom to the attacker, as there are two safer texts, and actually it needs to be carefully analyzed, and this interested it. The new attacker model is interesting because it gives three articles to the attacker. The first one is the encryption and decryption of the first branch. So this is exactly the same as the base block safer, so it has already been deeply studied, and we will not focus on that in our paper. The second article is the encryption and decryption of the second branch. It differs from the first branch because TK1 is different from TK0. Actually, TK1 can be poorly generated, and our attack on fork skinny exploits a weakness in the generation of TK1. And third, there is the reconstruction query. So out of one safer text TK0 and TK1, we can ask for the corresponding safer text. This reconstruction query is interesting because it consists of error 0 decryption rounds followed by error 1 encryption round, and actually this implies lack of diffusion in the middle round, and our attack on fork AS exploits this fact. To illustrate this, let's look at the propagation of a single byte input difference and two encryption rounds of AS versus one decryption, then one encryption round of AS. So in the first case, with probability 1, we end up with a full active state, whereas with probability 2 to power minus 24, we end up with only one active byte in the second case. So first, I will describe fork AS, and then I will present our new attacks. So as you all probably know, AS is a block cipher introduced by Damon and Richmond in 1999. That's when the AS competition, the round function of AS is composed of four operations, add key, which adds the round key to the state, sub bytes, which applies an S-box on each byte of the state, shifts row, that shifts each row by a certain offset, and mixed column that multiplies each column by a linear and valuable matrix. Kizubisi was designed by Jean and Al and presented in Azure Group 2019. It's a tweakable block cipher derived from AS128 with an extra input, a 64-bit tweak. It has 10 rounds like AS128, but a lower security margin, as most attacks on AS128 can be extended by one run on Kizubisi. The only difference between Kizubisi and AS128 is that the tweak is absorbed to the first two rows of the state at each key addition. So the tweak is controlled by the attacker. So this gives some more freedom to the attacker. 4K yes is based on Kizubisi, with R0 equal R1 equal RI equal 5. So there is no, the branches are exactly half of the cipher. So there is a loss of diffusion, but no more round added. So what are the existing attacks on 4K yes 4 4? Banik and Al in ACNS 2019 proposed a reflection differential. This is a truncated differential which exploits the lack of diffusion in the middle rounds. The total probability of the differential is 2 to the power minus 64. And this means that if you have an active column in input, you end up with only an active column in output was probably 2 to the power minus 64. The structures of 2 to the power 32 plain texts are enough and the attack is very cheap, as 2 to the power 35 encryptions are needed. However, it's not extendable directly to 4K yes. If we add one run at the beginning and one run at the end, the complexity grows too much to be a right attack. So our idea was to do another reflection differential with a lower probability, but to attack only with keys. So we suppose that the key has zero in diagonal bytes of K5 plus K11, so this corresponds to the key in the middle rounds, so that middle rounds pass with probability 1. Also, we generate twin pulse P and P prime so that if P passes the differential, then P prime also, but with a much higher probability as P and P prime has some common inputs at the beginning. And so if the differences in P collapses, then the difference of P prime also. P and P prime are generated from couples of 96-bit vectors U and V, so a single structure can generate pulse pulse seamlessly. We first guess the first byte of K10. And with that guess, the probability of the full differential is 2 to power minus 16 and if P passes the differential, then P prime also, but with a much higher probability 2 to the power minus 13. And this is because it passes all the first rounds with probability 1 if P passes it also. How do we construct this twin pulse? So we build a structure of 96-bit vectors U, then we compute P0U, P1U, P0 prime U, and P1 prime U. We filter the output difference simultaneously and if a pair passes that has the right output difference and if it passes the differential, then because of the last rounds we can deduce some information on the key. And if this information deduced is compatible between P and P prime, we keep the pairs, else we reject them. So this leads to an additional filter. So this attack breaks the 2 to the power 96 keys and the complexity of the attack in data is 2 to the power 74.5. In time is 2 to the power 75 and in memory it's 2 to the power 59.5. We have two more attacks actually. The second one has a different 2 to the power of this. We only suppose that k5 plus k11 has one zero diagonal byte which happens with probability 2 to the power of minus 6. We can perform this attack by rotating the columns thus attacking four times more keys. And in total we can break 2 to the power 124 keys. The probability of the differential of the differential is 2 to the power minus 137 and the probability of the second pair passing the differential is the first pair passes is 2 to the power minus 34. So the final complexity in time is 2 to the power 114 which is enough. Our final attack has no hypothesis on k5 plus k11. We have to add an intermediate filter because the output filter and the compatible key information filter are not enough. The probability of the differential is 2 to the power minus 144 and the probability of the second pair passing it is 2 to the power minus 41. Eventually the complexity in time is 2 to the power 125. So to conclude with 4KES, 4KES is based on KSUBC which is already less secure than AES128 and the difference in security between the 4KES55 and KSUBC is even higher because of this reconstruction query. So the FoxCypher authors should be aware of that. We now move on to another section focused on FoxKiney cryptanalysis. FoxKiney is based on this block cypher skinny which is an SPN cypher inspired by the AES and first introduced in crypto 2016. Its internal state is represented by a 4Y4 matrix which is either 64 or 128 bits. There are three different versions of FoxKiney, FoxKiney NN, FoxKiney N2N, and FoxKiney N3N. All the dispersion differs from the size of the 2G material compared to the internal states. The round function of skinny describes as follows. First there is a subset operation, we apply an xbox of each of the 16 cells. Then there is an add constant operation where we add a constant to the internal state. Then there is an add run tweaking where we add tweaking material to the 2 first row of the internal state. Then shift flow operation like in AES and a mixed color operation which is described by the circuit in the picture over there. Regarding the tweaking schedule, first there is an extraction operation that consists in extracting the 2 first row and transferring it to a round function. Then there is a permutation which is applied to each of the 16 cells and then an LFSR, something to apply to 2 first row. Something to remark regarding the permutation that it globally swapped the 2 first row and the 2 bottom rows. Hence if we place ourselves in the related tweaking and we choose one precise cell in which we put some difference, its difference, this difference will be extracted and transferred to the round function every 2 rounds. Forkskine is a block cipher built on skine. There are different versions of it and today we will be interested in building an attack forkskine 128 to 156 that have initial round equal to 21 and fork round equal to 27. The number of fork rounds is greater than the number of initial round 2 weekend reconstruction queries. Forkskine has been submitted to the NIST and still ends in round 2. If you want to build a crypt analysis for forkskine we will first look at some skinny crypt analysis and especially at skinny end-to-end crypt analysis. So we look at some previous work from Sadecki from the in-task paper that built a related tweaking attack using impossible differential and that achieved 23 rounds. This attack uses some property of the tweaking schedule and in particular some property of the LFSR which is that the LFSR to its power 15 has some fixed point indeed there is some delta about the LFSR to its power 15 of delta is equal to itself. So this actually has some consequences which is that in the end-to-end scenario the tweaking material will cancel itself every 30 rounds. So at some precise round the tweaking material can sell itself because delta plus LFSR of delta is equal to zero. The round before is also blank because there is no difference introduced because it's every two rounds and the one after the cancellation will also be zero. Hence three consecutive rounds no difference will be introduced in the interval state. But in the case of fork cipher we can actually do more than three consecutive rounds because we have some unique thing happening when we cipher from P to C1 which is called the tweaking jump. Indeed when we look at the queries from P to C1 the tweaking schedule will actually do some rounds that will be skipped. If we look at the picture here the rounds achieved in TK0 that we get data in blue will be skipped. Hence if we have some odd number of rounds for C0 we can actually have two consecutive blank rounds because the blue part will be skipped. But in the case of end to end skinny end to end with 27 jumping rounds jump of 27 rounds what we can do is have six consecutive blank rounds and this is how we achieve it. Just before the fork the forking point we put our three blank rounds from that was described in the previous work. Then we have our 27 jump and we will have actually once again the three blank rounds. And this is because the tweaking schedule is have a period of 30. So in the end we obtain six blank rounds and with this we have everything we need to build our attack on fork skinny. So we'll target 148, 156. Place ourselves between P and C1 where it's a tweaking jump. Use a reduced version with R0 still equal to 27 like in the next submission and it will reduce for R, I and R1. Our attack would be mostly the same as in previous work but this time we will have three more blank rounds due to the tweaking jump hence our attack would be three rounds longer. This is our impossible pattern. As we can see we have three blank rounds before the forking point and then three blank rounds after the forking point. The rest of the impossible pattern is based and built from previous work. Like in the characteristic we have our 18 round screen whisher and then we have three rounds before and five rounds after. And the decoration of this is basically based on previous work. The characteristic is an adaptation of previous work. So then these conclusions are about fork skinny. So we have our attack at the chief 26 round and then when we have 256 bits of key and when we have 128 bits of key and 120 bits of tweak we have we build an attack in the paper on 24 rounds. As a conclusion we can say that the design of fork scythe allows the attacker to mount attacks using three types of queries. The first one from P to CS0 corresponds to the underlying sector therefore there is no security leak. When the attacker uses queries from P to C1 there is the tweak jump hence there is security leak because there is an expected tweaky schedule behavior. And when we are asking queries from cypher to cypher there also is security leak because there is a lack of diffusion. Thank you for your attention.


The Brazilian energy grid is considered one of the cleanest in the world due to its high percentage of renewable energy sources. To evaluate the feasibility of producing hydrogen using alkaline electrolysis powered by the Brazilian energy grid, a project was analyzed for a 20-year lifetime. The project's capacity, production volume, hydrogen sale price, and marginal revenue rate were varied. At a hydrogen sale price of, per kilogram, all project sizes are economically viable. Under these conditions, the project has a payback period of less than four years, an internal rate of return of over 31%, a break even point between 56% to 68% of the production volume, and a return on investment of over 400%. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis revealed that the best economic condition was achieved when the project produced 35.56 kilograms of hydrogen per hour, generating a net present value of 0.4 million. Furthermore, the cost of hydrogen ranged from 0.26-0.64 per kilogram, while the levelized cost of hydrogen was estimated to be 7. This article was authored by José Carlos Curvalo Santana, Pedro Gerber Machado, Claudio Augusto Aller, Dunashi Mento, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


The boys from Hagerstown had their first game in Williamsport and they're tied. Seven runs apiece in the top of the sixth. They had to lead. Iowa comes back. They have to lead. Iowa comes back. It was a close game. Curved ball from number 20. He's spinning a lot of junk up there. The 1-1. That's another one gets him to swing over at 1-2. That's another one. Fals it back. There's two outs. There's a runner on first. The catcher wants it up top. He goes up top. That's hit into center field. Jacob Troutwine almost makes a spectacular play. Man. Almost. Look at this. Would have been awesome. Good effort. Keeps it in front of him, which keeps the runner at second base. They would have advanced if not. You know he wants to make that though. So now first and second. Last inning in a little bit of a jam. Right back to the pitcher. Calm, cool, collected. Look how he gets rid of that ball. Watch this. In there. Fastball. Jam shot. Catches it. President is barehand. Get out of here. Little oomph on that drop. Little watch. Ready? Boom. See ya. I'm out. Bottom six. Now they can win on a walkoff. Remember their last game was a walkoff win to send them to Williamsport. I did the breakdown on that and that's outside. And that one's a strike. And that one's a ball. I got that one. And this one is outside. And the 3-1. That's a strike. And the 3-2. The payoff pitch. Pitcher wants it. Doesn't it? What? Ball. Ball. Whoa. Oh. This is right down the middle. What? Oh. And it split the plate for sure. You know? You don't got the tallest batter. Maybe it's high. Maybe it's right down the middle. I don't know. I don't know. The coach comes out to talk to him. And walked it off in the bottom of the sixth. Let's not get it right here. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna stay outside on him. Right? Where was the last one? Where was the last one? It was right down the middle. And the catcher goes, it was a little high. And then he looks at the catcher like, come on, man. Be cool. All right. So they're trying to pitch outside to Jacob Troutwine, the big hitter, the lefty. And that's outside. Ball one. The next pitch. Ooh. Kind of threw a little slider or something like that. That's outside. That's ball three. The runner advances. Ball four. So now it's first. It's in second. One out. Double play ends the inning and sends it to extras. Base hit ends the game. And they got their big guy coming to play. Coach has some words. Look at this. Look at this out here. All right. Look at this place. Nobody better right here. Nobody better right here. All right. Let's do it. Let's go. Nothing like a confidence boost before you step into play. He comes out swinging. Oh, one swinging again. Big ol' hacks. Now we're praying. Oh, two. He's gonna swing again. He puts it in play. The shortstop grabs. It gets the out at second. Goes for the double play. Oh, he threw it away. And now they're coming home. Oh, yeah. Throws the helm. Let's go. Fired up. Oh, my. Oh, sees the ghost of Hagerstown. Locks eyes with him. I didn't know you were coming. The whole gymnasium's going crazy back at home in Hagerstown. They're wilding out. And I was told the ghost of Hagerstown was at the gymnasium. He made it. He's behind it all. The boys from Hagerstown. Maybe my adopted team at this point, although the kid from Kurosawa's pretty nasty. I like him.


92.7 W.O.B.M. Good morning, Sean and Sue, with you on a brand new Monday morning, almost at the end of February, Sue, but it is a Monday brand new week, and we are joined today by the Co-Chief Executive Officers, Bob Garrett and John Lloyd from Hack and Sack Meridian Health. Gentlemen, good morning. Hi guys. Good morning. How are you? We love when you visit. We love it. We love it. It's just great to be back again. So good. You guys have a lot going on. I saw some of this in my own neighborhood, and I was posting pictures the other day about this. Let's talk a little bit about convenient care and how people can determine which is their best option, and we'll sort of go through some of the other things that you're going to be doing coming up here in the area. Let's talk about convenient care, John. Yes, actually we're here today because we're opening a new convenience care center in one of the stores and a ready clinic, and so it's an exciting day for us. Convenient care is really all about accessible and affordable care when your regular physician may not be available or maybe your listeners don't have a primary care physician, and typically convenient care treats sort of minor non-threatening illnesses such as fever, upper respiratory infections, urinary tract infections, and then also you can get immunizations and even you can get a physical and staffed by very well qualified nurse practitioners who have their master's degree and part of the Hackensack Meridian family. So that's really what it's all about, and today is an exciting time as we... I think that when you say you agree that with today's environment people are so busy going in here, there, and everywhere, their schedules are all crazy. Convenience is something that's really going to be a key. Absolutely, and again we always encourage our consumers and patients to go to their physicians, whether it be primary care physicians or specialists, but there are times when people need to be seen, and that could be on the weekend, it could be at night, and we're offering different times to that, and Bob may want to speak to that, but Bob Garrett and I are co-ceos at Hackensack Meridian. The books tell you that it never works to have co-ceos, but as you can see, we are here hugging and kissing, and we're having a great time. I want all the listeners big welcome for Bob Garrett. Wow, we're even sharing a mic. We like that. This is pretty good. Hey Bob, this is exciting. You're going to tell us a little about the big ready clinic that you have ribbon cuttings for today. Yeah, so we're really excited about that, you know, partnering with Ready Clinic what a great organization, national organization, and as John said, this is all about convenient care, accessible care, affordable care, and so Hackensack Meridian is partnering with Ready Clinic, and we recently opened nine different locations throughout Mammoth, Ocean, and Middlesex counties, so we're exciting that today, just in a couple hours, we'll be holding a ribbon cutting ceremony for the Hackensack Meridian clinic right here in Tom's River, located at the right aid on Route 70. So these ready clinics are really exciting. They're going to provide quality care, award-winning quality care, accessible to patients, accessible to the community, when patients need it most, you know, it's going to be, these are close to people's homes in their own communities. So patients are able to really walk in without an appointment to see a board-certified nurse practitioner, and nurse practitioners today can do so much. They're really so well-qualified, so well-trained, so we're really happy to have some really talented nurse practitioners working at these ready clinics. Patients can get a prescription if needed, and they're able to fill that prescription at the right aid pharmacy, and in addition to Tom's River, Hackensack Meridian ready clinics are also located in Belford, Highland Park, Little Lake Harbor, Malboro, Neptune, Olbridge, Red Bank, and then Whitesville. So they're really, they're really located throughout the region really conveniently, and they're open 8 o'clock in the morning, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays as well.  Absolutely. You know, and you have nowhere to go. And a lot of the, you know, and if you think about it, a lot of the pediatrician offices, you know, they're not open until 8, so this is convenient. We're going to be working, as John said, working with the local physician community to coordinate that care. That's great. So it's really, it really is going to be very, very convenient. I saw ours in Little Lake Harbor that you were just mentioning. I saw it open the other day when I was in there looking around it. It's very nice, very clean, very, you know, and like you said, situated right in the pharmacy, it's sort of a nice coupling there of the two. John, how does this change traditional health care with the opening of the ready clinics? Well, I think it changes traditional health care. If you look at what Hackensack-Marinian has done, we've created what we call this continuum of care, and that is providing a lot of services in an ambulatory setting. And this is just another example of how we can take our services out into the community and not have patients who need to be seen come to our hospitals. We'd rather take care of them in ambulatory settings whenever possible. Certainly if your listeners need the care at any of our hospitals, I mean we have 13 hospitals now spanning eight counties. They're all doing a great job and a phenomenal job. Our emergency rooms do a great job. They also have, in some cases, urgent care centers. So we're now offering whatever the consumer wants. You want convenience care? We have that. You want urgent care? We have that. You need to go to our hospital. We have that. And we try to do it in a very outstanding manner with the best physicians and the best nurses. And Bob, we want you to get the final word here today as to giving us a description. Emergency care and ready clinic. What is the difference between the two? So if someone needs to find those boundaries, how do you go about doing that? Yes, so there's certainly a time and a place for emergency care. Our emergency departments do, as John said, a fantastic job. The difference really is that they're open 24-7, 365 days a year. But they really should be used for more serious conditions, serious illnesses, things like chest pain, shortness of breath, loss of consciousness, seizures, serious healthcare issues where patients might need follow-up, whether it be surgery or intensive care, or even some extensive testing. The ready clinics are really for immediate care for non-life threatening illnesses, meaning ailments like fevers and flus, respiratory and ear infections, urinary tract infections. But they can also provide other more advanced services like stitches, concussion evaluations, and minor fractures, which I think a lot of people will use these ready clinics for. So whether you're visiting one of our 13 hospitals, as we talked about, receiving care from one of more than 6,000 physicians throughout Hackensack Meridian, using telehealth services where you might be receiving, getting care right at home through technology, these ready clinics provide another option for consumers. And if you think about what's going on now in healthcare and the reform of the Affordable Care Act, we want to provide as many options to consumers as possible with accessible care that's affordable. That's really important. Very nice. Perfect. So if Sue slugs me, I can go over to a ready clinic and they can stitch me up right there. Absolutely. All right, here we go. And Sean, that's after you work out in one of our fitness centers, right? Which I belong to. Yes. Yes, as a matter of fact. Yes. I got to get there a few more days than I do a week, but that's a whole nother issue. But I do love my workout club, though. Guys, thanks so much for being with us. The co-CEO's Bob Garrett and John Lloyd from Hackensack Meridian Health had today. What time is the ribbon cutting today? It's at 10.30, right? 10.30 this morning. All right, so you're just a little bit of ways from doing that. We'll have fun over there. Okay. Great team, guys. Great team. Thank you. Sue and Sean, thank you so much for having us. Thank you. Guys, see you. Thanks for being with us.


Kiitos, shared speakers. I'm delighted to speak on behalf of the 14 members of the CPF. We are all grateful to see for once again taking the lead in organizing this ambitious CPF event, which brings together climate change negotiators, foresters and other stakeholders. Thanks also to other CPF members who have devoted significant time and resources to put together today's full agenda. Such efforts clearly demonstrate how much our partnership is greater than the sum of its parts. But above all, Francis, you and your team, hardworking team, deserve a big hand from all of us here today. CPF has accomplished much over the years through its comprehensive coverage of key forest issues. Our strength lies in the informal and voluntary nature of our relationship and our commitment to jointly address common concerns. We continue to stand ready to respond to requests from countries and from regional and international processes to help achieve sustainable forest management. Decisions on post-2012 arrangements under UNF triple C will have profound impacts on forests and forest dependent people around the world. A broad red plus instrument can help to harness the full mitigation potential of forests in developing countries while at the same time sustain the range of forest functions essential to livelihoods economic growth and environmental security. In addition, decisions related to greenhouse gas accounting for forests and forest products in developed countries could provide important incentives to improve the management of their forests. Last year, CPF released a strategic framework for forests on climate change, which underscores that sustainable forest management. SFM is an effective framework for forest-based climate change mitigation and adaptation. SFM is the sector's overarching goal, a goal which, according to the UN General Assembly, aims to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental value of all types of forests for the benefit of present and future generations. This statement affirms that the sector decades ago moved beyond a limited focus on sustained yield of timber to one that encompasses the multiple functions of forests, including the provision of ecosystem services. We cannot again fall into the trap of looking at forests through only one lens, this time carbon. Some of you may have been among the more than 7000 people who attended the World Forestry Congress in Argentina in October. The Congress prepared a strong message to COP 15 about the merits of using SFM as a framework for forest-based responses to climate change. It also calls to improve governance, increase financing, empower marginalized groups, and provide better access to technologies as prerequisites to achieving SFM. Copies of this message are available at the FAO booth here at Forest Day 3. In too many countries, the forest sector and sustainable forest management are handicapped by inadequate funding, weak political support, and lack of cooperation across sectors. Red Plus offers a chance to reverse these trends and put to good use the wealth of forestry expertise available. The UNFCCC process has been valuable in this regard by advancing the very issues which have concerned the sector for decades, notably halting deforestation, reversing forest degradation, and improving the flow of ecosystem services. As to deforestation, which has been touched upon by most of the speakers already, it will continue to be one main challenge. Preliminary findings of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 conducted by FAO in collaboration with all the world's countries indicate that the annual rate of deforestation has slowed down compared with the 1990s, but not as much as we had hoped. We therefore need to reinforce current efforts to reduce deforestation and forest degradation and to manage our forests in a sustainable manner. Next year you will hear more about the results. Probably in the African Forest and Wildlife Commission regular meeting to start with. Ladies and gentlemen, climate change poses new challenges but also creates new opportunities for the forest sector. National and international policy discussions and actions on climate change need to build on the knowledge and experience of the stakeholders who manage and depend on forests. We cannot afford to be mere bystanders in the process. We have too much to win and too much to lose. I hope that you put the knowledge you gained today to good use both here and beyond Copenhagen. I want to wish you productive and fruitful discussions throughout today's event and in the week to come. CPF members and others in the forestry community are looking forward to the results of Forest Day 3 and thanking again once again all the distinguished speakers here today. I think with this I can say that the Forest Day 3 is opened. Thank you.


Okay, so today we're going to look at a case for a normal distribution with a known mean mu, but an unknown precision tau. And I'm just going to remind you that tau is defined as being one over the variance. So our precision is one over the variance. So if we write out our likelihood of observing data and data points from such a distribution with some parameter mean and tau for our precision, we would write it in this form. So first of all, we need to think that tau will be our random variable of interest at the end. So we want to think in terms of tau. So we want to separate this out as much as possible in terms of thinking about tau. So we would have our likelihood f x1 to xn given mu tau. We're going to say that's equal to right. So tau is to the half in here, but it's n times so n over 2 is raised to the power. Then we have this is 2 pi is to the minus a half here, but it's n times so times 2 pi minus n over 2. And you can see this is constant with respect to tau. So we will be able to ignore this at some point. Then we have e to the minus tau. I'm just working in terms of tau here. And when you bring a product inside an exponential, it becomes a sum. So i equals 1 to n xi minus mu. Remember mu is known and we've observed data xi. So that gives us just another way of writing this but thinking in terms of tau. So here we have a form of tau to the power of something. Forget about a constant times e to the minus tau times something else. So we want to think about a distribution that might fit naturally with this. So we recall the form of a gamma distribution and think standardly we might be using a random variable such as y. So we would have f of y given with alpha and beta r parameters. We would have it as being beta to the power of alpha over the gamma function of alpha y to the alpha minus 1 e to the minus beta y. In terms of our prior, our random variable is tau. So we would replace y with tau. So g of tau is beta to the alpha over the gamma function of alpha. Again, this is constant with respect to tau. So we won't be needing it to carry it throughout our calculations. Tau to the alpha minus 1 e to the minus beta tau. Okay, so we get to this point and we have a little think and we say, oh look, we've tau to the power of something times e, the exponential of something that depends on a minus tau. Well, how does this match with what we've already seen quite nicely? So our posterior is proportional to the prior times likelihood. So because we're thinking about proportional in terms of tau, everything that doesn't depend on tau from up here, we're not going to bring into this calculation. So we can say it's proportional to tau to the power of a alpha minus 1 e to the minus beta tau. That comes from what we think might be a good prior. Times tau to the power of n over 2 e to the minus tau times the sum of i equals 1 to n xi minus mu to be squared over 2. Then we group like terms together. So we have tau to the alpha plus n over 2 minus 1 e to the minus tau times beta plus the sum of i equals 1 to n xi minus mu to be squared over 2. So again we see we were to group these together nicely. We have tau to the power of something minus 1 times e to the minus tau, so exponential of minus tau times something else. This is the same functional form as a gamma distribution and this is why it's extremely important to know the functional forms of different distributions when you're trying to think and show conjugacy. So this is a gamma with parameters alpha plus n over 2 beta plus the sum of i equals 1 to n xi minus mu to be squared over 2. So that immediately shows you your updating rules. So you add the number of observations divided by 2 to your first parameter and the sums of squares over 2 to your second parameter and you can work out your constant of integration quite easily without having to do any integration, so your constant of proportionality. So that is beta plus the sum of i equals 1 to n xi minus mu to be squared over all over 2 and all that to the power of alpha plus n over 2 divided by gamma function of alpha plus n over 2 and we have tau to the power of alpha plus n over 2 minus 1 e to the minus tau times beta plus the sum i equals 1 to n xi minus mu to be squared over 2 and that shows that your gamma distribution is your conjugate prior for a precision from a normal distribution if you have a known mean mu.


But it's all good man. I Love that you support my art and that you were nice enough to leave a comment like this, but uh, I Think I think those who who spew hate have a lot of hate inside themselves Maybe they just need a hug. I don't know maybe one day, you know post-covid We'll give him a group hug. I don't know You guys are amazing. Let's get it. This is going out to you here we go Babe, babe. Yeah, I feel good about this one. Oh Babe ready ready