The Cube at EMC World 2014 is brought to you by EMC. Redefine VCE, innovating the world's first converged infrastructure solution for private cloud computing. Brocade, say goodbye to the status quo and hello to Brocade. Hi, everybody, Dave Vellante here. Jeff Frick and I are back. This is EMC World 2014, we're live from Las Vegas. Terry McClure is here. She's a senior analyst at ESG. Follows the whole file, unstructured data, all the file sharing, syncing, all that good stuff. One of the best in the business, Terry. Welcome to the Cube. Thank you very much. That was quite an intro. Thank you, Dave. Well, great EMC World, huh? What do you think? It has been phenomenal. It's just been a deluge of information coming at us for three solid days, I'm firehosed out, but it was all real good. People always ask me who is the most interesting guest you saw today, and I can't think of one guest, but I'm going to put you on the spot here. Anything that really jumped out that you can talk about, that you saw that excited you this week, maybe customer conversations or technology progressions or just epiphanies that you had? Well, you know, I have to love some of the customer examples that I've seen. I mean, I've been in the analyst track for the last couple of days, and some of the things that we saw was how EMC technology is helping speed the development of prosthetics and leg braces and such via the use of 3D imaging from weeks where kids, or months even, where kids outgrow them between the time that they do the molding and the development of the prosthetic to days, literally days, so they can help kids walk within days. So I love those stories that show how technology is really making a difference in our lives, and that was one of them. So this whole unstructured data space, and we've been talking about it for years, we all see the numbers, all the data is going on. A lot of people don't like that term, it's kind of dated. But it is what it is. But it is what it is, right. And it's your wheelhouse, whether it's file, I mean, this whole file sharing thing is exploded, and it's obviously great for you and your business, I presume, and just a lot of people trying to understand it, a lot of enterprises trying to replicate the consumer model. What are you seeing in the marketplace, the big trends in the areas that you follow? Yeah, so for somebody like me that covers file, object, the whole unstructured data market this week has just been a goldmine of announcements and such. And some of the interesting market trends that we see in our research have been, we dug into kind of how customers would prefer to deploy their online file sharing and collaboration solutions the way they access their data from their mobile devices. And our research was really interesting. No surprise, we saw that the bulk of the deployments out there for business use cases of online file sharing and collaboration is cloud based. They're using a public cloud service that they're subscribing to via SaaS. But, and that was 84% of the people we, it's a big deployment, it makes sense. That's been out the longest, it's the most mature, people have heard of it, it's had the most press, it's quick and easy, but what we also found is amongst that group that's already deployed a cloud based service, 97% of them would really like to put some roll of their data on-prem. 97% of them are already using a cloud based solution. There's a number of reasons. Certainly the nervous about having their data out in the cloud, I don't think the Snowden and NSA stuff did the many favors. In fact, we asked the key reasons that they wanted to keep data in-house and one of the top reasons was third party access to data that might be in my system. Not service provider access to data that might be in my system, which was, what we used to hear, the service provider has the keys and the data, their employees can get my data, but third party access, that was our NSA answer, right? So that certainly has people nervous, but another big driver is customers really want to leverage their existing IT investments. They've got big investments in things like Icelon, they've got big investments in NetApp, they've got big investments in existing file and storage infrastructures and document management systems like SharePoint and Documentum. And they're not going to throw those away because people need mobile access to their data. What they want is to be able to leverage those investments but somehow mobilize them. And so that's what's interesting about what EMC has done with Syncplicity and Icelon and what some of the Syncplicity announcements talked about this week. They talked about giving customers the ability to tie in to the SharePoint implementations, to tie in to the Documentum implementations, to carry forward the permissions, to carry forward all the ACLs, to carry forward to lock and unlock the content but done via Syncplicity. So now I've unlocked that data that's been locked behind those content stores. They don't have to log into a VPN to get them and I can access them and edit them on my mobile device. So I'm not throwing away that investment and if I want to migrate away from that investment I can do it over time. So essentially what you're finding in your research is that people want to replicate the fast sound nature of the public cloud, the simplicity of the public cloud but they want to have that secure, sleep at night environment. They can inject the edicts of the corporation in terms of policy and audit and security and compliance and all that stuff. What about the cost factor? Have you taken a look at that in your research? Do CFOs embrace that or do they say, oh just keep it in the cloud, what are you seeing here? Well I mean there's the risk-reward issue, right? So if I've already got an investment on Icelon I'm not going to throw it away. So certainly there's not new cost. That's an asset that's depreciating in the books. It's an asset that's depreciating in the books that I can leverage. Same thing with the VNX or something like that. So you can take advantage of your existing investments so from a cost standpoint it may actually be more effective to just bring in the on-prem. Yeah because it's a return on asset play. It's a return on asset play, right? Yeah that's good, okay. So in a lot of cases depending on where you are in your cycle it's actually going to be more cost effective and I guess you could argue that I always say this renting is always more expensive than owning depending but. Right and then you look at some of the costs at scale when it comes to going outside and scaling to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of users and the capacity and some of the trade-offs really start to mitigate for the cost. So I don't follow this that closely but my understanding is simplicity when EMC bottom was running on AWS and KK was telling us they essentially brought that in on-premise, Isilon example sort of huge case that you were describing. Is that AWS piece gone? Is that still, so you can still swipe a credit card. You can still, you know what simplicity gives you and what we're seeing emerge from a couple of major vendors in this space is the ability to pick where your data, what data lives where. So on-premise or? On-premise versus off-cloud. So in our research we ask companies do you have any data that, and if so what type that absolutely cannot be stored in the cloud and 90% of the companies we spoke with said yeah they've got data that they absolutely forbid to be in the cloud. So now with this type of a hybrid solution I can say okay this class of data that lives in-house on simplicity but I do want some of the economies of scale of starting to shift to the cloud starting to transform into the cloud for those things that I deem are safe for the cloud. So I'll put this stuff in the cloud and my important stuff say it stays on-prem so it depends on what your leverage points are. Did you have any visibility on that 90% who said there's absolutely no way we can put this stuff in the cloud who actually put stuff in the cloud without the IT guys knowing it? I don't. You got a gut feel there? Who would you think it would be a very high percentage? Yeah, yeah. I think it would be a very high percentage. It's a high percentage. The whole shadow IT thing. We actually did some research last year into regulated environments and we wanted to understand just how much risk there was out there of that data that absolutely can't be in the cloud being in the cloud. In our regulated environment research I think 50, I don't remember the numbers exactly but somewhere between 50 and 70% of those companies that had regulated data said they were sure that their employees were storing some regulated data that shouldn't be in the cloud in the cloud. This is the king has no clothes research that you did. Yeah, and so that shadow IT, it's a huge issue and it's really imperative for IT to get their arms around that and start looking at solutions that might meet their needs of the employees to share their data on their mobile devices and IT to secure it. And that's something I want to bring up because that's a big challenge is that usability factor. It's not enough just to roll out a solution that allows employees to sync their data to mobile devices. You need your employees to use it because it's way too easy to go to the consumer solution if you don't like it, right? So you really, it's an interesting paradigm where IT never had to be that concerned about how easy it was for the user. Is the business going to get its return on investment? Is it going to do what we want for the back office operations? But this is really like, our users really have to like this because if they don't use it, we're at just as much risk as we were before we deployed it. Because it's way too easy to go outside of the boundaries. Terry, what about not necessarily file sharing applications which is data application, productivity applications in the cloud like in Evernote? So I'm not sending files anywhere but I'm keeping track of what I need to do. I'm making myself notes. I've got attachments. I've got meetings. I've got all kinds of stuff. Evernote's a great tool for me. So I'm not on the drop box. And that's all the instructor data that they think is secure in our email system in case there was ever an audit or whatever. I think Evernote is a big hole in the enterprise right now because people are sitting in meetings and I mean product roadmap meetings, financial meetings and they're taking their notes in Evernote and it's going off into the ether somewhere. And I'm waiting for the Sync and Share vendors. Some have note taking applications but nobody's really come up with my Evernote alternative and Sync and Share in one. And I'd really like to see that happen so I can put my notes with my files and have everything in one place because I've got a bunch of stuff in Evernote, a bunch of stuff in my Word and PowerPoint documents. But I think because nobody's come up with a good solution for that Evernote's got an opportunity with Evernote for business but I still think there's a big unaddressed issue for security in the enterprise right now right there. So you have a bias obviously. You're an advocate for the IT practitioners trying to help them protect themselves. Absolutely. So you must have been stoked when EMC bought Syncplicity. I was stoked when EMC bought Syncplicity. I mean it's funny, I've been covering this market for maybe three years now. We've done a ton of research into it. And so it's been interesting to watch it evolve from when I started covering it in 2011, there were maybe seven, I think there were eight vendors in my first report that had solutions that had an admin console that were designed for business to give IT that centralized management and control. And Syncplicity was one of them. The last report I did, not everybody was in it and I think I had maybe 50 vendors in it and I didn't have everybody in it. There's maybe a hundred or more vendors who talk to me now in this space. It's been fascinating to watch it evolve but I think it's really strategic for EMC and companies like EMC to address this. I think it's a business opportunity for EMC and it's a business opportunity for their customers to be able to capture and control and manage all that data that's been leaking out of the enterprise for so long. So EMC has the connections with the right people within the enterprise to help companies deal with it. So you were talking off camera that you analyzed the box S1. Is this where you put me on the hotspot? Yeah, that's right, on the hotspot. So I was just curious. I mean, Aaron Levy just canceled the IPO. Well, did he cancel it? He delayed it. Postponed it. Sorry, he canceled it. They were scheduled and the cloud stocks are down. So yet again, the little guy gets screwed. But by low sell high, no, not for you, Main Street. We're going to do a whole section on that but that's another story. It's not just Aaron. And I don't think it's great. His ownership is actually quite low now but so I think he really wants to see this thing through. He's had offers, obviously. He's had some big offers. So he's got big plans and big visions but you read the S1, I didn't. What was your takeaway there? What did your research say? You know, it's tough. A lot of people have pointed out the fact. I mean, they've got 7% of their customers are paying customers and 93% of their customers are free. They've got the bulk of their burn rate is in what they call sales and marketing but that really what goes into that is their infrastructure to support the free customers. So their big challenge is they've got to convert free customers to paid customers. I mean. Spend $2 to get one. And that's what they're doing. They're spending $2 to get one. So they've been working on converting business customers for three or four years now and only 7% are paid customers. Is this one of those that you can make it up in volume type of stories? I don't, I don't know. We've seen those before. We've seen those. They need to. And sometimes it can happen. If the volume continues with these ratios it's never going to happen, right? I mean, as one said, there is no clear path to profitability. So they need to win over enterprise customers. They need to win over those site licenses. They've got some big wins. But to do that, in my view is, there's a big market opportunity out there for files they can share. But the political climate is such that they need to have a data center in Europe. They don't have a data center in Europe. And I don't think European customers have that trusting of putting their data in the US. You've got the Snowden effect, I think, that's a challenge on the business and elongate sales cycles. They've got to have a very long security discussion with their customers to get them comfortable with how they secure the data and where they keep the keys. So I think they've got a couple of big challenges out there that they're going to need to overcome to get that broad enterprise adoption to start building up the ratio of the paid business customers. So guys like Box and Dropbox, they are they the big competitors of simplicity? Is that sort of an obvious question or not necessarily? Is it something else like do nothing? Well do nothing is the, I mean right now, we're still really early on in this market. I mean a couple years ago when we did the research we had 28% of the companies that we spoke with had adopted it, but only for specific departmental use cases and individual users. Towing the water type of implementations. So this year when we researched the adoption we found that I think it was 48% of the companies we spoke with had adopted it, but towing the water. Specific departments that really needed mobile access or collaboration or individual users. So I think the big competitive issue right now is do nothing. I mean we walk in the door and there isn't a solution out there and then Dropbox gets brought in and Box gets brought in because they've got the brand and name recognition but then EMC's already in there, Citrix is already in there. So HDS is in there. So you've got these big guys with these existing relationships in there that probably have a leg up and a trusted relationship already with the vendors. So that kind of gives them an inside track. All right Terry, we'll leave it there. Thanks so much for coming to theCUBE. It was great to see you. You know, awesome job. Tons of research. Love the research angle. Real data coming out of Terry McClure and ESG. Keep it right there everybody. We'll be back to wrap myself and Jeff Rectus' EMC World Live 2014. This is theCUBE.


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Cal Performances. Tonight's performance is brought to you in part by our season sponsor, Wells Fargo Bank. Please take a moment to turn off your cell phones. And as a reminder, the use of recording devices and cameras of any kind is not permitted in the theater. Thank you, and enjoy the performance. Good evening. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Robert Berginot, Chancellor of UC Berkeley, but for tonight's event, more importantly, Professor of Physics. It's my great pleasure to welcome you to the J. Robert Oppenheimer lecture in physics. Berkeley has a long tradition of being a world-leading center of scholarly activity and of bringing to campus the very finest minds to address in a public forum on great intellectual challenges. It is this Berkeley tradition of great learning and public service that the Department of Physics has arranged for tonight's lecture to be given by world-renowned scholar, Stephen Hawking. Professor Hawking has extracted great physics, but he's attracted extraordinary interest from around the world for his work on quantum theories of the cosmos.  It is with deepest pleasure that I, on behalf of the entire campus and surrounding community, welcome Professor Stephen Hawking to Berkeley. As many of you will know, this year, the College of Letters and Science introduced on the same page a program asking all of our freshmen to read a common book. That book was Stephen Hawking's and Leonard Wadenau's A Briefer History of Time. Faculty and students from many different disciplines took part in discussing this book. In fact, even the chancellor, namely myself, was invited to participate. And last Thursday, I held a small discussion group with a number of our freshmen, embarrassingly one of whom at the age of 18 turned out to understand quantum gravity much better than I did. I'd now like to invite Professor Mark Richards, the Executive Dean of the College of Letters and Sciences, and Dean of Physical Sciences to come forward and tell you more about this wonderful project and how Berkeley is a leader in educating students through unique opportunities such as the Oppenheimer Lecture. Mark. Thank you very much, Chancellor Bergenau. I can assure you that Chancellor Bergenau is here tonight mainly for the physics. I'm here as representative of the College of Letters and Science, and this is a very special occasion on which we're inaugurating a new program, as the chancellor said, called on the same page. And I want to take just a few minutes to describe this program because it's very relevant to the events tonight. Now, the College of Letters and Science is actually most of the University of California at Berkeley. That is, most of the faculty, most of the students, most of the departments you think of, like physics and math and biology and economics, anthropology, history, music, literature. We teach 58 languages here, and we have 38 departments in L&S. It's a very big place, as you might imagine, for an iterating freshman can be somewhat of an intimidating experience. And we've been working very hard in the College of Letters and Science to make it feel a bit smaller and a little bit more friendly for their entering freshman. There are a number of programs that we're very proud of. For example, the freshman seminar series, where we strive to create a seat for every entering freshman to have a close experience with faculty in classes of size 15 to 20 on whimsical subjects sometimes. Also, the discovery courses, which are our flagship breadth courses taught by our very finest instructors for entering freshman. And also undergraduate research programs to complement this more intimate experience with the faculty, the great faculty of UC Berkeley. And our goal is also for all undergraduates to have this research experience. On the same page as a new program in this direction, the idea has actually been around for some time bouncing around among the LNS deans. But last May, when Professor Cohen was successful in inviting Stephen Hawking to be the Oppenheimer Lecturer, it was just too good an opportunity to pass up. You're all probably familiar with Professor Hawking's famous popular book called A Brief History of Time, very widely purchased, perhaps not as widely read or understood in its initial formulation. There's a new version of this book. I happen to have a copy here called A Briefer, History of Time, in which Professor Hawking has teamed up with Leonard Mladino, who, among other things, is writer of the Star Trek, The Next Generation, and Feynman's Rainbow. And also happens to be a Berkeley PhD in physics and a resident science writer at Caltech. Also at this time, when we were thinking that this might be a good book and a good way to start the freshman seminar program, one of the closest friends of the College of Letters and Science stepped up to the plate as a donor and offered to buy a copy of this book for every freshman and entering transfer student at UC Berkeley this year. And they all received this, thank you. So this November, all of our freshmen received a copy of this wonderful book in their mailboxes for light reading over their holidays. Now on the same page has meanings on at least three different levels, obvious meanings being on the same page with the author, being on the same page with your fellow students and your faculty colleagues, but also on the same metaphorical page because in future years we might well have playwrights or composers or filmmakers instead of just plain old book authors to be the feature of this program. Now I want you all to think about the last time you read a really great book. And then imagine that all of your friends had just read the same book. And then imagine that you could freely attend discussion sessions with world-renowned experts on every conceivable aspect of that book. And then imagine that you also would have the opportunity to hear the author lecture and to meet the author. This is the experience that we hope to create for all the L&S students, beginning with their freshman year and continuing each year until their graduation. And the message is very clear. Welcome to Berkeley, a place of challenging ideas, a forum for diverse ways of interpreting and experiencing the world around us and also an arena in which great universal themes are explored and questioned. Certainly this year's author and subject make for a fitting beginning for on the same page. It's not too hard to be interested in things like the origin of the universe and the fundamental nature of time. So I want to thank Professor Hawking for helping us make this a very special year in the College of Letters and Science at Cal. I'm also very happy to announce that the L&S deans have already selected next year's book, are you waiting? It's Lincoln at Gettysburg by author Gary Wills, his brilliant political, historical and literary analysis of Lincoln's famous speech that recasts the struggle for freedom and human dignity at a critical moment in our nation's history. All of our freshmen, all of our faculty and hopefully our students and our colleagues and our friends in the community will be on the same page with Lincoln and Gary Wills next September. And this will be also cosponsored as an event with Cal Performances and Zellerbach Auditorium. So I want to close by thanking you all, everyone here in Zellerbach, everyone out there in Wheeler Auditorium that is also sold out with Close Circuit broadcast and everyone out there on the webcast for helping us inaugurate on the same page this evening. I want to thank Robert Cole, the director of Cal Performances for being our partner this year and in future years, Marjorie Shapiro, the chair of the physics department and her colleagues for sharing Sudevan Hawking and the Oppenheimer Lecturer with us this evening. And also special thanks to staff members, Alex Schwartz and Mary Almstead who helped to make this event possible this evening. So without further ado, let me introduce Marvin Cohen. Marvin Cohen is a highly distinguished theoretical physicist himself, holder of the very prestigious position of university professor in our physics department here and he will introduce Professor Hawking. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. It has been a great pleasure for me to serve on the Oppenheimer Lecture Committee since its inception in 1988, 1998. We've been privileged to have outstanding theorists speaking in the series. It started with our first speaker who was Murray Gellman and we had Kip Thorne, Freeman Dyson, Frank Yang, Michael Fisher, our own Bruno Zamino, Robert Laughlin, and tonight our 10th lecturer is Stephen Hawking. In the early lectures, before introducing the speaker, I would say something about Oppenheimer and the history of his involvement with our department. However, in recent years, I've just described the current events related to Oppenheimer. For those of you who are interested in learning more about Oppenheimer and the connection to Berkeley, there is considerable information on the web and there are a number of books on Oppenheimer. In 2005, we celebrated the world year of physics. The idea was to get everybody into physics and it was the 100th anniversary of the Einstein marvelous year of 1905. In that year, Einstein did extraordinary work on the sizes of molecules, that was his thesis, on Brownian motion, on relativity, and that's when he wrote down that little E equals MC squared thing and he's see it all over telegraph on T-shirts. And he also did his research on the photoelectric effect for which he later won the Nobel Prize. The physics community around the world participated in many projects, particularly to try to interest high school students and to reach the public, so it was a year of outreach. And many projects were repeated again last year in 2006 and they've continued to 2007. And there's been a considerable effort worldwide to try to maintain this level of excitement to see whether or not we can get people to realize that physicists are people too and that it's a wonderful field to work in and I view the Oppenheimer Lecture Series as part of this effort. Now activities related to Oppenheimer intensified during this period and in the past few years and several new books appeared about his life and about the Manhattan Project. A recording of a speech by Oppenheimer just months after the first atomic bomb test was found by the American Philosophical Society in their archives and we had the opportunity here in Berkeley to hear this speech. The San Francisco Opera presented the first performance of the Opera Doctoratomic about Oppenheimer and the first atomic bomb test. There were discussions about Oppenheimer on campus, about ethics and science and about physics. I participated in some of these and I was very impressed by the large interest of our community. Now one area of physics which Oppenheimer, in which Oppenheimer made seminal contributions is associated with objects that later became called, later were called black holes. Stephen Hawking is also known for his seminal work in this area and like Oppenheimer he is widely known by the public at large and the mention of his name is also a catalyst for initiating intellectual and stimulating discussions. As I indicated, we have tried to make the series of lectures exciting and accessible despite the technical nature of the lectures. There were talks on quarks and quasi-particles, symmetries and supersymmetries, galaxies and strings and these were given by gifted lecturers using pictures and equations and logical arguments in an attempt to convince us all, you and us that we can understand much of what nature is about using these tools. Tonight we are very fortunate to have the opportunity to continue our physics outreach program with an Oppenheimer lecture presented by Professor Stephen Hawking who is at Cambridge University where he joined the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics in 1973. Since 1979 he has held the post of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. This chair was once held by Isaac Newton. Professor Hawking has visited Berkeley before and he's lectured here in the past. I first met him in 1988 when he spent time here as a Hitchcock lecturer. He gave talks and interacted with many of us both scientifically and socially. His technical lectures for members of our faculty and students on cosmology and astrophysics were usually focused on subjects he was currently working on such as black holes. In addition we were fortunate to have him be of general public lectures on slightly broader subjects like tonight's lecture which is on a fairly broad subject the origin of the universe. It's not easy for me as chair of the Oppenheimer lecture series to come up with a stimulating speaker who can excite both an academic and public audience. For this reason I was particularly happy when Stephen agreed to come. This was about four years ago when we met at London's Heathrow Airport. I was coming from Edinburgh and he was going to China. I was complaining about being tired from my short flight from Edinburgh while he was calmly eating lunch with the look of someone enjoying the anticipation of another adventure and I felt guilty. I was reminded of this again recently when I read an article about Stephen's current plans. When I turned 65 I thought that maybe I should retire and play checkers in the sun things like this of this kind. In contrast Stephen turned 65 this year and he has decided to take a zero gravity ride out of Cape Canaveral in a so-called vomit comet. During his flight he will experience the feeling of being weightless and also the feeling of being very, very heavy. I understand this event is planned for next month. And if that isn't enough in 2009 Stephen plans a longer and higher flight in a space plane being developed now to reach an altitude of 75 miles. When he's not on a space mission Stephen Hawking does research. He lectures to broad audiences and he writes very popular books. He's an inspiration to those who feel they are challenged and limited in some way and that includes all of us. Right now I feel more challenged than anyone here because I have to think of next year's Up and Hyrule lecture and this is going to be a very hard act to follow. So please join me in welcoming Stephen Hawking. Can you hear me? According to the Pashongo people of Central Africa in the beginning there was only darkness, water and the great God Bamba. One day Bamba in pain from a stomach ache vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water leaving land.  The leopard, the crocodile, the turtle and finally man this creation myth like many others tries to answer the questions we all ask. Why are we here? Where did we come from? The answer generally given was that humans were of comparatively recent origin because it must have been obvious even at early times that the human race was improving in knowledge and technology. So it can't have been around that long or it would have progressed even more. For example, according to Bishop Usher, the book of Genesis placed the creation of the world at nine in the morning on October the 27th, 2004 BC. On the other hand, the physical surroundings like mountains and rivers change very little in a human lifetime. They were therefore thought to be a constant background and neither to have existed forever as an empty landscape or to have been created at the same time as the humans. Not everyone, however, was happy with the idea that the universe had a beginning. For example, Aristotle, the most famous of the Greek philosophers believed the universe had existed forever. Something eternal is more perfect than something created. He suggested the reason we see progress was that floods or other natural disasters had repeatedly set civilization back to the beginning. The motivation for believing in an eternal universe was the desire to avoid invoking divine intervention to create the universe and set it going. Conversely, those who believed the universe had a beginning used it as an argument for the existence of God as the first cause or prime mover of the universe. If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was, what happened before the beginning? What was God doing before he made the world?  The problem of whether or not the universe had a beginning was a great concern as a German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant. He felt there were logical contradictions or andemonies either way. If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began? He called that the thesis. On the other hand, if the universe had existed forever, why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage? He called that the antithesis. Both the thesis and the antithesis depended on Kant's assumption, along with almost everyone else, that time was absolute. That is to say, it went from the infinite past to the infinite future independently of any universe that might or might not exist in this background. This is still the picture in the mind of many scientists today. However, in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary general theory of relativity. In this, space and time were no longer absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined. If the universe was essentially unchanging in time, as was generally assumed before the 1920s, there would be no reason that time should not be defined arbitrarily far back. Any so-called beginning of the universe would be artificial in the sense that one could extend the history back to earlier times. Thus, it might be that the universe was created last year, but with all the memories and physical evidence to look like it was much older. This raises deep philosophical questions about the meaning of existence. I shall deal with these by adopting what is called the positivist approach. In this, the idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of the model we make of the world. One cannot ask whether the model represents reality only whether it works. A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation. In terms of the positivist approach, one can compare two models of the universe. One in which the universe was created last year and one in which the universe existed much longer. The model in which the universe existed for longer than a year can explain things like identical twins that have a common cause more than a year ago. On the other hand, the model in which the universe was created last year cannot explain such events. So the first model is better. One cannot ask whether the universe really existed before a year ago or it just appeared to. In the positivist approach, they are the same. In an unchanging universe, there would be no natural starting point. The situation changed radically, however, when Edwin Hubble began to make observations with the 100-inch telescope on Mount Wilson in the 1920s. Hubble found that stars are not uniformly distributed throughout space, but are gathered together in vast collections called galaxies. By measuring the light from galaxies, Hubble could determine their velocities. He was expecting that as many galaxies would be moving towards us as we're moving away. This is what one would have in the universe that was unchanging with time. But to this surprise, Hubble found that merely all the galaxies were moving away from us. Moreover, the further galaxies were from us, the faster they were moving away. The universe was not unchanging with time as everyone had thought previously. It was expanding. The distance between distant galaxies was increasing with time. The expansion of the universe was one of the most important intellectual discoveries of the 20th century or of any century. It transformed the debate about whether the universe had a beginning. If galaxies are moving apart now, they must have been closer together in the past. If their speed had been constant, they would all have been on top of one another about 15 billion years ago. Was this the beginning of the universe? Many scientists were still unhappy with the universe having a beginning because it seemed to imply that physics brought down. One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience, one can call God to determine how the universe began. They therefore advanced theories in which the universe was expanding at the present time, but didn't have a beginning. One was a steady state theory proposed by Bondi Gold, an oil in 1948. In the steady state theory, as galaxies moved apart, the idea was that new galaxies would form from matter that was supposed to be continually being created throughout space. The universe would have existed forever and would have looked the same at all times. This last property had a great virtue from a positivist point of view of being a definite prediction that could be tested by observation. The Cambridge Radio Astronomy Group under Martin Reil did a survey of weep radio sources in the early 1960s. These were distributed fairly uniformly across the sky, indicating that most of the sources lay outside our galaxy. The weeper sources would be further away, on average. The steady state theory predicted the shape of the graph of the number of sources against source strength, but the observation showed more faint sources than predicted, indicating that the density sources was higher in the past. This was contrary to the basic assumption of the steady state theory that everything was constant in time. For this, another reason, the steady state theory was abandoned. Another attempt to avoid the universe having a beginning was the suggestion that there was a previous contracting phase, but because of rotation and locally regularities, the matter would not all fall to the same point. Instead, different parts of the matter would miss each other and the universe would expand again with the density remaining finite. Russians, Lyshets and Kladnikov, actually claimed to have proved that a general contraction without exact symmetry would always lead to a bounce with the density remaining finite. This result was very convenient for Marxist-Leninist dialectical materialism because it avoided awkward questions about the creation of the universe. It therefore became an article of faith for Soviet scientists. When Lyshets and Kladnikov published their claim, I was a 21-year-old research student looking for something to complete my PhD thesis. I didn't believe their so-called proof and set out with Roger Penrose to develop new mathematical techniques to study the question. We showed that the universe couldn't bounce. If Einstein's general theory of relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and spacetime curvature where time has a beginning. Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning came in October 1965, a few months after my first singularity result with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves throughout space. These microwaves are the same as those in your microwave oven, but very much less powerful. They would heat your pizza only to minus 271.3 degrees centigrade, not much good for defrosting the pizza, let alone cooking it. You can actually observe these microwaves yourself. Set your television to an empty channel. A few percent of the snow you see on the screen will be caused by this background of microwaves, the only reasonable interpretation of the background is that it is radiation left over from an early very hot and dense state. As the universe expanded, the radiation would have cooled until it is just the faint remnant we observed today. Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of general relativity would break down at the singularity. The Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun. There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. This was the view of Pope John Paul at a conference on cosmology in the Vatican. The Pope told the delegates that it was so great to study the universe after it began, but they should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God. I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the inquisition, like Galileo. The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the general theory of relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory. One would expect this anyway because general relativity does not take account of the small-scale structure of matter which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally because the scale of the universe is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is a blank size, a billion trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same and quantum theory has to be taken into account in order to understand the origin of the universe. We need to combine the general theory of relativity with quantum theory. The best way of doing so seems to be to use Feynman's idea of a sum over histories. Richard Feynman was a colorful character who played the bongo drums in a strip joint in Pasadena and was a brilliant physicist at the California Institute of Technology. He proposed that a system got from a state A to a state B by every possible path or history. Each path or history has a certain amplitude or intensity and the probability of the system going from A to B is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese, but the amplitude is low, which is bad news for mice. The probability for a state of the universe at the present time is given by adding up the amplitudes for all the histories that end with that state. But how did the history start? This is the origin question in another dice. Does it require a creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe determined by a law of science? In fact, this question would arise even if the histories of the universe went back to the infinite past. But it is more immediate if the universe began only 15 billion years ago. The problem of what happens at the beginning of time is a bit like the question of what happened at the edge of the world when people thought the world was flat. Is the world a flat plate with the sea pouring over the edge? I have tested this experimentally.  As we all know, the problem of what happens at the edge of the world was solved when people realized that the world was not a flat plate, but a curved surface. Time, however, seemed to be different. It appeared to be separate from space and to be like a model railway track. If it had a beginning, there would have to be someone to set the trains going. Einstein's general theory of relativity unified time and space as spacetime, but time was still different from space and was like a corridor which either had a beginning and end or went on forever. However, when one combines general relativity with quantum theory, Jim Hartle and I realized that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the Earth with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude representing the size of the universe would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question because there is nothing South of the South Pole. Time as measured in degrees of latitude would have a beginning at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point, at least so I have been told. I have been to Antarctica, but not to the South Pole. The same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. This would remove the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning that it would be a place where the normal laws brought down. The beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science. The picture Jim Hartle and I developed of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam and boiling water. The idea that the most probable histories of the universe would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear and then disappear again. This would correspond to many universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, would grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever-increasing rate when we form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever-increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year. The world record for inflation was in Germany after the First World War. Prices rose by a factor of 10 million in a period of 18 months, but that was nothing compared to inflation in the early universe. The universe expanded by a factor of million, trillion, trillion in a tiny fraction of a second. Unlike inflation and prices, inflation in the early universe was a very good thing. It produced a very large, un-uniform universe just as we observe. However, it would not be completely uniform. In the sum over histories, histories that are very slightly irregular will have almost as high probabilities as a completely uniform and regular history. The theory therefore predicts that the early universe is likely to be slightly non-uniform. These irregularities would produce small variations in the intensity of the microwave background from different directions. The microwave background has been observed by the map satellite and was found to have exactly the kind of variations predicted. So we know we are on the right lines. The irregularities in the early universe will mean that some regions will have slightly higher density than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra density will slow the expansion of the region and can eventually cause the region to collapse to form galaxies and stars. So look well at the map of the microwaves guy. It is a blueprint for all the structure in the universe. We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. God really does play dice. We have made tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred years. The general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe shattered the old picture of an ever existing, an everlasting universe. Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe and time itself would begin in the big bang. It also predicted that time would come to an end in black holes. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background and observations of black holes support these conclusions. This is a profound change in our picture of the universe and of reality itself. Although the general theory of relativity predicted that the universe must have come from a period of high curvature in the past, it could not predict how the universe would emerge from the big bang. Thus general relativity on its own cannot answer the central question in cosmology, why is the universe the way it is? However, if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start. It would initially expand at an ever increasing rate. During this so-called inflationary period, the marriage of the two theories predicted that small fluctuations would develop and lead to the formation of galaxies, stars, and all the other structure in the universe. This is confirmed by observations of small non-uniformities in the cosmic microwave background with exactly the predicted properties. So it seems we are on our way to understanding the origin of the universe, though much more work will be needed. The new window in the very early universe will be opened when we can detect gravitational waves by accurately measuring the distances between spacecraft. Gravitational waves propagate freely to us from earliest times, unimpeded by any intervening material. By contrast, light is scattered many times by free electrons. The scattering goes on until the electrons freeze out when the universe is 300,000 years old. Despite having had some great successes, not everything is solved. We do not yet have a good theoretical understanding of the observations that the expansion of the universe is accelerating again after a long period of slowing down. Without such an understanding, we cannot be sure of the future of the universe. Will it continue to expand forever? Is inflation a law of nature? Or will the universe eventually collapse again? New observational results and theoretical advances are coming in rapidly. Cosmology is a very exciting and active subject. We are getting close to answering the age old questions. Why are we here? Where did we come from? Thank you for listening to me. Professor Hawking has agreed to answer some questions. And so we gathered a few of the most popular questions and there were five. And my job is to read all five questions and he will answer all five questions with one extended answer. Some of these questions bear on things he's already said, but you have to realize the questions were made in advance of his talk. Question one, do we know for certain how the universe began? Question two, the problem for most people in trying to grasp all this is if the Big Bang began at all, what was before the Big Bang?  Question three is how will the universe end and when? Question four, you say your goal is simple, a complete understanding of the universe. And the question goes on to say why is it as it is and why does it exist at all? How close are we and can science ever answer and this is in big letters why it exists in the first place? And question five is a very good one. What are the pressing big questions that are left? Professor Hockey. We are fairly sure the universe began with the period of accelerating expansion. This is called inflation because the size of the universe grows and the way prices go in some countries. The inflation in the early universe is much more rapid than our financial inflation. The universe expanded by a factor of a million, trillion, trillion in a tiny fraction of a second. Inflation in the size of the universe is a good thing unlike inflation in prices. It would produce a very large and very smooth universe with just the right amount of irregularity to account for the formation of galaxies, stars and ultimately human beings. How did this inflation start? How can one describe the universe at the beginning of time? I now think I can show how the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing according to the laws of science. The universe exists because general relativity and quantum theory allow and require it to exist. If I'm right, the universe is self-contained and governed by science alone. In time, we can hope to understand it completely. We have long enough as the universe should last forever. Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end, as Woody Allen said. Thank you.


Hello, friends. Welcome back to Module 2, Lesson Number 3. This is a really juicy lesson that I really, really want you to pay attention to because we're going to be talking about how do you find the perfect restaurant location, super action-packed. Let's dive right in. You're going to learn the four elements to watch out for when choosing the perfect location, some of the common pitfalls, and the two types of restaurants that you should be looking into. Now, previously we talked about the golden trifecta. If you are not aware of it, definitely go back to the beginning of the lessons and to find this specific lesson. We talked about it because this is your highest chance of success when you can have all three things and components overlap. We talked about the concept earlier. Today we're going to be talking about location and our next lesson we're going to be talking about customers. When all three of them are aligned, that's when the golden trifecta would emerge. When that emerges, that's your best chances of success. Mind you, this is what's going to get your lineups out the doors when all three of these components overlap. Without further ado, let's dive right in. Why location type is crucial to your success? It all comes back down to pricing because if pricing was not an issue, we always want to choose a location that has the highest walk-by traffic to ensure that you have more potential to convert these walk-by traffic into potential customers. We talked about that budget is a real factor for your decision, which is the reason why it's important to break down the two different types of restaurants that we can encounter. The two types are high traffic foot traffic locations versus destination locations. High traffic location type are situated at large foot traffic spots. We can think about downtown, the malls, financial district. These are the places where there's a lot of walk-by traffic, a lot of foot traffic around the area. The pros of that is that you have more potential for revenue. Why is that the case? It is because you have more people walking by. If your signages are good, if you're convenient enough, then people will come over and purchase from you. Whereas the con for that is that it's usually much more expensive in rent because, once again, you have more potential way to make more money. Therefore, that estate is even more expensive. Versus a destination location which is situated at a low foot traffic area. We're talking about more closer to residential area, industrial areas, side streets where you particularly need to probably drive over. Not as much public transit would be able to get you there. Those are called the destination location. Oftentimes, when you do go to a destination location, you have the intent of going. You have an intent of, hey, you know what? Let's go check out this place. Let's drive over and try them out. Versus a high foot traffic location, it's like you're walking in the malls, you're hungry, and you're like, hmm, what should I eat? Oh, you see this restaurant? It looks good, great menu. Boom, you go and try it out. That's the difference between the two. The pro of having a destination location oftentimes is much cheaper rent because it is in the middle of nowhere. The con of that is less walk by traffic, less potential to make revenue, and it's more of an uphill battle to get your customers to come through the doors. However, having said that, having a destination location doesn't mean you're not going to have a busy restaurant. It means that it is harder to get people to notice you and it is harder to get that walk by traffic. That's what I mean by destination location.  It's not just walk by traffic. It is not just destination location. There could be a hybrid of both of them. But at the end of the day, it really comes down to the budget, right? If it fits your budget and you're comfortable with it and if you've done all your projections and your finances to figure out what you can afford for rent, then you can go ahead and choose a hybrid of the two. You can lean more towards higher foot traffic or you can lean more towards the destination. But knowing the different types would allow you to understand the pros and cons which helps you to understand where the shortfalls might be. Now, after figuring out that type that you're looking for or understanding that, it is time to choose your community. This is by far one of the most important things that we're talking about. No one talks about this, right? But it is super important to choose a community that you love and that your customers, your ideal customers are hanging out super, super important. We talked about this a little bit and so you need to be able to spend time within the community to see if it is aligned with the customers that you would like to serve. You don't want to be building a community or building a restaurant in a place that is really far from where your ideal customers hang out. That is no good because even if they love your restaurants they're not going to come all the time. They're not going to be repeat customers which is why you need to be able to choose a location that is close to them. You need to spend time at your competitor's location to see who is it that they're serving and how is it that they're serving it. Is it in line with what the concept you have in mind? Is there a sense of belonging? Is there a lot of repeat customers to verify and to validate your assumptions to see if your concept could work in that particular location? It could mean a difference between you closing down or not. Super, super crucial is the community, guys. But you don't need the whole city to come visit you to have a successful restaurant. You also don't need to be running crazy ads on TV or have a huge marketing budget because all you need are loyal customers that come back again and again. Ultimately, it really comes back down to the customers that you're serving and that's the reason why choosing the community that you're in and identifying the concept that fits their needs are super crucial for success and it all ties back down to the golden trifecta. It takes skills and patience to develop your loyal customers but, and it's something that we will cover is how do you turn a regular customer into a loyal fan? We cover this in the 1K loyal fan journey later on down our lesson. So make sure that you guys keep watching. Okay, other elements to consider. The four elements that we talked about that we're going to be covering, we're going into it right now. Visibility, do people even know you exist? Types of foot traffic, car traffic patterns, time at which there's an influx of traffic. Signage is to let people know that you exist whether there are nearby office buildings and schools. This is something that is crucial and it is really, really important because let's just tell you a quick story. We have been running our ice cream shop in this neighborhood called Kitsilano and it's been like five years that we've been there and then after we had a business meeting, one of our partners put there like, hey, you know what Wilson, what do you want to try out this Vietnamese place? We're like, sure, let's go try it out. It's a new place, we tried it out, we love the food and then we asked them, we're like, hey, you know how long have you been open for? They've been open for seven years, guys. Seven years, yet we still had no clue that they were just a block down from where we are because they were tucked in the little store, they didn't have much visibility and people can just kind of walk by and just completely forget about them. That's the reason why visibility is super, super crucial for your success. If you're a little bit tucked in, it is okay then work on your signages, work on the sandwich boards, figure out how you can maximize the visibility for you. Now, mind you, if your visibility is hurting for your location, then subsequently the pricing for that specific location would be lower as well, which is the reason why knowing these factors and these elements are also crucial for you to be able to sign the lease. Second thing is accessibility. Is it easy to get to? Is there parking available? If, for example, if you're doing a fine dining experience and there's no parking, then what kind of fine dining experience is that? Not really that fine dining, right? Most likely fine dining you can expect to have a, what's that called? Ooh, the people that drive your car, valet, there you go. You would expect to have a valet to take your car and so on and so forth, but if there's no parking spots or not enough parking spots for a hundred shop location, then that probably is not that good of a choice. Same thing, is it transit friendly?  The reason why I chose that location is because now the university kids can come by and once they get off the bus and boom, we're right there. What mode of transportation fits your target audience? As I was saying, fine dining experience, that's the type of experience that I want to be able to provide my customers who are a little bit more established, who have vehicles, who drives, who has families versus if it's transit friendly, mostly high school kids, university kids. So understanding the accessibility for your specific concept is also equally as important. Next up is safety. Is the area safe? Will the area make your potential customers feel uncomfortable? What's the crime rate in that area? These are all very, very valid items that you would bring up to your landlords when renting their place or even considering, for example, if you want to create this family fun concept restaurant. And yet, there are oftentimes break and enter within the area. Probably not the best area and location to have your concept because how safe would you feel to bring your kids to that location? You would always be thinking, oh my goodness, all these bombs kind of loadering around. It's really affecting the way that I'm eating. The peace of mind is not there and thus I would not want to stay there for longer than I want. And that would really deter your customers from coming again and again. Lastly, it's their surroundings, the businesses and the competitors. This is something that is oftentimes overlooked as well. Are your competitors doing well? This is a really good sign to see whether that your concept in this area is validated. Or if they're all struggling and if they're all closing down, it's probably not the best idea to have your shop there. Is there room for your business? Vice versa, if it is super busy, well, can you still put your foot in there and still be able to have a piece of the pie? Understanding that is crucial for your success. So the four types of elements to consider when talking about your location, visibility, accessibility, safety and your surroundings. Common pitfall and confirmation bias. I talked about confirmation bias previously in my lessons. Let's dive in a little bit further. You walk into a unit, you love it. Everything about it is perfect. It's beautiful. People are nice in the area.  Rent is cheap. Everything is taking off Wilson's checklist. Visibility and everything, wow. Amazing. You fall in love with this location. You're like, hey Wilson, where are you going tomorrow? Well, you fail to see that there's a huge rentals that's needed to be done within the location. Probably hundreds and thousands of dollars, which is the reason why rent might be cheaper. You fail to see that there's no foot traffic at night, yet the concept that you're trying to do is going to be fine dining. You fail to see that there's no parking at all and that doesn't work with your fine dining experience because if I am going to bring my date to dazzle them, press them, yet I can't drive and my parking spot is like 10 minutes away, probably not the best experience for my guests.  Probably not the best case, guys.  Never, never fall in love with the location. Rule of thumb, number one. Never fall in love with the location. It's about making the best judgment and not mixing in your emotions and just because of the fact that I'm telling you about the confirmation bias would allow you to catch yourself to see, hey, you know what? Am I falling into this phenomenon? You need to understand that. Not negotiating is a huge, huge thing for new first-time restaurantiers. Super, super big, big mistake, right? Because we feel like that, oh, you know what? We shouldn't negotiate or like, how do I negotiate? Do we just throw back a number and you just don't know where to start? But knowing the fact that landlords are expecting you to negotiate. Know that for a fact because me, I have rented from someone before and I've also on the other side as a landlord speaking I also lease my units out to my tenants, right? So knowing both sides of the equation allows me to understand that as a landlord what am I expecting? And as a tenant what am I expecting? And I can tell you that for a fact me as a landlord, I'm expecting people to negotiate with me and oftentimes that doesn't happen as much as you think it would. People are afraid of negotiating. Because they're ill-informed, they just don't know what they don't know. But because of the fact that you've taken this course I can almost guarantee you that you're going to be able to at least save one month's free rents by taking this course, okay? It is because you've done your homework and within the link below download that worksheet and start doing your homework, okay? We're going to cover that later on in the lesson. But start downloading that sheet because we're going to cover a few things that you should be aware of when doing your homework. When you know the square footage when you know your surrounding units how much they're charging, when you know the foot traffic around the area when you know how much the buildout cost would be, then you can take all these different statistics and these numbers back to your landlord and tell them, hey you know what? If I were to rebuild this whole place to make sure that it's in compliance with the city, I need to spend $200,000 to build a new washroom, grease shop, hooded fans and everything. Hey, why can't you give me two or three months worth of free rent? And your landlord most likely will know that this is happening and they, oh, you know what? You busted me. You know what? I'll give you two months free rent because in their minds, I better pay you and give you the two months free rent right now so that we can start building and start paying rent. Then for me to leave the unit out there for another two months squatting flies. Once you've taken this course, like I said, you're equipped to ask the right questions which will get you free rents.  Okay guys, super, super important for you to do your homework.  They can reason with you. Usually people that are owning these land, they know exactly where their shortfalls are and if you can be objective when you bring out these conversations and tell them, hey, you know what, I know about all this. This is great. You know what, a lot of people walk by this during lunchtime but at night there's no one. When you bring that up they know and tense they will work with you in helping you save some cost. Location hunting. Where to look guys. Drive around different areas looking for these signs. Tell you the truth for our first very location. We drove three months to locate a location for our screen shop and it took us three months of driving around and that's the location we found. The first location we found was the one that we actually signed the lease with. Three months of driving around. Take your time with it and have fun throughout the whole process. I enjoy driving around looking at the areas because once again that allows me to understand the community a little bit better and allows me to understand, hey you know what, is this area great? How is it like in the lunchtime? How is it like at the dinner time? And that allows me to judge whether this location is good for my demographic or not. The second location to look, second place to look for a location is Talk to a Broker. Talking to a broker is often a really, really good choice but something that I prefer driving around but talking to a broker, a good broker is also very good because they have, a lot of times they have a lot of listings and on top of that they have these pocket listings. What are pocket listings? It means that it's not even up in the market yet. It's like probably for a friend and they know that they want to be able to rent it out and they're like, hey you know what, I know a friend that wants to lease something out in a great location and everything. Do you want to hook up? That's usually the relations that you're going to get and opportunities that you get dealing with a broker. Listing sites Craigslist is also another good avenue for you to look for a great location. Nonetheless I personally really enjoy just driving around different areas to look for locations. Now it is your time to go hunting guys. Don't be impulsive because at the end of the day you're going to spend years in this location and you can take your time with it.  What is another month? What is another 2 months for you to get this started? Spend the time in locating your location. The process might take months but that is okay. Let's go guys. Start going hunting. It is your turn. Find 5 different potential locations. Identify them as high traffic or destination. Identify the 4 different elements in the link below. Download it and start working on it. After this lesson in the next module we're going to talk about how do you negotiate leases, free rent with your landlord. Start doing your homework now and when you have finalized and shortlist your location we're going to go over the negotiation process. What you have learned today are the 4 elements to watch out for when choosing the perfect location. In the next lesson we're going to be talking about the pitfalls in creating your customer avatar for your restaurant. This is a very, very crucial lesson so make sure that you guys go there and check it out. I'll see you guys in the next lesson.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jasper's casebreaks.com, coming at you with 2022-23 Panini Immaculate Basketball, five bucks, pick your team three full case break. It's been marinating on the site for a little bit. I'm glad we got it done tonight on a Wednesday. Big thanks to everybody who made this happen. Here on a Wednesday, hump day, the seventh. It's been marinating on here for a bit, but we finally got it done. Brian, you got official last spot, Mojo. Congrats to the people who won their team to that mosaic pack break. And I appreciate everybody's patience on this. It's a pricey set of boxes, so sometimes it does take a minute or two. But I appreciate everybody's patience on it. I don't think a single person asks for a refund on here, so I appreciate that as well. Sometimes people can get impatient, but I think everyone in this break knows the value of this break. It's gonna be our last break of the night. But remember, we don't stream 24 hours a day, but our website's open 24 hours a day, so get into some more breaks. Maybe some more breaks to super old squares. We gotta get those done. Those mixer fillers as well. Jaspy's case break stock. Giving away three squares in this one. This needs to be a little bit of a shallow box. That might mean a redemption in here. Use the blank back on this card right here to slow play some of the hits. And good luck, everybody. Here we go. 51 out of 99. Deer and Fox for Sacktown. John with the Kings. We've got six out of 10, Bruce Brown. Two color patch. Nuggets. A lot of teams. Trade deadline tomorrow. What do you think is gonna happen, everybody? I think I know a lot of teams would like the defensive presence of Bruce Brown. Here's Nikola Jovic, 27 out of 99. The heat might make some moves. This young player might be involved. This is gonna go to Ishmael. There you go, Ish. Out of a piece of his jersey. We got a 16 out of 16. This guy got traded. Simone Fontacheco. He was traded earlier. I think people, teams like his, his upside. T, Lakers signed LeBron. Or trade LeBron. That'd be crazy. I think that contract's almost impossible to trade. How did Lakers beat the clip or Lakers beat the Celtics without LeBron and AD? That was the joke around town. You're like, get rid of those guys. Redemption is Malik Monk. Shadowbox signatures. Malik Monk has been going off. I think the last, no, I'm thinking of someone else. Oh, they had 23 points earlier today. Antenesis, five rebounds. He is a king. What's the Lakers kept this guy? I don't know, but I mean, I think, I think we knew what was gonna happen when LeBron came to town. That's, you know, you gotta, your mortgaging futures for the today. You know, if you're one of the greatest players in the game. So we knew what Lakers knew what they were getting into. Ooh, nice, 38 out of 49. Sophisticated signatures. Nikola Jokic, 38 out of 49. Roy with the Denver Nuggets, nice. I mean, they played most of the season. But it was about, yeah, I mean, I don't know. I'm sure every Lakers and Dodgers fan would prefer that it was, that those chips were like, non-pandemic. There are different challenges associated with that. And rings a ring, still counts in the record books. All right, next box. I mean, that's such a, if LeBron were to be traded, Rex wants to explore that. He makes like $50 million or something like that. The way the contract is structured, there'd be no amount, like no one would take that contract and trade assets back and make the money match. So there's like really nothing you could, calves, but they're gutting their entire team just to make the money work. Here's Sengun for the Rockets. It's pretty good, John for the Rockets. That's Jason and Jason asking the challenge. Back to calves? I don't know if the calves organization, they're playing such good basketball, why would they do the Lakers a favor? Although it'd be fun to have that calves team in Los Angeles. 59 out of 99, RJ Barrett, Nick's edition, that'll be for Joshua. Zion Williams in 85 out of 99, piece of the jersey. I don't know about Ben Simmons for LeBron. Come on, let's not, look at LeBron's numbers at his age, let's not talk reckless here. There's Zion for the Pelicans who's playing well, John for the Pels. Here is Elton Brand, virtuoso autograph, 51 out of 99. Nice one for the Sixers, that's gonna be for Anthony. Bronford Zion would be. Here's Laurie Markinett, 73 out of 99, modern marks, nice season he's having. People are talking about him maybe in a trade. DeRose into the Sixers, Duncan is wondering, I think the Sixers are looking for a big man, I wanna say. Ooh, look at that. One of one, logo man, autograph Nikola Jovic for the Heat. Ish, Ishmael with that one. That card was just marinating in this case, marinating. Wow, rookie patch auto, NBA logo man. Jerry West, it's a nice looking card too, the corners look sharp, sometimes you get edge issues, that looks good too, he's got a decent autograph right there. Man, that is awesome Ish, all aboard, the big hit express. Woo, I feel like he's doing pretty well. Is he injured? Maybe he's not, maybe he's been injured. But he's the 27th overall pick. Now I think he's been spending some time with the G-League team, but I feel he's got some upside. I mean, you've got Paolo Bencaro, Chet Holmgren, Jabari Smith, Keegan Murray playing well, Jaden Ivy, those are the top five picks, Bennett and the Mithurians playing well, and then from there, it's kind of a debate, I guess Jeremy Sohan's in the mix, he got Jaden Sharpe's okay, Dyson Daniels, Jeremy Sohan, Johnny Davis, Oshae, and kind of go down the list, Christian Braun to a certain extent, but I feel like, I mean, he's still a logo man, I feel like he's in like the solid kind of next tier, and I'm gonna lose my voice for the rest of the week, but it was worth it, excuse me. Well, first time seeing a logo man pulled live, you were there, you'll get the t-shirt. I was there when Joe Jaspy pulled that logo man. Oh, that's Jason Jaspy. Oh, the ghost of Jaspy's, how creepy. This is shaking. Yeah, it doesn't matter who it is, as long as it's a decent rookie and it's a logo man, you know, and as long as you have some decent upside, yeah, and even Terry saying his cards have been, have been going up, I mean, he's been discussed in some trades too. I mean, he was being discussed in the Damien Lillertrade, the possible Damien could possibly go to Miami. So there was a lot of conversation there, so people like him got some upside. Hey, you're welcome, thanks for being patient. I know you probably got this team ages ago, but it paid off. Scotty Barnes, three out of 25 for the Raptors, that'll be John. Got a big relic right here, Christian Coloco for Toronto, 26 out of 50, that'll be for John. And we got Donovan Mitchell, 85 out of 99, I feel like he's been playing really well lately. Jason didn't bring any of that weather back though, from his vacation. We got Nate Archibald, seven out of 99, jersey number. It's rare for me, Matthew with the Celtics. Nice Steve Kerr, 81 out of 99, championship runs, autograph. What a run of championships it was. That's gonna be four doubles, John, with the Chicago Bulls. And a dual autograph, Jaden Ivy, Jalen Durand, 40 out of 49, no randomizer, both pistons. That's for Anthony, won that in the filler. And some big hits marinating in here. Nice. All right, two more to go. Yeah, Mobley playing better, that entire Cavs team, it's a pretty fun team. Yeah, Jason's an OKC guy, that team looks pretty exciting. That's the thing, going back to that LeBron trade that maybe, you know, Rex is like as unlikely as it is, like, you know, what would make the most, nowhere really, whatever the Lakers gonna get the bronze like in the last, I know he's still playing at a pretty high level, but you know, maybe has one or two more seasons of that at a high level before, before it really, you know, I can't imagine too many more years of that. No one's giving up young players or any future players for that. There's Zach Levine, 82 out of 99. Bulls might be selling, I think Zach Levine might be out for this season. There's DeAngelo Russell, 20 out of 99, he's been playing well, but then the question is, what happens when he's paired with better guards in the playoffs, you know, the defensive assignment is where it gets a little tricky. But there's Dilo for my Lakers, Hans, his old jersey in that window though. Here is Paolo Bencaro, Jaden Ivey, 20 out of 75, dual relic, Orlando Magic, that's gonna be Evan, and the Pistons, that's gonna be Anthony, that is a randomizer, one happy person, one sad person. I bet the one of one of this would look really awesome. We got a Bill Lambier, 55 out of 75, clutch time, autograph, another one for Detroit, for Anthony. Yeah, I don't think, okay, C's letting go of Vestia any time soon. Here is Austin Reeves, seven out of 10. We'll find out tomorrow if he's as untouchable as the Lakers have made him out to be. Fan favorite, Austin Reeves. The Lakers are kind of gun shy about losing him because the mistake they made with Alex Caruso. But I'm a fan of Austin Reeves, plays golf. Apparently he's a really good golfer. Goes to Hans and the Lakers. And we've got Jason Williams, nice, 23 out of 99. The handles on this guy. King's Edition, going to John. All right, great case so far, final box coming up. Yeah, Ish would love to have Cruz. I know, could use that perimeter defense. Crazy thing is, I feel like the Lakers are not that far away, you know? I feel like, but they just don't, they've just kind of backed themselves into a corner with a lot of their moves and they really don't have a lot of room to maneuver, unfortunately. To improve on a team that's just a couple of games over 500. We'll see, we'll see what happens. Trade deadline is 3 p.m. Eastern, noon, my time. So by noon, I'll know. All right, final box, good luck everybody. This guy is great, 34 out of 49. Jeremy Sohan, real solid player. Playing alongside Wenbenyama, rising tides, lifts all boats, it's gonna be for John. We've got Kevin Herter, 96 out of 99 for Sack Town, Bay Area and back down. Ooh, look at this team logo card, Lamello Ball. This case has been fire-tary. One out of six, if this guy could stay healthy, man. That's Canard with Charlotte, got the Hornets straight up. Yeah, that's the thing, Duncan. I mean, no one wants to see Angela Russell. I wish he was just a little bit better on defense. I'm gonna be like, he'd be great, he'd be fine. Be a 3 and D guy, but he's 3 and no D. Virtuoso autographs. He's been trying. You know, but it's like when the playoff starts, it's kind of a different beast. Nine out of 25, Christian Latner. That's gonna be Timberwolves edition, that'll be for Huang, with that one. Couple more here, we've got a Rashid Wallace, 19 out of 25, Ball Don't Lie, Detroit, it's gonna go to Anthony. All right, and the last one here is, nice, four out of 75, Patrick Ewing. Joshua with the New York Knicks. I think Knicks, could they make a move? Matthew, did you put that in the, does the money work? Wow, that'd be kind of LeBron for CP3, Wiggins, where Thompson, oh, they're not giving up Kaminga, are they? Thompson I might, I could see. But I don't know if they're gonna give up Kaminga for an aging LeBron.  All right, let's do the randomizer. We'll use one dice roll for both randomizers for the dual relic and the squares. So here's a new dice, new list. We've got Orlando and Detroit. Everyone's got a shot at the squares. AD for Grayson now, come on now. It's not, let's not, that's reckless, that's reckless. Talk to you. And it's three squares that we're giving away here. All right, good luck everybody. Let's roll it, randomize both lists, six and a two, eight times each, the dual relic first. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. Goes to Detroit, what a break for the Detroit Pistons, that dual autograph in the mix. And now you got that dual relic. Apologies to Orlando, Evan. But congrats again to Anthony. All right, now, the spacing would definitely work. LeBron, Steph Curry, Draymond Green. But see, I don't know what the Warriors do with them. All right, eight times for the squares. Everyone's got a shot at those squares. It's gonna be the top three after eight. Same dice roll, good luck. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eighth and final time. Now there's gonna be a lot of 27 sad spots here. Jeremy, very close, but just not quite. Appreciate you getting in. Appreciate everybody getting in. There can be only three. Now there's still plenty of opportunities to get squares, ladies and gentlemen, so keep going. Jasper'scasebreaks.com. We'll get everything done by the end of the week. All right, top three, you're in. Huang, you're in. Adam, you're in. Adam, in again. Wow, I don't know if I called your names out too often in this break for the both of you, but hey, you got squares, and anything can happen there. I'm Joe for Jasper'scasebreaks.com. I'll see you next time for the next one, bye-bye.


Sure, if space goes on forever, it might just be really, really big in which case there's a finite number of parallel universes, but inflation predicts typically that it goes on forever. The simplest space we all were taught in school in a Euclid space also goes on forever. It gets even more interesting with this inflation theory because it turns out it makes almost like a fractal space where there are these boundaries where inflation never stops and everything within an expanding boundary is a level one multiverse and then there are many of them in the level two multiverse and this is such a violent process that different parts of space that are made can actually, if physics, if space can be in many different states kind of like water can be in different states you know ice, steam, liquid you know with different properties. If space can be like that too, which string theory suggests and inflation is going to make all these different kinds of space, that's level two multiverse so there might be somewhere far far away where people learn in school that actually the periodic table has only five kinds of atoms or 180 kinds of atoms and so on. So here in our universe the physics would be taught the same across the planets but the history is taught differently of how the civilization evolved but in an alternative part of the next level of a different place in the multiverse that physics could in fact be different. Right, not because physics is truly different, it still may be unruly by string theory but a lot of things that we thought were fundamental weren't. It's like if you're a fish and you've spent your whole life in the ocean you might think it was a law of physics that water is always a liquid just because you've never seen an iceberg and you would learn that water has this kind of viscosity and this kind of sound speed which is not true if you're inside of an iceberg or an extreme cloud. And then the third level, that just adds more humility, we've discovered that basically it's super hard to have any theory of physics that just makes the stuff that we can actually see and observe and nothing more. I gave you two examples. The quantum physics, the theory of the very small has that same property. We've discovered that when we look really closely at the electrons and these other elementary particles that make up us, they can be in multiple places at once. But we are made of them so that means we should be able to be in many places at once. And this guy, you Everett, he worked that out in the 50s and showed that if quantum mechanics is just true with no ifs and buts, there's this one equation, the Schrodinger equation and that's it, then, as you were saying earlier, as if our life kind of forks out. There are many times when we make a decision, a snap decision, should we ask this person on a date or not, where it might come down to just whether one neuron fired or not in the beginning, triggering a whole cascade of events that could end up with you living in this city, you know, being married to this person with children or living somewhere completely different, doing something different. And now that neuron firing might in turn have been determined just by the position of one little atom in your brain. So if that atom was in two places at once, eventually you're living in two different cities. So this kind of branching and amplification of weirdness from the micro world where a little atom is in two places at once, into the macro world is what leads to this and so called many worlds interpretation of the level three multiverse. If that's actually the way things are, yeah, then every time you get a parking ticket, you can chill out and take solace in the fact that there was probably apparently a universe, you know, where you didn't kind of takes the pressure off a little.