d into MSNBC, I did segments on this. You saw them having a complete meltdown. James Carville saying Putin got what he wanted. This is great. Advocating that they're probably not going to fall in line to support Bernie Sanders. So why is it that whenever the centrist is winning, that's when we have to talk about vote blue no matter who, but when a progressive is winning, not that big of a deal. I mean, do you remember in 2018 when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she won the nomination, she won the Democratic Party primary against Joe Crowley and then he was still on the ballot for the Working Families Party and he refused to take himself off the ballot? Like, where was this talk of unity then? In fact, everyone scolded AOC for calling out Joe Crowley's refusal to remove himself from the ballot. So you have to understand that this only goes one way. Vote blue no matter who party unity is something that only applies to the left. Nobody else. So that's why when it comes to me and where I stand, I am in total agreement with Crystal Ball. Vote blue no matter who is a scam. It's one big con to bully the left into compliance and I refuse to fall for it. I didn't fall for it in 2016 and I won't fall for it in 2020. Now as someone who was not vote blue no matter who, if you disagree with me, that's fine, but I want you to at least understand my position and where I'm coming from. You can disagree with that, but at least try to understand it. So for me, I had, you know, nieces and nephews who were voting for the first time in 2016 and the same is true again. I've got a lot of nieces and nephews and they were very demoralized after Bernie Sanders had lost and the same is going to be true this time. I haven't talked to them yet, but getting them to vote in and of itself was a really huge obstacle. It was very difficult for me to do, but the way that I convinced some of them to get out and vote was by telling them about Jill Stein as an option because they liked Jill Stein's policies and I voted for Jill Stein knowing that she didn't have a chance, but this is why it's really important to not discourage people who come out to vote, even if they're not voting for the person who you like because when I voted for Jill Stein, I still voted Democrat and, you know, down the ticket as did my nieces who came out and voted. Right. I convinced my mom to still vote after she wanted to stay home and that helped Democrats down the ballot. Now look, I know that Jill Stein wasn't going to win, but I was voting because I wanted the Green Party's agenda to be adopted by the Democratic Party and in ways I think that what I did possibly made an impact. I mean, we're talking about student loan debt cancellation and a Green New Deal and I think that's largely because Jill Stein is the individual who introduced those policies. So I mean, that is what I was thinking, right? I voted for Jill Stein because I wanted to help shape the agenda for progressives going forward and I came out to vote because I still wanted to make sure that Democrats were able to win in-house in Senate races and when voter apathy is such a huge issue, a huge issue, you can't yell at people for not voting who you want them to vote for. Like, I think that if they're voting for Donald Trump, then you can genuinely, you know, tell them that they're causing harm to themselves and the planet. But if they're not supporting the Democratic Party nominee and they're on the left, but they're still voting for Green, just the fact that they're voting in and of itself is really, really important because you can't have a democracy if people don't participate and with widespread voter apathy and people just staying home, the fact that they're coming out to vote helps Democrats. The fact that Jill Stein was an option for people that helped down-ticket Democrats because if, you know, there was no option, it was just Hillary or Trump, like a lot of people, a lot more people I think would have just stayed home and not helped Democrats down the ballot. So I mean, you've got to understand that we have to overcome a lot of obstacles. Voter apathy is one of them. And I'll add a caveat that I am in a safe state. I am in the deep blue state of Oregon. Most of us reside in either safe blue states or safe red states. So in 2016, even though I voted for Jill Stein, 100% of my state's electoral votes went to Hillary Clinton. In 2020, 100% of my state's electoral votes will again go to the Democratic Party's nominee. So my vote is a message that I'm sending to the Democratic Party that they have to win me back. If you want my vote, fight for it. Fight for me and you'll win me back. But I also take into account the importance of harm reduction, right? Because if I were in a swing state, if I were in the state of Florida, me personally, I would vote for Joe Biden. I would have voted for Hillary Clinton because it's like we're fighting two different battles, right? Between Democrats and Republicans. Both are extremely evil, but Democrats, they're poisoning us. Republicans have a gun to our heads. So the poison is going to take a little bit of time to kick in. But there is a really present and immediate danger with Republicans and a Trump presidency. There is a Supreme Court seat that will likely be vacant within the next four years. So I would vote for Joe Biden if I were in a swing state because even though he's a terrible candidate, I do believe that we should do everything in our power to reduce harm. But this is my decision. Every single person who's making this vote, who's a lefty, this is their decision to make. And I think it's really important that you acknowledge the necessity of showing the Democratic Party that you have leverage and not just supporting every single shitty neoliberal corporatist every time, and also weighing the need to reduce harm. Is Joe Biden better than Donald Trump? Yes, of course, that's the case, right? So rather than us hemorrhaging, maybe we stop the bleeding a little bit. But that doesn't mean that the Democratic Party is good. It's still, we have to acknowledge that even if we're opting for this strategy of voting for the lesser two evils for purposes of harm reduction, we are still giving up leverage as lefties. We're telling the Democratic Party that they can use us and abuse us and we'll be there for them every single time like good little soldiers. So what I want people to know is that this really is a lose-lose situation either way. I mean, it sucks, right? Because if we're able to defeat Donald Trump, then we get Joe Biden. Still get no progress when it comes to climate change. He said he'd rejoin the Paris Climate Accord and that's it. He just said on MSNBC in an interview with Lawrence O'Donnell that he'd veto Medicare for all. So even in the situation where we defeat Donald Trump and hopefully kind of put the lid on fascism, that's still a really bad predicament and having Joe Biden as the president will create even more desperation and more radicalization probably on the left and the right as people's lives don't improve and the next Donald Trump comes along. So people are weighing the odds here and it's important that we all understand that this election, people are making a big decision, right? It's not just about the next four years. This is about the future of our country and it's a very tough decision. Like I told you my view and I'm sure that you have your own opinion. Like I am not vote blue no matter who. My opinion on that would change if I lived in a swing state. But even if I sucked it up and voted for Biden in a swing state, I acknowledge that that's still harmful even if we beat Donald Trump because, you know, I'm relinquishing my power in a way to the Democratic Party and I am giving them permission essentially to use and abuse me. So the situation is basically the worst case scenario. Like it's not even as if we're getting someone who is marginally better than Joe Biden. Like Kamala Harris. Like at least she paid lip service to the idea of Medicare for all. Nobody believed her. But just in terms of like moving the Overton window that would have been a little bit better. She would have been the first female president. I mean, Democrats just, they picked the worst. They picked the worst. The only person who's worse is Bloomberg, right? And in that instance, I mean, you're really having a real conversation about who is worse, Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump. That's how bad the situation is. And in giving Democrats permission to keep nominating these harmful individuals who aren't going to do anything, we're going to get to a point where we get a nominee like Bloomberg, if not Bloomberg himself, where you are genuinely asking yourself, who's worse, Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump? So the situation itself is scary. And I just, regardless of how you feel about vote, blue, no matter who, this is your decision. And I respect everybody's decision. If you're voting for Donald Trump, I don't respect that because that's causing direct harm. But if you're voting for, you know, either Joe Biden or Green Party or you're staying home, but you are choosing to support Democrats down the ticket so that way we can reign in the Republicans control. I mean, you've got to understand that there's so much at stake. And this really is a terrible predicament that we find ourselves in for the second election in a row. And it's not the fault of voters. Like you can, you can voter shame people, all you want, that's not going to change anything. And what I wish people on Twitter would realize and on YouTube would realize is that everything that happens here, this is just, this is, I don't want to say it occurs in a vacuum, but voters aren't paying attention to what's happening on YouTube and Twitter. So by and large, if we all got together and said, we are not voting for Joe Biden, no matter what, on Twitter and on YouTube, that wouldn't really make that big of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Because at the end of the day, the individuals who are ultimately going to decide this election are the voters who stood home in 2016, the voters who flipped from Obama to Trump in 2016. They're going to be the deciders, not us ultimately. So this is a very personal decision. And it's just, there's no right answer. It's, it's, it's awful. We're stuck in a predicament where we have another Democratic Party nominee that's terrible. But this time, Joe Biden is worse than Hillary Clinton in a number of ways. I think that ideologically, he may be better, but he's less competent than Hillary Clinton. He has less charisma than Hillary Clinton. There's no, no exciting aspect. We're not making history by electing the first female president. There's nothing about Joe Biden. So I really worry that in November, even less people will be excited for Joe Biden than they were for Hillary Clinton. And that means we get another four years of Donald Trump, which is devastating, absolutely devastating. So if it truly is between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, no matter who wins, we all lose in a number of ways.  If Biden wins, that's great. We defeated Donald Trump. Hopefully this fascist threat will go away for a little bit. But then we can't really put forward another progressive challenger until eight years down the line. And Joe Biden does nothing and people get more radicalized. And the Democratic party doesn't change anything. They don't have to be introspective because they were electorally successful.  Either way, the situation sucks, but I told you where I stand. I agree with crystal ball. I am not, no matter who, but I respect the position that Cenk has that, you know, this is about harm reduction. So not to both sides it, I see where both people are coming from.  So we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Regardless, if we support Joe Biden, we will still be blamed for his loss and not rewarded or given credit if he wins. So we just, we have to be nuanced in making our decision. And I told you where I stand and we'll just, we'll go forward. We'll keep fighting because we don't have a choice. Elizabeth Warren is not going to endorse Bernie Sanders. Nobody is surprised about this. And this was confirmed by the New York Times who just published an article saying she is unlikely to endorse Bernie Sanders, but I'm still fascinated by this story because even if I knew Elizabeth Warren was a disappointment coming into 2020, like it truly is astonishing how little she cares about a progressive agenda. Like she genuinely couldn't care less. She, you know, wants to be a progressive according to her, but when push comes to shove, she lets us down. She doesn't stand up for progressive policies. And this goes beyond 2020. Like we're talking back in 2016, when the Standing Rock Sioux tribe was being brutalized by militarized police, she said nothing. When Bernie was running a very competitive primary against Hillary Clinton and he did it begrudgingly because she refused to challenge the Clinton machine, she sat idly by and didn't endorse until after the primary was over.  But we get a little bit of insight into the reasoning as to why she's not endorsing and it's not surprising, but it's still very, very pathetic. So as the New York Times reports, Ms. Warren is expected to withhold her endorsement from Mr. Sanders, as well as Mr. Biden at this point, choosing to let the primary play out rather than seek to change its course according to several people familiar with Ms. Warren's thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss her considerations. Even before Mr. Sanders lost four states in Tuesday's primaries, dealing a huge blow to his presidential hopes, Ms. Warren was reluctant to support him. These people said the spirited presidential campaign caused some rifts between the two liberals, including their clash in January, over whether Mr. Sanders once told her that a woman couldn't be elected president in 2020, an episode that deeply troubled her. Her camp also viewed Mr. Sanders' electoral standing as fading in recent weeks, raising doubts about whether an endorsement would be a lost cause. Ms. Warren has spoke to Mr. Biden once since Super Tuesday, but multiple times to Mr. Sanders as she and her team have fielded overtures from Sanders supporters seeking to coax her to his aid. Randy Weingarden, who is Warren Surrogate, just FYI, said she looked back at the January episode between Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders as a crucial juncture in their relationship. Quote, There were a lot of really nasty emojis and tweets and other vituperative and misogynistic comments directed toward Elizabeth, and that was a moment Bernie could have stood really clearly enough. Ms. Weingarden said, I'm a pretty tough broad and it affected me, and I don't get affected by this much anymore. The candidates have a role at that moment to step up and provide moral authority, she added. People took note. There was a sense of PTSD, Ms. Weingarden said, harking back to the 2016 primary campaign against Mrs. Clinton. Did it affect Ms. Warren? You can't discount what happened over the last few months, Ms. Weingarden said, let me just leave it at that. In other words, it actually was the snake emojis. And people were getting offended for Elizabeth Warren, such as Randy Weingarden, because of the snake emojis. And that's one of the reasons to be fair why she is not going to endorse Bernie Sanders. They also state that it looks like he doesn't have a path to the nomination in their view and their estimation. So they're going to sit this one out because it doesn't really make a difference. And if you endorse a losing candidate, then you kind of lose leverage and power. Except, like, what's the point of endorsing then? Like, if you dropped out and endorsed Bernie Sanders before Super Tuesday, would that have made a difference? I genuinely don't know, maybe a little bit. But what I do know is that it would have at least communicated to progressives that you cared about progressive policies, even if that would have been the hardest thing that you'd ever had, you know, to do in your life, it still would have shown a real dedication and self-sacrifice for the movement. So it doesn't matter. Like, are you saying that you'd only endorse someone who's going to win? Because that's absolutely just, that's, that's a coward position to take. Like, embarrassing. Now, when it comes to the snake emojis, I just want to remind everyone that the snake emojis, they didn't just materialize out of nowhere. What were the snake emojis? Why were people posting snake emojis underneath Elizabeth Warren's tweets? It was because she lied about Bernie Sanders. She lied very obviously about Bernie Sanders at a time when he was surging. She decided to have her team leak this story right before Iowa. Why wasn't this leaked back when Bernie Sanders announced? Why wasn't this leaked in the middle of 2019? This was leaked right before Iowa and it's not believable because this is very uncharacteristic of Bernie Sanders. He tried to get Elizabeth Warren to run back in 2016. She said no. So the fact that he thinks a woman couldn't win, nobody believes that. Not a single person believes that. So the snake emojis were a direct response to what was a very obvious lie and desperate attempt to smear Bernie Sanders in hopes that you could bring down his momentum before Iowa and capitalize on his demise potentially. And on top of that, the continuation of snake emojis were the result of Elizabeth Warren just attacking Bernie Sanders non-stop. She lied about him having a super pack. She said, well, it's only the two women who don't have a super pack and then she went on to have one of the largest super packs in the race after lying about Bernie Sanders because apparently our revolution and sunrise movement, those are super packs according to Elizabeth Warren. If we're using her logic, but she saw the endorsement of the sunrise movement. So did Pete Buttigieg. But then after he was rejected, he qualified them as a dark money group. I mean, do you not understand like cause and effect is a very real thing if you hurt people, if you are perceived to be against our movement and what we're fighting for, saving lives, helping people, then be lucky that we only decided to send you snake emojis, right? And not campaign against you more in your home state, right? Not try to mount some type of progressive primary challenger to you in 2024. Not that that's out of, you know, the possibility, but I'm just saying like, if snake emojis is the worst case scenario that you'll face when you betray an entire movement by lying about its leader, then I think that's pretty good. No. And I'm sorry, but primary campaigns are incredibly divisive.  Look at the primary campaign between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton back in 2008. That got ugly. And most of the ugliness came from Hillary Clinton who leaked a photo of Barack Obama in a turbine so she can fearmonger about him, which was racist. And on top of that, she stayed in the race after she was literally mathematically eliminated because she said, well, you know, um, what if he gets assassinated? I'm paraphrasing, but that was the sentiment in case he died, she could become the nominee. That's why she wanted to stay in. So primaries get ugly, but at the end of the day, she was his secretary of state. Like you put all of that aside because you've got to care more about the issues than, you know, your own pettiness. Now I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton cares about the issues, but they put that aside. That's the point. So the fact that Elizabeth Warren was genuinely that angry over snake emojis, I think it really gives us some insight into just how privileged she is. This is a multimillionaire, right? She is a member of the United States Senate and she's white. So if snake emojis is the worst thing that she's had to deal with, wow, what a, what an amazing life you must have. What an amazing life you must have. There are people in this country who are fighting with everything that they have for Bernie Sanders because they desperately need Medicare for all. I saw an article that brought tears to my eyes that a Bernie volunteer made 200 calls for him the day before he died of cancer. We're fighting for our lives here and for Elizabeth Warren to not understand where we're coming from, not understand the pain and suffering and the fear among young people of just the collapse of our environment. And it's just embarrassing. The fact that they're truly talking about snake emojis this much is embarrassing. And we knew that this was irritating her because in an interview with Rachel Maddow, once again, she brought up that Bernie Sanders should have spoke out more about the snake emojis. It's a particular problem with Sanders. It is. I mean, and it just is. It's just a factual question. And it is. And that's something I think that that- Could you ever talk to Sanders about that? I have. What was that conversation about? It was short. But yeah, we've talked about it. But I think it's a real problem. Does he not share your view that he's responsible for the behavior of Sanders? You know, I shouldn't speak for him. It's something he should speak for himself on. But I do think it's something that we need to reckon with in our political discourse in particular, because this is what politics about, is to get out and put your ideas out there. People choose sides. People vote. People say, I'm holding a sign for her. I'm holding a sign for him. That is part of what we do. But what underlies that as a fundamental human decency and respect for each other. An understanding that nobody tries to put somebody's family at risk or somebody personally at risk because they disagree with you on the politics of it, because they see the policy different because they don't support your candidate and they support some other candidate. No. And if we follow that same kind of politics of division that Donald Trump follows, that notion of he draws strength from tearing people apart, from demonizing people, from saying, oh, those are bad people. And that's kind of how they draw their strength. It's not who I want to be as a Democrat. It's not who I want to be as an American. And to the extent I have any power to control that, I do what I can and I call on others to do the same. And I think we have to have some accountability around that. So, I mean, we're all responsible for our supporters, except she hasn't taken responsibility for any of her supporters' actions. No other candidate has taken responsibility for the actions of their supporters. And a new article by I think a salon showed that from a data standpoint, the Bernie Bro narrative is nothing more than a myth. There's no evidence suggesting that Bernie supporters are more hostile than any other candidate supporters. This was true back in 2016 as well, where Hillary Clinton supporters were way more aggressive than Bernie Sanders supporters, but yet we were labeled as the hostile Bernie Bros. Now, the fact that Elizabeth Warren decided to not only buy into that narrative, but further perpetuated, it just shows you everything you need to know about Elizabeth Warren. She's not serious about progressive policies, because if she was serious about progressive policies, it wouldn't be difficult to make an endorsement. Like if the shoe were on the other foot and Bernie Sanders had lost Iowa and New Hampshire, do you honestly believe that he would have stayed in the race? He would have dropped out and campaigned hard for Elizabeth Warren. And after all of this, if she chooses to run in 2024, he might still campaign hard for her. But guess what? We're not going to be there for Elizabeth Warren in 2024. If you repeatedly slap this movement in the face and you abandon us, then when you really need us the most, maybe then we'll be the ones abandoning you for once, Elizabeth Warren.  You should be ashamed of yourself. You should absolutely be ashamed of yourself.  You became what you hated. You stood around long enough to be what everyone dislikes about electoral politics. Someone who's just jockeying for power positions, who's a careerist more than anything. All right, not surprising, but don't expect my support. So I haven't really had the chance to speak at length about the coronavirus shed, because as you all know, we've just been focused almost exclusively on the Democratic Party primary, but you know, as it kind of winds down, I want to make sure that we talk about this and not brush it off or push it to the side, because this really is an important story. And this is going to continue to be a story for the foreseeable future. In fact, former CDC director Tom Frieden is saying that the outlook is actually really grim. In fact, a lot more grim than many of us expected, because if things continue on the path that they're on now, then approximately half of the United States population could be affected by coronavirus and a million people could die. Like, think about that. This really is a horrifying situation. We are looking at the prospect of a global pandemic. And the United States is just not ready to deal with that. Donald Trump is in over his head. He's not capable of dealing with that. And we live in a capitalist system to where workers aren't able to deal with that. We don't have the resources needed to take ourselves to the doctor if we're experiencing symptoms.  It's really horrifying. And, you know, to say that the Republican party isn't taking this seriously would be an understatement, because as many of you know, a Chud member of Congress literally wore a gas mask on the house floor to poke fun at all of the quote, unquote hysteria over coronavirus. And this came at a time when one of his constituents literally died from it. But then he was forced to self quarantine after being exposed to coronavirus himself. And he's not alone because other Republicans, namely ones that attended CPAC, they're now in self quarantine. Ted Cruz was exposed to coronavirus. Even Donald Trump exposed to coronavirus. So I mean, it's all fun and games until it starts getting serious, right? So I want to talk to you about Donald Trump's botched response because he managed to mangle anything, anything related to coronavirus in a multitude of ways. But before we do that, I want to share this clip from ABC News because in order to understand what should be done and what Trump could have done better, we have to at least understand coronavirus, you know, where it originated, how it's spread, what are the symptoms just a general overview. So take a look at this short clip. The first case of novel coronavirus was reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Early cases were believed to be linked to a live animal market in Wuhan and have since been spreading from person to person. Shortly after, cases of the virus began to appear outside of China. And on January 20, 2020, the first case of novel coronavirus was reported in the United States. On January 30, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. More cases should be expected in other parts of China and possibly other countries.  SARS and MERS are part of the coronavirus family, as well as viruses that cause the common cold. The 2019 novel coronavirus was officially named COVID-19 on February 11 by the World Health Organization. Suspected community spread was first reported in the United States on February 26, with no known links to people who've traveled to Wuhan, China. WHO said on February 27 that COVID-19 has pandemic potential. This virus does not respect borders. COVID-19 can cause flu-like symptoms that range from mild to severe, including cough, fever, and shortness of breath. Since the infection can include symptoms similar to pneumonia, influenza, and the common cold, only a diagnostic test can confirm whether or not an individual is positive for the virus. Thousands of people have died around the world. The first deaths in the United States occurred on February 26. There are trials underway for treatments, but vaccines are still in the development phase and likely more than a year away. CDC officials say that Americans should prepare for major disruptions to their daily routines. Recommendations to reduce the risk of infection include regular hand washing, covering mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing, avoiding close contact with anyone showing signs of respiratory illness such as coughing and sneezing, avoiding touching your face, disinfecting frequently touched objects and surfaces, using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer if soap and water aren't available. If you're sick, stay home. If you're experiencing severe symptoms or worried that you've contracted the virus, call your doctor before going in. I mean, if only it were that easy to just stay home. Most of us don't have paid sick leave. So even if, you know, we stayed home, then that's less money, less food on the table, right? And I think that this is also really getting people to think about the need for policies like Medicare for all. And it is exposing the flaws in global capitalism. I mean, you see what's happening, right? Capitalist systems only function properly when we work workers to death. But when, you know, schools start shutting down and businesses start shutting down, events get canceled. Well, then what happens? Then, you know, markets start to hurt, stocks fall, global capitalism takes a hit. Like, there's got to be a better way to set up an economic system than global capitalism. But that's besides the point. I want to talk about Donald Trump's response because it genuinely is, I would say, like, hilarious because it's so embarrassing. But this is disturbing because this is something that you have to take seriously. But he hasn't taken it seriously at all. He's incompetent. He's a buffoon. He doesn't know what he's doing. He's in over his head. He's your reality television show star. So of course, this isn't necessarily his forte, but I mean, like you have people in your administration to advise you and he's still managing to botch the response. So I want to share an article from Mother Jones that was written by Will Pascal and Jessica Washington. And they lay out 17 ways to be exact that Donald Trump botched the response to coronavirus. First, Trump picked Vice President Mike Pence well known for allowing an outbreak of HIV to rapidly spread in Indiana during his time as governor to head the government's coronavirus task force. As governor, Pence initially refused to allow clean needle exchange programs, which experts argued were necessary to prevent further outbreaks of HIV. He also spearheaded funding cuts to Planned Parenthood, which led to the closing of the last HIV testing facility in a county at the center of the outbreak. Last month, in its 2021 budget, the Trump administration announced proposed cuts that would reduce CDC funding by 16% and slash three billion for global health programs. Three, in 2018, the National Security Council's Global Pandemic Director left his post abruptly, then his entire team was disbanded by former National Security Advisor John Bolton. The Trump administration has yet to refill any of those positions, leaving huge vulnerabilities in our global pandemic preparedness. Four, in a press conference and tweets, Trump has been downplaying the severity of the coronavirus. In remarks he made on February 26, he claimed that the number of cases was declining in the United States. The CDC says it's highly likely it will continue to spread. He claimed that the fatality rate for coronavirus was lower than the flu it isn't and a vaccine was coming quickly. The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases says it will take at least a year. Fewer than 500 people have been tested for the coronavirus in the United States compared with 13,911 in the UK and 1,126 in the Ontario province of Canada alone as of March 2. Experts blame delays in rolling out the test on account of a faulty component in the original test, which has led to an inadequate supply of tests nationwide. As of Sunday, an unnamed HHS official told Politico that the defects had been resolved that hasn't been enough to prevent an HHS investigation into the delayed national response. The CDC failed to update testing guidelines to include more people as the disease has spread globally. The first instance of coronavirus contracted within the United States took four days to confirm after a delayed response for requests for disease testing from the CDC, according to medical staff at UC Davis Medical Center in California. They blamed the center's narrow specifications for distributing coronavirus testing kits. The organization allegedly took days to approve the medical center's request. Trump isn't the only member of his administration spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. Last Tuesday, Trump's National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow told CNBC, we have contained the virus. Despite CDC officials warning that the virus is likely to continue to spread. In a Meet the Press interview Sunday, Vice President and coronavirus head Mike Pence refused to refute Donald Trump Jr's claim that Democrats wanted the virus to spread and kill Americans. In 2018, the Trump administration cut 80% of CDC funding used to fight global pandemics. The funding support which went to training local health professionals and bolstering emergency responses across 49 countries was reduced to just 10 nations. China wasn't included in the revised list. Last October, the Trump administration opted to discontinue a Bush-era program expanded under Obama called Predict that monitored the threat of animal-borne diseases to humans, the possible origin point of the novel coronavirus. The program was behind the discovery of more than 1,000 viruses, including an Ebola strain. During a standoff last week on a tarmac in Japan, the state department pushed to allow 14 coronavirus infected Americans to board a pair of flights back to the United States. The CDC fought back, arguing that bringing them back, especially considering the planes carried 300 other passengers who tested negative for the disease, would pose an unnecessary risk and more than double the number of infected in the country. In the end, the state department got its way. According to a federal government whistleblower, Department of Health and Human Services personnel have been improperly tending to potentially infected Americans who were in Asia during the outbreak. The whistleblower alleged that the HHS workers without proper training or protective equipment operated alongside CDC personnel donned in hazmat suits when seeing patients and potentially exposed themselves to infection. The whistleblower later indicated that they were unjustly reassigned as retribution for speaking out. Without clearance from local health centers, federal health officials plan to fly coronavirus patients from a California airbase to a FEMA facility on a decommissioned army base in Aniston, Alabama. The mayor of Aniston, shocked by the lack of planning, told HHS officials that the FEMA buildings lacked the medical capability to operate as a quarantine zone. On February 23rd, the administration dropped the plans. Costa Mesa, California is also fighting federal plans to transport patients to the city. As the crisis unfolded last week, one-third of the coronavirus task force took time off to speak at the Conservative Political Action Convention. The list of CPAC attendees also on the task force included White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli, Larry Kudlow, Director of the White House National Economic Council, HHS Secretary Alex Azar, and National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien, Vice President Mike Pence, who heads the task force told CNBC attendees that the risk of infection remains low. Despite reassurances from Trump officials at CPAC and beyond that rumors of the coronavirus have been greatly exaggerated, Cuccinelli indicated during his CPAC speech that the U.S. might tie in borders as a preventative public health measure, despite far fewer cases in Mexico and Canada, where two and 27 cases have been reported respectively. Pence and his office have taken control of all public government statements on the coronavirus, which now go through his press secretary, Katie Miller. Because of this move, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health can no longer share their own research and the Pence office stamp of approval is required to broadcast independent information. When a CDC-distributed coronavirus test kit incorrectly gave a negative result, an infected patient was allowed to leave a San Diego hospital. The patient, who was flown back to the U.S. from China, rejoined the quarantine tank of repatriated citizens for an entire day before being brought back to the hospital. Wow, that's a lot! And it is by no means a comprehensive list. This article is from March 3rd, so since then, more has happened, we've learned more, and the situation really is, it's terrifying. It's absolutely terrifying. I mean, when you have it spreading so rapidly and a vaccine not likely out for another year, and we have Donald Trump doing this, responding in this dim-witted way, I mean, this is just the perfect storm of things that are leading to an outright disaster, and I see all of this, and I have this like sick feeling in my stomach because this is horrifying. This is absolutely horrifying. Think if the worst-case scenario actually came to fruition, like former CDC director Frieden says, excuse me, like if half of Americans were infected with coronavirus, we have 30 million people in this country who don't have health insurance. We have more people, a total of about 80 million, who are underinsured, meaning they have health insurance, but they might not be able to use it because it's inadequate and doesn't really offer much benefits. Now, Trump is trying to do everything in his power to seem more competent. He floated the idea of providing healthcare to people who have been infected with coronavirus. On top of that, his campaign is announcing paid sick leave for coronavirus victims, but I mean, this is something that we have to build into the system. Coronavirus is something that shouldn't have to happen to get us to think about the necessity of healthcare and paid leave. It shouldn't have to come to a literal global pandemic, possibly, to get us to think differently about our economic system and our healthcare system in the way that we are absolutely crushing poor people. It shouldn't have had to come to this. And the fact that it is really sad. It tells you a lot about the state of affairs in America.  He put Mike Pence in charge who doesn't even believe in science. I mean, we just need a break. We need a break. We need to stop worrying about global war and climate catastrophe or a global pandemic for just a month. Can something happen that's good to the human race? Anything. It seemed like we were going to be hopeful because of a Bernie Sanders presidency, but even in that best case scenario, we'd still have to fight like hell to get changed. But I mean like you just keep getting hit over and over and over and over again that I just I feel so bad for young people and old people, anyone who's suffering and marginalized and disadvantaged and is an underdog because think about this.  Like you're looking at climate catastrophe, global pandemics, I'm sure coronavirus won't be the last, incompetence in government and corruption, a Democratic Party that isn't capable of responding or unwilling to respond to the threat of fascism. I just I feel so bad and I don't know what to tell people who are, you know, just starting out in life like my niece who's 19. I don't know what to tell her. Like what do you say to give young people hope? What do you say? When I was their age, I felt hopeful, right? I got to vote for Obama. I felt like, you know, climate change was something we can take care of later on down the road. I mean, I knew it was something that needed to be addressed. But that was when we were looking at that 2050 timeline. But now we're looking at, you know, a 10 11 year deadline to where we need to act to stop climate catastrophe. And it's just, I'm at a loss. Like what do you say? My job is to do political commentary, but I'm running out of things to say. I don't know what to say in these types of situations. The outlook is grim, not just for Americans, but the human race. And, you know, I really hope that we get our act together.  And not just in the United States everywhere. I mean, fascism is on the rise around the globe. Look at Brazil with Jair Bolsonaro. Look at India with Narendra Modi. It's just a really horrifying situation that we find ourselves in. And, you know, that's not to say that older generations have never had to deal with these types of pressing issues. Of course, that's been the case. And in a way, we have an advantage when it comes to the technology now in 2020. But our human, like the human race, like all of us, our species has never been this close to extinction, right? So I don't know what else to say. We'll just take a deep breath. Understand that, you know, there is, there's a correct course of action for everything. It's just a matter of urging lawmakers to go in the right direction and do the right thing. Exercising our voices, finding, you know, the power where we can find it using the leverage that we have to push for change. But as you can tell, you know, it's getting increasingly difficult to be optimistic because I'm just kind of deflated. And maybe it's just me because I've been dealing with a lot lately, but I mean, everyone's dealing with a lot lately. We're all deflated and demoralized. And this doesn't help. Or even if you don't support us monetarily, just watching and sharing and liking the videos, that does help because it boosts our engagement. And it lets the YouTube algorithm know that we have people really excited about our content. So that's just one way that you can support us if you can donate. So thank you all so much. Our supporters are the lifeblood of the show. Thank you. I don't have anything left to say. We've got some more elections to cover next week. We'll talk about the upcoming debates. And we'll leave that there. I'll see you all later. Take care, everyone.


Okay, hello everyone, thank you for joining this session. My name is Victor Varsa, I'm a technical leader at Adobe and together with my colleague Daniel, we're going to talk about multi-tenant versus micro clusters based on our experience of running Kubernetes in Adobe. If you want to follow me, I'm part of the developers for activity organization at Adobe, which is to help our customers, the developers to write better software even faster. I'm passionate about the open source contributions and I'm one of the authors of K-Tesh Shredder. Okay, and I'm one of the authors of K-Tesh Shredder and cluster registry to open source software that we successfully integrated to our platform. I'm also one of the organizers of KCD Rumania, which is the first in-person KCD event in the southeast of Europe and which is going to happen next month. Daniel, do you want to introduce yourself and kick off the presentation? Hello everybody, thank you Victor. My name is Daniel Koman. I'm a lead engineer in Adobe Experience Platform. I'm a long time Kube follower and first time speaker. So be a bit kind to me. So first to understand the journey with Kubernetes tendency in Adobe, I'm going to talk about how we started with micro clusters in Adobe Experience Platform. And Victor will explain about how we implemented Muted-C in Project ETOs, Adobe's unified compute platform. So first of all, what is Adobe Experience Platform or for short AEP? It's a centralized and connected data foundation that powers customer experience management across Adobe Real-Time CDP, customer journey analytics and journey optimizer. It provides tool for data ingestion and data governments with AI-driven insights. It integrates with other Adobe products to offer seamless experience for customer data management and marketing automation. So for AEP, we use a hub and spoke model and for this presentation, I'm gonna focus on the edge component outliner. It seems quite small on this chart, but if you take a broader look, we can see that the edge network is quite large. This is what we call the edge network. And here is where our story begins when we were faced with the challenges of rapid regional expansion and needed to quickly spin up edge infrastructure. This was a few years back when Kubernetes was a relatively new technology among our developers. Project ETOs was just starting. Victor will tell us more about that. But in short, they were focused on our hub location in Azure. And for the edge network, the strategy was to build infrastructure in AWS. So if he wanted to iterate quickly, we needed to do it in the benefit of their efforts at that time. We started this project with a team of five people with some ambitious goals and tight deadlines. First of all, build seven regional locations in AWS. Build a new infrastructure stack based on code automation. And quite importantly, help edge applications migration to Kubernetes. If this task wasn't enough, we were required to be in production in six months. So we knew application teams had limited exposure to the Kubernetes ecosystem, and we had limited manpower. So we needed to focus on a few important things like helping teams understand Kubernetes and its advantages, helping in application migrations, provide a streamlined onboarding experience. And something that we call offer batteries included out of the box experience. So this was our understanding that what mattered most was the developer experience. Still infrastructure provisioning is still a crucial part of our work. We sought some shortcuts to a vice-paying effort on low-level resource provisioning and maintenance. Manage solution, obviously fit our needs. And within AWS, we opted for EKS. Adobe was among the first to use EKS at scale back in 2018, I think, when it first became generally available. We began our work on the line of infrastructure, and at the same time, we started looking at what teams and services we'll be using this platform. These early discovery talks are a vital process. This is where we figured that if we wanted the team to embrace Kubernetes and succeed, we needed to give them some assurances, build up trust in the platform, incubate it as a compute layer, and help them get some hands-on experience. That's why we decided to use this topology, the single tenant or microclusters, how we call it.  We also benefit from a simplified super matrix. It's much easier to customize application-specific configurations. It gives us simplified governments, managing access control, permissions and policies is more straightforward in a single tenant cluster. No need to navigate complex multi-tenancy configurations. And all of this allowed us to rapidly build up infrastructure and iterate. So we launched in production six months later with a shared responsibility model, with application teams having full Kubernetes admin access to the cluster. This worked quite well in the beginning when teams needed to onboard their application for the first time in Kubernetes. Having this level of freedom with full control over a cluster made the process a lot simpler. The complicated onboarding process easy to customize and test, access to debug the whole stack and they were learning the ropes to hold things up in Kubernetes. But yeah, nothing good lasts forever. We wanted to discourage teams from modifying infrastructure applications. Wanted them to not change configurations manually. Very important, they were running an optimized compute. So over provisioning of resources was quite a problem. In some cases, having too much freedom can have catastrophic consequence. We had a notable incident when one of our team accidentally deleted all the deployments on the cluster. They had a bug in their CICD automation. We were learning some hard lessons here. So from an open garden, we started to close things up. First we implemented access control, limiting access to tenant-only namespaces. For this to work, we had to also pre-provision namespaces. Then we had to look at our costs and we didn't like what we saw. So to enforce proper capacity planning and encourage responsible resources, we implemented quotas. Then security came knocking on our door and we had to implement strict network policies. To further combat some misbehaving tenants, we added policy-based admission controls. As you can see, the line between what a single tenant cluster means and a multi-tenant one started to kind of blur at this point. So in the end, this is how the edge architecture ended up looking like. This is one of our edge locations with one service per microcluster. One of these clusters, they are multiple services composing the bigger service. I have to mention two noble services that we help migrating Kubernetes. The first one is stateless. It's called Conductor. It's the API gateway aggregation later layer used in AP. And the second one is Pipeline. Pipeline is our multi-region distributed transport queue based on Kafka. This one proved to be one of the most difficult services that we had to migrating Kubernetes. This is the board's overview of the Edge Network and Hub. This was our journey with the single tenant microcluster approach. Next in Adobe, we decided to consolidate on a single platform called ETOs. At this point, I left Victor to pick up the presentation. Thank you, Daniel. Let's talk about multi-tenancy. I think everyone in this room knows what is multi-tenancy. How many of you are living in a multi-tenancy city? I think everyone, right? We can draw an analogy with big cities where we share the same infrastructure, like buildings, transportations, health services, security services, and other services. Similarly, we can do it with applications that are running on Kubernetes. We can imagine Kubernetes as a big city where we share, where multiple tenants consume and run different services. At Adobe, developers run their applications on the runtime platform named ETOs, which is a multi-tenant Kubernetes-based architecture. Along with Kubernetes, ETOs is using many other open source software projects, such as Cilium, Prometheus, OKGateKeeper, Argo, Helm, and so on. This is ETOs Kubernetes platform from 10,000 feet and how it stands in Adobe. On the top of the slide, we have the three main Adobe Clouds, Creative Cloud, Experience Cloud, and Document Cloud. These clouds are powered by Adobe software products, such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Firefly, Adobe Analytics, Adobe Experience Manager, Adobe Sign, and so on. And together with a platform that they are using, such as Sensei Machine Learning, Adobe Content Platform, Adobe Experience Platform, all together are running on top of ETOs, and ETOs is basically the Adobe's runtime for containerized applications. To better understand the scale, here are some pretty impressive numbers. ETOs operates at three main cloud providers, Adobe Private Cloud, AWS, and Azure. Spending 28 different cloud regions, and we are managing more than 340 Kubernetes clusters and hosting more than one million pods, which are running in 42,000 Kubernetes namespaces, namespaces which are owned by application development teams. In terms of computing power, the platform consumes about 3.9 petabytes of RAM memory, more than one million of virtual CPUs, and tens of thousands of GPUs for the AI workloads. The multi-tenancy approach at Adobe is very simple. We use multi-tenancy architecture as a way to share multiple physical clusters with multiple teams from different projects and different organizations. And we have two types of clusters, shared clusters and dedicated clusters. Shared clusters are available to any internal Adobe team and are highly valuable for optimizing the cost and enhancing the overall platform reliability. Dedicated clusters started based on the idea of microclusters are used for two main purposes. When high security isolation is required, such as for applications that can run under the software. For instance, we have Adobe Experience Manager, which is a content management system solution that needs to run software written by Adobe customers. Another scenario is when a specific team requires high-resus demand and customizations for their workload, that needs the entire cluster. An example of this is Adobe Experience Manager that needs to run highly scalable and stateful apps, such as Kafka event streaming platform. Even if we are referring to multi-tenant or single-tenant cluster, the workload isolation on ETOs is the same. We rely on Kubernetes namespaces and couple of Kubernetes objects to provide a minimum isolation within the cluster. For this, we are using the concept of namespace profile template, which we pre-define and control, and which is made of a few Kubernetes objects, such as Kubernetes namespace to group objects for a single team within a Kubernetes API. Cluster roles and role binding to ensure that only a specific team has access to a particular namespace. Code and limit range for controlling and limiting recent consumption, ensuring fair issues distribution within a cluster, and network policies and serial network policies for the network isolation. And the reason that we are using serial network policies is because we need by default some DNS-based policies and other layer seven policies. The onboarding process to ETOs platform is pretty easy. The user just needs to specify some custom values, such as the namespace name, the admin edit and view LDAP groups, the clusters where the namespace is going to be deployed, and the namespace profile template. And the namespace profile template is rendered and deployed on the clusters and the tenant can deploy his application inside. And the tenant applications Kubernetes objects will be restricted only to a specific team and the pose will be isolated by the default network policies. From the developer's perspective, the multi-tenancy architecture is just an isolated namespace where he can deploy his application inside. But there is an overhead that comes with multi-tenancy, which is not necessarily seen by the end users. First, we had to implement the namespace isolation with the namespace profile template concept. Then we need to have some governance policies at the cluster level in order to safeguarding teams against inter-namespace collisions and ensuring the stability of the clusters by preventing a team from compromising the entire cluster. And in order to implement these policies across the cluster fleet, we are using the OPA gatekeeper framework. And a basic example of such as policies is validating the ingress objects use an unique FQDN within a cluster. Capacity management is a key consideration in multi-tenancy because capacity issues may result in higher costs. We measure capacity at the namespace level using the Kubernetes quota object and at the cluster level using the Prometheus alerts. So we added capacity alerts in Prometheus that automatically stop on boarding when the cluster reached the capacity in terms of number of nodes, number of available IPs that can be assigned to a worker nodes, number of ingress objects, and so on. Another point that needs to be considered in multi-tenancy is non-destructive infrastructure changes. Our platform evolved during the time and we started on boarding more and more teams so the workload diversity expanded. And now we are hosting sensitive stateful apps such as a databases or Kafka. And we had some outages in the past caused by the cluster upgrades that made us to conclude that both destruction budgets alone are not enough. We aim to achieve the rotation of the worker nodes while ensuring the availability of the tenant applications and keep the infrastructure cost within a reasonable limits. So we come up with an open source solution named K-Tesh Rather that implement park nodes upgrade strategy. And if you are interested to learn more about this solution, I recommend to have a look on GitHub under Adobe's organization. A multi-tenant Kubernetes-based platform should be even more cost efficient. We are analyzing if the workloads that are running on a tenant namespaces are compliant with ETO standards that could impact the cost, reliability, and the security of the overall platform. For example, regarding to the poor destruction budgets, we've seen many deployments not having the PDBs associated. Or on the opposite, have the PDB set to zero disruptions allowed. But under example, it's misconfigured liveness and readiness probes. You'll be surprised, but not all of the developers add the right liveness and readiness probes for the applications. We are also looking for the CPU and memory quest settings. And we make sure that the pods have the right size of the CPU and memory quest based on their historical data. So these are the points that represent the overall multi-tenancy overhead that could be complex to set up a scale. And now I'm going to pass it back to Danielle for the conclusions. So a few takeaways from our journey with running multi-tenant single tenant clusters in Adobe. There is no silver bullet for building a Kubernetes platform. You should always align with your organization needs and specific requirements. It's quite essential to acknowledge that challenges faced when operating at scale can differ quite significantly from those encountered in small and medium size platforms. For us, both solutions work, but we understand that efficiency in cost and scalability from running multi-tenancy at scale. And on the other hand, micro clusters with single tenancy can help your organization to grow faster because it provides better customization opportunities and simply it's easier to set up. So thank you for your presentation. If you have any feedback for us, please scan the QR code and we are open for any questions. Okay, so thank you for the talk. Have you seen when you move to share a situation where because the pods are all being sent in the same node and there might be situations where you have like the bandwidth of the network to be affected even though they might be using a low amount of cores, but the shared network is an issue on the pause. Thank you for the question. So the question is if we seen some performance issues who are moving from single tenant to multi-tenant cluster. Well, it depends before the teams are moving from single tenant to multi-tenant, they are doing some benchmarking. So they are testing their applications. So here it depends. Some teams remain on a single tenant cluster because we still provide a single tenant offering, but they can also move to multi-tenant if, for example, they don't have so much spikes that could do some noise in performance to the other tenants. I can say also, yes, we've seen some, when we talk about IO, that's a network IO especially that's hard to provide quotas for that. And we still use, we still have Kafka deployed in a single tenant configuration. Hey, thank you for the presentation. That was very interesting. So you said you started the team with five people and now you are managing 340 clusters. How big is your team right now? And I have a second question. Did you study the node pool solution like segregating the workload, not on different clusters, but just different nodes? Thank you. Thank you for the questions. So the project with five people was actually the Daniels project where they started to eat very fast using only EKS and single tenant or micro clusters. Then in order to provide the scale, they migrate their solution to Ethos platform, which is the standard run times platform for Adobe to run containers, let's say. So, yeah, it was a different approach. They just started with small team Twitter fast. Do you answer one? So how many people are running Ethos right now? How many engineers? More than five, of course. I mean, I think like 20, 50. Something like this. Okay, yeah. So I think 10 times more than we were back then. In my company, we're managing like five clusters and we are 10 people. So I was like, okay, that's a very good five people for a lot of customers. It was hard, but that's why single-tenancy work for us, I mean, it was easier than what these guys did, so. And for the second question, you said that if we are using some dedicated nodes within a cluster for some tenants, yes, we provide this solution, but not for a single tenant, let's say, for let's say a feature, most likely. Like they want to run GPUs and we only have nodes with GPUs and only post that requires GPUs can run on those nodes. So we don't do multi-tenancy, I mean multi-tenant clusters with isolated tenants per nodes. If they need to isolation, the strict isolation, they just move to a single-tenant cluster. Thank you. Another thing about node pools. So we are not only thinking about compute power here. You have the Kubernetes control plane and in a multi-tenant cluster, you have a lot more objects that put pressure on that, HCD and other components. So that's another reason that you will, even if you don't have a large number of nodes, the control plane might be more fitted to be in a single-tenant. Hi, over here. Thanks for your presentation, first of all. It was very interesting. You mentioned that you're still having shared clusters as well as dedicated clusters. Now you mentioned all these security improvements that you made to the shared clusters to make sure customers don't impact each other.  So do you see a concrete advantage here or is this more of a compliance thing? Yeah, thank you for the question. Very good question, actually. We led the tenants that actually landed first on the single-tenant cluster to just use that single-tenant cluster because they had some, let's say, security concerns. And they scale so big that they just need the entire cluster. So I don't say it's necessarily a security concern of running on a single-tenant cluster, but it was of being getting, yeah, so. I think right now single-tenant and multi-tenant provide the same security as we put here in the slide. The security is almost the same. Probably it's more complex to do it in multi-tenant. All right, thank you. Thank you, too. I think we can get one more up, we finished. If not, we can take the questions offline. I got one quick question. Yeah, sure. You guys were talking about microclusters. What exactly is a microcluster? Very good question, Benio. So in the edge, we had some applications that only took up like three nodes, three compute nodes. That's what's the micro part of it. It's single-tenant, but it's also very small and it's the domain of the cluster. It's a single service, which might have like three or four microservices, but it's basically dedicated to a single team. That's the concept of it. You map the cluster. Microcluster is a small single-tenant C cluster. Yes, it's mapped to a single service and to a single team. So a team has full access to it and we mapped one team, one service to one cluster. Even if it's three compute nodes. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I think we are on time. Thank you for our questions. If you have other questions, we can take them or find them. Thank you. Have a good day.


Yes manawale manabawa 1 fan when she was watching this show I talked to her I was really happy when I was celebrating as a mom beyond being a mom and now I am a girl and once I was back in this room it's like a birthday because I have something to say and another woman isa My love of my life Which happy happy happy mothers day You know what happens is that men build homes It's women So she's actually the maker of our home To us, the family She comes past on everything We give her all the time to do All that which God has put before her to do We are so lucky So lucky to have had her in our life As a person that the mother of us That's so powerful That one is so sad What a surprise I don't know even how to express it I really did not know what I was getting into But because I knew what I was getting into And I started realizing that this is the best of the best And she's here, she's listening and she has received the message And maybe she must be having something in return This is a surprise Natwa just should write Natwa But I just want to appreciate him He has been a wonderful, a wonderful person I usually say if I was given an opportunity God would say that I'm redoing everything Kila mutu waanze afresh Ya kwa mba go to the other person when you naizapenda Wanze ten na nasemaga I will go Nikita futa katikati ya watu nasema I'm looking for Utiyano, I'm looking for Mr. Utiyano everywhere That goes to show you how much of a wonderful person he is And I really love him Even in the ministry that I'm doing Sometimes I say if it were not for him And the support and the love and the encouragement That he's always been giving me Singekwa ni mefika maali ni mefika So I say ya kwa mba mungu ambarikis And sometimes I look at him as Mungu is such a blessing It's my love, it's my husband But na monanga in a way that Na monanga mungu aleni patia Mungu ambarikis, I don't know how to explain But you know just let him know that I love him so much He's such a wonderful person That is so sweet I'm here and I'm heartless That has been my word too When I started growing up People were saying Oh if I'm given another chance To remarry or in another life I would pick a different person But one time We celebrate As we finish At least utatu wacha na By the time we are winding up with the show You can make a request of a song One of her song that is your favorite Then tamalizana okipindi badai Yes, one song from Ma'am Janet Yes That you would love to dedicate to people Theory? Yes Because theory is a song that has really touched our lives Because there is no any other secret in life It is only Jesus Christ It's true It is only God How did he get that? Powerful Thank you so much I know you've made her almost cry I'm thinking if she gets her tisha Thank you so much for calling in And we wish you all the best We look up to you and may God bless you We're going out to see something Oh Oh my God We'll discuss that We have to talk about it Thank you so much Thank you God bless you I don't want to forget about my mother Somebody who gave me life Many partia morals of life And how to grow up And what to expect in the world And how to go about everything This is the one person that I've seen We're going hungry to make sure that


by Professor Melina Grifoni from Reckensburg. And she will talk about transporting DCAC driven interacting Josephson junctions. OK, so welcome everybody. And of course, I'm really grateful to be here. And thank you a lot to the organizers. So it was a big pleasure to hear all these amazing talks. And yes, so what I'm going to speak about today is something which is very much related to what Christian has just said to us and also what we have heard in the morning.  And let's say a bit like Alfredo was saying this morning, we have a peculiarity that this is an interacting Josephson junction. And maybe, however, let's say the new thing I would say compared to all the talks that we have heard so far is that what I will try to convince you is that you can use a particle conserving approach to superconductivity in order to describe a Josephson junction. And then this is, let's say, the setup that we are going to study. So we have our superconductor with Cooper pairs, the quantum dot and let's say Cooper reservoir. And perhaps you can already notice here that I do not put a phase here. I don't put a phase phi l or a phase phi r. So in a superconducting theory with particle number conservation, in fact, the phase is not defined. This is maybe the main message. Right, now why should we look at the particle conserving theory? Because I think that actually in a superconductor there is no you want symmetry breaking. So I'm making a bit statement. But actually, if you think the Hamiltonian you are starting from is something which is due to essentially coulomb interactions or an effective phonon mediated perhaps coulomb interaction. And this coulomb interaction has a lot of symmetries. But in particular has a superselection symmetry, which means that it is invariant upon changing, say, the phase of annihilation operator by e to the i phi. So this is, let's say, the mathematical way of saying that we have actually particle conservation in our original problem. The second reason why you should perhaps do that is to think what is actually a current. So if you have a device like that, essentially what you measure is how much charge is leaving one of your electrodes. So for example, the left electrode, right? So if you have then a superconductor where you don't know how many particles you have, how can you define a current? So this is maybe another reason for this. The third argument that you could use is that actually when you look at the AC Josephson effect, and we have heard a lot about this in these days, you apply essentially a DC bias to your system, which means that you have a difference of chemical potential, new left and new right, between your electrodes. And the AC Josephson effect tells you that the super current is proportional, in fact, so the frequency of the oscillations, to the applied DC bi. So and why is this? Because you have a reservoir of cooper pairs which sit at two different chemical potentials, so new left and new are. Okay, so this is hopefully a good motivation to maybe look at superconductivity in another way. And here I would like to make you think. So now let us consider a free electron gas, so non-interacting electrons. And you know very well what is the ground state of this electron C. So what you should do is simply you take your vacuum, and then here you see you create a cooper pair like. So K up, K down, and you fill up all of your levels until the Fermi energy, right? So this is what we know from our course experience. This is quantum mechanics. What you can do is to rewrite this thing in a slightly different way, because let's say we are dealing with fermions, so you cannot create two electrons in the same state. So actually here by taking, let's say, the power of M of this expression, I'm adding a lot of zeros. And now you see already that what we have here is a linear superposition of states which all have the same total particle number M. Okay, now if we have a superconductor, we can imagine exactly the same thing. The only difference is that now I don't have the heavy side function anymore. I have a weight alpha K to these cooper pair states. And the difference is simply that while the Fermi C has a heavy side function, so either all the states are filled until KF and empty above or let's say now I have the possibility also to have other kind of excitations also above the Fermi level. All right, then we can go on and let's say we can postulate as I said this state and this is now our ground state. Is not a BCS ground state is a state which has a definite number of cooper pairs. You see? This is essentially a ground state which has been proposed by Leggett and Longago by Anderson. Now the very nice thing of this ground state wave function is that it has a property which is an electron hole symmetry property. So let us consider let's say our ground state with n cooper pairs and let us imagine that we destroy one electron. So we break one cooper pair if we wish from our condensate. This is equivalent up to some pre-factor to adding a quasi particles to a condensate which has n minus one cooper pairs. If you now use this electron hole symmetry, what you can do is the following. So what you can do is to introduce what is called the Josephson pair operator. What does it do? So essentially you start from your ground state with n minus one cooper pairs here, right? So sorry, the other way around. So you start with a ground state with n cooper pairs. You destroy one and you end up with this different ground state. Because of the symmetry that I was telling you before you can then define a linear combination of CK up and SC dagger up such that if I apply this whole operator on my ground state, I get zero. Why am I saying this is because we recognize immediately that we have discovered a quasi particle and the quasi particle gamma is a Bogolubian as we know from the conventional BCS theory. And its action on the ground state is that is zero, right? So essentially the superconducting ground state is the vacuum of the quasi particles. And this is the definition of a quasi particle. And the nice thing is that if you remember your Bogolubian transformation, usually you define your quasi particles exactly like this. So gamma is a linear combination of an electron with weight u and typically a whole with another weight v. In this theory, however, we have charge conservation, you see, because of the action in addition of this S operator. So this is the only thing that you should remember. So we have constructed a theory which is essentially very similar to the one you're used to with the difference, however, that now charge is conserved all through the system. And the weight u and v of the usual BCS theory are related to this alpha that I was telling you before by these relations. Okay? Now, if you are happy with this, so maybe, I mean, many of you already know these things. So when you have the S operator, usually you call this transformation the Bogolubian-Valatin transformation. Okay, now maybe to summarize the first part of the talk, what I'm trying to convince you is what we can do is essentially to start from a full interacting Hamiltonian, do a mean field as you're used with conventional BCS whereby, besides the usual pairing operator delta, we have here, you see, in addition an S operator, right? So if you now count charges, you see, we create two electrons, so we gain two charges. At the same time, we annihilate a Cooper pair, so the counting of charges is fine. All right, and if we now apply the Bogolubian-Valatin transformation that I was telling you before, then we arrive at our mean field Hamiltonian, which has the form that you already know, right? So this is the quasi-particle part, E is the usual square root delta square plus chi-square, and also we have the Cooper pair part. So essentially, our mean field Hamiltonian has two parts, the quasi-particle contribution and the contribution of the Cooper pairs which sit at a given chemical potential. Okay, fine, hopefully. So this I think it's the summary of this first part. All right, then we are able to go on, and simply I would like to mention that what I told you is something which is really old because this was already in the original work by Josephson 1962. So 60 years from now already, and if you look careful to his work, he has already introduced the quasi-particle operators, he has the S operators, and he also has the Bogolubian-Valatin transformation. So this is really, really, really old stuff, only simply revised if you wish. And actually, I mean, the main idea of Josephson was that because this S operator is creating a Cooper pair, when you calculate the commutation with the Hamiltonian, essentially you get two times lambda k, which is the chemical potential for him, and an S dagger operator. So if you look, this is Heisenberg equation of motion, which means that the S operator have an evolution in times which is provided by the chemical potential. All right, and then he concludes essentially by looking at the current. So he's exactly what I was telling you before. So the current is the commutator of the tunneling Hamiltonian with the particle number, and he gets his famous Josephson current, and their important point is that the oscillations are due to the time dependence of the Cooper pairs. So, so far so good. Now, what is new at this point, at this point, what I would like to discuss in the time which I've left, is how our Josephson ideas generalize to the case of interacting nano junctions. And the second thing is what happens if we don't only have a DC bias, but also we apply microwaves, AC drive. So this is the topic of the conference, so it's important that we have AC drive. Right, so now let us really shortly define my setup. So this is a, let's say, single impurity under some models. So the quantum dot with, say, the onsite interaction and the Hubart interaction new. And then we have, let's say, the superconductors, and then we have the tunneling Hamiltonian. Now, what I would like again to mention, so if we do the Bogolubo-Valating transformation, we can express the creation operator of the lead L. So this is a real electron. We can decompose it into two parts, right? So one part is, let's say, I create simply a quasi-particle here, or in this other part, I destroy a quasi-particle and simultaneously I create a cooper pair. Again, charge is conserved during this tunneling process. Okay, and on top of this, what we do is that we apply, let's say, a chemical potential, which has both a DC and AC component. All right, the current, once again, is given by, this is the current operator, and the current for us is obtained as a trace of the current operator over the total density operator of our quantum dot. So what we are going to use now in order to calculate the transport characteristic is not a Green's Functions method as this morning, in the case of Alfredo. It's a reduced density matrix formulation, which many of you know from quantum optics. So this is really a problem of quantum dissipation in fermionic environments. All right, then maybe, again, this is the total density operator, so it is the total density operator of this full time-dependent Hamiltonian. Okay, now the full total density operator is, I mean, dynamically defined through the Liouville-Fernoy-Mann equation. And here, for simplicity, I express this commutator in terms of the Liouvilleian. So every time you see a Liouvilleian, this means just a commutator of an operator, or with a Hamiltonian, H i. But this is a detail, so forget it's not important at all. What is important is that we have here a problem of having a time dependence. So when you have a time-dependent quantum problem, and here is a many-body time-dependent quantum problem with interaction, is pretty complicated. And what we want to do is to eliminate, through a unitary transformation, the difficult part, which is the Cooper pair part. So essentially what you do, it's, again, is a detail, but maybe some of you know this trick. So it was proposed for the case of Hamiltonian systems already long ago by Quevas and also Alfredo in this paper of 2002. Essentially, by this transformation, just look at the final result. You have a transformed total density operator where you don't have the Cooper pair explicitly anymore. You see, quantum dot quasi-particles, and all the effect of the Cooper pairs is embedded now in a family Liouvilleian, which, because of the transformation, is time-dependent. Okay? So this is, let's say, a trick which is quite important, and then at this point, I would like to stop. I would like to stop and let you think. So what do we have to do is to evaluate a current. A current is given by a total trace over all the degrees of freedom of the system. So Cooper pairs, quantum dot quasi-particles. So the thing that you want to do is to trace out all of these degrees of freedom, one after the other.  By doing this, you transform a unitary evolution, which is the unitary evolution of the Liouville von Neumann equation, to an irreversible dynamics, which is also the reason why we have a steady state or a stationary current, okay? So the first question is what is our bus here is the quasi-particle bus. So the reduced density operator is obtained in our case by tracing away the quasi-particles and getting then a reduced density operator row prime. Once we do this, we are left with a reduced density operator which has degrees of freedom of the quantum dot and still has the degrees of freedom of the Cooper pairs. Okay, this is very important. Once we have done this, what happens is the following. So what happens is that the S operator enables us to transfer Cooper pairs from one part to the other. It means that the total number of Cooper pairs, left plus right, is conserved. But the relative number of Cooper pairs is not. And it is this delta n which varies, which is associated to the delta phi. So in this theory, the phase is not an absolute phase. This is the take-home message of today. It's not that I have here phi left and phi right. I have a definite particle number. But because I can transfer Cooper pairs, I have a conjugate variable delta phi, which knows about this transfer of Cooper pairs from one part to the other. And this is what gives rise to the Josephson current. Okay, if you understood this, it's perfect. The rest does not matter much. How much time do I have? Okay, now, given this, I tell you how we do and I show you some results. So the first thing that I want to say is that if you trace out the quasi-particle degrees of freedom, you can do this, for example, using the Nagar-Chimatsansi Projector Operator Formalism. This gives you an exact generalized master equation for this reduced operator. The important point is that, okay, this is the free dynamics of the quantum dot and then you have a tunneling kernel, which now depends on two times because of the driving. And this is the object which will drive the system dynamics to the steady state. And the current, in turn, is given by an exact integral relation, whereby I have another kernel, the current kernel, which acts on the density operator. And here, as I was telling before, the quasi-particles have been traced away, but the Cooper pairs and the quantum dot are still to be traced out. Now, in general, these objects, these kernels are very complicated, but you can do a perturbative expansion in them, in principle, to all orders in the coupling to the leads, gamma, gamma squared, and so on and so forth. What I'm doing today is simply the easiest one, is the weak coupling, so sequential tunneling regime. If you want to have a super current, you should go at least to the order gamma squared. I don't do this today. Now, how does it work in second order? So, in second order, you see we have two tunneling new billions, second order, one, two. Then we have the free dynamics of the Cooper pairs and of the quantum dot acting on this density operator. So, it's not so important. What I want to simply to show you is that, of course, you can have an analytical form of the tunneling new billion, and you have various contributions. In particular, you have your S operator, you have the D operators of the quantum dot, and also, due to the unitary transformation, I was telling you before, we have the full time dependence which is given by the bias, which is due to the fact that we tunnel in and out the Cooper pairs. Okay, and if you explicitate this phase, you will see that at some point, your Bessel function will pop up, and you will see also that you have the DC frequency and you have the AC frequency. Details not relevant. And maybe the last thing that I want to say is that this kernel has a very nice interpretation. So, once you trace out the quasi particles, you see that you have these two contributions. So, the normal one and the anomalous one, and because you have two of these tunneling new billions, you have four possible combinations. So, contributions where you don't have Cooper pairs involved, contribution where you only have one Cooper pair involved, or contributions where you have two Cooper pairs involved. And all of them together will give you essentially the steady state current. And importantly, the quasi particles give us these fermionic lines, and these are responsible for the reaching the steady state because give a finite memory time to the kernels. All right, now to the results, this allows us to get in exact form the stationary current with all of the harmonics that you should have. The DC current can also be calculated explicitly. And in analytic form, and I only show you again that we can get out the contribution of both the AC and the DC, and the DC is in this new. So, these are Bessel functions which have argument inside, which is also oscillating in time. So, pretty complicated, but it's really exact to the second order. And now, two minutes and I am finished because these things, I think all of you know. So the, let's say, theory for driven Josephson junction is again very old. Days back to Thien and Gordon 1963. And what they had there was a superconducting, insulating superconducting junction. And they wanted to explain an experiment where, let's say, upon application of microwaves, the VI current characteristic was showing peaks and these peaks were spaced by a frequency that they could attribute essentially to the applied bias. And they were explaining this feature by the famous Thien-Gordon theory, saying, okay, if I have a current characteristic at zero applied microwave, I can have all of these replicas essentially by shifting the density of states by photon channels, which the energy is shifted by n h bar omega and they are weighted by the squared of the n-special function. So this is the Thien-Gordon theory. And actually, we have seen already today, but you did not go into the details anymore that there are beautiful experiments where, again, you have this kind of junction. So S-I-S junctions where it's very nice to see, I mean, this is exactly what we saw before. Sorry. No, I, okay. That you can really see in a beautiful way these Bessel function patterns, which was already predicted by Thien-Gordon long ago. The fact that we want to discuss now is what happens is we don't have, let's say, S-I-S junction, but a quantum dot inside a superconductor. Again, here there is some work done in 1996 by the MIT Group of Van and Orlando and they again wanted to explain an experiment where you had a quantum dot and subjected to microwaves. What they did there was, again, to use the Thien-Gordon theory, this time saying that what is shifted by the microwaves are the tunneling rates in and out of the junction. Okay, so, and in our case, it works exactly the same and maybe because I don't have so much time anymore, I will show you, let's say, three slides with our result. So, the first is the DC component of the periodic current at zero applied AC drive. And what you see here, this is a typical stability diagram of a quantum dot nearby the zero one transition. And what you beautifully see is the superconducting gap. And what they want to focus is on these three points, one, two, and three. So, this is the current, it's not the differential conductance. So, in point one, we have current and this is simply because you can nicely tunnel, say, from the source to the drain here through a level in the quantum dot. So, this is quasi-particle transport. If you are in the situation two, there is no transport because essentially you have Coulomb locate and if you are in the situation three, actually you have the possibility of having in-gap transport due to thermal quasi-particles. In this case, you see, you tunnel from this either upper side of the density of states to the other upper side of the density of states. And you can see very nicely this quasi-particle peak if you do some scans. What happens if we apply the microwaves? Then we have all of these plethora of multi-photon assisted channels and you can again interpret them quite nicely in terms of photon assisted tunneling. Maybe what we can focus is on the three and in this three regime, you have a current inversion. So, even if you have a positive DC bias, you have a current not from the source to the drain but from the drain to the source because you use if you wish a, let's say, a photon in order to go from here to here and then you can go, yes, then you can go up. All right. And what we also were doing is a comparison to TinGordon. So if you would apply a simple TinGordon ansatz, this is what you would obtain here but in reality, it's much more complicated. So for example, due to the fact that you can have this current inversion that TinGordon would not give you. And finally, also in our approach, we can see the nice fence where if you plot the IDV as a function of the DC and the AC bias, you will see that the coherence, I mean, it's not the coherence peaks as we saw before, it's really, let's say, we are essentially here at zero gate and we see what is going to happen. And again, if we, let's say, have some traces as a function of the AC amplitude, you recognize very nicely the Bessel function pattern. Okay, so with this, I conclude. So I hopefully have demonstrated that it is possible to describe the full, the IDV characteristic of a AC-driven Josephson junction in a particle conserving framework. And in this sense, the coexistence of two complementary views is possible. So here you see these roses which have been climbing into these trees, so you don't know what is what anymore. And I think that the particle conserving approach can open new perspective and we are preparing two manuscripts, so one on this stuff, hopefully, we shall submit it in two weeks to the archive and soon also the work on the Andre reflection and the Josephson current. Thank you a lot. Thank you, Milena, for the very interesting talk. Any other questions? Yeah, thank you for the talk. I'm curious in the, how compare the two approaches, this particle conserving approach. So in some limit, if you consider a non-interacting case with the usual BCS approach, you can solve the problem exactly by regards to Green's functions. And if you, in this limit, you take the coupling very small, you should be able to compare one to one with this other approach. I'm curious about this comparison. Okay, so first of all, also in this approach, if you have no interaction, you can solve this problem. So, and also what we did is that we were using a Green's function approach with a non-interacting level, particle conserving, and you get the Andre bound states nicely out of the theory. So the approach, I mean, I believe, yes, absolutely. So, I mean, the problem of the Green's function formulation, but we can discuss this afterward, in my opinion, is that it works pretty nicely at zero bias, you have big problems when you have finite bias. And when you have interaction, you have even larger problems, but you have to do some tricks and you don't know if the current is conserved or not, for example. So the typical case is the case of an NSN junction, which very often you have to do some tricks in order to ensure it can't charge conservation, not in this approach, at finite bias. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Milena, for the nice talks. Just to comment this, maybe it's fair to say it's particle wave duality somehow that we, it's just the other seas, things the other way around. Yeah, I mean, my question was, what do you think is the benefit of working with these particle conserved states? First question, second question is more technical questions. Question, you have presented results for the weak coupling regime, and how do you think to extend this to strong coupling? Okay, as I was saying before, the theory per se is exact, and you can do in this formulation, so you have two things. So if you don't have interactions, then you can sum up the series, if you wish, so it's no problem. If you have interaction, you have to do some resubmission of some subclass of diagrams, and for example, this allows you to have also, I mean, not the condefect down to zero temperature, but you could also have the condefect in this formulation. So, and I think, let's say, in my opinion, a big advantage of this approach is that I have under control every time what is the charge in my system. So, and as I said, I believe that, I mean, of course, if you have a phase bias, Josephine Junction is no brain, you will do the phase approach, it's completely fine, but in this case, it's not phase biased. So, and in there, I think one has to be a bit more careful. Okay, now my question back to you. You see, people have been, when there is this, as you were saying, the standard theory of Josephine Junction, then there is Coulomb Locate, and we all know that this is basically two ways, two perturbative treatments of the Junction, and then the question has been how to connect actually these two regimes and theoretically, and of course, you can formally write things down, but it's very complicated to actually combine these two limits. And do you think that the methods you have been developing, there is ways to do so, yeah? Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, again, I was saying before, so again, so we have done this for normal leads, and let's say this approach can go down non-perturbatively, and the problem is that what is in this formulation in Andreev-Bound state? So, the Andreev-Bound state is a pole of the tunneling density of states, so in order to have it, you have to have some self-energy, and the self-energy only comes if you do this infinite reformation. And this we did, so, and of course, it's not exact the self-energy that we get, but still you get all that you had to get. Okay, any other questions? So, I see no other questions, so let's hang behind again.