Good afternoon. So to answer today's question, yes. Everyone is online hanging out without you. So I'm going to talk about some ways where you can join in on some of those online communities and get beyond your library walls. So this is Meetup. How many of you do have libraries on Meetup? Just hands. I don't have cool paddles. OK, not very many. All right, how many of you do paper flyers or paper bookmarks? Any type of paper marketing? OK, everybody. All right, keep your hands up. Of those, how many of you take the flyers beyond your information desk or bulletin board inside the library? Some hands went down. But that's good. If you're going to take the time to do paper, at least get it out there. So this isn't necessary. Oh, and you can put your hands down now. I like to think of social media as yes and and not either or. Same thing with Meetup. It doesn't replace Goodreads or Facebook. It's just a different way to target an audience. And it's a wonderful focus. Meetup is about events. And a lot of the things you probably are making flyers for right now are events rather than services or the library as a whole. So one of the great advantages of Meetup is, as someone mentioned earlier, very little traction when you post a Facebook about events.  So unless you do pay to play. And don't let the pay scare you because you can spend $10 and reach thousands and thousands of people and click through rate of $0.08. But Meetup is also a great option because you don't have to pay to play your events. If you are going to have small memberships, it's free to join and test out. And the advantage of it is you can reach people who have never been to the library before. And probably on Facebook, most people aren't going to see your event or your post unless they've already liked the library. But on Meetup, they're going to see, OK, this Meetup group is about Farm to Fork. So I am interested in that. I'm going to join it. And it turns out it's hosted by the library. So one of the things we've done here is consistently brand on Meetup. But that's the system-wide role in it. Really, we turn it over to the library staff to let them post their own events. So they have control over this platform. And there's no barrier to going through COM to post just like they would to their online calendar. But the true advantage is it's going so far beyond our walls, our virtual walls even, because it's not people who are already fans of the library on Facebook or website visitors. So it's a very powerful word of mouth. So this is one of our examples. It's still a pilot. We just started in February. And we are using Meetup Pro after a three-month free trial. It's only a cost of $15 per group that lets us then have unlimited members. So you can see that it's not tied to a location. Probably many of your flyers are location-specific. But for Meetup, we found that people really engage around themes, and then they're willing to travel to different places for the event. So we have a crafting one. We have a yoga one. It also lets you gauge interest because when we rolled out our farm to fork one, we found that 300 people joined within the first few days. So we knew then, OK, our gardening clubs, our community gardens, there's really an interest there. Our cooking classes. So we should develop more programming there, which is something that Meetup let us learn. Also talking about the word of mouth marketing. Word of mouth marketing is the most effective. Why do you think that is? Because trust. Thank you. Because you trust that person. If someone you know, it's more credible. And social media and Meetup, they really make it easy for word of mouth to happen, even if it's not literally talking through your mouth. You can see my friend is in this Meetup group. My friend is in these other Meetup groups. My friend is RSVP to this event. So it's a big advantage. And you'll see each one does have a common look and feel, which is something that you can do even if you don't get Meetup Pro. And I would recommend you do. You heard a lot about branding today. And the definition of branding, I like the best, is it's everything about the patron experience. It's the customer service to the look and feel. No one is ever going to say, oh, I walked into your library and I noticed you're using for future font here, but this is a serif font over here. You're not going to hear that, but if you think people are immune to branding, how many people prefer a Coke to Pepsi? How many people prefer Pepsi? You're welcome. But studies have shown that 80% of you would be able to tell the difference but not identify which is which in the taste test because of branding. So it does work. And you can still have something that has a unique look and feel, but it's consistent and true to your brand. And it does raise the high tide raises all boats. So if your Meetup page looks sharp, if when you walk into the front lobby of your building it looks sharp, people are going to think that your staff have more expertise in professionalism than if you don't pay attention to these details too. So this is one case study that shows that we really do get beyond our walls with Meetup and different online communities. Every single person who attended this open mic series that was hosted by one of our libraries was new to the library and was not regularly coming to any other library events or a library user. The librarian, Amber Clark, will be presenting at CLA, a poster session if you want to learn more. But it's a great tool for engagement, besides just seeing who of your friends are going. The librarian can engage with the people making comments. You can see somebody who said, thanks for creating this opportunity for the local creative folk to strut their stuff. People can post their own photos and images. The librarian doesn't have to do it. Then it's there for the whole group. So you can see this has 300 members. And you should take that number with a grain of salt. There's not 300 people coming every time. The attrition rate is maybe something like 25% anytime you have people RSVP online, whether it's Meetup or Facebook, because the barrier is low to enter. But we are trying to, just like with Pokemon Go, show we're not the traditional library anymore and that we're a place for engagement. So even just raising awareness of we have an open mic night is a worthwhile thing, even if these people never come in and remain virtual patrons. So we have one more case study that we want to share. But before I leave you on Meetup, I do want to just give you a picture of where we are since starting in February. So Alt Library has, you know, you're gonna see it has really blazed away in terms of an innovative library program. But it had about 1,800 members. And so that was really all we had on Meetup. Now that we've gone system wide with it, we have close to 3,000 people. So just in a matter of months, only having six total meetup groups, we have doubled the number of people that we were reaching on Meetup through the library. So I think it's something that it's worth trying. It gives you a very targeted audience to talk to about events and programs so that you're not just throwing stuff out there on Facebook or Twitter, which is gonna be less relevant to those audiences, even though they're bigger audiences. So all right, I'm gonna turn it over to Bryce.


Morning everyone today is Monday January 6th at 8 23 a.m. Today's free video watch this day So for those of you that don't know every Monday I like to put out a free video watch this on YouTube and basically every day. I like to put this out for members exclusively So today's kind of like your sneak peek into our daily process of preparing for the morning So if you guys didn't already know I actually took on the challenge of seeing how much I could grow at $30,000 account in 30 days and I was able to grow that to about a hundred and thirteen thousand dollars Which is an eighty three thousand nine hundred and seventy three dollar game Me and Bob together a free mentorship course explaining our process of how we did this That is available at my investing club.co So reserve your spot and you get to see if there's limited seating every single week So be sure to reserve your spot Also, I will be in Miami this week On Friday. I am hosting a Miami meet-up. This is open for members and non-members This is kind of the first time I'm going on vacation in six months and I wasn't really planning on doing a meet-up I just planned on getting fucked up and staying at the beach all day But I really want to meet everyone. I really just want to hang out for a little bit So this is your opportunity to hang out grab some drinks meet some traders in the area and it's gonna be a lot of fun It's gonna be at the fountain blue at 1 to 3 p.m. On Friday, January 10th All right, let's get started. So SAVA right so Here's the thing man. This stock is up from 1 to 10. It's up a thousand percent, right?  I do not advocate anyone touch it These are the type of stocks that blow you up on the short side.  So clearly ten dollars gonna be a great level to short against Yuma this was a very expensive located in the morning. It's six cents a share To me that's way too expensive on stock like this, but if it does pop towards this 495 level I mean, that's big time Resistance so I want to be shorting it if I get it up there.  This ran in the plug days Then it's big parabolic move with plug and never hit 600. This is a reverse split So every short seller that's attacking this has some sort of nostalgic feeling from it That's why I think they're holding for a little bit longer than usual That's not what we do here. We trade the price action. We don't trade based on our emotions So basically I'm looking for a 250 push in the morning. Very clear 250 resistance here Besides basically yet. I'm not gonna be touching this fluff Club not really much volume yet. This might be a potential chat room pump keeping it on radar just in case they pump it CEI Looking for a push towards 230 in the morning How'd I get that level look at this resistance area here? So ideally some fantasy orders up here if we get it if it kind of goes red not really touching it Not much meat on the bone there support at 170 So if you're shorting it here best case scenario gonna make 20 cents. That's not enough for us We want to have higher odds. We want the stock to be higher so it has more room to come down life easy to borrow stock high institutional ownership Major gap up not really interested I don't really know yet. These are type of stocks that look appealing at first But maybe if we break seven for a quick scalp But if you're not fast at getting out of this you're gonna be in trouble So I highly recommend if you are shorting this to drop your size a little bit Just to be able to deal with the finesse in the wiggle room that it has Last but not least PS TV what I see here on the daily chart is a resistance level towards 350 The reason why I like this setup is because you can see every time it got volume it pulled back every time I got volume it pulled back 350 340 level is kind of our area to watch So what I'm doing at the end of these videos I'm putting a secret word in there if you are an MIC, please reply to the threat do not reply to the main room There's people reply in random shit everywhere. So today's secret word is gonna be a Don Julio I have some tequila over there. That's what I'm looking at. So Don Julio is today's secret word Also, what do you guys think of these map shirts? So these are our member appreciation shirts So every quarter we do the member appreciation program where we reward members who are helping other members the most This is our own custom design that we give out and it has your MIC name on it, too So I know I'm kind of rambling but have a good day. Good luck everyone. I'm going to Miami on Wednesday So I will not be available for calls texts emails anything So if you need anything hit about Tosh ready the other mods and I will see you guys at Miami meet up


You may have heard the expression, knowledge is power. Well, today we're going to give you more power to control your diet and lifestyle by giving you the facts. Welcome to the Nutrition Facts Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Michael Greger. Did you know that most chemotherapy drugs are approved by the FDA without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life? Here's our first story. Over the next few decades, the number of new cancer cases will continue to skyrocket. Are we winning the war on cancer? Sadly, in general, no. This, despite the introduction of hundreds of new anti-cancer drugs, the war on cancer has been likened to the war on terror. No matter how many drone strikes you do, it's nearly impossible to kill all the bad guys, and no matter how precise the bombing, one must always consider the collateral damage. The toxicity from cancer therapy can be debilitating and not just health-wise. There's also the financial toxicity. Patented anti-cancer drugs are priced at up to nearly $1,000 a day. Even with health insurance, the average cost of patients for stage IV breast cancer, for example, can run $190,000. It's bad enough to be fighting for your life without bankrupting your family at the same time. And problems still common to this day. Who can forget the apocryphal story of Walter White working two jobs with health insurance and still could not afford the cancer care? Now, not everyone is willing to start their own meth lab, but many are willing to go for broke. A large proportion of cancer patients reported their willingness to declare bankruptcy or sell their homes to pay for treatment. I mean, look, aren't the high prices justified if new and innovative treatments offer significant benefits to patients? But you may be shocked to find out that many FDA-approved cancer drugs may lack clinical benefit. Well, then how did they become FDA-approved? Most approvals of cancer drugs are based on flimsier, untested surrogate endpoints, and post-marketing studies rarely validate the efficacy and safety of these drugs on patient-centered endpoints. Let me explain what that means. New chemo drugs are increasingly approved just based on so-called surrogate endpoints, which means instead of looking at what we really care about, survival or quality of life, they approve drugs based on things like response rate, tumor shrinkage. But who cares if a tumor shrinks if it doesn't actually extend your quantity or quality of life? That's kind of counterintuitive, but just seeing a tumor shrink on a CT scan or an MRI is not necessarily correlated with improvements in survival or symptoms. In fact, most studies that have actually followed people out found low correlations with survival. The most recent comprehensive analysis found 90% of studies of such validation trials found little correlation with overall survival. Of 36 new chemo drugs approved by the FDA based on these kind of surrogate endpoints, once they were actually put to the test in the real world, only one in seven was actually shown to extend life. And half explicitly flopped, and the rest remain untested, revealing that most cancer drug approvals have not been shown to or do not improve clinically relevant endpoints. Exorbitant drug prices are bad enough for treatments that work, but charging vulnerable patients for drugs without evidence that they actually improve patient survival and quality of life is unconscionable. Why doesn't the FDA require proof that chemo drugs actually benefit patients before approving them? Drug companies say that requiring randomized controlled trials with meaningful measures would take too long, but the steady time reduction using surrogate endpoints rather than overall survival is estimated at just 11 months. So instead of it taking 7.3 years to come to market on average, it would take 8.2 years. Yes, look, we want to get these drugs out as soon as possible, but only if they're actually gonna help people. Do cancer drugs improve survival or quality of life? You don't need to know, according to our broken regulatory system, and things aren't much better over in Europe. A systematic evaluation of chemo drug approval shows that most enter the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. And even years later, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs offered any benefit, and when they did, the gains were often marginal. That's why you see editorials in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute referencing Hans Christian Andersen, the author of The Tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. The studies all converge on a singular conclusion. Only a minority of new cancer drugs approved by U.S. and European regulatory authorities in recent years deliver clinically meaningful benefits to patients. In fact, some cancer-related deaths may be hastened or even caused by the toxic effects of chemotherapy rather than the cancer itself. Based on a review of tens of thousands of cancer patients, in as many as 27% of cases, the cancer treatment itself caused or hastened death. Okay, but it might be worth that risk if the potential benefit is large enough. And that's the subject of my next. How much does chemotherapy improve survival? Though we often hear new cancer drugs described as game-changing breakthroughs, most afford much more modest benefits. In my last video, I quoted a recent editorial in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggesting that the majority of new cancer drugs don't deliver clinically meaningful benefits at all. At least when they're later proven to be ineffective, they're pulled from the market, right? No, even when post-market studies show the new drugs to have no clinical meaningful benefit, compared to not just older drugs, but compared to nothing, compared to a sugar pill, most chemo drugs retain FDA approval and remain on the market even at the same ridiculous prices. In fact, the most expensive drug they looked at, the one costing $169,836 a year, did not improve overall survival at all and actually worsened quality of life. $169,000 just to make you feel worse with no benefit. Why pay a penny for a treatment that doesn't actually help? And even when they do improve survival, what does that actually mean? Currently the trend is for big pharma to design large trials that may detect statistically significant, but often trivial, differences in survival endpoints. For example, check out this famous trial, adding this second drug, urlatinib, to gemcitibine for advanced pancreatic cancer, significantly prolonged overall survival. Yeah, they suffered more side effects, but we're not just talking about tumor shrinkage, they lived significantly longer. The placebo group only lived 5.91 months, whereas the added drug group survived all the way to 6.24 months. Wait a second, they only lived a third of a month longer? That's just 10 days, all the side effects and expense for an average of just 10 days? That's why doctors shouldn't use the statistical jargon, significant improvement in survival, while informing patients about benefits of new treatment. When patients hear the word survival, they're not thinking about a week and a half. If you put all the new chemo drugs together, approved over the last dozen years, the average overall survival benefit is 2.1 months. Now look, 2 months is 2 months. I don't want to downplay that, but time and again surveys have indicated that patients expect much more. Incredibly, about three-quarters of patients with metastatic lung or colorectal cancer did not report understanding that their chemo was not at all likely to cure their cancer. I mean, that's the primary treatment, but the chemo's not curative. It's just eking out a few extra weeks or months. Why weren't the majority of patients told that? It's not that they were being over-optimistic, explain the researcher. They were under the mistaken belief that the treatment offered a chance of cure when it, in fact, didn't. That deprives patients of the opportunity to weigh the risks and benefits and make their own decisions about their own body. If you ask cancer patients, most want at least a half a year to stomach the side effects, which suggests that most cancer patients might not choose chemotherapy if they knew how little they'd actually benefit. But look, everyone's different. One patient they interviewed said living even one week longer would be worth it. Whereas another said they wouldn't even want to do chemo for two extra years of life. They wouldn't want anything to interfere with the quality of the time they had left. Either way, people deserve to know the truth. I find it telling that oncologists and cancer nurses themselves expressed less willingness to accept intensive chemotherapy given the associated toxicities. Most chemo drugs are cytotoxic, meaning they work by killing off cancer cells, but they also kill off some healthy cells as collateral damage, which is why they can damage our nerves, cause irreversible heart failure, slough off the linings of our gut or damage your immune system. Drug companies frequently downplay the risks, though. For example, describing this breast cancer drug as having acceptable side effect profiles for most patients or this pancreatic cancer drug is having a manageable and mostly reversible safety profile. These were studies published in top medical journals. Naturally, readers would take these statements to be true. However, if you actually look at the data, the number of serious even life-threatening side effects was double or even five times higher on the new breast cancer drug. And the manageable and mostly reversible side effects evidently weren't referring to those who were killed by the drug. I like how they even included a cheat sheet, acceptable to whom, right? Manageable, serious events and deaths can never be considered manageable and feasible. Who would sign up for a drug whose toxicity could only be described as feasible, favorable, compared to what tolerable? That's for the patient to decide. And any drug that kills people can hardly be considered safe. Still, patients may very well consider it worth the risk. For some cancers, we've made tremendous strides, right? Testicular cancer, for example. There's greater than a one in three chance that chemotherapy couldn't enable you to survive, at least to the five-year mark. Same with Hodgkin's disease, a relatively rare form of lymphoma. But even when researchers try to err on the side of overestimating the benefit, for most common cancers, colon, lung, breast, and prostate, the chances appear to be more like one or two percent. We would love it if you could share with us your stories about reinventing your health through evidence-based nutrition. Go to nutritionfacts.org slash testimonials. We may share it on our social media to help inspire others. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, or studies mentioned here, please go to the Nutrition Facts podcast landing page. There you'll find all the detailed information you need, plus links to all the sources we cite for each of these topics. For a timely text on the pathogens that cause pandemics, you can order the e-book, audiobook, or hard copy of my last book, How to Survive a Pandemic. For recipes, check out my second to last book, My How Not to Diet Cookbook. It's beautifully designed with more than 100 recipes for delicious and nutritious meals. And all the proceeds I receive from the sales of all my books goes to charity. NutritionFacts.org is a non-profit science-based public service where you can sign up for free daily updates on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos and articles. Everything on the website is free. There's no ads, no corporate sponsorship. It's strictly non-commercial. I'm not selling anything. I just put it up as a public service as a labor of love as a tribute to my grandmother whose own life was saved with evidence-based nutrition.


The 13th ranked BSU men's to strengthen its hold on as they travel to take o and Huskies currently sit conference with BSU sitti Michigan Tech. The beavers W. C. H. A play and we'l streak alive this weekend and we've done a good jo ourselves a cushion, bu obviously you're going i and it's a very difficult It's a very good hockey te best hockey right now in t So it's going to be a chal exciting though. If you'v of Lakeland news, please tax deductible contribution


Hello, and welcome back to SuperCloud 3, where we're discussing the future of AI-enabled security in the cloud. I'm pleased to welcome to the program Phil Venables, a Google VP and the Chief Information Security Officer at Google Cloud. Phil, welcome. Yeah, thank you, great to be here. Hey, set up your role for the audience. A lot of tech companies, CISOs that I talked to, they're pulled into really helping their customers improve their security, or the Salesforce loves to take them on calls, but to try to help them better understand best practices, what the shared responsibility model is, how Google, for example, does security, share with us your role, and where do you spend most of your time? Is it securing the Google Cloud? Is it working with customers or both? Yeah, so most of my role is internal. So I focus a lot across not just security, but privacy compliance, trust, risk, resilience, across not just Google Cloud, but areas like Google Workspace, all of our enterprise businesses, and a big part of our underlying technical infrastructure. So I've probably spent 80% of my time there, and then 20% of my time on customer facing, external facing initiatives. But I would say I have a whole team, we call our office of the CISO, which is about 40 people. They're all former security leaders, former CISOs from organizations, and they're my main customer facing arm that works day to day with customers, not just on how to think about Google Cloud security, but how to think about security in a hybrid, multi-cloud, or to use your language, you're kind of a super cloud environment, and that's something where customers really enjoy working with our team on that because they have that lived experience of being a CISO in a customer environment. So I spend a lot of time supporting them, but I have a whole org that does the customer facing stuff. I wonder if we could talk a little bit more about that regime. People are always asking us, what's the right regime? How should it evolve? And it's particularly interesting in this world of AI. There's now front and center on everybody's mind. I mean, 40 people, it sounds like a considerable team. On the other hand, it's Google, so it's a pretty efficient team. What is that right regime from your standpoint? Well, so our internal teams are like much larger than that team that just faces to our customers at a senior level. And in fact, in our customer facing organization, we also have professional services teams, customer engineers, security solutions engineers. So it's much larger than that. But generally when we think about security across all of our organization, it's this combination of having some central teams that provide consistent infrastructure and tooling to really drive our philosophy of secure by design and secure by default in the infrastructure and the products. And then we have a whole series of federated specialist teams that are embedded inside product areas or product teams. And so for example, inside our Google Kubernetes engine, our GKE team, we've got a very large security engineering team that focuses on the security of GKE just like we have for other product areas. So it's that combination of centralized providing central tooling and central capabilities plus these federated teams embedded in product areas. And then similarly on our customer facing work, we have obviously this security we embed into the products and services, but then we have all of our field teams that are embedded on customer accounts, helping them figure out how to do that transformation to the cloud and figure out how to do and sustain security in this hybrid multi-cloud environment. When you think about your Google's consumers and their security requirements, I mean, the number one thing I hear from CISOs when I ask them, what's your biggest challenge? They say, lack of talent. I presume you don't have that problem, but really it's your job to address that problem ultimately for your end consumers. Isn't it, I wonder if you could sort of discuss your philosophy and how you think about that. Yeah, so luckily when what drives why we think about secure by design and secure by default is so important is we don't want to, we want to help customers with the toil of securing their environment, not add to it. And you talk about the cybersecurity talent challenges. I mean, we've spent a lot of time thinking about this and there's really two sides to the skills and talent challenges. One is the raw number of cybersecurity professionals that exist, everything from entry level up to expert. And we've done some announcements recently with our Google cybersecurity certificate which we've made available to the world to try and train more people to become cybersecurity professionals. But on the flip side as well, we've got to think about how do we 10x the productivity of the cybersecurity and IT workforce we've already got. And a lot of that comes down to the secure by default, secure by design, making these things just intrinsic to the products. We all want secure products, not just security products. And a big part of what we're doing is to try and enable that. The final thing I'll say is, we all talk about the shared responsibility model of cloud which is obviously correct in that the cloud provider runs the base infrastructure and the customer is responsible for many parts of the configuration. We've taken over the past few years a slightly different approach to talk about what we call shared fate, which is how do we reach across that line of shared responsibility, provide better defaults for customers, provide better guidance, better guardrails, configuration code to help them stand up an environment. Again, so that it becomes less of an effort to have a secure by default environment. And we're going to keep focused on that. You know, that's an interesting point, Phil. I want to maybe take a quick detour here because if you think about the cloud, obviously, I mean, I've always said it, I think it's going to be more secure. I think that's proven that it is. But the CISO, there's sort of, the cloud is the first line of defense. And then he or she is sort of, I feel like oftentimes on their own, you've got the application developers are being dragged into security and the whole shift left movement. You've got audit, which is kind of your last line of defense. If you cross multiple clouds, you've got multiple shared responsibility models. Am I inferring from what you say that you actually reach beyond your dividing line into some of those other areas within the customer base and potentially even across clouds? Is that a fair assertion? Yeah, I mean, through the provision of kind of tools and services, we're all about kind of giving customers the means of securing their environments, not just on Google Cloud, but across all of their environments, whether it's products like Chronicle or Virus Total or any of our other services. And also we spend a lot of time and we have cloud products that run on other clouds, like Azure or AWS, where customers want to use our products on a different cloud. We think heavily around how do we set the security standards for that. And then we've also spent a huge amount of time in the open source community and the standards communities to make sure that we're baking security in to not just the most critical open source, but across the open source tooling in general. We were one of the co-founders of the open source security foundation, for example, that drives that. Plus we've invested a lot of time on software supply chain risk reduction. And then we invest a lot of time in the standards communities to drive its security improvements, not just for the cloud, but for the internet and the IT infrastructure overall. And we think ultimately that's the right thing to do, but it's also the commercial thing to do because it grows trust in technology and cloud services, which I think up to your point, ultimately benefits everybody because I think people have now realized that cloud is a means of managing their risk, not just a risk in itself. And the final thing I will say, you talk about kind of the lines of defense and that makes me think about defense in depth. And we're not just all about, how do we provide defense in depth from a tax? But it's also in the cloud, as you know, about providing defense in depth from the configuration errors that may occur. And how do you think to support the CSO about the separation of duties between ops development security teams so that they can work around one security mission, but then there's defense in depth to reduce the risk of configuration errors and what they're doing that could expose them to a tax. Right, and the more heterogeneity, the more complicated it gets. I've always thought, in a lot of ways, Google's built a super cloud, which is an antithetical to the actual super cloud definition, but it's probably the biggest cloud in the world. But the heart of this question really is, what's different about multicloud security versus on-prem or hybrid in the cloud? Are there ways in which customers can enhance security across multiple clouds or does multicloud just in and of itself bring from a security standpoint a more complicated set of obstacles? Well, I think the challenge is that every cloud provider, well, they have typically a consistent level of security give or take. Some are better than others in different ways. But generally speaking, there's an identity and access layer. There's an infrastructure configuration layer. There's configuration of how you run all of the software and services, how you federate identity and authentication. So there's a lot of things, but they're all configured and done in different ways. So a big challenge for customers is, how do you provide that configuration guidance and approach when you're deploying across multiple clouds? And there's various different initiatives in the industry to look to see if we can harmonize some of those ways. There's various open standards initiatives on identity and authentication and access management and increasingly, a lot of the cloud providers, especially ASA, providing these tools that can provide an umbrella of monitoring across all of your cloud and on-premise deployments. So I think we're getting there, but there's still a lot of work to be done on harmonizing how multiple clouds can be managed. And that's probably gonna be a big area of competition, not just amongst the cloud providers, but amongst the other technology vendor community. And that competition is probably healthy. It's going to benefit everybody, but we're really, really focused on making sure that we're driving that secure by design, secure by default, driving security into the open source community and the standards communities that will ultimately benefit everybody on all clouds, not just us. So just turning to sort of AI, I mean, chat GPTOs, it was the AI that was heard around the world. I joke sometimes it actually wasn't invented last November, but we saw that the Google IO, we saw Google flexed its muscles and showed what's capable there. So I'm interested, where is the low-hanging fruit for attackers? And I wonder, have you seen, what have you seen since the sort of AI awakening? We've gotten mandient now as part of the portfolio, which gives you even greater insight to the massive resources that you guys have had. Are you seeing a change? Where is that low-hanging fruit for attackers? And then I'm interested in the same question for defenders. Right, well, it's interesting as you call out. I mean, AI is not anything new to Google. We were one of the, you know, we've been the inventors of many of the technology, including the transformer technology that begat this latest wave of generative AI development. So it's something we've been very, very focused on about the responsible and safe development of this technology. And so we also as part of that keep an eye on the threats. I think a lot of what we're seeing so far is what I think you would expect. It's the use of this technology to drive threats around misinformation and disinformation, threats around improving the ability of attackers to dupe people, whether it's phishing emails or kind of frauds or other scams. And you just, you see the early signs of it being used to generate or augment malware capability. And the way I kind of think about all of this is well, we absolutely have to be focused on the safe and responsible use of AI. A lot of our defenses against these attacks are the defenses that we're driving anyway for the way the attackers have been operating. You know, we may need to keep getting better because the attackers may have more scale by using these technologies. But ultimately, for example, on phishing, you're not just doing something different because an adversary can generate a better phishing email. Really what you're about there is reducing your risk from phishing by deploying stronger forms of authentication so that you're not vulnerable to any form of phishing. And so I think we're gonna have to recognize that. And then to your point about the use of AI for defensive purposes, I'm tremendously optimistic about this, I think AI is gonna be transformational again for defenders. And I think the thing to remember is it has been already not necessarily in generative AI, but more traditional AI, machine learning, large parts of our defensive environment, whether it's safe browsing or malware filtering in Gmail or many, many other things all the way down to VM threat detection are all driven by our machine learning technology. And so it's already had huge benefits and this next wave of technology, we've taken some of our large language models, Palm, trained it with security data, we call it SecPalm and already we're starting to use that with customers for them to do high-speed malware analysis, detect vulnerabilities, analyze the configurations in the cloud, give them more intuitive interfaces into some of our security monitoring tools like Chronicle. And again, this is helping not just manage the threat, it's back to what we started with around how do we think about reducing the toil for security teams so we can scale the talent we've got so that talent is better equipped to meet the challenges of defending all of our organizations. So again, I think AI is going to keep being transformative for everything that we do. But Phil, you mentioned that in addition to security, you had wider scope, privacy, compliance, trust. And I wonder if the discussion that the industry's been having around, talk about guardrails and the like from generative AI, when you think about transformer technology, obviously it's really good at figuring out what the next word is going to be or the next sentence, but it really hasn't gotten to the point where it can either ask you for clarification when it doesn't know, it's just putting things in, whether it's BARD or GPT or Bing GPT, whatever it is so far, the ones that at least I've seen, is that part of your scope when it gets to things like trust and compliance and privacy, is that sort of somebody else's swim lane at Google and what do you expect going forward? So we have across Google, we have a whole trust and safety team that works and looks at all of the potential for safety and abuse issues on all of our platforms and services. And so my team partners very, very closely with them to make sure that the services were deploying through cloud fits with our AI principles, has responsibility and safety at the heart of it. Then additionally, my privacy and security teams, they're very, very focused, for example, on our vertex AI products where we ship our large language models to customers to make sure that when customers are using those and extending those models with their own corporate data, that data is kept absolutely protected in the context of that customer and is not making it back into the wider environment. And so we've been very, very focused on the security, privacy and responsible use to support customers' objectives such that their privacy and intellectual property and security is managed through their adoption of our AI platform. And so this has been a great example of how security, privacy, compliance, trust, fraud and abuse and all of these topics come together to make sure that we're delivering a solid set of controls that can enable responsible and safe use of AI by our enterprise customers, not just our general consumers. Yeah, and this is not new to you. This is not something that you just started thinking about in 2023, I'm sure that there's been a lot of conversations internally. One of the themes at this year's RSA conference was the identity crisis in a tongue in cheek facing the security industry. Is identity across clouds and you think about what we call SuperCloud going to be a showstopper for adoptions or you think the industry can collaborate on standards that can actually foster adoption and innovation. What's your take on that? Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, the good news is identity and authentication have been some of the areas where there's been most standardization, not just between clouds, but between all of our use of kind of internet based services, API integration, other types of service integration. And I think a lot of those standards have proven to be relatively secure and highly effective. I think what we're seeing though now is in some cases of some of the incidents that have been documented in the industry is attackers, if you like, going after the seams between organizations. And I don't think there's really any kind of major concern about the standards themselves, but like with anything, all organizations need to think about how they're setting up their base identity, how they're setting up the federated authentication between their organization, SaaS providers, external providers, they're through their supply chain and with their cloud providers to make sure that they're not just having a silo of identity protection, but they're thinking about the end-to-end identity authentication and access provenance across their entire set of services. And a lot of organizations, including us with some of our IAM technology, are helping with that. But that's one of those things where all of the providers are trying to make that easier, but ultimately enterprises and of all shapes and sizes need to think about what's their attack surface for their identity and authentication infrastructure. And that may extend across multiple products. So it's definitely something that needs to continue to be focused on because attackers are gonna keep going after those seams. Bill, my last question for you is, I've often said bad user behavior, Trump's good security every time. What's your approach and maybe your best idea that you would share with customers and peers on building a strong and sustainable security culture? Yeah, I mean, it's a fantastic question because unless you have the culture of security, you're never gonna be able to sustain the long-term effort that's needed to manage security. Never mind any other type of risk. And so we like to think about this is it's all about embedding this intrinsically to how you build products and how you think about treating security as a first-class business risk that's there alongside all of your other critical business risks. And again, a big part of what we talked about earlier on the need for security by default and by design means that how we build things and how we give tools to customers to build things is try and make security the easiest path as opposed to a path that developers have to really work at. So we concentrate a lot on providing frameworks and tooling and embedding capabilities into products and services both internally and externally that makes security the easiest path. And then finally, you've just got to test yourself with a huge amount of further whether it's your own internal security, design reviews, penetration, testing, continuous control monitoring and validation, having really, really strong internal red teams that are constantly exercising the security of your products. And then finally, making sure there's a path for people in the outside world to tell you about the issues you might have in your products through bug abandonment and vulnerability research programs. So I think if you do all of those things and you just persist with it, embed it into the operations of your organization and the way you develop product, then usually you get good outcomes, but there's always going to be a need to find the things that get through by the use of red teams and making sure you're part of the bug abandonment program. Yeah, I got to do the work. All right, Phil, we're going to leave it there. Thank you for the work that you and your teams are doing to keep us all safe and thanks for coming to the program. We appreciate your time. Love to have you back. Yeah, thank you. Pleasure to be here. It's great, thank you. You're welcome. Okay, keep it right there for more discussions, fireside chats. We've got power panels and conversations with tech athletes like Phil. You're watching SuperCloud 3, the future of AI-enabled cloud security on theCUBE.


Part of learning about measurement is comparing things by length. One way to help a child is with some sticks of various lengths. You can ask the child which one is longest and which is shortest. Then they can line them up in order from shortest to longest. You can mix up the sticks and ask the child to put them in order from longest to shortest. You can also do this with pieces of string, pencils or other things of various lengths. Comparing lengths not only helps the child learn about measurement but also develops their logical thinking.


Today, we have reached another tragic milestone of the crisis in Ukraine. Six and a half million people are estimated to be displaced in the country. This is in addition to the more than three million refugees who have been forced to flee across Mordor in search of safety. Concretely, this means that one of every four Ukrainians have been already uprooted by law. Alongside these staggering numbers of people forced to flee, we know that 12 million people are estimated to be stranded in affected areas and unable to move to safety because of hostilities. They have risks of hostilities, destruction of bridges on the roads, and lack of resources and information of where to find safety. All of this is blocking their movement and their capacity to make safe choices. Protection and humanitarian actors, many of them local organizations on the front lines, are delivering life-saving assistance. These efforts are nothing short of heroic and must continue to be supported. However, in discriminant attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure continue. Security concerns are locative and humanitarian aid is unable to reach people in many, many areas of the country. The protection of all communities, all communities impacted by this conflict must remain the absolute priority for diplomatic and humanitarian action. The latest figures we issue today show the enormous scale of internal displacement and they only serve to further underline the urgency of the situation inside Ukraine. Without cessation of hostilities, this terrible protection and displacement crisis will continue to go.


Going down to the reports on the left, closing up the hand boogie up top, scrolling down, we're looking for the reports that say who owes you money? It says who owes you, that typically we would be thinking, well, that's gotta relate to the accounts receivable account because that represents who owes us money. So we got up top the major ones, accounts receivable aging detail, accounts receivable aging summary. This one is start off, which would be applicable or appropriate given the fact that it's probably the most common one. The other ones in here, we've got the collection report and then we've got the customer balance detail report. This one is like more of a straight sub ledger with detail and then you've got the summary on that one and then you've got the invoice list. The invoices are the things that increase the accounts receivable. So once again, it's kind of like another report that's giving us more detail on the AR. Invoices and receive payment. That's given us a little bit more detail and then you've got the open invoices, which invoices being related to the increase in the accounts receivable. If they have not yet been paid, you would think the open invoices would then add up then in essence to what's in the accounts receivable statement list are the statements that we're gonna give to our receivables or our customers from time to time and then the terms and that's gonna help us to fill out the form, unbilled charges, things that we have put in a bill for and made it billable, but we haven't added to the invoice yet in unbilled time. Same thing, we entered time, but we haven't entered it into the invoice. So our major primary sub ledger reports to the accounts receivable are these items, such as the customer balance detail. Let's look at that one first. I'm gonna click on that one and scroll up and the range change. I'm gonna say, it says all dates, we'll keep it there, run it, holding down control, scrolling up a bit. Now, if I go back to the balance sheet, notice that this report or this account, like all accounts has a sub ledger or I'm sorry, a general ledger. If I click on it, which is in essence a general ledger giving us the information by type, we can see it goes up with invoices down with payments. That's what we expect to happen in the accounts receivable. And this would be the transaction report. This is a great report, but it doesn't give us the detail that we want, which is to break out the accounts receivable, not by date of transaction, but by customer. So that's what we're gonna do with these other reports, going back, scrolling back up a bit. And if I go to this report, this is giving us that data that is now broken out by customer. So if I go down to the bottom, the total is now at the 5,281.52, which should match the 5,281.52 over here, but given it by who owes us the money, that's important because we need to collect on the money. Now, in practice, we might not actually use this report as much unless we're trying to talk to like a meeting or a group or something like that, a presentation, because we would be looking at this same data internally by going, let's say to the first tab and go into the sales area and closing up the hamburger. We could look at all sales transactions and we can sort this way and say we're gonna sort by the open invoices this way. So that can give us a list of the open invoices down below. We don't get that nice total or we do get a total 5,281. And over here on the balance sheet, we've got the 5,281. So even that gives us a nice total. So the report's like a little bit redundant because I can kind of find that information over here for internal reporting purposes and to try to collect on the money from here. And then you can also do the same thing in the invoices tab where you could sort in that fashion, you could do a similar thing. And the customers tab, if I was to sort for open invoices, for example, now I can see the customers that have open invoices that'll list two invoices versus one invoice. This report doesn't give us that nice total, but this is probably where we would go in practice. So let's go back on over here. This report can also be useful to export and possibly create pie charts on or something like that. You could break out which customers owe you the most money by pie chart and that kind of stuff, which we might touch on in the future.