Hi everyone and welcome back to another episode of our Road to Wrike roulette series I hope you're all doing well had a fantastic weekend and already to get into some more roulette action in today's episode I cannot wait. We had a great week last week It was the result wise it wasn't the best, but it was just a great bunch of Pokemon We had some really nice pics in there and it was just a lot of fun all around So I'm really hoping we can replicate it this week and maybe get a few better results along the way We're getting very close now to the new rule set being announced for the 2020 season You've got to assume that it is going to be announced at the world championships like it was last year and fingers crossed We get something different to the ultra series as much as I do love the ultra series I'd love a little bit of a refresh going into maybe November time when a certain game is released and we'll probably get brand new rules then so I Don't know. I don't know. It could be ultra series. It could be the could be a new rule set But whatever happens will will have that announcement very soon and that will mean that unfortunately We'll be coming to an end with this series, but it has been a lot of fun We'll be returning to our daily battle series where we do more competitive and serious teams But we'll come back to this series every year like I've said It's just a bit of a downtime period series where we can have a lot of fun with it And I hope you guys have been enjoying it because I have I've had a great time with it It's been really good It's been a learning curve and it's been really enjoyable doing it and interacting with you guys and Through their nominations and then the random wheel that gives us the gifted Pokemon every single week. Anyway We're mumbling on like usual, so I'm just gonna say thank you so much for all our nominations this week We've had a bunch of amazing nominations So I'm really keeping my fingers crossed for a lot of you have those come out this weekend without further ado Let's head over to the wheel and see what I like the selection we've got the wiggly tough there We've got Lugia, which is a really cool Pokemon dawn wings and across my good hitman top Volcarona So we've got that old hitman top Volcarona combination the top moth call from is it like 2013 season? I don't know before then sometime. It was a long time ago regardless It's a really good combination and then Laurentus as well stuck on the end there So thank you so much to each and every one of you that nominate those Pokemon They'll be up on the screen now so you guys can see but remember for those of you that haven't had their nominations come out yet We've got four bonus buttons. We can activate come Wednesday. We've got our randomizer at switch up a legend maker and a patreon button So we will activate those later in the week obviously when we can and we'll mix the team up And hopefully some of your nominations come out When we do that so without further ado, I guess it's time to have a look at the team. It's pretty interesting We've went for a few picks that you guys have suggested like the the Z the Z move Lugia is one the assault vest Wigglytuff is the other the rest of them I've kind of just put together I've went for a quivered and set on the Volcarona Because I just think it's a fun set and you can work especially with the the hitman top there with his support The why god fake out support it works really nicely there The only thing that was a bit of a tear there was do I give a giga drain or do I give a bug buzz? There's arguments for both sides giga drain obviously helps a lot against primal Kyogre Whereas bug buzz helps a lot more against ultra and across my Mewtwo and some of the other bug weak Pokemon the few that there are in the format anyway The team is always has done description below There is a role-paced and a poker-paced for you to check out in your own time and try out if you'd like to and But without further ado again, we'll jump straight onto the battle spot Hopefully it doesn't take too long to find our first opponent today But regardless of anything I really like this team I really do and you know what we've probably got two weeks left of this series like realistically speaking two weeks left So if we can finish above 1500 that is gonna be amazing and I'm just gonna call it a day there But we'll see we'll see maybe we get that one hit KO team coming on But we've got a first opponent of the episode AJ so we'll hop straight over into team preview So AJ running a team of a request a lunala tap Coco a lol and Raichu nail ego and incinero I lovely mix of Pokemon all the Pokemon I want to be seeing right now. I don't I don't feel like we've got the best of matchups here But it's it's gonna be fine. Isn't it? It is gonna be fine. Um, right What do we do here against this build? I think it's trick room a good route to go down Potentially yes because my opponent looks like they're probably more Based around tailwind with the lunala there I mean there could be trick room both lunala and nail ego get it But the rest of the team don't really benefit from it too much So you would think tailwind of any speed control at all It's probably gonna be the thing that they go for now. Can we can we get a trick room off? I don't know if we can that's the big question. What do we go down there as he as he Tailwind route. I don't know I don't know like top moth could potentially work here But again, it's not it's not ideal. I'll go him on top. I'll go in a cross ma. I will go with Lurantis and Do I bring Lugia to this match? It feels really difficult for Lugia. Whereas maybe the Wigglytuff could potentially do some stuff And we haven't Fist cam there we go popping in popping in just like that. Yes Yeah, so that's from me recording the flinch squad circuit series recently Recording all the matches that the guys have been putting up So if you haven't missed if you haven't checked those out when you've missed those matches They're up on the channel at the minute There'll be more this week and the final probably next week So very exciting time and then we've got the invitation will come up soon, which would be a live streamed event Yes, so right you and lunala coming out for my opponent Hmm It's it's tricky, isn't it as well take a move guys the z move up for sure We've got a try and get the trick I mean we Have to kind of try I wish I had like I like switch here. I just feel like Anna Krosma is gonna get dropped hard Do I go for our do I go for the protect like what's my opponent gonna go for they might think it's ultra Krosma might just drop the the bomb on us But the longer I take to get the trick room up the harder this is gonna be I'm good I'm just gonna go for the trick room. I'm gonna go for it. If we get dropped we get drop lunala protects What okay We get the fake out onto the right you I don't believe this has just happened This is why over predicting is never a good thing Okay, I mean I Can't believe we've actually been able to pull this off. Okay, so I'm gonna pull in Laurentus right now For him on top and I'm gonna I'm gonna go for the nuke I'm gonna go to the menacing moon rays Maelstrom into lunala to get rid of the thing because that That's still a threat. It could switch out into insinu all for sure But I Can't believe we got that that playoff That's one of those teams where we don't make the play we made and we were like Yeah, we could have just done this we could have just done this and we actually just did it for a change So it worked out and Here we go him on top gonna retreat. I'd love to see insinu all come in give us the contrary boost But we're not even gonna see that would you not even gonna see a switch or anything We're getting the Z move off obviously it's the lunala Z move But we can use this as dusk main because it's kind of half-and-half isn't it so we'll have to cut this will be right back And into the lunala it goes is it gonna be enough to pick up that off like shipping, right? Yeah easy easy It's not surviving. I'm not surviving that. I love how soon as it gets knocked out in the most convinced person in the world Yeah, of course, it's never surviving There were well anyway, we get rid of that We get paralyzed kind of helps us out a little bit more in the trick room for sure the right you Doing the nozzle Now what comes in I've got a horrible feeling like the time it's taking my opponent to select moves They might just to be timing out every time they might have just left that the DS just felt sorry for us But I don't know who knows a Now illegal gonna come in I guess we probably have to double down on the night legal Let's say that's superpower and Photon guys or it just to make sure that we can we can get rid of it because that thing gets a sludge bomb on to Laurent is there's a chance it could pick up the knockout. There's a good chance it could It might not but there's a good chance it will and we don't want to risk that we know where we're slower than it so Probably the requires are lurking in the back. I don't know Let's count the next turn like to see my point is like taking it It feels like they may be a little bit quicker than then what I'm imagining the timeout would be I'm gonna see right you switch out and requires it come in They're definitely not timing out now because you can't know this is like that. This is not what we want not paralyzed right now Super power coming out. It's not gonna be enough We do get the boost boost boost but sludge bomb Laranches takes it and prox the Agua very because it's just a beast. Um, okay, so we are avoiding This is tricky. This is trick tricky tricky. And do we just go for the requiser like a double-end to rate to ray with Hmm I cannot knock off it's not gonna do very much But then it's probably gonna do more than a superpower and a leaf blade But then we do get the defensive boost again, or do we just get rid of The nile ego while we can prevent a beast boost. I'd probably prefer that Seen as we've got wiggly tough in the back that could potentially do some do some work We'll go for the the moon guys beam into the Rayquaza And there it is ultra ultra ultra ray mega Rayquaza ultra mega Rayquaza. Yeah, just just so confusing this form right now It's time to move on. I tell you what I've got some great Cracking ideas for what we could have yet does protect so we could have went for that double up into the Rayquaza But you know, we're playing the non the non predicting game We still got a turn a trick room after this so I mean it's very bad minimum We'll be able to get rid of the nile ego And we do some nice damage to the ray with a moon guys beam and a dragon ascent will come out I'll be into alarantas. Oh huh Didn't expect it to be into a plasma. Okay Now we can just pick up the knockout on both. Yeah, cuz the trick rooms. Yeah, I mean Rayquaza probably Protects you right super power will go into the night legal and we'll go for another moon. Let's beam it into ray Oh, no night you go up and it switch out right you're gonna hit the field. Okay keeping it round for later The quasi gonna protect that makes a lot of sense a hundred percent like yeah How much is this gonna do be nice if you picked up the knockout? It's not quite enough If we'd only knocked off that slot it would have been it would have been way better. Um, hmm Can we get another trick room up? That's the thing because what we could potentially do is switch in him on top here Because I feel like you chase down the necrosis map And what we'll do we'll try and protect we'll get topping and if we can get another trick room off then I think We've got this one against AJ Still gonna be it's still gonna be a little bit tricky. I mean we do have wiggly tough in the back So it's it's gonna be all right. Isn't it wiggly tough? I'm hoping we can feature wiggly tough in our next match. It's a cool Pokemon Is it there was I think Scott and Pinko were with the guys that nominated this week, so And Scott nominated last week, so he's been sticking with it This is my thing like stick with these Pokemon that you're nominating if you really want them come out They will definitely come out. That's not what we wanted to see There's the fake out into our top we'll get that eject button I mean it means we can cycle intimidate again, which is which is nice. We'll get wiggly tough onto the field Thinking now like ice beam would have been better on wiggly tough just for the ray There's the dragoness and the paralysis that nuzzle coming in so handy for my opponent Hmm if we only had faint on our If we only had faint on hit my top, that would be incredible because then we could potentially hmm Faint the Rayquaza because it's gonna protect here. I think Well, that will doesn't gleam and we'll close combat that doesn't gleam and Yeah close combat the right So I can imagine the night legal coming in here if we can keep him on top around for the night legal that would be ideal but At the same time, I feel like the ray isn't a position now I can just take it down if it wants to the dragon a sense. So it's not quite sealed up and I lose now one restricted that we brought Making it a little bit more difficult, but my opponent quite weak. Okay. They're the ray going down Huh the night legal. Yeah, it's not gonna go down to doesn't gleam You've got the close combat the wrong way around electric web coming out. Okay, but we do get the competitive boost Which is I guess handy If we only close combat But maybe the Maybe the ray comes in and It targets down the hitman top rather than Because we'll take a sludge bomb with wiggly top with wiggly tough I don't know if we'll take a combination of attacks. That's the problem. Um, and I don't know if a close combat enough to get the ray from this range With him on top, but we're better off going for the night legal. I would I would I would that would be my my thing, but You know, we can't protect I'll just go close combat into the night legal It's gonna be down to one my opponent like decides to do here if they Poison you see can we take this? I Don't know if we're gonna be able to Mmm. Oh It looks so good for a minute and now it's all gone downhill Come on with you to prove prove your worth in this team survived this attack. Oh Oh Man, that's like the most it's never gonna happen is it as a beast boost All we need is Okay, well, I mean ages done. Well, he's played around it the best he can and it leaves us with them Good old good old the rant is it's gonna come in and just take a pounding.  You know, that's the thing so We can't complain and there we go didn't have enough. We said at the start. It was a bad matchup, but I feel We didn't do too bad. We did ourselves proud. I think in that matchup AJ good game And the the nuzzle came in bigger than what we expected it to that one turn. It's always the turn though Nuzzle isn't it? It's always that one turn where you think I don't really want fully paralyzed here I can I can deal with it if I'm trying attempting to set trick room up, but on on a protect turn That's why it really hurts. It really hurts The soul is stung and okay our rating our rating I'm Obsessed I am too obsessed with our rating. I really am let's go look across my vision to because I just like this track and I Need some cheering up after that last match feel like hard done by but I mean we didn't do too bad Wiggly tough Well, well, well wiggly tough I think if we thought about it as well with the rickwaza like minus two after two dragon a sense It was minus two after two into it. It's you think it's probably gonna switch out at that point We could have maybe thought about a little bit more and targeted into that slot none the right you would go down Whatever, I just wasn't really concerned about the right you that point because it wasn't really putting on any offensive pressure at all and but That's just one of those things. We've got our next opponent anyway 16 10 rated player from Japan So let's hope we can do a little bit different here Okay, so our next opponent is running a team of taboo Finney Rayquaza Zernius Incineroar Metagross and Whimsicott. Mmm. Okay. I think it's a Lugia a Lugia one here So we'll go Lugia I'll go hit Montop. We need something against the The Zernius though, that's the problem Hmm the Zernius setup is a bit scary Especially when we don't have like a red card Volcarona or a whirlwind Volcarona, which could potentially be quite decent and Trick room could also be really quite powerful here important But again, I think we're quite weak to will bring Donwings we are quite weak to to Zernius and Just generally Mars teams I'm gonna say But we'll see what we can do. We'll get tough might have been a good call here. We did feature it in the last game obviously Hard it's hard isn't it the one Pokemon that I do feel like I don't really want to be coming up against is a hundred percent the Valtor because I feel like I don't know what we do against that There's the Intimidate from our top. So we will be able to fake out the Incineroar I think it's probably better to fake out the Incineroar to guarantee as the tail wind up Yeah, so we'll see tail and we'll get that crit rate boosting onto the field We'll go for the fake out into the Incineroar and see if we can get around This I think the Rayquaza probably does attack into to Lugia That'd be my best guess the Intimidate definitely helps out though without him on top. Oh Ray gonna switch out Ideal, I mean the Whimsicott can on court. I hit my top double switch. Huh, Zernius coming out Okay, but what we can try and do is go Yeah, we'll get the Z move off now The Z tail wind Then we can help and hand error blast into the Zernius Because the Whimsicott can't on court as he moves So we'll go for that. We'll go for a helping hand And that should get round when we trying to on court our top if we try to go for that It could potentially just go tail wind Here and try and get that Zernius Sped up by protecting it But I wonder what a helping hand crit error blast will feel like on this Zernius If it does like 50% then that's that's kind of nice And it's just about keeping Lugia's Multi-scale intact right now. So no protects coming out And There's a bit of course Before the protect, okay There's a tail wind to match. All right now. They probably will be able to get and depending on the speed of the The Zernius because I don't think whether like the we're not the fastest Lugia But we'll go for it again. We'll go for it because even if they get the GMC off We We kind of bypass those boosts anywhere with the crit. So it's fine. Let's see what my opponent does I figured as well if we're going on the crit crit route with our arrow blasts Then it's it's gonna just make a lot more sense to have the The helping hand support next to it. I'm gonna see Incinero switching my opponent obviously feels a little bit pinned at the moment Which is fine There's a helping hand to be interested to see how much this does Endeavor Wow, okay That's nice. I mean that's definitely in close combat range I'm just gonna recover now and I'll go for a close combat into Incinero I can only fake one thing out And I doubt it fake the him on top out. Oh it does. Okay We get the eject button now So getting the heck out of here and we'll be able to bring in let's bring in Volcarona Because we can stop quiver dancing And we know with my opponent having no weather. It's not gonna make too much difference We're gonna see if fake tears now come out to Lugia. She's fine. We'll get this recover off And we know an arrow blast should take this Incinero down the next turn And The tailwind does pitter out so we have to be a little bit careful and my opponent still has their tailwind in effect Hey, do we go for bug buzz bug buzz? I mean, we could double the Whimsicott. That's the other option here Getting but we could tailwind we could tailwind. I think tailwinding and quiver dancing Could be a nice a nice option here. Oh, it's gone for our own call No, it's locking us in That's not good. I Don't like that at all because now we have to switch out and we'll lose the boost But I mean, we're gonna yeah, okay Kind of get around the the snow and now we're gonna be on cold a definitely again in our on our And have all corona Which is a little bit of a pain but at the same time we can get around that Lugia is still in good shape So we'll keep it around for later. We'll switch him on top in we will go for protect with all corona So then at least the next turn when we get top onto the field We can fake out the Whimsicott and he can actually attack like bug buzz the Incinero And get around this uncle So it's gone for the on call there we go Incinero you turning hmm My opponent's gonna bring in Makes sense to bring in the Xernius here Maybe the Rayquaza the Rayquaza probably makes a lot more sense at this point.  I think and Because I'm gonna fake out with me and I'm gonna just get rid of it with an overheat Well, I'd speed everything on the field With with for Corona and we can deny my opponent getting another tailwind off. So If we do lose for Corona, I don't mind too much. It's not the end of the world There's the Delta screen So we fake out into the whimmy Yep, I think it definitely goes for the other heat that's trying the the tailwind. That's definitely trying there's a overkill and Where's the ray gonna talk it into? Dragon is sent into if it goes into the Volcarona if we get the flame body here I mean that is that is huge first come on Volk get the other flame body. Please activate it Come on. Come on. Come on. Come on. I don't think it's I don't think it's activated. We're already done it by now dang All right, what do we do now? Do we get in necrosma or Lugia? Let's go into Lugia And it's I think one of the things we could hi, it's a zone. Yes, okay Hmm, I don't know. This is gonna be very very difficult for us to Deal with now going forward. I feel like we don't really have too many options Left and we can get dawn wings in Hum. Hmm. We could go tailwind. I don't know if it's really gonna help us out too much though Because the geometry comes out. I think maybe an error blast probably just better into the earliest at this point Yeah, the incident are all gonna come in But if we can try and maneuver him on top on to the field with dawn wings We can maybe get a trick room up. It's already gonna help us too much against the incident roll But the okay just a dozen gleams. That's that's not the worst It's a pity. We haven't got as a move left with dawn wings That doesn't do too bad damage, you know, actually, that's not too bad at all It's going to go to beam Let's go for another another arabast Lugia probably will get faked out here. Okay. We're not gonna see it We're just gonna see what we're gonna see and sooner or go for a snarl. I reckon Okay, I still think an error blast Probably not now Unless we get a crit error blasts without the crick boost But do we go trick room, I don't think we got trick room here just yet I'm gonna try for the error blast and the moon guys beam again We can maybe get a crit and it would be enough If we can create error blast here That would be more than enough to get around this geomancy And I think would put the disowning is definitely in range for all men guys being to pick up the knockout And I would not feel bad about that at all I really wouldn't and desperate for a win today if we can get one come on Lugia, what are you doing?  Oh man Well, that's that's that game over like completely The error blast we needed to We needed to crit with it a hundred percent But it needed to hit to have any chance of that Come on Lugia. Let's try one more time. I'm hoping you can take a dazzling gleam. You should do from this range Come on. Let's do this We hit we hit come on is it a crit It's like the weakest of week. Okay. Oh, yeah, come on You could have went down for that and give us a free switch into top It's all but over now. It is all but over and I'm just prolonging it. Just a little bit sad I just feel I don't know. I feel like we've had like a pretty a couple of pretty hard matchups today And I don't know if we're gonna have any good matchups in the format with this team We're gonna be positive about it. They'll come on. Well, we'll have definitely better matches We'll go for the moon guys then we'll go for I mean we could switch in we can try and switch in hit Montauk Right and go for double protect But the thing is hit Montauk is gonna come in on a dazzling gleam and it's just gonna go down We needed Lugia to go down there really like it's not would have been better for us I think because it would have taken Lugia down and And Would have given us the opportunity to get top in where the incident was out on the field next to this area So we could have went for the fake out trick room potentially, but we get the double but we're not taking this with with him on top We needed really to see moon blast, but there's no need for my opponent at this point to moon blast They they're quite happily just gonna be able to go for the dazzle and whatever other attack Alongside it. So Lugia coming back in And it's gonna be the end of a not the best of result wise day for us to kick off this week But it just gives us more to work on going into the rest of the week It really does and one thing I would say we've built out Lugia and one thing that might be more useful about Running Lugia is running a faster one So that's something to consider for later in the week when we change things up Good game to both my opponents today. I feel like there was definitely areas where we could have done a few things differently maybe in the games and Definitely game one was a few areas where we could have clinched that one I think but second game maybe got a bit away from us But regardless of that had a lot of fun. Hope you guys enjoyed it Remember if you do enjoy this content drop a like on the video guys remember to subscribe to the channel and leave a Comments down below and I will I'll look forward to reading them about the team today and what your thoughts on the matches as well But we'll leave it there. We'll come back tomorrow We'll readdress things we'll reset and we'll see if we can do a little bit better on our next one So until then take care of yourselves. Have a great day, and I'll see you for the next one So until then now bye-bye


Fantastic. And now, since the order has changed, I will do my best. So first, Matt Donne is a senior associate in Booz Allen's high-tech manufacturing business. He advises senior clients and leads project teams in driving innovative cybersecurity analytics and risk management solutions, particularly for automotive, industrial, and consumer product companies. Then next to him is Seth Carmody. He's with the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, focusing on cyber safety and medical devices. Next to him, going back to the other page, is Josh Corman. He's the founder of I am the cavalry.org and the CTO for sonotype. Next to him is Adam Theurer. He's a senior research fellow technology policy program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and his latest book is Permissionless Innovation, the Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom. And last but not least is Hilary Cain. She's the director for technology and innovation policy government and industry affairs, nice title, at Toyota. And she handles policy issues relating to connected vehicle technology and in-vehicle telematics, including spectrum, data privacy, and cybersecurity. Now, this is a fantastic panel, and so I'd just like to open up by asking all of you, where do you see the likely greatest impact of IoT technology over the next couple of years? All right. Thanks, everyone, for having us today. I'll start with the word culture. I'm not going to go down a technology route here, but when I look at the term IoT, I think it's actually a bit limited, because it's not just about the devices. What that limits us with is it doesn't put the human, the consumer, the citizen at the center of the topic. And that's really what it's all about, is how our lives are changing. So when you think of these things, IoT, I actually like to flip the terminology towards connected society, because that's what it's all about. These devices enable us to live in a different way. This always-on connectivity is actually changing the way that we live, where the internet is inseparable from us as we go over the next few years. So we're at a point of, I think, cultural demarcation. That line is coming up, and we're going to have to really rethink how we look at this world and how we interact with it. I view it in three different pieces that are changing, government, commercial, and the individual itself. With government, you've got people that are much more nomadic, both physically and virtually. There's a lot less allegiance. The nation state, that comes up a lot. What does that mean? So in this realm, we're going to have to have governments look and re-engineer, re-imagine what they are, and engage people through new creative ways, new types of agile agencies, new types of partnerships, alliances with commercial entities attracting new types of investment. It's a whole new re-imagining of government. On the commercial side, you're seeing all sorts of companies get closer to the consumer. They don't just build a product and throw it out there into the world, right? Tesla gets closer to the customer.  So that condensing of the value chain has gotten a lot smaller. It's a lot more in your face today. And then the last point I'll make is the individual. You are truly a consumer of one, a customer, a unique entity. And all the data we spin off as a person from the time we get online is captured forever. It's the sum of the data that we leave this world with is honestly going to be what people know of us going forward. It will live on. And I'd like to just end real quick on the story I had. One of my family members passed away recently. And we looked up his will. And it was kind of comedic to read. But he said, I don't want any parties, any type of funeral. Because the data on the internet, I'm going to live on forever. So you make sure you celebrate me there. So we threw all sorts of embarrassing videos on YouTube and everything to celebrate them. But it's true. It really makes you think differently. So that's the kind of perspective is on culture. Any others want to jump in, IoT innovations? So I'll jump in. Selfishly as a person from Toyota, I'm going to say automotive. I think we're already starting to see pretty remarkable advances in terms of in-vehicle telematics and infotainment systems and remote services where you can interact with your car from your smartphone. But I think what we're going to see in the next few years is fundamentally more transformative than that when we're talking about vehicles communicating with each other and the infrastructure around them for crash avoidance purposes and also self-driving cars, which will just blow our minds in terms of how many lives it's going to save and crashes that it's going to avoid. So I'm going to go with cars. Anyone disagree? No, I wouldn't disagree with that. In fact, we're going to see significant cost savings and life savings because of connected vehicle technologies. It could be one of the great public health stories of our time. But I'm actually going to go with sort of health, awareness, wellness, and fitness types of applications at IoT because that's what we already see the greatest demand for. Because everybody wants to make themselves healthier, feel better, or whatever else improve their health. And so you're going to see a significant ramping up of the already hot demand for those types of technologies. You already see it with the quantified self-movement more generally. I myself know this firsthand. I am wearing my Fitbit, lost 30 pounds in a month and a half. So real world results right there, right? And a lot of other people have similar type stories. So I think there's going to be continued demand there. I think the obvious answers are the kind of efficiencies you can get in a smart home from environmental and power consumption savings, but also the cars. I think one of our both sources of excitement and fear when we started the cyber safety group of iamthecabulary.org is we looked at cars and we said, look, self-driving and semi-autonomous vehicles. I think the stats were that in 2014, there were 32,000 fatalities in automobiles, which is down from where it used to be. But 94% of those were human error. So the promise of semi-autonomous vehicles is you can cut out massive chunks of that 94%. Think of all the lives we'll save. And since we come from the hacker culture, we know that if you put software on something, it's vulnerable, and you connect it to something else that's exposed, we kind of see if software is eating the world, it's actually infecting the world. We're putting Bluetooth and Wi-Fi and 4G LTE Wi-Fi hotspot standard in all vehicles, giving easy access to anyone on earth to assert their will on you and your family. And we're insufficiently guarding against those threats and exposures. So what we want to do is make sure that the trust that we place upon these innovations is worthy of that trust, and we're pretty far from that. So we don't want to scare everyone away from driverless cars. In fact, the fear that we have is that the promise we just outlined, if there is a Jeep hack that's not on stage at DEFCON, but rather in the wild, my mother and I will never trust a Jeep again. And if there's a crisis of confidence, not only is it where bits and bytes meet flesh and blood, but it's also gonna have a material impact on GDP. I think one in nine Americans are employed by automakers, parts makers, service dealers, and the general ecosystem, and this isn't funny. So I hope that we can catch up and actually make defensible, resilient, survival platforms out of this IoT, or else it'll be like asbestos. Looking back. So I have a personal note and professional note as Josh alluded to in a resource conservation angle that personally I would love a autonomous car to drive me to work so I could think about FDA problems instead of driving through DC traffic problems. On a professional note, I think people have this concept that the FDA is technology adverse, and really that's not true at all. We welcome all sorts of technology. We do ask that you back up your claims such that we could substantiate safety and effectiveness, which is our edict at the FDA. But other than that I invite people to bring their innovative technologies into the center and especially leverage the presubmission process at the center which allows folks to come in and have a conversation about their innovative technologies. Great. So we've talked about some things that I think people would expect you to give answers on. And so I'd like to push you all to think about what are the unconventional cyber security risks that you think will emerge in the next five to 10 years? Not just the obvious ones, but can you think of any risks that go beyond what we might be thinking about today? Well, I'll mention one that's way out there. Biohacking and people actually engaging in truly innovative types of experimentation on their own bodies, extending what I just made, the point I just made about quantified self and human augmentation, that's going to be a huge issue. I see Joe Garo sitting in the audience who wrote the best book on this ever written called Radical Evolution, I guess 10, 11 years ago. And it's still very fresh. And it points out that increasingly with these technologies, people are going to want to use themselves as sort of the experimentation platform. And so a lot of IoT technologies that today are wearable are eventually going to be embeddable and ingestible. And as that continues to take hold, we're going to have all of these concerns about security, vulnerabilities, hacking, whatever else, start to take effect. We of course hear the pacemaker story again and again, but that's just the beginning of it. So the question is can we devise reasonably effective security practices or privacy practices so that those technologies can go into the body, and not just be worn on it? I'd like to say these are far out, but they're the adjacent possible and they're actually manifesting. So I think most of the people, when they think of hacking, medical devices or cars, they, this is a very dangerous assumption by the way. We presuppose a financially motivated criminal actor. And there are as many motivations to use hacking as there are in the human condition. So it might be ideological, it might be nation state, it might be ISIS types. Most of the government workshops I do, they're much more concerned about sub-nationals and ideological groups out of the Middle East than they are about, say China or Putin. So it's a very different motivational structure. And I think we assume that, yeah, you can hack that insulin pump and give a lethal dose without any authentication, but no one would do it, there's no money in it. So in the adjacent possible, we've talked a lot about ransomware for medical devices or to start your car with a Bitcoin. And I think what we were talking about is the adjacent possible has happened. There was a ransomware that took out an entire hospital in California. For several days, that's actual patient care, actual effect, actual denial of service for critical services and moving people from one place to another. And whether it was targeted or not, what we were joking at science fiction is materializing. We've said for a long, long time that no one would ever hack a power plant. And now we finally have a confirmed deliberate hacking of the Ukrainian power. So I think it's potentially dangerous to A, assume that motives will be financially motivated or rational and B, that these things are the distant future. I think they're happening in real time. So I can add something in the car space. I mean, we talk a lot or hear a lot about the idea of someone hacking into a vehicle and being able to take over electronic control of a vehicle. But what's really interesting if you take that and then put President Trump in the car, for example. And the ability to maybe do some sort of assassination attempt by having a car crash with somebody very sort of key and critical. And I know it's something law enforcement's very worried about, not only in terms of hackability, but just self-driving cars in general, the ability to put a bomb in a car and send it anywhere you wanna send it and have it go off. There's just a law enforcement aspect to this and a keeping important people safe element that I think gets lost sometimes in the conversation. This very scenario came up in Munich because if you have physical security and physically hardened cars, but they can be bricked, Katie talked about breaking a pacemaker earlier, you break a pacemaker, you break a person, probably the quote of the day. If you look at that for like the president's convoy, if you could disable the cars from getting away, if you could disable all the emergency response vehicles in an urban environment or in a city, no cops, no firemen, no ambulance. And there's a remote kill switch in many, many vehicles now for an otherwise legitimate purpose. So these types of things don't have to be taking control, they can simply be disrupting egress. I see a lot of talk about IoT and scare and worry from security on connected products and that's very true. But I love to eat, so I think about problems with my food and maybe, Seth, you can think about this too a little bit and you probably dealt a lot with it, but food safety, I'll put that out there. If you see the end to end nature of production from farm to fork, that whole nature, whether it's beverages or whether it's food of any sort, you look backwards and you start to see the smart agriculture industry coming online and automated the way that fertilizer and seeding is done and all this nature and the massive sets of tears that take to bring a raw ingredient and all the way to a production element and we're eating it at a restaurant. You see things coming up these days like agro-terrorism, things that are really focusing on cyber intrusions all the way back to the farm and you start to see those things come in your mind, it really starts to say, what's this embedded sensor technology and connectivity we're putting out there and it's not just the vehicle which is very scary but literally I could be ingesting something at a restaurant that has a known substance that's gonna kill me or put me into a very bad state. So putting those things into perspective really, I think, make it show you how much of a societal impact this can have. Fantastic. So I think that one of the things I hear here is you have what's essentially aggregate risk when you have a system of systems or IoT that you have essentially introducing complexity, you introduce multiple failure points. From the FDA perspective, we want folks to be able to manage that risk even as it emerges and I think they're, and in our recent policy decisions, our policy that we put forth on cybersecurity, we've tried to leverage that flexibility and allow folks to account for emerging risks whether it's in a single system or in a system of systems. Great.  So I'd like to ask the panel, what should be the constraints, if any, on innovation in this world? Now Adam, I know you've written about this in your book so I wonder if you could give us the brief synopsis of the thesis and then I'd love to see whether the panel agrees or disagrees. Sure. Well Betsy, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, each and every new sort of disruptive emerging technology has a different set of privacy, safety and security concerns associated with it. But from a public policy perspective, the question is, do we make those concerns become policy defaults? Do we have a policy default of either innovation allowed or innovation prohibited? And you might think that this is a contrast between sort of precautionary principle thinking versus permissionless innovation as some of the internet space have called it. With regards to the internet, we made a very conscious choice as a country 20 years ago when the Clinton administration came out with a framework for global electronic commerce that basically took what is definitely a permissionless innovation approach to the internet writ large and said that generally speaking, we will base our negotiations on voluntary social norms, social interactions, contractual negotiations, multi-stakeholder processes and our innovation policy default will be innovation allowed or permissionless innovation. We'll deal with problems after the fact, exposed as they come up. And I think there's really good evidence, real world evidence that says that's had a lot of benefits for humanity. It doesn't mean we haven't had problems. We have had security, safety and privacy problems because of a permissionless innovation environment. But we try to deal with those problems after the fact by coming up with constructive solutions to complex real world problems. Will that be the same policy we have for IoT, for wearable tech, for everything else we've talked about here today? And I would hope it would be. I would hope that there is a good case to be made that we shouldn't base public policy on hypothetical worst case scenarios because when you do, it means best case scenarios ultimately don't come about. So, panelists agree, disagree, partially agree? I mean, I think, I agree, I agree, absolutely agree. I think though that one of the challenges we have with the IoT is there's so many different sectors that make up this emerging ecosystem and there are some of those that are very heavily, traditionally very heavily regulated industries speaking from experience and FDA as well and medical device front, which just has a whole different approach than some of the other sectors that make up the IoT ecosystem. And I think that's a tension that exists right now. I think we're seeing it play out sort of in real time and it's gonna be very interesting how it shakes out whether you have sort of a permissionless innovation approach for some IoT sectors, home automation. I mean, I'm trying to fit in it. No, I guess fitness gets a little bit into the FDA. And then a different approach, a more heavy-handed approach on the vehicle space and the medical device space and then you have these sectors sort of developing at different speeds and innovation occurring more rapidly in some and not others and it doesn't sort of all come together as one pretty package at the end. Other thoughts? I look at it a little bit. We're all working towards this vision idea and IoT when you start to see everything's talking and they're connecting into perfectly seamless. We know it's not the reality right now. That's kind of the vision state right now. But then when you take and look at more of the commerce model right now and you try to look at what businesses are doing and creating their own silos, Apple's the perfect view, right? It's the closed ecosystem, the way to control it all harness. There's beauty in power and performance and making things come to life through that. But if you want it all to connect when you go down the street and the vehicle moves and it's talking to the building and it's all sinking until you get to something that's open and a common architecture that people adhere to, I can't see it getting too great with innovation right now. The innovation is gonna be limited into sectors where you're gonna have in the building, we're gonna be all connected but we step on the street but maybe there's a whole new set of product makers and manufacturers and owners and operators of that whole infrastructure piece. So I really look and think about more and more of the open architecture of this. There's groups out there like the Open Connectivity Foundation that are working to do this to unify manufacturers from different sectors but until you can break down those walls I can't really see that it's gonna come to life in a way that people are really hoping it will in the next few years. I think, again I'd like to emphasize that the FDA is taking a reasonable approach and a flexible approach and that we have to realize that the Center for Devices and Radiological Health we have an array of risk profiles. You have scales, weight scales which present a risk profile and you have pacemakers which present a completely different risk profile and those each need a different and appropriate regulatory approach. So when you talk about stifling innovation or bringing a device in and saying, oh the FDA is stodgy, we have a certain mandate to the people, safety and effectiveness that has to be taken very seriously especially when you have devices with a sufficient risk profile. We do have policy movements within the Center that are focusing on say general wellness like we talked about fitness type applications that say hey, in certain situations we understand that this is a low risk and emphasizing our points that is a risk-based decision. I carry a cognitive dissonance on this. I think there's no political party for the hacker community but in general if you squint it looks fairly libertarian-esque. On the one hand, I'm one of the guys who call the payment card industry data security standard, the PCI DSS standard for credit cards, the no child left behind act for information security, highly prescriptive, very expensive, highly ineffective, made it really hard for people doing good risk management to continue doing so. It sucked all the oxygen and budget. On the other hand, the idea of come as you are, do as you please for things that affect where bits and bytes meet flesh and blood or my family can be hurt, I think commands a different level of care. If we were to do this permissionless innovation in commercial restaurants we wouldn't have minimum kitchen and safety codes. If we were to do this in automobiles we wouldn't have seat belts. So in meat space, if you take the technology out of it we do have some sort of public safety and public good where we wanna guarantee certain assurances and people can innovate on top of that and does that keep certain players out of the market? Yes. Are we overall as a social contract okay with that? Also yes. So I'd like to point out two tiny things that the architects of the internet are now saying we never really designed security in and it's gonna be impossible to design security in after the fact. And now they're starting to see that permissionless is not easy to undo when failures are too high. Second thing I'll point out is we spend about $80 billion a year mostly on credit card and financial security and nearly every single merchants have been breached. So even when they're doing everything right which cars and medical devices aren't yet the failure rate is incredibly high.  So I do think on that continuum it's gonna be north of come as you are do as you please but hopefully not as prescriptive and brittle as PCI. And I was at one point and I should have mentioned it when I was making my comments. I do think I can speak from personal experience at least at Toyota and I think this applies to more companies than just Toyota but I do think that we as car companies are actually self censoring ourselves a bit on some of the technology in light of some of these concerns about how it's gonna be dealt with in a regulatory space. So I note that I do think there are certainly cases at Toyota where we haven't gone forward with something for fear of how it will be perceived or dealt with by the regulator. I think the happy go between here we can see in both the automotive space and the FDA spaces the rise of sort of voluntary best practices codes of conduct and various multi-stakeholder processes. The FDA has been doing this on mobile medical applications. The automotive industry has been doing this on privacy best practices for connected vehicles. And increasingly because we realize that the pace of technological innovation is always gonna outstrip the pace of legislation regulation. We have to come up with some sort of in-between measures. And I think that's exactly what's happening. All of the mobile medical have questions that the FDA has already considered and come out with sort of best practices for. And I know this is going on right now with 3D printing and another context. But this is what's gonna have to happen for the IoT. There's just no way we could like if even if we wanted to design this from above and say right now here are the IoT security practices that will legislate into within 18 months to two years because of the pace of Moore's law they'd evaporate. They would just be gone. They would be meaningless. So you have to have that sort of security is an iterative process, right? It's one that you have to sort of make up a lot of it as you go along in an organic bottom-up fashion through a collaborative multi-stakeholder process. So going back to what Josh said, I'm not sure if maybe many of the founders of the internet say, whoa, if we would have baked in security from the start. What does that mean? Well, I think the intermediate, which I think triggers into where likely to go next is so we published two major multi-stakeholder frameworks. One was the five-star automotive cyber safety framework and one is the Hippocratic Oath for Connected Medical Devices. And both of them, essentially, if you squint, they use a lot of technical language. It says all systems fail. So here's five things you need to do to handle failure. Tell your customers how you avoid failure. Tell third-party researchers you'll take help avoiding failure without suing them. Tell us how you'll capture, study, and learn from failure. Tell us how you have a prompt and agile secure update to respond to failure. And tell us how you'll contain and isolate failure. Now, again, there's much more beautiful language around them and lots of maturity details beneath the surface. But our essential offering to FTC, FDA, NITSA was, instead of regulating, you have to have a firewall or antivirus in your car, if people can articulate to the free market how they're responding to those failure conditions, then rational actors can make a rationally informed decision about which car company deserves their business. So that's not meant to be a regulatory, but it's also come off in the regulatory environment and that the FDA's taken to heart much of what we just described. So I do want to leave a little time for audience questions, but before I do that, I've noticed that we've talked a little bit about safety, a little bit about security, and a little bit about privacy. And I'm wondering how the panelists see those terms to be related to each other. In the cyber software world, we tend to use security as the primary term. In automobile industry and medical devices, I think safety is probably more common and then there's an entire industry, non-profits, et cetera, built up around privacy, and that's probably the term most familiar to the public. So my question is, is this just nomenclature? Are these concepts all actually overlapping or are there actual substantive differences between them and your spaces? I'll give that a whirl to kick us off here. So I think a lot of that has to do with where you set security if you'll go back to the fundamentals of CIA, confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Based on where you sit, the type of organization you are, or the type of consumer you are, those things have a different rank order for you and what you care about the most. A lot of individuals and citizens care about confidentiality of data. That's the number one, the others fall down. I spend a lot of time on the manufacturing floor with a lot of organizations helping them deal with security in a very connected, smart factory environment. And you look at things like that and the first thing that's always come into mind is safety. You have numbers that track how many deaths happen every year on a factory floor and anything that can trigger that comes to life as number one. So we look at security issues and walk that dog and you start to see what threads can amount to a security threat taking advantage of some sort of vulnerability exposure leading to an incident where someone, there's a casualty of some sort. That can then extend itself to bad products, bad processes, goes out the door and then the people that consume the products, whatever those products might be, might also be at risk. So I think a lot of it has to do with where you sit. I'm sure there's different stories along that line. So certainly at the FDA, our regulatory purview would probably be couched directly in availability and integrity. Privacy is outside our purview with the Office of Civil Rights. However, I would say that if I'm a reviewer a medical device reviewer is sitting at my desk and I'm looking at your risk analysis that medical device manufacturers submit and I was going to sample only your evaluation of confidentiality risks, if you did not perform that or I thought it was substandard, I'd venture to guess that your safety profile or integrity and availability risk analysis was also suspect. So I would say that they're inextricably linked and good practices will extend across the CIA or the triad. We got burned pretty badly. We wasted nine months trying to work with both auto and medical by using the same words with very different definitions. So on the one hand, when we would say safety, to we meant where can a CIA attack, a confidentiality, a integrity and availability affect life and limb? And when they heard security, 99.9% they thought confidentiality or privacy of healthcare data or we're not gonna sell the user driver data to advertisers. So on the one hand, security equals privacy to these highly regulated physical industries. On the other hand, when we said safety, they said, oh, we've been doing physics and safety engineering for over 100 years, we've got that covered. But this nice juicy thing in the middle, now we're now calling cyber safety for lack of a better term is completely ignored for the first nine months we were talking to them and we were just talking past each other. So I think the primary reason for this we got to at least with the FDA is a scalpel is safe if it can be used properly by the intended user. So it's validation of intended use. And most hacking is deliberate misuse abuse. It's the kind of things that lay outside of an intended use scenario. So if you truncate misuse or abuse, you truncate all hacking. So we've been trying to show that there's this really dangerous thing in between that can affect patient care or confidence in the public that isn't privacy, isn't safety, it's somewhere in between. And that's where I think some really good clarifications in the post-market guidance from the FDA this January. In fact, we actually had large manufacturers say we can't do threat modeling, we can't talk about adversaries because it would screw up our filings to the FDA. And the last thing I'll say is which upsets some of the privacy people is we make a joke that we love our privacy but we wanna be alive to enjoy it. So if you simply designed for privacy you might encrypt the data. If you designed for all problems and all threat models you'll harden the interfaces, have fewer of them and solve for both. I've been actually told that we need to move on to Q&A if we want time but maybe we can come back to this. Do we have any questions from the audience? With regards to the earlier discussion on non-traditional threats, how do you see the threats emerging for augmented reality and virtual reality as opposed to strictly bubble? Well, I'm writing a law review article on that right now. So, You can field it. It was a plan. I think there are some related concerns privacy security-wise with regards to the AR, VR environment that we're experiencing already and other environments including IOT but of course there are others that are somewhat different. There's a question of distraction, addiction, other types of concerns about VR, AR environment but there's gonna also be privacy concerns. I think what relates AR, VR to the IOT space is privacy nexus in terms of all the kinds of information that we'll be able to be collected through heads up displays or wearable type devices about our surroundings and other people around us and it raises this really tricky issue of consent in the information age because everywhere I go, I'm gonna be able to be consuming information or gathering information about other people in most cases with other consent and we've been through this to some extent in the old days with photography but now we're filming and sensing and everything in real time all the time and these technologies we're gonna raise those issues in a really profound way. Other questions from the audience? Over here, there's one there. The mic's right there, oh my great, wherever the mic is. Yes, so last week there was a hearing in the Senate on agency capture and I'm very interested in this because I was quite surprised the way the FAA ended up regulating drones which I think could be weaponized, et cetera and I was quite scared particularly when I saw my nephew use his drone in a park but I'm wondering what the implications are for IoT and what the role of corporations are gonna be with respect to lobbying Congress, lobbying agencies and whether this is gonna lead to an unbelievable amount of litigation. I didn't catch the last part, the litigation. Litigation, so any thoughts for Kenny? I mean speaking technologically, agnostic-ly, my viewpoint working at the FDA is that I wanna see that manufacturers have a repeatable process so that they know how to assess risk and they know how to assess emerging risk using upcoming or additional information. So in terms of litigation that's definitely outside of my purview at the FDA. However, I think that as long as we can establish that manufacturers are attempting a reasonably mitigation of risk then I would be okay with that. For example, we have the quality system regulations which allow manufacturers to intake information and change the process in response to outside information and what we're looking for is a reasonable approach for mitigation of risk. So as far as a larger, answer your question at large, I'm not sure. I can weigh in. I think when it comes to, we're starting to see in some states and some discussion at the federal level in terms of regulation of autonomous driving, of self-driving vehicles. And what we're seeing at least in places like California which are really leading the charge right now in this space are requirements that a tremendous amount of data from these cars be provided to them as part of their regulatory role. And I think it is raising a lot of concerns for us as manufacturers because some of the data that they're requiring that we share with them crosses into a space that may make your average consumer a little uncomfortable, right? Driver behavior information and things like that that we hear consistently is a space that consumers are not interested in that data being made available widely. And so I think we're struggling with that right now in the automated space and the regulators are certainly coming down on share a lot with us and the manufacturers are trying to figure out what the right balance is and I don't know that we know that yet. Other question? It's a question from Twitter from at Chris Bishop and he wonders if there should be a difference between the internet of things and the web of things. Internet of things versus the web of things. What do you think? There's a lot of different definitions out there these days for IOT, internet of everything, IOT, you know, thing of verse, things of internet. Things of internet, yeah. Yeah, let's not get too wrapped up in, I hope we don't get too wrapped up in branding this thing, this phenomenon. Because I don't necessarily think it makes a big difference. I just don't think it's worth wearing too much about. I do think lumping everything together has been okay to a point. I think Katie was the first one to tell me pretty soon there'll just be things, right? We won't even call it internet of things, it's just things. But there are tiers, right? There's a kind that can affect you in any negative way. There's kinds that can affect your privacy. There's a kind that can affect your privacy and your safety. There's the industrial internet of things. So we probably need to start differentiating what types of things we're describing because the consequences of failure will vary significantly. And I'd like to just say that we're kind of at a point where we can do pretty much anything we want with technology and software. It's infinitely malleable, even if it's the Apple FBI debate. I don't think we're in the stage of what can we do. I think we haven't yet brought in the philosophers and the sociologists to kind of say, what do we want from the tech? We're mostly reacting to the tech we create as opposed to making it a slave to what we want. So if there has to be a persistent ability to do certain lawful search and seizure, we've kind of lost that already. If we want it back, you kind of have to make policy discussions on that versus the headline. If you don't want to put software and connectivity on everything in your life, no one's forcing you to. So I don't think we're yet asking where we want to embrace technology and connectivity. We're just kind of doing it everywhere. And so that echoes an earlier point that was made in one of the earlier sessions about diversifying the workforce and cybersecurity. So plus one for that. So we only have a few minutes left, I'm sorry. So I'm gonna ask one final question to all of the panelists. I'd ask you to imagine, which I don't think is a stretch for this group, that you're gonna be asked by the incoming administration president, whoever it is, the following question. It's a major goal of ours to maximize the value and competitiveness advantages of IoT over the next four years and to minimize the most troubling risks. What is the one piece of legislation or regulation that we simply must put into place in our first 100 days? I'll start and I'd say that's the mandating of sharing information between like organizations. Right now it's completely voluntary within ISACs and now you've got this information sharing organization construct. Very voluntary, very much just how much do you wanna do. People are very uncomfortable, very much like the CIA being able to give it anything to anyone else but mandating it and showing that there is a demonstrated flow just like responsible disclosure that when an event happens you have to communicate it to certain regulatory bodies but in this sense actually mandating and showing that you are participating in a group information sharing for the common good and making sure that everyone as the community is as well protected as possible and that benefits you as well. So we recently released a draft policy document for management of cybersecurity risk in a post-market sense and we thought a lot about what kind of do we need a new legislation to enact the types of protections that we want to see and the answer was categorically no I think that we don't need it new regulations in the FDA. We have plenty and safety as well-defined so we work within again the construct of the quality management system to manage the risk in a total product life cycle approach so I don't believe we need anything. There's one I wanna say but I'm not gonna- Oh please. You can't do that. I was asked this a couple years ago and my answer is similar. If you get a one sentence of legislation that would make technology safer it would be that anything connected to the internet or any basically IoT must be patchable in a secure way. So table stakes, you must be this tall to ride the internet of things is you have to have a secure update capability if all systems fail, you have to be able to respond to that. So patchability. As I've already noted I hope that the next administration follows the Clinton administration's vision for frameworks in terms of establishing if we need one a framework for IoT that follows what the Clinton administration did for e-commerce. If we need something more specific I'd like them to follow what Congress passed and President Clinton signed in a telecom act which was section 230 of that act which was an immunization provision basically immunized intermediaries from liability associated with third party acts. It became what some of us regard as the most essential and important part legal part of the internet success because if you would have deputized all intermediaries to solve all the problems in the world you would have stifled, chilled a whole host of innovation online. We need that same principle now for the makers world for the world of IoT for 3D printing for VRAR and everything in between. So the challenge is that there is an alphabet soup of federal agencies that are sort of involved in the internet of things right now. You've got DHS and FCC and FTC and NHTSA and FDA and it's getting a little unmanageable I think from in terms of the folks who are working in this space and so I would strongly urge some sort of mandated coordination across all the agencies, a clear lead identified to help shepherd this through. There's some legislation I think was introduced last week that's by Senator Fischer that sort of started a conversation about this kind of approach and I think that's what needs to get done. Well on that note I think there's a lot for the DC folks in this room to do. I'd like to thank all of our panelists. Thanks so much for participating and I'd like to let you know there's a break now for about 10 minutes.


Soldiers on J-Bear competed in order to obtain the Expert Infantry Badge, or EIB. The EIB is presented for completion of a course designed to demonstrate proficiency in basic infantry skills. The EIB is pretty difficult to obtain because it's a long course. It takes numerous hours to study for it, and not only that, but you have to understand each task in its entirety before you can move on to the next task. It's a pretty big deal for the infantry. Right now, we started out with about 75 candidates for my company, and we're down to below 20, so it's a pretty tough selection process. Right, 2-0-0, add 3,000. I'm an executive officer, so I'm not a platoon leader anymore, but it's still important for me to show soldiers in my company that I can come out and do the same thing that we expect them to do on a daily basis. Well, we had two weeks of train up, but prior to that, we would train in any downtime we had. It's a pretty big deal, especially for someone like me, I'm non-deployed. I don't have a CIB right now, so it's a pretty big deal for me.  Of the 700 soldiers who competed in the course, only 136 had what it took to receive their EIB badge. This badge will help set them apart from their fellow soldiers and may help lead to promotion later down the road. Senior Airman Sarah Tracty, joint base Elmendorf Richardson, Alaska.


Do you have an empty channels tab in your YouTube channel that looks like this many of you do? And that's bad. This video will show you how to add your friends, your collaborators to your channels tab because collaboration is the fastest way to grow on YouTube and cross promoting your channels. You put your friends, they put you in their channels tab is a great way to get more views. Here's how you do it. Go to YouTube Studio, click Customize Channel or YouTube Studio here. Then go to Customization and in the featured section, this is a bit hidden. You have to click Add Section and I'll move myself. Then you have to choose featured channels at the bottom here. That's where you go to put in your friends and featured channels. Let me show you. Let's just call it featured channels and let's put freedom as a featured channel. There we go, done.  We are still waiting for YouTube to update its cache. I am refreshing as we go. Now we see our first channel as a collaborator for freedom and if I click it, it goes to the Freedom channel. You'll see I also added the MGM channel right back so I can click this link, MGM Brazil and it takes me to the same channel. That is how you help collaborate with others, exchange your channel links in the Channels tab to grow faster. Does this tip help you? Did you have an empty channels tab and now you don't? Tell me down there in the comments below. Send us links to your channels. We'd love to see them and help each other grow together as a family because that is the spirit of freedom. Now Papa George is looking a bit like Santa Claus with this very long beard, time to get a shave. Let's shave right now, live on this video. All right, here we go. Shaving begins now. Okay, how does that look? Pretty good, shake and shave. I think so. All right, Freedom family. I hope you enjoyed this video. You might be wondering in the title screen what is this little heartbeat here? This is our new project, Heartbeat in 2023. You can click that eye to see this video right here, Heartbeat in 2023. That'll explain the goals of the project but the short version is we wanna create short form content from long form content and connect paragraphs of text and wikis and blogs with those clips, that short form content. We wanna create, okay, YouTube is the world's video library. Heartbeat is the world's memories. And by memories I mean the moments that matter to you. Those are the clips, the short form content from long form videos and we wanna connect them to paragraphs when you're reading something you can just see the paragraph you're reading from the related clips. Click that video. Oh, I'm hitting my microphone. Click that video to learn more and I'll be making more videos about Heartbeat and how it can help you grow because it's a platform we are building as freedom, freedom that will be in addition to YouTube a new revenue stream helping you make money from Google searches as well as video clips so that you can grow faster on YouTube and I'll tell you all about that in future videos. And until then, check out our prototype. It's right here, vi.ki, short for video wiki and I added a new video, Wonder Woman, Bank Scene in 4K showing you clips of my favorite moments. Check that out if you're interested and of course we have Tom Cruise and his biggest stunt in cinema history as a Viki article. We have Elon Musk, we have what is happiness? This is actually one of my favorite clips of all time because it explains why you shouldn't want to be happy. Your goal should not be to be happy and yeah, it's explained very well in that video. Hope you like it and until the next episode, I am George Papa George, George Sunpai, many other names you the beautiful freedom family has given me. I am the CEO and founder of freedom for freedom and the freedom family where we all help each other grow together as a family. We just celebrated our ninth year in business freedom family, nine years of growing together. Next year, it'll be the 10th. That'll be a big celebration, a decade of freedom. Actually, I think that's what we're gonna call it. A decade of freedom, I like it. Yeah, I love coming up with marketing ideas or taglines live on the show, The George Show. I kind of gave it away there. So I am George and you've been watching. Who you dreaming but love, yeah. Click that I to partner with freedom and join the freedom family so we can all grow together. You get many perks like position music, you also get epidemic sound, a lot of other access to royalty free videos, sponsorships and many things to help you grow. Just click the links down there in the description below to get involved in our community, our forums, our Discord chat servers, meet our graphics team, meet our community team, all of that on Discord and the forums. What are you waiting for? Get started. And we will grow together as a family because this is the freedom family. You are part of it, we are all part of it and we're all growing together. To get more George, click that big F that will subscribe you to Freedom Central, home of the George show. And PewDiePie gave one of you Freedom Family a big shout out. Click that video to see the shout out and to see our new 3D sets for you and click that video to see what YouTube recommends you watch next.


Let's go see what's on the menu today. There's a ton of different options at the Commons, so let's explore. So the first section on the right is their pizza section. This is available from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. every single day. Then they have their barbecue section, which is beans, different types of meats, hot dogs, burgers, fries, and any toppings you would like. Off the corner of that is their soup section, which they have chili, chicken noodle soup every single day, and their classic section. This has a bunch of foods. Today they have Thanksgiving themed. And then here is their salad bar. They have so many different greens, vegetables, toppings, dressings, anything you would like to make your salad your salad. And then they have their side section. And if you have any dietary restrictions or allergies, the Simple Zone is perfect for you. They have foods that are gluten free and dairy free. And then all the way in the back is their dessert section. They make these different every single day. And then they also have an ice cream bar, as well as my favorite, the sandwich bar.