Everybody forced here ripping two boxes of 22 23 impeccable soccer first off the line for Christian G our last two. Good luck, sir Appreciate you as always See what's inside? All right. Good luck Christian 25 every she as a Duralect to 65 gonna be Demari gray and 34 59. Jose saw more hits here. We got a Denny Zachariah auto number to 99 impeccable stars auto canvas creations auto to 59 on card David James Yeah, the Minnesota is good hammers another one here. You got Rio Ferdinand auto to 95 some legends for the hammers Rio Ferdinand Well next one's great next one's great David Beckham on card indelible ink for a 59 That is pretty Gratch Christian David Beckham one of the better midfielder's in Premier League history. It's gonna be David Raya to a four on the Troy ounce of fine silver David Raya on the silver bar Yeah, Peckable's fire All right One more here. Let's see me top the Beckham. See if we get a better bar. All right one of 18 Yuri Telemans Number 18 to 59 Marcus Rashford. That has like a lot like an indent on the left side of it here I'm gonna send a boxer rapper with you Chris that rash replaced if you wanted to That is an Edison Jersey to 65 dimension DeMauri Greg Strav against material autograph a Jed Spence rookie auto to 59 a Stainless stars auto les Ferdinand Ferdinand's in two boxes for five out of 25 and a Sam Greenwood canvas creations rookie auto to 59 Sam Greenwood Mark hard to close it out. It's try ounce of fine silver to a four Wilfred Zaha Wilfred Zaha for you Christian Thanks again for the order. We appreciate it. We'll get these out to you man


It was Albert Einstein who observed on the occasion of Mahatma Ji's 70th birthday that future generations will scarcely believe that such a man ever walked in flesh and blood upon this earth. Today we have observed the 70th anniversary of his assassination at the hands of a man whose mind was filled with rage and hatred. Then it was rightly said that few could have laid a greater claim to immortality than this true servant of humanity and champion of the downtrodden. As-Salaam-i-Hind ke Shahed-i-Shahedan As-Salaam was the title of a long elegy on the Mahatma written by the Urdu poet Josh Malia Badi. Allow me to cite a few of its cublets reflecting the rage and bitterness over the heinous act resulting in the loss of someone so near and dear to the masses. I'll translate it. Your martyrdom proves to the world that excess of goodness is impermissible. Qatilo mein qatle insani pe rona jurm hain. Tukh mein neki sar zameene dil mein boona jurm hain. Lamenting human killing in the midst of killers is a crime as is sowing of seeds of goodness is in the heart. Jaz bai khidmat se raton ko na sona jurm hain. Mujrimon ke darmiya masoom hona jurm hain. Losing a night's sleep for the passion of service is a crime as it is being innocent amongst killers. When the film Gandhi was shown to western audiences in 1982, hundreds of young people in distant lands were motivated to study modern Indian history. And yet today in our own land enough attention is not given to educate our children about the man and his teachings. Instead some even go so far as to be dismissive of him. So who was Gandhi? What did he do that made millions follow him? What was his role in the freedom movement? Why did he evoke adulation and respect nationally and globally? Why do some belittle his legacy? Asked about the India of his dreams, Gandhi ji said, I shall work for an India in which the poorest shall feel that it is their country in whose making they have an effective voice. He candidly admitted that he was not a saint and held that the golden rule of conduct is mutual toleration. Seeing that we will never think alike and we shall always see truth in fragments and from different vision. His practice was grounded in realism. He said outwardly we follow truth and non-violence but inwardly there is violence within us. We practiced hypocrisy and as a result we have to suffer the pain of mutual strife. In a biography published in the year 2011, Joseph Lelywelt had observed that in India today the term Gandhian is ultimately synonymous with social conscience. His examples of courage, persistence, identification with the poorest, striving for selflessness still has a power to inspire. Is this an isolated view of a foreign friend and admirer of all that Gandhi ji stood for? How true are we actually to the Bapu's legacy? Today let each one of us assess our commitment in practice to these principles. His last days were spent in preventing communal hatred and in devising a strategy against it. The challenge remains with us to this day because his teachings of humanness, toleration and inclusiveness has not been imbibed by us in sufficient measure. Friends, visitors to the Rajgad today, as in previous years, would have passed by a stone-drapped tablet with an inscription a little away from the Samadhi. It bears the title Seven Social Sins. Written in October 1925, the Mahatma considered them spiritually the most perilous for humanity. I have read the inscription often enough and consider it the gist of Gandhi ji's teachings. Allow me to share it with you. 1. Politics without principle. 2. Pleasure without conscience. 3. Wealth without work. 4. Knowledge without character. 5. Commerce without morality. 6. Science without humanity. 7. Worship without sacrifice. Each of these is a statement of principle that can be comprehended and implemented individually and collectively. There is in fact a pattern in the last words of each dictum. Principle, conscience, work, character, morality, humanity, sacrifice. When the first words of each principle are put together, they sum up different forms of human activity. In the Gabyan approach, therefore, conscience is motivated by considerations of humanity and sacrifice. To develop a moral character that holds aloft the banner of principled approach. Its reverse would be selfishness inducing an unprincipled opportunistic approach to work that would neither be just nor human. Preaching is one aspect of the matter. Practice is another. The greatness of Bhaapa Gandhi lay in the convergence of the two.  The manner in which he dealt with people and situations. The true source of rights, he said, is duty. And if we all discharge our duties, rights will not be far to seek. For us as citizens of this ancient land, assembled here to pay tribute to the greatest Indian of our times, the concept of duty is spelt out in article 51A of our constitution. It lists 11 fundamental duties. Each imparts a duty of importance on citizens. Some have generated lawsuits and case law in higher courts. Many are observed in tacit or express violation in ignorance or with impunity. Allow me to mention four of the latter that were particularly close to the Bapu's life and teachings. One, preserve harmony and brotherhood. Two, value and preserve heritage of composite culture. Three, protect and improve the environment. And four, develop scientific temper and spirit of reform. Each of these is obvious, even taken for granted. To comprehend them better, I would suggest that we look at their converse and contemplate the following. Promote disharmony and discord in society. D-value and abandon the ingredients of our composite culture. Do not protect the environment and allow prejudice and superstition to prevail. The same conjecture can be attempted for all other duties listed in the clause and with the same unparallel results. This validates Gandhiji's dictums. How true are we to this set of duties? An audit would be very much in order since every oath of high office in the republic, as per the third schedule of the constitution, commits the oath taker to bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution. In addition, the president and the governors also shoulder the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Democracy to Gandhiji was not a state in which people acted like sheep. Understand democracy, under democracy, individual liberty of opinion and action is jealously guarded. To Gandhiji, a government that is evil has no room for good men and women except in its prisons. A cursory glance on the national scene gives us answers that are disheartening. There is a perceptible decline in the level of harmony in society, with points of discord being manufactured in disregard to the age-old practices of toleration and accommodation. Furthermore, respect for traditions of composite culture seems to give way to imagined monoculture that is not reflective of the experience of many segments of our people. The same holds for protection of environment where disregard for rules and court injunctions in our own city has caused irreparable damage. And lastly, in an age of science, our patronage of superstition and disregard for scientific temper invites derision from the outside world where we propagate our scientific achievements. Would any of this receive Gandhiji's blessings? What is Gandhiji's relevance to our world of today and tomorrow nationally and internationally? This is a question that is often asked. Ours is an integrated world characterised by shrinking spaces, common threats and overlapping concerns. The common interest of humanity has to take precedence over sectional interests and this has to be reflected in our thought processes and behaviour. Thus, his message of fraternity and brotherhood, compassion and non-violence and preparing the human mind for them constitutes a trinity that cannot be segregated. Gandhiji subscribed to the ancient motto, education is that which liberates. Education, he said, must be of a new type for the sake of creating a new world. Adding that, by education, I mean an all-round drawing out of the best in the child and the man, body, mind and spirit. Literacy is not the end of education nor even the beginning. Craft, art, health and education should be integrated into one scheme. He called it Naidali. Such an approach to education aimed at training and opening up of the mind, induce it with compassion for fellow human beings would contribute to better citizenship nationally and globally. Gandhiji was the greatest exponent of non-violence in modern times. He rejected the notion that force yields only to force and held that the principle of eye for an eye would end up with the whole world going blind. He viewed it as an all-pervasive creed. And I quote him, I cannot be non-violent about one activity of mine and violent about others or that it can be practiced by individuals but never by nations which are composed of individuals. He made the idea a tool for social and political action and into a method for conflict resolution. The method of passive resistance, he said, is the clearest and the safest because if the cause is not true, it is only the resister and they alone who suffer. Righting in the origin on the 30th of December 1939, he observed that if India is to evolve along non-violent lines, it will have to decentralize many things since centralization cannot be sustained and defended without adequate force. The idea of non-violence developed a global following. It was invoked with much success in South Africa and in the United States and inspired movements and leaders in many other countries like the Philippines, Poland, Czechoslovakia. It has been used sporadically by the Palestinians against Israel in occupied territories and it was the theme of a 2009 award-winning and much-acclaimed documentary called Mudrus whose script included a statement from a soldier that nothing scares the army more than non-violent opposition. Gadigji was neither atoristic nor narrowly nationalistic. I do not subscribe, he said, to the superstition that everything is good because it is ancient and I do not believe either that anything is good because it is Indian. These words of Bapu have abiding relevance.  We do not seem to find a way out of the labyrinth. Can the Mahatma's teachings help? That is the question. To my mind it can. Experience shows that resort to force and violence do not solve problems and that eventually adversaries resort to negotiations and accommodation. The Charter of the United Nations advocates the practice of tolerance and good-neighborliness for harmonizing actions of nations. Thus both national duties of citizens and international obligations of countries converge in advocating harmony and fraternity. It is another matter that often enough both fail. Yet neither is wicked enough to disown the principle or abandon the pursuit of walking towards a receding horizon. Herein lies the hope for humanity. Herein stands the relevance of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Jai Hind.


Some of the non-physical or the psychological things that may happen is you become more intuitive. You have lucid dreams which means your dreams are more clear. You may even be able to control your dreams and control what happens in the dream that's called lucid dreaming. You'll be able to have these hunches. You'll have these intuitions or these gut feelings about things and then guess what? They happen or they occur or you may have these coincidences that happen to you.  If you want some certain thing to happen, those things may be able to happen for you a lot more faster.


Oh, that was a lot louder than I expected. Hi, everyone. My name is Christian Medina Ramirez. Thank you for having me here at TicTac. And I'm going to use this time to talk about a research project we undertook at Open North, the organization I work for, on our online participatory budgeting platform. And before I dive into that, I'll talk a little bit about ourselves. As I mentioned, we're a Montreal-based organization. We are guided by doing applied research, a lot of multi-stakeholder engagement partnerships. And we try to boost the effectiveness of the community and social movements and initiatives. And I know it's a little rude to talk about ourselves. But one of the purposes of this presentation is pushing the idea that we are civic technology, open data people that are going into the participatory budgeting space. And that's something that's not happening enough, and in my humble opinion. That's some of the people who we work with, if one of you is here. Thank you for working with us. All right, so we can dive into the presentation. In this 20 minutes or so, I will demonstrate how our light approach to participatory budgeting has had actual impact on the Canadian context and impact, as we've learned over the past two days, is a very loaded word. So I'm going to begin by discussing our approach to measure and impact, which might be a little different from what we traditionally see in the participatory budgeting field. I will also, given our definition of impact, try to situate this within the larger civic technology and impact literature. And then I'll talk about the exercise, some of the results we had. And then I'll keep pushing some of our research agenda on all of you. So again, so what was the motivation for research? So we found that we were sitting on five years of fairly consistent data on participatory budgeting. It was a longitudinal, relatively large, and study. And this don't tend to exist very much in participatory budgeting. The way the field developed was very suddenly and pushed by a variety of different actors. And it sort of developed independent of each other, which is very, very different from the civic technology and open data movements, which have more centralized events. So participatory budgeting became widely popular really fast, but we never really understood what impact it was having. And this, again, reminds me of a lot of the conversations we've been having this past couple of days in the unexpected results of some of the work we have undertaken. And we're also thinking of starting to bring this tool abroad. Citizen budget, our tool, became widely popular in Canada, somewhat unexpectedly. It is used now by over 100 cities, and it's been used close to 150 times, all across Canada and a few in the states and France as well. So what does our tool look like? It looks something like this. We use real physical data provided to us by the municipalities. We work very closely with the bureaucrat on the data. And then we adapt this data so that citizens can easily understand it and use it and play around with it. One of the main purposes of the tool is educational, showing citizens the drawbacks and the advantages of choosing different services and of shifting the city budget. And in this way, hopefully, lead to better communications and better understanding of government functions. So when we already took this research, we wanted to ask, what do we mean by impact? Is it just brute measures, such as number of instances of participation or web visits or bounce rates, things we've observed being tracked in other civic technology tools? We also wonder if we should pin impact on policy outcome, that's a citizen's particular preference or feedback lead to a particular policy outcome. And we also wonder if it was citizen perceptions of government. And I'm going to put a little asterisk on that because measuring trust and trusting government, it's quite tricky. And as is very often the case in this kind of research, we found that it was a combination of all this. So we came up with this, well, we didn't came up with, but we found this framework in the literature that we found could be really useful for tracking this impact. And we were trying to move beyond our traditional understanding of what technology tools should look and what we should track. So again, we came with this dichotomy of tangible and intangible impacts. And intangible is a bit of a misnomer because these are very trackable. So under tangible, and I'll give some examples from our research on what this mean, we have very physical things, reports, policies, policy decisions. And intangible are more the bread and butter of our field, participant empowerment, increased trust, and all these very buzzwordy words we sometimes are guilty of using. Okay, so what did this sort of impact, what were we exactly looking for in our 90 plus cities database? Well, it's things like Councilor Linda Boosie in the city of Yellowknife in the Canadian North using a citizen budget report and report to justify one of her votes in front of council. Or it was the deputy major of Morenville, a small town in Alberta, deciding to, under a unanimous motion, defer a vote on the public city library because after consulting with citizens, they found that citizens did not want the library to be defunded. Or finally, the town of Perry Sound, which is a small rural community of 5,000 people in Ontario, my home province sort of, where they decided to integrate participatory budgeting schemes into their overall budgetary processes. So every year before doing the budget, they decided to ingrain budgetary engagement as part of that. And if we go back to our little outcomes form, we see evidence of policy decisions of policies. Maybe the policy wasn't implemented by the fact that they deferred that decision points to new processes and new institutions. On the intangible side, we had this very nice quote from Robert Nicolay, which is a city manager in Grand Perry, another small city in northern Alberta. And he mentioned how he found that after implementing citizen budget, this online participatory budgeting tool for several years, he found that his citizens were far more receptive and that they were already used to participating in this kind of engagement, that they were contributing very helpful feedback to him that might have not been there present if they had not implemented this sort of tool or this engagement mechanism. And again, these points to all these things that we always look for, participant empowerment, improvements of understanding of government and willingness to participate in the future. And again, I'll take a little bit of a time discussing impact because in the participatory budgeting field and perhaps in the wider inclusive technology field, we had this high expectation at the beginning that we found the panacea that was gonna solve all our democratic problems, that we were gonna finally evolve into this sort of Aristotelian democratic society, that we would reach this perfect democracy. But after 30 years of participatory budgeting in particular, we found that that wasn't the case. And some of the participatory budgeting pioneers, such as Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte in Brazil, were starting to become very disillusioned with the idea of participatory budgeting. And I'm not here to say that participatory budgeting has had no impact. What I want to say is that it's had impact we weren't tracking and that perhaps as a community, we should start tracking these forms of impact instead of focusing on policy outcomes or on participation levels. And so to further advance this point, we used our large quantitative data set to test a couple of other long held beliefs in the field. So does previous democratic culture affect people uptake in participatory budgeting or online schemes. And it was very interesting, the last presentation in Paraguay, seeing how people were really encouraged in the context to participate, even though they didn't expect their feedback to be heard. And it's very telling of the place where the Paraguayan democracy is compared to other types of democracies. And the second thing we tested is does low participation lead to cities, which was our main measure of analysis, halting use of participatory budgeting tools or online tools. And we found that neither of this was the case that despite having different democratic cultures or democratic healths, and here I want to end the interest of transparency. I want to say that we used levels like previous levels of voting in each city as a proxy for measuring democratic health. And we did this because that's the one consistent measure across cities that we can compare. So one vote once one person, and it doesn't vary that much from city to city. So we figured this could be a good proxy measure. Anyways, we found that there was no real correlation between how healthy a city's democracy was compared to whether they decided to participate a lot or not on our exercise. And we also tracked cities that have done this for four or five years to see if changes in the participation rates led to them not having the same source of impact that I was discussing earlier in the qualitative portion of the exercise. And we found that no, this wasn't the case either. Cities still found, despite having not necessarily high participation numbers or despite having different spikes in participation numbers that they kept participating and they kept getting some of the wonderful benefits of social learning that we observed. So this is all super encouraging for us. So after finding this, and after keep going with the research, we wanted to go a little farther with what we can do with these data sets. And we wanted to go a little bit farther with the participatory budgeting field. So we started asking how can we use this information, this massive amounts of information we capture in this participatory budgeting tools and in this engagement tools we use online with open data, how we can link them so that others outside our tool and outside our community can use them. And then since trust is so hard to measure, we still wanna find out how should we go about measuring trust. So we started collaborating with the Privy Council Office in Canada, which is the office in charge of collating all the ministry information for the Prime Minister to check and to be able to make informed decisions. And we decided to collaborate with them so that in every chance they get to consult and feedback for citizens, that they can actually use that feedback in data-driven solutions and transforming a lot of that qualitative feedback into usable data. And also to advise them in this feedback so that in gathering this feedback so that they themselves could use this feedback to transform it into a qualitative, quantitative, into quantitative information. And then for trust is something we started recently. And how do we measure trust in government? And we found that it's really tricky because perceptions of trust are tied to understandings and misunderstandings of government roles. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that only 19% of Americans trusted their government. However, when asked about specific services that the government provided, most of them agreed that government was doing a really good job and except for one, which was in immigration and no, this was before Donald Trump and the Mexican wall became a thing. So the point with this slide and with this point is that that pinning impact of our tools on trust is not necessarily the best measure because government trust is shaped by cultural attitudes and it's shaped by too many different actors such as the media, misinformation. Well, you were at a morning on Twitter and you saw an angry post by Donald Trump. And on that note too, there was a research by a marketing firm that showed that the most trusted institutions in different countries were the Chinese Communist Party and Vladimir Putin, two very anti-democratic entities. Pinning the health of our democracies and the impact of our tools on perceptions of trust might not be the best idea. Again, we saw other things in citizen budget that speak to the wider civic technology literature. There's institutionalization of the tools. The tools survive changes in government and changes in staff. It's slow tech and it doesn't require a lot of expertise which is important for designing these kind of tools and it's easy to implement for the citizens. So it's not and for the city employee as it's not as hard to grasp with the technology. And there's city official buying, there's a co-creation process if you will between us and the bureaucrat. The bureaucrat provides us the data, the bureaucrat decides the side itself and we're there more as a support. And this really leads to, I work a lot with these people and talk with a lot of municipal leaders and this really leads them to be very invested in the tool. And so what are some counter arguments on this presentation that I've given on our approach that it's a top heavy approach of participatory budgeting is traditionally viewed as a bottom up approach or it was at its start. So that's a fair criticism. It is a top heavy approach and has developed into a top heavy approach but we just need to look out for some of the dangers that involve this top heavy approach such as the process being hijacked by political interests or the power dynamics of government simply missing a portion of the population under feedback and this can be mitigated by collaborating with civil society, we hope. And will it translate to other context? Well, we don't know. There's some interesting work coming out of Kenya since they passed some legislation to make participatory budgeting and online consultation with citizens mandatory in budgetary processing and budgetary decision making. So it will be very interesting to see what comes out of Kenya and if there's any possibilities to compare with Canada. And are we cherry picking impact? Are we just looking for things that look like impact where there aren't any? Are we just adapting our definition of impact so we can pat ourselves in the back and say we did a good job? And that's a fair criticism and we did control for a lot of variables and we double blinded the study but that being said, the point of the presentation is not to say that other forms of impact such as tracking instances of participation or border perceptions are completely nullifiable. It's the point to say that there's way more other forms of impact that we should be tracking and by tracking these forms of impact we can come to better understand the effect that our tools are having and give us ourselves a little breathing room. And on that note, I would like to thank you for paying attention to me. Have a good day. So contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Christian.


Hello and welcome to the session. I am Deepika here. Let's discuss the question which sees. A toy is in the form of a cone mounted on a hemisphere of common base radius 7 cm. The total height of the toy is 31 cm. Find the total surface area of the toy. Use pi is equal to 22 over 7. Now we know that the curved surface area of cone is equal to pi rn where r is the radius and l is the slant height which is given by under root of r square plus h square and here h is the height of the cone. Again, curved surface area of hemisphere is equal to 2 pi r square where r is the radius of hemisphere. So this is the key idea behind our question. We will take the help of this key idea to solve the above question. So let's start the solution. According to the given question, a toy is in the form of a cone mounted on a hemisphere of common base radius 7 cm. The total height of the toy is 31 cm. We have to find the total surface area of the toy. So let a, b, c, b, a cone mounted on a hemisphere of common base radius 7 cm. So according to our key idea, the curved surface area of hemisphere is equal to 2 into 22 over 7 because here we are given use pi is equal to 22 over 7 into r square. Now here r is 7 cm. So the curved surface area of hemisphere is equal to 2 into 22 over 7 into 7 into 7 cm square. Now since the total height of the toy is 31 cm, therefore the height of the conical portion is equal to 31 minus 7 cm and this is equal to 24 cm. So this height that is a o is 24 cm. Now we will find out the slant height of the cone. Now according to our key idea, the slant height of the cone which is given by L is equal to under root of r square plus h square and this is equal to under root of 7 square plus 24 square cm and this is again equal to under root of 49 plus 576 cm and this is again equal to under root of 625 cm which is equal to 25 cm. Hence the curved surface area of cone is equal to pi RL which is again equal to 22 over 7 into 7 into 25 cm square. Now the total surface area the toy is equal to curved surface area of the hemisphere plus the curved surface area of cone. Now the curved surface area of hemisphere is equal to 2 into 22 over 7 into 7 into 7 cm square and curved surface area of cone is equal to 22 over 7 into 7 into 25 cm square. So on substituting these values we have the total surface area of the toy is equal to 2 into 22 over 7 into 7 into 7 plus 22 over 7 into 7 into 25 cm square and this is again equal to 22 over 7 into 7 into 14 plus 25 cm square and this is again equal to 22 into 39 cm square and this is equal to 858 cm square. Hence the total surface area of the toy which is in the form of a cone mounted on a hemisphere is equal to 858 cm square. So this is the answer for the above question. This completes our session. I hope the solution is clear to you. Bye and have a nice day.


All right, so hi, everyone. I'm Jonathan Balkand here from Princeton University, and I'm representing my research group, which is led by Professor David Wentzlap. I'm going to be talking about our OpenPTOM plus Ariane platform, and how we run that on Amazon F1 and make it available for you to use for software or firmware development in the Cloud, without needing risk-fied development boards. So this work is part of the decades project which is funded under DARPA's Software Defined Hardware Program. The goal of the program in general is building runtime reconfigurable hardware to accelerate data-intensive applications. So we have a big focus in decades where we're trying to build a full-stack system which Boots Linux has a large number of accelerators and has what we call intelligence storage tiles to make more efficient data movement in the system. This is a collaboration between our group Professor Wentzlap's group at Princeton, Professor Martinossi's group at Princeton, and Professor Luka Carloni, who you heard from earlier, at Columbia. A big thing here is that we make all of our tools open-sourced and available under permissive licenses like BSD and Apache. So OpenPTOM plus Ariane is a collaboration between ourselves at Princeton and the pulp team at ETH Zurich. Essentially, we want to build a permissively licensed Linux-capable many-core research platform, which uses a risk-fied visa. ETH, they developed the Ariane core and we saw them at risk-five workshop, give a presentation, and at the end they said, we want to do multi-core, but we're not sure how to do it. We had an open-source platform called OpenPTOM, and so we got in touch with them and we said, hey, we could make a really cool many-core risk-five platform, and so we started that collaboration. Because these were both mature and extensible designs, we were able to bring the core and the many-core platform together. Within about six months, we were booting SMP Linux, and it was the first open-source SMP Linux booting risk-five many-core. So Ariane itself, you may have heard of already, it's being used in a large number of projects at the moment, is an application class processor, it's written in System Verilog. In my opinion, the RTL is very elegant and easy to read, and it was designed to be Linux-capable. It was designed specifically to boot Linux, but it can boot other unices as well, and it's got all that you need to do that. So it's got the all-in caches you need, it's got the privilege modes, the CLBs, and so on. It really is designed for extensibility. We had a Google Summer of Code project this past summer, and our student within three months was able to build a new branch predictor and extend the core to be dual-issue core instead of a single-issue core. That was a newly graduated undergraduate student who was able to do that. From our side, the OpenPetan platform is an open-source many-core research platform. We've been developing this for about six years at this point. It's been contributed to the open-source hardware community for about five, and it's written in Verilog RTL. Everything we write is in Verilog, and everything we write comes under the VSD license. The ID here is building an extreme-scale many-core, which is still OS-capable, and so we have a cache coherent system that we call Pmesh, which can scale up to half a billion cores, and we provide a lot of configurability options so that you can choose to enable, disable certain features or change the size of structures in order to test a research idea in multiple design points and figure out where the optimal point is for your design. Our RTL has been around for quite a long time, and as a result, we support a variety of different tools, both in simulation and for back-end and census and so on, and I have an asterisk here for Riviera support. This week, we got a PR from the developers of the Riviera simulator, and they had just implemented all the support and submitted as a PR to us, and so that's now upstream in OpenPetan. Another important part here is it's all been verified for ASIC, and we've done a very thorough characterization and released all that characterization data open-source at openpetan.org. So you can go and see real data from real chip that we taped out, 25-core, many-core, and use that for furthering your research, but also just in terms of philosophy, we want to make as much open as we possibly can. And the chips that we have are back in the lab in debut at Debian Linux, which is pretty great as well. So OpenPetan plus Arian is a tiled many-core, and so you can see a single tile here, and on the left, we have the Arian core, and it's L1 caches, and on the right, we have the Pmesh cache system from OpenPetan, and we have our private second level of cache, which is the L1.5. We've got our L2 cache, which is our LLC, and that's distributed and shared across all of the tiles in the system, and so there's a shard in each tile, and then we have our three knockritters which implement the Pmesh cache coherence protocol. And so we started out with the Spark ISA, and when we wanted to move to risk five by integrating Arian, we had to make changes on both sides, and so on the Arian side, they implemented a new cache subsystem that's specifically tailored to our cache interface, and then we, on our side, developed not only that cache interface to make it better improved to work with Arian, but we had to add the risk five atomics, and so those are all supported in a scalable way in our cache coherence system. And then once you've got your whole many core building up your chip, we also have the chip set, which is on the right hand side here, and that's where all the peripherals live, it's where accelerators live at the moment, and it has things like the boot ROM, which is generated when you compile your design, and that includes the device tree so that you can go ahead and run Linux and run the same Linux image across a variety of different OpenPetan designs. We provide the risk five debug spec compliant debug unit, and so you can actually use GDB, plug into the JTAG of your FPGA, and then use GDB to step through your Linux boot, which is pretty cool. I was really impressed that this was actually possible, I didn't think that was possible before we did it, and then we have all the kind of intro controls and so on that you need. In terms of configurability, we have a variety of parameters that you can configure plus more than you just see here, and again, this is really about giving a variety of design points. People can design the chips that they want to design and come up with what the correct optimal point is for what they're trying to do, and you can also see the bottom here, we have a variety of boot loading methods include the JTAG that I just mentioned. In terms of FPGA prototyping, we support a variety of Xilinx FPGAs at the moment, and these vary in price, and the number of cores you can get, the speed you can run at, and so on, but the one that we're going to be talking about is Amazon F1, and the great thing about F1 is that you can rent it by the hour, and so you don't need any infrastructure on your local machine, and it costs, I don't know what it is in euros, it's about $1.60 an hour, and you can get up to about 15 cores here, so this is a lot more than you could get on any available board, the Boots Linux today, and so if you want to check out how scalable your application is for RISC-5 on a real multi-core system, you can do this and get good scaling. So the reason that we did this is that we really care about making OpenPton available freely in open source, and so we want people who don't have FPGAs to be able to use the platform, and that means, you know, hey, you don't have the thing in front of you in the desk, you don't have to go and spend the money to buy one, you don't need to buy Xilinx, Vavato licenses, that sort of thing, and we want it to make it available so you don't need to recompel the hardware too, so you can do this sort of software firmware development, and so F1 gives us this kind of cloud rental, this is a great step forward in that direction, and you can do things like rebuild in the cloud, so when you're renting your FPGA system from them, you don't need to buy a separate Xilinx license, it's all available for you on the system, and so if you're kind of bursting in terms of you want to do a bunch of FPGAs at once, maybe you don't have the hardware for that, you can use this, or if you just want something that's much lower cost than spending $8,000 on an Ultra-Skill-Plus FPGA that you're getting here, then you can rent this for about a buck, 16 hour. Another great thing here is that there's a repository of bit files for the FPGAs that are available, and so we make available what they call the AGFI's, we make available an AGFI for a nine-core OpenPetain-Plus Ariane system, and this is really great as an alternative real hardware system, so if you want to do your software development, you want to test things out, you can do that using this without having to touch Vivado, without having to go and look at RTL, you can just go on, grab that image, and get going. Now if you do want to build your own, then we try to make everything as push-button as possible, so you can run a single command and get back a bit file on the other end and then use that to program the FPGA in F1 or for other FPGAs, and in this case, it takes a few hours to generate this. The FPG is really big, it's awesome, but it means it takes a while to do since it's placed in root for it, and you'll note here, it produces Xalanx Design Checkpoint, that then gets fed into some other system on Amazon in a queue, and you kind of wait in the POS process to produce the final AGFI image. You can run one core, about 125 megahertz here. This is reasonably in line with what the real hardware would be. It's maybe like 10X off or something like that, so for computer architects, that's really close. We're used to talking about simulation where you're running a 1000X slower or whatever, and you can get up to 12 or 15 cores on this board. So if you want to go ahead with census, you can go and check our GitHub and give that a shot. The design itself here, you can see kind of what ends up on the Amazon FPGA in the end, and on the left-hand side, we've got the OpenPetan side of things, so this is the stuff that we contribute. So our system is the chip in the chip set, all the peripherals, all the cores, caches, and so on. And then that connects to, we have this UR up here. And so the UR gives you a serial terminal, and we have a driver in Linux, which we'll pull on that and give you a serial terminal that you can connect to. In the middle, we have LEDs, switches, clock trees, et cetera. These are all virtual, which is an interesting thing. So normally we're just having the FPGA board in the desk and you can flick the switches, you look at the LEDs, you're trying to figure out what's going on. But it's all virtual in F1. So in your terminal, you can open up, you can run a command and it'll show you like a virtual LED flickering, just kind of going from zero to one. And then we've also got our AWS crossbar here, which connects to the ACSI interface for memory and for DMA. And so that's where the main memory is. That's also where we put our kind of virtual SD card, comparable to the real SD card we have in our other FPGA designs. And you can really quickly DMA onto that to start booting your OS. So in terms of booting the OS, the first step of this is that we have what we call a zero-stage bootloader. This is really straightforward. It's executing from the boot ROM, so it was compiled in when you built your design or when we built the design that you use in F1. And the thing it does here is kind of parse the GPT partition table in the SD card, grab that first partition and dump that into memory. And so then that can contain whichever bit loader you want to run or whichever other kind of operating system or low level firmware you want to run. And so in our case, we're using VBL at the moment and that does some standard things like set the trap table, start SNP and get things ready for Linux. So parsing the device tree and so on. Then in our case, we're producing VBL blobs that have Linux and build environment built in. And so that starts between Linux. It does all the driver loading from the device tree that's there and specified. So if you add a new peripheral, you add that to the device tree, then Linux will be able to pull that automatically. If you go between boards, Linux will know whether or not to load the driver for a particular device depending on whether it's there. And then we finally get into our busy box environment. And so to get running, you can do the whole thing with basically four commands. So you can load the image. This is the AGFI that we have available.  So I'll show you a quick video here to give you an idea of what that looks like. And thanks to my groupmate, Gregory, for doing this. So you can see here, first we load the image on the FPGA. It only takes an instant. We DMA the operating system here. I'll note that that, oh, is that just, okay. I'll note that DMA only took like two seconds to copy two gigabytes. It's really great. I was just restarted for some reason.  We just have a simple reset command that clicks the virtual button. And then we can open up our serial terminal and by the time that we actually get the serial terminal opened, you'll see in a second, we've already run through the bootloaders and Linux is starting to boot. And then we'll skip through in Linux boot here toward the end. You can see standard Linux boot, standard driver bring up. We have a specific driver for our SD or virtual SD and all of this is really broadly unmodified. And once you log in, you can run, you know, cat proc CPU info and you can see that with the AGFI that we uploaded, you get nine Linux capable Arian cores. And so from there, you can put other things in your builder environment. So the SDK that we use, you can check out that repo and use it really straightforwardly.  And so the components of that are there's the cross compiler tool chain. We have the modified version of VBL that we use. We have a build route environment. Build route is really great. It's been used a lot in the cloud, especially to provide small Linux images. And our friends at low risk have actually got to the point of having a full graphical environment running on Arian using build route. So you can have kind of mouse keyboard, VGA and it's all through build route even before you have to go to the point of having a distro. We also provide a root FS overlay. So if you want to just bring along a binary that you built to run your application so you want to test scalability, something like that, you're not running a full distro. You can just copy this into root FS and it will show up inside that file system that you were running on the F1 FPGA. And so that's extremely useful too. In terms of customization, if you have new drivers you want to add, if you want to change the config, maybe you want to change the schedule or you want to add more debug information, you can do all that through build route in a really straightforward way. And then you can kind of save that in and have your own configuration. You can even replace through the configs down here, you can replace which Linux kernel you're grabbing whether you want to grab an upstream one instead of the one that we have or you want to make your own patches and so on. And then on the right, in terms of build route and busy box, there's a really large number of packages that are available. As I mentioned, you can have like basically a full GUI environment, but there's all sorts of things like databases and stuff like that out there that you can put in build route. And so you can choose whatever applications you want, test that those work on risk five using OpenPetain plus Ariane. And this is like a really convenient environment. Now I'll talk a little bit about the things that we're still looking to do. So we are looking for assistance in making this a more usable and better platform. We're in the process of moving from VBL to OpenSBI for firmware. I've got that to the point of like entering an infinite loop somewhere that I need to debug. We're in the process. And so OpenSBI is kind of becoming the standard there. We're interested in other bootloaders for real bootloading. As I mentioned, we have this environment where you've got the first partition on the card and it kind of copies stuff over into DRAM to get running. We would like to actually use a real bootloader and have real drivers in the bootloader to pull things off the SD card in a more elegant way. We are in the process of doing this drill bring up. So we have a Debian CHroot environment in F1, so you can just kind of go in and CHroot into Debian and then you can run kind of whichever applications you want to run that will work without system reboot. And so we've tested all sorts of applications there. We can natively compile. We can do all sorts of other stuff. But the bit that we're missing is getting the whole way through regular system reboot. And then you can actually have the full Debian environment. We're also interested in other distros. We know that people have got Fedora and other things running. So if you work in another distro, we would love to see that running on the platform and you can go on and rent these FPGAs and give that try yourselves. And then the other thing is testing parallel software scalability. You've got a bunch of cores available here. You can go on and see and start to make optimizations and understand if you have this kind of cash coherent many cores between Linux, what optimizations can you make and so on. And so we're interested from our perspective but we also know there's a lot of applications out there that you might have that you want to see running on risk five and understand kind of what the benefits of risk five are.  We have a variety of sponsors ourselves and ETH to thank but most recently we received some funding from Amazon. It turns out if you're doing research in these sorts of open source platforms, Amazon is very willing to help fund your exploration on F1 so you can kind of put in requests and get funds from them that way. And so I'd like to open up for any questions. You can check our websites, pubplatform.org and openpittown.org if you wanna find more. We have a Google group, we are on GitHub, we will accept issues and so on. So you only have about 18 seconds.