Okay, we're back, we're live with Jay Griffin. We are so excited to be here. Thank you so much for coming down, Commissioner. Nice to see you on a Monday morning. Thanks, Jay. Good to see you too. Good to hear from you, Marco. And Marco's here. Marco's here by phone from Provision Solar in Hilo. And he's the guy who organized this show, so we have to give him credit. Credit goes to you, Marco. The best for last, we had Chair Randy Awase, not going to fall for that. We had Jenny Potter two weeks ago, and now we're rocking with Dr. Jay Griffin, so truly saving the best for last. Okay, with that in mind, I'm going to let you lead off because I know you have questions for Jay. Thank you so much for being with Jay and Jay and Marco, JJ&M on this Aloha Monday here in December, a beautiful 2018. So yeah, the questions, of course, never end, and I guess my first one will be kind of a broad one. What are your principal takeaways from being on the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission for now one and a half years as I count the calendar? Sure, thanks Marco. And first, yeah, it's certainly not the best for last. We've been fortunate. This is the three-part series. I know Randy and Jenny were happy to participate, so hopefully I can carry their good work that they've done. Well, you always happen in the past, so. Oh, no, no. Okay, so key takeaways. Yeah, I can think probably, let me take that in two parts. One, I can say, organizationally, the commission itself, since I've come on, really I think, I mean, we're in a much better place certainly than when I started on staff in 2012. And really, that's the legacy of, well, Frank, I'd say two people, former chair, Marita, and our current chair. The reorganization of the commission started a while ago. We had the ability to hire up to our present number of staff, but we were roughly at about half there when I started. We moved to a different agency under or attached to DCCA now. I think that has helped our internal operations. And so a lot of that happened prior to Randy coming in, and then he really helped with that transition. So now we're in a place where we do have the autonomy, the administrative autonomy that Statute says that we should have, and we've hired up to close to a full complement of staff. And that's really been his consistent effort on that to make that happen during his term. So to round that out, we have a very energetic, enthusiastic staff, great people to work with. We're very fortunate from that respect. So I think that's takeaway one, where we've built momentum as an organization, and I think we've also built momentum through carrying out our workload and a lot of our decisions over the past, particularly in the past year. We've dealt with, at one point, we had a lot, I think it was 10 or 11 different rate cases simultaneously. We've managed all those within statutory timelines and typically issued our decisions on time or ahead of time. Same with concluding things, making decisions. Correct. Yeah. Similar with a lot of the major power purchase agreements that have come before us in that timeframe, as well as some of the key policy dockets. So we've really built momentum in our decision making. That's great. Jennifer talked about that, too. Follow up on that as well. Thank you for that answer. What is surprise? This is kind of a two-part question. What is surprised you the most, Jay? And what have you found to be the kind of the most challenging or disappointing in your year and a half there? Well, there's no disappointments. Working in a government agency, that is, well, I'm a speechless. No, no, no, no. Well, Marco, let me offer this. I learned this in the service. There's two kinds of people in the service. There's one kind that likes his duty station and the other kind it doesn't. So Jay is obviously the kind of guy who likes his duty station. I'm very happy. This is one of the best jobs I've ever had. It's all right. Very happy with that. And as well as the people that I work with. They're most surprising. Look, I think, like I've said this before, I think the workload that we have on a lot of our regulated entities that are outside, you know, outside of the typical public view. During this timeframe, we've reviewed and approved the merger with point telecom Cincinnati Bell, a ton of work, day to day work with a lot of our smaller motor carriers, the amount of work that goes into some other rate cases for the small water and sewer utility. So just I think a lot of the work that goes on behind the scenes. I mean, my view on that for every decision we make, it's really important to somebody. So, you know, I think we still have to keep that attention to detail and kind of focus in these areas that don't necessarily get the spotlight. And what is it? It's just a lot of work there. I think we're continuing to do better and see it through. So that's probably that continues to surprise. Disappointing. I don't know. I joked earlier. I, you know, I'm I'm we're optimistic about the progress that we're making. I think we have we still like anyone or any organization's still have room to improve. And I but I I lose sleep over a lot of decisions. But I can't say I've I there's nothing that is a vast disappointment to me yet. Now I have some questions that you've touched on. You've moved. And then you've moved back. I mean, you have a new you have a new facility now. Yeah. What's what's the difference between where you are and where you are? So no, I didn't bring that up earlier. Actually, yeah, in the middle of all this, we've also remodeled our office space. So we've actually still stayed in the present building, but about half of our staff had to move into an annex. And now we have the two, the two floors of our building fully remodeled. We have a beautiful hearing room. Happy to host you guys and take a view of that. It's actually the old historic means historic building, but it was actually the original hearing room from the Commission. So beautiful high ceilings, impressive room. And we've had a number of our stakeholder conferences there. So we're, I think we're we're in great shape there also, we have more room for a conference like more room for more people, more room that we host these things internally. But it's also really good to have all of our staff under the same roof. We I think, because it happened during my time on staff that we started moving people over the annex and, you know, that physical separation, it's, it has real effects. So I think it's good to see everyone back together. It's easy to go grab somebody and talk and when you need to. Yeah, you know, I was asking you before we started about noting that the circuit court and the district court, at least in Honolulu are going to be in fact, it must be statewide, because the Chief Justice, you know, arranged it are doing electronic filing now. Are you doing electronic filing? If I want to file, we have a process to do that. I think, let me take two tax on this one where we're as a result of the audit, you know, our document management system was harshly criticized. I think it was mostly warranted. We're re we're taking a revisit of overhauling that system. And that's going to be one of the initiatives that the Commission, I think we have a solid plan for how to improve that system. And part of it is a better e filing system. So that that capability exists now. But I would say it's still not necessarily that efficient in how the e filings are handled. So most people are still filing a lot of stuff. So it's optional, you can find a litigant I can finally the way you know, and I was I was saying to that, you know, that there's a trend in this country to provide tools, electronic tools to regulators and judicial organizations where they can take electronic filings that are scanned in, and they can examine them electronically and look for keywords and citations, even arguments, they can break it down better than a table of contents or index would break it down. Is this is this in the picture? You have dreams and hopes at three o'clock in the morning about this guy? No, I was joking with you earlier, these trying to automate our staff and commissioners out of a job. How many wants to do that? No, no, look, I think, you know, any of these tools that can help, particularly some of these files are massive. They we just received a helco great case for white electric light company on Friday. It was three boxes of binders. So, you know, I think searching particularly trying to search through filings like that, any of these tools that can help save your time, save the staff time, too. Yeah. So I wanted to ask you about chemistry, too. You are talking about energy, maybe PUC commissioner, and I'm asking about chemistry, but it's not the chemistry you think. So you used to have three people there. Okay, now, let's try it. Yeah, it's all going to change in January. So my first question is how has the arrival of Jennifer Potter changed the chemistry? My second question is, how will the departure of Randy Uasi change the chemistry? Sure. Look, we have a great working relationship with the three commissioners. I think we've all said that now on the show. But I mean, that's very much the case. I think it's reflected in kind of the, as I was eluding earlier, the momentum decisions, kind of the timely decision making. So I think we have a great working relationship with very complementary skills. If you look, you know, Jenny and I come from much more of an energy background, but probably a little different focus in areas. Randy, you know, did not have that when he came on, but I think our skill sets are very complementary. We've gotten along very well. So she's been a great addition. Randy, the state and the commission have been very fortunate to have his leadership. Well, let me let me transpose that into January first. Okay. Randy's going to retire at the end of the year. It's really a week away in terms of business days. Yeah.  So here we go January 1st, January 2nd. There's two of you now, not three. What happens? How does that change the chemistry? How do you, how do you operate?  Is that what it means? No, no, no. So a few things to clarify. Yeah, there's a, you know, Randy is about to the, I think his last official day is December 28th. I'm not sure where things stand in name or replacement. Then the commission can go on with two commissioners. When I came in, my seat was vacant for, I think it was about six weeks. So, you know, we still, it's still majority decision making, but I'm less, I think that's less of a concern. I think we have a good handle on our workload than where things stand. And, you know, I think, so I think there's not, that's not necessarily as potentially disruptive. I think the challenge is that the chair is the designated executive of the agency. So a lot of our administrative functions all require the chair to, you know, sign off on things. And so I, I mean, if there's a vacancy, I would assume that, you know, the governor would still have to appoint somebody.  Okay. Well, to continue on chemistry, Marco, after this break, you know, you might consider asking Jay about his hopes and dreams about Randy's successor. Let's see if you will answer that. We take a short break. We'd be right back with Jay Griffin, PUC commissioner. Marco Mangostorf joins us from Provision Solar and Hilo. We'll be right back. Minasan konnichiwa. Think Tech Hawaii ga Nihongo de otodoke suru. Konnichiwa Hawaii no Nihongo housou no Kosto, Kunisue Yukari desu. Kaku-shuu Gettsuyobino niji kara otodoke shite imasu. Nihongo Community, Hawaii no Nihongo Community ni benri na otasuke jouhou, news, nado o guest o maneki shite otodoke suru bangumi desu. Konnichiwa Hawaii Kaku-shuu no Gettsuyobi niji kara Sehima-san mite kudasai. Kosto no Kunisue Yukari deshita. Aloha. And Aloha. My name is Calvin Griffin, the host of Hawaii Uniform. And every Friday at 11 o'clock here on Think Tech Hawaii, we bring in the latest in what's happening within the military community. And we also invite all your response to things that's happening here. For those of you who haven't seen the program before, again, we invite your participation. We're here to give information, not disinformation. And we always enjoy response from the public. But join us here, Hawaiian Uniform Fridays, 11 a.m. here on Think Tech Hawaii. Aloha. Okay, we're back. We're live with Jay Griffin, PUC Commissioner and Marco Mangostorf, who's now got some questions he wants to pose here in the second half of our show. Marco speaking of chemistry since I've been twirling away with my chemistry said here listening to guys talk about chemistry. What qualities and qualifications would you like to see Jay Griffin in your next colleague on the commission? Sure. You know, the I think kind of the resume level qualifications are I mean, that's that's foundational. You know, somebody that that understands what the commission does some good knowledge, working level knowledge of the current issues before us. But I think probably I mean, I would say one of the first and foremost is mean strong commitment to public service. I, you know, I joked earlier this, you know, I says one of the best jobs I've ever had, but it's definitely not for everyone. We're in the public eye all the time. You know, you know that you feel the weight of the decisions that we make, you know, that carries a lot of responsibility. And I think there's there's a lot of other opportunities out there that may be appealing to people. So you're working hard. Yeah, I mean, the workload is is significant and not expecting to go away. I mean, like I said, just we got three binders dropped off on us on Friday and those rate cases, you know, these are decisions that affect the life of every person in business on the islands and the counties and communities that that are involved. And, you know, we go out to hearing and we certainly hear that.  And so, you know, I, I, you know, I think that is probably more central than any specific set of skills. I think I've observed, I probably was a bigger proponent of more background in the area. But I've watched Randy come up to speed really quickly and kind of learn, you know, how to judge. I mean, he trusts the staff. And so, I think, you know, I think people that are that are quick learners and motivated to be in the position, I think, can certainly come up to speed. You know, of course, the governor has the opportunity, the power to, to appoint somebody as a commissioner and the chair commissioner, or he can appoint one of the existing commissioners as the chair and appoint the new person as, you know, one of the non chair commissioners, you know. Yeah. So I mean, how do you feel about that? I'll tell you my feeling and I'm interested in yours. I feel that all things being equal that somebody who's been sitting on the commissioner is is probably a better candidate for chair. That's my feeling you can react or not. Look, I'm like, I think we're all anxiously awaiting the decision. I think the governor's and the governor and governor staff track record on appointments to the commission. I have a biased perspective on it to being good. And I expect that, you know, expect nothing less with the next one.  Ooh, that's a terrible double on time. I'm going forward. And the one that comes to mind first is the Pacific based I'm rather performance based regulation and rates, I suppose. So what what in general is before you? And what's the magnitude of this issue? How is it? How is it likely to affect the energy landscape and the state going forward? Sure. So let me give the quick overview of where we currently stay in the dock and what we've stayed sketched out. We always set this up as a two phase process. And we and Jesus started in, let me get this wrong, May, our opening order. We intended to take this year to go through the first phase. We've gone through three different workshops, one reviewing the existing regulatory framework, another kind of critiquing that another one looking at goals and outcomes and metrics. So we've been through those. We've received briefs from the parties in January. We expect our staff to produce a report that will be put out for stakeholder comment. And that will inform an ultimate decision on this phase on the first phase of the docket. And I think what we're looking to accomplish is in summarize that review of holistic review of the existing framework, point out areas that may need refinements or improvements and then spend the next year working through the details because this is absolutely an area where the details are critical to getting right. So we've tried to put out a very, I think, thoughtful process, but one that also keeps things moving along. So we're close to halfway. And I think we've been trying to build each workshop builds from the substance material, but kind of in the importance of the topics that we're taking on and decision making. It seems especially important for this particular docket to invite comments, to give an inclination and then invite comments from the stakeholders and for that matter from the public because it could result in a dramatic change. Correct. We've tried to be very inclusive. So all of the parties that have saw intervention were admitted. We've held the stakeholder workshops that were and are open to the public there and broadcast those. We had the recordings available that a level came. We invited others that were not parties to come and present, including some representatives of the financial community. So we heard a lot in the beginning, people speculating on what Wall Street thought of these kinds of impacts. So we said, why don't we invite representatives from Wall Street and speak for themselves. And so all the presentations are available to our docket management system. So I think, yeah, we've tried to make this a broad inclusive conversation so far. And we have professional facilitation by Rocky Mountain Institute. Oh, you do. And a great team of consultants supporting us on it, supporting the commission on it. So this is definitely the highest profile, our highest priority docket. So why is it the highest priority document? What are the, what could the implications for the state, for the citizens of the state be? How far could this reach in terms of the way it changes our lives? I think it is core. We're doing a review of the existing regulatory framework to make sure that the kind of tools and mechanisms align our electric, our investor on electric utilities with the outcomes that we seek from them. And so there's some very traditional stuff, affordable rates, reliable service. But as I think everyone knows here, we've set some very ambitious clean energy goals and trying to make sure that the existing framework that's in place is better aligned. So I think the ultimate outcome here is a better functioning electric utility that is closely aligned with what the state says that we want. Yeah, you know, it's nice to have aspirational goals in 2045. But gee whiz, you've got to take steps to get there. Always have to be mindful of action points and facilitating action points. So anyway, Marco, you have questions about the documents. This is your big opportunity. Well, I think Jay's kind of addressed. I mean, from what I just heard that the PBR is a fairly big kid on the block right now. And you and Jenny, the next commissioner, along with so many of the energy stakeholders, including myself, see this is really a big, big deal compared to stuff that's not such a big deal. And I'm kind of curious. I've long wanted to ask you this kind of civil question, which is, as the Public Utilities Commission, there are a number of utilities that you guys are responsible for. Energy, communications, water, sewer. Am I leaving something out? Transportation. I can't leave out transportation. Right. Yeah. Out of all the efforts that you and the staff put into all these dockets and all these issues, is energy the biggest chunk of the pie in terms of stuff that you guys deal with? Yeah. Well, first, I remember there's 1,700 entities that the commission regulates. The vast majority of those are the motor carriers. But if we take this back, there's a couple angles on this to take. The ones that we regulate or oversee that have the broadest touch on residents and businesses' lives here, I think, are collectively the energy utilities. So the four electric utilities, KIC, and then the three investor, or Hawaiian Electric, Maui Electric, Hawaii Electric-like company, Hawaii Gas. So I think kind of from an impact on everyone's lives standpoint, from a revenue standpoint, if you look at those collectively, they're well over $2 billion in revenue per year. That's just in what they collected revenues. But if you look more broadly at how those costs permeate through the economy, it's more significant. But also the other business activity related to it. So if you look at all the impact of new energy development in the state, there's going to be hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment in the coming years with all the major solar projects that are going online, as well as the companies like Marcos that are involved in customer side. So when you look at this collectively, they are, by far, I'd say, the broadest impacts. But what I've also learned is that's not to neglect our smaller ones. Take a company like Young Brothers. Anyone in the state their lives are affected by the operations of Young Brothers. And if you look at, particularly, our small water and wastewater companies, if you look at the list in kind of their geography, most of the rural parts of the state are all served by these companies. So I don't try not to lose sight of these factors also. We're going to have a session here in January. Not to, that's only three business weeks away. Do you think the PUC should get, should want, should ask? I don't know if it does ask, but maybe it does for some kind of bill, some kind of relief, some kind of help in the legislative sessions. Is there anything pending that would have a direct impact on what you do with the PUC? So actually, I'm not briefed on our most recent kind of our pending legislative request at the moment. I know, generally, we've just tried to fight for our share of the revenue taxes that we collect. I think now that we have hired up for our staff, we're still living within our budget, but sometimes are a little tighter. We are looking to overhaul our document management system. And that's going to, that's a multi-year project, I think probably to the tune of a few million dollars. So we're going to need appropriation to support that. But I know my fellow commissioner will be looking right now. She's paying out of pocket all of her expenses to travel here to Oahu, participate on the commission. And there's been attempts to address that in the past. And hopefully that will be successful this time. I hope I hope they will, because it seems only fair. And we want to encourage Neighbor Island commissioners. I, it's always surprised me when I heard it. The commission was fortunate in the past that former commissioners, Marita and Champley did pay out of pocket to be here. So it was, you know, cost to them for their public service. Yeah, absolutely. I'm sure Marco will agree, right? Yeah, I too very much hope that it's something that the legislature will take up because, you know, being a longtime resident of one of the Neighbor Islands, I think I can conclude with great certainty that there is a perception that there is a kind of an Oahu-centricness in this state. So anything that can be done to be able to encourage and support people like Jenny Potter, Mike Champley, Meena Marita as commissioners from other than Oahu, I think is of the public interest. So I hope that, I hope that moves forward. One more thing, Jay, looking into the crystal ball, you know, you said we have a rate case pending now by the Hawaiian Electric companies, I guess. Helco, yeah. OK, and Helco, right, that big island. OK, and they're asking for an increase, I guess, when I saw in the civil beat. Three plus percent, Jay, for what it was. For a little over $13 million in revenue increase. At the same time, you know, we're doing more renewables these days and everything's pointing in that direction. And it seems like what we've heard is that renewables are becoming cheaper. That solar and wind are actually becoming cheaper, which is from God in his heaven. This should happen. So here we are on the way to 2045. We have how many X years left to get there? Do you see, and you know, on your mind's eye as a commissioner, do you see that over time we'll be able to hold rates in general at the current rate? Or will we be able to reduce those rates going forward because of the reduction in costs of renewables? Or will other factors require us to increase those rates? I mean, how do you see it from where we stand now? Our goal has been and continues to be to push for a decline, I mean, kind of downward trajectory in rates and particularly in the generation costs. And the results are not public yet, but this current round of renewable solicitation I think will help take us in that direction. It's important to note that at least in the past four to six months, oil prices have crept back up. And if you look at the avoided cost of energy produced on pretty much all the islands right now, it's above the cost of, I think, pretty much all the recently approved renewable projects, but as well as customer, the export compensation for customer-cited generation for all the post-net energy metering projects. So this idea that renewables are cheaper than oil at the moment when oil prices are high, it's kind of across the board for all the kind of recent wave of projects. But moving into the future, I think we help to really build on that. There are going to be additional costs along the way. There's going to need we have a question for investment in the electric utilities, grids, help modernize them. So I think and other types of integration technologies, energy storage is promising at the moment and has come in relatively cost-effective, but we'll see how that continues to play out. But there's going to be other tools that we need to invest in. So I think the near-term prognosis is actually quite positive. But there's still, still, I mean, we're roughly about a third of the way there to the 100% goal. We're at 27% last year. Yeah. Promising. Promising is the operative word. Promising. If I get, if I get added to that as well, and I'll shamelessly put a plug-in for Dave Vistle and his crew at KIUC and in the regard that since they have been very proactive and aggressive, I would say, in replacing combustion generation with renewables and storage over the past years, they actually have been able to essentially flatten out the cost of electricity because they're bringing on cheaper renewables replacing more expensive sources, i.e. oil, oil-based. So we do have utility in the state who has been able to, through their aggressive pursuit of cost-effective renewables, put essentially a cap on what for the wine electric companies has been more of an upward trend if you look at the graph of the cost of wine electric produced electricity. Marko's right. And if, I mean, when you speak with Dave and their board, I think they're candid that they don't expect a radical drop in rates, but they're hoping to stabilize and maybe lower a little bit. And that's been their trend. And they've at least said that they don't expect a file for a rate case for quite a while. That basically their savings on buying the renewables versus oil can offset some of their increased in staff costs as well as any investment. Great to hear. It's all promising, isn't it? Absolutely. I wouldn't be here and excited in this job if that wasn't the case. Thank you, Jay. Jay Griff in PUC Commission. Good to see you guys. It's so nice to see you. Happy holidays. You take care, Marko. And thanks very much, gentlemen. And I just want to shamelessly put a plug in for you, Jay Griff, and that I think it's great that as a dedicated public servant that you have been and will continue to be that you bring an enthusiasm and a passion and a dedication to your position as so many others in the commission do. So kudos to you and thanks very much. Oh, I appreciate it. It's a good place to be and good time. Thank you, Marko. Thank you, Jay. Thanks, guys. Aloha.


So, if you listen to the economic news, if you listen to how people report on the economic state of the world, what you're constantly bombarded with is messages about how this tribe or that tribe are doing. Now sometimes the tribe is a big tribe. You hear constantly the idea that, I don't know, let's say the Chinese economy is going to be bigger than America's, and that we should worry about that because their tribe is going to be bigger than our tribe. And that should scare us somehow because it's always presented as this, who's going to be the biggest economy in the world? Now the fact that they have 1.4 billion people, if they just have a little bit of freedom, they're going to be bigger than us, right? But it's not supposed, it's presented as if there is this zero-sum battle between two economies, and the extent that the Chinese win, we Americans lose. Both on the left and on the right, you are now bombarded with messages about how trade is somehow hurtful to our tribe because somehow the other tribe is winning, is better off, they're gaining. We lose jobs to China, to Mexico, to Canada. We, how many here have lost their job? There's this notion that we suffer because other people gain, constant messaging around us. We worry about immigrants coming into the country, you know there's 7 million Hondurans on the way to America, right, in a caravan, about 7 million or so, right? No, it's less than that. Oh, it's only 7,000, seems like 7 million when you hear the hysteria. And really, you know it's presented as if the hysteria is all on the right. But if you actually read on the left, right now they're not talking about it, but when they're in power, they don't like immigrants either, because immigrants do what? They take our jobs, they lower our wages. The whole discussion of economics, the whole discussion of trade, the whole discussion of jobs is framed in terms of them versus us, this group versus that group. So we talk about economics, almost all the numbers that people talk about are aggregate numbers that apply very little to any particular individual, to any particular job. We talk about GDP is going up, is that a good thing? I mean maybe, but GDP aggregates a whole bunch of stuff that very few people actually know what it aggregates. Is your standard of living going up? Is that a concern? Or is the fact that America's GDP is going up, even though nobody understands what GDP is, or nobody's an exaggeration, but few people understand, is that supposed to make you feel good? We are doing okay. GDP, by the way, went up by very large numbers in the midst of World War II. As thousands, tens of thousands of young Americans were dying all over the world. As the whole production machine of American economy was building tanks and bombers and things that actually don't enhance our standard of living, GDP went up. What happened to standard of living, quality of life, plummeted in the midst of war, of any war. GDP, it looked great, because GDP, by the way, captures a huge chunk of GDP as government consumption, government spending. So the more government spends, to some extent, that affects GDP positively. So if government spends it on war, GDP goes up, even though the quality of life of you as an individual is going down dramatically. Not to say that I'm against wars, just so we're clear. Sometimes they're necessary, and sometimes you have to engage in them, but they're not enhancing of your economic well-being. So they're not pro, they're not positive, they don't have a positive impact on the economy. They have a negative impact on the economy, and if you want the details of that, you can ask me in the Q&A. You know, people talk about tax cuts, Donald Trump's great, he kept taxes. On whom? On some people he cut taxes, on other people he didn't. Taxes for some people went up during this thing, during the tax cuts.  Notice that what happens in the world in which we live today is that economic policy is set to have one group set up against another group. Central planning necessitates that some people benefit and some people lose. And what we experienced today, and you know, Einwand talked about this, the mixed economy, what's a mixed economy? An economy, a mixture of what? What and what? Freedom. Freedom and control, right? Freedom of capitalism and elements of statism. That the mixed economy necessarily leads to, what's our theme here, to tribalism. Because if the government's going to regulate, if the government's going to control and they're going to regulate me, what am I going to try to do? I'm going to try to go out there and convince them not to regulate me. Now do I have power as an individual, as a small business? No. What do I have to do? Let's get all the people who are like me together in a group, and we're going to go and we're going to try to fight to reduce regulations on me. But the government's not interested in actually just reducing regulations. So what does my group land up doing? Almost always. It's not just fighting to reduce regulations on me, but to improve my regulatory environment, which usually means raising regulations on somebody else. Of course, if somebody else is going to do what, they're going to try to fight to reduce their regulations and impose them on me. And what you get in the world in which we live is constantly groups coming together to fight it out and to fight it out, not in the marketplace with a better product, with a better price, with more efficiency, with more productive capability, but with politics, with guns, with fists, with force, with coercion. And our political system is set up to do this. It's set up to encourage us to form groups that lobby for particular causes. And when we lobby for particular cause, unless it's really the cause of liberty, the cause of freedom, then what by definition are we doing? We're setting somebody else up as a victim to suffer. Somebody wants to raise minimum wage right now. That sets up a certain group of employees, those who would benefit from the minimum wage, against consumers who are then going to get higher prices, and against whom? Against other employees who are going to lose their jobs because wages went up. So you've got, here you have all the different tribes fighting each other. And what's the right composition? What's the right minimum wage? Who should we listen to? Should we listen to consumers? Should we listen to inner city young people who are going to lose the job and never going to have a job again because at 15 bucks an hour they'll never have a job? Or should we listen to those employees who just got a raise from 10 bucks to 15 bucks and they're feeling good? Who should we listen to? Who's more important? How do we measure that? How do we figure it out? Anybody got an algorithm? What's that? By the numbers. By who gets to vote more? Maybe. Maybe by who needs it more or can convince more people who could create the bigger gang to vote for it. It turns out that we don't really care about the inner city kids who lose their jobs forever because they don't have any political power. But to tell the middle class that we just increased minimum wage to 15 bucks so they can feel better, they can appease a little bit of that altruism, to help a few people and evade the people who are suffering, that's okay, sacrifice is good in that condition.  And every decision, every single decision, government makes in the realm of economics today is motivated by these kind of ideas. Once you accept the idea that government is going to plan the economy, including allowing some areas to be relatively free but not every area, then by what standard should they plan the economy given that it's impossible to plan an economy, what's the standard? The standard who has more votes, who can put together the biggest gang, who can pound on the table, the loudest, there is no standard, there's no correct approach to central planning. It's not like the Republicans get central planning better than the Democrats. It's no, central planning is wrong. So as soon as you allow even a little bit of control into a free market, a little bit of central planning into a free market, what you establish is a tribal attitude. What you establish is pressure groups who then start fighting, who then start lobbying, who then start rallying voters. And what you get is that slippery slope that Ayn Rand constantly describes in her nonfiction writing, where one control leads to another control leads to another control and soon enough we are where we are today, where almost every element of economy or big chunks of economy are being controlled and being fought over. What's the alternative? The alternative is to focus on the individual and what is best for the individual and what is best for the individual. Once the rule of law, as Tara described it, Ter Smith described it, once the rule of law is established, what is best for the individual? To be left free, to be left free to be protected, to have property rights protected, but otherwise to be left free. And this is why Rand advocates for a separation, a complete separation of economics from state, not a better mix, not a freer mix, not less regulations, not less controls, but no controls, no involvement, no rule, so that every individual is free to pursue his life, to pursue the rational values necessary for his own survival, to pursue the productive resources he needs It's free in voluntary exchange, in win-win transactions where people are benefiting from one another, where his wealth is not taken or redistributed, that's creating other tribes, right? There's the whole tribal issue of some people money's taken and given to others, who's it given to? Who gets to decide which groups get it? There are like 300 different welfare programs in the US, all targeted at different pressure groups that have lobbied to get some of the goodies, some of the loot that the government has. But if you separate out, if you say you cannot use force to redistribute wealth, you cannot use force to control productive activity, you cannot use force to intervene in the process of individuals trading voluntarily among each other, and you leave individuals free to make those decisions for themselves. Well partially we know what happens because every country that tries this even a little bit, any place that tries this even a little bit, succeeds enormously. But also when you have that mentality, when you have that approach, then it's China a threat to you. What does China represent really? Like trading with China. Bad for America? Who trades? Does America trade with China? I mean a tribal approach says America has this huge trade deficit with China. We can get into economics or what that even means, but America has a trade deficit. We buy a lot of stuff from China. Now as far as I know, America doesn't buy anything from China, actually zero, because I don't know what America is, it's a border with a Sun geographic area with a Sun system of law, but America doesn't buy anything. I buy a lot of stuff from China. My favorite proper lectures is assembled in China. You know how many places have stuff in here that is part of the iPhone? From how many countries is there stuff in the iPhone? Anybody know? It's like 60 countries. In other words, 60 different companies, millions of individuals all over the world are making stuff, are producing. And it all gets put together into this little thing that arrives in my home, I guess, from China through some warehouse somewhere, right? Am I being exploited? Are we losing jobs to those 60 countries because, no, I'm benefiting. And every one of those other countries, any one of those individuals working for all those 60 different companies or 100 companies or 3,000 companies, whatever their number is, in 60 different countries, every one of them has benefited from the fact that they've traded. Every one of those transactions have been win-win trade transactions, voluntary trade transactions in which both parties have won. And at the end of the day, you get one of these. So you take an individual's perspective, trade is wonderful. I benefit. I count the person I traded with benefits, all the people they traded with benefits. I love trade with China. I love trade with anybody and whoever can give me the best product at the best price is my friend, right?  I'm not hostile to people outside the borders because there's some border if they're productive and they're creating something that benefits my life. We're getting to the point where it's not just, you know, the tribalism goes like this, first it was by America and you should all read how he been swung his essay on by America is non-American, right? It's not American. But now it's not about by America. By America is relatively, you know, innocuous and individualistic. Now it's about by Atlanta. And soon it's going to be about by Midtown Atlanta, right? We're in Midtown right now. You know, you got to buy only produce that was produced right here in little gardens outside with vegetables that come from Midtown Atlanta. And if you get a kiwi, then that's from New Zealand and that's, you know, that's bad. But that's the level at which this tribalism, if you don't challenge to buy America, then why not buy Texas? And then why not buy Austin? And then why not buy your little local neighborhood? But again, the individualist approach is, no, I want to produce and then I want to consume the things that make my life better. And I will trade with anybody who makes my life better. And it, I don't care where the border is. I want to hire the best employees in the world. Why does it matter what color skin they have? Or what it says in their birth certificate, where they were born. Or when they crossed the border or how they crossed the border. I want to hire the best people. And everybody who is productive wants the best people to be producing because what happens if the best people are the ones getting the jobs? Then our standard of living rises, our quality of life rises. The products that we get, their price declines. We get new innovation and new creation and new things. Life is better when we respect freedom, when we respect the individual. So only if you get a system that actually separates out economics from politics. Economic power, what's economic power? How do you gain economic power? What's that? By production and trade. By voluntary production, voluntary trade, voluntary interactions with other people by producing something that people value. It's the only way to get economic power. Being successful at producing, being successful at trading. What's political power? It's the essential of political power. It's force, it's coercion. Two completely different things. And indeed, force can only do what? To voluntary trade, voluntary production. Can only hamper it. So those two need to be separated, completely separated. The realm of force should not be intervening in the realm of production and in the realm of trade. When you separate those out, it's the only way in which we can get rid of the tribalism that today is a part of everything that we talk about, everything that we do within the world of economics. It's only by abandoning the mixed economy. I think it's a feedback mechanism. We have to get intellectually rid of tribalism. But then you also have to get rid of the mixed economy because the mixed economy reinforces the tribalism. So there are two realms here that constantly reinforce each other, constantly you have to work against, both the intellectual and the political. And the political, we will not be successful until we completely separate economics from state. As long as government controls our economic destiny, there will be an incentive for people to turn to tribalism. And of course, if we're then also advocating for tribalism in and of itself in our schools and universities, then there's no way to reverse the trend from an economic perspective, political perspective. Both are reinforcing and that's what we're seeing today. We're seeing an acceleration in tribalism because both systems are working towards the same single direction. The political system and the educational system are both inducing, encouraging, incentivizing us towards a tribal mentality. At the end of the day, there is no conflict between rational productive individuals. At the end of the day, if we are free, there is never an excuse to use force against one another. At the end of the day, if we are free and we are rational, we view other productive human beings as our allies, not as a threat, not as an enemy. Thank you. I've left plenty of time for questions. I figured on this topic, there'd be lots of them and I'm right, all right, go. Sure. So actually, I just wanted to ask about that last part you said there's no conflict between rational individuals. Something I've been thinking about recently is there is, I feel in a certain sense, a conflict between people like, say, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, where they have these companies that are like ones going, they're both SpaceX and what's it, blue, what's it called? Blue Origin, right? And it's like, I feel like there is a conflict there and that's why they're kind of like tense and they're not like friends, they don't like hangout and stuff. Even though you'd think they would, right?  Well, maybe the other reasons they don't hang out, but are you suggesting the competition means conflict? I mean, it seems like conflict, they are at conflict, you know, not maybe not with force. Yeah, I mean, so I think that the number of issues going on, again, we live in a mixed economy, so it's hard to separate these things out, but take blue and SpaceX is a good example. In a sense, there is a conflict there and the conflict is what? Who is the funder of all space stuff? Where does all the money today, or almost all the money, not all the money, but a big chunk of the money comes. If you want to go to the moon, if you want to go to Mars, where's the money going to come from, it turns out, from NASA, from the government, and there's a fixed pool over there and these two guys are going to have to go after this fixed pool, not by convincing people, you know, by convincing their client that they are the most productive and they will serve them best and they will offer them the most, you know, the best service, but by, you know, using politics, because NASA doesn't distribute money based on, you know, efficiency or productiveness or value, but based on political. Yeah, they can't. But you've also got two different, I mean, I think Elon Musk and Steve and Jeff Bezos are also very different types of capitalists, so they're very different types of businessmen. You've got one who's built from nothing, built, you know, one of the great companies of all human history, really from nothing, basically bootstrapping it all himself with shareholders and investors and so on. You've got another who's basically built a series of company with exception to PayPal, who've all depended on government funding, have all depended on some form of cronyism, so you've got two very, very different types, so you can't, you know, not that I'm comparing them as archetypes, but you're not going to see, you know, Hank Rydden hanging out with Boyle, right? Even though they're both in the steel industry, right? Yeah. One is a real businessman, one other is not and unfortunately, Elon Musk has become much more like Owen Boyle than Rydden, so, but I know lots of people in tech, in particular, who are in competing companies who hang out all the time, I think CEOs, I mean, you've seen, I don't know if you've seen videos of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates doing Q&A's together, I mean, you know, no, I don't think competition is the same as conflict. I don't think real competitors who are really in the market competing with one another hate each other, I think they respect each other and they admire each other and they actually do, on occasion, hang out, although these guys are so busy that it's a very little time to hang out. Right, right. Hi, Dr. Yaron, so I have a question. In matters of, like, the doctrine of the common good and the public good and pertaining to, like, law, citizenship or taxation, so does that fall under the premise of, I mean, a tribalistic premise or, like, a collective thing or neutral? Yeah, I mean, for the most part, the way, almost always, the way the common good or the public good fall under collectivism. I mean, the idea is that there's something there, some entity that is the common, that is the group that has, that supersedes what's good for individuals, right? And so the whole idea when people talk about the public interest and the common good is a collectivistic premise that places this entity. Of the public, above the rights of the individual. Objectivism views it differently. The public is just a collection of individuals. The only truly objectively thing that is good for the public is respecting the individual rights of individuals. But the standard is never the public. The standard is never the common or whatever they fill in. Or the United States of America or any, it's the individuals within it, it's the individuals that comprise it. And the only thing in the realm of government that relates to that is the protection of individual rights. If you protect individual rights, the public takes care of itself, in a sense, right? The good is for the individual and if you aggregate the good on individuals, then you get a so-called public good. But you have to remember that public is just a collection of individuals. And when you place it as some mystical thing that you are maximizing for, you've eliminated individuals and you're then willing to sacrifice some individuals for the sake of this mystical entity up there. And that's necessarily what happens, right? Who is the public? Well, the public is always those who pound on the table loudest. The public is always those that are willing to lobby the strongest, are willing to make the most noise, willing to inflict the most damage on politicians. They turn out to be the public, even if they're a small minority. They represent the public, the public good. And you land up benefiting them at the expense, at the sacrifice of individuals who are not part of that group. And in the end, and this is what always happens when you set up, when you set up win-lose relationships, which that is, some people lose, some people supposedly win, those are always lose-lose relationships. Because even the people who supposedly are lobbying and they're getting a benefit in the short run, lose in the long run, because in the long run there's less freedom. And therefore, even just from an economic perspective, they're going to be poorer, they're going to have the goods that they buy are not going to be of high quality, it's going to be less innovation, less progress. And ultimately, one that's slippery slope where there'll be a real crisis and real economic problems that they will suffer from. Say, benefit in the short term, it's like a Bernie Madoff who benefits in the short term from having the money, benefits in quotes. But long term, it destroys his life, it destroys his life. At every point, he's never really benefited from it. And the same with these groups that get stuff, they know they didn't produce in order to get that stuff, they know they didn't deserve it, they don't own it. So it doesn't mean anything to them. So in the end, every lose-win-lose is a lose-lose, even in the short run. Thank you. Hey, Dr. Buck, my question is about you said how war doesn't help the economy if you want to ask about the details, acts in the Q&A, so that's my question. If you could end off the question with, what did the deregulations under Truman in 45 and 46 actually look like? Because I always find it so mind-boggling that two years of relative good and made up for 15 bad. And I just would love to know the economic history of that. I don't know everything that Truman did right after the war, but I think the main thing that happened right at the end of World War II is that government spending shrunk dramatically. I mean, it was a massive percentage of GDP. I don't remember the numbers because of the war effort. And then suddenly, all their money, in a sense, got returned to its owners into the private sector. And it got applied instead of to building tanks and bombers and guns to productive activities. So you got this massive influx of capital that was being, in a sense, destroyed during the war effort. Again, a necessary war. This is not an argument for pacifism, but a necessary thing. But now all those resources got applied to the actual private economy. And there was a lot to do. There was a lot of stuff to build. There was a lot of demand at the time. So the US economy did very, very well afterwards. But because it wasn't really deregulated, that is because in the late 40s and early 50s, they didn't actually challenge FDRs, everything that FDR had done during the 12-plus years of his administration. They had to be a negative outcome. And the negative outcome manifests itself ultimately in the 60s when the welfare state has expanded. Again, that slippy slope when it's expanded. And then with the inflation of the 70s and the stag nation and stagflation. So we paid the price in the 70s for what FDR did in the 30s. And we paid it throughout to some extent because economic growth would have been even faster and even greater. But it was visible in the 70s. And I would argue, and I don't ask me to explain this, but I would argue that the 2008 recession is a consequence of FDR's actions in the 1930s. Because it's that regulatory regime set up in the 1930s that leads to the S&L crisis, that leads to the 70s, that leads ultimately to the collapse of FETI and FANY. The first, which one of them, FANY, I think was set up under FDR. So all of that legacy of statism that was established in the 1930s, we're still paying for them. We'll continue to pay for it until we dismantle the whole thing. Thank you. One of Einran's strongest political points is that markets and anarchy are incompatible and that we need a monopoly on force to enforce people's property rights enabling trade to flourish. International politics, however, is essentially anarchy. There isn't a monopoly of force. And so you have powerful actors that themselves are not rights-respecting, such as like Saudi Aramco and Russia's Gazprom. They might be able to provide you with the best product of the lowest price. My question is, is there a role for a rights-respecting government to bar its own citizens from dealing with unsavory actors like that on the international stage? So yes, but you have to be very careful on what that means and how you define it. And look, this is a whole area of foreign policy, which I think is crucial and important that there's not a lot of writing on and there's not a lot of real analysis on, but absolutely. And I've categorized countries, I think, into three. And this is my category. This is not objectivism. This is me. Into three categories.  And I would say it is the responsibility of a rights-respecting government to bar you from trading with those countries. You should do nothing that enables those countries in any way. So I would take today North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, our countries we should not trade with. And if you want and ask me what to do about Saudi oil, I'd be happy to answer that. So that's one category. There's a second category of countries that don't expect the right to their own citizens, but are not a threat to you. They're not at war with you in any kind of sense, are not threatening to you. And I think the government's response should be to say, look, these are countries in which they have no respect for rights. But you get to decide, as individual citizens, whether you trade with them. Because benefiting them is not hurting the individual rights of Americans because they're not a threat, a direct threat to the rights of Americans. And then there are relatively free countries in which, and there's all kinds of legal implications in what the government would do in each one of those situations if they confiscated your plans or everything. I think there's a lot of work to be worked out in the realm of foreign policy and figuring out in the theory of how to apply politics to foreign policy that would deal with that. But absolutely, the government should embargo, should ban, and this is my point about China, because people talk about China. China violates intellectual property rights of American companies. And therefore, we should raise tariffs on them. In other words, we should raise taxes on Americans because the Chinese are violating the property rights of Americans. How does that work? That's a puzzle, right? My view is, if you can show that product X was built because of stolen intellectual property, then you should ban product X from importation into the United States. You're not allowed to trade in stolen goods, right? Stolen goods, it's a crime. So you can't buy product X if product X was built and that should go to court and you should be, I have to prove that product X was built because of something they stole from me. Now, I don't know that we go to war with China because of it or embargo China, but you suddenly embargo the goods. You don't allow the goods into the United States that are stolen. We do that with Louis Vuitton bags, right? You don't get it so much in the US because the US is better on this, but in Europe, everywhere you go, on the pavements they're selling Louis Vuitton fake bags, right? Now that's illegal. So we get it when it's a bag, but we don't apply it to technology, we don't apply it. So we just have to be consistent about the application of laws against trade and stolen goods to trade with China, right? So I don't think you have to embargo, and if you did that, by the way, they would stop stealing intellectual property because there would be real consequences to it. The problem is today we turn a blind eye and we pretend that tariffs is the way to deal with it and at the same time we're best buddies with the dictator of China and their murderer from North Korea. So what message are we sending? None, right? Or a message that will do anything if we can bargain or if we treat Donald Trump nicely enough. Thank you. So I'd like to shift gears a little bit to something a little more developmental and institutional, since you've traveled to many places that are still developing to the point where America is. Corruption's very kind of a big issue in these countries and that's related with tribalism. A contract may be awarded on someone being in your tribe rather than on merit. Beyond just corruption alone, to what extent do you think that the plights of these developing economies is due to tribalism? I mean, it depends on what countries, the different countries are different, but certainly there's a lot of tribalism when you travel around the world in terms of who gets the economic, who has managed to capture certain economic benefits within these countries. So there's certainly families, there's certain ethnic groups, there's certain tribes where they are in power, they've attained power somehow, and all their cronies, all their family members, all the tribal members, all the ethnic group members are the beneficiaries of certain benefits. So I think a lot of these countries suffer from this tribal mentality and again, because their mixed economy is even worse than the United States, it's all about power and it's all about guns and it's all about those kind of aspects and that's how you gain economic power is by gaining political power. But you have to be careful because not in every case that's the case. So for example, if you go to a place like Indonesia or Malaysia, most of the economic power, most of it is held by the Chinese, the local Chinese there, and they're a tiny minority. And it's not because they have gained political power, it's actually because they've been incredibly productive and they've built and they've created and they've built businesses and indeed they get, they're the first one who gets attacked as soon as there's an economic crisis, they take a few Chinese and shoot them because they've got the economic power, they've obviously stolen it from everybody else because everybody thinks in terms of tribes. So if you see a bunch of Chinese who are rich and everybody else is not so rich and you assume now because everything's tribal that they got it by abusing the system through cronyism but it's not always the case that that's what they did. So you have to be very careful in not falling into the counter-tribal, assuming things are tribal because they look perceptually to be tribal.  Oh, because we've got our tribe. And we've had this tribe for 1,000 years and so who cares? I mean, why is there a country called Montenegro? What was so bad about hanging out with all these other people from all these other tribes and having a better trade relationships and engagement? So the world is filled, the more you travel with the world, the more you see, particularly Europe. Europe is very, very tribal. And it's part of why they don't assimilate. It's why you don't see assimilation in Europe. And because the Europeans themselves are so tribal. It matters so much whether you were born in this side of the Rhine or that side of the Rhine or the side of the Danube or that side of the Danube. It boggles the mind, right? What's the differences between these people, even in culture or in anything, right? But no, I'm German and I'm French and we are. Mortal enemies because we've always, you know, it's, and I think to say something controversial for change, right? One of the great benefits of the EU, and I know the EU, it's not sexy to be pro-EU, is to get rid of a lot of that and to put everybody under one banner and say, no, here's one system of law for all these countries and to help with your tribes. Let's trade and let's allow the free movement of labor, the free movement of capital, the free movement of goods and, you know, have one system of law. Now it's sad that the people running the EU, a bunch of statist, fastest socialists, right, who want to control everything. And now they get to control a bigger piece of chunk of land, right? That's the negative. But the positive is that you're breaking up, you know, this tribal mentality that is Europe, which I think has led to World War I, led to World War II, led to all the wars before that, and has led to the death of millions and millions of people and will lead to millions and millions of people dying in the future, because as Europe returns to that tribalism, you will get, things will get much, much worse over there. It's insightful, thank you. Sure, thanks.


It's the same as what you're doing now. So the idea is just that you shout out your ideas and do this custom. Sorry about the recording. Anybody watching is more of a discussion thing. Basically, only if you need to provide some ideas beforehand. Well, if we have nothing to discuss anymore, then keep going. So, this is actually one of my... That's a good point, actually. Yeah, so we are actually there when we came here first. Anybody from earlier? No? Sorry if you'll submit a request. We re-issued. We replanted through it. It looked like a basin. Yeah. It's just... I always get lost when people call me therapist. It's so good. It's so good. I would actually be happy to have some time until then without wanting to reply to that. But I don't want to do it myself.  It's obviously more than it's done and it's good that they're offering systems. So, yes. Yes. And it's a lot bigger away. You will be quite different. If that means that you should pack it for September or something. Well, at least that should start. At least that should start packing. I don't need to. Do you remember how long ago, how basically, we spent power? What was called that power? Powering. So, for two people one, shut down ideas first, do some slides, then shout ideas, don't get involved in a lot of everything. That's exactly what people talk about. Issues of stuff that needs to be done. So, for two people. Well, remove packages. And actually, that is one of them. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So, we need to be involved here. Is there any objections? I mean, please. More dead than something that's very dead. So, I mean, we've made extensive efforts. So, we do have two of you, right? So, do you mind not having to just move? So, it wasn't your fault. You didn't get to do it. Yeah. So, will we do it? No. I can do it, actually. The follow-up question is, why? Yeah. It would be really nice if the 19-year-olds, currently, we are missing the 19-year-olds or aren't we? Maybe we should, don't we? That actually seems to be good. So, it would be nice. I think the more mandatory it is for the 19-year-olds to make an agreement. Yeah. You know, if you're on a one-day frame, it's a problem. I don't know anything about it. It's uncharitable. Yeah. It would be nice to make a agreement. I think that in the past, in the past, we tried to contact, but not ever. Maybe they just can't, because they have to put something forward and maintain it forward. That's the main thing. We tried to ignore it. So, at least, we should have a discussion when they do it now, and then we settle on it. We think it's pretty good. No problem. So, if we're going to spark for it, do you have any doubt? I probably don't have any doubt, because we have some design problems. We need to extend somehow that sort of corporate infrastructure. And then, when we are ready, we'll ask for the steam engine for sure. No, but I know it's actually a bit hard in these days to get an excellent spark. Do you doubt what happens when you have one? I've lost it. I'm still in the department. Okay, sorry. I know there are some questions about the development of metal in doubt of the production system. The company provides some access to the machine, but the entire case is waiting. So, if you look at the situation, you have some kind of critical goal and it's not available. So, I've lost a lot of people. Okay, sorry. But, do you see people somehow who do the best on the farm? Have they got some access to 25 or maybe something new? I don't know if you can ask. Oh, yeah. I don't know. I have to admit that three months ago, I was just a little after that. But yeah, it's key space. Yeah, it's key space. Yeah. But all the lines, for example, the furniture, all the styles, the workings. And when I've been called, I'm always losing a little bit of time to think what styles should I use. I'm doing a lot less in GB today, if it's my question. Yeah. I'm not that fond of, I really would like to be able to have a line because why the term in is a screen space. It's a question of time. But we're also going to find a history problem. I'm like functional. I I could tell what is. Like you're assuming that there's actually some kind of test of all the factors and they answer that. That's a long insight. You know, when I was in making all those changes, obviously, both the first one and the third one can also like name space, brand space, artist space, I tried to make it possible. That's how it first started. That's also what it was. I don't know what it was. But I don't know. I don't know the last one. But what was going on in the code kind of this story. What What we know is that they have a style checker that must pass on any new cooking exam in Trump. So all of that code, the curious authors, it's fine if you ever touch any cocktail updates, but if you're having any code that you'll know that we give you some style. if anyone in the people is actually like that. And I can see a gender. That's true. And one is, see, you and I just went saying, should we manage an effect looper backing to boundaries? It's kind of depending on the outside of the looper. Yes. We really should. Hang on, yeah. Yeah, that's... I'm mixing stuff up. Yeah, that's the only question. I actually don't know who they can get, because it seems to sound so friendly. I'm sort of using mercurial, but I can kind of see the way that they decide on this, but it's not in mercurial space. Yeah, so to be honest, I'm only a bit far behind some people who live next to them. Because I don't really have that conversion and I don't really feel the value of this stuff. And I can have some greater time. I can actually move and create culture that is kind of a history show. So if we could move to the kit, then we would have to do an inversion. Okay? Your job. So that doesn't...   Oh, yes, okay. You have to read and have the kit master read somewhere, right? Yes. So that's about the possibilities. For example, so that they would know who was talking to the software. So it's very helpful for the other IGNB, ex-dares, can you see how it's here? So if you know why it's here, so that's it. Okay. Would anybody have a problem in principle if you move away from the conversion? Oh! I actually don't have any single point of failure at the repo. I'll pack it up every couple of weeks, but I don't like that. So where is it hosted now? It's hosted in... It's hosted by Cambridge by a company called Mythic Peace, which stands to the address for that kind of company. I guess they have places in Cambridge that offer something like that. Okay. Good day, how was the kit? It's a bit personal, I think. My version of it. Yeah. So the idea is just somebody should do it. Yes. And then, so people do it because you have to come down to the unit or something like that. So you can do that without using all the history, right? Yeah, so the only problem I see is do we want to merge the two models into one kit? Then I want to know how to order it, please. Well, I mean, if you might want to do something else because you have two separate sets of models to deal with, you have to think is it this tree or that tree or is it Mythic Peace because I like to change the word. So you want a way that you can actually have just beg for by itself without having to jump around. And I can actually speak to the organizational mechanism of having separate approaches. So all of them want to talk about different approaches. And to some extent, this has benefited us a lot because people are using clarifying clay and high backs just by themselves in lots of good applications. So in some ways it's not here and in some ways it's very beneficial until you want to see it. I think in this case I don't think it would be too much of a nightmare to have from being in this same tree to make live backs commands in the new make file that just spit out like this. So one of the features of this case is that they also need to spell like this. That's that's the big reason I would like just now to find the two co-eds of this case. Yes, yes, yes, okay. Yeah, I'm going to talk to Lisa too next over in the open rooms. Just You can. Go ahead. The only other part of it is we have one thing there that probably has to be doing releases. Yeah. Based on all of its subversion that love us. Yeah. Would you apply that if we move to the gate there? I would. I'm not really into subversions being great in the CVS if you remember. I can see that you can't move on and I'm going to I don't know how to use it I'm going to use one zero. Yeah. It's okay. I'm going to just see that I'm just going to use a long way in the future but if we're people we're going to do that I'm not going to do that. First of all the sanity check is moving into a different plan. If we move to the gate is there something else that we have to do in another year? I don't always it's I think the conversion will take some time especially if you want to make one big kid you're most worried about you're going to access maybe all of these three I've done in the past one. So once the conversion is done I think it will take some time to kind of defense the person who is doing the conversion and I thought it was important to look at the information and the information and the vehicles and the website and also I can go on the next slide. No. Yeah. How was the problem on the website? If you correct anything do you want to start making it? Yeah, I hope so. Hope. Do you have any questions? Yes. If you push is that the right word? Push directly to the gate and what's that we get back then? So I think because they didn't have a word or anything. If you do that you might be going to a similar conversion but in that you need something like Mons it's one channeling the other and then at some point it's switched or you would just say Friday we stop we use the new one we have something like that so for what we use the plan or the suggestion to do all that it's all free to check if you don't discuss yourself a bit and then you can go on. This is a patient approach we realize of the world of some life we realize we have a place where we solve the device of the plan of that way Oh, I'm certainly one of the ones to make more to pick up is that the first word in the end so far that we're going to pick up those names and pick up all of the news and all of the advertising and the field is going to get up and then it's actually for the press to try to get you to also look in the eye and it's the field things that we've invented and our development It was including a little bit of help to know where the actual loads are and how they're going to change the way this works I mean, I know the first word I know is a lot of kids know well, first because we have some sort of time to make use of that and except for I know it was very it was also very if it's going to float you can have time small but but whose source are you talking about? yeah people very nice people I am my birthday project it's kind of funny because it used to be the side news people and then they worked with Red Hat and now all these people that maintain source work I think Red Hat still pays for the hardware that says we'll make a we have to now that's my thing I'm not sure but I think there's a lot of things that you'll be able to see and see how hardware is going to that's why management really this is really for the brand of those people so maybe the licensing question an interesting topic at all sure sure so I think we want to take a look at this don't just practically just like you are only asking to have the library exception you suggest the TGPL but without the library exception it's a little unusual for libraries to be GPL usually in GPL end your programs and you to take libraries and BSDM or something or help it so what does the discussion on that happen I'm not a lawyer nor do I I'm not a lawyer I would like to know what the library exception would actually make all the people scared about using English for commercial activities less scared what's the library exception I don't even understand that I just know that it means that the TGPL but if you look at it just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just just So, you know, you might have a little license in the exception, you know, if you go to a place that you're at and find out about, except they do. And I also think that way, especially where they're at, you know, they put the different types of process or something. Yeah, we have a lot of really weird ideas on how to firewall ourselves in the GPL. So, our current approach is, we have the C part of highback, which step into the back so it provides a nicer interface than the rest of the arts. And so that's GPL, because it's pretty common in the statically against the new CPL. But then we thought highbacks itself is sort of becoming this abstract idea of something that can service requests for IR. And then one of the things that it knows how to call out, too, is livebacks together. And there's this translation between the livebacks structs, which under some interpretations are GPL, and then the highbacks classes. The highbacks classes are limitations of these, but how much intellectual nonsense are probably from one to the other. Yeah, that's right. So, I would say things, honestly, I think it's from you, that's what we are. And secondly, I don't think this is the problem. My actual movie and what would be played 100 times, you know, in the last few years. So, do you think it's going to be about 70% of the world? Yeah, hopefully there's some day also. So, but I think what you kind of want is a way to enter IR as data and then have different programs that relate the data and those different programs are even not sort of things. So, maybe it's also just structuring the programs that come up with a different representation. But I would say there's lots of projects and things like that. So, as you presented, we're seeing what you're saying about the controversy that you're saying and what you're saying also. So, are you happy with the license? Yes. I mean, you need to go through all of it. It's not all my kids. Like, me, fish, young, how many of you have contributed to that project? Sure, we have quite a few of them. Yes, they have all of us. Yes. So, of course, something like this is, is that the idea that you would be able to to, for example, go out and take part in some of the circumstances. I don't know. You're not going to be able to do that. So, are you going to be able to do that? I don't know. So, we need to do that thing for the person themselves. I actually don't know what it means.  No. At least, conservancy is more a way to keep your essence somewhere. You're expecting by you. It's what the essence are. We define it. Also, it just is. You can't collect money for that. But you could also, I actually would like to be able to speak to myself under some umbrella organization like that. Yes, that's part of the process. If you know somebody, you can read any of the comments. But there are more organizations like that. It would be nice because I know they also know this because of that. And you can ask them as a member of the project. And they have legal stuff. Actually, somebody is responsible for it. A technical point of view. This is another different question. As far as release changes, do we want to take the call back? Do we need to do a 3-12 release? I think it would be nice for at least for Fedora and Rael. I take a lot of other distributions. So it would really be good for the distributions. Because I can't listen to Wooten for example. And either the Pets, but it wasn't a release. All the year. The red group that were at the same time. Yeah. It wasn't two line Pets. Yeah. But as soon as there was a release name for the organization, I think it's nice to have a 4-2 release system. So you're saying 3-12 is better than this? Yeah. It's also more interesting. I think ideally we have a yearly release and one for maybe two or three weeks. Yes. Try to send 4-3 for a 4-2 release system. Do that. Maybe one or two days a week from now. We're trying to deal with it. So that needs to be done in a 3-12 release. Cool. Yeah. Can I look at your patches? I don't know what to say. Yeah. So a few weeks ago, the detectives thought that there was a fast and fast release. And so it's back to me. It's just a few minutes. It's a fairly fast release. And after that one, it's in time. So it's only been three weeks ago. It had a really bad effect. The bad interaction is a simple frequency scaling. And according to my recent evaluation on medium range and low relapse, or medium range and low relapse at first, I don't see this interaction in the world. And so that's fine. So I thought it was a very simple yes. No. Really? I thought it was. That's crazy. I was running my house. Yes. I run my house a lot. And it has been really bad. It's been really bad. But I'm glad that's fine. Let me make a sense. But it was a significant fast release ago. And I don't think this is a case anymore. So my suggestion is to switch to try. Try is if the ticket skipper, the ticket of words, the music on the white automatically fall back to the pilot skipper. I can't get nervous about that. You really have to balance this data. Because no, I don't want to do something like that. It's going to be a thing. But I don't think it's like that. So couldn't we just configure it so that it's set to yes or no? And no on macOS? Well, anyway, so this is a micro discussion. But I think we should change it. What should we do about macOS for? It's kind of working less and less. I kind of don't have time to fix it. And I feel bad that it took me so long to do this. It was already active. Which seems to be in the rest of the data. It's kind of in part with the pilot skipper. So as far as I know, we've been using it for over 6 days. And I've been using it for over 7 days. And macOS, so I don't have any phone, never used it. Since 5 days, obviously. So I don't call this thing. The link is on the code name. I'm not sure if you've heard of it. I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I feel like there's pain in the heart. In fact, I think a lot of what I would like to see. I see that we have an e-mail for the pizza. Then we have to see to change the value of 3 steps. 5 or yes. You have to set up to compact the e-links by 20. The 3DSD, I'm not sure if we try or not to integrate them. We have to see just to stay in any world. We have to see both of the e-links. We have to see both of the e-links. I don't know if she's really compacting it. You know what I'm saying? Well, we have to find a way to do it. I don't know if I can find a way. So you have to find a way. Okay. I also would be happy to give you a follow-up on this. I'm not sure if we can do it or not. I'm not sure if we can do it or not. What's your thoughts on the combination of the e-links and the e-links? Oh, sorry. No, yes. I'm not sure. It doesn't bother me. I don't use it. I kind of feel somehow I have to reach it in papers. It kind of doesn't really work well enough to run large programs on that one. You know, we're damaging our reputation. So I think it's not that great. Yeah. I just don't know. It doesn't work that great. Well, it could just background my thoughts on the, you know, if you put the computer down, I could think a few of these is back and now I'm pretty sure it works. Yeah. I think I have a way to go out there. Yeah. I'm not sure. Probably because that's the last piece, right? How it feels. Yeah. Forks. Forks of the idea. Forks of the idea. Forks of the idea. Forks of the idea. Forks of the idea. Forks of the idea. Forks of the idea. Forks of the idea. Forks. Forks of the idea. I have a better understanding of what it tastes like working in the city. Mm. Finally, Yeah. Forks of the idea. Forks of the idea. And I understand that. I understand that the cancer shock is the reason we need it. OK. I've never used it at all. It was sort of a white song scene. It was a white song song. It's a good way to read it. You read those books, don't you? Yes. You start them to work. Really? Yes. Yes. It's a very, very black color. Oh. I was talking to the machine. If you're going to read those books, what kind of environment would it be? You could be learning three or four things. Yeah. Yeah. Good. I'm going to help you. I have one of your sisters called. My sister called. How'd she cope with it? Oh, yes. By the Mario. Oh, that's a great one. OK. The random comment is not as random as it seems. Is there anything you'd be interested in trying to read or even mention shadow memory so that we no longer have this crazy hat where it's all at the bottom of the address space?  The whole point of the address space manager is to try to get all the mappings of the bottom of the address space so that the manager works. And I'd love to get rid of myself. And I think that also that has a really bad effect on my thoughts for some reason might be wrong. So if anybody wants to take it as a project to try to act out with me, I should definitely do it. Maybe you should just point this out. Yeah. You guys are back there. You will get rid of the space manager. Oh, yeah. Yeah. We've also made some effort on parallelization as well. Yeah. I'm not following the idea. I'm not following the idea. I just pointed this out. It would be an architectural cleanup, structural cleanup that would be really cool to do if you could do it without losing control of the space. And tossing to the top of the line is the niche impacts to our project. OK. So you basically mean having a project for a local estate or a KLS? I know you believe someone believes that. They don't have the storage. No. I mean, I know what that means. So what's it like to tell what we should do? The way I envision it is just you have them having a method that you with the area of reference life that's the callback that is give me a little storage block. And there is just a top level of effects for a little storage block struck, which is the user knows that they may not allocate a block of that size and have a separate one for each standard in terms of that. So that, I mean, that sounds harmless, but I would ask you, how would you actually enforce this narrative? Yeah, so two years down the line, somebody who's not really aware of this mechanism has several variable effects that have all become fun threads again. Is there some automatic way of avoiding this? How do we avoid this? How do we avoid this? How do we set course for the right game? What number? To set course for a game of the right game in the root screen block. Can you describe this to me? That's not right. You can just see it says there's an island level variable. Any which one level variable is a very little storage block. Other than that, given that you probably like to just write a simple script which takes the effects off so instead of are there any little variables other than this, this, this, what this might respond to, that's a great plan. Cool. So one of the things on today would be access, but I don't know why we set feet on this. So one of the things that I just think would be is if this is a real performance security, it's concerning one deal, run the best single thread environments as fast as you could. It could also just be a pre-process or a pre-processed flag that so all accesses to the global will go through map evaluation and the single thread version which evaluates to a global, this is the structure which is a single global variable, but on multi-thread integration it's effective. You see the credit just cost and no break for vacuum. That's all. Confidential, journal based. I don't like how this compilation is an easy and possible program yes, but I mean, maybe it's not expensive because how many people are suspecting? Oh, why? It's like, I actually tried doing this, see if I can not include in my hashtag there's so many. But on top of that, there's also the allocation of an assignment. Yeah, it's like That has to be thread. Every thread I can say has to have this 5 megabyte buffer before it is. I mean, you could just think that in a block but there's basically nothing in a block. I mean, I need to evaluate the actual performance of Dex in this memory allocation, what it looks like to have for example, we'll call that for how the client program is specified. I'm doing my own management now. Oh, that's definitely a big problem. Is it out of place? Yeah, this I mean, this is something that I could stick on as a side project at some point down the road. Yeah, I mean, looking at the capability. I don't know, it's given that there seems to be some degree of support that you can show that it's not professional performance that needs to be confident enough to try to throw some weight to it. It will be definitely almost out of place. I think it's definitely possible for there to be a compiled live that just says that it only now, and we're going to make all of ours to have one version of the TLS struct that's just in global memory. So, who has actually the master list of all this stuff? I need to give you some rules. So, everybody in this you have seen the the top in fact, what you have explained which is not by the spark actually. In software as a kind of new option to make shape over the the user's history of the user itself. You should bring the best players to this to be able to do that. And that was then the thing that got to the range and I think that's a cool point which is it's messy once you start to work with people on this. We have a whole chapter about this. Do you agree? Do you agree with what you were saying? The thing is my objective is to be inside or these ideas taken by the results. You get the difficulties. You have two points as a factor than what you have. What does that do? Well, we are with a point of higher critiques other than the then just to arise the other is first choked out possibly electrified. Then you can work with the version of the user and you can work with the other players. If the point is going to symbol then the versions are the same. But if they point to other bots then the results are going to point to bots and find as if this doesn't happen all the time. The action which is the basis of which can be So does everybody have a time now? Anyone? Yes. It's just a point of question. What is the status of the x-men support? I mean, if there is interest or not because bot lanes support symbols there is no x-men support but they support x-men 4.5 right? No, there is no support for it. There is no system support. Yes, of course. There is some support in the power ring but it's x-men 4.5 I'm asking this because I have created a patch for x-men 4.6 and started on x-men 4.7 I don't know if there is any input or so you assume that there is management but there is no management. We just thought people used to send us send patches and sometimes we merged them and I had no idea what they did but they didn't bring all the files so they went in. Yes, there is interest as long as it doesn't work. That's right. You mean who wrote it? Who who who made it? They came from a guy called Eric Campbell is that right? Yes, I can see it. Your patches are in the back but what is here? I am using the symbol it's just a minor correction for x-men 4.6.5 and notice that there are some problems also there is another edge for the symbol and it's just a minor correction. You have introduced a bug in Maxia to follow these patches but I think that's the best information for the problem. Yes, I know that and then from the developers you are actually easy to integrate and I promise I will be the accelerator of this store in my life and I will be able to put it in the next slide. Put another task in it. I am just asking because he is here with me and my friend again so this is the absolute of the individual and that whole chase and that kind of Are you still happy to mix my thing? Yes, you are looking kind of unhappy. No, I am just thinking and I am just complaining that I don't have something inside to lose. I don't care if you keep that with me and Roger but I am fine. So, anybody else that matches that they think the project has been applied because Max is the game? Yes, that's a big question. So, because you have just the old model Yeah. You don't get a thing like this. Are you very involved in the scale of that? Well, maybe we might have to change the scale. Yeah. Oh, yes. I have to tell you honestly, I am not into this. I would say that you are I think it is a different program as well as you see. Yeah, okay. Richard, I can summarize my saying I am actually a long sequence of a long basic plot, a long sequence of structures and the first part came from one by the source code and the next part came from a different source code. Do you have a range of sources that you already use the source code line? There will be a deal of unwind from the basic plot starting from some place to start with the basic plot in the standard standards. And the program that goes past is invisible transition. It is an interesting thing to be involved in my calls like the developer asks how do you take it into account as this code because that was when we face people's team lines of code there was no exit. So the cache state was not compatible with it. That is why I have to use this code. I would say I am not happy with doing this in practice. I think you are going to present a different plan which is that you use the online information to find regions where all the unwind rules are the same. So if you then unwind from here and then you unwind one way back to your unwind starting with a different place there has been the same unwind region and you know you just use the same standards. That is what I thought very much and I would be happy with that. If you want to answer the question in the back I would not say it is like anything I am sorry I am being too much responsible. This was waiting some way I stand this one because it was still in the code but I am sitting in the back for example I am taking general if I don't spot it make more noise. Well there is one action which is before word control then when one was disabled on the ceiling on any part of the world we need to place that open and close and close and this is something that I have already I try to find pull an item in this tree whatever one thing is not TXT let's make the tree yeah I hope about that usually issues can not reach that one or even down because the disabled all of that regular you know you need to reverse reverse an action but when I change those in reality in the world because there are parts that are there for us yes you are right I look at it every now and again like this thing a couple of months into it which is not good it would have to be useful to have somebody here have to monitor the bug situation kind of a great deal of information over these times here yeah I I'll need to go after the bugs when you go after the bugs before I release it then I will kind of yeah but maybe we should do that how much of that money can we bring in can we get red hats pay for somebody's a bit of somebody's money and keep people's money and we need more people we need more people to actually do this stuff yeah yeah I don't know the first one things I I it is sometimes I don't know maybe I need to find our solution but the most kind of funny idea was that easy tasks who type of people who are kind of interested in that often in a year I'm thinking about all the tasks presentation by itself nobody so maybe I am bad at showing what easy tasks are or that's not the way to do it probably we need community manager community manager so yeah so people want to do that people want to be released people want to put that character it's not full no no no okay I will work with the rest of the system rest of the system this is cause I I think this is called that yeah I mentioned that one I still make it a little cleaner just send some patches do nothing else then rename a function like new uname to just uname etc so in one moment the whole system table will be just generated yeah let's give it a little extra it was on and it was just went a lot easier than it used to be it is kind of funny because this is called you imagine that the information is somewhere out there because I work with it or the system but I want some people to look at it as praise and support your program everybody does their own thing it was kind of if it wasn't 5 it would have been we must because we will take it as 5 and this we will close it all because we will do it close it down and discussions I think I have one question I think it was discussed in my last about any when we look at all those system problems a lot of them are just copied files from one architecture to another just because this one looks like this 64 grids this one looks like this for 52 grids and some are in general some are copied and yes for a lot of architecture there was just a copy of the previous things like this one and a lot of factor values and when it is a lot of different so some people for example some people it looks terrible it looks differently and a lot of them factorize some things alone I think they factorize the copy the copy enemy that one I don't know what is my question I don't know I don't know I don't know but it's like some factorize and I don't know I don't know so yes you have batched of factorize and I will take your longest okay but basically what we said when I looked there was what it was like Because, like, maybe sixty-four can't go for twenty-two people, I don't know why it's better stuff. Yeah, I don't know. There are a lot of issues. There are a lot of issues. There are a lot of issues. There are a lot of issues.