I actually flew in this thing once, a long time ago. It was very expensive, but it was an experience. I'm really excited about technology. I've been, for a long time, talking about the future of technology. I used to be in the music business as a musician and producer. And then in the 90s, I went on the internet. I did about a dozen startups in digital music. One of them was trying to do what today is Spotify. And we were just slightly early. That was about 2001. And we spent $25 million finding out that we were too early. But it was a good lesson. And so the last 15 years, I've been speaking about the future. And it's interesting. About three years ago, four years ago, I started to get a lot of pushback from people, saying, you know, grad technology is great. You know, all this technology all the time. Everybody's a technologist. Everybody's a data scientist. But what's going to happen to people? When technology is everything. When technology actually is creating people. So it inspired me to write this book, Technology versus Humanity. And it was funny, you know, when I started working on the book, it was actually 2016, my publisher said, you can't call this technology and humanity. That was my title, right? The publisher and their wisdom later on fired them. But in their wisdom, they decided, you know, it should be versus humanity. And I'm like, no, no, no, it's not true, it's and humanity. So that's become my key topic. That's what I want to talk to you guys about today. As a futurist, I'm actually not involved with predictions. You know, I do observations. I work on foresight, intuition, imagination. There are futurists who are great at predicting, Ray Kurzweil, Alvin Tofflo, of course, Arthur C. Clark, you know, those are the Jimmy Hendrix of futurism. That's not really me. But I try to observe and create some foresight. So I'm going to share some of those with you today. Most importantly, I think right off the top, my view really is that technology is not what we seek, but it's how we seek. Technology is a tool, a very, very powerful tool. And technology can always be used for good or bad things. The television, people are addicted to television, right? Now they're addicted to Facebook, right? Technology is morally neutral until we use it. William Gibson, one of my favorite science fiction authors. That's something to keep in mind when we talk about technology. It's not about saying yes or no, it's good or bad. There's no such thing. Technology just is, and of course, we create it. So we have to think about our context. Hence the title of my talk the next 10 years. Let's start with this. It's hard to imagine, right? But if you look back 10 years ago, our world was a little bit different. We didn't have free phone calls like we have today. We didn't have a music service in the cloud, apart from BitTorrent, of course. We didn't have a lot of things that we have today. We didn't really have autonomous driving. But our world isn't that much different compared to 10 years. It's quite different, but not that much. Now, think about the world in 20 years. I mean, just look at all the stuff you already know today. Quantum computing, right? A machine with a million times the computing power. 3D qubit computing. 5G, 7G, 10G, unlimited connectivity. 10 billion people on the internet by 2030. I mean, our world is going to be so different in 20 years, it's hard to even find science fiction about it.  They will never know how to drive a car because they're just commanded with their voice. I mean, truly, that's huge difference. And the biggest difference really is this, that the machines that we use today, like our smartphones, you know, these machines are your second brain. For some of us, it's actually the first brain, because we do whatever it says. But you know, it's like our dating is in here, our banking is in here, our email is in here, our content, our news, our DNA very soon. Everything is going to be in here, right? And then this moves here. That's going to happen, right? And then if Elon Musk has his way directly here, the difference is in 20 years, we can change who we are as humans. That is the difference. You know, the steam engine didn't change what we are as humans. We just used it, right? And the internet didn't change the way that we think to some degree indirectly, but now can actually influence how we think. Look at social media, right? Social media has changed the way that we live, not just get news, parenthesis. I'll talk more about that shortly. So that's a vast difference. And this is what's underpinning the whole thing, yeah, humanity and technology is kind of converging. In technical terms, you know, we're still very early, most artificial intelligence machines like Sophia, the robot from Hansen Robotics, they're as dumb as a toaster compared to us, right? I mean, they have some sort of intelligence, but we're not quite there yet, you know, they're pretending to be intelligent. Like Google Maps, you know, if you live in a city, wherever that may be, you will always question Google Maps, right? Because you're driving and saying, I think they're saying, no, no, no, that can't be true. The machine is just stupid, right? But if you do that in a strange city, it's good. So machines are kind of intelligent, but this is gonna happen in the next 10 years. We're going to have machines that are actually matching us. We're gonna start having conversations with machines. We already do, except that you have to speak like an imbecile, you know? Like, hello, where is the restaurant, right? You know, okay. You definitely can't mix up any German English words like my own name, you know? Like Siri Cortana has never actually learned my name yet, G-E-R-D. That's like gastrointestinal reflex disease, same thing, right? It's not that hard to remember, right? Siri hasn't learned my own name yet. So, I mean, those things are still in the early stage, but you can say in 10 years, convergence. In 20 years, anything you want it to be, you can change your human genome, you can avoid diabetes, you can live longer, 20, 30, 50 years, but not 500 years, right? So, I would say that can be amazing, or it can be terrible, right? Because, you know, this is what technology is. We have to make it amazing, right? That's what it comes down to. So, this is a really, I mean, it's important message that I speak about all the time. The biggest transformation in the history of humanity.  Yeah, the steam engine, World War II, the bomb, the internet, the mobile phone, the iPad, right? Preventuses. But now we have this, right? All this stuff happening at the same time. Robotics, genome sequence, energy storage, I mean, 20 years, science fiction is becoming science fact.  If you're an actual scientist, you know that not all of this is true, right? In terms of being exponential and so. But I mean, basically, we're seeing this happening right now. In five years, we're gonna be able to speak to machines as if there were people in 30 languages. We're gonna use what's apt to send voice messages in a hundred languages in real-time translation. That's all on the horizon. So, in the beginning, we basically augmented our muscles, you know, faster cars, airplanes, and so on. That's what technology did for us. And we're still doing that. Better airplanes, better vehicles, and so on. But now, we're gonna augment our intelligence. This is a whole different ball game. And I think it's good as long as it's not like our intelligence, because our intelligence is very complex, you know, social intelligence, emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, right? What kind of intelligence does a machine have? Computing intelligence, right? Processing. But unlimited. Does it compare to our intelligence? My dear intelligence, if we meet somewhere and we wouldn't know each other from the stage or being here, right? 0.4 seconds for one human to identify the other human without saying a single word. Are you good or bad? Are you a potential mate? Are you, whatever you are, 0.4 seconds, I gotta figure it out, right? And how is that? Well, that's called human intelligence. And of course, sometimes it's pretty stupid, of course, but still, that's what we have. So it's quite clear computers are binary for the time being until we have quantum computing. So zero ones, yes, no, yes, no. Humans are multinary. Which means any value at any given time I could always change. And I can always come to a decision. I'm actually not at all like this. I mean, when you think about your husband or your wife, you don't go back to the center of the brain and pull out the jetpack and say, ah-ha, that's her, right?  And not all of that is data, like the size of the city or earthquakes or, you know, it's like this. Machines don't do that. Hence, I think it's a great pairing, right? We can never do what machines are doing as far as the logic and the facts is concerned. Today, we kind of can. Five years, 10 years, game over. Do not compete with the machines on logic and facts and knowledge. Yeah, that there's knowledge that is human, right? But knowledge of facts. I mean, you can speak to Abby and Watson today and you can ask Abby and Watson about the future of Switzerland. You get the facts in a nice voice, right? So what are we gonna do about this? We're building stuff like this, the Internet of Things. Very powerful tools. We can save 60% of energy here. We can invent entirely new things. And that's a huge global industry changing how we do it. At the same time, when we think about this, you know, we're building sort of a nervous system. We're building something that's almost like our own nervous system. When we do this, we're building this sort of meta-intelligence, right? We've got to be responsible. We can't just say, you know what? We're gonna build this just because we can. And then we worry about what it does later. That's what we did with gas and oil and coal, the fossil fuel industry. Let's worry about it. As long as we can drive the car, we're fine. We'll think about the rest later. We're building something that's going to have a trillions of connected devices. What are the rules? What about us? How can we survive as a human in this world? It could be amazing or it could be terrible. It could be like a total panopticon or it could be really liberating. So this is something I have to think about. I think, you know, what's called the Oppenheimer effect. You know, Oppenheimer was the guy who co-invented the nuclear bomb. He invented it because he didn't want the Germans to be first. He never thought the US government would use it. But of course, they had different plans. They used it twice and he felt like he had made it possible. He was really, really frustrated about this. Now when inventing all these things, we have to think about when we actually use it, what does it do? It's no longer enough to say, well, we're gonna invent anything we can because in the very near future, we can invent anything. I'll show you in a second what that means, but. Bottom line is this, right?  It could be heaven or it could be hell. Now we have to think about how do we make it heaven? How do we keep the magic without going to the manic, you know, the toxic? It's funny, the mobile phone is a great example. It's magic and then some people are obsessed. They get manic and we always have to do an update and other ones are toxic. Like you put your phone on the table when you have a conversation with your kids, changes the entire conversation. That's called poison, right? Poisoning our relationships. But just because it can be poisoned doesn't mean I want to throw it away, right? When I drink a beer for dinner, doesn't mean I'm free to drink a bottle of brandy for breakfast, you know? I have to find a way to differentiate. This guy is using an exoskeleton to learn how to walk his paraplegic. Took about two years of training and a million dollars. The guy could not move at all and now is using the exoskeleton to walk again. And I would think, yeah, that's an amazing use of technology. If I can get a single person in the universe or on the globe to be healed or prevented and not to get cancer, right? It's something we have to do. But on the flip side, we have this. This guy, what's his name again? You, her, right? He's propagating that we should have the right to change ourselves regardless of being an accident victim or not, right? We can actually say, my legs are not satisfying me. Let's get rid of them and buy other ones. To which I would say that's a little step too far because we're not talking about healing sick people here. We're talking about luxury sports saying I'm gonna rebuild my legs for two million pounds. What is the difference? Well, it's the same technology, right? What do you think is gonna happen with genetic engineering when it's possible to isolate the genome that's responsible for cancer or for diabetes? Is that gonna cost a million pounds? So the rich people live forever and we don't? I mean, those are issues that we have to look at. Elon Musk says that we need to upgrade ourselves so we can survive in the future. He says basically his argument is AI will be so powerful that if we're not also AI, right? So his project, the Neuralase is a brain-computer interface that will get us to connect directly to the internet, which is already being used today for fighter jet pilots and it's not totally new, but the idea of putting implants in your brain. He said the other day he'd be the first one to do it if it was allowed. Think about this for a second. In terms of science, yeah, I would say eventually that's probably possible, right? Is it a good idea? Is it something we should strive for? I mean, this would be the true merging of humans and machines, right? You could not get out of bed anymore because your device isn't working. That's like Black Mirror Times 200, right? So here's a question I have for you. In this digital world, there's two things happening. One is humans are linear. You know, we are improving, but we're not doubling like Moore's Law. Humans aren't exponential. We're still organic, but technology is following Moore's Law and Metcalfe's Law and other laws. Basically, technology has no limits. And this is our situation. We are linear, technology is exponential, nature is cyclical, right? Nature goes up, everybody dies, it goes down, it comes back, right? Dinosaurs, ISH. How are we going to survive in this world where technology is infinitely capable? How do we harness it? So technology is exponential, we are linear. This is a question I have for you. Should we upgrade or should we respect the difference? Who's for upgrading? Anybody for upgrading? Come on, it's fine. I'm just going to vote perfunctory here, right? Okay, okay. I think a little bit of an upgrade is fine. You know, if you take a cholesterol medication or a statin or you know, you have a, what you might call a cochle implant, right? That's kind of an upgrade. But it's a question of overall proportion, clearly. And of course, you know, the business of upgrading would be a giant business. Imagine if this actually works, you know? Who would not want to have it? So, is this our future? I mean, if you think about technology, it's like literally, sometimes I say jokingly, God as a service, you know, like software as a service. We're becoming like super human, right? Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. I mean, that is the promise of Silicon Valley, right? Why should we not transcend humanity? Well, the answer is, you know, to me, I fear that this is more of a downgrade than an upgrade. Until I'm convinced otherwise, you know, I'd be very hesitant. I think certain upgrades, if I had an accident, I would probably want to get another arm if I had to, right? But that's different than ordering another arm, right? So this is something we have to think about which technology takes us, what we can actually do here, which way are we going? Because this question will really emerge, right? How do we retain our skills and our autonomy? If you live in Silicon Valley, people are saying, you know, what doesn't matter? Privacy, you know. Come on, get over it. You're like yesterday's guy, right? Autonomy, come on, autonomy.  We can be completely connected, right? To which I always say, no, if you don't have anything to hide, you're probably not human. I mean, think about this, you know, this is social media, right? Basically. That's what it has become, right? Now, you have a guy who is immersed in technology sleeping in the Tesla. This made the rounds on the internet a little while ago, right? That make me wonder, is this sort of a general thing to where we're like sleepwalking into technology and switching off? You know, in India, many marriages are still arranged, about 71%. Now there's an AI that does it. It's partner.ai or something like that. But it's basically, the family used to do that. And now they're using an AI to do it, to pick the ideal partner for you. That's what they have brokers and all that. But it turns out actually, which is a funny statistic, most of those marriages are happier than the non-arranged ones, which is also a very strange statistic, but debate for later. But here's the key question for us. I mean, ultimately, when we have this, right, machines are telling us what to do, right? Machines are saying, no, you know, he doesn't want to do that, right? Some of that is funny, but imagine if we lived in a world where that would happen at every turn, right? I mean, it would be unskilled, right? What's called the glass cockpit problem, you know, with the pilots where they can't fly anymore. So here's a short video that illustrates the point, hopefully in a funny way. Please, Jess. Playing jazz. Smoothie. Making smoothie. Calendar. No meetings today. Remember and taste at 9.30. Fire off. Fire off. Open door. Door open. And we're gonna do one more. All right. Open door. Wrong voice command. Open door. Wrong voice command. Open, open door. Repeat that. Open door. I didn't understand that. Hey, open door! Play on the floor. Ah, you get the point, you know. I spoke at the dentist convention yesterday, so I figured that was a good video, I don't remember. But, okay, this, I mean, I'm sure we've been through similar situations, right? So how do we find the limits, you know? How can we not have too much of a good thing become a very bad thing? Should we prohibit all bad things? You know, I think we would agree no. You know, smoking is bad, alcohol is bad, coffee is bad, you know, everything is bad in some way, right? Should we say no, you can't have it at all? That would be stupid, right? I mean, in Germany, a 12-year-old can get a beer, right? That's not legal, but it's possible, right? So how about technology? Should we say a 4-year-old can't use the iPad, you know? It has proven to be bad for kids. It has proven too much screen usage is literally bad for your brain as kids, right? It's pretty straightforward in terms of what the science says. But what do we do about this? There we have to look at the financial rewards, right? I mean, the Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence deep learning, right? You see this graph over here. Basically, it shows quite clearly. Now, we're talking about a $30 trillion value chain that comes out of AI and deep learning and machine learning. This is the biggest gold rush in the history of humanity. I would say, jokingly, replacing humans is the biggest business opportunity. But then I would say, hey, if it's a great tool, I definitely want to have it. So who decides what the limits of that are? And of course, what we're seeing today, companies that do this are the richest companies in the world. The most powerful companies in the world are not the oil and gas companies or the banks or the military, right? They are these guys. The data companies, many of them are my clients. I'm quite familiar with the scenario there. Again, that's outrageous, right? So I'm saying, great. Obviously, we found something that works. And if you look at it in terms of investing, if you had invested in Facebook at the IPO, you would have made the most money in all digital stocks ever. But now you look at Facebook on the other side and you're saying, what has Facebook done that has not been as good as making money? Let's say the list goes on from here to the parking lot. So how do we decide? So here's what's happening with technology. This is something we have to ask, right? It's no longer this question about saying, OK, if this works, or how it works, or how much does it cost, and how much money does it make. That question is finishing in the next five to seven years. It's not about this. It's about this question. Why? Why are we doing this? And who is doing it? Because imagine in 10 years, pretty much, technology will be unlimitedly powerful. 20 years, it's hard to imagine. We can change the human genome, or you can program yourself. You can use intelligent machines to do all the work for you. What do we do? I mean, basically, the question is why and how and who? Not if. If you have kids, you've got to think about this. What are our kids going to do in this kind of world? Ginny Rometti from IBM says, society gives each of us a license to operate. It's a question of whether society trusts you or not. This is the only key question. That's the only, because it's a human question. Trust is not a download. Trust is something that we create. We can break trust and make mistakes. We fix it. But trust is not an algorithm. How do you know when you meet somebody in the first second so you can trust that person or not? Most of the time, it's right. How do you know that? This is a really important issue, I think, when it's about technology. And this is the key question for us. Are we going to live in this world where we're helping each other to lift? Or are we going to have opposing forces? And who's in charge? Who's mission control? We can't live without technology, of course. That's quite clear. I mean, even in the mountains of Switzerland, where I live, and not in the mountains of Switzerland, it's hard to get away from technology. And the question really is one of what I call digital ethics. Why is this a good thing? This is, by the way, the number one topic. 2019 Gardner says this is the number one topic for this year, is how technology can be kept good. Let's see how we define good, of course. So here's our challenge. And it really is a great fit, speaking about this under the Concorde. I mean, air travel is a significant polluter. And all of us, including myself, I'm the chief polluter in that way, because I'm always flying to speak. Now I started doing carbon offsetting for a while, but nevertheless, technology has no ethics. We shouldn't expect it to.  It has no morals. I mean, if I tell the computer to make paper clips out of you, it would set to work, right? Until the mission is accomplished, right? That's what machines do. Why would we expect the machine to have, like, you know, Facebook system works? That's the scary part, right? It's not that it was hacked. It worked as advertised, which is to manipulate. That's called advertising. That's the scary part. So let's define ethics. Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do. If you're a programmer, a startup person, or a CEO of a company, what is the right thing to do? CEO of Salesforce says, Mark Benioff, Salesforce will not sell their software to companies that make guns. Salesforce has hired a chief ethics officer to determine the negative effect of what Salesforce does and to minimize them. Now, this is like saying, I'm going to put sand in the gearbox. Maybe sell less, but I have a better engine. But of course, the sand doesn't make a better engine. So it's a very big question. What would you do if we had a choice of making 10x or 1x, depending on your ethical consideration? Google is in the middle of this conversation. Google, every month, there's a major thing happening at Google where employees are saying, no, we shouldn't be selling this software to those people. Like the Defense Department is using Google's AI. And Google had to withdraw from the contract because Google employees were saying, now this is not cool because it's going to end up in a drone that automatically kills people. And these are very big questions that are going to be erupting all the way around us. Facebook example again, right? That's what Facebook does, gunning at democracy. And is it doing it because Mark is evil? Probably not. Is it criminal? Is it their intent? No. But nevertheless, Facebook is facilitating. Facebook is responsible on an ethical level. So Stuart Russell, who writes a lot of really smart books about AI, he got to read his latest book called Human Compatible. His first book is the number one book in the world on AI. It's used in all universities. I think it's just called AI. Stuart Russell, UC Berkeley professor. So his book is Human Compatible. He says a social media meltdown results from optimizing the wrong objective on a global scale. This is an important statement, right? We're not saying that technology is bad or social media is bad. We're saying it's optimizing the wrong objective, which is to keep people on the side. That's the wrong objective. And that's generally true for technology. If your only objective is to make more money, to make a better mousetrap for your customers, it will fail. And Facebook will fail spectacularly if they keep this up. So technology in many ways is a gift. Here's all the great technology that we have accumulated and then could also be a bomb. Well, that's not new, but now the magnitude is different. I mean, think about a computer. Maybe in 10 years, it has an IQ of a million. I mean, IQ in the sense of computing, right? It's more to the IQ than computing, right? Kurzweil says, Ray Kurzweil says, in 2050, we'll have a computer that has the capacity of all human brains. Now, I could say that's fantastic. If I go back to the first part, that's a present, right? I can use that. But how do I make sure it doesn't turn into a bomb? So that's a question of governance and wisdom. So let me play a couple of video clips here from people who have some thoughts on this. How do we build software that's secure by design, right? We have to really do a lot of re-engineering of our processes, teaching of our own engineers, and what does it mean to do threat modeling in software so that we build more robust software? Same thing with AI. We have to have design principle. Any business, any person who's going to use AI to make any decision of consequence, your child's education, you are going to want to know and have transparency and explainability and trust in this technology. I will tell you there'll be no adoption of AI without that. And those of us who believe in technology's potential for good must not shrink from this moment. Now more than ever, as leaders of governments, as decision makers in business, and as citizens, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question. What kind of world do we want to live in? This is an interesting comment by somebody who runs the most successful company in the world. I think Aramco, the Saudi Arabian oil company, is going public in a couple of weeks. And they are allegedly going to be bigger than Apple. Everybody else is smaller. Think about that for a second. Basically, what he's saying is that we have to question how we use technology. As Satya from Microsoft is saying, we want to be regulated. I mean, I don't know if that's just lip-syncing or sort of greenwashing. But it comes down to this, right? We need guidance on this. So I have suggested that we should start forming digital ethics councils. People who are not always saying, no, no, no, we can't do this, that's stupid, right? This is not about ethics, right? But is to understand the complexity of what we're doing. So in the meantime, we have that in Singapore. We have it in Denmark. We have it, of course, all the companies are trying to set up their own council. I think we should do that here in Bristol. Get a leg up on this idea of what is the right thing to do. Because today, a lot of technology really isn't working that well, like speech recognition or AI. It's not quite there yet. But it will be, right? Then the question is, what do we want? Again, Tim Cook says on this, and it's very important, right? Technology can do great things. But it does not want to do great things. It doesn't want anything. That's so true. This technology can do great things. It doesn't have any intent. I mean, I can make 5,000 of these and do all kinds of interesting things with technology. But what do we want?  Not technology. And these days, if you listen to the stories about the future, who's telling the best stories about the future? Apart from myself, of course. Just kidding. But who's telling the best stories, right? IBM, Microsoft, Huawei, right? The tech companies are telling us what our future is. That's not the way it should be. Because they're going to tell us a story that they can sell. It's good stories. I'm not saying it's bad stories. But when you see Bob Dylan talking to IBM Watson, it's impressive. But what is our own story? What do we want? So that has led me to a new theory, which I haven't worked on for the last couple of weeks. I think we should have a Hippocratic oath, like doctors, for all technologies and technology companies. You know what a Hippocratic oath is when the doctor says, I am going to do my work so I can do the best for people irrespective of who they are and how they get here. I want to use my abilities without a filter. That's probably no longer the case, actually, universities. But this was the discussion. So here's my Hippocratic oath for technology. I will ensure that everything I invent and able provider cell is designed to further human flourishing. Now, that is a heavy word, human flourishing. Happiness, right? Human benefit would have to fill that out with a couple of really hard facts. We can do that later when we have a bunch of drinks. But here's the interesting part. When you're looking at the current metrics of progress, I'm sure you're all intimately involved in this map, right? This is the risks on the right and the benefit, right? So negative consequences on the left and this is the benefits on the lower scale. And where it gets interesting as always with these kind of business school slides, it's not for me actually, it's from the World Economic Forum, but here, right? The top quadrant, the most benefit and the most risk genome engineering and artificial intelligence. And does that mean we're not going to do any of this?  It's high risk, high reward. What do we do? Well, we create safeguards. We agree on the standard. We discuss how we can get, I mean, this is what we do with nuclear energy. You can have a nuclear reactor for energy today. Any country can have one, but you can't make a bomb. So we have to think about which way that's going. If you're looking at this child, this is from Price World House Coopers. I'm not going to explain this in detail, you can download it later. I'll put this up on my website, futurewrestguird.com. So all the risk, I mean, if you're looking at AI, it's basically a whole, like a, it's a huge amount of different kind of risk, security, performance, control, economic, societal. We cannot just build something and then say, well, the risk of somebody else's problem. Let the government worry about unemployment. Let everybody else worry about inequality. In San Francisco, if you go there, you have inequality pure. I used to live there 17 years. Now you've got 8,500 homeless. And at the same time, the last year about 4,000 millionaires were created in San Francisco. Who's going to worry about that, right? Will the free market take care of that? I don't see that. That's something we have to think about. So let me talk about the rest a bit more and then we'll have some questions. World Economic Forum again says, okay, there's two major things today that are a risk for us. One, climate change, and all the stuff associated with it. And of course you heard about all that stuff in the news the last couple of months. It's really percolating now. Number two, the red one, technology. Data fraud, cyber warfare, and so on. Zero in on this. Bristol, I read yesterday, right? The city council has decided that diesel cars will be banned in Bristol. I don't know if you hear about this, right? So it's a good move for Bristol. I think we should ban all cars. It's a different discussion, right? But I mean, these are the things that are happening. So let's have a quick look at this and then we can zero back to the technology. Climate change is now a number one topic and it's very quickly become a number one topic. I've talked about it for 10 years, but if you look at the stats, right? It's pretty obvious the stats are, yeah, they don't make for light dinner conversation, right? So here, CO2, China, US, the leaders in pollution. And here, sheep, beef, and pork are the major causes of pollution as far as our food chain is concerned. And this map will really do you in if you wanna have a nice day, right? It basically shows you the entire Southern Hemisphere, if we go up to four or five degrees and warming us, has been projected by the climate change panel of the UN. 50 years, right? The entire Southern Hemisphere becomes uninhabitable. 300 million climate refugees.  So how do we solve this? Second thing is digital pollution, same thing. Using technology that makes us strangers, you know, we have more relationships with our screens than we have with other people. We forget who we are, we forget our skills, we forget to talk to each other. We make love to robots. No, I don't know, not yet, but yeah. So those two things are our challenges, right? Climate emergency and human emergency. We're not quite at the human emergency yet, you know, we're making our way towards this, but this is something we have to think about. Now, if I scared you enough, let's go back here to the topic of how we can solve the technical part.  These are the American ones and the Chinese ones, but what we also get is a kind of negative output. So these are the externalities, so addiction, bias, manipulation, tax avoidance, that comes out the other end. What we must now be doing is to say we want that to happen on the front end so we can take advantage of it, but we have to address these issues. I mean, if technology is killing our democracy, what's the point of having it in the first place? That's something we must look at, right? So trust, accountability, responsibility, transparency, control, self-control, regulation, big topics. I always say, I think we need an EPA, you know what the EPA is, the Environmental Protection Agency, or rather I should say what it used to be before Trump killed it all, the Environmental Protection Agency for Humanity. Do we need somebody that's gonna say, you know what, this is actually not good for us. Or we could be doing this, but what if the cancer medication, the genomic treatment costs a million dollars and everybody does it that has a million dollars, everybody else dies, right? Is that fair, right? Would that be a reason for terrorism? Clearly say yes, I mean inequality is the number one reason for terrorism, right? So looking at this direction, yeah, do we need to protect this? I think the more that we connect, the more we must protect. It sounds like an opposite, like it can't be done at the same time, right? I think we need to re-humanize technology. And recently I've been talking about it so much that this is not anti-technology, it's the opposite. We need to harness technology for human purposes. So lately I've been calling this the new Renaissance.  That was the bottom line of the Renaissance. And now we're here and we're saying, yeah, our life is about technology, right? Well, that's not true, right? I'm not data, I'm not a machine, I'm not technology. My wife isn't an algorithm, trust isn't a download, happiness is not an app. That's the new Renaissance. And we have to use technology to make that happen. And that goes with the economic system. We have to think of a larger story, and this is happening now everywhere. I call this a triple bottom line, people, planet, purpose, and prosperity, four objectives. I've been trying to get the Swiss government to build a new stock market, where all the companies like Unilever, Patagonia, and others would list on this stock market that only has companies, what's called in the US, a B Corp, sometimes, right? Go on this stock market to list, like the NASDAQ for good companies, because there would not be much overlap between the two. So I call this sustainable capitalism. And I think when we talk about energy, when we talk about the future of technology, this is the winning horse. And I think we see quite clearly also as far as climate change is concerned, when we put this in the top, we have three objectives. It has to be holistic business model, not a one-sided model like Facebook. Facebook is an exploitative model. Turns us into fodder. Circular economy, everything you take out, you put back in, and with the human focus. And now, for the first time in history, we have companies who are saying, officially, this is what we are doing. Three weeks ago, the US round table, business round table, that's 250 top CEOs in the US, declared that the future of the market is no longer about shareholder return, but stakeholder, employees, partners, vendors, people, planet profit, right? And that's a very big step for American CEOs to say the top line of why we're doing stuff is not to make more money. Yeah, it may be, again, maybe just PR, right? Of course. Nice PR. But a lot of companies are now going in this direction saying, how do we actually make this work? And I think, ultimately, that's where we're going. This is my mantra. I think the future for us is really awesome humans on top of amazing technology. And to be an awesome human doesn't mean you have to be a programmer to understand technology, but it certainly means you have to understand people. Our education is gonna go upside down in the next 10 years. We're gonna have a lot more humanities, ethics, understanding, culture, art, music, sports, and technology, right? If you have to make a choice, that's a tough one, but I would venture to say that in 10 years, if you are understanding people, you're gonna have a leg up, right? If you already are a technologist, this is the skill that you have to add to be powerful in the future. So I close with a statement from my book and this little animation. We have to embrace technology, but not become it. There's a crucial difference. And I happen to think, also, this is a difference between cultures. In the US, we have a lot of culture about becoming technology, transhumanism, singularity, as we have in China. Here in the UK and over there in Europe, I don't know if that's, we'll talk about that later, but we think about this and we're saying, you know what, we want to remain humans, really. This is an important objective. We don't want to become machines just because we could become a machine. So I thank you for listening and I think we're not gonna have a short discussion with Paul. Thank you very much for listening.


Welcome to drinks made easy today. We're taking a look at the Bahama hurricane a really strong drink from Nassau that'll come in like like a hurricane like Any a few minutes to figure this out cut. Let's just know I want to do it now. It's what your mom said last night To build your Bahama hurricane you'll start with two ounces of Demerara 151 rum next you'll add one ounce of Irish cream one ounce of coffee liqueur and A teaspoon of orange liqueur in this case.


So, just to show you that experimentalists have seen these frequencies which are non-degenerate a 1 symmetric a 1 bending then b 1 asymmetric stretch and then there are these linear molecules which have 3 n minus 5 degrees of freedom vibrational degrees of freedom and then you also have similar to your water molecule there are other molecules ok and methane of course, I just briefly mentioned the TD symmetry and you will have these 3 n minus 6 or I have written some things here or it is already there it is not that the thing is some of these modes all these frequencies for example, if you saw these numbers they are all in the infrared regime ok, centimeter. So, they are all whatever you going to measure associated with the vibrational mode of a molecule has opened up a new field called infrared spectroscopy where they do these infrared spectroscopy to find the spectra of the molecules and so on. So, in that sense what we are trying to only say is using the group symmetry these are the kind of things have to be measured we do not know those frequency values. If you want to find these frequency values you have to go through that long method find the basis vectors and then find the frequencies by solving those basis vectors which are not done here ok. You can do it, but it is a little more work to be done, but experimentless can give you that these frequencies are seen in the infrared spectrum these are seen in the Raman spectrum and so on ok. Suppose I say a irrep is allowed for both infrared and Raman I will just explain what they are as far as the group theory person is concerned and if they see the same frequency in both we are actually validating it ok. So, let me give you some flavor of what exactly is happening ok. So, whatever we did so far is first you need to know the point group of the molecule and then you obtain either you can obtain a complete motion of the molecule which has 3 and degrees of freedom or you can subtract out the translation and rotation and write the vibrational representations also. Those are things which we can do, but essentially you have to remember that the way we write those characters are which of the atoms are in moved by the symmetry operation that is encoded in the NC. NC is the number of atoms which is not moved by the operation and then reduce it by the conventional decomposition. Eliminate translation and rotation if you started with 3 and degrees of freedom and the remaining what you get are the vibrational modes ok. So, just to give you a flavor of what these experimentalists look at the molecular spectra is the spectroscopy. So, you do have various vibrational rotational transitions and also you can have electronic transitions. Let me not get into too much of a detail here. Transition rules we have already seen for you to have a transition from one energy to another energy such a transition which is triggered by an interaction is possible if they satisfy the rule that you know the tensor product of that interaction operator, the irreducible representations of the states if everything adds up to give you a unit representations multiplied tensor product then you know that such a transition is allowed that we have seen in the two lectures before this ok. So, what I am trying to say is that here experimentalists have tried to look at these vibrational transitions and they as I said the energy or frequencies are in the infrared. Rotations of course, are in the microwave which I am not going to get into it. So, for a molecular vibration to be seen in the infrared spectrum they call it IR active, you should have in the vibrational modes the irrep of these vibrational modes should be same as the irrep which I associate with a dipole moment ok. So, this is what is the approach of looking at basically the molecules which as a net dipole moment they are supposed to be infrared active. So, what happens in the water molecule is that you do have A 1 irreps, A 1 irreps is like the z component basis right and they are like the dipole moment z component. So, in that sense you can say the two frequencies associated with the two. So, for the water molecule we found that the vibration is 2 times A 1 plus B 1. A 1 irreps the basis was z basis equivalently I can write the electric dipole moment which is the z basis. So, since A 1 is transforming like the z component of the electric dipole moment I can say that the vibrational mode associated with the irrep A 1 which is seen in the water molecule should be IR active ok. So, the A 1 the two A 1s must be IR active. So, that is what I am trying to say here if you see the basis the two vibrations with A 1 symmetry as z as a basis function they will be seen in the infrared spectrum of water. This will result in two peaks you have to get two peaks at different frequencies you should not see them to be very close should not be degenerate because the C 2 v symmetry is abelian ok. So, that is why it is the water molecule is sometimes called as a intra reductive spectrum. The other Raman process have you all done this Raman have you how many raise your hands ok. So, let me just give you what exactly I am I am trying to say in this case is just that you can send in you know you can have an initial level with some frequency omega it gets excited, but it gets de-excited with a lower energy. So, omega naught is the initial energy and then omega vibration is that it is the final. So, this is the difference ok. You start seeing a peak this difference is you can see that omega naught minus omega vibration is positive. So, these are called Stokes lines usually when we have been doing all our exercises if you excite an atom take it to an excited state it de-excites back and you see that that energy is equal to the energy when it de-excites back. This is something which we always do which is the Rayleigh scattering Rayleigh line ok. Anti-Stokes is the opposite of Stokes you excite it with lower energy, but it de-excites with a higher energy. So, this is something which is not very normally seen in molecules, but it could be generated is what is the these are the three lines and they call this as Raman active if you find such frequencies in these vibrational modes of the molecule ok. So, one of the quantities which one should look at is the dipole moment time dependent dipole moment related to the electric field and the object which it connects is the polarizability. So, polarizability is what tensor this is a rank one which one will be it will be binary basis or primary basis no. So, it will be a binary basis it is another like moment of inertia tensor this will also be a tensor and basically you can see that the frequency with resin changes Rayleigh frequency with changes Stokes and. So, these are the three terms which turns out out of this time dependent interaction term and what is going to be seen is look at the binary basis for the group symmetry. If the irreps has any of these basis then you say it is also Raman active that is all we do ok. So, for a molecular vibration to be seen in the Raman spectrum its irrep the vibrational irreps must be same as the polarizability of the molecule. The polarizability has the same symmetry properties as a binary basis or quadratic functions ok. So, you can look at here that the two vibrations with a one symmetry also has these quadratic basis. So, you can say that it should be the Raman spectrum as well and they do see in the Raman spectrum those specific frequencies with they see in the infrared spectrum. So, that is kind of validating that you get the same frequencies and these are the three vibrational modes of the water molecule ok. What about b 1? b 1 has x and x is that as basis again the vibration will be both infrared active and Raman active. So, you do see this as a peak in both the spectrum Raman spectra as well as in the infrared spectrum. So, that is the summary and end of my discrete groups. Now, I will start with continuous groups that does not mean you can forget whatever I have taught in discrete groups. You will see a lot of parallel in understanding how there could be connections between what I have taught in the discrete groups, how it happens in the continuous groups. Of course, continuous groups are having a set of modified you will have some modification because continuous groups are not finite order elements right. The group will have infinite elements and we need to handle it in a different way by introducing generators. In the discrete groups also we introduce generators. Even if we introduce generators the number of generators and the number of elements are not significantly large that you need to worry. You could also write all the elements of the group and work with us, but in the context of continuous groups we have to work with generators and that will be the theme of how to see this in the rest of the semester ok. Any questions on this? I am going to get on to the board to give you a flavor today and next we converts we will go more on SU 2, SU 3 and so on ok. So, the plan will be. So, we will do a warm up on translation now and then a similar thing can be done for rotations. So, translation where you can translate by a vector a any position where a could be any value. What do I mean by that? This can lie in R 3 is what I would say technically. What I mean is that A x, A y, A z can lie between minus infinity and plus infinity that is the meaning of this. This is like a three dimensional space unbounded. A x translation which you want to do on an object can be any value between minus infinity and plus infinity. Similarly, rotations will involve theta x, theta y, theta z where the values are at the rotation about x axis, y axis and z axis. The values can lie between 0 to x axis and 0 to 2 pi. Then I will slowly introduce groups which are leak groups. First I will do a warm up to get a clarification on the notations. So, the leak groups specially I will confine to this S denotes I will tell you what it is. S denotes that you write 2 cross 2 unitary matrices with determinant plus 1. So, this denotes this one denotes unitary matrices with the lowest dimension as 2 cross 2, lowest non-trivial dimension as 2 cross 2 and this S denotes determinant to be equal to plus 1. Next thing I will do is SU 3 that will be again the same notation the lowest non-trivial dimension is 3 cross 3 unitary matrices with determinant plus 1. Then we will get on to Lorentz transformations Lorentz transformation is on three space and one time right. So, let me denote it by 3 comma 1. I have to remember that it is like R 3 space and then you have one time coordinate which is having a slightly a different meaning ok. So, the Lorentz transformation will also involve various parameters. What are the parameters you will have? You will have rotations in so let me write it space time which we call it as 3 comma 1. So, this will include rotations in R 3. So, it will include rotations in R 3. You will also have boosts by boosts I mean that you translate one inertial frame with respect to another inertial frame by introducing a velocity along the x direction. So, these three rotations are theta x, theta y and theta z. The boosts are translating or moving one inertial frame with respect to another inertial frame with velocity v x, v y and v z. You all know this I suppose how many of you have not done basic relativity, special relativity, special theory of relativity. You have done this right. So, what are the ranges? You can see that theta x, theta y, theta z the ranges will be 0 to 2 pi, v x, v y, v z will be minus minus c to plus c. That is because of special theory of relativity which says that no particle can, no frame can move with velocity greater than velocity of v.


Oseo integration is the process of attaching an external prosthesis directly to the skeleton. It's uniquely suited for patients with military style or combat-related amputations because they often have difficulty with traditional socket-based prostheses. Some amputees function very highly in a socket-based prosthesis in terms of running marathons, triathlons, competing in Paralympic or even regular Olympic sports. But a number of amputees struggle with their sockets. And we have new designs, new plastics, carbon fiber, all these things that have the potential to make sockets somewhat better. But at its core base, socket technology hasn't changed in the last decades or even more than a century in some respects. This is not just a surgical procedure. This is a procedure that requires buy-in from orthopedic surgeons, plastic surgeons, rehabilitation physicians, prosthetists, therapists. So patients can get the best possible outcome. I think in an appropriately counseled and selected patient, this is a really great and exciting alternative. Well, I had been investigating having it done on my leg with someone I had met through the VA system and he said, you should have your arm done first. And I said, we'll all do respect, sir. Nobody's doing arms yet. He said, that's because it's just about to be done. Do you want to be first? And I said, absolutely. And I got on the list and here I am. The mission of the Department of Defense Osteo-Integration Program is to develop the capability of osteo-integration within the Department of Defense. The first step is to gain experience in screening, operating on patients and performing the rehabilitation and then training other providers from other centers who are familiar with the technique. So when these patients have complications and some of them will, they'll be able to be cared for closer to home.


Stop scrolling and hear me out. Did you know that you can manifest your dreams using the frequency of your thoughts? I will show you how in the next one minute. So keep watching. Every single thought you have has a frequency. If your thoughts are tied to feelings and emotions like anger or frustration or pain or guilt, those kinds of thoughts produce a slower frequency. And as a result of this, you feel more like matter. It makes you feel more solid and less energetic. In our everyday world, we've got to manage our thoughts and our awareness. Each emotion comes with its own frequency. Slow frequency means slow outcomes.


Today's tutorial is going to be a Thanksgiving tutorial done on one of our very own Gilden G540 long sleeve 100% cotton t-shirt in the color military green.  Let's get started. Now let's put them all together. So what we're doing today is layering. Just want to press for 15 seconds. Now on to layer number two. Press for 15 seconds. Remember guys, we always have a tear away tag when it comes to our Gilden. So that's our Gilden G540 in the color military green. Let's go ahead and try this on and see how it looks. And there you have it babies. Here's the finished look. Do you love it? Listen, we also have beanies. These are item number 5SK. These come in all colors. We have two tones and single tones. We have safety colors as well. Pezzles back. $69 or higher. Remember, it is free. Absolutely free for your shipping. Anything that's under $69 is a flat rate of $9.99. Thank you so much for joining us. Be sure to like, share, subscribe, and ring the notification bell so you can be kept up to date with everything that we do here at All Day Shirts. See you next video!


Good morning. Mayor Adams joined by the administration, the team leaders. We had a series of things that took place overnight during the evening and early this morning and we believe that during these times where there's a high level of tension in the city, we want to be as upfront and as informed as possible to the public to keep them knowledgeable of what is unfolding and what is taking place. And so today the police commissioner and the deputy mayor Banks and I are coming to just give you some brief updates on a seven-year-old child we lost today due to a vehicle crash. The chief of department, Madri, is going to, Chief Madri is going to give us an update on that. He was at the scene and he's going to give us an update on that. The second is an incident that took place at one of our local colleges here in the city.  And lastly, Commissioner Rebecca Weiner is going to give an update on what we have dealing with the shooting that took place in Maine. And we're going to give an overview on what we're doing as a city as we know the person is still at large and our hearts go out not only to the victims in Maine but we also lifted up the family of the seven-year-old child that we lost here due to a vehicle crash in Brooklyn. That was my old precinct, the 88 precinct. I know the area very well and no parent wants to start their day losing a loved one to any form of incident. So it is really, it's heart-wrenching for all of us. We all feel it and we thought it was just important as these three issues play out and the current issues are still planned out in Maine.  The Commissioner and I, we have a line of duty funeral to attend. After the Commissioner does his briefing, we turn it over to the administration, the personnel NYPD to give the final and answer any questions that you may have. Commissioner. Okay good morning everyone and as the mayor say first let me say my heart goes out to the entire community of Lewiston, Maine. Those folks are going through a tough time right now and the thoughts and prayers of the entire NYPD are with them. So we all know this is a great deal of tension and conflict in the world this time. So when we hear about an act of violence with this magnitude, you begin to wonder what motivation might be and for everyone sitting up here, we also have to ask another question right away. Is there any connection to New York City? And while this is not our investigation and answers to these questions are never immediately known, that doesn't mean we have the luxury of waiting for those answers. As law enforcement officials in Maine began flooding the area and work in the case, we kept close watch here. My team, along with City Hall, had multiple conference calls to share information. As more details began to emerge and the shared magnitude of violence became clear, we made a decision to start marshalling our resources. Granted there was no specific credible threat to New York City, but to me, we could not remain idle. Our mission is to always protect New Yorkers, and that is exactly what we were going to do. Once a video of the suspect emerge, it wasn't long before authorities identified a person of interest. We took that person's image and sent out an alert to every smartphone in our department. We also made the decision to dispatch investigators to Lewistown, both to gather information as quickly as possible and to offer any support in any way we could. Lewistown is approximately five hours away from New York City by car. So with each passing hour, we also had our duty to ensure we had appropriate resources at the ready to the suspect somehow turn up here.  New Yorkers need to know that NYPD always stands at the ready to protect them and keep our city safe. We will never remain idle when there's a possible threat looming over us, and that is exactly what we demonstrated last night. As this case continues to unfold and the search intensifies for the suspect, you can count the NYPD to remain vigilant and ready to do our part. Thank you very much. And as the commission and I leave, we and Chief Shell, please update the number of protests and rallies we've had over the last few days. And I cannot really thank the men and women of the New York City Police Department for the job of allowing people to peacefully protest. And at the same time, maintaining the order and discipline and Chief Shell will go over the number of protests and rallies that took place. But the men and women of the police department, even some of the protests took place in close proximity of each other, but they maintain the level of professionalism that we expect from the New York City Police Department. So I really want to thank them over these last few difficult days and they're more difficult days ahead of us. But the men and women of the police department really responded appropriately and job well done as we continue to ensure that the people of the city are safe to go about carrying out their daily functions. Again, I'll turn it over to Chief of Department, Chief of Department Matri. Commissioner, sir. Thank you, Mr. Man. Thank you, Commissioner. Good morning to members of the media. Um, as our heart goes out, my prayers go out to the families and the communities of Lewiston, Maine. Right now, my heart and my prayers are going out to the community of Clinton Hills and the Fort Greene Ingersoll Whitman section. As this morning, I made it to the scene when we lost a young seven year old. Um, at approximately 10 minute state, 750 in the morning, one of our department tow trucks with a tow on the hitch was traveling westbound on Myrtle Avenue in the downtown Brooklyn area, Clinton Hills area. The tow truck, um, as it was proceeding westbound arrives at the intersection of, uh, Myrtle Avenue and North Portland Avenue attempting to make a right hand turn to go northbound on North Portland Avenue. Simultaneously, a young mother and a seven year old son were walking on a sidewalk of Myrtle Avenue at the intersection of North Portland Avenue attempting to cross the street going westbound on North Portland Avenue. As the department tow truck made the right hand turn and started to pass the crosswalk, um, the young child who was walking with his mother was struck. Um, the child went down, the tow truck operator stopped immediately, uh, EMS arrived to the scene and immediately pronounced the young child, the away on the scene. Um, right now it's an active investigation. The collision, collision investigation squad is on the scene and, um, as it is a very new investigation, the details are limited and we'll provide an update when we can. But again, my heart goes out to the family of that young boy and his mother and his school, his teachers who also on the scene. Very tough scene to be at this morning. Thank you. Good morning. Just in regards to Cooper Union, say I want to get a couple of key facts before I give you a quick, quick timeline of we were aware of the walkout protest rally at the school yesterday. School officials asked us to be there. Our police were there from start to finish. The school asked us that we would be in plain clothes. And that's a protocol that we're gonna change and talk to all the schools citywide about that protocol. There was no direct threats. There was no damage and there's no danger to any students in that in that school. Like I said, our cops there all day. Start to finish there with the 20 protesters that were in the school. They were there at the library. The library doors, they were not that students were not barricaded. The doors are open but closed. A school administrator thought it was prudent to close the doors and place private security as the protesters were coming down the stairs. So the proxy one o'clock, the protest started in front of Cooper Union was a walkout of students. Roughly 70 pro-Palestine, about 20 Israeli students. If you can imagine parallel to each other, the Palestinian students were chanting. The Israeli students were silent. This went on for a couple hours but what happened was people who were passing by the school, community people were getting upset with that protest and it was starting to get agitated from that point of view. Around 3.30, 20 of the 70, approximately 20 of the 70 protests from the Palestinian side went into the school. Now they're supposed to scan in. They are students. Let's be clear. All the all the people here were all students part of the part of this institution. As the 20 kids went into the school they're supposed to swipe in but they kind of rushed past the swipe in. Administrative error that the school is going to deal with today from school officials. From there the 20 students want to go up to the president's office which they did. They got inside the office, the waiting area if you will and they were chanting. School officials at that time with the police on the scene and private security felt safe and they wanted to allow the students to keep talking. That happened. It was going to fight a half hour. When the 20 protesters came down the stairs of Cooper Union another school official heard them coming down and that person made a decision to let's close the library doors. We'll put one over private security and let the protesters pass. For about roughly 10 minutes, approximately 10 minutes, they were banging on the doors of the library and banging on some transparent windows that you see into the library. From that point the protesters left. School officials thought it was important to ask the Israeli students, do you need help getting home? Any Uber? Do you want an Uber ride? They said no. We feel safe or good and they all left. We converged on the school last night. We had this full discussion with school officials last night. We walked through the whole timeline and we asked them what they need today. So today there'll be a uniform presence outside that school because again these kids are all students who go to school and some share the same classes. So we'll be there to make sure everything goes peaceful today and that's that's where we stand right now at Cooper Union. Good morning everybody and again our hearts go out absolutely to everyone who was affected by the incident in Maine last night and we will give you a brief update on what we as NYPD have been doing in coordination with our partners but just to underline this is not an NYPD investigation. It's an investigation that's being led by federal state and local partners up in Maine with whom we've been in continuous and extensive contact since the incident occurred starting just before 7 p.m. yesterday evening. An individual, a person of interest who's been identified as Robert Card, allegedly entered two locations, a restaurant bar and a bowling alley and open fire on all of the innocent people who are inside the location and like we've seen way too many times the results were devastating. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the folks of of Lewiston. The individual persons of interest photo was made available yesterday evening. He is currently not in police custody. The hunt is ongoing and very dynamic. We are quite confident at this point that this horrific crime has no nexus to New York City. We can't speculate obviously as to any motivation but we don't see any indications at this moment again from our perspective here in New York of any political or ideological leaning. But what we can say is through extensive information sharing with other agencies NYPD has worked through the knife to make sure that New York City remains safe and immediately after he was first identified by authorities in Maine his photograph and all of the identifying information that we had was distributed widely to officers across the city. We've also adjusted our resource deployments and Chief Shell can speak to these as well to provide additional touch points security and observation points at places of entry into the city since yesterday evening. And as is our standard operating practice whenever an incident like this happens whether it's overseas or here across the country we coordinate extensively with local law enforcement with federal law enforcement on the ground to make sure of two things one that we have the most up-to-date information and two that we can support the ongoing investigation if and however we can as needed. So we ask the proverbial New York question does this have any impact to New York and do we have anything in our holdings that could enhance or support the investigation. We do this via an information sharing network called Operation Century that's been established for over a decade that includes several hundred law enforcement agencies across the country and we're extremely grateful to federal state and local law enforcement partners via Operation Century in Maine and the broader northeast who have been in real time as they have been dealing with this investigation at Manhunt sharing critical information with us to make sure that we can protect New York City. And I do want to reiterate we don't see any nexus to New York City with this incident tragic as it was but we've been saying this a lot over the last couple of weeks and we we always do. We urge all New Yorkers to continue to go about your business but to remain alert to your surroundings and we've been saying this for a while now. If you see anything concerning please don't hesitate please reach out you can call 9-1-1 you can call a police officer or our counter terrorism hotline which is 1-888 New York City safe. Thanks. All right so last night late late late late night I was the executive staff of police department in the city hall planning a strategy as to what we could do to mitigate any chances of this individual coming to New York City. The first thing we activated our jock which is right behind you to make sure they're in touch with all city agencies Amtrak Port Authority MTA. We put out what we call critical messages to every cop every uniformed person in the city with the literature we had about picture and the Subaru he was driving. We had an alert on that car LPR cars were deployed and every city crossing into the city last night and continues this morning even though that car has been recovered we're still standing with that posture. Right now we have a level 4 activation going on New York City that's over 900 cops mobilized. We split the city into two parts and those police officers will be deployed to high sensitive locations throughout throughout the day. This is an abundance of caution we're doing this. Our aviation units will be staggered today throughout the day as to keep a continuous flight up to make sure if anything happens we're ready to go. Again this is cautionary as the deputy commissioner mentioned no director at New York City but everything always comes back to New York City one way fear or actually comes back so this is what we did last night we're going to stay in this posture all day and we'll watch the news and get updates updates remain as we go okay. Well that this incident thank you for your question first and foremost this incident is very new so our collision investigation squad's detectives they're going through all the protocols you know our tow truck operators the civilian operators civilian members of the service so that's going to be all part of the investigation cameras witness accounts and inspecting of course the inside of our tow vehicles and seeing what it was equipped with.  All right so this is for a protest let's give you a quick update before I get to that question we've had roughly 110 protests over the last 19 days encompassing roughly 70 000 rallies protesters we've affected 233 arrests well no 220 for our 225 arrests approximately were summonses for being in the street or acts of disobedience. We spoke with CUNY schools last week about our protocols what we're doing and how we're doing it. If you recall about 10 days ago at Columbia we had a great meeting in Columbia that they didn't want us on the campus we met with them we said what we were going to do and it worked out well so the schools were on board with us we'll be in uniform with all the schools that's a protocol we're going to change today in response to Cooper Union yesterday so we'll do that but we've met with the schools all the schools have been cooperative and we're going to continue to do what we've been doing uh when there is a protest at a school we have we have resources on site we have resources off site and we were working well at the schools so we're going to continue to do that right so we have locations designated by each each patrol borough schools uh high-sense locations where there are cops are already already there so for instance last night Matt and South we had cops at CUNY schools even though there wasn't a protest so we are doing that yeah and this is again part of what we often will do when there's a significant incident we can support investigation with resources that we have back here and we do that habitually and we can support the investigation up in the field and that's a good way to make sure that we're understanding everything in as close to real time as possible there are a number of law enforcement agencies that have surged to Maine since the incident took place both federal state and local so NYPD is part of a larger team of regional partners that are there just to help out as this manhunt is underway all of that those kinds of investigative steps are the reason that we would surge folks to the area we have no indications of any family members in our AOR right now our area of responsibility but again this is usually a collective effort when it's a high priority investigation like this involving an area that is relatively rural so there's a number of law enforcement agents who are there on the ground that can help wherever the investigation leads us but again we see no indication of any excess to New York City at all we don't have that information at this time


So hello, everyone, thanks for joining my presentation so late, yeah, getting late, so for me. So I'm here to talk about today about testing your GitHub pull request with package on Fedora, or CentOS Stream. So let's start. Interesting. So what will be the agenda, I'm going to do some brief introduction. Then I will tell you something about what is testing form, what I'm working on with few couple of folks in Red Hat, tudi z nami pek. Tudi o testovom farmu, bomo tudi sem vse možete izvedati nekaj možem skupniti na različno in če je to? V霧u moram odmah počenil tega noženja vse naša vse vse, tj. md. in mi to nekaj počenil. Prv tudi je tega vatkertija, ja, vse je tudi engineer prejputno bolj si se početil, da bi skupala v Karel do srpitičnih komandov. In početio, nače nekaj ne večo, da se razpronimo v KRL in da se početil, da se početil.  If you want to find me, you can find me as m. That's worked on 3.0, IRC, or that is my email, if you want to reach out. So introduction I'm not going to talk so much about packet. Who knows packets. After somebody. Okay, most of the folks. So if you don't know packet, basically it's a tooling automation that's trying to integrate upstream open source project into Federa and later also to real center stream packet is basically as I'm going just to tell you the important things that are important for this talk. Paket vseč, potrebno, je kontainsi v mene servici. Sledaj je Paket, to je komandobljan tulej, kaj je pravda vsočite in skupaj je. Tukaj je vseč vseč, ki je github aplikacij, o kaj je pomegne. Tukaj te prezentacija je na paketu vseč, da je github aplikacij, ker je to, da tudi je za tukaj, nekako je tukaj, da ste priprotili pr Mama. To je vseč, način. Tudi nekaj ga bomo si počkali o to, da vse počkali, da imajo pripoznutje in zdo. Zvom dobro tudi se pripoznutje vse srečicne pridazkanje z 10, 11, počkali pripoznutje, na verge, začinej prejavno, počkali se v kratku, vzve, vsih 3, 30, 40, 25, tako počkali. Zanimali smo, da je bila pripoznutje. Tudi testujem, testujem testovimi, We are creating a testing system as a service in RedHat that basically will behave as a service that others can use, other CI systems can use and this is basically not something new, this is something that we have been already running in production as one of the CI systems for RHEL and it's running quite stable, but we are creating a service for it, basically that other services can easily integrate. So we are dropping some of the features that CI has in vse božje, ko je vse pukaj. In Pakit je nekaj... Vzlučujem, da je namojevanje, poslepa namojevanje z umbrella, zato je tudi pakit, pakit testin sistem. Tako, kot... To smo vse pukaj, ko se božem vse pukaj. Vzlučujem, ko smo propočili, vse pukaj pozdajte nase vedno, kako je delaj. več nu, če je tudi sem moželi vzvojiti. Najbolj smo zelo, da je vzvojila vredna prejzina, zelo sem sem posledal, da je in tudi vzvojila skomodilil se za testmanj med data format, zelo sem posledal FEDORA in svojimo zelo vzvojila vzvojila, da je sem zdajal za večo večo verjstv, zelo se posledal FEDORA, zelo se do nekaj, da je vzvojila. Peket testovom dokumentaciji je zelo tudi na pasteri.  Protočno, da se vsešljeli vsešljenih vsešljenih vsešljenih vsešljenih v sešljenjah. Vsešljeni uspevene uspeveni uspevene uspevene uspeveni uspeveni uspeveni. To je prišel v presetji in udovidoj, v kateri ne je poseljeno v sWatchu. Prosti vsešel je zeločen. Na kateri vsešljeni skorjno je knivesak. sentos open-shift infrastruktur for running the VM, so we run privilege containers in in that we run Kremuk AVM where we run the workloads. Like the testing form the service currently has four main components, API which basically services that can use to submit testing requests. Then the console where usually users interact with and can look up like the test logs and results. Then there is the artifact storage and there are CI workers which really do the run the testing and test the stuff that is defined in the metadata. Yeah, the code we have it on GitLab currently but it's moving, it will be changed as we open source a lot of stuff that we have on downstream. So testing form and this testing is available to everybody using packet as a service. Like currently we have hard coded the VM specs, something that you can't change currently but in the future this will be then changeable via the metadata specifications. So currently we run VMs with 2gb memory and 4gb hard drive which people can use. We can only currently support only single-host tests. So all the tests that here run are single-host but they can be run in parallel. I will show you the multiple plans that we can define there. The current test execution is defined via metadata specification so to basically to run tests you need to add some metadata describing basically what it should run. In the future we want to have a very easy way that you don't need to use this metadata specification but you will have just providing one script to the testing form via packet and it will run it if you have your tests available like this. So we want to make the onboarding to testing as easy as possible. Yeah, so currently we test packet and I will show you the workflow packet builds, copper builds which we then install on the federal releases like each copper build, for each copper build we find the latest nightly build of that operating system booted, install the copper build and then run the tests on it. Recently we had the CentOS stream even though the QCAL that we have there is quite old I just realized that there are new QCALs already generated by the CentOS stream, by the CentOS team so we will be updating that so it always looks up basically the latest CentOS stream image which then it boots and runs the tests. So, yeah, I told about the latest QCAL images. So how easy it is to enable testing form in packet. So first of all you have your GitHub application that is a requirement currently there is no other integration for example with GitHub. So you need to have a GitHub application you install this application packet as a service via the GitHub marketplace. This is how it looks like, I have it already installed that's why there is edit your plan because I have already like installed it for my project.  There is a documentation for it how you enable it and for enabling the testing it is important to add this one job here that basically says that it should run tests on two requests and it should run against all federal targets. This basically means for this specification of targets means how many there will be records of tests in the pull request so you will see for which federal the tests run. For the targets you can use different targets federal development, table or concrete just one so if you want to build your PR only for one target for example for Roha then run only for Roha you can do that. Currently we execute all the targets in sequentially but in the future we will run them parallel speed things up. So once it's done this is how it looks like the feedback for the pull requests so I didn't add any tests here right now so the first test that will be enabled by default for all your projects is basically the copper build that has been built from the PR will be installed on the latest night limit of federal or center stream and that will be the first test. This test is done always. So here after enabling the configuration it just installs the copper build. This is how currently our console looks like so this is something where you can investigate and see how your tests run. We plan to improve this experience a little bit it's not very nice but as you can see here for this pull request it looked up the latest night limit as I think from a few days back I took this screenshot and put the image and installed the copper build on the machine and that was the first very simple test that will be enabled for all basically packet projects. So a few words about the metadata specification. In RHEL we have quite a lot of test coverage downstream but there are difficulties to move this test coverage upstream to projects also basically the upstream can benefit from it. So we came up with the metadata specification that can deal with all the complexities that we have for RHEL now so the key engineers in RHEL can basically have an easy way forward to the metadata specifications they can convert the old metadata specification that we have there that is in various legacy systems that are not even upstream and are scattered all around the places have one concise place where they can store this metadata indeed and this is not only test metadata and test related metadata like runtime and such things but also CIM metadata we would also like to have one place where you configure also the gating properties currently all this information is scattered via various places or hardware in the CI systems you would like to have one concise place where you can configure all this stuff so that is our vision unified test CI metadata for the components that we have in our operating system and have it the same way in upstream projects Federa and RHEL and that basically means that we can easily move the test between RHEL, Federa and upstream projects so that is the vision that we would like to get to so testing as a configuration should be consistent, concise test metadata format should be flexible enough to cover future extensions so the test metadata should be prepared that you can basically extend it to various executions if you didn't hear about the flexible data format it's like YAML on steroids it has some nice features where you can basically organize your data in a very concise way so you can like it has some nice features here is the structure so when your project grows you can like split the metadata into various files and you can there is some inheritance that you can basically define some properties only on the upper level and the other metadata on the lower levels automatically gets this we had a presentation on floc 2019 if you are more interested into FMF I'm gonna skip this slide so don't have enough time but this is basically we have some metadata levels defined in FMF that relate to the test definitions and I will show you the examples so as I said for floc 2019 we have enabled this for packet for defcon 2020 this is now going into production for one of the components as the first start and we will be on-cording other components so then later on begin for the federal move a lot of test coverage that we have for RAL so that is our main goal why we are doing this to be able to open source a lot of test coverage that we have been created that has been created by for the years for RAL so that is on floc 2020 and I hope we will have some presentation about it there so test management tool is something as a new tool that we have been creating so you can interact with the metadata so if you want to I will show you for example for TMT where you have dogfooding our own metadata for the TMT tool how you can easily discover what tests are available for your component this is landed in federal very recently you can install it by installing TMT whole package then you have a command where you can convert the old metadata that is the RAL metadata and that works only for the engineers then you can easily create the TM the metadata by base so you can generate this metadata tree so you don't need to write it, copy it over it and you can discover and you can discover all the all the metadata that is there and we want to have an easy way how you can execute the test on your localhost that was been one of the big pains that there is always problem to execute the stuff on your localhost so we will have one command which you basically run the metadata in CI and the same way on your localhost so the runner that we are creating there is already used for RAL and will be later for packet for packet we have a little bit different code there but the runner will be also used in CI so basically the same code will execute the stuff on your localhost and same way in CI so let me yeah so this is the TMT GitHub project if I run tnt command I can discover here that there are two tests defined in these repository tree plans and we have another level of metadata on our story so we also envision that people want to currently don't have very good ways how to describe the test coverage for their component so the test coverage when you ask how is this component covered with test you can't answer that question it's hard because you don't have any ways where you would map the test to features so this is where we are looking for another level of metadata where you can map basically some stories to plans or test which cover those so if I'm talking about stories story so this like Petr who is working on this has defined here a lot of stories so you can see that here we are mapping user stories defining concrete user stories and even defining where this is implemented so you can point it to a test so you can even look at how your stories are covered by looking at the coverage just a second so that's why I call it test management tool because it's more than just about running tests it's really an open source way how you can manage your test coverage for your component in a very concise way directly in it so the same way we have tests here I can try to view them so these two tests here that we have are very easy they run just one script in a specific part in the repository test each and also this one here we have the duration basically the longer that if this test runs more than that amount of time it will automatically kill it so that's the maximum execution time and then we have test plans which basically I call CMF data that we envision that would that you could configure running a set of tests set of tests according to some filters so in our case we have a lot of tier tests from one of which can run for 5 minutes another 30 minutes and you want to basically choose that you run only tier 1 tests for the gating itself but later on these stages you want to run the tests the whole battery of tests so you can create different plans here and yeah in here you will be able to change also the properties of the VMs infrastructure that the CI system brings up so you can change the memory hard drive or things like that do you guys still have them? yeah so here are some examples from the wild and simple vendor people use now this basically defines this is the level 2 metadata where people define basically two plans called vendor smooth and vendor full which is inherited by these two plans here so you write it there only once and that is just running some visible playbook that prepares the test machine and here are two tests that are simple shell executors that you would know from GitLab CI or from anywhere else where you just write commands which are asserted on zero written code do you have any questions? if they are yeah so can you repeat it? maybe the question is it so the question was if the stories and the coverage status is somehow parsed or needs some human interaction so currently you write basically there that this story is covered by a test and when you make that link it works and yeah so for the results investigation this is not about this is just about defining the test coverage, the test plans and for the results viewing or something this is not like currently included there but TMT, the executor, localize the executor will be able to of course run the test and also provide some reporting not exactly like this is the main idea for us is to be able to move all the coverage that can be moved from rel to federal I wouldn't consider it as a general purpose CI system where you can define all the phases as you wish like here we are very opinionated I would say how we envision things to be run we have also currently only like five phases that are strict, it's like prepare phase execute phase before that is provision phase then reporting such things so we are quite opinionated about how the test metadata should look like, we are not giving people to complete the freedom you can see on this project that I have linked there that they are using Zoo, they are using this thing to test and they are using also Travis it depends on what your use case is and currently this is only for simple use cases as I would say and it's targeting that one benefit that I see Tomas said here that you can still use it as a replacement for Travis because you can basically do some very similar things with it that's true, one benefit that we see is that we will be providing VMs to the execution for everybody using packet and that's usually not available for Travis if you don't have subscription I guess and that's definitely a good question I would expect Zoo to be integrated with the RRunner to run those tests that's what I would expect so we will need to talk about it the question was if we plan to integrate with AGR and currently no we hope, we really like Zoo and how it's managing basically the full request workflow so we hope that we could use RRunner basically to run these tests that is how we run it for CI we are focusing most on the post merge testing currently also for RL also internally for RL we don't have a good way for request workflow so it would be nice if we could also use Zoo for things like that there because it's like very far away on the road what about integration is it possible? what about integration githlab ask packet guys tomorrow I think it is coming but I'm not sure about the priority so I will ask this question on tomorrow's talks most relevant information yes so currently not so many people are using it we are quite well enough using CentOS but we have access to ABS that is sponsored to us from Amazon for Federa testing because we are supporting this Federa so I think we will be able to scale this out so the question was if it possible to run Docker inside of these tests basically you have VM with full root access and you can do whatever you want of course we are watching you so because yeah so the question is how we actually mitigate any misuse of the good usage of this CX system or this system, the testing system so currently we are looking at how to avoid it but we don't have any concrete tests but we are watching very closely currently manually what people are doing there of course if something is there we already have monitoring in place that we see some spikes so if you are doing something nasty you will definitely look at what load testing are you running there I would even say that load testing is not really the best platform for this this is more about functional test integration test that you are looking for what to be used there so if you start running your miners you might run it for a small brief of time so best intentions but yeah, outside the wild it can be dangerous yeah, I am out of time, thanks very much