So, before I start, I do want to thank you, well, to Frank, for organizing the program to Yvonne and to Fabrice, for putting together the summer school, to all other organizers, to putting all this trimester program. It's been really great, really enjoying my time here. And also, I guess I want to say thank you to the staff, because it was a support and during, I guess, Robert's train and saying that I will be set in living in a few days. This is a great place. So, I'll start my talk, and I will talk about focusing and less equation and going beyond the threshold, but I'll explain what it means. So, I'll be talking about the focusing, unlike Benoit, who's talking the defocusing, but I will be considering the entire RN, nonlinearities, conserved quantities, scaling, scaling invariant. It's pretty familiar for this audience, so I'll just flash it quickly. And I'll consider the case when the scaling invariant index S will be positive, typically less or equal to one. Okay, and the ground state, which is also probably familiar to most people in this audience. So, for example, from Steven Gustafsson's talk, although, again, I'm considering all of they are. So, there's a number 1 minus S just to show that we are in the regime between 0 and 1, but it's not really important. When S is less than 1, then Q is in L2, and in particular, in one dimension, it's written as the SESH. To certain power, if S equals to 1, then it's explicit, and we know this from Carlos Koenig's lectures, and it's in L2 when N is greater or equal to 5. Okay, so just I'm pulling this. Since I said going beyond the threshold, let me define the threshold. And before that, let's look at this quantity. So, there's a mass, which is L2 norm, scaled to the 1 minus S in the energy to the power S. It's a scaling invariant, and it's interesting to look at the relative size to the same of the ground state. And, for example, in the mass critical, when S equals to 0, so it's S equals to 0, right? So, there's only mass here, so when the mass less than mass of the ground state, we know the global existence due to Weinstein. So, when M of U equals to M of Q, then there is minimal mass blow-up solutions, and it was characterized by Frank Merle. If we look at the energy critical, S equals 1, then when energy is less than E of the... So, here's the S equals to 1 of energy of the ground state. We know the dichotomy, which goes to the work of Koenig Merle in 06. If it's equal, then there is also characterization, WW plus minus by Tomein Frank. And there's similar situation, and I'll explain a little bit in more details when S is between 0 and 1. So, the threshold, which I will be calling, is exactly when the initial mass, scaled invariantly with the energy, is equal to that of Q. So, in the notation, I will normalize so I could compare to 1. So, if S equals to 1, then it's this caligraphic E. And in general, it's this threshold divided by the Q. I shifted the S, so I'm considering positive S right now, just so when S equals to 1, for example, then we exactly have just the energy quotient. Okay, so by now, behavior is well understood when this mass energy quantity is below or equal at the threshold. Okay, so I'll give you an example of 3D cubic NLS where... So, if we look at the normalized gradient, so this is the part which is the change in this time, and then the mass energy. And if we look at the energy and bounded by the Gagler and Nirenberg from the left side, so the potential and drop the same term on the right, so then there's corresponding bounds. And it's better to see it visually as one of my favorite graphs where you can really see what's happening. So, too fast. Okay, so first of all, so here's the 1, right? So, that's the line which is the threshold. Okay, and if we... and this is the gradient squared. So, if our solution leaves on the... and it's constant, right? This quantity Y is constant. So, it can leave only on this horizontal line, so it's obviously bounded and then there's scattering. Or it can be on the right-hand side and then obviously the gradient can go to infinity and blow up, right? So, I'm coming from Washington DC and there's like always this political presence and right now you can think of... so this is like the boundary of the... what is it? First Tuesday in November, right? And there's like these two candidates and who knows which one will blow up. Anyway, so let's go to dichotomy below the threshold. So, this is the result which is in the energy critical case. And the point I want to make here is that usually it's written with the gradient, but it actually doesn't matter, you can state it was the L... with the potential part, Lp plus 1. And the other way is... so it's well known, so that's why I'm going a little bit faster in the slides. So, there's a dichotomy, right? There is a similar result for S between 0 and 1. And I guess originally we did it with Justin for 3D cubic and LS for the radial setting and together with Stomar for the non-radial. Then my student, Christy Goivara, she extended to all the range using this best of Stryhurt's estimates. But there's a... using just the specific LPLQ norm by Kazanavi, Fang C, and there's a similar work by Akahori Nava. Okay, so again, we are below. And if we... we can state it was the gradient or it was the Lp plus 1, the potential term. So a dichotomy, if it's less or greater, then we get either global existence and scattering or they blow up in the positive and similarly negative time. There's this... we can also do this sequence if we don't want to restrict to some radial. Okay, so now we come to the threshold itself. So this picture shows just the... used from the work with Stomar where we classified, but we got the idea from... they got some moral work on the energy critical and LS. Where there's also... so there's a solution QQ plus Q minus or WW plus WW minus. I think we've heard from Carlos Koenig and Jochen Krieger talk about those solutions. So there's a classification. Okay, so that's the question. I want to go beyond or above the threshold. What can we say about the solutions? Can we get some kind of dichotomy? Can we classify? Can we get dynamics? Okay, so let's start with some known results. NL stick was 3D cubic NLS because basically that's all what's known. So there's a work by Nakanishi and Schlag in 2012 described the global dynamics of H1 solutions slightly above in this regime where they classify and give different manifolds depending on whether it scatters to zero, to Q, blows up, etc. And the Bicciano constructs a co-dimension, one manifold invariant by the flow of H1 half. Solution is also close to Q in a similar regime. And then we got some criteria for a specific 3D cubic with Justin and Rodrigo Platt and also then Jelai Svartama. And that was the question where physicists would ask, for example, if you take the Gaussian data, then can you find exactly the amplitude for which you can guarantee that it will collapse or it will blow up? So I'll show you a picture here just to what is known. So we're looking at the Gaussian and for the purpose you can just think about alpha one. And this is the picture for 3D cubic NLS where S is one half but this can be generalized to other ones as well. So the blue line, this is the negative energy, the well-known glassy, Zaharov, Petrishivtolanov, lots of negative energy criteria. So if we take the amplitude more than 2.91, then it will guarantee that this initial data will blow up. So then the purple lines, this is where this threshold occurs. And it says that so below the amplitude it's guaranteed global existence and scattering or above it will blow up. And then we have then two criteria here, green or yellow line. So depending on what the initial variance is, it will tell also that there will be a blow up. So you can see that theoretically we have a gap, we can't tell everything but then the red line that's numerical simulation gives the number and that number actually showed up in the work of Kuznetsov and his collaborators originally when they were trying to also look at the criteria for the blow up and use it on the Gaussian. But we can also do it even for the case where it's energy supercritical because we don't know really anything on the global existence but the blow up we can guarantee. Okay, so variance turns out to be an important tool and we've seen in like lectures of Carlos Keneguer, varial identities show up. So this is just the basic one for the NLS. So we're going to try to use to see if we can get something like a dichotomy above the threshold. So the first theorem which I'm going to talk about is that we look at the finite variance and we look at the mass energy threshold being above one. And we get the following restriction. So we multiply so we could control so that's the first derivative on the variance squared. There's the energy and the variance itself. So we assume that and then now you can start recognizing sort of dichotomy statements. So if the mass times the potential term is less, right, so then that's the area where we expect that there should be global existence and it is but we need to require that vt prime is positive. Then we can show that this will be holding for all t in some maximal time of existence and then we can prove this scattering correspondingly in h1 or h.1 depending on which we have and those are the typical restrictions coming from the previous theory. And the two if the gradient is more than that of the q normalized with the mass then we expect and also we need to have the negative derivative of the variance. Then there will be a blow-up. So there's some sort of dichotomy we can get above and let me talk about the proof comments on the proof and then I'll do some remarks. So again if we look at 3d cubic and the less just for the numerology although we can do it for any intercritical. Then here's the improved Cauchy-Schwarz. So if you forget about this f4 term, what do we have here? Is this the standard Cauchy-Schwarz? Nothing else. So if it's in h1 then we can actually improve it and this is first I guess due to Valeria Banica but it's pretty simple to see if you take a function and multiply by the quadratic phase and I'll be mentioning quadratic phase again later on. But if you look at this, I mean this is the variance that's the first derivative so it's exactly this, nothing. And now if we use the expression for the gradient or for the force power in terms of the energy or the variance second derivative then we can rewrite it exactly like this. So this extra term which comes from this improved is essential. Let me redefine v and write it in this way. So take a square root. So then what we have is the following. z prime squared is some function phi which is written like that and again I guess it's maybe after lunch so to keep you a little bit more awake let me show the picture because then it's easier to understand. So this function phi behaves like this and the important part is that it's only defined up to a certain value but there's a minimum and it's always greater than that minimum and what's important is this phi of x0 is positive. So then what we get is that this z prime once it starts at 0 for example we can always say that it will be greater and then we can use the continuity that it keeps away from the 0 so it can be if it starts positive then it'll stay positive if it starts negative it will stay negative and it exactly will split the dichotomy so it's kind of a trapping argument. So if it's positive then of course it will be greater than this for all time of the existence that will guarantee that the second derivative of the variance is positive and through this inequality it shows that the either gradient or l4 norm is bounded and so then we get global existence and the other part is similar the other way so if we start on less than 0 we'll stay like this for all the times but then it means that the second variance is negative and the standard argument gives a finite time so only in part one we need to show now the scattering and that's the where we use the well dimensioned I guess 3 so we use the techniques like in dimension 3, 4 of Keenick-Merle and then for high dimension of Kilobyv-Vizhan here so I'll switch the numerology and I'll talk about the 3D quintic and the less but either s equals 1 or s less than 1 it will be handled it's just easier to see than I don't have to write the mass for example okay so we assume if so there's a little statement here that if the limb soup has T goes to T plus with the u6 less than that of the ground state in dimension 3 and 4 we have to assume that solution is radial then the time is infinite and use scatters so now for the scattering it's sufficient to show that it's the corresponding Strychard's norm in this case each one admissible LPLQ so is bounded and for that the proposition that we prove so it is the following the proposition 2 if A is less than the 6L6 norm of W then the s of so this is defined as the supremum of all the Strychard's norms on the interval I such that the energy is bounded by this E0 and the L6 norm is bounded by A so in principle this is if we were to look at the gradient then this is known that's what the but we have to work just a little more to get it for the 6 exactly because the sobole it's only one side embedded so it doesn't follow so we need to generalize and there's like a little bit more in the characterization in the beginning for the word but anyway so it follows the variational characterization in the beginning but otherwise we'll follow the strategy known for the gradient okay so a few remarks if we look at this set which is sigma of functions in H1 with finite variance and that's where we have this condition which allows us to go above the threshold then if we define the set sigma sub B so this is where we have for the LP plus one norm positive initially or is not positive but greater than the corresponding of the Q or less than this two sets so one is sigma sub B or blow-up set than the scattering set they are stable by the forward flow of NLS so the same variance sets moreover this solutions can have arbitrary large mass and energy so that's why it will be above the threshold and that can be seen by let's take initial data v0 for example which is the at threshold and we'll give the quadratic phase to that so if we just write out what it is here's the expression then we can see that if we choose gamma large enough then the energy can be very large so we can definitely get beyond the threshold and in fact this quadratic phase originally motivated us to look at this problem because again physicists were asking the following questions if you look at the Q and you give a quadratic phase can you actually say what will happen with the Q it doesn't necessarily stay under the threshold and you couldn't tell so originally when we looked there's a word by Kaznavi which says that if gamma is very large then you have scattering but that's all you can get but as a consequence or corollary of this result we have that so if you start with this initial data and the gamma is negative then in positive time it will blow up in negative time it will exist globally and it will scatter so here's the visualization and vice versa if the gamma is negative then we get the picture reversed and this is true not only for the Q but you can take any v0 which is at under the threshold for example the quadratic phase and it will characterize exactly the behavior of the solution and the same for w so I didn't include it here just because with the w you have to be careful it's for high dimensions because if you ask for the finite variance then it's from dimension 7 but ok now what can you say about so this was just the characterization and the theorem that you can have the global existence versus the finite and the global existence you can show that there is a scattering to 0 that's the question and what can you say can you tell something about the blow up or dynamics of the blow up solutions ok so I'll now retract back to s equals 0 setting or to the mass critical setting and give a little review here and we'll go from there so ok as mentioned before the minimal mass solutions are known in the L2 critical setting when m of u is equal to mass of Q and all of them were characterized by Frank that they are pseudo-conformal transformation of the ground state so then if we go just slightly above of this mass of Q then originally they were numerical and heuristical work of this log-log-blow-up solution Landau-Lenman, Pimpiniklau, Solemn, Solemn 88 there's a work by Freiman in 85 which observed it and then first analytical construction was done for the 1D quintic NLS that's L2 critical by Galena Perlman and then the fantastic body of work the systematic study was done by Frank Merlin Pierre Raphael and so these are the main features in this L2 critical of course so I should probably mention that there's a Bourguin 1 solutions and then if you start going into the inhomogeneous there's Pierre and Jeremy and also by Nika Karls and if you start putting several log-log solutions then there's a work by a change of fund and not interacting, if they're interacting then the recent work by Yvonne and Pierre if you do go, so there are all kinds of perturbations but on this work if you go anywhere and that's all which is known in this regime when S equals to zero so now I want to go into the mass supercritical and energy subcritical because if you go, if we are in energy critical then there's a type 2 and in the energy supercritical there's also some, well there's recent work by Frank Pierre and Igor on the type 2 so let me just stay in this regime and see what we can say there so basically analytical description is known only in a few specific cases and mainly it's an adaptation of the stable log-log when you take a symmetry of the solution and you kind of lift it up to an equation which has the symmetry so for example you know that the L2 critical is 1D quintic and so if you can take the 2D quintic and show that this extra term 2R over dr can be dominated so if you can show the stable dynamics away from the zero then that's another generation of the blow-up solution so in the first such solution was done by Pierre for the 2D quintic and the less and then the generalization for all the quintica was Raphael Zeftel and the only thing that they required to have initial data of higher regularity and then the equation itself and then later with Justin we actually for example in the 3D quintic they required H3 data and with Justin we could improve it and require just the H1 and then for example if you take the 2D cubic and the less and for example use the axial symmetry and lift it to the 3D cubic then we have a construction with the axial symmetry so it's a blow-up on the ring and there's a similar construction but using the approach of Raphael Zeftel by Ian's wires on it but that's basically all there is to this regime let me show you the picture which is by Gadi Fibic so if we look at the so this is the 2D quintic and the less and if we think about this radial so let's say a radius equal to maybe 3 or something so it's if we just look at the radial coordinate then the blow-up happens exactly at the radius equals to 3 and that's a stationary standing ring and with time it evolves exactly like that so excuse me in physics there is this notion of the strong and the weak blow-up solution so strong means that you accumulate the L2 mass at the core or at the center of the blow-up and weak you don't however there is still the concentration of some norm for example the scaling invariant norm and if we look at the for example coming back to the 3D cubic NLS so the scaling invariant norm will be the L3 norm so if we look at how the L3 norm accumulates or concentrates then it turns out to there are two regimes so one regime which would be typical and it would be the strong blow-up and there's another regime which is a little bit wider and it will be corresponding to the weak regime because it won't be accumulating the L2 norm so we were surprised to see this and then we try to think of the scenarios which can actually provide this kind of solutions and the preliminary analysis which was just in Homer which when it was based on conservation laws was the following idea so the profile would have to be still similar like this and to keep the second regime we would have to have that R0 the center they have to be traveling and it would be T-T to the one-third and also the lambda which is the rate of the blow-up or the contraction towards the sphere would be twice as fast so two-thirds and the profile would be the although we are in 3D it would be this one-dimensional so we asked Catherine Soulem and she confirmed numerically at that time and then there is also work by Fibich in 2008 who does the numerical confirmations and the specifications of this possible so that was when I was at Arizona State and the University of Arizona is just 100 miles so that's 160 kilometers south and Zaharov is there so at one of the conferences I was excited and I talked to him about that and of course Zaharov he is like I know all this long time ago he knows and he predicted well he did, I looked up so there is work Zaharov Rudakov and he does the resumention and even at that time there is some numerical simulation so but finally we were able to do the rigorous construction with a journal with Galina Perilmon and there is also a similar result obtained by Frank Raphael and I will talk about this now so we call it contracting sphere blow-up and let me talk through the formulation so if we fix a little E okay and that will be I should step oh okay right okay I should keep my hand down okay so there is a radial solution with a prescribed energy so energy can be any real number positive, negative, large, small so we start at the time t zero and we will backward in time so we will backward to the time t equals zero so then the solution will behave as follows so there is a the blow-up core which is described by Q so it's in the radial coordinates Q and lambda there are two more parameters there is the space and the speed v of t and the leftover part, the remainder okay so the Q is the sesh the Q of t so that's the sphere is exactly t to the one third times the constant which is that number lambda t was which the blow-up happens towards the sphere is t to the two thirds exactly with the Q zero squared okay and then also there is a description for the theta of t and the v of t happening like that and then of course we need to control the h and give the control for so in L2 we have bound on the h in h1 and then the variance localization so note that this says that for example the h1 in h is bounded by t to the minus one one over t okay so also note that so gradient that's like one over lambda so it's the contraction towards the sphere is t to the minus two thirds and the localization is t to the one third okay so that's the statement of the theorem okay so just to visualize how this happens this is I had a colleague back in Arizona state, Rodrigo Plattich who did this visualizations and so the intensity of the color is proportional to the rate to the gradient of the L2 norm so if it gets really red then it becomes large and this is the first time and then as time goes on then you can see that the so the sphere moves towards the origin and then it basically so contracting is happening towards the sphere but the sphere itself is moving towards the origin that's how the okay so I'll make some comments before I go to the remarks on the proof so this NLS is the 3D cubic right so it's a third dimensional but we do use the one dimensional profile sesh ground state now via scaling as we can scale this blob dynamics can have an arbitrary mass so that's why it's an above threshold or even when we can think about M of q plus epsilon in this log log it's not the log log gem or in fact the third comment is that the rates of blow up in contractions are very different from previously known so numerics show that this dynamics is stable under radial perturbations however if they're not radial then I don't think they're stable that's I think the work by Fibich there right it splits so physically I mean I probably can't see this dynamics however still it's an interesting and so since there's a similar work by Frank Pierre and Jeremy let me make a comparison so I'll show that we start with four parameters as I stated and then we derive equations imposing two conditions and we get so the two parameter family now since we know there's this t to the one-third we expand those parameters in the t to the one-third powers and as I can understand in MRS use the ansatz with five parameters so there's an extra parameter b r squared and three a priori conditions used to impose these five parameters to reduce to the two-parameter family to obtain the profile equation which has a priori two unknown polynomials which depend but these are independent of time if I understand that correctly and then eventually we prove so we get localized variance and h2 bounds which gives us convergence in h1 and it also allows implies the control on energy so we can construct the blow up with any prescribed energy and so in MRS there's a localized bounds and there's a convergence in L2 we give precise values we only do the 3D cubic and the less but I guess this result it's the general setting so let me give some ingredients of the proof okay so we start with the following ansatz so there's a phase there's a speed and there's lambda so now lambda is multiplied so there's always this option you can either divide them also here it's a r minus q t so although it's written like this it doesn't look like it but all these four parameters they are time dependent okay so we write rescale coordinate so we write the equation for the u right so when we substitute into the equation we get the following it's very long but the point is let's see where the red shows up here in two places so we want to get rid of this term and so we impose the following condition so that makes a zero and then the second condition is we want this to be scaling as lambda squared so that's our second condition which we impose and then the equation looks like this so now if we sort of look at this equation this capital u looks exactly like a 1D so that's where we can think that it's a sesh plus a left over okay so then the question is like what can how do we get for the dynamics for the chi okay so for the chi so now instead of writing in the complex I'll write it as vector notation so here's the equation that we get so that's I so we switch from lambda to the w and there are terms organized in the following way so there's a Hamiltonian which is corresponding to so because it's a one-dimensional so the linearization we're doing around the sesh which is corresponding to the 1D cubic analysis so that's the Hamiltonian corresponding to that and then there are linear terms because so we substitute plus sesh right so this term which will be containing the linear terms with the sesh and this is the term which will be containing the linear terms with the chi and then chi squared and chi cubed we're organizing this higher order terms okay so okay and then so what do we have here we have w and q right and the chi itself so we write w, q and chi in terms of the power series okay so power series t to the it turns out that this will be just the odd even then this is the odd and here's the chi okay so then the claim is that we can substitute and solve this with the following parameter so we can fix we can choose w to be 1 and then the sequence for the w's q sub k will leave q to arbitrary this will help us manage the energy later on it will be adjusted to what the original is and then chi we can manage to construct as exponential decay provided that we can there's this solvability or the orthogonality conditions such that this right hand side we can correspondingly control on some time interval of course this t0 depends on n and there's a I need to put the restriction on r so that's okay so then we do the approximate solution so we construct an approximate solution okay so it's exactly like what I wrote the ansatz before and u is the sesh plus our chi is the sum in the powers of tk of chi sub k there's a r slightly cheating because it has to be a truncated version but that's not worrying about this right now and this u sub n satisfies this equation there is a right hand side but the right hand side eventually we can manage to have the control in terms of the corresponding the powers t again it's on this interval okay so there's also the energy estimates and that's where the q2 comes in okay and then we go to the exact solution so if u sub n is the approximate solution on this interval then for any epsilon between 0 and this time t0 of n we set the u to be solution such that okay so the initial data t equals epsilon is un of epsilon right and then we're well with this evolution so then for h of t which is the difference between this exact and the approximate we'll set up so now we need to make all the estimates and we set up the lopna functional so it has so I'm trying to be not very technical this moment but so w there's a combination of the mass there's an angular momentum and the energy and this is the difference between of u and un in the first derivative of this so then okay so as a lopna functional we need to get the bound on the the first derivative of this we need to check the cursitivity but that actually comes not the cursitivity comes not difficult because we know linearized operator in this case so there are extra terms we call them capos which we can control but that's and then we have to get the so this is all on this interval t between epsilon t0 and and the comparison estimates and localized bound so we this is the where we actually need to get the h2 bound so eventually in the compactness argument but all of this we need to do so that constants would be independent of epsilon right so then finally we can fix the t0 and for the sequence of epsilon j is going to 0 right because this will be the epsilon going to 0 we set u sub j to be an exact solution as I described over here with epsilon equals epsilon and u sub j of t0 converging to u0 so now we just need to run the compactness argument up to the subsequence we can do that then run the compactness arguments to complete the proof okay perfect thank you thank you for your attention comments questions just a technical question so capital N you have you choose it big with respect to universal constant that appears right yeah so you need the approximation to write in your results of the threshold in the first case if you had infinite variance and non-radial things you could have glow up in infinite time if I have infinite variance infinite variance and non-radiality there was possibly infinite glow up wait but okay okay so maybe get quickly to that but in all of those I assume the finite variance ah where I guess where I is it over here over here no yeah so that's why you get finite positive time either you have finite variance or radiality or if you have the infinite variance then we can show it for a sequence exactly and in your new results this also happens we don't okay so that's a separate though yeah we don't I guess you can probably redo the analysis but we don't do it yeah I mean yeah so right I probably can redo this yeah yeah yeah speaker


SCP-003 consists of two related components of separate origin. SCP-003-1 appears to be composed of chitin, hair, and nails of unknown biology, arranged in a configuration similar to that of a computer motherboard. Testing reveals SCP-003-1 to pre-date earliest known circuit boards by a factor of thousands of years. SCP-003-1 is considered sentient, but not actively dangerous except under certain conditions. SCP-003-1 was found on a stone tablet, SCP-003-2, on which it currently resides. The runes on SCP-003-2 are not part of any known language and emit pale flickering light patterns. SCP-003-2 is controlled by a non-biological internal computer, the contents of which are mostly inaccessible without risk of damaging SCP-003-2.


Live from San Francisco, it's theCUBE. Covering Red Hat Summit 2016. Brought to you by Red Hat. Now here are your hosts, Stu Miniman and Brian Graceley. Welcome back, really happy to have on the program the headline keynote speaker at the event. President and CEO of the company, Jim Whitehurst. Also gave a great history lesson and the catalyst for this whole convention here. So Jim, welcome back to the program. Thanks so much for having us. Great to be back on. I appreciate you being here this year. All right, so Jim, largest event here. You were up on the keynote stage. Give us what you take on kind of the energy in the show itself so far. Well, one of the things I find just amazing about a Red Hat event is there is a lot of energy. The people who come here are generally passionate about open source and that just comes through. And for me as a speaker up there too, I feed off of that energy. So it does have a different vibe than most events because people are here because they are passionate about open source. So before we get into some of the Red Hat specific stuff, last year you launched a book and you've been on a book tour. So I was wondering, kid chair, what lessons did you learn going around talking to people that have read your book, other CEOs looking for advice? What were some of the key findings you had? Well, first off, I'm just amazed at how much traction it's gotten. I knew it would resonate with a certain set of executives who thought, wow, my industry's being Uberized so I need to think about this. But literally across the board, I've had management teams from big German companies fly over to want to sit down and talk about this. The concept that the traditional production systems about run its course and that we now need to organize for innovation is pretty widely held. And so I think the biggest kind of thing that surprised me is how much traction I've gotten. Then of course immediately from that is for traditional companies. It's like, well that's great, Red Hat grew up that way. How do I go from where I am to where I need to go? And that's been a fascinating set of conversations to be able to have. Yeah, so do you believe that companies can move to become an open organization if there are 10, 50, 100,000 person company today? Oh, I absolutely believe it. There are different levels of things that one can do. And in the book, I kind of have this baseline thing that I talk about around purpose and passion and around engagement. And every company can highlight their mission statement, why it's important and connect people's jobs to that, right? That's purpose and passion and that's engagement. And any company can do that. And you see some great examples from P&G to some of the pharmaceutical companies that really talk about tying everyone's job to making people better off. And Ellen Loomis today talked about it at Target and kind of their mission in communities. Any company can do that, that's not hard. It gets harder when you get up to the next level when you say, okay, I now have a set of energized people who understand there's meaning in what they do. That can be top down led, frankly. It's then how you actually attack that middle management kind of people who like controlling information and think that knowledge equals power and breaking that down. That's really the harder part and the one where I've spent a lot more time talking to executives. But I think people try to do that first versus saying, hey, does everyone in your company know your mission statement and do they know how their job connects to that? That's something that the CEO can mandate, right? But if you don't do that and you don't have that foundational thing going on to the other, it just, you're kind of wasting your time. Yeah, you made a great analogy. You talked about sort of building on the shoulders of giants, where we are today in the industry is because people, we're willing to not patent the light bulb. We wanted to put those ideas out there. You talked about companies kind of getting uberized. Do you find that that CIOs understand that it's no longer about having to own everything, we talked about target. They said, we don't own the supply chain anymore. We don't necessarily own manufacturing. We're building on those shoulders of giants. Do you think people get that? Is that, I mean, that's very much this idea of participating on what's out there, participating, building it going forward. Are you seeing that beginning to grow, that momentum? Oh, I see it a lot.  I need to have my people be able to participate. And they see it from multiple levels. First off, I think across the board, CIOs recognize now to get the best developers. They have to allow their developers to contribute to open source communities because that's how people build their resume. So just if I want talent, I have to let them participate. And then for the next level up is we're starting to see more and more saying, okay, if they're going to participate, let them do it in communities that also helped me. And so we have a couple of projects that were companies we bought in an open source. So they're a little different like cloud forms. And I've been amazed to see the number of really large companies that are putting full-time developers on working on cloud forms because there's basically saying, this meets a set of needs I have, sort of, but they're these 50 things I want. And rather than coming to Red Hat and waiting two years for our developers to do it, they're just writing it themselves and driving it in upstream. So I think they're getting it. The biggest two issues I think the CIOs have around it is first off, they have to sell it internally, right? The number of CIOs I've talked to have come to us and said it helped me convince my legal department to allow my developers to contribute, right? That's a hard one. And then the other one is just the whole culture change of how you actually take a lot of people in an IT organization who are used to equating a system going down with getting fired and saying, hey, it's time to take some risk. Let's experiment some, let's innovate. If it goes down, that's okay, right? And so dealing with the culture change and then dealing with intellectual property lawyers are two big ones that they're working their way through. Yes, so Jim, Red Hat's always an interesting company to watch. First of all, congratulations. You know, the first $2 billion open source company. Thank you. When we look at kind of the existing products and some of the emerging products, I mean, you've got a whole extra dynamic of that, you know, adoption and community building and readiness. You know, it's not just build a product and hope that customers are ready for it.  Brian was just at DockerCon last week. We know how Red Hat is involved here, but how would you, as you plan and you say, okay, we're going to go from $2 billion to, you know, here's our goal to be a $5 billion company. You know, how do you build the kind of maturity of the communities and the open source products and fit that into the overall planning of the company? Well, that's one of the things that excites me most about Red Hat is if you think about where we came from, it started off with Linux. And Linux in the open source development model did a great job of developing features and functionality. The issue is, essentially, you want to put that in production long term. The last thing you wanted is fast feature revision, right? That's, you know, release early, release often and all the powerful things for a development model made it hard to deploy, right? And that's what Red Hat did, right? We built a business model to say, how do we take this fast piece of feature development and actually productize it and make it stable to run, you know, nuclear submarines and stock exchanges? And we did that for a long time on a set of technologies that looked a lot like what already existed, you know? Linux looks like Unix and Jbos looks a lot like WebStream and WebLogic. But over time as the web companies have really taken off, they've started doing everything in their infrastructure and open source. So now all of a sudden, CIOs see this massive wave of innovation coming out of open source. So if five years ago you set open source on a CIO's mind, they would say, oh, low cost. Probably pretty good, but low cost. Now when you say open source, they're saying innovation. So for Red Hat, we spent a lot of years taking share in established categories. Unix to Linux, Windows to Linux, WebStream and WebLogic to Jbos. But now what's really driving our growth is talking about how are you building your next generation architecture. So we are one of the largest contributors to the Docker project. We are the second largest contributor to the Kubernetes project. Because now what we're seeing is enterprise IT saying, here's where the world's going. Red Hat, you have to be there with this infrastructure to help us catch that. So now we're sitting in the CIO's office talking about innovation rather than in the VP of purchasing office talking about how we can take money out of your infrastructure. And that's a whole different conversation because you're on the value side of the equation. So we're seeing, if you saw it with one of the innovation award winners on Amadeus, they're using our container platform to basically drive their whole next set of functionality. So it's not about carving out costs, it's about driving functionality. And that's a much bigger market when you start to think about the potential for IT. And we're uniquely positioned to take all this open innovation and drive it as product for enterprise customers. And so that's why going from two to five billion, I don't want to be cavalier, but that's something that we feel really confident we'll be able to do over the next several years. Yeah, the more and more we, Stu and I and Wikibon and theCUBE talk to enterprise customers, government customers. We're hearing this theme over and over, which is we look at open source as our way to figure out the technology to educate ourselves. They feel like they're more prepared when Red Hat walks in the room, when any vendor walks in the room, it becomes a must have.   I mean, do you guys feel like you're the best positioned company in terms of helping customers say you're making open source part of your core culture, how you decide applications, decide technology. We're the ones that are going to help you turn that into something like you said, that you can run submarines, run stock exchanges, run telephone companies on. Well, that's what we've done for a long period of time. And, you know, what's fascinating to me is Red Hat's been the only kind of publicly traded kind of at scale open source company. I hope there are many more and obviously Hortonworks has gone public now and so Cloudera's fully grown. So there's another set of companies but we've done it at scale. But what's interesting is most open source companies don't follow our model, right? They actually do an open core model. And you know, we deeply believe in our model which is everything is open on the development side because it's a better model. But our whole business model is how do we actually harden that and drive that forward? So you mentioned OpenShift, right? So the problems that we're trying to solve for customers isn't what's the functionality in the container or even what's the functionality in Kubernetes around orchestration, right? Google's doing that, right? So there are plenty of really smart people who run big data centers who can help drive the functionality. What we're driving is saying, okay, how do you think about running that in production? So you take something like containers, right? Which we are all in because we're really passionate about it. We believe it's an incredibly efficient way to develop applications. But if you look at something like this recent bash bug, you know, the buffer overflow bug, that literally affected every container in production because that's in user space. So it's in the container, right? So if you're thinking about functionality of the container, that's one thing but we sit and start with saying, we're running production, all right? So the real problem is, okay, if there's a problem, how do you literally pull back every single container without taking your systems down, rebuild it to fix the problem and get it back redeployed, right? That's the mindset we go into these open-source projects with. The functionality will happen, right? And we try not to start open-source projects. We get involved in the most robust ones. Our DNA in day one is, how do I take it and run it securely, safely, at high reliability in production? And I think because we come at it from that angle, in the end, you know, a lot of these things, early days, they'll be, you know, a buzz about, ooh, this new person, new functionality, new cool stuff. But when it comes time to put it in production and you start looking about what you need, that whole life cycle and what we do and the dollars we spend on that start to show value and therefore help us drive our business. Funny anecdote, you sort of telling that story of thinking about the life cycle. We sat next to a guy at breakfast this morning, one of your customers, large retailer, he said, look, I have so many stores that when I have to roll out new stuff, I can do two, three, 400 in a year, but we have 5,000 stores. I have to think about that long cycle. I have to think about that many.  I think that's really, really critical as you think about how to grow the business. Well, that's really, so if you look at Kubernetes, we're the second largest contributor, right? And so we're not focused on the things that Google knows well. We're focused on things saying, okay, what does an enterprise need that Google might not need? So a greater level of persistence, right? How you start thinking about the fact that you might have multiple locations versus these few mega data centers. And so the feature functionality we're driving are exactly the things that enterprises need to augment the things that Web 2.0 is already doing and doing well. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. So what, you know, we just talked about containers. For a lot of people, containers are like, whoa, super new and, you know, kind of outside their realm. You announced during your financial results that you had a big IoT win, which even seems further out. Talk about where IoT and Red Hat fit together and what you're hearing from companies that are trying to push towards IoT. Well, I think a couple of observations there. First off, you know, IoT is not new and that there've been devices out in the field a lot. What's really different is they're now connected. And so, you know, I would say we were originally dragged into IoT at the device level when we had a couple of large customers come and say, hey, now that these things are connected to the internet, they're exposed and so I need to be able to push security updates to this device. And since they're all running Linux, it's like, well, who has a security response team, right? With the heritage of pushing, you know, within hours updates. Well, that's Red Hat, that's what we do. And so we got pulled in at the device level because of security, now that these things are hooked up. But what we found over time, the place where the majority of the traction is and that very large IoT win you talked about actually was not the operating system, it was messaging. All of the modern, high-speed, open messaging work that we've done plays incredibly well into IoT because it needs to be lightweight. And because you're talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of units, it needs to be very, very low cost. And so all of a sudden, we're building a nice business there, we've announced some reference architectures with EuroTech and with Intel, more at that kind of gateway level. And it's just a tremendous opportunity for us. It's really kind of come to us versus us kind of identifying it up front. Yeah, so Jim, I'm curious, what do you think about other large companies that leverage open source, maybe have open core, but haven't been given back as much?   Well, yeah, one of the things that excites me about something like AI when you have Google and Facebook and others who are pushing their stuff out is that I think that's going to force others that might pursue a more closed path because, you know, if you're trying to build and sell intellectual property, which is kind of the old model, and you're competing against Google and Facebook where that intellectual property is a byproduct of what they do, you're screwed, right? You need to rethink your model here, right? These are companies willing to give all of that away and build participation. So if you're one company trying to compete with that, over time you're going to recognize you're going to have to open source it.  Question is, if Google and Facebook hadn't done it, would Amazon and Microsoft, I don't know. They're typically historically been less open, but I think competition's naturally dragging them that way. So it's great to have a couple that are open, and I think that will help drag others that way. Okay, so you talked about the mind shift from open source being cost-centric to innovation-centric. What about security? What are the conversations you're having with customers and how security fits into the conversation around your solution set? Well, it's top of mind of every board of directors on or I talk to every CIO out there. There is a growing recognition that security is, you know, probably the single largest threat that most IT organizations are going to have to face. What I find interesting is, I don't hear a lot about who is open source more or less secure. If anything, there's a general kind of growing agreement that it's more secure, but recognize open source development model. The problem that you have is, if you don't lifecycle manage it, if it's inherently more secure, but you don't lifecycle manage it, you got a problem. We last year actually just as a thought experiment wrote four hello world applications in containers, okay? Now, and compiled them. So this was, you know, of course where Red has, so C, Java, but also JavaScript and Python. And then we looked over the course of the next year, how many security updates did we push that were packages in user space, so therefore inside the container against those. And it varied from, you know, 50 to 60 to a couple hundred. So, lifecycle managing open source is no different than lifecycle managing any other piece of software. So the biggest risk that here CIOs talk about is, well, I don't know what all is in my infrastructure because if people have downloaded and used open source stuff that I'm not pushing updates to, I'm at risk. And that's true. And so part of our message is to say, that's not something inherently wrong with open source. Open source because of the model is inherently more secure because you have more eyes on it. That doesn't mean that you don't have to lifecycle manage it like any other piece of software in production. And that's the one we try to hammer on, hammer on, hammer on because you do get a lot of developers who get really excited about the brand new thing, download it, put it in production and frankly forget about it, right? And those are the real gotchas that we need to make sure that we work our way through. So in the board level discussions, you know, what does the board need to know about security? Is there kind of a checklist that they should be going through as to what they pay attention to? Well, look, technology is 10% of the issue, right? 90% is processing governance. And so really making sure that you have a chief information security officer, that you have an organization that's thinking about it, that you have the right audit trails, that you really have procedures that are followed. If you look at virtually every major hack that we've seen happen, it's rarely to say, ooh, they found a vulnerability we didn't know about. It almost always happens because systems weren't patched or the antivirus security wasn't updated. It's primarily processing systems and you have to think about it no different than you think about your financial accounting systems, right? You know, I have to sign every quarter as a public company our documents that say, we have a full set of audited results and we have processes and procedures. We have to follow those in IT just as rigorously and you know, IT is an interesting mix of production stuff that, let's be honest, feels dull and all the cool bells and whistles, new cool things. And the issue is all those cool bell and whistle new things when they go into production, needs to have all that boring audit trail process system around it. And as a board, and the boards that I'm on are the ones that I've talked to about this, it's really process system audibility. The technology is actually a much smaller piece of the overall thing. Yeah, I'll ask you one last question because I know we're running short on time, you're busy. It's kind of a crazy world these days. Microsoft loves Linux, open source is winning, I can get software anywhere on public clouds and like how do you talk to CIOs when all the rules that we used to know, the swim lanes we used to know for 10, 20 years are kind of going, I mean is there ever been a better time for the customer to say I want to dictate how vendors and technology can help me? Like how do you help people make sense of all these things being kind of crazy in gray areas? Well man, that's one of the fascinating things. So I think people are beginning to recognize more and more open source is a development model and for certain types of software because of user-driven innovation and the Googles and Facebooks, it's a phenomenally powerful innovation model. That doesn't mean there's open source and there's proprietary, right? There's so many solutions ultimately or a mix of those things in every company including Microsoft is contributing to open source and leveraging it as part of solution. So I think there was a time when people thought, okay, a Red Hat versus Microsoft and one has to win and one has to lose because it's either going to be an open world or it's going to be a closed world and what we're finding over time is, check the box, open source is winning at the infrastructure layer, whether that's at Microsoft or anywhere else. But that doesn't mean the whole world is going to become a bunch of Red Hats and so understanding exactly the power of open source, where it fits, how it resides, you can't say I'm not going to use open source or you couldn't run a data center. At the same time saying I'm going to do everything that's open source, you're going to limit yourself to vendors and so recognizing that it's going to be kind of a mixed hybrid world is something everyone needs to get familiar with and therefore ultimately understanding what open source is and isn't. The development model versus how you consume software fundamentally different things. Yeah, great. Jim, last question I have for you. Just organizationally, as Brian said, there's so many changes going on. How do you balance the, keeping certain products and communities going, starting up new environments? You've had a couple of acquisitions you've made, the growth of the company overall. It's a really tough thing to balance. Red Hat in general, our biggest issue is we have too much opportunity, right? We have a model, this production system and ability to then build product out of that for mission critical workload that is extensible in a lot of areas. We could be in big data, we could be in SDN. There are a whole lot of areas that we're not in today that we could do more in. And so for me every day it's a constant balance. Are we doing enough without doing too much, right? Because more companies fail from indigestion than starvation, right? So most companies try to do too much. And so it's an art every day to make sure that we are putting enough wood behind the arrow or enough resource time and attention to make sure that we reach the full potential of the things we're in without missing too much. And I don't know if we have that line right or not, frankly. We obviously have existing core businesses around the core JVOS franchise and RHEL that are kind of relatively mature. But if you think about we're funding a whole set of things we're doing around hybrid management, OpenStack, containers, orchestration of container storage. And so we're already doing a lot. And so the question is, should we be doing more or less? Hopefully we're kind of hitting the right mark in that but we look at it every day. And obviously acquisition is one way to help us with that where we can kind of bring in new people who already have a set of expertise. All right, well, Jim Whitehurst, president and CEO of Red Hat, also the author of the Open Organization igniting passion and performance. Lots of passion here at Red Hat Summit. We'll be back with lots more of our three days of wall-to-wall coverage here. You're watching theCUBE.


Good afternoon. I'm Lauren Glendividian here for Town Meeting TV on the 20th of January, which is an exciting day in the history of the United States. I'm so glad to be here with Brian Pine and Sarah Carpenter, two of our Burlington City counselors. You're from neighboring, you're from kind of the same neck of the woods there in the north end of Burlington. Welcome. Thanks for joining us today. Thank you. Thanks for having us. Yes. As part of our ongoing coverage of Town Meeting 2021, we're looking at the ballot questions that Burlington voters will be looking at. And before we went on the air, you mentioned that there probably will be six or seven ballot questions. And the one that we're going to talk about today is just cause evictions. And so perhaps, so we're going to do it just a brief overview. And for those of you who might be joining us live today on the 21st, you certainly can call us at 862-3966. I believe that is our correct number. And we'd be happy to take your questions. But just, why don't we just start, Brian? Just cause evictions just seems to me to have been on the table in Burlington for 30 or more years. Am I wrong? No, you're right. This idea was debated in the 1980s, and it went to the voters and was initially passed in concept. And then when our charter change was brought forward in November of 88, there was a pretty vigorous debate and a very well funded campaign to defeat it. So it did go down. It was a 48% in favor of 52 against in the November general election of 1988. And it is a concept that are a policy that we looked to our East because New Hampshire in 85 had adopted a statewide policy. Since there was no momentum at the state level, Burlington decided to take this approach. And the basic concept is that no cause eviction is essentially a policy that allows for the determination of a tenancy really for no cause. So the notion here is that if a tenant abides by their lease, complies with laws and respects the peaceful enjoyment of the property for other tenants, that they should be at least given some level of protection. So that's the basic concept. So, Sarah, you, as Brian has, have been in the housing business for a very long time. Why do you think it's important? And maybe you could just also sum up from your perspective what just cause resolution valid item includes and tell us why you think this is important now? Well, just cause and really is a fairly simple context, which is you need to provide tenants a reason for asking them to lead their tenancy. And already in state law are multiple reasons, violations of lease, you know, causing problems with the tenancy, nonpayment of rent, a bunch of variety reasons. But in Vermont at this point in time, a landlord does not need a reason to ask you to leave. They can ask you outside of your lease or when your lease ends to leave for any reason. And we find in particularly in Burlington that causes a lot of instability and underlying that this wide window to if you would discriminate against tenants, if you don't have to give a reason, you don't have to give a reason and your home is gone. And so we're we were looking at really for tenant stability. I professionally have worked in housing, as you mentioned for many years recently retired, but doing primarily affordable housing, using governmental programs, all of the governmental programs have required this for years. So it's not a new concept. Brian mentioned that it exists in the Hampshire statewide, also in the states of New Jersey, Oregon and California, as well as multiple other individual jurisdictions. And Burlington, with its difficult rental market, we felt it was time to implement it here. And that's really what we've proposed. It might appear like a long question, but we tried to be sensitive to the needs of small landlords by providing some exemptions and we can talk a little bit more in detail. But the main goal is to provide stability to tenant families and a platform where tenants would not be disadvantaged. If they're not popular with the landlord and or maybe reporting the landlord or those kinds of things. So Brian, would you like us to go through your the slide presentation briefly, just provide more of an overview? If we could, we should do it quickly because I don't want to take up the whole show. We only have 30 minutes. We'll go through the slides, you'll run us through it and I'll talk briefly without reading every slide. We will come to the question itself, but I think we should just go through the basic concept we've already covered here. It just it says you essentially have protections unless you, you know, for reasons of nonpayment of rent, reach of the lease, breaking the law, disturbing the peace, those types of reasons would be eviction. Those are grounds for eviction. Those stay the same, those don't change. What we're saying is you can't determine a tenancy without a reason. That's the basic concept. So people often say, Well, we don't evict, we just don't renew the lease. It's it's ultimately to the tenant. It's really the same thing. And so I think this is one of the more complicated or controversial concepts is if a tenant has a lease and the lease ends in 12 months at the end of that 12 months, unless you meet one of these reasons for eviction or non non renewal, we'll go through it some of those exemptions that allow for a non renewal, the lease will renew automatically. So that's a concept that I think has been challenging for folks because of the way our private property system works. The owner of the property gets to decide what happens with their property at the end of the lease. But in this instance, a tenant with a valid lease that they can still renegotiate, they can still raise the rent, they could still say, you know, you're taking up three parking spaces, you're only allowed to have one, that type of thing. But they have to basically renew the lease under reasonable terms. But what if the lease, what if it's a legal document that says, let's lease is up in 2025? Again, you can, you can renegotiate it and you can change the terms and the price, but just still have that individual or that household needs to be given a cause or a reason for termination beyond just beyond just the expiration of the lease. So it does, it does change some of the basic concepts of of that agreement. So why don't we go on and talk a little bit more about the arguments for it? Sure, the basic notion here is that you offer people security of tenure, which means just means you can, you can have some security that if I can keep paying the rent and follow the rules, I can stay here. And that stability has really positive psychological, physiological and economic impacts on tenants gives them the ability to plan that their children are going to stay in the same school district, they're nearby their job, maybe their church, their community, their neighborhood. It creates a level of stability in life that is really beneficial. I think most would agree that having a stable living situation has many multiple benefits. That's the we want to prevent housing discrimination and an example that was provided to our committee was I moved into this unit. I had a spouse, I split up and my new partner, not we were not married, came to live with me and the owner of the property for some reason didn't like my new partner. Oh, they happen to be of a different race than the person who lived here before. I'm suspicious that they booted us out because if that's a type of discrimination, it's pretty hard to prove. But just cause would make it up to more challenging for an owner. Actually, they make it harder, much harder for them to remove a tenant under discriminatory pretenses. Tenants who want to report or need to report substandard housing conditions, there are still we hear stories from Lee Laid and Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity of tenants who live in conditions that really we should not force people to live in, but really they live in because they're afraid that if they complain, and they've already raised it for the owner, but if they bring it to the city's attention, and the city comes down with a code enforcement action, that they'll be followed with a no cause eviction notice. And that is a real, that's a real problem because it's both real threat to the tenant, but it also prevents us from having good enforcement of our housing codes. Because if you're not reporting these problems out of fear, you're allowing for buildings to deteriorate right while you're living in them. And that's a situation I think we would all recognize is not good for anyone. Creating greater stability does tend to turn over your rental units and look less turnover is better for the for keeping prices and a little bit of check over time as units keep flipping, rents tend to go up more quickly. So there is that tendency that the price goes up as tenants change repeatedly over and over again. And that's, that is one of the challenges in our hot market, where there's so much demand and supply. This is not a solution for supply and demand, but it's really trying to regulate the situation so that those who live in a hot, hot market have very few options. They have a little bit of protection. So that's the idea here. And I think it's, you know, it's not a stretch to say that those who have a level of security of tenure are more active in their community, they engage in the PTO, they might get involved in youth sports, or they may, you know, start to do more, you know, gardening in the neighborhood because they know they're going to be there. I'm going to plant some bulbs because I'm going to stick around here for a while and it just results in healthier or vibrant connected communities to have that. We already have a couple thousand housing units, as some Councillor Carpenter mentioned in Broenton that are social housing units, Northgate Apartments, every unit that's owned by Champlain Housing Trust, the Beetle Square Corporation, COTS, Broenton Housing Authority, they all abide by this policy, as does the entire province of Quebec to the north of us. So it's a policy that is in our market, if you will, it's around us, but it's a better thing to have it be level so that everyone's following the same standards. Why should we keep no cause evictions? So this is the argument, why change it if it isn't broken? It essentially allows for removal of a tenant you just don't like. You dislike them, you have a personality conflict.  So we did acknowledge that if you live there, you have to be able to get along with the people who live in your property. There's a certain level of sacrifice you make living in a multi family dwelling building yourself as an owner. So we want to give a little bit of protection and benefit to those own occupants and that's why that's why that was put in there as well. Brian, can I just interject because I think this is an argument we hear a lot, but being a landlord and owning a property is not a passive business. It's a really tough business and everyone needs to acknowledge that. But as part of that, in part of your business model, you need to take the time to get to know your tenants and if there's disagreements with your tenants, deal with them, address them, document them and if they're to a point where they are problematic for the property, make sure they're documented because that is cause for asking you to leave and no cause is definitely easier because you don't have to do the work to document the problems, but I think we're saying as any business owner should do, you got to spend the time and when you get the tenant that is problematic, you need to do the work to ask them to leave.  Good question. You're now leading into the exemptions. Councillor Carpenter pushed for a number of exemptions and was successful in getting those exemptions. I don't believe my slideshow will reveal that though, so let's go through this quickly and come back to the exemptions. Okay, well once I can find my cursor, which applies to my tenant. Veronica, good slide. I don't think we've talked about this one. This is where the exemptions actually renovation of the unit is sometimes people will take you got to move out because I'm going to renovate and then they just put on new coat of paint and they may lay down some new carpets. That's not the kind of renovation we're talking about. We will allow the ordinance the way it's envisioned will allow for termination of tenancy when it's substantial renovation is required for the building. So you can't stay in this because we're going to actually tear down some walls. So those types of renovations would be ones that could take place and you could terminate if that was the case. But just typical sort of unit maintenance does not need to be done through you don't need to terminate a tenancy to do that. All right, well you're going to because my cursor. Yeah, my cursor is not working.  So let's talk about your question. You want to move your family member in your daughter gets out of college maybe in a state New York and decides I'm moving back and you own a building and they want to move in and you say, you know what, I'd love to make it available to you, but I have someone there. Oh, but they're least expires at the end of May under the proposal that we have that would allow for you to move your family member in that would allow for you to essentially terminate the cause. And how much of a problem has unjust cause eviction actually been in the city of Burlington. So yeah, the term is no cause evictions are about 20% legal age says of the official evictions filed in the court that court gets rough annually. They get about 380 to 400 evictions and about 20% are no cause evictions. However, it's one of these things that's really impossible to measure and to quantify because most terminations are really conversations face to face perhaps by email but they are they are amicable and they are they go the way of this I've decided to do X with this unit and at the end of your tendency we're not going to renew and so you just need I'm giving you a warning now that's not an eviction that doesn't show up in any data but legal aid feels that it's enough of a problem that we need a protection that gives people some level of protection from pretty much what are you know what feel like in many cases are sort of arbitrary and capricious least terminations. So Sarah you had just mentioned before if you're you know you're a landlord you're a business owner and you're not happy with your tenants you need to do some documentation what's the nature of the documentation which is you know on this day there was a complaint what was the behavior you know keeping track of all of that you know you have to write it down and it's it's not unlike employment I mean a good employer can have a problematic employee and maybe they've done nothing egregious but over time if you're in a job or they're causing a problem and I think it can be similar with being a landlord and an owner you just need to keep track of it and you need to show that you're disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of the property you know if you're harassing other tenants that you're creating problems you just need to keep track of it. That is really in the law now I think what we're saying is some number of landlords oh my friend is here love to join me in my meetings but I try to get her out and you know you just got to keep track of it and I think it's definitely easier if you don't have to do that and you can just say at the end of the lease term sorry I'd like you to leave it at the end of the presentation so that's what we're saying is you got to keep track of it you've got to be an active landlord go through the work eviction is not a happy circumstance for anybody and it requires it can require a court order side part of this I think the state of Vermont and the city of Brooklyn maybe needs more work on a mediation program there is one underway there is a new mediation effort underway yes right now because of the COVID program the state has actually funded a mediation program that I understand has been quite successful and I'm hoping after the COVID funding disappears that there'll be a way to continue that program because I think that is really beneficial you can't and we've been asked this can't you require a tenant to go to mediation can't require it but we could do a better job in offering it and I'm hoping into next year that's something else that we can look at are there any other communities in Vermont that have just cause eviction no not in Vermont that we know not that's one of the reasons why we're doing this as a charter change earliest question or point was this seems very kind of general and doesn't get into a great level of specificity and that's because in your charter which is your constitution you know it's like your ordinances are sort of your rules your procedures and your regulations but your charter is really your constitution and you don't want to put something in your constitution that you have to then constantly go back to the voters in the legislature and go through a long process to change you want to have it in your ordinances so your ordinances are your laws and your bylaws your laws and so the ordinance is the place we're going to get into that detail specificity to be able to understand what it is that we're envisioning in some of the guiding concepts and principles but we couldn't get into the greatest level of detail because that's not really what a charter change is is that whole other process and we need some more definitions so there's still yet a lot of work to be done on what this fully look like and that is always what happens with the charter change is there any risk if this passes and it goes to the legislature because they have to prove it that they may say no we don't think this should be a Burlington charter change there is always a risk more commonly they'll tweak it they'll change it and send it back to us here's your law we passed your law but we changed it so just to recap before we wrap up just cause eviction is on the ballot one of several ballot questions for Burlington voters and just give us the top three to five reasons why you think it's a good idea go ahead Sarah give it a shot well I will do that but I first want to make sure that we're clear that in this there are exemptions we talked about the exemption if you or your family want to move in there's also an exemption if it's owner occupied duplex or triplex if it's being withdrawn from the rental market and if it's in need of substantial renovation and as well as an exemption for sublets and in-unit rentals so we tried to cover understanding that those are more closely held circumstances and we wanted to be sensitive to small time landlords so we added those exemptions why is it a good thing and it's back to what I think originally what I said is it's a method to provide more stability for tenancies particularly in a community where we have a lot of turnover the influence of the university and the young residents who come and go and can pay and do pay very high rents influences the competition for our families and we hope this will be a modest way of supporting families longer in Burlington those are my main reasons for doing this just to provide long-term families a better opportunity to stay in their neighborhood my basic gist is really this is one of the places where we can actually deliver on the notion that housing is a human right there is a right to live in a place people have to live somewhere that will make life more challenging for certain property owners but that's actually a cost that we have to decide is that worth it and I think giving people stability in their home has enough value that the trade off is worth it I do want to is this a backdoor to other housing policies like rent control we had a mayor we had a mayor we had a mayor who used to say every time we propose something to protect the tenants you put up rent control believe me when we do it we put up a huge sign that says this is rent control this is actually something that you have to have rents in the equation because if you don't address rents and someone can just circumvent this with a massive rent increase you're basically creating a huge loophole that is just going to make it meaningless it does look a little bit like rent control but it's really not rent control because that's when you attempt to control the entire market when in fact most people will never interact with just cause or no cause like the vast majority of owners and tenants won't encounter this at all so rent control controls the whole market this is really a tool the rent piece of this tool preventing or prohibiting egregious rent increases that needs to be determined what that is but that's been done elsewhere it hasn't worked as a control so there is a there is a a limit on rent increase when there is a renegotiation there's not an absolute limit what we're saying is if the purpose of the rent increase is with the intent of victing you then the tenant has some recourse this is somewhat modeled after what is done in New Jersey New Jersey has many communities with rent control but those that don't there's a state law provision that says essentially the same thing you can't have an egregious rent control if the landlord comes in and says I want to double your rent and you know that's just going to get somebody out that's the kind of thing we want to have prohibited that you know it puts on us on owners to justify the rent increase but and in previous versions we had more specific language and that's yet to be put in ordinance but if the purpose is to meaningfully just ask you to get out that would be prohibited the renter was still could have a high rent increase and this does not prevent that whole other this ordinance will not prevent rent increases well I want to thank you both for your time and your service and the city of Burlington and for spending some time going over the just cause eviction ballot question that will be before the voters on the second of March can't believe it's yet another election coming around that's great news we love town meeting at town meeting TV so Brian Pine and Sarah Carpenter I know very much for joining us today thank you very much have a great day


There's no way I could accurately introduce this video to you, so I'm not even gonna try. Basically, me and my friend Sirix had just gotten done playing another fighter's mod, and we were browsing the mods just to see if there was anything new to play, and we stumbled across a mod called Body Morph. This video is, uh, just what happened after that. So, Dion, we're checking out, um, let's be honest. We downloaded the mod together. I don't even really know what it does or if it's working. Bro, we did see some crazy mods. We did. We saw a lot of crazy mods on the Unbarum Launcher. Shout out. We saw, we saw some crazy mods, man. What the f- I was not expecting that. I was expecting a different mod that I saw. That puggy shocked me, bro. What, she is handy? How does that even play? I got, I got jumps, yeah. They did my boy like an alien versus Freddy there. I don't want to play this video though. I gotta see it. Ew, bro. Go, go, go, go.  No, that is exactly what that guy would sound like. God, oh my God. Why does it, why does it look like the, the messed up of Rugrats and Dragon Ball like, this is all grown up. This is what the. Come on, Chuckie. Come on, Chuckie, what's in it is that. All right, I need the city to see this. What are the intros gonna look like? I'm ashamed. Duh. I can't play here and see this. I was there. I was there. Oh my God. Oh my neck hurts. Oh my God. What is going on? I was not expecting for him to walk up with the big stompers. Oh my God, huge shoes. No, he had the Sora 11's on. That was crazy. Oh my God, bro. You got that Stewie Griffin skull, but like rotated 95 degrees, bro. Oh my God. Oh my God. Oh my God. Oh my God. I can't live like this, bro. They're all arms. Oh my God, bro. No, bro, it's like the world. Damn, bro, still got it. I know that 2-H in it. Well, the P-Rex arms, bro. Destruct your disc.   No, bro looks horrible. Bro is horrible. I don't even know what to say. Why would he grit his teeth like that? Hold on, I gotta see something. What's crazy is as you thought of that, I gotta see something. I gotta see something.  What is wrong with, bro? Look at Tien and Chelsea's reaction to seeing each other for the first time. Tien is like, good hit. What is going on over there? All right, that's just back to business for me, though, bro, because I don't know about you. I wish it was back to business for me. It will never be business for me. The big shoes. Damn, those shoes are huge.  I don't like that they all have alien head. The bald people really suffer from this. Get him, ugly.  We gotta see what else is body morphed about these guys because you could pick any, like, augment it said. I heard it was because of, like, the ultimate might change. I don't know if I just misread it. All my clones, man, if I get a goopy, I'll get two. Nah, they're all ugly. I know the people in that office are screaming. It changes it. How are you blocking my Wolfgang fist? Damn! That should have taken 75% of your health at least. Me, a Wolfgang fist! Say it with me. They didn't even see my face at all. Oh, no. A lot of the facial reactions. They facial reactions some more.  I know you ain't talking, bro, but I'm just like a big kid right now. Nah, bro, I know it doesn't fit through the portal like that. No way! Damn! Hey, congrats, man.   They got me cut off like this bella. Like, I'm dexterous. Cow and chicken's mom, bro. Guys, like the video if you are enjoying this one so far. Alright, let's see, bro. Okay, it worked. I'm just gonna rate them, bro. God, they're rotating so fast. I don't want 18, I'm cheating, bro. I don't want him either, I'm cheating, bro. I don't want him either, I'm cheating, bro. I don't want him either, I'm cheating, bro. Bro, he crashed the game! My paul told G, I won't do that again. Alright, bro, one more time. Mash it up. Alright, let's go. Game's not crashing on us this time, baby. Not yet. I know he would be throwing up right now. I'm throwing up just watching him. Honestly, we got... This is barely even... This video is not us being good YouTubers or anything. This is just the matter was really funny. So we got... He does not look great at all. He does not look great at all. What moves? He's truly a saiyan. You've made me mad, Kakarot. You've made me very mad. Why are you flying at me? Nah, no way, bro. It's a 360-gallon-gun nose-cope. I don't like this one. This one hurts. I don't like it.  Let me hit my kind of cat on it.  I'm living. The 360 nose-cope. Nah. Neo, little fake fist. Oh, look at that. You can see me. I'm moving too quick. Damn, bro. That's spiraling. I'm going to be actually... I'm going to be sick. Oh, my God. Hold on. I got to see something. I got to see something. I don't feel so good. I don't... I don't feel so good.  I don't like it. Bro, we got to get Gotenks in here to do his Beyblade move. That would be high-spin energy. That would be way too much. Actually, wait. When did that close, my eyes really start hurting. I'm like, is he blocking? What's happening? You're not looking the right way, bro. Do your final coming out, bro. That did not look like it hit. Oh, no, no. You got to... Low level... Honestly, I was going to say that one had to be censored anyway. Honestly, this is a no epilepsy video. At least that we can change it. Please, please, please do. Dotto, I have a proposition. What's that? Let's not get spoiled on what they look like. Hold on. Let's set up our buttons. Set up the buttons. Let's not spoil what they look like. Hold your eyes and just mash random. And then not look right. Go ahead and click random. Click random. And mash. Alright, now you can look. Alright, so we don't know what they look like. How do we burn it? Then we poke out Videl and an adult. Wait, this is the protein mod. So we think they're going to be buff and we both got Videl? We don't know yet. Oh my God, they're ramped! I honestly don't feel real. I didn't notice anything at first. We need that at first. Oh my God, we got the Johnny Bravo fucking. I thought it was going to be something easy. We're Johnny River. Bro, I look like Phil and Will's mom. Bro, I thought it was going to be like they just put the Broly mod a lot of hurt money. Put up a picture of Phil and Will's mom. Damn, okay. The cunts you made look more natural than this. Bro, we built like Donkey Kong, bro. Why did Videl skip like that? Hold on. Oh, damn, bro! Me too!   I don't want to play Videl at all. He's just going to take care of that, bro. You were right, bro. Not swollen as the way you look. Damn! I'm going to cast a role again, Videl!  We said, hold on.  He's going to look insane, bro.  Oh my God. What's Goten look like? Did you see that?  Hold on, wait. Do your level three again. Did you see that? This sick because the character doesn't look like that.  Do your level three. Look at the... That was cool. This is what I really look like. Goten being brawling is hilarious. Hey, Gohan. We're having tuna casserole tonight. Tuna casserole? Hey, Bro. You know, 17. 17 started hitting the weights after we got MVP. I'm ripping through my goddamn shirt. I embraced nature and I lifted 17 rocks a day. You lift iron, I pump big. Oh, no. We're just going to relaunch and drive Broly. We might have to do 1v1s. Bro, the game can't take it. Can you systematically avert your eyes from like above the... You know what I mean? I kind of cover it. I have the whole top screen covered right now. I can't see. Let's all be buff characters. Take turns picking buff characters. You pick first. Start with Z, Broly. Go ahead. And I'll start. Again, I'm not looking. I can't see them. Editor's got to blur it out so they don't get spoiled. I'll be S, Broly. I can't see either. I'm doing really hard. I'll grab... I know it is. I'll grab Nappa. Why don't you grab Jiren? He was already reading my mind. One more buff Broly character. Hold on. I got an idea. I want to see Master Roshi when he goes buff. Oh, damn. That's a good idea, actually. All right. Now, hold on. Go to the least difficult for this game. Isn't that technically the cell games, I guess? Yeah. You're smart, Bro. You're smart. I know this doesn't impact the video. The way I went about doing that is I leaned over to block with my nose, close my left eye and only use my right. I put my hand up and I covered up half of my vision. All right. If the game makes it like... Oh, my God. Oh, my God!   Nah. Say it. They got a little... Damn!  Jeez, you!  Under the hood for me to squash. His nipple alone can sew up. Damn! These are two frees. It's not accurate, Bro.  Nah, I know what I gotta do, Bro. I've seen all I need to see from Broly, Bro. Why did you up-tech? Because I'm scared, Bro! Why did you up-tech again? Why did you up-tech again? Look at how big and... Nah, Rogi is out of his league in this match. Bro, I feel like people who don't watch Dragon Ball, this is how they imagine Dragon Ball. This is how I imagine Dragon Ball. Doctor's Roe was in his bag for real, Bro. He was up to something.  Do it. You know what I gotta do. I like to include a little combo, it's like a cheat, you know? Alright, huh? He's taking off the armor. Damn! Oh, my God, he looks like a balloon! We look like SpongeBob when he blows up his arms. Oh, that's when I just walk up to each other. Hello? Could it be? Big respect to you, so I see the words.  Same here, brother. Who's this twerp? Now, now he's matching up. Only temporary, though. Ooh!  Put him on this stream. That's Master Rosie, Bro. You know who we haven't seen. Good day. I trust no one, not even Dragons. Damn, did you see his face?  This is Dragon Ball Z episode of People, Bro. This is wasting my time. You're wasting my time. Still the lamest level 3 of all time. Unfortunately.  Oh, my God! Is he bigger than Bro? How do I play inside for a minute? Oh, no way, Bro. Corners are going back medium. Light, medium.  Yo, he's definitely stronger than Raditz. Oh, my God. Oh, I planted some real estate. Damn! Bro, it's you. Oh, my God. I can't even see his face. It is a present for you. Hey, Bro, chill. Bro, chill. Chill, chill. Oh, my God. You're not as close as you thought. No! Watch that. Go ahead. Test me with your level. Oh, my God. Oh, my God, OG.  You're good, Bro. Bro, blasted my cat. Damn!  Hold on. Oh, my God. Damn! He's actually bigger than Jared, but he goes, that's fine. Yeah, Bro, I gotta tap in. It's over, Bro. We're finished with the protein mod. Bro, we can't see you, Bro.  We can't see... Jesus Christ! I can't even see Broly. Oh, my God, that is hilarious. Hey, first time in the game, then crash. I keep getting Yamcha. You do, Bro. What did we do? What were the two we chose again? Halo and persona... Stick figure persona. What happened to his arms and legs?  The first monster. Oh, my God. Oh, no. You're good, Bro. I'm about to transform into a stick figure. This is my ultimate form. Well, you can see I reduced the muscle in my arms. I get to... Oh, my God, Bro, those don't look right. I don't like this one either.  Your feet look so awful, Bro. The freezer race feet look so much worse because they don't have legs combined to them. Like these grippers, Bro. Now the suction sound makes sense, Bro. We're like glued to the ground.  We sound like Spongebob, Bro. I got to give your editor some work. Just put the Spongebob sound for this walk. Put the Mr. Krabs walk on my desk. Oh, my God. This is not healthy, man. This is not healthy. Damn, so this is the example where you skip arm and leg day, but you do focus on your core a little bit. Bro, get your skirt.  This is how I used to draw women in the second grade. This is how women wanted to look in the 90s.  No one says... If you don't get your fucking... If you look like Woody from Toys, Bro. Yeah, he got his leg. Bro, definitely needs repairs.  You dropped that, by the way. Yeah, I did. Yep. Hey, Bro, hold on, hold on, hold on, huh? How about we call it a truce, Bro? Let's do this on the Persona Mod. Okay, let's do it. Let's do it. I think the Persona Mod is going to be something special. Just from the slight spoilers. I agree. Oh, it hits level 3 with this Persona. It's going to look crazy. It's going to look like Tetris. Oh, that is cool looking. Bro, these are our stands. I know, Bro. This is crazy.   Damn! This is our final match. Hey, that's fine, Bro. You can try. I got you with that HD. I got you HD with my Persona in the back. It's over. His drag cannot be this effective. It's over. I know what you're going to do. Nope, there you go. Oh, hold on, Persona! That would have worked. Oh, that would have been so fire. Persona! Damn, I'm him, Bro. We got my silhouette out here. Did he have one, too? Did he? I'm playing by looking at the silhouette. Oh, that was garbage.  You just died to four, Motherfuckers, Bro. Four is obvious. All right, Krillin's silhouette a little tiny here, but it's hate. What the f- I want to see if all my clones have one. No way. Bro, that literally is just Tetris effect. It's all connected. Let me tie it up, let me tie it up. Damn, it's cool. It's cool seeing, like, just the animations of the models. Yeah. Oh, they became Geneva's little forehead. He's a different model than the rest. Hold that. Nope. Damn! Damn, I don't got it today. I don't got it today, man. It's over. It's over for you. He's trying to steal my strut. It's working. It's an effective strut. No! No! Get a little bit of this. Persona!  Does the real me only appear? Oh, wow. The persona actually makes that move a little more techable. No! I'm just gonna get out of here, Bro. You don't mind. I don't, Bro. It's scary. I don't mind fighting a normal hit. Yeah, yeah, yeah.  You're gonna wrap up this legendary video? How many likes can we get on this video, guys? Can we, uh, this one... You needed to ask that at the beginning, by the way. You know what? Editor here. Cut this out of context. Take just my audio file so that people can see it later on the video. I'd like the video if you are enjoying this one so far, you know. Leave it in the screen. I really wanted to see that, man. Oh, my head. Anyway, I kind of want to see it. You know what? No, no, no, no, no, no! Kill me. I think it's more important. And I also was probably gonna lose anyway. For science. Do what you gotta do. I respect it. I want to see how this persona jumps around. Damn! You can't even see it! I'm mostly watching mine get jumped. Oh, my God. That's the end of the video. There's actually more visual mods. I was gonna say, if y'all want to see more, there are more of these visual mods that we have not seen. So if you want us to react to that in a video as well, how about we punch it up to 23,000 likes? I feel that. 23,000? That feels good for this. This was a video and a half. God, I was not expecting that. I'm still recovering from the first one. Well, that's the video. Bye! What?