the public finance management and then we have Jimmy Jimmy is right below Mark Jimmy is based in Singapore and he's our leader in Singapore for responsible for all the blockchain related activities okay and and and Sean is sitting here he's also based in Taiwan he's on my team he's in my finance team and DD is the left right and called DD is based in in Japan and he's also currently working on the public finance management and blockchain initiative so we got him on the team and to the right side um Devon or Devon how do you pronounce your name yeah it's Devon Devon okay so Devon is based in in New York she is our technical lead for the pfm blockchain so we call it product but yeah the initiative and and the left right down the one with the big beard he is also based in in Canada he's our product manager for the public finance management so that that's quickly we've got the slides here yeah and and I think our key objective is to have you know Mark and also from Jimmy from our team to to discuss and share why we're doing this why we believe in in the transparency and uh they first came to me and and you know because of your podcast I said wow Taiwan must really care about transparency and then I I'm also very passionate about this subject okay so that that's why we initiated the podcast I appear in yes because my podcast is yet to be launched it's roughly a monster except from there okay so we'll be looking forward to that okay and then we'll share a little bit about our experience and our approach using this technology uh to to solve this problem and then lastly we want to get you some of your input and also advice for us and how to maybe help Taiwan government to to create this transparency using the blockchain technology okay speaking of transparency uh our side of the meeting is going to be recorded there's a video cam roughly from this angle which probably doesn't capture your faces like it's not like your likeness will be captured but the audio will and then we will publish it under Creative Commons attribution to well at least YouTube or maybe to some future blockchain uh okay so um we're really really happy uh to be meeting ey.com from ey.gov office because we're in the Executive UN and my email address is literally ey.gov.tw and so looking forward to the to the sharing yeah so ey with the ui so that's right yeah dot com and dot.gov that's exactly right okay so so with that I think uh I'll pass this on to um I think Jimmy will go first yeah thanks again Audrey for taking the time for this and you know in the interest of time I think that we just jump straight into the presentation you know I just like to set a stage about what we do as a firm or blockchain uh and uh and the one important aspect about blockchain is that it is always something about ecosystem um and in ey we believe in that as well because uh even the way that we set up the blockchain team uh is the global organization that cuts across uh all service lines we have four service lines covering assurance consulting tax and legal and strategy uh and our blockchain covers all this all these areas uh other than consulting on the assurance attestation portion as well so and our vision you know since uh the inception of this team has always been that blockchain will do for a business ecosystem uh or a network of enterprises or government agencies what an ERP is simply for a single company and and it is quite a dense statement but I feel that you know the more I've gone through this statement the more I've gone through blockchain TOC that projects the company the more true I how it becomes right because what the ERP did for a single company maybe 20 30 years ago is it standardizes the processes within the company order to cash for Q2P uh it standardizes the data that's used to process this set of processes so you have master data like vendors uh gl material but what it cannot do that ERP is to cut across multiple enterprises for that usually a lot of interfaces and what is known as uh electronic data exchange edis takes place and you will see a mass web of various exchanges which largely will be inconsistent and takes a long time to build up which we feel that the coming of blockchain is to allow these networks of companies or government agencies to be able to interact and do what previously an ERP company uh an ERP system for a single company so maybe we call it ecosystem resource planning or something sorry sorry you had a question is it no so maybe we can call this new new ERP ecosystem resource planning or something but please go ahead you're you're right I mean there's uh there's there's many people who say that perhaps you will take over the ERP system in the company we feel that perhaps not so at the moment right because the ERP for a company is still for a certain purpose uh it's internal processes right but you're right in terms of the network of companies that needs to be integrated blockchain provides a very very good platform for that and we have done quite a fair bit of work over the years right so if you look at the third point on the right a lot of our R&D has gone into blockchain design especially around ZKB zero knowledge pool so it's a protocol that we have developed quite a fair bit on and open source quite a fair bit on as well we developed some of these protocols on public interior with Microsoft as well we launched baseline which is a protocol between EY consensus and Microsoft so then again we open source for the public to use all towards all in the the effort towards enabling our vision right that blockchain will be able to do for business networks what ERP did for us in the company so did you can go to the next slide you know as part of our product strategy as part of going towards that vision as well we have two major platforms that we built on the first is on ops trade so EY ops trade is a platform that allows enterprises to transact with each other or both public and private blockchains and there's there's many different applications we built on ops trade the one we will focus on today and my colleagues will take it on later on in a lot more detail is the public finance manager so that's one thing that I think has served a large public institutions very well in enabling transparency of finances and enabling traceability of where budget goes to the other product that is that we are focusing on is more from an assurance angle right that we help people who want to analyze what's on the blockchain be able to do so with a tool we call blockchain analyzer so that platform works you know hand in glove with ops chain it works hand in glove with most of the major public and private blockchain platforms as well so if we go to the next slide please I think you know I just wanted to just showcase a few examples of ecosystems that we have helped connected and the next slide will show that across food and beverage traceability across medical supply chain across shipping and logistics and of course across fund management you know managing or fund management which is the focus of today's discussion we have used this platform to gain users to allow users in different parts of different organizations to be able to connect with each other as well so that's all I have in terms of making sure that you know perhaps setting a stage of where we are at in terms of a UI blockchain I think that what the next section we are covering is Mark is going to go through very specifically one of the application on ops chain which is called what we call PF and public finance manager and that's an area I think has interest not just very large government institutions but also international institution as well that disperse a lot of funds and one desire a means of to have transparency around this fund and to have traceability around this fund so Mark for help I pass the time to you now to go through a little bit on pfm and overview of pfm well very happy to do so and minister good evening good morning for you but good evening very aptly from from here just outside of Toronto let me just pick up on a couple of themes but I also want to just tell you a little bit about the story and the legacy of why it is that we have that we have built what we have built and with the team here and with many others along our side are now well and truly into the application and we think with some very exciting results and we'll give you some kind of technical details so Devin and promote in particular have worked on building some things up and you'll see one of the applications that we've been doing and I can tell you this working with some of the largest global organizations the international financial institutes like the World Bank the United Nations the IMF and so on but let me just step step back and and Jimmy picked up on a couple of very important points he used words like ecosystem use words like value he did mention budget and for me as the global leader of our public financial management space including the blockchain space but more broadly than that it really is centered around the notion of the public budget and as you will no doubt experience in your day-to-day life but we across the world almost every jurisdiction that we work in at the heart of all things government of course are all things public budget and the reason for that and I don't need to give you this lesson but it's but it's important to ground the mechanisms here the reason is that it's not just about the money but it is in fact about what the intention of that money is and it is the marriage of financial resource with social outcome with public safety with transparency with democracy that actually is the combination of what makes public financial management so important and so when we view innovation in the field of public budgeting we yet are involved with an awful lot of work around planning around budgeting systems and so forth but one of the things that we have the I'm going to say the privilege but also I suppose the expectation from our from our various partners around the world is that we should always be looking for that next level of advancement and in this particular case the next level of advancement in public budgeting has found itself to involve the creation of the blockchain solution that we're happy to share with you here today and the reason for that comes back to this notion that from a democratic perspective from an accountability perspective from an output from an outcome perspective I want to understand the efficiency the effectiveness the productivity of the way that my public budgets are being allocated the way that they are being consumed and the results that they are driving and what that means is that across an increasingly complex ecosystem that can start with central agencies central budget authorities the various forms of line department operating agencies and so on and increasingly a whole range of external actors both near and far from from government structures properly the ecosystem that is actually executing the intentions of public budgets are very complicated very complex and from a data management perspective from an information management perspective connecting the complexity is a technological challenge it is obviously a governance and a business challenges as well but blockchain for all of the reasons that jimmy described and i think for all of the reasons that you personally understand the marriage between the intention and the execution of a public budget frame a public financial management frame enabled by this exciting and and and now well emerged and well proven tech technology is really the value that is being driven uh and the value that we're seeing is essentially as as follows indeed if we get to the next page please there's a really simple frame that the intention is to enhance to provide single sources of truth and so forth across the entire range and the complexity of the way that public budgets are set defined and executed to improve allocated efficiency which is essentially around the economic and the social value uh and to provide a single source of truth to improve the administrative uh mark we cannot hear you can you pause no i think it's it's our side's problem it's it's the portable uh speaker oh yeah yeah it's our speaker here we're good yeah that's okay all right actually uh you sound better without our speakers there you go i'll pick up the telephone if you want that's right so we're right right around this source of truth public budget is apart and you've got the revenue functions of government you've got the expenditure and the regulatory functions of government and every one of the of the issues that you're trying to drive involves some degree of improved transparency single sources of truth in the efficiency of that but most importantly the effectiveness uh and on and on the final slide that i'll speak to you can actually see essentially which is which is the next one please they're dating we'll get we'll get to the very the very um powerful parsimonious which is simple but but it really is the simplicity married with the technological capability that drives the capability the capacity enhancement that we're seeing around the world now which is essentially i now in real time integrated across the complexity of the ecosystem and able to understand what my public budget is being spent on which is essentially the statutory reporting the public accounts view how and when it's being spent by the variety of actors that are involved which is really an efficiency and a productivity a value for money uh sort of frame which again i think most elected and certainly the senior non-elected officials that we work with are very interested in and what i would say to you most importantly of all is the connection then to the outcomes the outputs delivered and the outcomes achieved which kind of full circles the intention of public budget i have public money i have an intention i deliver a result and for the decision makers and the influencers that we work with we want to be able to provide a real-time very very near near to real-time efficient access to that integrated information and our pfm blockchain solution provides our capability to do that so let's take you just a little bit i might pause and just ask you if there are any questions if that seems to make some some sense for you and if it does then what we'll do is we'll uh we'll ask Devin to just tell you just a little bit about some of the technological application the way that it's been built and applied in particular i think we're going to use one of the world bank examples to kind of speak speak to and frame but any any questions at this stage minister um i do have quite a few questions but it's about the the nightfall data uh data-based um code base and the pull requests and the security vulnerabilities and various other technical aspects being a software engineer by training uh but on the on the top level strategy no this is very clear i don't have much questions all right fantastic well i'll tell you what let's take you down a level or two into some of the technological detail and you've got the right people on the uh on the call to be able to answer some of those deep detail questions thank you so we'll be as mark mentioned taking a look at some client use cases so we'll be looking at in particular the world bank group and the goal here was to track funds for the purpose of making sure the developing countries received vaccinations and we'll be looking at another use case which involves funding local food ecosystems again for for countries in need who who need to have food sources and that really starting capital in order to have seeds the livestock as well as the farming equipment in place in order to start their own ecosystem so we'll be we'll be talking about those two use cases in more detail but the graph that you see here um really shows the flow of funds down from what we call the L zero so our donors down into our government entities and then to our borrowers at our level three suppliers and providers and then down to the beneficiaries um and again this is in some ways an over oversimplification of the real process so in many cases you might have multiple providers and suppliers instead of just one you might have multiple borrowers and you might have funds that flow directly from government agencies all the way down to beneficiaries or directly to the suppliers and again we'll get into the more the technicalities of pfm just a little bit but again walking through on the far left so we have our donors and the examples that I mentioned this could be in some cases the EU and the donors want to make sure that their funds are being spent appropriately so in most cases they're able to see this view with an audit that occurs a year or two later after the project is complete and with pfm we really are we our goal is to give a more real time view into the objectives of these projects and link those objectives back to the funds that are being sent down from donors again through this through this fund flow so if you'll go to the next slide so love to talk about the process that we walk through for the pfm solution so we have typically our our donors donate funds they have agreements with various entities so in this case there's an agreement with the donor and with the receiver of funds so our government entities and many times these are tied to project objectives that are then passed down to the borrowers so we have agreements you know between one and three three and five and then in some cases five and seven and we're going to talk about how these agreements link back to the blockchain so if you'll go to the next slide perfect so we don't need to do a deep dive into all the capabilities of smart contracts but for the agreements between our donors and our borrowers and sorry our donors and our government entities we have smart contracts where we can define who the parties are what requirements have to be met before funds can be released so for example who needs to sign off on these funds are there any objectives that need to be met before those funds are released etc so we have agreements between our donor entities our government entities as well as our government entities and our borrowers so in this case this could again be linked to objectives and and these smart contracts are fairly flexible so they also handle the invoices as well as the based tokenization for physical assets such as farming equipment or bags of seed and so on and so forth so any questions there yep it's really clear thank you perfect um so I'll pass it on to per month and if you'll go to the next slide great great thanks David uh following up on uh you know Mark's overview on pfm and also that was example of what we've done with uh the world bank and the aid and development financing really general um I'll provide a quick uh view under the hood into the product architecture and how we built the UI of champion submission for me uh so starting on the very top now the end users can win departments and agencies at the federal government, provincial, regional or city and municipal governments and users can also be international financial institutions or multilateral agencies such as the one step in action now as you move down what you see is the financial management pillars and how transparency can be applied to any of these fundamental pillars such as the revenue that's flowing into the government expenditure that's going on in the government, regulatory compliance aspects or data resources now if you keep moving down this can be applied now in these domains now it can be applied to multiple use cases while this is not a comprehensive list of current applications that you see examples could be grants and loans management transfer payments between different levels of government, trade services and cost allocation and long-term capital projects and asset utilization uh initiatives etc now if you see the yellow box there those are the core capabilities that we've built and solution that support these use cases and they're organized as microservices and they're available via api through a service layer and for the lots of seeing the core blockchain components underneath they're the ones that underpin these services which is the smart contract model the token models so the rc20s for funds for example the rc some months for assets they also have the rc 155 mile per month tokens to represents multiple tokens within lending agreements loans grants etc and also if you see the rc the assets management through user authentication organization management which is reminds the permissions down to the granular level within the smart contract so every transaction needs to be authorized before they're in so we have granular option control and of course finally we have the infrastructure like that and the note here is that we are currently built on the private period protocol the plans are underway by not incorporate zero knowledge probe into a smart contract model to make it compatible with public Ethereum right well but that's something that's coming in the future but mainly the architecture you see here it's it drives a product design and it is designed in a way to be flexible enough for us to configure the money to use cases across the various pfm parameters and also across multiple levels of the value chain so do you think I might my suggestion is I think we should probably take some of Audrey's technical questions and and have a bit of interaction here yeah it's fine I mean I saw the suggestion that maybe I should share some use cases and I'm happy to to do that as well this is like fully transparent chance I love that okay thank you thank you so much minister yeah I was thinking you know that the example that Devon shared is for the world bank so if you can go back a couple of slices a slice dvd but if you expand across you know the ecosystems that we talked about so I think it can be applied across many many ministries of institution as well so I was just wondering do you see any potential areas we need Taiwan that you feel that you know such a landscape is is useful as well as well what the top level question is that since this looks like a z-cash ish uh already laid on top of the main Ethereum chain uh it looks like it's public domain right so it looks like one can just take it and run like literally taking a run copyright wise and and so what's what's preventing your ecosystem partners to simply build a a bridge to the main mainline but run mostly as a private blockchain due to cybersecurity concerns that I do not personally share but but what's your your angle in convincing people to run this entirely on the on the mainline and with the double risk of the mainline going somewhere else as well as your timber system not actually being able to to recover the state from the full history from the mainline it looks like an extra burden as compared to private solutions I think spot on minister I think you got a good point because part of this solution in fact in the earlier days when the public solution is not that mature that was just maybe three to five years ago a lot of companies do this as part of a private chain so they take Ethereum it goes into a private version of Ethereum and that's that's even to do today I think a lot of agencies are still uh you know going on the on this path largely also because they are not comfortable with maybe on a lack of some understanding of what's available on the public blockchain and you know whether the scalability issue whether security issue is there so which is why uh you know I mentioned a little bit about CKP just now so CKP is just one of the aspects amongst a few other things in the solution that allows the public blockchain to work so what we have put on CKP is to allow a transaction on the public blockchain between two parties to be private right so you know that the transaction occurs you know and it's able to validate the transaction but you do not need to understand what is the content behind the transaction and we understand that also there's a need for that because a lot of enterprises when they transact on the public blockchain they still want their contracts to be to be confidential between the two parties so that's the purpose of the CKP now for the purpose of PMM I think the maybe different agencies who have different agenda some you know for the purpose of traceability and transparency they feel that it's okay for you know where the sources wants to be used or when they want to be used to be made known some just maybe wanting to be restricted within that certain ecosystem so which is why I think I believe that you know some of the solutions will still be on private blockchain even today yeah because yeah I'm more referring to a it really it's not technical it's a social pressure a social issue that is to say if I'm a say level two implementing agency and I made a mistake maybe I made a mistake in a recording of a number in a few that's off by a few orders of magnitude and then using a private net I can use cybersecurity as excuse to talk to just my three L3s and one L1 and then we pretend this never happened but but if I'm implementing the PFMS dictated by L1 to publish that particular field there really is no way to not make the correction publicly according to what I understand of your design and so I'm just wondering what what what's your standard response to that social pressure because they're entirely not committing illegal things if they convinced their 303s and one L1 to make that mistake you know gone from the books but with your design it's it's now not possible to hide it from the public yeah I think I might I might take just a little bit of that if if I please minister so let me just step back we've been very very careful uh and both in the structural design that underpins this but I think also in all of our and I'd like you just called it sort of governance design type type questions to to to build to build a solution that is flexible to the purpose that it is intended to be to be applied for in the vision of whichever state or some state act actor that it is that we're working for and we have the capability for that to be fully publicly transparent but it doesn't have to be okay just as today's exchange systems are not in fact hardly at all truly publicly uh open and transparent so too can this can this be built so we have been very careful to make sure that those sorts of issues of governance who has access to what we call it the delegation of authority I think you probably understand that right at law the appropriation structure also includes various delegations of authority who has access to what bits of information when what what type and so on if there are honest errors that are made well those I think are just honest errors and they can be corrected but if you and it's not yes we are doing work that involves the integrity of the exchange corruption and so forth we are we are dealing with with some of those perspectives but let's just frame it in terms of if there's an error it can be corrected not everybody needs to see the fact that there was because it's most likely that it is being applied in the same sort of delegation of authority and access frame as would be today's uh financial systems the the enhancements though are that I'm starting to connect not just financial tracking but I'm connecting the financial tokens to the non-financial expectations as promote said we're able to connect operating with capital we're able to tie to hard assets to social assets and so on and what we're getting is that we are getting the integrity the complexity and so forth into an integrated view we can still define through governance who has access to that view and ultimately maybe that might be fully public and transparent but it doesn't have to be okay so yeah okay yeah my my main question is just it allows the ones on the upstream they are one for example to apply extra enforced by algorithm not by law constraints on say their downstreams the L2 and so one using this design that L2 are in a relatively powerless situation as compared to private blockchains or other backend systems to to argue back basically it's just an observation but understand your point that if you have the collaborative incentive for all the neighboring layers then of course you can change exactly how near real time how nia is that near real time and so on I understand that part yeah so so one of the one of the things and I just I know we just pick up one of the one of the comments that you've just made there is it I mean really goes to the incentive structure that is also tied tied to this because you can take a very kind of centralized view from the central budget authority down and I've got a high degree of authority and control that I'm trying to enforce but again it doesn't have to be like that I don't know any system in the world Canada Taiwan the United States it doesn't matter we always have the authority of things like audit reporting and so on but we don't necessarily want to introduce that sort of heavy-handed approach what we actually want to do is we want to allow for the administrative efficiency of those reconciliations to be as to be the efficiency to be as high as possible the cost to be as low as possible so that in fact we're not focusing our time and effort on the reporting the financial reporting particularly across these organizational boundaries but rather what we're collectively focused on is translating the money into the effort as effectively as possible and into the output in the outcome as effectively as possible so what we're finding is that you're replacing the administrative effort and time spent doing things like reconciling and connecting systems and so on almost manually like we have to do to today we're replacing that effort with focus on the more important issues of how do we actually improve service delivery systems how do we go to enhance the economy of resource allocation and so on and so the incentive we think anyway we think that the incentive is a very positive one because both the funder the fund manager and the ultimate beneficiary have all gotten a shared interest in trying to make that effectiveness productivity and value gain right so the main idea is that it saves time on day one and hopefully reduce risk as well that's exactly over time the more ties reduce risk but saves time on day one okay that that's very clear thank you and I have a couple technical questions in the yyblog chain github repository the latest developments has been around fixing security vulnerabilities and so on but the governance system isn't quite clear because for example and github automatically you know send out dependency warnings when it comes to potential security vulnerabilities the standard thing for a free software community to do is to triage and either close them as irrelevant or to immerse them in and there's also you know incoming issues that ask for clarity deployment and things like that but it doesn't with audio respect it doesn't look like it's being real-time governed and so is it actually the governance goes somewhere else and github is just a mirror or what's going on in the governance space for the open source project yeah I can answer that one so in an ideal world if it's an open source project you have contributors from all over the world who are in this case dependable actually opens up those automatic core requests for you so it does all of the uh all of the hard work and then you just have to pull down and test to make sure those updates are correctly applied and most times it's just version updates so in an ideal world everyone from around the world would start to pull down and double check to make sure that code was properly updated in this case we do find that in the most cases it's actually EY employees who are double checking a lot of those core requests we do have outside contributors but in most cases we actually have outside users but not as many contributors to the code base so that's part of the reason why but I do know we have a few dependable suggestions in the PR backlog right now okay so what I'm hearing and just checking my understanding is that the pilot cases you outlined basically you publish the the api the microservices and whatnot but then people operate on the application layer above that they don't actually have a lot of customization requirements not even you know the the usual one about porting to a different runtime environment or whatever and and they maybe they maintain some local deployment scripts and so on but the it's not a two-way street like you're not actively coaching them into the development team we are we're coaching them in terms of teaching them but yes many times the coders who are more perfect or at least proficient enough to understand and to use the nightfall and other open source code bases that EY produces typically do hard what we call hard forks so where they take a copy of nightfall and and and transform it but without necessarily contributing I know I know and and that's directly due to your license choice so what's what's the what's the rationale what's the rationale to make it copyright free and and granted to to you you know humanity I do the same so I know why I'm doing this but I want to know your reasons so we use open source software and a lot of our development work but EY of course is you know we can't operate on public domain all the time so EY has a stance of we contribute open source software and in this case I believe it's actually public domain because we believe that in order for our group to be successful we need to encourage Ethereum as a whole to also be successful and part of that is making sure that we have those zero knowledge proof code bases in place for the community so we're hopeful that that our group will grow with the rest of the with the rest of the Ethereum group okay so it's a and I mean it in a possible like future like everyone will consider public chain better than private chain and you're part of this I don't know political movement in the best interpretation of that word okay yeah okay that makes sense thank you there's a there's a sort of openness for me and having that having those two things aligned at some stage for sure okay and uh minister I think the the question you asked was also asked by a lot of our colleagues internally as well because you can imagine we spend quite a lot of effort to develop a protocol such as this and to put it on the public domain for everybody to use without a fee obviously I think we have gone through a lot of internal questions as well and I guess there's two parts to it as well Devin mentioned one part of it that we believe in the ecosystem and if the ecosystem for public blockchain grow we believe that so will be our business as well so that's what part of it the other part of it that you know sometimes I feel a little bit proud of as well is it's aligned to our vision as well because we believe in building a better working both and a lot of what we do with blockchain is about that and we can't see that happening so much on the private blockchain but we do believe that some of these things that we contribute to the public domain will enhance that growth as well so you know I I personally feel a little a little bit proud when the organization eventually allows us to open source that to as well obviously we still have a long way to go right but I think that is a small step towards that grand vision if you know why yeah I think it's about trusting the ecosystem trusting not just european but trusting the new generation of technologies will make better use of our design than we ourselves would uh which is the you know beauty of democracy right uh I think this this is um and I totally agree this is why I release everything uh free of copyrights I just want to make sure that you're internally consistent and coherent about this decision which sounds you are so great thank you next mr I I have a very silly question as well you are obviously very well versed and well well connected on the blockchain scene and ecosystem um but what's your view of how is Taiwan as a as a whole right in the in the public sector as well in the private sector in terms of usage of blockchain how how you know how you think the maturity is as a you know as a country well Taiwan is heavily Ethereum biased you probably already know that uh and um frankly speaking um before Ethereum um goes to you know full proof of work that the full serenity thing uh there's already um a lot of people developing things in Taiwan uh that's kind of um leap of faith I think that's an English term took a leap of faith that will eventually happen so whatever the prototype um is um aligned with that eventual goal uh much like you um took a leap of faith on the public ecosystem will will finally win out all right as accountability share infrastructure layer so I would say we're philosophically aligned uh and then um from the public sector point of view there's a lot of uses uh for um the the uh like the second um copy of accountability but not as the primary single source of truth the single source of truth is still guarded using traditional ways uh a a VPN and isolated network defense in depth and things like that and that's because of our cybersecurity situation uh we um which I don't need to elaborate um and and so uh I think the cybersecurity angle always motivates uh government people to think in terms not of uh like mathematical proof against all attacks uh and and I mean um I saw that in your say private zone transactions you use a rudimentary version of something like homomorphic encryption uh which for most mathematicians and it should be good enough but uh the taiwan people would entertain scenarios like the adversary already have a quantum computer of x qubits and things like that that's hidden hidden from our view uh and and so so we consider threat models that are um frankly speaking a little paranoid uh that that will uh occur to to other blockchain governance uh actors and so because of that um analysis uh through and that part is quite rational actually so the rational analysis um the end result is that you see uh for example zk rp uh used but the person who did a testation uh is still connected to the national insurance agencies uh main app which is powered by this off public internet um private infrastructure and so one just because uh in that case that all hope is lost on the connectivity to the public mainline uh through whatever attack we can still recover uh through the source of truth from this off internet uh network and so on so um there's quite a bit of this resilience slash bunker thinking in the taiwanese public administration and that's my view anyway well great yeah thanks thanks for sharing uh that's a very valid point as well and uh uh on a separate note even a lot of the architecture that we do on public blockchain uh the a lot of the content definitely is not on the blockchain itself also uh is not off-chain you know and that gives an extra layer of security as well uh so only the hash is on the on the public chain well for traceability purposes are there any are there any use cases that has already gone into production uh using public internet quite a few actually uh there's the taiwan blockchain alliance that lists uh those uh real applications and the presidential hackathon uh constantly introduced new ideas that if they win the top five um like five uh first place winners uh per year then the president commits uh to to make that happen uh within the next year or so so it's um executive power as um I guess per hackathon award uh so coming from the presidential hackathon is for example instead of the ic card based national health card uh insurance card um which requires face-to-face uh transaction um with doctors um in the uh like the lanyu uh a indigenous island um people can use the their phone uh even potentially offline situations um to transact just with a camera and t o t p q r code and so on and to complete a health insurance check-in and so on and uh people on that island I think actually experimented with a local currency the dao coin um also uh which is a classical community currency uh with um this um like impactful um resource distribution so that's tailored to only make culturally significant transactions for the indigenous people and so on uh and the related national health insurance application is for example if you're starting a marathon then um you can say that here are the acceptable ranges of uh health indicators uh so that the runners would not suffer um consequences uh when they start this marathon but instead of revealing any of their diagnostic information to you they can ask the n h i to publish a az k r p um proof uh that this person is fit for the marathon or not uh without revealing any particular things and and and so on so but but all these have the same shape you probably already noticed that it doesn't really take away the centralized trust the core single source of truth is still somewhere um somewhere else it's not that the blockchain protocol or the governance or the math proof itself somehow um takes some of those uh trust uh into a zero trust or even just less trust configuration it's all just to make auditing easier um and and it's basically um that the same thing as well i think ecosystem resource planning is actually a pretty good labor for these sort of things it's just to simplify resource planning it is not radical in other senses so you you are you are right i think i like those examples because i i feel that well technically it's not not complex but operationally simplifies a lot of things for the agencies they are very practical solutions that results in a lot of time savings just say for example validating a person's records or checking a person's records uh and it enhances the privacy as well in one aspect right that's right because it involves uh it it probably has to be manual it probably has to have full calls or exchanges to get it true i i do feel it's a you know excellent use of the technology in very practical ways as well um and and you are right to point out in a lot of cases we are not looking at zero trust right we are looking at trusting something on this case it is validating that the record is provided on the blockchain is provided or certified by the right authorities right and we know that it's correct there so uh i i thought it's a good use case as well yeah um maybe the the gross sorry i was going to say that the gross level of efficiency gain the reduction of administrative burden on regulated entities and so on again back to kind of the the purpose of this and and and the incentives if you can get those to be aligned and you can get that level of administrative cost way down just that that to me is this is the first time is the first benefit the administrative cost reduction is the second benefit and sometimes you know we're we're we're working with governments where those gains are sort of 10 percent of total program costs but the biggest impact is when you can connect the financial understanding of what efficiency sort of the efficient prices to the effectiveness side because then you get to start to change allocated efficiency and when you're thinking about you know literally the trillions of dollars that are spent around the year with public purpose if we can start to influence the productivity gain at that level that's where that's where the benefits really start to come sure and to give you point if they don't it doesn't have to be done in a trustless environment the value is there even in a trusted environment and i think that's one of the more elegant dimensions of it certainly um i do have a a um kind of um um a gap between what i understand now uh from your um open source governance um state of play which is most users eventually taking hard forks or elite hard copies uh of the existing state of code toward uh the kind of um you know different silos with their own value accounting systems but just because they use the same underlying 940 design somehow um connecting their instruments of accounting together i'm not quite um i mean i understand from from the kind of principle like if everyone use the internet there are ways to write sufficient numbers adapters that can connect any two systems together as long as they are all on public internet i understand around this um abstract level topological level but in reality we know if both sides are our moving parts then this work doesn't get done it's not likely that they will come to governance agreement without some sort of standard making body and that's only if the incentives align to make such a standard body work so what i'm trying to get it is that even if we do use um the the the knife or infrastructure for quite a few agencies and so one but um because they are probably hardworking everything and um publishing only to their known upstreams and downstreams what's what's your plan or are there any cases that they there are kind of this spontaneous horizontal connections that can actually serve as the kind of value bridge that uh mark described uh between different data silos has this been done definitely and i could take that that question um so i think that that's you know part of the reason why we're encouraging going from uh private blockchain networks to public blockchain networks i think is the same case we make here for being on one um in this case one night for our one zero knowledge proof so i definitely agree um i think that that's that's important to kind of rally rally our little developers and basically make sure that we're using one uh single source of truth when it comes to zero knowledge proofs that being said um you know part of part of this being in the public domain is allowing uh competition so to speak so um if there is um if as a result a group has decided to make a new and improved version that that the community decides to adopt then you know um we ideally should be adopting those updates as well so um we're open to open to ideas and competition and hard forks um again the important part here is for everyone to align yeah sure but what i'm asking is that assuming your open office and liberal office happened what's your merging back um track history uh for this project or some other project has has this happened before not yet um there has at least keep up to date with all of the uh updated zero knowledge proof requests um but again if if we'll have to adapt and uh in a sense if they want to make a PR back to nightfall with all of their suggestions and updates then we'll definitely review and merge it back in yeah because they're not legally compelled to so um the only thing that compels them to is your goodwill uh right so i'm just making sure there's a goodwill on a kind of ideology level and we'll see whether that happens in practice i have to run to another meeting but this has been really fruitful i learned a lot thank you all for staying up so late for this meeting thank you thank you thank you thank you really appreciate your time as well thank you live long and prosper bye thank you thank you


Hello everyone, and welcome to our universe. Today we'll be talking about the gravity on other planets. So gravity is a very fundamental force in physics, and it's one that we take for granted on the planet Earth, but it's something that we just generally don't think about. We think that gravity is pretty much constant everywhere in the universe. Having only lived on one planet, humans are pretty much used to the Earth's environment. Gravity is measured in G's, so therefore it's quite easy to categorize Earth as just a steady 1G, or you can call it 9.8 meters per second squared. However, if you would go into space or set foot on the moon, the gravity would be very different, and something that Earthlings would not be used to. So putting it in layman's terms, gravity is dependent on mass. From stars, planets, galaxies, and even subatomic particles, gravity seems to rely on just one thing. The mass, though, can be categorized in three different ways. It's size, mass, and density, and this is what gives the object gravity. When it comes to the planets in our solar system, there is various size, density, and masses, and therefore the strength of the gravity on the surfaces can vary dramatically. So let's start off with the Earth's gravity. As noted before, it was 9.8 meters per second squared. This means that if you held an object and let go of it, it would accelerate towards the surface at a speed of 9.8 meters every second from the freefall. This is a standard measurement to know the gravitational pull of a planet, and we express this in what's known as a single G. Isaac Newton's Universal Gravitational Law states the two bodies can be expressed mathematically as a formula of a force. Where F is the force, M1 and M2 are the masses of the objects interacting, and R is the distance between the centers of the object. There is also a gravitational constant. So now that we know how to mathematically figure it out and use experimentation to prove this, let's see exactly how the gravity compares to the other planets in the solar system. So let's start off with Mercury. It has a mean radius of 2440 kilometers and has a mass of 3.3 times 10 to the 23 kilograms. Mercury is only around about a third of the size of Earth. This makes Mercury the smallest and least massive planet in the solar system. However, it does have a high density, and this is just slightly lower than the Earth's density. Mercury has a surface gravity of 3.7 meters per second squared, so if you do the calculation, that's the equivalent of 0.38G. So what's the gravity like on Venus? So Venus is a very similar planet to Earth, and it's often known as the Earth's twin. Venus has a radius of just over 6,000 kilometers and has a mass of 4.87 times 10 to the 24 kilograms, and as you can see, it's pretty much the same size as Earth, but just a tiny bit smaller. It again has around about the same density, but because of the lower density the gravity changes. This comes out at 8.87 meters per second squared. This means that the gravity on Venus is just lower than Earth's at 0.91G. So what's the gravity on the Moon? The Moon is of course the only astronomical body where human beings are being able to test out gravity in person. So the Moon is a very small object, at around 1700 kilometers in radius. Its mass is 7.35 times 10 to the 22 kilograms, and of course it's only about the size of the United States. Because of its size and mass, it also has a low density. This means that the gravity is only 1.62 meters per second squared, so the gravity is very low at 0.17. This gives a great reason why the astronauts on the Apollo missions were jumping around like they were on a trampoline. It also gave them a great excuse to experiment on the gravity of the Moon, so you can do certain things on the surface of the Moon that you could never do on the surface of the Earth. So what about Mars? Its size, mass and density are very small compared to our home planet. It has a radius of over 3000 kilometers and has a mass of 6.42 times 10 to the 23 kilograms, but of course it's a lot smaller than Earth. With this it comes with a lower density, and therefore its gravity is lower as well, at 3.72 meters per second squared, so if you calculate it, it comes out to 0.38G, which again is actually closer to the gravity on the Moon than it is to Earth. So what about the King of the Planets, Jupiter? Well Jupiter is just under 70,000 kilometers in radius and has a mass of 1.9 times 10 to the 27 kilograms, and of course because it's the giant of the solar system, it completely dwarfs the Earth and all of the inner planets. But because it's mainly made out of gas, it has a much lower density, and therefore because of its considerable size, it doesn't have a higher G than you'd expect. It only comes out at 24.75 meters per second squared. This means that Jupiter's gravity is only 2.53. That's only two and a half times the strength of Earth, even though Jupiter's mass is over 320 times that of the Earth. So what's the gravity like on Saturn? Well like Jupiter, Saturn is a very similar planet. At just under 60,000 kilometers, this is the second biggest planet in the solar system, and has a mass of 5.69 times 10 to the 26 kilograms, and of course it dwarfs all of the inner planets put together. But again, it falls short like Jupiter because of its composition. This means that its gravity is only 10.44 meters per second squared, and surprisingly, it has near enough the same G as Earth does at 1.07. So now we come to the outer solar system. This is the realm of the icy giants. So let's start with Uranus, or Uranus, whichever one you fancy. Uranus is the third largest planet in the solar system, at just over 25,000 kilometers. It has a mass of 8.68 times 10 to the 25 kilograms, and of course it's just over 4 times the size of Earth, so again, this is still a very large planet. But like the other gas giant, Uranus falls short on density. So this means that it's only 8.69 meters per second squared. So therefore, it comes out at lower than 1g, at 0.87. And finally we come to the furthest planet from the Sun, Neptune. Sorry about that Pluto. Neptune is just under 25,000 kilometers, making it the fourth largest planet. It has a mass of 1.03 times 10 to the 26 kilograms, and again, it's a very similar size to Uranus. Neptune is a very similar planet to Uranus, not only in mass and size, but also in density. But it does have a higher gravity, at 11.15 meters per second squared. This means that it actually goes higher than Earth, at 1.14g. So it doesn't quite matter if you're on the surface of Mercury, the surface of Mars, or the clouds of Jupiter. Gravity basically determines the size, the mass, and density of all the planets at our Sun. It also seems to figure out the formation of our solar system and the orbits of the planets. Understanding the effect of gravity, or 0g, on the human body is essential for space travel, especially when you're going for long duration missions, like to the International Space Station, the Moon, or possibly even Mars. Knowing how strong the gravity is on other planets could help us understand more about gravity itself, because understanding the gravity of a planet basically relies on three things. It's mass, its size, and its density. So, I hope that's given you a great insight into the gravity on other planets. And of course, if you want to know any more about this stuff, I'll put some links in the description below. And as always, if you've enjoyed the video, click the like button, and if you want to support the channel, click subscribe and support our Patreon page. Thank you for watching, and thank you for your support.


Welcome to this third video in our series of looking at how we analyse trade-offs in land use decision-making and learning to use AHP as a tool. In this video, we're really going to try and give a practical guide to applying multi-crime decision-making using a case study that we've undertaken in New Zealand. This work was funded by the Ireland and Water National Science Challenge. So really, we have four aims within this video. We want to, first of all, as we said, show an example of how multi-criteria decision-making has been applied to land use in New Zealand. We want to briefly introduce the framework and how the tool works, and at the moment we really are just introducing it. We will go into detail on the framework in later videos. We want to highlight the sorts of results that can be derived, how in a way that it can be used. And then finally, we want to look at some potential advantages and disadvantages of the approach, as we have all tools that we may use for analysis. This has some advantages, but also perhaps there are disadvantages. So it's in the case of thinking about is this the right tool for you. But first, I really want to talk about some context about why we applied it in New Zealand to sort of highlight the sorts of questions that we might look at. So what we find is that New Zealand has had a very successful growth model in the agricultural sector based on traditional farm enterprises. If you look at our exports and earnings over the last few years, generally we've had an upward trend in the value of these. And so we've had a successful growth model really based on what we call traditional dairy beef farming systems. However, this growth has led to some challenges and the OECD and others have noted that really we are beginning to have some severe environmental pressures being placed on New Zealand. We're finding unprecedented levels of water scarcity and quality issues. We have high per capita greenhouse gas emissions and a very high proportion of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions come from the agricultural sector. We have threats to our biodiversity. We have many species under threat, and we also have significant erosion. So we can see we have a whole combination of environmental problems, which suggests that our current agricultural systems may not be sustainable into the future. This kind of means we can see, you know, due to things such as climate change and other factors that New Zealand is facing both external and internal challenges to its current model of primary production. And it's been argued that simply carry on like we are, or even making small changes to our systems is not going to be sufficient to enable these challenges to be addressed. So that we have, for example, lots of talk about sustainable intensification, getting more from less, but maybe more around adopting best management practices. However, these generally could be viewed as incremental changes. So what we kind of argue is that this may not be enough, and that actually we maybe need to transform into what we're calling here next generation systems. So I just want to sort of define really what we mean by next generation systems when they look at this. So these will effectively include a redevelopment or redesign of existing enterprises and production systems. They may be wholly new or novel enterprises, or it may be the adoption of new technologies. And really, what we want to see is ways that we can, you know, have value from our land, but really with a much lower environmental footprint. And that's sort of the challenge for our farming systems. But if we are going to transform our farming systems, then we need to realize that risk is really an important component in a transformation. Because adoption of new systems or technologies generally involves some risk to the business. They may be, for example, unproven in the farm situation may involve capital investment, which may mean more borrowing, more risk because you're in debt to the bank, etc. You might have to change your management practice. You may have to change your whole farm system. And so there's a process of learning here. And there's risk associated with all these areas. However, we must also realize they can be the potential to be part of risk management strategies for businesses. Because it may be these new systems actually are less risky or the technologies are less risky. They may improve your profitability. They might reduce your variability in the product that you're producing. They may enable you to meet the environmental regulations or other regulations that have been placed on your business. So we can see that risk can be positive and be negative, but it is an important component in transformation. And one of the questions that was really in our project on next generation systems was the idea whether science can help de-risk the transformation process by providing more information. Now what do we mean by next generation systems in practice? Well, if we can just think about new or different enterprises, we can see that there's a whole range of enterprises that have been discussed in New Zealand. Some of them kind of have been established, but maybe not flourished. Others relatively new. So we talk about things such as manuka honey, dairy goats, dairy sheep, cherries, kiwi fruit, obviously well established now truffles, hemp, etc. But which of these in a sense are appropriate for expansion for farmers to change their systems too? And again, we can see from earlier work that we've undertaken, there's a vast range of novel products or existing products that could expand, that could fill this gap. And generally what we're saying is that we want, you know, in a sense we're looking for systems that can add value or even higher value to our land use, but with a much lighter environmental footprint. But one of the things when we're thinking about how we adopt or whether we adopt these new systems is that we can't pick a winner as we're trying to say. It's not that everybody should go to kiwi fruit, everybody should go to cherries because it's very context specific. And that was the key thing. Different farmers, different systems, there's going to be different choices that are the right choice for them. And for example, there's a whole range of things that might be going on in New Zealand, which mean their context of difference. In some areas in New Zealand, irrigation schemes are being adopted, and that kind of then opens up a whole range of new enterprises. Other areas may be near very sensitive waterways are facing very strong environmental regulation about the use of nitrogen, etc. And they have a slightly different problem they know their pressure is how do they farm within these regulations. And as well we have an expanding Maori agribusiness area. And again, and they're looking to ways that they can make add value to their traditional land systems, and so on. So the kind of thing we're arguing that was we really need to understand the motivations and perceptions of the land manager in order to be able to facilitate this adoption of next generation systems. And this leads us to a number of questions really some, you know, to what extent are these various external incentives and disincentives influencing our land use decision making. What are the key perceptions and motivations of the land manager in determining land land use. How much land managers play how much weight are they placing on these internal and external factors. And our general argument about why we undertook this analysis was that we can understand this better. We have a better chance of understanding what's needed in these what we call next generation systems to help facilitate their adoption, which will then help us tackle some of these big challenges we have in New Zealand. We won't spend too long on this now but effectively we developed a framework for thinking about this. And one of the key issues we were looking at here is how, in a sense, this line in the middle the land manager motivations and perceptions we're saying is all this information coming through all these signals are coming to farmers about change and maybe the need for change, and this new systems available compared to their old systems. And really it's about land manager motivations and perceptions related to the characteristics of their land, what can they land actually do that then, you know, farmers may trial new systems or they may adopt them or not. So the interaction of all these really will determine it. So in our analysis we're really kind of interested in this land manager motivation and perception part of this framework. And so we just highlight that we felt that multi criteria decision making or multi criteria decision analysis was an ideal tool for that and we've highlighted and you'll see in the reading. We voted to develop mental decision support tools and methodologies to address complex decision problem because clearly land use change is a hugely complex decision making this many trade offs that have to be made when deciding how to use your land. And again, we won't spend too long on this now we will look in more detail in later videos about how we identified the criteria that are important for us when we were looking at our multi criteria decision making framework. We found really that we put the sort of decision into six broad categories of what we call domains. We say farmers think about land managers think about financial market, knowledge, regulations, social well being and environmental issues when they think about changing their land use or how they use their land. And within these broad areas. There's also a range of what we call sub domains or sub criteria may be called. So for example, when we think about the financial it might be thinking about how much investment you need, what the overall return on that investment will be how much profitability per hectare you get, how long it takes to pay back, whether that profits going to be variable, whether or not it's going to diversify your income. So we think that fundamentally, you know, high level financials important at the more detailed level these individual components are more detailed. What we do is effectively identify these domains and the sub domains, and then we try and through the process of analytic hierarchical process, a HP, we get farmers to in a sense indicate the weight, the importance of the various components. So this is an example here where how we use it, just thinking about the level of the domain level. So that high level that we were talking about so financial environment knowledge base here. And what effectively analytical high ground for the process does is the pair wise comparison between these issues so here we have financial performance here against environment. And if we think the financial performance of the new system is going to be more important than the environmental footprint, we will move to the left here. As we move further to the left as we will see from these explanations here, it becomes increasingly more important. So as we go from three to five to seven to nine, then financial performance is highlighted more important environment. If we go this way to the right, then environment is seen as more important and financial, and again, we move to the right. There's too much now we will talk more about this actual process in more detail when we look at it specifically. So, for example, this is an actual process that we went through with a land manager, and we can see here for example when they're comparing financial against market. They basically highlights much more weight on the financial side and we can see their choices through this. And through this process, effectively just using mathematical formulas, we can generate an indication of how important each of these are. So in this example, we can see, if we think about the overall decision making being one or 100 or one, we can see that 0.33 of the weight of this would go to financial and knowledge base. So these were the two main areas of importance to this land manager here. And so we can generate these weights of how important these criteria are when land managers are making their decision. And so we went through this approach with quite a number of case studies with farms or management land owners land managers who were considering or had already changed their land use. So there's a range of land managers ranging from small family farmers to larger family farmers to corporate and hill farmers, trustees, etc. And we went through this process with the tool that we developed to look at their motivations and perceptions through this process. So each time you go through the framework you generate this set of weights at both the domain level and that sub domain level those individual criteria that we talked about. And we can just see some sort of results that come out of this. So, on average of all those land managers that we spoke to, this is the weight that was given to those individual domains. And you can see here that of out of one, you know, 0.2 or 20% of the weight importance in the decision making was given to financial factors. And then this average just slightly more than 20% was given to factors relating to the environment. And then we start less for market regulation, etc. It gives an idea of the overall importance of these different factors in their decision making. And we break that down from that high level of domains to what we call the sub domains and see how important it was specific factors were in here. So we look down here, for example, we can see that environmental stewardship has came out particularly strongly. Now, we're not claiming this is representative of all land managers, we were looking at a particular set of land managers with the particular challenges. And so within that group that we looked at environmental stewardship was seen as particularly important. But here again, we see the ability to capture value added, the profit per hectare, etc. So it gives some idea of what the only important factors are on average for this group. But also what we're really kind of interested in is what happens individually. Now, we won't talk too much about the unweighted and unweighted at the moment, but this is just basically again looking at it, but just within each subdomain, within each domain in the subdomain, if we just look at what's important, the match we can get a fill for what's going on. So again, we'll talk about this later. So as I said, it's kind of, you know, interesting began through this process of these individual managers, we can begin to compare what it is that's important to them and this is a graph of the individual results at the domain level.  But you know, it kind of emphasizes our point, people have very different things that are important to them when they're thinking about land use change. And if we have new systems, then they're going to have to sort of fit with the perceptions of the land managers in order for them likely to be adopted. And we can show again this act the subdomain level as well and the importance of the various components in there. So these types of outcomes, you know, the numbers that come out of using our HP in this way, but of course what's more interesting to us and more use for us is thinking, how is it actually being used. And as I said, we've worked with a number of land managers in very different situations, some have got new irrigation schemes, some under environmental regulation, some trying to work out what to do with relatively un, land is relatively unproductive at the moment can they make it more productive, and so forth. One thing we can do, for example, is you can use this approach to rate a next generation system against the values, the criteria that farmers feel are important. So in here you might, for example, identify a number of steps involved in this might identify a possible next generation system. Identify the criteria as important with the land manager and wait those criteria overall so go through that process that we've been through how important do they think pay that period is how important do they think nitrogen leaching is etc. Well, what we do so we find that was important to the land manager here, but then we can go through a process for that system and think at how well it performs within each of those criteria as well. And then we can look at its performance under each of these criteria against how much importance the land manager places on that to get a waiting of each alternative under each criteria. So in a sense, the closer the system matches the things that are important to the land manager, then the better that system will be. It's a little complicated to think about here, there is reading in the, at the end which we will describe, which highlights this in more detail, but we can show this graphically. Basically, we went through a process looking at two land managers is just to give an example, and sheet dairy dairy sheep as an alternative system. So basically, we went through the process with two land managers who were considering dairy sheep. And here we can see in this blue and these gray lines, how their weights came out this system. And then basically we just talked with just to highlight the process we talked with an expert and went through against all these criteria, how well they thought sheet dairy would actually fit against this criteria. In this system, we just use a sort of a scoring system of one to five, saying if this system fitted that criteria very well so was it quite profitable, then it was, you know, if it's highly profitable relatively profitable it score highly in this area. And so, so basically, everything was rated out of five, and we can see here, once we normalize this, this is the orange is the scoring for sheep. So we can see how well it's scored here and then against how much weight importance was placed on these by land managers. And effectively, we can then by waiting how well the system performs against the criteria by how much weight an individual puts on that criteria, we can develop an overall score for it. So as we said in this we were scoring out from one to five. So the nearer to five that the system scored in relation to our land manager, the better it fit. Okay, we can see here, our overall scores were 3.69 and 3.79, which highlighted that it fitted pretty well for both our land managers. As I said, there's more reading on this but we're just trying to highlight how we can use this tool. So it allows us, and again if we had a whole range of these alternative enterprises, dairy goat and nuka, we could score them all against the criteria and scores weights given by the land managers to see preliminarily which ones fitted better. We can also use it to really give us deeper insights into what's actually driving change. So in this example, really we were looking and again there's reading at the end in the, this is about an irrigation system and about understanding how land managers choose to use that water. And a big issue in New Zealand has been the move to the dairy and some of the environmental pressures with that. So we go through the process and understand in a sense what's pulling people towards dairy and what might be pushing them away. And so we went through a whole load of criteria and looked at this. And also as you go through the process and we'll talk about this more you have a discussion with the land managers, and then you can get into again it's not just a number when they get this weight. There's a reason behind why that number has been given. And what this allows us to do is to really understand what it is the motivations that are going on in that decision making. And understand what's keeping them in dairy or pushing, you know, putting them towards dairy, but you know we can then begin to understand how environment or regulation issues are beginning to change that decision making. And again, there's a reading at the end on this particular case study, which would give much more detail on it. We talked about this idea that we were kind of interested in whether science can help. And so it does give us further insight. So again, by going through this process, we can understand what is important to the decision maker. And then we can think about will new knowledge or information help support the decision maker if they were thinking of changing the system. So for example, we might find, you know, what's important decision maker, if they're in an environmentally highly regulated area, it might be the key driver is how much nitrogen is leached from that land system. Okay, if we have a new system, do we actually know how much nitrogen is being leached. So we may well be the case. Maybe science is needed to show that this new system has low leaching, therefore the farmer, the land manager could be confident in adopting it. So if we don't know the answers, then what science is needed. Okay, so in some cases, as we mentioned there, it might be about or production, you know, maybe it's a new crop, people don't know how to grow it. How suitable it might be for the farm system. As we said before, again, it might be about the environment. What are the greenhouse gas emissions? What's it leaching? It might be actually it's not a production issue, it's a supply chain issue, maybe there's no processing, maybe there's no logistics. Again, is there actually a market for this? If we have research that helps fill these gaps, then we can reduce the risk to the land manager of transforming. Maybe not remove it entirely, but if we reduce the risk, then maybe we're going to speed up this transformation to these more desirable land uses. I just want to emphasize again that, you know, a key thing about the use of the tool and the way we use it is not just those numbers, those weights that came out. But the fact there's an interactive approach using our graphical interface and discussion basically allows a detailed discussion of what's driving them.  So it's not just the end number, but the whole process here and then the quotes about the journey rather than the end and I think that's the key thing about it. So the other things you can do with analytical hierarchy process, as we said before, is when you go through the process, effectively it's a pair wise comparison, how important is financial against environment, how important is environment against market, etc. And because it's a mathematical process and you're waiting them, you can begin to work out whether people were consistent in their choices going through the framework. I just want to give you confidence that the results you get are kind of meaningful because they were able to consistently compare the different domains or subdomains that you were looking at. So we were kind of kind of interested to go back after we've used this tool a bit and think about how consistent were they overall, because if they weren't consistent, it might indicate that the tool isn't particularly useful may not work that well in our situations. You are able. So we're thinking about things like you know how consistent were respondents overall, did this consistency change as participants went through the process, or did they get tired because they have to make a lot of comparisons. Were some domains generally more consistent than others, and were some respondents more generally consistent or inconsistent than others. And the question is, is it the final deal breaker here? I don't want to spend too long on this in this and we will come back to how we measure it in the tool later. Basically, as we said, it allows us to get is based on this idea of transitivity. If you say financial is more important than market, and that market is important more than environment, then it should be for you as an individual that financial is more important than environment. And this is based on the process of transitivity. Yeah. And Satie, based on this process I'm a little bit more complicated than that, basically developed an index, these are the index. And it's basically the consistency ratio is from this from naught, which means you're completely consistent in your choices to one where you're completely random. And he himself argues if you have a consistency of about 0.1 on that scale, which means you're pretty consistent, then that's relatively acceptable but there's quite a lot of discussion about it. I just want to look basically about the overall consistency that we achieve now point one is an indicator which is our blue here. So I think we saw generally higher levels of relatively high levels of consistency in our samples, which kind of suggests that the tool works and they are able to use it to make those changes. Now it did vary between domains, and we will talk more about this may have a some bearing on how you construct the different domains and what you put inside them and we will come back to this. Another use and it has been more widely used I think it's tall in this way, if it can help group decision making. Yeah, basically, what we did here is with groups of land managers who had control over lands it might be trustees or others. We went through the process with them individually to see how they scored the definitive criteria, and then through a process of discussion, we then were able to arrive at an overall view. So, we have here in this graph the results for four individuals that we were involved in who is trustees of particular organization and the red line is the group average. So they scored each one individually, and then discussed so what we're trying to argue is the good use of this is for group discussion making and in a later video we will talk much more about how you do this and the advantages and disadvantages of it. But it is a useful tool for thinking with people are working together over land use decision making. Are they thinking the same, you know if one has huge importance on financial up here, that's all the way from here and another has all their way on environment. What are they going to get on when it comes to making decisions, whereas in this group we can see quite a strong correlation relationship between what they were thinking very environmentally motivated and social. Yeah, but that's for this particular group. I just want to finish a brief overview of this by thinking about some advantages and sort of of the framework before considering a little bit some of the pressures. Okay. So what we can do with this is identify criteria that are important in influencing adoption of new systems, and we can draw attention to the believes things are important, we need objective information to support decision making. It can highlight whether potential gaps in our knowledge and where science can help. We can think about how well a particular system fits with land users needs. And even if they in it now will they have to change perhaps, and can think about how new technologies can shift systems. So they better meet the criteria set by land managers. We can use it potentially for decision makers at different levels, maybe council land managers, why the stakeholders to see on whether or not we can get some agreement about what they want to see from land use. There are some challenges with using the framework is a particular methodology. This idea of making pair wise comparisons is time consuming, particularly if you have a number of sub criteria you want to use for example, in our process actually respondents can do 100 comparisons like this. So that can be time consuming. Again, it's not possible to choose all criteria so choice of criteria is very important. Also, we're always arguing that you can trade one off against the other or not have to make a decision in a way, but some decisions might be more binary nature I what we call red lines, you know, it doesn't matter how well it scores on all these other things, it might be around the other criteria. If it doesn't make, for example, this return on investment, then it's not going to go through so we're always trying to argue I guess there's some sort of trade off going on here, but some people may have particular red lines it might be around the environment, it might be around financial, but it might be around supply check. And so that may actually mean that's a no go, even if it scores relatively well around all the other criteria. The process of trading off some people found difficult and as we see in the quote here, some person felt, you know, such a strong link between their social well being and their financial performance, trying to trade them off is difficult. That said, the four, you know, the process says you can stay in the middle in this case and emphasize they are both equally important to you. So there's a little challenge with thinking about making sure that the person you're talking to identifies the criteria in the same way, and how you interpret the graphs, and how you present the results back and we will talk more about this in a later video. So, really what I've just tried to do in this video is present a quick overview of how the framework was being used in the context of New Zealand. Following videos, mainly in module two, we will look more closely at the practicalities of using the framework and how it can be adapted for other uses. And so the things we've talked very briefly about here, consistency, using the tool, etc. We will give much more detail so you can be confident about how you use it. And as I said, there's a number of further reading about this. So, for example, the sheep dairy example we can find in this paper, 2.2A, Next Generation Systems. We're looking at the irrigation system we can find in this one, Central Plains Water, and a more general one thinking about how the framework is used we can find here. So this will give you some more detail and hopefully put in context what I've talked about here. And again, as I was highlighting at the beginning, this was work funded by the Arland and Water National Science Challenge, and hopefully you will enjoy the reading materials that go with this video.


This is the SF Productions podcast network Got the streaming laws have from the pop culture bunker. I'm Mindy and I'm Mark You can check out our audio podcast how I got my way three comics on itunes or on our website SF podcast network.com Streaming services continue to multiply in advance in their battle against traditional media Yes, and I thought it would be a good time to round up the latest news Okay, I can do I knew with that the 500 pound gorilla of streaming Netflix decided to hike their monthly cost to 999 up a dollar although existing customers are grandfathered in for now I think we're still paying 7.99. I think yeah, I think we're grandfathered of the grandfather We're a great grandfather. Exactly. I love Netflix absolutely They of course they got a pay for house of cards Which apparently cost a hundred million dollars for two seasons and orange is the new black They got it find the money somewhere, and they've got several other Yes Original show. Yeah, not to mention getting into the movie business with beast of no nation and other productions Yeah, and this is of course all their defense against the studios who are now cutting back on Netflix deal And not necessarily other than streaming, you know, right? They they just don't want their stuff streaming on Netflix Still get DVDs, and I'm wondering if you know Netflix will have to go back to its DVD model It's possible now. It's reported that Netflix is gonna spend up to five billion dollars next year in programming We have a cease on sorry's Master of none sitcom just debuted along with the mr. Show follow-up with Bob and David Mm-hmm, and Jessica Jones part of their Marvel deal is about to premiere as well November 20 So a lot of stuff coming out from Netflix, and I do spend a lot of time on Netflix But you know I don't watch very much of their original programming I tend to watch my comfort shows so to speak things that I can put on and play in the background while I'm sewing or Cleaning or something like that Now The other major player really and one of their major complaints against Hulu is that you're forced to watch commercials and pay for the privilege The ads are very repetitive because I think they have a very lazy ad department and not to mention that They're not as a lot of times in high-equality. They've got a different signal or something and it often knocks my connection out Yeah, so they just introduced a new no commercials plan for 11 99 a month, which is $4 over the standard cost There are some caveats, especially for some ABC shows and other shows that had something in their contract say no You can't do this, but then you don't watch commercials during the show It's only before and after the show and of course if you're done watching this show You can just stop it and not watch that commercial so so we did sign up for that and it's absolutely Worth it. Yes. If you're if you're watching Hulu and you're paying for it. Anyways, it's worth the extra four bucks a month. Yeah Now there are also rumors that Time Warner will buy a steak in Hulu, which is currently owned by ABC NBC and Fox Time Warner recently announced that Netflix might not get all the CW content They get today so they wouldn't get like full seasons of Arrow and Flash So you'd like get like several episodes, but not all of them. So this kind of ties into that I wonder how that will play with say the net neutrality thing and you know Time Warner would they give preference then to Hulu traffic? Well, that's a good question because if there's if it's supposed to be net net neutral They wouldn't be able to but they've got lots of ways to get around that for example They could and I think they're already starting to do deals with Hulu where you can just bundle it in with your Time Warner. Yeah So if this deal actually goes through This will get kind of an enormous impact on a new player CBS all-access CBS decided to stay out of the Hulu deal. We just put them way behind Yeah Their demographic skews a lot older, but they can't depend on that generation much longer So did what was their thought that they didn't have people who would watch online? Yeah. Oh, yeah, okay. They bet wrong. Yes So they've introduced the service last year, but it barely made a ripple in the market because as lots commercials as many as you would On it's on TV. Although it's I think it's the same ad department as CBS proper Yeah, so they have different ads and better ads then right and Hulu did there's a six dollar price Which is almost what you're paying for regular Hulu And limited content owning a few episodes of their big hits Right So you can't watch like the whole season to date of the big bang theory, right? And I have a theory on why they do that.  So I'll sign up for it a month at a time and watch say all the episodes of the season that I wanted to watch Right, and then I'll cancel it. I'm done And wait, maybe six months and sign up for it again, right? So the first month for free You only do get that once unless you use a different email, right? Yeah so it's currently really a non-starter and We actually signed up you mentioned we signed up for free month after Artivo went belly up and had to be repaired and this is connected to an antenna only the quality was okay But I really couldn't justify paying for something to get off the air, right? Regular basis. Yes, but a recent announcement could change that I say could yes could a new Star Trek series is coming January 2017 with the pilot on the mother ship CBS then moving to the streaming site Yes, will I get it to watch the new Trek? I suppose I probably will But even with the rabbit Trekkie fan base $6 for that show seems shaky So they'll need more original programming which brings us back to Hulu and Time Warner If that deal goes through the only major studio without a vested interest in Hulu Universal slash NBC slash cable town Disney slash ABC Fox slash Fox and now Time Warner would be paramount slash Viacom CBS would have to depend on them entirely the paramount Viacom group or fall back on minor producers Mm-hmm, and what also mean the chance of shows like Big Bang Theory, which is owned by Time Warner Getting more episodes on CBS all-access that goes pretty much to zero. Yeah, that's never gonna happen I but it's also could be your your point is it gets you to go in and but unfortunately doesn't get you to stay Yeah, if you get a month or so at a time and you know quite frankly with something like the Star Trek show I'd be more inclined to probably wait and buy that on DVD Yeah, almost. Yeah It's almost worth that. It's like buying a floppy comic or the graphic novel. You know wait to the end So ABC is also doubling down on streaming with their watch ABC app They've introduced new original streaming content. It's starting with this comic Eliza Sleshinger who apparently did some Netflix specials With more stuff to come the plan is to use the streaming service as a farm team Introducing shows on the streaming app and if they do well move them to ABC proper There's technically no cost to watch ABC for watch ABC Yes, you watch ABC app unless you don't have a cable or satellite service to tie it to In which case your choices are more limited fewer episodes. Yes, which means it's not great for cord cutters, right? And there's also Amazon instant video which a lot of people all I've already paid for but don't know they have yes If you have Amazon Prime, which is currently $99 a year. You have Amazon instant video They've been following a more traditional pilot season concept They allow the public to see and rate the new shows before moving a few of them to a series Yes, and we've watched a few of those pilots right some of them were good and some of them were bad Yeah Transparent became their first big hit and the first Emmy for Amazon Man in the High Castle just started streaming which is Philip K Dick's story about Nazis winning World War two The pilot was intriguing that we saw like a year ago. Yes, and I do plan to go and watch the actual series I was excited to see sling TV when it was announced and I did get a free month It's normally around $20 a month because they worked on a deal with multiple cable channels And they provide live feeds with a decent app and then I remembered why I'm a court cutter I couldn't find anything decent to watch Yeah, although the channel selection was okay It was actually channels that I would watch but I go like You know the thing is is that there's a lot of stuff you would watch if it was on TV And you had nothing else to do and blah blah blah, but you know now There's without it. We don't get used to watching that stuff, right? And so we're a little bit more picky about what we do. I really think that's the case. Yeah, those days are gone Yeah, there are some smaller streaming services to and one of those is acorn TV And I did do a trial month for acorn TV and probably nobody's heard of this one But it's it's British television, right? So it's a lot of British television before it gets to the US either on BBC America or on PBS so you can stream some of the really good TV if you're into British television not like Downton Abbey but like Inspector Lewis or Doc Martin before it comes to the US and it's it's ITV stuff. I believe it's not I don't think is there any BBC stuff in there because I assume BBC holds that very close to that I'm pretty sure they do and you know BBC is talking about having a streaming service nationwide They are talking about so unfortunately Also a non-starter because they said yes, we're bringing iPlayer BBC iPlayer to the United States As long as it's not programming that's available on BBC America. Yeah Sorry I also want to mention Pluto TV kind of a collector of existing web feeds for various mostly obscure channels It's free and the content is available if you want to look for it elsewhere, but you'd have to find it yourself And the website kind of gives you a TV guide like interface There happens to be a 24-hour mystery science theater 3000 channel courtesy of shop factory Which reminds me Joel Hodgson just announced a Kickstarter to bring back mst 3k and mark could not give them Money fast shut up and take my money As of this recording they're around 1.8 million of their two million dollar goal And that's like four days or something. Yeah, they're definitely going to meet their main goal The question is whether they can get the stretch goals to do more episodes I think if they hit 5.5 million, they'll do an entire season. There are 12 episodes And right now the the the main goal hits them at only three It's going to be made available if you some sort of website Although I have to assume shop factories involved because shop factory bought the rights to mst With hopes to get one of the services we mentioned before to maybe pick it up And finance other episodes So I want to remind you to go to bring back mst 3k.com and push the button Frank Yes, I I'm I'm really looking forward to new episodes of mst 3k And in the meantime, you can check out her audio podcast How I got my wife to read comics on iTunes or on our website sfpodcastnetwork.com From the Bob Culture Bunker, I'm Mindy and I'm Mark. Thanks for watching


Andrew Schultz went viral.  I was like, meek milk. Because it was hot. But the top and the bottom of this tweet is gay, ironically.  But then he said, but don't with me in real life, I may swing. No to me. I put like, swing. No. I understand. You're not swing. I may swing. Wait a minute. This is. Oh. Yes, man. That's what I'm talking about. No, no. And grandma matters, meek.  You didn't four inches, you said. I'm on the way there. Hold me. Hold me.