Okay, we're back, we're live on a given Wednesday in the morning, and we are joined by Carlos Juarez, Cuebla, which is what, 50 miles east of Mexico City. He's there in the University of the Americas, and we are delighted to have him with us again to talk about international relations and foreign policy. Let's talk about American foreign policy for a while. We've had dramatic change in it, not to say that it's been great over the years post-war, but it's not great now, and it seems to be, as you pointed out in our discussion a moment ago, that we've gone from multilateral relationships to bilateral relationships. The first question I would put to you as a student of global relations, is that working? Is Trump's notion of bilateral relations working, or is it so far not working? I think the short answer quickly is to say that Trump's foreign policy and the US relations with the world are at a really low point, dysfunctional, no clear strategy or policy. But if we step back, on one hand, we can speak of really an international system that was crafted after World War II with US leadership that basically has come under a lot of, it's not something that Trump, out of the big reflects of the US is operating in a different world, the right places like India, even the EU. But what we have in the new president, Donald, traditional foreign policy in the US, even though we alternated from Democrats to Republicans, there was usually a bipartisan consensus on core foreign policy issues, including, for example, the importance of alliances, the importance of multilateral forums to carry out a lot of issues. Trump has rejected those norms, those traditions, and very much what we might call a more transactional focus. He wants to emphasize the bilateral, and he will point to some successes on one hand, but at the end of the day, the deals that he's been making have yet to come to pass, and a lot of it is a lot of blustering. We've seen, we've talked about this before, how his strategy is to sort of almost like a bull in a china shop, go in and sort of menace and bully and then make a high drama, existential threat, and then finally come back to somehow make a deal that he would say solves the problem, or is the best deal ever, the reality is far from that. Wherever we might look, whether the Iran crisis, the North Korea saga, the recent relations with Mexico, it's a very impulsive, and even this notion of Twitter diplomacy, where even his own advisors don't know what they can explain or defend themselves by the Twitter feed, what he's thinking is. It's a bit of chaos. It's uncertainty, and that's frustration. It's a community like to have some sense of where things are going. In diplomacy too, you want to know are the things the president said so that people begin to question his credibility, and I think we could say that today the US foreign policy is at a low point. A lot of frustration, a lot of concern. How do you prepare for that? How do you manage it? Where are we? We have very interesting, about 10 days, the upcoming meeting of the G20, the group of 20, these are the top industrialized and next year of emerging powers, a meeting in Osaka, Japan for their annual meeting. Normally these multilateral forums get our way of voicing solidarity, consensus, trying to get some shared interest. We have yet to see how this will play out because of the trade war with China, President Trump, I guess he's signaled that he'll be having a sidebar meeting with the president of China. These multilateral forums often present opportunities for the people. As I recall, Carlos, he threatened Xi Jinping. It's just winning by intimidation. That's foreign policy for you, winning by intimidation. We know it doesn't work, not in the 21st century because they can see right through him. I'm not sure whether they see him as a clown or a bully or rotating clown and bully, but they don't see him as an equal partner in the negotiation because of the way he plays. You can't do winning by intimidation in the 21st century. Nobody will buy it. Anyway, I think my recollection is that he told Xi Jinping that if Xi Jinping doesn't show up at the G20, he was going to increase the tariffs. He was going to punish him for not showing up. There's a great setup of a meeting that will really start you off on the right foot. Yeah, it's a tariff diplomacy now, or a Twitter diplomacy. But on one hand, maybe speaking of where I am here in Mexico, obviously, Mexico was really brought to its knees in this most recent negotiation. So on one hand, Trump and maybe his allies and supporters will argue that only through the threat of these tariff warfares has he gotten action. On one hand, I guess I want to say that that's true. Mexico had very little choice, was in a weak position, and was faced with a very, very real and continues to be faced with this drastic economic threat, try to cooperate. But what I'm getting at here is that while it might have some short term immediate impacts, unfortunately, in the longer term, there's a crisis of credibility of the president. There's a distrust. The worst now here in Mexico, even anticipating that Trump is possibly likely to be reelected. Among many people, there's a strongly held view here that somehow he's going to pull it off again. So what does that mean? Mexico is kind of stuck having to deal with this bully, this transactional leader that is very difficult to plan. But again, Mexico is in a weak position and has few options to maneuver. Yes, but I feel I agree with you that Mexico may be in a weak position and governments are frail sometimes. People are frail who are in government positions and they are subject to that intimidation. But the people in the street, the media, the rank and file, the management, the entrepreneurs of Mexico, I'm sure, as you said, they carry away less trust, less trust in Trump, less trust in the United States. And our relationship, therefore, is affected by what is happening.  And our relationship with Mexico has been damaged, is being damaged, and it's not dissimilar from our relations with so many other countries.  That's what's happening. So I agree with you that he's able to intimidate Mexico, but in the long term, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. So let's talk about that. The president of Mexico is not going to the G20. Why? Yeah, and there's a raging debate about that. On one hand, his take is that he's got too much work at home, domestic, his whole platform. He was elected about a year ago that came to office in December. So it's about six, seven months now.  This new leader, a populist left wing leader doesn't speak English. He's not a global traveler, sold the presidential plane and fleet of the helicopters. So if he goes abroad, he's got to get on a commercial airline. But more than that, he, even yesterday, he held a press conference where he had a video conference interview with Mark Zuckerberg. You don't have to leave the country. You can do this. And that, and yet, you know, the reality is that, you know, in the world diplomacy, you need person-to-person real contact. You have a certain group dynamic, a certain, and so in fact, these G20 summit, they're an important forum for many countries like Mexico that are the South of Korea, the Indonesia, the world. They come together in this forum and they have a seat at the table with obviously the top seven, 10, you know, economies. And you would think for the Mexican leader, he might find opportunity to build support from other members of the G20, the Europeans, other South Americans, the turkeys of the world, somehow, you know, rally some, I don't know, some support for their weekend position with the U.S., but he's not planning to go. It's just regrettable. It's regrettable because if he establishes relations with other countries, if he can establish alliance, he can, you know, get some strength as against Trump, so that Trump won't be able to intimidate him this way. It's diplomacy 101, but unfortunately, he's not a student of diplomacy. He has a view that is very much, you know, and maybe it works on some level confronting Trump to ignore him, to not engage him, to obviously, you know, not go to you, visit him and not invite him to come here. But at some point, you know, we live in this globally interdependent world and Mexico doesn't need help. It needs to reach out moreover. So given its heavy dependence on the U.S., it doesn't need to seek, you know, growing partnerships in Europe and Asia, other parts of Latin America. But I think much to my dismay, I think the president here has taken the easy route out. It's not planning to go. And that's unfortunate. I think it's a loss. It is because, you know, the reality is Trump is the president. I have to remind myself of that every day. That's the reality. And furthermore, the reality is that Trump might win again. He might win again. I hope not, but there you have it. And finally, even if whether he wins again or doesn't win again, you still have this large base that believes in him and people like him. And we might have another president coming along that's just like Trump. So the president of Mexico really, it's in the interest, his interest in the interests of Mexico to recognize those realities and try to deal with it and try to level the playing field so we can have, you know, a diplomatic relationship with this country that will be stronger somehow. And that's too bad that he's not doing that. That's opportunity. Yeah. Well, okay, let's unpack some more. So, okay, Xi Jinping, he got intimidated. He's coming to the G20. He's got problems in Hong Kong.  So, you know, he wants to, but at the same time, you see what he's doing. He's visiting with Putin and he's visiting with Kim Jong-un in North Korea. He's building his alliances so he's ever stronger. He's pulling the rug out from under Trump in a way by building his alliances in advance of the G20. But I suspect, you must have some thoughts on this, I suspect that there is no agenda whatsoever on this meeting between this big, you know, drumroll meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping in Osaka. Trump hasn't taken it out. He has no idea what he's going to say or do. He doesn't have a position. He doesn't have a position. He'll just try to intimidate him and use tariffs and other things without the likelihood of any meaningful result, which, you know, you didn't mention in so many words, but all this time you mentioned that I guess Mexico has allowed Trump to intimidate it. But all of these efforts in North Korea, Russia, China, the Middle East, what did I miss? Venezuela. Trump has failed. You know, his foreign policy has failed. A lot of talk, no action, no result. So, here we are. We're going to G20. I doubt that Trump has any real agenda, and there won't be a result. Do you agree? Well, yeah, it's pretty clear, and he's made that clear in his other visit abroad, where he doesn't really prepare. He doesn't read the briefings. He just goes and tries to wing it. And I suppose with the ongoing trade wars, I mean, that's his game right now to kind of push the threat of tariffs. And with China, of course, these are the two largest economies. I mean, ultimately, they've got to meet. They've got to talk face-to-face. And, you know, again, we talked about the missed opportunity for even this Mexican leader. As much as it may be awkward, frankly, he would probably benefit from meeting Trump, shake his hand and tell him, hey, chill out, or, you know, let's work on some common agendas, you know. And yes, that's not happening. So, again, like you put it, maybe, you know, there's foreign policy with no policy. I would contrast, you know, the U.S. and its lack of any real clear plan and strategy with the case of China. I mean, they are playing a very slow, long-term game.  So they have a lot of strategic interest with many players throughout Asia, throughout Africa, the Middle East. And so I'm quite sure Xi Jinping and the Chinese leadership, very savvy at their diplomacy, they use these multilateral forms to do that, to do a lot of the handshaking and then, and otherwise, you know, deepening the more strategic thinking that they have. We seem to be lacking it on our side. Yeah, I see two possibilities on Xi Jinping. In one possibility, he's building all these other relationships. And as you say, one belt, one road is an enormous economic and influence project around the world all the way to Spain. So, you know, he's got other fish that he's frying, and he's trying to, you know, do without the United States, do without Trump. Of course, that's very hard for China, because China is, in many ways, dependent. So I give you two possibilities. See, what do you think? Maybe there's a third possibility with Xi Jinping. Number one is it'd be the same kind of result that Trump had with Kim Jong-un in Singapore a few months ago, where they, you know, they said, they talked. It's all very love letter kind. But nothing happens. And Xi Jinping doesn't agree to anything. And it's a whole, the whole thing gets kicked down the road. And he feels strong enough to do that. And Trump has really no options, because he's running out of gas on his terrace. People in this country are beginning to wonder, I mean, many people, more than a few months ago. The other possibility is that Xi Jinping gives him something nominal, something, yeah, okay, all right, we'll give you something, but it will be illusory. And it won't be, it won't be, it won't have any meat. And so it plays into Trump's sense of theater, just like Trump is doing this largely for theater. Xi Jinping, you know, can do something largely for theater. Am I missing an option there? Yeah. Well, I think it's gonna fall within that realm, but I'm more inclined to think the latter. I think the Chinese, like so many others, are learning to figure out, Trump. And what does that mean? Well, you've got to praise him, you've got to give him something, you know, something that he can then turn around and claim, you know, this wouldn't have happened without me. I think the best deal. And yet, you know, gosh, even with that knowledge, it's so hard to predict and then to really anticipate that outcome. But I guess what I'm getting at here is I think the Chinese, who themselves have fears about, you know, downturn in their economy, it wouldn't go well with the rising, you know, middle class. And so my point is, I think, yeah, like you suggest, they're likely to see what they can offer some carrot, something to put on the table. Beyond that, though, here, we're talking about a multilateral forum. This is not a summit meeting between China and the US, but it's an opportunity for those leaders to suddenly be on stage. And as we know from, again, the OECD meetings, the NATO meetings, the other G7 meetings, these are not places that Trump likes to be.  It means, you know, he's not about him and he's not the center of it. And that's an uncomfortable position for him to be in. Yeah, Carlos, that's a really interesting point. Because Trump doesn't like multilateral arrangements. But Xi Jinping and the others, the G20 is multilateral. That's what it's about, trying to reach multilateral agreement. So, you know, one thing that Xi Jinping can do is, while he's talking unilaterally, bilaterally with Trump, he's talking multilaterally with all the other people there. At the end of the day, he reaches some kind of illusory theater kind of result with Trump. But he has a real result with, you know, the other countries he's trying to lead. Southeast Asia and Central Asia and all that, all the way to Spain. And so, you know, what might happen at the end of the day is, you know, the possibility that Xi Jinping gives him something, gives Trump something, but makes a real deal with many others in the multilateral discussions. Don't you love that? Yeah, no, no. And then again, he's the kind of person that he commands a lot of attention.  And what I want to say is, by contrast, even though Trump represents the most powerful military, the biggest economy, there is a lot of unease about him when he comes in, you know, a lot of uncertainty, and then maybe a recognition that he just doesn't play by the traditional norm. And the way he does play can be quite mean-spirited and unpredictable.  Oh, my God, what's going to happen now? So, let's unpack some of these others. Just thinking geographically, what about North Korea? North Korea going to be there, G20? Is there any possibility that there'll be a day-new moment between Trump and Kim Jong-un? No, no. They would not be there for one. And it would not be a top item for the, you know, because you only have the interest of a handful of players there, Japan, Russia, China, the U.S., and South Korea. So, the players are there, but it's not going to be, I think, an agenda item at the forefront. The G20, really, you know, for many years we've had about 30 years, the G7, it used to be the 80s, these are the top industrialized countries of the world. G20, it began probably around 20 years ago. And the first part, the first 5, 10 years, it was not seen as particularly relevant. It was just a bigger club, a few extra players. But really, in the last decade, when you have the growing power and emergence of powers like India, Indonesia, Turkey, etc., now this G20 is often seen as an important voice for these emerging powers, for the sort of mid-level developing countries. And yet, here we are in a crisis of multilateralism, given Trump, given even the saga that continues in Europe, the crisis in the European Union. So, this multilateralism, I guess I'm suggesting it's kind of facing a real critical political crisis. Are these forums still relevant? They're not what they used to be. And nevertheless, they are continued. They continue to happen every, every, literally every few weeks, every few months, you have one of these forums. The G20, the OECD, the APEC, many of them are overlapping players. Yes. And so there are common issues and agenda items. But, you know, here, I would just go back to this, we're at a moment of critical juncture right now where there's a crisis between the key players, Japan and China, I'm sorry, US and China. Japan is also trying to kind of re-carve out, and they are the host country here in Osaka. But the leader there, you know, Hindo Abe has interestingly come out now to try to almost be a mediator with the crisis in Iran, a role traditionally not played by Japan. And so they're trying to walk this delicate balance. And then Shinzo Abe, who's had probably among the world leaders, you know, one of the closer relationships with Trump, he's also been burned a little bit.  We also know Trump, when he goes to these meetings, he wants to get in, you know, be the last one there and be the first one out. So, you know, will he use what little time he may have there to, who will they meet with? I guess that's the point of, what about Putin? Are they going to shake hands? Are they going to have a picture together? Are they going to go off and have a meeting with no translators again or what? It'll be interesting to see a lot of uncertainty, though, these are strange times. Chaos, as far as the world stage is concerned, and it's not any good reason for confidence by anybody. But you mentioned Abe and his efforts to be a mediator in the Iran thing. Let's turn to that in terms of global diplomatic relations. You know, it seems to me that pulling out of the nuclear deal a year ago was without any effort to try to negotiate acceptable changes to that deal. He just pulled out, bingo, in a punitive way. And now for the last year, he's really been unable to get any traction on meetings and I can understand that. It's not only the Iranians, but anyone who would be offended by what he did in the beginning, not going to be so quick to meet with him. They don't intimidate easily. And they haven't been intimidated. They meet him at the pass on everything, including, you know, building nuclear bombs. So where are we in terms of Iran?  And are we going to have a little war here? This sounds very dangerous to me. Yeah, I sure hope not. And it's interesting to think 1979 is now 40 years ago since we've had a pretty obviously continued tense relationship with Iran.  So for him, you know, I don't, I'm not sure he could find Iran on a map or tell you anything about previous, you know, very close relations the country had before the revolution in 79 with the US. You know, we see in the media different attention to how, well, neither side really wanted conflict, but when we study war and violence, you know, many, many wars usually were never expected to reach that point. I mean, it's a misperception of one thing or the other about the other side's intentions about their capabilities. And often, you know, it's sparked by some mistakes. So it is a very volatile dangerous hotspot. And I think, you know, after the saga of Iraq, now 15, 16 years back, and what played out there, there's no appetite here in the US for a massive large scale intervention for what? What's the goal? And Iran is a very different context. It's a major regional power. And just like we, we visit, you know, the end of World War Two, where we try to understand Russia and their interests, you cannot appreciate the Middle East without realizing that like or not, Iran is a major, major regional power and it has obviously tentacles everywhere and it will continue. It's also a pretty well educated society, a large population. And, you know, they've been suffering for decades now from this stranglehold. And, you know, I think it's unfortunately, you know, for someone like Trump, it might be naive to think that he alone is going to bring about the change overall we saw from the European partners that a real dismay with the US decision to pull out, because, you know, the progress was being made to ensure that Iran did not have the capability to move forward with a weapons program. And that is now, you know, more up in the air in the US in bellicosity. It's not only their bellicosity and their weapons program, but, you know, they operate through agents. They foment unrest in so many places. They're scoundrels in global sense. And he can't stop them from that.  Who knows what? You know, there seems to be a kind of truce on that. But it could happen any time.  It's real serious. And that brings me to Russia. You know, where are we in terms of our relations with Russia? It's all clouded and stirred up by the Mueller investigation and the fact that, yes, they did, in fact, mess around in our elections last time and are probably doing the same thing this time. And we'll definitely do it in November 2020. Where can our diplomatic relations be? I don't think he's helped. Do you think he's done anything to help? Has he done anything to hurt? What's your thought about that? Yeah, in some ways, you know, given all these other scenarios, we just talked about whether North Korea or Iran, even Mexico, Russia has kind of been pushed back into the, you know, the third port here. But overall, because of, again, the transactional nature of the relationship and maybe Trump's romance or affinity for Russia, it's more about that relationship. And at this point, we haven't seen much interaction between them. And again, it'll be interesting to see, will there be anything happening at this upcoming G20 meeting? But you also can't help but get a sense that the Russians are probably a little disappointed or tired or maybe frustrated by the U.S. and its current regime, because on one hand, if it is the case that they helped to elect him, I'm not sure that he's delivered to them any good. Has he given Russia more prestige in the world? Has he given Putin anything concretely? And then if you have to go from that, this upcoming election, what is in the interest of Russia? On one hand, you know, one can say they have an interest in destabilizing the U.S. creating conflicts. They had possibly got Trump elected and that was seen as maybe an alternative to a harder line policy that would have come from a victory by Clinton. But what about the future? I mean, there's no clear choice or option right now. But I guess I just can't help but think that Putin and the Russians are probably a little dismayed with Trump. What did I read in just this morning's paper that the Russians were tired of their efforts at trying to influence things in Venezuela? And they're softening their position there and they're just getting fatigued like the rest of us. Anyway, Carlos, it's great to talk to you. It opens so many new thoughts and doors. Carlos Juarez in the International Relations Department of the University of the Americas in Puebla, Mexico, we always enjoyed talking with you. Look forward to the next time. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Jay. Hello, hot. Take care.


This study investigated the effects of using bottom ash as a replacement for fine aggregate in reinforced concrete beams. It was found that 75% bottom ash ratio produced the best results in terms of displacement capacity. Additionally, increasing the bottom ash ratio to 100% resulted in a decrease in deflection capacity. Furthermore, the study used ANSYS software to build 3D finite element models, PHEMS, of beams to compare with experimental data. The PHEMS accurately predicted the flexural and fracture behaviors observed in the experiments. Finally, the study concluded that the use of bottom ash as a replacement for fine aggregate can significantly reduce the weight of the structure, increase the number of columns and reinforcing bars, and improve the strength of the structure under both close and far-fault earthquakes. This article was authored by Memdu Keralar, Turhan Baylor, Marat Kavuslu, and others.


For the rest of the council members, we're a little bit ahead of schedule, but we can't just shift our time as we've published in the federal register and the concepts in particular are a lot of try to keep to those times. We can move up the council initiated discussion and do that at this time. Maybe save us a little time at the end. So your choice is a very long lunch or move up council initiated discussion. Show of hands. What is your preference? I would move up the council initiated discussion. You would not help. No, I would. Oh, you would. All right. And I see nodding heads. So let's go ahead and do that this time. We can shift the break by a few minutes, but I don't want to radically change things. Okay, so this is council initiated discussion. I think most of you know the drill. This is your opportunity to request reports from us about a particular research program, your council meetings, or to bring to our attention concerns that you're hearing about in the scientific research community. We regard you as very of the extramural research program. So the floor is yours. Show of hands, it's your pleasure. I will throw out the question, are there particular people you would like to hear from at the September council meeting? I think there was one other, really, correct me. I think because of scheduling, yeah, we have one new institute director you haven't met yet who we want to bring here. And there was a scheduling problem for today. So that will be one that we will try to schedule for September. But is there anybody else that you can think of now that you'd want us to try to approach for September or February? You know, previously there was like a NIH-wide effort in sort of big data. And so, you know, NHGRI has its own sort of approach to big data and that's working out. We'll hear more about AMBEL later. Is there, are there other things going on with other institutes or NIH-wide that we should be, you know, hearing about and thinking about how we can leverage what we're doing with what other people are doing? You know, certainly Biodata Catalyst at NHLBI is an effort. There are other types of things going on. So I was just wondering, you know, since data are the most important products these days, what can we do to make things better for people in genomics? One obvious person who I think, I don't think we've brought to council very recently. Rudy, what was the last time, Susan Grigarek spoken to council? No, she has not. Not, so that was, she's the head of the, sort of the central data office. And so I think that would make a whole lot of sense. And there's a lot going on. I mean, I think you'd hear from her what you sort of just heard from Marie Bernard in terms of, you know, all these things coming out and then, you know, trying to link not only office of director initiatives, but then with other institutes and also being a catalyst for development of things in the data science space. So I think Susan would be a really appropriate person. And I think Lindsay Criswell was one that I had mentioned. Yeah, yeah, so Lindsay, well, yeah, I didn't name the name, but Lindsay was the one that didn't schedule today. I couldn't have had a conflict. And so, yes, especially for lots of reasons. So yeah, Lindsay's on the list. I don't know if we've locked her in for September, but I know she's on the list because she couldn't make it. She was very sad she couldn't make it, but there was a conflict. Oh, God. I have two suggestions. I don't have specific person, but I'm wondering if there's somebody that you think might be good. One is probably not next, but maybe in a couple council meetings, but somebody to come to us once our by age gets more, you know, specified and gets, you know, I think that would be really exciting because we can all easily, I think, see some potential collaborative opportunities with them, right? And then the second one is actually thinking about biomedical ethics and somebody, if there's anyone at NIH who's, especially from the, you know, sort of riffing off of the data science, right? Like from the data and genome perspective, right? So how does it fit with personalized genomics and our ability to analyze genomes and, you know, disparities, et cetera? So I think your first suggestion's a good one. I expect when an ARPA age director gets announced, they'll get 27 council limitations within an hour because everybody wants to know what it's gonna be and what it's gonna look like. So that's a great suggestion. And we'll think about the biomedical ethics one. Len. Did you call on me, Rudy? Yeah. Okay. So I just have a question. Sorry, can I just jump in for Olga and just get some clarification about the biomedical ethics? Are you more interested in just big picture thinking in the field or do you wanna hear more about what NHGRI is supporting? I'm hoping, I mean, as it relates, not necessarily, I guess in between. So I'm thinking about it basically as it relates to genome and interpreting genomes and going from medicine, but not, I guess, not as limited as what we're already supporting, but sort of what are the questions? NIH is probably thinking, but yes, within the context of the genome, right? Because I think we do have a specific. Well, of course the genome is, yes, I didn't mean all of the biomedical, but. Yeah, yeah, so kind of within the NHGRI focus, but not only what we're supporting now. All right, that's helpful. Thank you. So regarding ARPA age, I know there was a concern earlier that the ARPA age appropriation might affect the NIH budget and reduce it. And maybe I missed it, but is it now established that ARPA age funding will not affect NIH funding? Well, so that's a complicated question with a complicated answer. I mean, it gets this fiscal year, it has a billion dollars to get going. Next fiscal year, the president has asked for in his budget, quite a bit more than that to build it up.  So, you know, so sure, it seems to be separate now, but of course there's a finite number of dollars to be given out. So, you know, clearly, you know, I think it's trying not to compete against the NIH, clearly nobody wants to see that happen, but the reality is everybody's working within budget limits. And so this is gonna have to come at a cost of something else not getting done. So, but what I would say is there's certainly, I think in general, the hope that it doesn't attract from NIH funding in general. Thank you. Joe, go ahead. Yeah, so probably not for the next meeting, but one in the future, because I think the landscape is changing significantly on this topic and that's data privacy, implementation of statewide things like GDPR and things like that, just a curiosity or just I think we do have to understand where the NIH is going relative to those topics. And I don't think that, I don't think it's really clear yet, especially in the U.S., but I think that would be a topic for us to review at some point in time in the future. Yeah, that's a great suggestion, Joe. And I'm sure you're partially asking it. I think we've thought about this. The problem is it's sort of hard to know when to, it's just sort of constantly an evolution. And I think it's sort of hard to predict when there's sign and substantive. I mean, there are various things, especially that bubble up from time to time from members of Congress, from language that gets floated as possibly being put into legislation or legislative language and then it sort of shifts or it doesn't get much room, but I agree with you. I mean, I think this is an area we, especially around genomic data, the sharing of genomic data, especially outside the U.S. Well, I think Eric, there's realities that exist today. I mean, California has CCPA and they've already put legislation in place that by 2023, we'll have something in California that almost 100% mimics GDPR. Michigan is on the same path. And I think the trend in the U.S. is, unfortunately somewhat disconnected because we're allowing it to be done on a state-by-state basis, which is gonna significantly complicate things. But the reality is that at least in California, we'll see something that looks almost identical to GDPR, which is what the Europeans have been dealing with and we all know as the standard that I think ultimately evolves. But again, I live and die in this space and I do think it would be good for us to know probably not the next meeting, but one in the future because it is going to change with a significant amount of legislation that's coming. And maybe Joe, you could help us identify a appropriate speaker. I mean, there may be somebody at NIH, but maybe we'd even have a broader view than just the NIH view. So we'll be in touch about that. Yeah, let me know. I know a lot of people in the space and I think some of the thought leaders both in Europe, well globally, and especially here in the U.S., I could provide you some names. Okay, thank you. Other concerns. Okay, let me make one schedule change to accommodate the schedule of one of the council members. We're gonna flip the order of the concepts. When we come back, we're gonna do the anvil concept and then the diversity genome research centers. Clear? All right, so we'll get an extra 10 minutes for lunch because we have to resume at 2.30. We'll resume at 2.30 Eastern time, right? 2.30 Eastern time. Turn off your microphones and cameras but do not disconnect from the meeting. Leave a like. We'll see you at 2.30 Eastern, bye everyone.


May 40 here. I'm at Manley looking out on the Sydney Harbour looking across to Watson's Bay there and thinking about the power of the primal, right, the primal passions. One of the things that I loved about converting to Judaism, getting to know Jews, is how blunt they are, how honest, forthright they are. I guess many non-Jews would consider that, consider this bluntness crude offensive, unenlightened, not touched by the dove or the spirit, but I like it. So I'm listening to an article from Texas Monthly on 50 years of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Announcing that the Dallas Cowboys were looking for a new kind of cheerleader. Dancers, that was the idea.  Only seven made the cut.  Like I was looking at a thread on Twitter or a hashtag on Twitter Los Angeles. As I do say, it's like all this hardcore pornography scrolls across my screen, so one has to know one's bottom line is what is bad for one. So going to a football game with cheerleaders may be incredibly triggering for some people. Actually ain't did, but an aspiring model dropped out before the season began. They would become known as the original seven. Baker, Anna Carpenter, Rosemary Hall, Dolores Makeda, Kerry O'Brien, Denivoy Nichols, and Dixie Smith. Each of them stood in that tunnel staring at the artificial turf and the stands of a new football stadium named for the state whose glory it hoped to capture. The Dallas Cowboys had had cheerleaders before, including a group of high schoolers and Bobby. So right-wing commitments tend to be concentric, right?  The left tends to have leapfrogging loyalties. I think this is an analysis from Steve Saylor. So maybe loyalty yourself, to your spouse, and then to hungry transsexuals in Kenya, and then leapfrog to oppressed strippers in Florida, then leapfrog to, I don't know, starving wiggers in China. So football, team sports, tend to be highly heterosexual. And they tend to appeal to people with right-wing concentric loyalties. Socks, pleaded skirts who yelled charge. They didn't dance, and they didn't wear that. It's tough to remember in our skin saturated age, but cleavage and bare mid-drifts weren't just unusual back then. They were scandalous. This moment in 1972 marked the debut of a bold experiment, a very Texas hybrid of pageant beauty, good girl etiquette, and cum hither slink. So I remember the first time I went to Akosha Iterie, the Persian woman behind the counter.  Like before she'd set us up, she wanted to see our tax returns, right? That's how blunt and bottom line oriented she was. Now, most Jews went to see tax returns. I don't think anyone else, any other Jews ever done that. But it does echo a Jewish frankness about money, sex, power, and these primal passions. Baker looked up at the sky whenever she got anxious, and she could see the sunlight fading and the stadium lights blazing from where she stood in the mouth of the tunnel. Right, so there's certain kinds of sex appeal that are considered kosher by societies.  Texas Stadium had a hole in the roof. A design quirk. Plans for a retractable roof were squelched because the price tag spun into an asset. So God could watch his favorite team. One player famously put it, as the drums of the live band started to pound, the seven cheerleaders burst from that tunnel. And all of a sudden we heard noise from the fans, and we were going like, what's going on? Baker told me and her honey twang. Texas Stadium erupted in a joyful noise she can still hear 50 years later. And they're pointing at us. We didn't know that we had introduced something new to football. What they introduced was sex and glamour into the gladiator arena of modern sports. And this is being copied now by teams all around the world, even in India, even in Australia. It's a winning formula. They launched a wave of imitations across the NFL, creating a blueprint for beauty that's practically branded on the cultural imagination. It was a watershed year for women, a time when the forces of freedom were starting to be unleashed, but also clash. Roe v. Wade was making it. Wow, who would have thought that extending freedom might result in clashes of freedom? Of course it's going to. You can never extend freedom with one group without taking it away from other groups.


Live from San Diego, California, it's theCUBE. Covering KubeCon and CloudNativeCon. Brought to you by Red Hat, the CloudNative Computing Foundation and its ecosystem partners. Welcome to the third day of wall-to-wall coverage here at KubeCon CloudNativeCon 2019 in San Diego. I am your host for the three days of coverage. Stu Miniman joining me this morning is Justin Warren and happy to welcome back to the program Aaron Boyd who's a senior principal software engineer at Red Hat. Aaron, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. All right, so we had a chance to catch up in Barcelona on theCUBE there. Storage is definitely one of the faster moving areas of this ecosystem over the last two years. Why don't we start with really the event? So, as I said, we're in day three, but day zero, there were a whole lot of things. We had some of your peers at Red Hat talked about OpenShift Commons, but storage, my understanding, had a couple of things going on. Why don't you share with our audience a little bit of that? Sure, so we had a SIG face-to-face for Kubernetes. It was probably one of the best attended. We had to cap the number of attendees, so about 60 different people came to talk about the future of Kubernetes in storage and what we need to be doing to meet our customers' needs. In conjunction with that, there was a parallel session called CNS Days, which is Container-Native Storage Days. That event is very customer-focused, so I really enjoyed bouncing between the two of them to go from the hypothetical programming architecture view straight to what customers in the enterprise are looking at and doing and what their real needs are. Yeah, so from that SIG, can you actually share a little bit of where we are, where some of the requests are? We know storage is never one way to fix it. There's been some debates, there's a couple different ways to do. I mean, traditional storage, you got block file and object, cloud storage, there are more options in cloud storage today than there was if I was to configure a server or buy a storage array in my own data centers. So where are we, what are those asks? What's on the roadmap there? Right, so I think for the past five years, we've been really focused on being mindful of what APIs are common across all the vendors. I think we want to ensure that we're not excluding any vendors from being part of this ecosystem. And so with that, we've created the basis of things like persistent volumes, persistent volumes claim, storage classes to automate that, storage quotas to be able to have management and control over it. So I think now we're looking to the next evolution of people as the models maturing and people are actually running stateful applications on Kubernetes, we need to be addressing their needs. So things like snapshotting, eventually volume cloning, which has just gone in and migrating. All these type of things that exist within the data plane are going to be the next evolution of things we look at in the SIG. So one criticism that's been mentioned about Kubernetes a few times, and one that's a bit complicated, but also it didn't really deal that well with stateful sets. Stateful data management has always been, it's been a little bit lagging. That seems to have pretty much been sorted out now as you mentioned, there's a lot more work been done on storage operators. But you're talking about some of these more, these data management features that operators from other paradigms are kind of used to being there. When you're thinking about moving workloads to Kubernetes or in putting in new workloads on Kubernetes, if you're unsure about, well, will I be able to operate this in the same way that I did things before? How do you think people should be thinking about those kind of data services in Kubernetes? So I think it's great that you mentioned operators because that was one of the key things when Rope came into the landscape to be able to lower the complexity of taking something that requires physical storage and compute, geography, node selection, all those things that help people who were used to just the cloud model. I create a PVC, it's a request for storage, Amazon magically fulfills it, I don't know what's backing it, to be able to take these more complex storage systems and deploy them within the ecosystem. It also does a good job of supporting our brownfield customers because not every customer that's coming to Kubernetes is green. So it's important that we understand that some customers want to keep their data on-prem, maybe burst to the cloud to leverage those services but then keep their data close to home so operators help facilitate that. Yeah, Erin, I hesitate a little bit to ask this but I'm wondering if you could do a little compare contrast for us for what the industry had done back in open stack days. When I looked at storage, it was every traditional storage company certified their environment for open stack on a storage standpoint, it feels like a different story to me when I hear about the ecosystem of operators in open stack. So I know you know this space so maybe you can give us a little bit of what we learned in the past, what's similar, what's different. Right, well I think one of the benefits is we have a lot of the same key players. As you may know, OpenShift has pivoted from Gluster to Seth, Seth being the major backer of OpenStack. So we're able to take some of that technical debt and learn our lessons from things we could improve and apply those things within Kubernetes. I just think that it's a little slower migration because we have, in OpenStack we had, like you said, we had certification, you know, there were different drivers and we're trying to learn from maybe, I wouldn't even call those mistakes but how can we better automate this? What can we do from an operational perspective to make it easier? Well I think it's one of the, it felt like we were kind of taking some older models and well I'm testing it, I'm adding it. The ecosystem for operators here is different. Many of these, we're talking very much software driven solutions. It's built for container architectures so it's understandable that it might take a little bit longer because it's a different paradigm. Right, well and I think, you know, the certification kind of, it wasn't an inhibitor but it certainly took a lot of time and I think our take was on, you know, we used to have all the storage providers be entry providers within Kubernetes and with CSI we have since, you know, started to redo the plugins in the sidecars and move that out of core. So then the certification kind of falls, you know, outside of that instead of being tightly, more tightly wound into the platform and I think it will allow us to have a lot more flexibility. Instead of waiting on each release, vendors can create operators, certify them themselves, have them in their own CSI driver and move it, you know, the pace that they need to move. So how do you balance that need for Kubernetes to kind of be a common operating platform that people can build on with each vendor's desire to provide their own unique capabilities that they think that they do particularly well? That's why they charge the money that they do because they think that theirs is the best storage ever. How do you balance that sort of tension between the need for a standard platform to make it interoperable, but still allowing the flexibility for people to have their own kind of innovation in there? So when we created the storage class, for instance, to be able to create kind of a service level over storage to be able to provide the provisioner that we're going to use, we made the specification of that section completely opaque and what that allowed us to do is that when vendors wrote their provisioners and now their CSI drivers allowed them to feed in different attributes of the storage that they want to leverage that don't necessarily have to be in core Kubernetes. So it provided a huge amount of flexibility on that. The other side of that, though, is the feedback we get from real users is I need backup and recovery and I need DR and I need that across the platform. So I really think as we look to scale this out, we have to be looking at the commonalities between all storage and bringing those APIs into Kubernetes. One of the things I've really liked to see in this ecosystem over the last year or so and really highlighted this show, we're talking a lot more about workloads and applications and how those, what works today and where we're growing. Can you speak a little bit from your world as to kind of where we are, what's working great, what customers are deploying and a little bit the roadmap of where we still need to go? Sure, I think workloads are key. I mean, I think that we have to focus on the actual end-to-end delivery of that and so we have to figure out a way that we can make the data more agile and create interfaces to really enable that because it's very unlikely that an enterprise company is going to rely on OneCloud or stay with OneCloud or want their data in OneCloud, they're going to want to have the flexibility to leverage that. So as we enable those workloads, some are very complex. We've started with, hey, I just want to containerize my application and get it running. Now I want to have some sort of state which is persistent storage and now I want to be able to scale that out across any number of clusters. That's where the workloads become really important and long-term where we need policy to automate that. My pod goes down, I restart it. It needs to know that because of maybe the data that that workload's producing, it can only stay in this geographical region, so. Yeah, when we talk about multi-cloud, you mentioned data protection. Data protection is something I need to do across the board. Security is something I need to do across the board. My automation needs to take all that into account. How's Red Hat helping customers get their arms around that challenge? Yeah, so I think Red Hat really does take a holistic view in making sure that we provide a very consistent, secure platform. I think that's one of the things that you see when you come on to OpenShift, for instance, or OKR, that you're seeing security tightened a little bit more to ensure that you're running in the best possible way that you can to protect your data. And then the use of RookSeph, for instance, Seph provides that universal backplane where if you're going to have encryption or anything like that, you know it's going to be the same across that. And it sounds like there's an opportunity here for people new to Kubernetes who have been doing things in a previous way. There's a little bit of reticence from this community to understand enterprise. Well, actually you're kind of doing it wrong. It's slow and inflexible. There's actually a lot of lessons that we've learned in enterprise, particularly around these workloads, having security, having backup and DR. In the keynote this morning, there was a lot of discussion about the security that is either in Kubernetes and some parts it's kind of lacking. I think there's a lot that both of these communities can learn from each other. So I'm seeing a lot of moves of late to be a little bit more welcoming to some people who are coming to Kubernetes from other ecosystems, to be able to bring the ideas that they have, that you've already learned these lessons before. We can take some of that knowledge and bring it into Kubernetes to help us to do that better. Do you see Red Hat bringing a lot of that experience in its work? Red Hat has been around for quite some time now, so you've done a lot of this already. Are you bringing all of that knowledge into Kubernetes and sharing it with the ecosystem? Absolutely, and just like Stu pointed out, OpenStack was a big part of our evolution and in security with NREL, and I think we absolutely should take those lessons learned and look to how we do protect our customers' data and make sure that the platform, Kubernetes itself, as we evolve OpenShift, can provide that in ways that we can certify that. Aaron, you're meeting with a lot of customers, you were talking about the day zero thing. What's top of mind for your customers? You know, we talk about that Kubernetes has crossed the chasm, but to get the vast majority, there's still lots of work to do. We need to, as an industry, make things simpler. What's working well and what are some of the challenges from the customers that you talk to?  And as the co-lead of the CNCF Storage SIG, I think that's one of the initiatives that we take very seriously. So in addition to a storage white paper, we've been working on use cases that define when should I use a data store? When should I use object? Why would I want to use file? And then really taking these real-world examples, creating use cases and actual implementations so someone can, oh, that's similar to my workload. Here are some tools to accelerate understanding how to get that set up and also creating kind of those guardrails from an architectural standpoint. Like, you don't want to go down this path. That's not right for your workload. So we're hoping to at least provide an education around containerized storage that'll help customers. Yeah, I'm just curious. You know, I think back 10 years ago, I was working for a large storage company. We were having some of these same conversations. So is it very different now in the containerized, multi-cloud world or are some of the basic decision tree discussions around block file and object and application the same as we might have been having a decade ago? I think we're starting to just touch on those. And I'm glad that you brought up object. That was one of the things I talked about in Barcelona and we actually talked about it, the face-to-face. To me, it's kind of the missing piece of storage today in Kubernetes. And I think we're finally starting to see that more customers are asking for that and realizing that's an important workload to be able to support at its core. So I think, yes, we're having the same conversations again but certainly in a different context. Yeah, I mean, back in the day, it was the futurist object but we don't know how we get there. If you look behind the scenes in most public clouds, objects running a lot of what's there. Absolutely. So, all right, Erin, I want to give you the final word. KubeCon 2019, from that storage perspective, what should people watching take away? That we're only beginning with storage. Yeah, we still have a lot of work to do but I think it's a wonderful community and vibrant and I think there'll be a lot of changes in the coming years. All right, well, definitely a vibrant ecosystem. Erin, thank you so much for all the updates. We'll be back with more coverage here for Justin Warren, I'm Stu Miniman. Thank you for watching theCUBE.


Hey everyone, we're going to be talking about that 3D All-Star collection. Yeah, it's a thing. But before I can even talk about it, I got to mention we're actually giving away three, that's right, three copies of Super Mario 3D All-Stars. All you have to do to enter is go to the Gleam.io link down in the description. And yeah, enjoy that. Also, if you join our Patreon at patreon.com slash Nintendo Prime for just $1, you get an additional 15 entries. That also gets you an additional 15 entries and do our other giveaway for the month of September. And that is for a Nintendo Switch Lite and or if you get second place, we have two second place prizes, a Nintendo Switch game of choice. So to enter that one, also check out the description. It has a different entry method than the Gleam.io link. So things like subscribe to the channel, follow on Twitter, join the Discord server, all that jazz, comment, like the video. You guys know the drill, but check the description to make sure you get every single box to maximize your entries. Good luck. Now, this is a thing that was announced today. We've talked about it, we've got two videos focusing on it.  And that is that with they didn't really announce it clearly in the direct they did technically announce it if you go back and watch the Mario 3D All Star Collection is well it's a limited release. What that means is it's only going to be available from September 18 through March 31. And we're not just talking about a limited physical release, which that happens with games that Nintendo thinks isn't going to sell or other companies think isn't going to sell well physically. We're talking a limited physical and digital meaning as of as far as we're aware after March 31 of 2021, you will not be able to buy this game brand new anywhere, unless for extra copies that are still on store shelves that haven't sold. So this is a very interesting announcement because when they announced this whole thing, they did it inferring that it was just about the Super Mario 35, which is that Tetris attack style Mario game. So it was kind of inferred here that this was not going to happen to this game. This would just be a standard game release like it seems that you know 3D world with the Bowser stuff Bowser's Fury. It felt like it was supposed to be like that.  But that's not the case. It's limited. Now this is obviously sent some confusion because it didn't really make that clear in the direct. But if you check out the website and you check out Nintendo's email they sent out to consumers and press about it, it specifically mentions that this game, the Super Mario 3D All Stars game is a limited run game. And that's worrying because it shouldn't be a limited run game. Now I have a couple of theories, a couple of pros and a couple of cons for Nintendo and for consumers. And one of those pros, one of these things that makes me not as concerned about this as maybe some others are, I've seen some concerns in the comments about it, is that Nintendo has done these limited things before and then just totally had them last a lot longer. Hello classic systems. SNES, NES Classic, we're only supposed to be around for like a couple months. We had the NES Classic around for years. Why? Because of demand. So it's one of those things that if these games between September 18th and March 31st sell five, six, seven, eight, 10 plus million copies, Nintendo doesn't really have an incentive to not keep making more of them because the demand could still be incredibly high. So if it keeps being sold out all the way through March 31st, even if it's just because they're only doing limiting, you know, amounts of them at a time, that's going to make Nintendo realize we need to keep making more. So even though that is the current plan for Nintendo plans change, that's what I'm kind of throwing out there. So don't panic too much about it yet. We've also seen, however, where Nintendo has done these limited runs, like with Xenoblade Chronicles back on the Wii where they only used GameStop and only had like one limited run that they didn't end up reprinting. And that was it. And there is a reason that Nintendo might do this. And that is because they could release each of these games individually, digitally, and make more money. So you could release this, you know, HD version of Super Mario 64 for 40 bucks. You could do the same thing for Galaxy, the same thing for Sunshine. So they could end up making more profits overall by releasing the games individually instead of on the collection bag. Again, it was strange to see them gather these games together. But what makes it not as strange is also something that has frustrated some people. And I think a lot of this is because we've been building up hype for this collection pack since March when the rumors first landed. And then Nintendo's lack of announcements all year along has just led the hype being higher and higher and higher, because this is the big game from Nintendo. And it's that they didn't do much at all. Like Sunshine probably has the biggest change to it, because not only is it in HD, full 1080p docked by the way, we now have the full resolutions Galaxy and Galaxy and Sunshine are going to run at 1080p docked 720p handheld, whereas the, you know, the what should I call it, the Super Mario 64 I don't know why I was drawing a blank is only going to run at 720p docked or handheld doesn't really make much sense. And it does you consider the fact that they didn't add a 16 by nine aspect ratio to it. That's the thing. Sunshine is going to have the biggest change because it goes from this to this. And then it also becomes 1080p.  But even then, they didn't redo textures, they didn't do any special new age effects to it, you know, like if you look at other remakes, Nintendo's done like the Winmaker HD added more bloom, and they didn't change the fundamental art style, they added things to it. There's no new content, there's no new features. It's just, hey, it's an HD enjoy. And for Galaxy, I feel like, you know, that's a more acceptable game to maybe do that with. Just like, you know, if Nintendo did that with Skyward Sword HD next year, I think that's a more acceptable way a game to try to do that with. But when you see Mario 64, just up rest, not even put into widescreen, which has been done with emulators. That to me is a little lazy. Now, I'm still picking this up. I'm still excited for it. And it's the best looking official copies of these games that exist. And I know that over the years, we've seen a lot of Unreal Engine 4 remasters. And we've seen a lot of just a lot of different things in general, if we're completely honest, when it comes to these games. And Nintendo is taking down fan games and all that. But I have to admit, it's a little bit underwhelming that we had almost a year build up. Remember, not Nintendo's fault that we had this long build up. Kind of. I guess if they had other announcements along the way with COVID, trying to be understanding here is not technically their fault. This year was supposed to be different for them. This was supposed to be an E3 thing. Anyways, the point is that the games aren't that impressive on their own. But it's still a nice collection pack. I still think it's worth 60 bucks personally just to have them up resed.  And it's going to be a nice part of my collection. And it being a limited run, I guess makes it a more collectible game. But again, if it's selling like game busters, and the demand is really high, Nintendo's not going to stop making them. I think this is more of a, hey, if it's not popular, we have a cut off date and it becomes a collector's item. I think that's kind of the way Nintendo is positioning it. Whereas they have a feeling that 3D world is going to sell 4 or 5 million. I don't think Nintendo actually has high expectations for the sales of this game, which I do think is another case of Nintendo underselling how well this game is going to sell. I think this collection pack could outsell Super Mario 3D world even with the new Bowser content. I think it could outsell it even though that's a better port, or a better whatever, just because it adds brand new content. So yeah, that's kind of my take on that. But remember, for now, officially it is a limited run from September 18th to March 31st. So if this is one of those games, oh, I'm going to wait for it to be discounted. I'm going to wait. There's no reason to wait. You're going to wait and then you won't be able to get a new copy anymore. So if you want a new sealed copy, especially or even if you want it digitally, you got to buy it before the 31st of next year. Doesn't mean you got to get it now. You don't have to get a day one. You can wait. It'll be available for digital sales. There won't be like, oh my gosh, they ran out of digital copies. They'll keep doing it until March 31st. Anyways, thank you guys so much for tuning in. Remember to enter those giveaways. I just wanted to clarify this because there has been confusion over it. And I'll catch you guys in the next video.


Are you worried about getting hurt or sick on the job? Do you feel unsafe at work? In the United States, all workers, regardless of immigration status, including foreign workers on the H2A, H2B, and other temporary work visas, have the right to a safe and healthy workplace. You can file a complaint with OSHA and they'll look into it. Call 1-800-321-6742 or do it online. Afraid you might get in trouble for telling on your employer? Don't worry, your identity will be kept confidential.