Alrighty, why don't we get started? What we're gonna be talking about in today's recitation is a wrap up of assignment 3.1, looking ahead to the beginnings of assignment 3.2. And next week's recitation, we're gonna be going a lot more into the details and the mechanics of 3.2. I know we've already hammered this before, but it goes without saying assignment 3.1 is relatively a lot easier compared to what is coming up in 3.2 and 3.3. So the sooner that you can have that wrapped up and move along, so much the better on that. So in terms of what's coming up, obviously, assignment 3.1 is due in the end of this week on this. If you have any lingering questions, definitely speak to the office staff on that. For the rest of the course, definitely get your design documents in to have one of the TAs look at it before you start coding.  So there are certain known problems with approaching these issues. And so again, the sooner that you can have a staffer look over to make sure that you and your partner are going in the right path, so much the better on that too. So the last part of the assignment, 3.3, is probably the toughest part of the entire course. So once again, the sooner you can get started on this, so much the better on that. So aside from that, let's talk about what's going on with 3.1. What do we have so far? And then I'll pause for questions and then dive into 3.2 on this. And again, the next two slides is a review of what we talked about before spring break on this. But what you need to do for assignment 3.1 is a few things, obviously reconfigure for assignment three. Presumably you people have already done that and have dealt with the fact that your kernel no longer boots on this. You're implementing a core map, which is essentially the data structure of physical pages on this. And you're writing a few access routines on this. In other words, kernel get me a page of physical memory and if you will reclaim a page of physical memory on that. The goal is to pass test KM1 through KM5 on this. Again, these are tests that you run directly from the kernel menu on this. We talked a little bit about some problems with the core map. One of the biggest problems is getting the bugger set up on this. Part of the problem is that it occurs so early on that we need to kind of approach it specially on this. Well, what is the core map? Again, it's a data structure that essentially contains the state of physical memory of your OS161 system on this. So we talked a few things about this. Obviously it's going to be accessed a lot. We know in terms of when we need to set it up, we need to set it up very early on this. We also know that we have a bit of a chicken and egg problem. The core map is used by KMALIC to get memory that KMALIC gives out. So unfortunately we can't declare the core map by calling KMALIC because we'd have a circular dependency on this. So as a result, we're going to have to set it up manually. We do need to have it available in terms of global or static scoping on this, but since we don't know the size of the physical memory on boot up, we can't simply declare a statically declared array and not the compiler take care of everything. We're going to have to, if you will, set up the array or indirect array manually on this. And we talked a little bit about, again, look at ram.c that has a lot of nice nuggets of information that you presumably are already using to set up and use your core map on this. Aside from that, next issue on this, in terms of initialization, it has to be done very early. And oh yes, you also need to be aware that start off simple and then you're going to have to add additional fields to the core map as you go along. Also obviously the core map is a shared data structure, so you're going to have to handle some synchronization issues with this. In terms of its representation, roughly speaking, again we've got all a physical memory that you can determine from the fields in ram.c and the kernel and initial boot stuff is already given to you by the assembly code at the bottom of physical memory. And what you're going to need to do before you essentially get anything else done with the boot process is you need to tuck the core map in right above the kernel but below the rest of what is available for free memory on this. So that's kind of where the core map goes in terms of all memory, but again the core map itself is a data structure that contains a whole bunch of fields and what do these fields map? Well they map all of memory. So again the core map is in memory but it in turn maps all of memory which is kind of where some of this chicken and egg problem comes in. Questions so far about assignment 3.1? Again just kind of a recap of what went on just before spring break on this. Pretty straightforward, pretty not straightforward. All right, back to the next two slides just in terms of what are some of the function interfaces that you're going to have to deal with in the rest of the semester on this. Well some of these actually you're dealing with right now in terms of if you will allocate pages, free K pages that's assignment 3.1. And other things, VM bootstrap, we talked about how that was problematic. It used to be a way of approaching assignment 3.1, it does not work with the present test on this. You are going to need VM bootstrap or if you don't use that you're going to have to kind of create your own place for setting up the rest of your virtual memory manager for assignments 3.2 and 3.3. So this is going to be useful for the last part of the course here. TLB shoot down, kind of forget this for now but VM fault we're going to be talking a fair amount about that later on to today's class. Remember assignment 3.1 deals with stuff that can be addressed through kernel direct map addressing. I know there I had put a post on the forum about this but essentially up until now you don't really have to deal with or didn't have to deal with handling TLB fault, handling the code in VM fault that stuff. Well from now on you are going to need to be aware of that. The next two slides if you will contain the stuff in adderspace.h. These are a bunch of routines that are used by the process address spaces on this. They're pretty self-explanatory. We talked about this before. Create, destroy, copy, activate and deactivate that has to do with the TLB entries on this. Remember that the TLB entries are a mapping of virtual to physical addresses for a particular process. So as a result, when you contact switch from one process to another, you're going to need to take care of switching the entries in the TLB from one process to the other on this. Because remember the TLB is something in hardware and if you don't do that, it's simply going to blithely go along and continue to use the old entries for the previous process, which will create a fine mess. And the last part of these entries defined stack region we're going to be going through these. This deals with how your address space structures get set up. And this is definitely something you're going to need to dig into with your partner in the next couple of weeks or so. The last part of this is memory management S-break syscall. And again, this is roughly speaking how you're going to be managing the heap. This should be the last part of assignment 3.2 that you get to. It is the last syscall that you'll need to implement for this course on this. Questions I can answer about the function interfaces on this. Again, we're talking about the wrap up of virtual memory manager fault or yes? Essentially, yes. Except for TLB shoot down, that's one thing that you will not need until you get to a sign up 3.3. But again, allocate pages, pre-k pages. You've already done those, but yeah, let's see here. VM fault, bootstrap, all of this, and all of that with the exception that a couple of these functions you probably are not going to need at all for some reasons we'll get to.  That's kind of the nut of assignment 3.2. Other questions? All righty. Talk a little bit about the MIPS MMU in terms of how the hardware works or in this case the emulated hardware by sys161. And roughly speaking, by the way, most of this stuff you can look up yourself, it's in the Arc MIPS, I'm sorry, Arc MIPS include, if you will, TLB.h and there's some other files that are relevant to this. But roughly speaking, there are four, if you will, ways or approaches to addressing memory in the hardware. And what you need to do is look at the first digit of a virtual address. Again, when the MIPS chip is addressing memory, it's by definition addressing a virtual address. And what happens or how that virtual address gets translated to a physical address is determined by, if you will, the first hex digit on this. And first way of doing that is if the first hex digit begins with a zero through seven, it is in what we like to call the user segment here. And what happens is it goes to the TLB. In other words, the first thing that happens is, let's say, the CPU references address 40 million. Well, 40 million, the first digit is a four, it's between zero and seven. So it looks for an entry mapping in the TLB corresponding to 40 million on that. And it uses that mapping to kind of grab some location in physical memory on this. So that's one way of doing it, and this is the only way that user programs can access memory on this. This is something that you're going to be spending a lot of time with in assignment 3.2 and 3.3, i.e. for the rest of the semester. The other way of addressing memory you've already been dealing with, and this is kernel direct mapped. In other words, if the virtual address begins with an eight or a nine, essentially it does not go through the TLB. It's still a type of virtual address on this, but what's going on is if we reference, let's say, location 80 million, well, all the, if you will, the processor does is it just lops off 80 million and it winds up with a physical address of zero. By the way, people, I'm going to be noting this in a later slide on this, but this can tell you that, let's say, that we reference address 40 million, and let's say that 40 million maps to physical location 1,000. Well, you know what? Physical location 1,000 can also be accessed by referring to virtual address 1,000 plus 80 million. In other words, it's perfectly okay and sometimes you need to refer to a physical address through multiple different virtual addresses. Make sense? In other words, I can refer to a given physical address via multiple virtual addresses. I can always refer to it through kernel direct map addressing as long as I'm in kernel mode, but I can also refer to it through one and sometimes multiple entries in the TLB, depending upon if I'm in the kernel mode or user mode, either way on this. This is perfectly fine and sometimes you need to do that. Make sense on this so far? These are essentially the two ways of addressing memory that you need to be concerned about in this course. The next two, it's more informative on this if the first digit begins with, if you will, an A or a B. That is the next type of kernel direct mapping and it essentially shadows the previous way. In other words, location 80 million also maps to location a million. It's the same physical address. The only difference is that it does not go through memory caching and this is used for accessing memory mapped IO on this. So in other words, if we're reading the keyboard, we would go through this. This is something that you kind of need to keep in the back of your brains, but you really don't directly encounter it much in terms of your coding projects. The last type is, well, we have this great way of mapping and munging around memory that the users can use. Why can't the kernel use it? Well, yes, the kernel can use it. In other words, there is a way for the kernel to use, TLB mapping, kernel virtual memory, if you will. So we can have a way like production code like the Linux operating system has a function called Vmalloc. There's a Kmalloc in Linux, but there's also a Vmalloc and that stands for virtual malloc. In other words, give me, let's say, a batch of 10 virtual pages that are consecutive, but you know what? They don't need to be consecutive in physical memory. I know there was the question in lecture yesterday about that, so in other words, why is it or does it necessarily need to be the case that 10 virtual pages that are gotten with allocate pages, do they have to correspond to 10, if you will, contiguous physical pages on this? Well, if you get it through alloc K pages and Kmalloc, yes, that does need to be the case because we're using direct mapping. If we implemented Vmalloc, which is not part of your assignment, then you would be able to go through this Kseg 2 thingamabob, which also goes through the TLB. So again, it's something for you to know about. This is certainly something that would be fair game for a final exam question, but again, this is not part of your coding assignment. So the last two is something that you need to be aware about. It's the first two that you need to be aware and also are you're gonna be dealing with for your coding projects. Questions about ways of mapping memory? This is kind of just a summary of the same thing here. Direct mapping can only be used in kernel mode, user seg, yada yada goes through the TLB on this. And again, PIATR can be referred to multiple ways on this. This is just kind of a summary of what I was just feeling about in the last few minutes. Going once, going twice. All righty, moving right along. Let's talk about assignment 3.2. And as with everything in this course, start off with the old data structures on this. It's kind of the heart of where to begin. This is where you want to kind of do a lot of thinking on this. All right, what do your data structures for assignment 3.2 need to contain? Well, at a minimum. And by the way, we see data structures, there are several layers to this. You probably have already noticed there is a struct adder space. Now you can code your own, but I would obviously strongly suggest use kind of the templates that are already there. The struct adder space is, if you will, the uber bin for where you're gonna be cramming a lot of references on this. And it's gonna have to have, among other things, segment or region information on this. In other words, what you need to be able to deal with is, well, how many regions do we have? Like we have a stack, we've got a heap and whatnot. You're gonna have to have places to contain that information on this.  So remember, dumb VM is a way of how not to approach this stuff. You're going to need to, in other words, kind of unhard code or at least expand the number of segments that your memory manager supports on this. You're gonna need to keep track of the start and size of each segment. That much is something that kind of is a holdover from dumb VM, because the segment is, if you will, simply a tracking of the base and bound of what is potentially a valid address on this. That's not the same thing as the base and bound of actually allocated memory. So this is the distinction between a memory segment and actual allocated underlying memory on this. Everyone clear on this distinction. So one of the cludges that dumb VM does is it kind of puts the two together on this. If you have a base and a bound, well, that's what is valid and it's also what is actually allocated on that. As opposed to a good memory manager which you need to pass the test, well, you need to keep track of what is possibly a good memory reference, but we're actually not gonna allocate the memory until we actually need it on this. So this is what we mean by segment information and then the page table structure that contains information about pages, that is virtual pages, that have already been allocated on this. So your address space needs to contain information about segments and it also needs to contain a page table structure which in turn contains information about page table entries. Your core map, remember, is a data structure that contains information about physical memory. Your page table is information about virtual memory on this. So remember, in a 32-bit system, there are two to the 32 possible memory references. We first need to determine whether or not a memory reference is valid. We can do that by checking the segments, but then even if it's valid, we need to know, tell me a little bit more about that. I have a virtual address. Well, what's the virtual page that it corresponds to? Well, I need to look at my page table structure. That's typically going to be, and this is kind of what you're probably most interested in today, the mechanics of the implementation, either a linked list or a multi-level array on this.  And again, picture poison. There's pros and cons both theoretically and in terms of real implementation for this course itself. One small caveat that a two-level array, it will work fine for assignment 3.2. When you move on, or if you move on to assignment 3.3, you're probably going to need to up that to a four-level array if you go in that direction. That is a function of the fact that the data structures themselves take up significant areas of memory on this. So there's still very significant advantages of that to a list. There's also some disadvantages. Again, it's one of these trade-offs on this. So think about it either way. I know I myself personally did the multi-level array way back when it was easier for me to think about conceptually on this, and I was frankly scared of lists. Other people feel the exact opposite on this. Sometimes it's a toss up and flip a coin on this. But the upshot is that the page table structure, again, this is your data structure that you need to hold your page table entries, and this is essentially a way, if I have a virtual address, tell me more about it. Tell me, can I get the PTE, the page table entry, that corresponds to the virtual page that contains a particular virtual address on this?  The most important thing that it's going to need to contain and that is a reference to a physical page. Because we're gonna have to do a lot of mapping. If I have a virtual page, give me the corresponding physical page, where do I get that? It's going to be contained in your page table entry on this. Well, most of the time, sometimes that page table entry will map to, well, what's the state of it? Maybe it's the physical page, maybe it hasn't been allocated, or maybe it's been allocated, but it's already been evicted out to disk. That is information that we're gonna tell from looking at the page table entry on this. Again, think about where you might go with this. We don't want you to paint yourself in the corner, but at the same time, start simple. Don't allocate a whole bunch of information and think yourselves into a corner. Start simple. Start with the fact that you've got to have a reference to a physical address and then add stuff as you go along on this. One nice simplification for assignment 3.2 is since address spaces are not going to be accessed by any other process other than the process itself, you don't have to worry about synchronization in terms of page tables on this. So this is gonna greatly simplify this. When you get to assignment 3.3, that's essentially one of the big problems with assignment 3.3 is the processes are now munging on each other's address spaces and that's something that you will need to kind of stick some synchronization in. But for now, that's something that you don't have to worry about. So questions about the data structures, about what they are, about what the segments are, what the page tables are, the page table entries, the differences among them. Crystal clear. Moving on. Let's talk a little bit about the segments themselves. Crudely put, there are five segments that you need to worry about. In a real system, there could be potentially n segments and for details, you need to look at the, let's say the ELF format and like the data when XAC actually runs a new program on this. But for now, what do you need to be concerned about for the purposes of OS 161? Well, we've got a bunch of statically sized segments and obviously text, data and BSS, that's what are traditionally referred to as static segments. They don't change in size. We already know how big they are and essentially how big they will ever get and what's the maximum size that they will ever grow to on this. They are loaded in at runtime from load ELF calls AS defined region on this. The stack, it's kind of odd in one sense to call it statically sized. What we're talking about is the stack has a maximum potential size on this. So in other words, if we get a virtual address referenced to location 7FFFFFF, it's probably a stack reference on this and we can probably assume that there's gonna be one physical page allocated to the stack. But what happens if the stack grows? We're gonna need to be able to grow that thing dynamically. Well, by grow what I mean is grow the allocation of underlying physical pages. If I have a reference to virtual address 60 million, I can probably safely assume that it is not a reference to the stack. In other words, it's not a dynamic reference of the stack growth, rather it is probably something outside of the stack bounds. So this is something, look at the limits.h file on how this actually goes. But there is, if you will, a maxed upfront statically declared fixed size to the stack and within that maximum stack, we allocate pages as the thing grows as needed on this. So that's kind of why I put it up there. So again, this is not the same thing as allocating underlying physical pages. Remember this we have is, we have the segment to determine whether or not a virtual address reference is valid in the first place. But just because it's valid, there may not have yet been a physical page allocated. And that's actually the part that you need to do. What you need to do is change the approach of DumbVM because DumbVM allocates memory statically. It calls this function ASpreparedLoad. And if you look at it, you can see where it not only sets up the segments, but it also immediately when exec calls it, allocates the memory underneath it. So in other words, all physical memory in DumbVM is declared and allocated upfront. Even the stack you can see is set up and the pages are allocated right away and it never really grows after that, which can sometimes create a problem in a real living system on this. So this is where you need to change the approach to dynamic allocation. So the segment sizes don't grow, but the underlying pages within them, those are what need to be allocated on demand or dynamically on this. Questions about the first part, about what these segments are and again more on the interplay with the underlying physical pages. This is the mechanism that the test are gonna be looking for. As the last part deals with the heap on this. And this is something that there are essentially no pre-coded functions on this. You can think of it as being another generic segment that you do need to take care of. Now I would say the heap segment itself can grow in both directions. It can get bigger, it can get smaller and not only that, the pages that are allocated can also be de-allocated as the program is running. And again this is something that functionality of the test to do look for on this. So this is the last part of assignment 3.2 that you need to get going here. It can be somewhat tricky, but it's kind of nice to see that you actually have a working malloc on this. So essentially what there is a three classic segments, that is the tech segment, data and BSS, there is the stack segment and there is the heap segment on this. Moving right along. Let's actually talk a little bit about what happens when there is a reference to a virtual address. So this is actually what happens in a real box including OS 161. So when we have a reference to a virtual address, by the way that could be either a load or a store or it could be fetch an instruction. Remember whether or not we are getting data or whether we are getting the next opcode to execute in both cases, it is a memory reference on this. So we have a virtual address here and step number one is this part is done in hardware, the first if you will flower point. We look to see is there a translation entry in the TLB on that. And if so that means we got a TLB hit, no fault. This is something that the operating system doesn't even know about. This is done in hardware and again it has to be done in hardware for reasons of speed. We talked about that in lecture on this. But if we don't have a mapping, now we have a TLB miss or TLB fault or as I've sloppily called sometimes page fault, again there is that distinction. The next thing is we wanna do here is the virtual address in a segment. That's the thing, this occurs from in software. In other words, if we have a TLB miss then it generates a fault. We're going to MIPSTRAP and MIPSTRAP calls VM fault. And what you need to do, this is kind of what you need to do in real functional code, is is that virtual address in a segment? If it's not, this is where you spaz out and give a segmentation fault on this. You've had to deal with them on Timberlake. Now the fun part is you're actually the one enforcing the segmentation fault and killing off the bad process. And indeed that's what the test will be looking for.  There is that distinction. Now let's say that the virtual address is in a segment. Then what we want to do is we want to check to see, it's a valid reference but is there a page table entry that's already been set up for that? And here we have to go through our page table structure, either our array or our list or some whatever it happens to be on this and see where does this virtual address, this virtual page table occur. And if there is one, we need to take a look at it and remember the page table entry has a mapping to a physical address and we can update the TLB and resume execution. That's what happens most of the time. Sometimes that page will have been swapped out to disk and again we can tell that from the page table. We can't resume execution immediately. We've got a block while the disk drive loads in the data yada yada yada on this. So again if we had a TLB fault but we do have the page table entry we need to either just update the TLB or pull it in from disk. If we don't have a page table entry this is dynamic allocation. It means that it was a valid reference. Let's say we referred to location seven, F, F, F, F, O, whatever you do. It's probably the stack dynamically growing. We know it's a valid address because it is in the stack segment but we also know we don't have a page table entry by definition. We add a TLB fault on this which means we need to add more memory to the stack segment. So this is an example of dynamic allocation of the stack on this. With me on this, social hour at the trappist, quiet group today. I'm hoping the silence means that stuff is making sense.  All right. More about assignment VM fault or if you will let's talk through what VM fault currently is and what you actually need to do to get it to do what you want it to do.  The first third, and I'll pull up some actual code in just a sec here, but essentially dumb VMs VM fault divided into three parts. The first part is sanitization. It goes to a bunch of checks on this. It does do some other stuff too like it checks for super permissions, I'm sorry, sub-permissions which is something that you don't need to do unless you want to get into something like copy on write and it also page aligns the fault address. The second and third thirds is where the meat of VM fault occurs. The second third, well we know that we had a TLB fault on a particular virtual address. Well how are we gonna handle that? We need to see well does it correspond to a real physical address and if so what is that physical address? So what we need to do is search our data structures and remember dumb VM uses the well basin bounds in a sense of multiple basin bounds. Jeff's slides refer to it as like the segment method of doing this. So it's pretty quick to implement and then if we don't find that the virtual address is in a particular memory segment, we just E fault, that's the segmentation fault on this. If we do find it, we now have the underlying physical page and we fall through to the last one third of VM fault and that is we update the information in the TLB.  Frankly the good way of updating the TLB will be actually a lot simpler and easier and have a lot more functionality on this. So this is essentially how not to do things and if I can digress for just a moment here, where is it? Ah, here we are. Dumb VM. And let's see here. Ah, here we are. So here is VM fault and let's see here. All right, essentially a whole bunch of sanity checking. We go through, we get the fault type, we get the fault address and then we fall through eventually to right here. This is the next one third. In other words the fault address, that is the virtual address and we're checking to see is it in one of these base and bounds of the three segments that dumb VM has. Remember dumb VM has one hard coded stack segment and two additional segments that were statically allocated and it checks to see whether it's in one of these three segments. If not there's your seg fault right there, the E fault which it doesn't even return a seg fault. Remember originally it just crashes the kernel. But given a particular virtual address what it does is it returns a physical address. So essentially this is our virtual to physical mapping on here and then the last part of dumb VM that's where the update to the TLB occurs. In other words we know by definition that there was not a virtual to physical mapping in the TLB. Well given the virtual address we've now successfully located what the physical address should be so now we fall through and this code here essentially what it does is it searches for the first free available entry in the TLB and populates it and done. If it does not find a free entry it well just returns an error which will crash the system yada yada yada on this.  What you wanna do is rather than searching for the first available one well there might be an available one that's great but if there's not you're gonna need to evict an entry on this. So in other words never fault on lack of TLB entries. If you don't have one you're gonna have to create one on this. Not difficult it's probably one of the quicker changes but it's something that does need to be done because if you don't do that what happens is after you referred to more than 64 pages your user program is gonna bomb. Questions about the mechanics of dumb VM VM fault? The slide deck. So what do you need to do for VM fault here? Again we need to rewrite things, oops wait a minute. Okay and given a virtual fault determined again is it a potentially valid address? You again need to look at your segment information and then if it is a valid address search for a page table entry and then take a look at the page table entry for the state here. You may need to allocate a new page you may need to swap it in from disk here. So this essentially the second third of VM fault needs to be completely gutted and rewritten on this. Then the last third if you will the updating of the TLB entries here. Again it's you can look at how dumb VM does it but correct code that essentially evicts when you need to is actually gonna be a lot shorter. Like I say my thought is that at Harvard they were actually deliberately hacking it and try to force you to do something with that because correct code you can either like use round robin or random or what have you just always make sure that there's an entry and return. So questions about the behavior of what VM fault needs to do on this. Instead of searching the base and bounds search your own data structures, possibly return an error and possibly update the TLB. Alrighty, where do we go from here? How do you actually get started with assignment 3.2 on this? This would be my suggested approach to you. Yep, data structures sit down with your partner and stamp stuff out then talk to the staff on here and what you're gonna need is well the address space, the page table entry structures and the page table on that. And just kind of you're not gonna get it perfect obviously you're gonna make changes on this but what's gonna be your general approach to this thing here and what are some of the basic fields you need to put into this stuff just to get started. Then you wanna actually get stuff working. Again at this point I do assume once you've completed assignment 3.1 you should at least be able to boot to a kernel menu. You won't be able to run any user code until you get this next step going. But if you have a kernel menu prompt and you can pass test KM1 through KM5 that means you've got to work in core map because this assignment is gonna be building on top of that. Well what do I need to do to get a simple hello world program running? Remember how you needed to do that for assignment 2.1 and 2.2? Well same thing here true except now let's see if we can't run it on your brand spanking new memory manager on this.  Answer, AS create, AS define region, AS define stack and VM fault. You can use the AS activate just port that over. Essentially that functionality, remember what AS activate does is it's used to update the entries in the TLB and for now the approach that's taken by dumb VM is essentially flush the entire TLB on every and each context switch on this. That certainly works, you can change that if needed. Frankly have really not found that it needs to be done on this. So again just make sure that you do update or flush the TLB entries because if you don't do that then you will have problems. But what you need to write again is remember AS create that is to initialize your memory data structures when the process is created or forked. Define region that defines your segments. Define stack is really just a subset. You can possibly even have defined stack called defined region. It's really two sides of the same coin on this. And then the VM fault, we just talked about that, that there's going to be a significant amount of just redoing that from almost ground up on this. So questions about what you need to do just to get started. The reason I mentioned is in terms of prioritization. Some of this other stuff, fork and memory recommendation. Okay get a hello world program working first. But these other things like AS copy for most people is a pain. Well you're gonna need to write it but I'm just saying in terms of it's not something. Work out the bugs and the kinks with getting a hello world program working and then move on to AS copy because that's what you need for fork and creating multiple processes. And then AS destroy and once you have that you can start working on memory cleanup. And as we make a note here, at this point pause. Before you go on to heap, make sure that you have nailed down every and I do mean every last blooming memory leak in your kernel on this because it will be tested. Excuse me. Again, Scott's going to be using KHU when test 161. If you are leaking even a bite, it will be noted and detected and the tests will catch up.


Welcome to Toffy TV, it is the Everton News Daily. Everton won a game on Saturday, we've won another game. Everton beat Brentford 1-0, I'm sure you all know, but Sean Dyche held his post-match press conference after the game, so I've got some clips from the press conference. First up, first question he was asked about his thoughts on the performance, this is what Sean Dyche had to say. It's satisfying today for different reasons because the first half of the story is very good. Arguably, I think you could simply argue we should have gone in further in front with the chances that we created. We've been talking about how we can be effective and I thought we were. And then second off, fair play to them, they're 12 and beaten in the Premier League. I think they've had six wins in that as well. They're a good outfit, we know that, they've matured into an outfit. And they came back into it and a good play from them, some effective play. And I spoke to Thomas in the summer about it and he's not precious about football neither am I. If they want to play effective, they ask questions of it, they get it forward, they'll put it in the box, they'll do long throws and all of that stuff, as well as I'm some very good players by the way. And I thought we, the only thing I would say is, look it gets nervous, but we gave them too many turnovers, too many simple turnovers with the ball to give them a chance to keep coming out as rather than dealing with the ball better ourselves. But that being said, you've got to find ways of winning football matches and it's very difficult in the Premier League to dominate 90 minutes, 95 minutes, whatever it's played. So you expect teams to have spells and on this occasion, that a very strong half, we lost away with it. But the resilience of the side, the shape of the side and that's growing all the time, them two things. And doing the hard yards and adding a moment of fine goalkeeping and you know you come over the nice 1-0 win. Yeah, it was a good performance and I think it was well needed another three points and another clean sheet against a decent team. It was a side that hasn't lost a game since October, albeit they haven't been winning all their away games, they've been okay away from home. I think they beat West Ham away from home in December, which was the last away win. But you know, they're still playing well, they're having a good season, so to beat them at home and to get another 1-0 win, which I'm sure Shaun Dice was really happy about. You know, it does a lot for our confidence. I mean, I need that right now, certainly with some of the games coming up. We've got some tougher ways, Chelsea, United, and we've also got some home games as well, which we should be winning, but they're not going to be easy games. You know, they're like some Newcastle Tottenham at home, you know, they're going to be really tough. So we need to get these performances at home and points, let's be honest. You know, there's only 11 games left now, so to get as much points as we can is really important. Joe, in the game, personally, I thought it really should have been 2-0 rather than 1-0 with the De Marais grade disallowed goal. And this is what Shaun Dice had to say about that disallowed goal.  I understand the idea of hands in the not the right position and stuff like that when they're given. But he's actually looked to me, he's just flinching, you know, to try and say, I think that's a different thing. He's not pushed his hand towards the ball. I'm not inshore it, well, I thought he came off his peck, to be honest. You'd like them to go for you. If it went against you, you'd be disappointed, it goes for you, but you're delighted. Some of these decisions, I'm a fan of VAR, some of these decisions are difficult. But I just thought the distance side of it comes at him so quick, I don't know what else he's meant to do. And it looks to me like he's just flinching rather than hand to ball and making it go into the goal. But look, it went against us, it would have been pleasing for him to go with us. But let's have it right, we had other opportunities which we've got to take responsibility for. You know, I've said to the players have the freedom to miss, I've told them that, and they did. But equally, you've got to have the moment of clarity to score. And I think that's where our continued sort of side of the game improves is that once you get the freedom to miss and you're going into the right areas, which we are, we're getting bodies in the right areas, that's improving. But then you've got to have that clarity to score a goal. And I think we had two or three chances first half to really secure the game. Yeah, it was a strange one for me, I think it should have been a goal. I think you could tell by Gray's reaction as well. He clearly didn't think he handballed it and why would you when it comes off your chest. And obviously we saw it, I don't know if anyone else has saw it, but in the United Southampton game, there's what looks to me like a blade handballed by the Southampton defender.  But when it's the other end and it's an Everton attacker and it goes in off the chest. And it's not even clear. It's not even a clear handball, then it's not given. So strange one. But yeah, it's still a decent game. And hopefully soon, well, I've done it. I'll give it back to give it a bit more attack and output. But obviously Dominic Avelin didn't feature in that game on the weekend. So Sean Dyche gave us all an update on his current fitness. This is what you have to say. Well, yeah, we'll see where he's at. You know, but he's in a, all I can say is at the moment, having spoken to him just briefly, caught eyes with him. He's back, looks like he's training with a smile on his face, which we want. Cos all of that's part of the maker footballers mentality. We'll see where that takes us. But I've been impressed with Dimmy working hard. I've been impressed with Neil working hard. Seems he's still learning the game, of course. You know, the team's mentality to not overthink that because everyone keeps asking me. But I'm looking at a team, not just one player. It's a team situation. Yeah. Hopefully he'll feature on Saturday against Chelsea because it's an important game. He's back in training now. Obviously he didn't train long enough to get into that Brentford side. I'm guessing he'll at least feature on the bench against Chelsea if all things go the way they want it to in terms of training and getting him back up to speed. So hopefully we'll see him on Saturday. One player who has been featuring quite a bit lately under Sean Dyche is Michael Keane who we didn't really get to see much off before Sean Dyche came into the club. He's been okay in my opinion. A couple of games he's been a bit near, but I thought he had a good game against Brentford. He really kept a clean sheet. He spoke to Everton after the game. He said, I'm buzzing to be back to be honest. He said, I'm feeling part of it again. I'm just really pleased. I didn't play for a long time, but I've been training really well. I waited for my chance when the new manager came in. I hoped I'd get my chance at some point. I just had to be patient. I was working really hard every day and I got a few games under my belt now and feel fitter and hopefully I can carry on getting better. I'm really happy to be back in and helping the team. Obviously Michael Keane playing under Sean Dyche. Burnley, so whether there's a level off trust that Sean Dyche has in Michael Keane, maybe that's why he got a chance against Arsenal and probably why he's kept his place on the side. I'm delighted for him personally to get a clean sheet and a win at home. I'm more delighted for Everton, to be honest, and Sean Dyche, but it's nice that Michael Keane is getting a pro out of it as well. That's all the news for today. Let me know your thoughts on the Damari Greatest Loud Goal. Did you think it should have been a goal as well or do you think it was a handball? Make sure you like this video, subscribe to the channel and if you want more videos included live there, exclusive videos. Join us on software TV premiere. There will be a QR code on the screen in two seconds. Thanks for watching. See you later.


Hey there lads and ladies it is Petrifying Pumpkins here and today I am going to go off on a bit of a rant. This is just going to be like I said a rant not going to edit it too much because I just don't have time so let's just hop straight into it. This is going to be all about this article that popped up yesterday from Jason Schreyer who is a gaming journalist over at Bloomberg. He used to be a Kotaku. He got offered some fat stacks to go over to Bloomberg but this fella is famous for being one of the most well networked well connected. I don't know how he does it but he's able to get all these insider scoops. He's nearly always correct but I think people who work in the gaming industry see Jason Schreyer as someone that they can approach and often anonymously like he won't share their identity and they can you know complain whistleblow basically to him and get their plight out into the public and that's what's happened here in this article titled Sony's obsession with blockbusters is stirring unrest within the PlayStation empire. So first things first I mean I'm wearing I'm wearing this PlayStation t-shirt here but as you can see I have inverted the symbolism much like turning a crucifix upside down because I hate PlayStation so much. No I'm joking. I like PlayStation. What I'm going to do here is kind of take somewhat of a defensive stance against what I perceive to be a lot of you know blown out of proportion flak that PlayStation are catching. Not just because of this article for a while now. I feel like anytime Xbox does something good everyone turns their heads to PlayStation and they're like why aren't you doing this?  You know Game Pass exists. They've got 18 million subscribers. PlayStation Plus exists has over 50 million subscribers or something like that but you're not allowed to mention that. That's not something that gets brought up. It's like no you need to do what they're doing. You need to play games on their terms even though on your terms you're doing very well you're being very successful. As we speak the PS5 is outselling both of the Xbox consoles combined but that doesn't seem to be something that we're not that we're not allowed to talk about it but it's just not something that's coming up in the public discourse. From what I can see on Twitter and gaming websites and whatnot there is a big you know oh Xbox are doing great, Microsoft are doing great, PlayStation are making all the wrong moves essentially. Meanwhile Nintendo's over in the back releasing you know a port of Skyward Sword for full price and it's just got like a upscaled HD resolution or whatever but nobody you know that's fine. We'll let that slide in the radar. Anyway I've waffled a bit too much in the intro. Let me go into this article. I've highlighted some parts just for emphasis but I'm going to go through the whole article. So a lot of this article focuses on this small San Diego team who were met up of Sony Core's Visual Arts Service Group. So they're this small kind of support team that for many years have been helping out Sony's bigger teams, Naughty Dogs, Santa Monica's whatever. They come in at the end of projects usually when they're needed and they help them with I don't know finishing off animations or polish or whatever needs to be done. They have never themselves made a game from scratch from the ground up but that is something that they wanted to change and basically this article is mainly about them and their story but there is other stuff here to talk about as well. So Sony Core's Visual Arts Service Group has long been the unsung hero of many PlayStation hit video games. San Diego based operation helps finish off games designed at other studios with animation art or other content. But about three years ago a handful of influential figures within the group I'm not going to say VA whatever over and over I'm just going to call them the group. They decided they wanted to have more creative control and lead game direction rather than being supporting actors on popular titles such as Spider-Man and Uncharted. So Michael Mumbauer and I've locked him up over here this is the guy. I believe this is him. He's only got a small amount of followers which makes me suspicious that it might be a fake account or something but maybe I guess they're just not well as well known as your Corey Barlogs and your Neil Druckmans. He took over the direction of this group in 2007 so he's been there for quite some time. He recruited a group of about 30 developers internally and from neighboring game studios to form a new development unit within Sony. So they wanted he wanted to make his own group his own studio by pulling in developers from all these kind of surrounding studios including his kind of sister studios from Sony. So their idea was to expand upon some of the company's most successful franchises and the team began working on a remake the 2013 hit The Last of Us for the PlayStation 5. That's one thing first of all I mean we'll get into it I guess but a remake for The Last of Us again came out in 2013 which I guess is like eight years ago now is that correct seven years eight so it has been a while you know but it's not something that anyone was asking for so there's been a lot of push back in the you know the discourse the public discourse the twitters the facebooks everywhere people are like why do we need a remake nobody needs a remake you know that has a remaster already in on PlayStation 4 and that plays perfectly fine blah blah blah but there is like some strategic value because you know HBO are working on The Last of Us TV show which in all likelihood is going to be a hiss I would imagine it's being directed by the guy who did Chernobyl which was like usually Chris Lee claimed and it's going to closely follow the story of the original game and everyone well not everyone but most people including myself love the story of the original game and its characters and all that kind of stuff so you put those two things together you would imagine you've got like a guaranteed hit in your hands so then you're going to expose The Last of Us to all this new audience who have never heard of the video game version of The Last of Us and then they will see oh there's a Last of Us game on PS5 when they buy a PS5 when they buy The Last of Us remake and you know money essentially but Sony never fully acknowledged the team's existence or gave them the funding and support needed to succeed in the highly competitive video game market according to the people involved and I guess that's an important point according to the people involved I mean you're here on one side of the story here not that I'm saying that they're lying or anything like that I do believe them I do believe everything that's being told here are more or less but you know there's other things to consider I'm sure we'll as we'll get into us we'll get into us so the studio never even got its own name instead Sony moved ownership of The Last of Us remake to its original creator Naughty Dog a Sony owned studio behind many of the company's best-selling games and an HBO television series in development I mean just by reading that all you like there's an alarm bell it's like why what are you doing Sony why are you like allowing this team to exist not allowing them to have their own name not funding them greenlighting this remake but then stopping taking the remake off them and giving it to Naughty Dog you know so there's a lot of alarm bells going off there rightly so but like I said we'll read more so deflaced the small group's leadership has largely disbanded according to interviews with eight people familiar with the operation Manny including Mum Bauer have left the company entirely so Mum Mum Bauer declined to comment and others asked not to be named discussing private information a representative for Sony declined to comment or provide interview so the team's failure highlights the complex hierarchy of video game development and in particular Sony's conservative approach to making games for the PlayStation 5 now the reason I've highlighted this is because I think it's kind of a contradiction to say this if this group this unnamed pool of developers were making a brand new IP or something a bit wacky a bit wild and then Sony were like no no no give this to Naughty Dog instead then I would be like okay Sony are being a bit conservative here however this is a last of us remake there is nothing very risky about you know allowing an last of us remake to be made whether it's by Naughty Dog or by this team you know nobody would be like wow Sony are breaking new ground look how much craze of freedom they're given this team you know if they're coming along with a last of us remake I mean there's other evidence as well all around us a few weeks ago I was reading articles about how Sony were increasing investment with media molecule the creator of dreams and there's nothing more risky than dreams I would say under Sony's umbrella and of course PlayStation virtual reality that was a huge risk back in 2016 it's going to be a huge risk when the PSVR 2 comes out and that's under Jim Ryan's leadership and Herman Holtz's leadership and they're going with that risk I mean that's if you want to be talking about conservative look at the look at the consoles who aren't supporting virtual reality that's conservative the Japanese conglomerate owns about a dozen studios across the world so that includes the likes of Sony Santa Monica, Gorilla Games, Japan Studio which has been you know recently chopped up so that's another thing to talk about as well I guess but Team Asobi kind of survives over there who else do they got Sony bend the makers of Blood and Truth but in recent years has prioritized games made by its most successful developers studios such as Santa Monica, Naughty Dog and Gorilla Games spend tens of millions of dollars to make games with the expectation that the that the investments would pay off exponentially and I've highlighted here and they usually do and the reason I've highlighted that is because hey the reason that they're doing these things is because it's working it's making them money they're making not only these games commercially successful but most of the time they are wildly critically successful you compare the exclusives on PlayStation 4 to the exclusives on Xbox one if you compare their Metacritic scores you're going to see a lot of green on the PlayStation side and a lot of yellow on the Xbox side you know and I would say myself that's you know the PlayStation 4's exclusives are probably one of the biggest if not the biggest reason that the PlayStation 4 did so well and Microsoft has taken the opposite approach relying on a wide array of studios to feed its Netflix like subscription service Xbox game pass which allows users to pay a monthly fee for unlimited access to a variety game Sony's focus on exclusive blockbusters has come at the expense of niche teams and studios within the PlayStation organization leading to high turnover and less choice for players and this is why I've highlighted this part here the less choice for players this is where I feel like it's the author it's the journalist it's Jason Schreyer kind of injecting a little bit of uh don't want to say bias it's not bias because opinion and that's fine because you know you're obviously entitled to put your opinion in whatever you create but this is not something I would agree with whatsoever you know okay there's evidence there's hard evidence out there I have restreamed the last state of play on this channel I've restreamed the second whatever two big events they had before this and in the chess was full of people saying oh no another indie another cutesy looking indie where's the real games you know everyone's saying and when they say real games they're talking about the triple A stuff but we can all agree those games those are those events those showcases whatever they had a lot of experimental looking indie titles just because they were not from the first party studios does not mean Sony don't have that angle covered there's that little devils inside game there's um I mean I could I should have pulled up a list but there's loads just rewatch those things you will see they're full of indies they're full of these kind of experimental looking things what was that one that in the most recent state of play it was like the kung fu fighting one that looked really cool so as long as Sony are making deals with these second party developers and third party developers to make sure those games are on ps5 as well what doesn't matter that their sony's you know own in-house studios are focusing on blockbuster triple A titles and I say that known fully well that you know sony london studios are not working on well that you could call them triple A's but they're definitely experimented they've been doing virtual reality games for you know 10 I don't know well not 10 years five years now a bit more what's more experimental than virtual reality development you know how many microsoft studios are working on virtual reality games how many of nintendo studios are working on virtual reality games how experimental are they being how groundbreaking is it to release another result oh another halos on the way well so yeah I take umbridge not being fully aware of what the word umbridge means but still probably understanding this enough to use it correctly in that sentence I do take umbridge with less choice for players I don't think there's less choice for players I do agree that you know it has come at the expense of niche teams within Sony so so last week Sony reorganized development office in Japan we're talking about it immediately I guess resulting in mass departures of people who worked on less well known but acclaimed games such as gravity rush and everybody's got now gravity rush everybody's got they have their fans they have their audience but those fans and that audience is tiny compared to anything else so why would you pump millions into the development of these games when you can just make a deal with a second party studio or third party studio and get them that way I mean obviously they're not the same games but you know for that type of thing however I still think it's sad to lose so much talent over at Sony Japan I'm not saying Sony are perfect I do think that's a worrying kind of sign that I think they should keep maybe at least Sony Japan making those kind of quirky games because as far as I know they do do well in Japan maybe just not outside of Japan but I would say console gaming in general is on the decline in Japan so you know I'm sure they've got the numbers back in that stuff up so the company informed developers that it no longer wants to produce smaller games that are only successful in Japan so I mean that sounds bad when you listen to it like that but I mean if it's true it's true I mean if gravity rush and everybody's golf or worldwide phenomenons you know they're the sequels they'd be continuing support for those studios but they're not they're probably flops you know I'm not sure they're well maybe they're making profit maybe they're not I don't know but obviously not enough for Sony to be interested and at the end of the day Sony's a business a lot of retweeting going around lately of a speech given by Sean Leiden who was the the head of PlayStation before Jim Ryan and he was giving a speech about how and he was saying how okay it didn't sell millions but that wasn't the point and like everyone's pulling this out of nowhere now but you know I think it's pretty telling that nobody pulls that tweezer or that speech up I should say before all this stuff where was that enthusiasm for Sean Leiden back when he was there wasn't there you know this fixation on teams that churn out hits is crazy unrest across Sony's portfolio of game studios Oregon based Sony Bend best known for days gone tried unsuccessfully to pitch a sequel that year according to people familiar with the proposal although the first game had been profitable its development had been lengthy and critical reception was mixed so a days gone two wasn't seen as a viable option this is one that I do think I will agree with the majority of people who are like dog pylon on Sony I've recently played days gone one for the first time and the reason I didn't play us until recently was because of the critical reception that it got so a lot of people were very mixed on us and I do understand that back when it released there was a lot of technical issues I think that the frame rate was pretty bad so I played it on ps5 at a mostly locked 60 frames per second I mean there was some frame drops now and again so I played it in its best possible you know version of itself but having said that I still thought the game was like surprisingly good I enjoyed it at last the story somehow even though I looked at the trailers and the characters and they all looked like you know they're going to be cringy kind of bad boy biker dudes whatever but it was still very interesting and you know there's a big twist at the end and all that kind of stuff so I set up nicely for a sequel and I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed if that doesn't happen which it looks like it's not going to happen unless there's a big enough you know kickback from this article that you know Sony will be like okay we make days gone two so I do think Sony should have seen that they should have seen that okay critical reception was pretty bad but they fixed some things they improved this we played it ourselves we know it's a good game we know the story is good we know the shooting and all that kind of stuff was fine the world was good the hordes are very cool so there was a lot there that sony ben did do well and I feel like they probably should have given them the benefit of whatever doubts they had and allowed them another chance and if days gone two perform badly critically commercially whatever then say okay you had your chance I feel like they didn't give them enough of a chance here especially when you consider that development for days gone two I know they said the development there was long but with days gone two they'd have they'd already have the engine up and ready to go like you know when you already have a game to build off of make a sequel of I'm sure things would have went a lot quicker and smoother and anyway instead of days gone two one team at the studio was assigned to help Naughty Dog with a multiplayer game which I'm assuming is the factions mode that's going to be coming I would imagine maybe as a standalone title now at this point probably not going to be a free update for the last of us part two but we'll have to wait and see while the second group was assigned to work on a new one chartered game with supervision from Naughty Dog so some staff including top leads were unhappy with this arrangement and left Ben's developers feared they might be absorbed into Naughty Dog and the studio leadership has to be taken off the Uncharted project they got their wish last month and are now working on a new game of their own that will be part of a brand new franchise I highlight this part here some staff were unhappy and they left because I think that is reasonable for the staff members I think that was they were well within their rights to do this I don't think Sony were made the right choice by asking them to do this but I kind of maybe wish they stuck around because it seems they got their wish last month and are now working on a new game of their own that would be part of a brand new franchise so that's not going to be days gone two but I'm still excited because now I've played days gone one I know how good that studio is at making games and I know they've made Uncharted Golden Abyss on Visa which has its fans I've never got a visa nobody did so yeah I'm excited to see what that's going to be so that's some positivity out of that situation it's just a shame that the staff members here these leads had to leave I guess they were really committed today's gone they really wanted the sequel so they were unhappy with us and that's understandable emphasizing big hits can also be counterproductive because sometimes games that start small can turn into massive successes Sony didn't put much marketing muscle behind the quirky video game creation system Dreams by the PlayStation owned media molecule in the UK as a result PlayStation may have missed out on its own version of Roblox Roblox a game I've never seen advertised I don't think it's been around for a few years now I know it's huge it's this PC game a lot of kids are into us I think it's a huge kind of stretch by Jason Schreyer to be like hey if Sony just advertised Dreams a bit more they would have gone on to make you know 45 billion daughters you know that's that's a stretch I mean just the fact that Dreams exists is proof that they're taking risks could they have advertised it more yes they could have was Dreams in development held for like 10 years yes it was so they could have cancelled that game I think I had to restart development twice while it was in development and Sony stuck with it now I know that was different leadership back then and would that happen today under Jim Ryan maybe not Herman Holtz probably would have been like no as I said earlier on Sony have increased investment into media molecule so I don't really buy that part that Jason Schreyer is selling there Montbauer's project codenamed T1X was approved on a probationary basis but Sony kept the team's existence a secret and refused to give them a budget to hire more people leading many to wonder if the company was really committed to letting the team build a new studio still the small team kept working and by the spring of 2019 they had completed a section of the game designed to showcase how the rest would look and feel at the same time Sony was going through a management shuffle and the new boss Herman Holtz was not impressed so whatever they made up here in 2019 a little demo of the last was remake Herman Holtz was not impressed with it he thought the remake project was too expensive according to people familiar with this and asked why the planned budget for T1X was so much higher than remake Sony hadn't made in the past so there's like a reason in here for why they didn't just do it because they're evil this group of people brought a demo to Herman Holtz and he was like this isn't impressive you know and you would imagine that's on them now I know they didn't have all the resources that they should have had to make a project like that but not only was he not impressed he was wondering why it was so expensive and he can ask that question because he's had experience like he can look at the list okay we read we did the remake for Demon's Souls we did the remake for you know whatever else they did remakes for I can't think of the top of my head why is this so much more expensive that's a valid question too the reason of course is that they were putting a brand new graphical engine into us and they wanted to hire more people you know boss host wasn't convinced and that I wouldn't say that's a rare thing to happen I remember watching the documentary for the making of God of War raising Kratos and there's a part where you know Corey Barlog was saying you know Shuhei Yoshida was going to come in and check out God of War back when it was in early development and this was before Herman Holtz so Herman Holtz replaced Yoshida so Yoshida was not happy with God of War when he saw it first in whatever state it was in than ever showed us I don't think but he wasn't impressed but he didn't he did give them the opportunity to go again but that's because Sony Santa Monica or a big established studio if it was this small group maybe Yoshida would have canceled it as well a bit of food for thought there I think so just when it hoped to enter production on the remake of The Last of Us Mumbauer's team got called in to help with another big game so they went to help development on The Last of Us 2 most of Mumbauer's team along with some of the 200 or so other staff at the V the group was assigned to support Naughty Dog slowing down progress on its own game then the roles got reversed Sony sent word that after completion of The Last of Us 2 some people from Naughty Dog would help out with T1X Mumbauer's team saw this as their short-lived autonomy being stripped so this is a sign of conflict you know Mumbauer wasn't happy with these Naughty Dogs guy with their big dicks swinging their big dicks around in his studio and that caused conflict so dozens of Naughty Dog staff were joining the project and some had actually worked on The Last of Us giving them more ways in discussions about T1X's direction which does make sense I mean you would go to the creators hey this is what we were doing this is what we were going for and maybe you guys can realize us on the PS5 when we couldn't whereas they were like well we thought you were trying to do this and that's what we want to show so it makes sense that there would be conflict going on there or whatever you know but those who had wanted independence were disappointed by the end of 2020 most of T1X's teams top staff have left had left including Mumbauer and the games director David Hall today the T1X project remains in development at Naughty Dog with assistance from Sony's group the future of the remainder of Mumbauer's team which has come to be jointly referred to as Naughty Dog South remains unclear so after reading all of this which was quite lengthy and I have to edit down a lot of that I think but it feels like it's designed to get you to feel one way about us you know namely be worried about what Sony's direction is going in now the way this has been received has been you know oh Sony don't take risks anymore Sony don't support small studios within their own groups or whatever however nothing that Sony has done in this article has been you know with unwarranted there's a reason behind everything and all those reasons even if they're all just financial them I mean to make sense at the end of the day they're there to make money doesn't mean we see less games like puppeteer and Tokyo jungle and stuff like that probably you know when they close down the Sony Japan studio and cut down their staff or whatever but how many of you actually play those games well maybe you did because you're a PlayStation enthusiast or whatever but in the grand scheme of things nobody plays those games the only thing in this article that does bother me about Sony is that they kind of show disrespect to Ben Studio which I don't think you know Ben Studio deserve that at all I think they definitely deserve their shot at Daze Gone 2 or whatever they want to do but they wanted to do Daze Gone 2 and they didn't get that shot but yeah for me this is just the laziest and a long line of Sony are doing this wrong Sony are doing that wrong they're doing PSVR we won't talk about that you know they're doing great numbers with the PS5 we won't talk about that they're doing you know 50 million subscribers on PS Plus or maybe it's 40 I don't know exactly what it is but it's a lot it's a lot and that's a subscription service too but we don't talk about that instead we'll talk about you know Xbox are buying up tons of studios you know that's fantastic they're doing Game Pass that's fantastic Sony need to compete with all these things that Xbox are doing we won't take into account that Xbox have like unlimited resources in terms of finances just this whole narrative that's been pushed lately that Sony are not taking creative risks it just doesn't fly to me I mean this is a PlayStation Virtual Reality channel this channel is dedicated to Sony's biggest risk in the last since the visa the biggest risk since the visa you would say and the visa wasn't that much for risk PSP did well so they had a good a good foothold in the handheld mark with the PSP they just blew it with the visa so I would argue that PlayStation Virtual Reality is their biggest risk in the last 10 years and I built a channel around us and you guys all love PSP or if you're watching this probably do anyway and they're continuing that Sony last month two months ago whatever it was PSP or two got confirmed so you know I just can't buy that I'm looking at games like destruction all stairs as well that's not a game Sony would typically make but they pumped money into this and they got that at launch well not launch launch window for PS5 demon souls a remake but a remake of a game that never really sold that well you know it was a very obscure game on ps3 a lot of people think you know the souls games started with dark souls because nobody like not nobody but a lot of people don't know about demon souls so I would say that's kind of a risk as well and then just this month coming out at the end of this month we have Returnal so they're putting you know they're putting money into housemark to make a triple a game and but this is their first time making a triple a game everything they've done before has been you know much smaller scale so that's a risk as well especially selling that thing at 80 euros definitely a risk I don't think Returnal is going to do that well in terms of sales I hope I'm wrong but yeah I'm not worried about Sony's you know direction I think they keep if they stay this course it's going we're going to have a very similar generation to what we just had on ps4 and I had a great generation on ps4 a lot of great games I look back on the ps4 and I remember the big blockbuster triple a games I do not see big triple a blockbuster games is a bad thing which some people seem to be pointing out but when Sony do come along with the smaller indie stuff that they've teamed up with other developers for I'm going to be happy to try that stuff out too especially a lot of that stuff ends up on PlayStation viewer you know most of that stuff is not triple a and you know that's most of the library there I've been enjoying so a lot of what's been thrown at Sony lately just doesn't hold much weight to me however I've waffled on way too long about this let me know what your thoughts are in the comments below we can have a discussion about this if you want if you want to call me a Sony fanboy or whatever but I think I've backed up most of these points well enough anyway let me end the video there let me thank my patreon supporters his names are on the screen as we speak thanks to their generosity they're keeping this channel nice and moist in particular let me thank the following top tier patreon supporters Pete Hawkins tradition chapter 517 crumb Daniel the pumpkin patch kid and columbus thomas the third thank you very much lads for that generosity it really is appreciated if you'd like to help on the patreon the link will be in the description below but if not like comment subscribe all that usual shice will do just fine finally let me thank Decepticon for letting me use his music in all of these videos you can catch him in the description below as well and with that I will end this video thank you for watching lads and ladies stay moist


My name is Anne Smith and I work with Project Bazia named for the gentleman sitting next to me also for the place of his birth and his grandfather. This is Antony Bazia and we together run a nonprofit here in Portland that is dedicated to helping young people, especially the people of Bazia's homeland, South Sudan. And I want to share with you today that we have written a book about South Sudan and it's being released on Amazon and we're here to present the purpose of the book because it's far beyond just publication, it has a deeper meaning. The book is called Where Am I From and it's dedicated to the children of South Sudan. In 2011, which is called the Year of Change in South Sudan, this country declared her independence from Sudan, which was once one big country. It was the biggest country in Africa. Her people waved the new colorful flag, sang the new national anthem and shouted Oye, which means hooray. Her people thought their troubles were over, united by their vote and the belief that better times were ahead, the South Sudanese began the process of building a new nation. Last year, in 2013, only two years after the Year of Change, civil war once again broke out in South Sudan. Many people died, many were displaced from their homes and the faith of the South Sudanese people in the new government pretty much disappeared. The unity of the new nation also vanished as old hatred surfaced while everyone looked for someone to blame. The situation looked hopeless and the whole world was watching. But here, we know how the independence happened and we know how much the independence meant to the South Sudanese people, 98%, almost 99% of them voted to separate their country and they believed, they really believed that once they had a flag and a country of their own, there would be no more fighting. But they are now fighting within their country. Why?  This was one of the, when 2011 take place in South Sudan vote on 98 or 99 to be a country. But they never talked about what's the next move to be a nation. In my respect, I would say whatever happened earlier, I think, in different reasons is good. So you're saying this fighting now is good? It's good for one reason because to be a nation, it's not only flag. It's a process because all these people who get in the power, they came background of guerrilla fight and what they know, they know everything is about gun. And even to make South Sudan became a nation, it's not only about the gun. After the international community to look at the issue because the issue be taking place for a long time. So the international community helped them settle the CPA which divided the country but stepped back and let them rule themselves and they had never ruled themselves. Yeah, they never ruled themselves to be a nation. But they used to be under the Khatum government who running the Sudan genre according to the design of the one around the Khatum according to them. But now when they became two country and different condition of to run the two country and according to what the second citizen of South Sudan who became a country, they have their own way to believe what they want to be. And before the Muslims or before the Arabs ran the country, it was the British? Yes. So they have never have a chance to govern themselves. So as you have said, there was bound to be trouble. That's right. It had to happen. So are they making any progress? For me, the process is happening according after this accident take place and it was not only about what people think and outside. I can put it, it was about the power between two leaders who fighting to run the same country. But they never have a common in the way that we all the same nation if one around the country. The country have to be the president, the vice president and even the very important for the country, the citizen of the country. If we raise the volume to make the citizen understand what means to be a citizen of South Sudan, that's what's missing in the first place and I think according to this reflected happening, some people understand. So this is not a genocide which I have read in American newspapers and on blogs. It's not a genocide from the understand because it's about the power. And if you look at it, they are more hungry to be in the power because they have been fighting for 22 years and when they get the chance, it's different. Just like somebody who was living in the guerrilla fight and you bring him home, you have a nice car, nice food, nice bodyguard and you're just going to tell him, I'm going to take this from you. I don't think it's easy. This is what I understand and according to my background from my family, I have a little bit of idea of what. So these leaders who are leading the fight saw the reward of all their struggle as guerrilla fighters to be in power and to stay in power. To stay in power. Why did we write this book? The reason to write this book is because we care about the next generation. We don't want to do the same mistake what happened right now in South Sudan and we have to look out the positive way because whatever we do, we have to be at peace. Hurtress, point finger on ourselves, it doesn't help. And we want to pay the price for the people who died for this South Sudan, like Hiru Jungarang and others who died for this South Sudan and others who struggle to make South Sudan to be at peace. We have to have peace and respect and we have to think about the next generation. That's the purpose of this book. I know one thing that I learned from writing this book was about something that exists in South Sudan apart from the people which has had an incredible effect upon the nation's history and it's a swamp. South Sudan is about the size of Texas and right smack dab in the middle of it around the River Nile is a swamp that at its peak flood is the size of the state of Alabama and when it shrinks it's still the size of Maryland, it's huge. And before the separation, I think the most interesting thing about this swamp is that before the separation the people of the north were building a canal for the Egyptians so that the water in the Nile would go right through the swamp. There wouldn't be a swamp anymore. They paid I believe something like five million dollars and tons of equipment to the north and said build us a canal and then we can get our water faster. Again, an example of how little the cartoon government cared about the assets of the people of the south. Now as a person who loves the environment apart from my love of people I could see immediately when I began reading about this as I researched for this book that if that canal had been completed within a very short time maybe even ten years South Sudan would have been a desert. There would have been nothing but a river flowing through the middle and no more swamp which was supporting an enormous amount of wildlife and the nomadic cattle herders. Would you say something about those people though because I think they're a big part of the problem in South Sudan? This is one of the things the Hiru Jon Garang was included in the CPA agreement. They cannot accept the canal to happen. That was barred by the CPA? By the CPA and to protect the land of South Sudan and maybe I can say in the name of God who protect South Sudan in a different direction but I was glad the Hiru Jon Garang understand that and he was standing against that and that would take place in the CPA agreement I believe that's going to save a lot of life and not even in South Sudan and Africa generally. I think that whole eastern part of Africa would have eventually been affected dried right up because there was no more swamp which slowed the water down and spread it out into the into the rest of the countries. One thing we talk a lot about in this book is something called diaspora. Diaspora means the spreading of seeds basically. The Jews who are in diaspora, African Americans see themselves as a group from diaspora and South Sudanese really see it very strongly that many of them fled and they are here now or they are in the UK or Australia or Canada they're all over the globe. More than half a million South Sudanese still consider themselves South Sudanese citizens but they live outside the country. How can they help with the process that's happening back in their homeland? For me I'm direct the message to them they have to be more open mind of education and there's two subjects in the media now sometimes they make mistake opinion and facts and I wish everybody listened to this interview. When you want to talk you got a pacific if you say in your opinion is a different thing when you say facts is a different thing because sometimes we own people they will affect the other brothers and sisters according to what they just said because really education is not a fight it's supposed to be a common sense understand and before you speak think about it and say it. Well you have a nation too that the people in diaspora are getting educated their children go to public schools they have learned to read and write but back in South Sudan 95% of the people cannot read or write so they only go by what they hear. That's right one of the things we hope to have is school we hope to learn from the other country but I'm surprised when we have people in diaspora they compare South Sudan with America and Canada I feel sorry because if you look at the United States to get dependents United States it's like 200 years ago you cannot compare a country have depended for 200 years ago and the country have only two year old and a baby. I think the last thing I want to ask you is I know you feel very strongly about three people that you feel contributed to the independence of South Sudan and that you personally would like to thank them would you like to speak to that? The first person is the hero John Dr. Grant he's around five for all these 22 years even he doesn't enjoying it and he passed away after 21 days of 20 days we thank you for him we thank you for what he does and we thank you for George W. Bush one of the people who was part of to have the agreement of CPA and then Tony Blair in London and I appreciate all of these three people and I appreciate the South Sudanese who watch in this interview I want them to learn and I want them to understand this book is not only just about the book it's about the right message for the next generation thank you thank you


So you'll forgive me. When I use PowerPoint, it never works. So let me start with a little bit of background on how I came to be involved in mineral value chains. I also wanted to put on my stopwatch so that I'm a good boy. About four years ago, Susan Shibangu, the Minister of Mineral Resources, was engaged in a heavy battle with the mining industry over the mining charter and the legislation and so on. And I was in Parliament and was witness to the battle going on, which was quite intense. And in the course of that battle, what emerged very clearly was that South Africa is indeed very well endowed, perhaps the best in the world of minerals, and yet its manufacturing sector was very weak and indeed in decline. And this contradiction between the wealth on the one hand and the relative weakness on the other puzzled me a great deal. And I thought that all the arguments about the mining charter and MPRDA and so on were not really getting to the heart of the matter. Why was it that a country with such enormous resources firstly had so much poverty and inequality, but even worse than that, so such a weak industrial manufacturing sector? And I developed an insatiable curiosity about this and found it terribly interesting. And having an engineering background, my first step was to look at geology and say, is there a geological problem to explain this contradiction? And that inquiry led me nowhere at all. And then I thought, well, maybe it's metallurgy, namely how are minerals processed, you know, smelting and all that. And I got in touch with metallurgists and the Metallurgical Society of South Africa and began to ask questions about whether there was some problem with the way minerals were processed. And that didn't take me very far either. And so together with the Industrial Development Corporation and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, we convened a number of conferences where we invited industry, government, experts and so on and we discussed first beneficiation in principle. And that produced some insights in what was going wrong in the value chain. And then another conference which we called the Interface Between Mining and Manufacturing, which was even better. And many case studies came forward from industry, from both from mining. Chamber of Mines was there and from manufacturing. Case studies emerged on how the mineral value chain operates in South Africa. And we began to see where the difficulties lay with respect to particular minerals. And those case studies are recorded and they're being used now and developed further in order to try in a very practical way to understand why a particular mineral of which we have the world's major resource like manganese, why that isn't turned into something downstream. And so the whole question of the mineral value chain was, we started to examine it then, this is a few years ago, and to try and uncover what on earth was going on. And of course the curious thing about that exercise is that every expert you asked for an opinion on what was not working in the value chain gave you a different answer. One expert would say it's electricity, it's energy, another one would say it's transport. If you speak to BHP Billiton with all the manganese that they've got of which they export 75%, 25% goes to Arsalaumetal. If you speak to BHP Billiton they will tell you the problem is transnet who won't give them a contract and the port charges which are so high that, and we were told just last, was it last week by Arsalaumetal that to take a shipment from Freirenecheng to Durban costs the same as from Durban to China. So this is a kind of information we were gathering and continue to gather which is to try and explain why the upstream and downstream of our mineral value chain is relatively, let's say, not as good as it ought to be. And so we pick up answers and it's quite incredible the way, the more investigation you do, the more interviews you do, the more different answers you get, you get answers about transport, you get answers about labour, labour markets, about energy, about red tape in government, about skills shortages, it's quite incredible. There is no single view that I've come across where you can say as a body of opinion in industry or in mining or even in government where there's an understanding of why our mineral value chains are not more effective. And so this justifies the research that I'm busy with now and I'm doing some work for the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa which has commissioned me and the team of people to do a study on the mineral value chains in South Africa but in the context of the region and of Africa as a whole. As you all know the African mining vision and numerous documents now from the African Union and the African Development Bank and the ECA who are working together on these things is now quite forthright about the need to understand mineral value chains in particular in Africa but indeed all value chains. Now one of the difficulties we came across in our discussions right from the beginning was policy documents from the Chamber of Mines which said that they are doing beneficiation and they distinguish between mining beneficiation and manufacturing beneficiation and they also say that the mining industry is a unique industry with particular dynamics and issues and that it's a standalone industry, that's the argument and they say they do mining beneficiation which of course is true in the sense that they do processing of all kinds and so on and only recently I've come up with an argument which is the counter attack to the Chamber of Mines position and my counter attack at the moment is this I accept that the mining industry is a unique industry it has unique capital, unique skills and unique processes and so on and one must understand that the industry has certain needs and requirements and that must be understood by DMR and indeed by everybody else but the product of that exercise once an ore becomes a metal then it becomes a social issue and it's a matter for the country as a whole so while the mining industry specializes in mining and they've got all the skills and the capital they needed to do that but once a product emerges from that process of processing then there's a national issue about what happens to the product and I've driven them to the wall to say since the Constitution says that minerals beneath the soil belong to the people of South Africa with a state as a custodian then the product of the processing is also a matter for the national interest especially as it is so critical for the economy and it cannot be simply exported in the way that most mines are doing at the moment and therefore that's where the debate lies at the moment Mining does its job, it produces metals but what happens to the metals is a matter of national concern and this is where this debate lies in my view so we're beginning to look at the IPAP minerals and we're looking at what are the obstacles to downstream and upstream processing and beneficiation and the inquiry leads us primarily into economic factors it's about markets, it's about prices, it's about competition it's about labour, it's about all those things very importantly and each area has to be examined pretty rigorously but there are also other problems and this is where the research is leading us to a degree and that is the institutional arrangement of South Africa and we are now convinced that if you focus only on the economic factors the markets issues, the pricing issues, transport issues, skills all those things which are standard issues covered by economic economists and you do not examine the institutional environment in which those things are operating, you're missing half the plot and so in the course of lots of investigations and interviews one comes down to three main problems and this is the heart of what I see as the obstacles to South Africa benefiting to the maximum of its mineral wealth and this is not to say that we should not export mineral wealth no one is arguing that, there's no either or about it in fact it's both and I think for example Billiton which produces, which has the biggest smelters in the world for manganese, as I say export 75% of the manganese and 25% goes into steel, domestic production so what are the three main problems because one is trying to identify, going back to my very first question of four years ago, what are the obstacles to South Africa being a highly industrialized country with the mineral base being a major element and I identify three problems the first one is a lack of coordination both within departments and between departments and this is acknowledged in many cases but it's not, for example in the Sims report there is one paragraph in the huge Sims report which says coordination is a major problem but I think it deserves more than a paragraph and it deserves quite serious attention because if we're going to really maximize the benefits of the mineral value chain then coordination within departments and between departments is vital the second obstacle is in the private sector there are very serious problems of pricing within the private sector there's import parity pricing for example I mean we've discussed this a great deal but there's also a short termism culture and at present time the private sector is not committed to the long, many in the private sector to the long-term development of South Africa and as we all know they're sitting on a lot of capital and there is a quick culture of quick fixes and quick returns which is very damaging and you can't operate on quick returns in a mineral value chain because you require long-term investments and you require to take a long view, training etc etc and mining is not a short term exercise and so the whole question of price distortions along the whole value chain and the short term view of business is a major problem finally there is another major problem, my third and that is the relationship between business and government I think we all know and you read about it in the papers every second day that there is an uncomfortable, let's use a euphemism an uncomfortable relationship between the private sector and government although there are all sorts of exercises which take place from time to time there's the PICC, there's the new PAKISA development which is clearly very welcome and could be quite important where government and business and others sit down and work through policy but nevertheless there is a degree almost of confrontation between certain elements of the private sector especially the mining industry and government and it seems to me that the reason for that is partly a denial that South Africa is a mixed economy and it's going to be a mixed economy for quite a long time if you acknowledge that the South African economy is a mixed economy with a large state sector and an even larger private sector then what follows absolutely is that the two have to find a way of interacting for the benefit of the national interest and I'm afraid that that is not happening but curiously in this engagement or lack of engagement or rather unhelpful engagement between government and the private sector there are all sorts of misconceptions for example I find in talking to chief executives in the mining industry and in industry that they feel intimidated by government so you know yesterday we were told about the MEC complex and so on well when I talk to Mr MEC you know he's terribly timid you know and when you say why are you so scared to speak out he says well we need tenders we're subject to regulation, we're subject to legislation we're subject to taxes these institutions in government actually have a lot of powers so you know if you want to nationalize the mining industry you know before you do that please examine the powers that DMR actually has which are very substantial and if you speak to lawyers who understand the mining law and the way DMR works through inspectors and policing and all that you can see that actually there is a huge dependence of these industries on government and despite that dependence on government somehow the relationship doesn't work out to the maximum benefit of the national interest and I want to inquire why similarly the state of course depends on the private sector the state isn't, you talk about a mining company but you know the state is not going to be able to do without the Chamber of Mines for a long time so it puzzles me why at a political level and even if you like at an ideological level we as a country are unable to resolve the question of what kind of mixed economy we are what are the interrelationships that are required in a mixed economy why we don't have the flexibility that people like China exercises who handle the mixed economy very successfully as we see and so on and it seems to me that this question of the interrelationship of the state and the mining industry in particular has to be examined very carefully to look at all the dynamics and so on so the point finally just to say that I think a great deal of systems research is needed to examine the totality of the relationship as well as the detail analysis of particular mining chains on particular minerals how does chrome work why is it that China produces ferrochrome which we used to produce here we have in South Africa we have smelters that can turn chrome into ferrochrome those smelters have shut down in the main and that chrome is exported to China which makes the ferrochrome and then re-imported back to us why is it that we can't produce rails for railways it has to we have to send the iron ore to China who make rails and then bring it back here I mean think of the costs of transportation there's so many examples where we export our primary products which have been processed to some degree and we export it to overseas and then it comes back in the finished form my father gave me a gold ring which unfortunately some robbers took away from me that gold ring was South African gold made in Italy for goodness sake if we can't make a gold ring but we can make nuclear weapons then there's some contradiction somewhere and I wish you'd help me sort it out thanks very much