during George and I start when I want. Okay, thank you. So I think we're five minutes behind schedule. So oops, I'll start now. So thanks for those who are here. So some of you were probably or possibly in the room on Friday, May the 25th, 2022, when there was a keynote given by North University, trying to say, okay, this is the story of university that is trying to go open. So there were about six or seven people on stage at that moment, including the president, and they explained how the different aspects of openness were being addressed by a large university in France and what it could imply, perhaps for other people. So today, to explain what's happened with us, 18 months later, there's only me. So I'm not sure that's a good omen, you know, if they say, no, you go and explain, you know, but actually I think we have done a lot of things right and there's some things wrong and I'm hoping to actually tell this story right now. So I've got some co-authors in preparing this slide and especially Saint-Ren-Gilly-Guichoux, who took a lot of time preparing this. So the context. The context is La France. So some of you have been there. If I want to say something about it, it's just that we're quite far away from the sort of system we have here in Canada or that you can have at your neighbor's place in the United States. So La France is a place where there's very many public universities. Most of their education, higher education, takes place in the public universities and these are funded by public money. So that is by the taxpayer. I guess that's important to keep and the fees is 270 euros per year. So that's not the fee for one course. That's the fee for one university ear. And this perhaps you can pay a little bit more for other things and there's some special schools that have got high fees. So this makes sense to, in the moment you're thinking about openness, right? It's perhaps not that same financial barrier that we have to break. There's other things that are involved. OK. Yes, perhaps also say we've got university libraries and they are highly supported, meaning also that in France we don't necessarily have to go and buy textbooks. Most of my students will go through all their career without having ever bought one single textbook. Right. All the textbooks, they will go to the library, they will read from there or they will pick some material that's on the web. So it makes it a little bit more interesting or challenging to actually convince people to go into where we are. Nevertheless, there are other issues, of course. So not university, as I said, is a medium sized university, rather large, 43,000. And with different campuses in different parts of France, those who were there didn't actually get to see the chateau, which is a part of the university. So another thing that is now becoming common in the European universities is what's called the alliances of the European university. So there's a big challenge there that the idea is to put a number of, say, a dozen European universities from different countries together with a common project with European funding, of course, to try and develop things like courses where students could move from one university to the other or where you could get the same diploma into very different universities. So we are not a part of a consortium with some very nice universities in the different countries. You can read here that there's Germany, United Kingdom, even if it's a breakfast set, you can find Sweden, you can find Spain, and so on. What's interesting is that there's money from Europe and there's tasks. And in those tasks, one of them is education. And so it's also a place where we can push the gender of open education. Though there is international cooperation, one of them is what we've just said here, the fact of being inside UNILE. But not university has been involved with a lot of people here for a while. We've been one of the first universities in France to join the OCW Now-OEG movement. And we're also very much involved with UNESCO. I mean, I'm a UNESCO chair and we've got a consistent relationship with them. We're also a member of ICDE and we've got special partnerships with a number of universities, including Sherbook, who represented over there. Okay, so the ambition of not university, as expressed by the president last year, is a holistic approach. It's not to just go one thing at the time. I could actually have a long discussion about this, but I think yesterday I heard somebody saying that's the right way to do things. You shouldn't just approach open education separately from open research, separately from whatever. It's true and it's not true. If you go for a holistic approach, you also end up by having to solve all sorts of problems before even getting started, right? Because people say, well, you know, we shouldn't start the open education until we've sorted the problems about open government. So in a way, it's also good to start something and then to get the other things flowing. So the ambition, so this is just the sort of text that we were right, sort of saying we're open, we're sustainable and we're excellent. Well, that's what we'd like to have as an ambition. So again, the ambition sort of through some pictures, saying that we're talking holistic means open science, open education, open innovation, open government with a set of tools like things like open communities and open educational resources, open spaces. These are things I will be giving concrete examples about, but this is the sort of discourse we are holding with to give it a long-term meaning. So the dates, this is not something that's been going on for 20 years. So with our current president who gave the talk last year, has been elected only in 2019. So very quickly, she started doing things like creating positions instead of just saying that the vice rector or the vice president was vice president for education. That became very quickly vice president for education and open education. So the word open started really illustrating the different positions. So then we also have the UNESCO chair, which was around there, and a very important moment for us was organizing open education globally. So yeah, it's something that works. I mean, if you want your university to move forward, organize the conference. Because suddenly people from the rest of the world arrive and people who are not facing issues on open education will be seeing people around with who they can talk to. So it works. This is something that really works. And perhaps the last one is, and I'll talk about this later, is that we're starting to actually get money to open, which is interesting. So little by little at the beginning of the discourse of saying not university is an open university. Well, OK, people will listen to it politely. And then little by little, it interests at government levels. People say, well, we should give this a chance, right? Everybody else is trying the usual stuff. These guys want to try something different. We should actually support them. And so I'm not saying money is pouring in. That would be completely wrong. But we are starting to receive money subsidies to open the university. So it all obviously helps because you do need people to do things. So the valuable starting point was the conference. And that conference, well, we felt was a success. I mean, we didn't have as many people as we're seeing around. Well, yes, no, we did have more people in the room in this very moment, right? But in general for the conference, right, there was much more people here. But still, there was a big crowd. And there was a big crowd of European people, which which was also important for us. There is clearly a necessity in countries like France to have relationships with European partners. OK, so what have we done since then? So this is, you know, have we been good boys? Have we have we done something? So what we've been doing is doing all sorts of meetings. The keyword has been onboarding, which is very nice. If at the top of the university, there's a decision made, we shall now open. But you have to onboard everybody. You have to explain what it's about. So we've done all sorts of concrete things to try and on board people. So what are the sort of things we do? Here are three examples. So the first one is an activity where we created and we've been running in various times, which is a hands-on activity. I create my first OER, I've left it in French because it is in French. So it's for during one hour and a half. We get them through the process at the end of the process. The person have created the text with an image and have had to sort out a little dilemma with the licenses. Perhaps they've embedded a video and it's been there for their job. So it's a way of saying, OK, well, I now have done one first OER. So it helps and we can share it, even if it is in French, obviously. So the second one is when we started doing this, we found out we were actually spending a lot of time having to actually explain what OER are because it's not that obvious. And then we tried explaining what OER are and that didn't work either because, you know, if it's me talking about OER, people will listen politely. But I'm answering questions that they have not raised. So the idea is how do we get people to raise questions? So we invented this activity, which is a rather fun activity. I think we've got Milani somewhere has got the card safe where people want to know what it's about. But basically, it's about putting people in groups and giving them 10 priorities, reasons for which we should adopt OER, asking them to play a role.  And so now put priorities on this, you know, say what matters, what between these reasons for adopting OER or open education matter, and which don't. And that leads to brilliant debates where they have to, you know, decide, OK, we're sacrificing the money issues, the cost issues, because we really think that the issues of sharing knowledge are more important. And then you can talk and we're actually answering the questions they have raised themselves during the activity. So this works really well. We can show you, as I said, the cards if people are interested. And we actually also did it in Canada once. We did it in Université de Laval. So other activities are more like design thinking activities. Again, the same idea is, suppose we have to onboard non-université, how would you do it? Who will you put in what activities? So that sort of activities, we sometimes only have three or four people, which is very disappointing. And in this case, I think Milani will correct me, but there could have been about 50 people doing this activity.  People ask themselves the right questions and we're sort of saying we've got some of the right answers. Okay, in parallel, so let's say the bottom-up approaches, the top-down approaches, was this EU, and we talked about before, well, the first document this alliance signed was the declaration. So we did nice big documents saying we the people, not quite, we the rectors of these universities proclaim that from now onwards we will blah, blah, blah. So I was in charge of the writing, which was nice. So it was the first document this alliance actually signed. It's nothing exceptional, but it's a way of these people about having this impression of these important people that this is the key, you know, this is going to be what it's about, you know, what we can put forward. Okay, so then we've got other things related with open education. We've got webinars, we've got blogs and things of that sort. So we're still working and doing all sorts of little things. I mean, it's not about just one activity. There's lots of activities going on in the university. And as I said before, and that's the last line, this is not my slide, but the last line is September, we did get a big grant. So there's a lot of money. So we're hoping to be able to get forward. But it's not just about the money. It's about two things, it's about the university gambling their capacity of asking for money based on the open idea. You know, they're not gonna have more than one card. You can't go out with two projects to the ministry. So they said, no, okay, we're all gonna, this is our card, this is what our trump is. We're playing with openness trumps. And that matters a lot because people start thinking, okay, university is choosing, this matters. And the second thing is also when you do get the money, it means that you've convinced at the end. And so that for the national authorities is good sign. It means that these ideas are working. This has not always been just true. I mean, three years ago or two years ago, I remember that we already tried to go for a project based on open education or openness in general. And when we went for the interview or the discussion with the jury, the questions of the jury were just, I'm sorry to say, frankly stupid and showed that they didn't have any idea about this. It was just, you know, we were some sort of left wing activists that were trying to say, let's have everything for free with public money. I mean, they kind of understood that there was an actual construction behind this. And things have changed. I mean, so we are convincing and this is good. Right. So that's what some of the things we've been doing. So now what are we doing? So now what's going to happen from now onwards and now that we've got the money to go on? Well, it's again, we're trying to go for open spaces, go and do so these open free educational resources, open it to communities in practice. So a number of projects where we either build and distribute where we are or we train and help the teachers to try and go and adopt these things. So here's some of the examples of the things that happened in just the next few months. We're creating an OER factory, talk about it in a second. We're also creating a platform. So once we've created some OER, we put it in the right place, surprisingly or not, we didn't have that. So people would create OER, but then perhaps have them on their own webpages or over place. So we had to do that. And then we're even holding now in a few days in December an open education week. It's a small event, but it's a way to get the ball rolling and also to have the university reflect upon what we're doing. And there's a number of things happening. The AMNA also talk about Open Madoc. So La Fabrique d'Herel, as it's called in French, is actually a title we have pinched from people in Quebec who have got a successful Fabrique d'Herel running for now three years? Two years and three? Four years, okay, for four years. And the idea is to have a place where they actually not only learn how to do OER, but they actually, they put together, this is the critical idea that they already presented last year in during the talks. They put together the librarians and counselors and they always need these two people to work together with the professor, which then makes that's the knowledge, the know-how is spread in a better way. So we're having one of those. We're starting it now-ish. I mean, as I said before, December. So the first thing you start doing is of course finding stuff that you've already been putting on webpages left, right and center and trying to just check that they fit the format. And hopefully by next year we will be actually producing new OER. The second one is having an OER collection. So again, we're trying to find examples elsewhere. So I think we're in the spirit of openness, which is you find a good example somewhat. In this case would be Université de Louvain in Belgium. And they've got a successful, well-managed collection and they've dealt with a number of problems that you usually have with this. It's basically based on D-space, but it's still going to be used as an example and we're hoping to launch it, by the way, we are launching it in December. The third thing, which is, it might sound trivial, this is not about OER, this is just about openness. So like many countries, we've got Moodle or like many universities, but our Moodle is not very open. Our Moodle is closed by the teachers by all sorts of security issues. And I can't know what the teacher next door is actually doing. I teach machine learning, if in mathematics there's somebody teaching machine learning, I can't know what he, it's not true, I can ask him. If I ask him permission, he may grant it or not. And it has happened before that the teacher will say, no, I don't grant it, you're not part of my pupils. So the idea is to at least internally start getting into the habit of having a first layer of openness, which is the layer of openness between us, between us and between our pupils. I know it's something that for some of you who are doing that for ages, it might sound trivial, it is not trivial, it is so difficult to put. We have got barriers and barriers of people who aren't going to express immediately what they're doing, but why they are blocking things. But there's huge ideas to block it. So the idea isn't to oblige everybody, the idea is to be open by default. I think that was one of the expressions that was used yesterday. I'm being, anybody is allowed to say, no, I don't want anybody to look at what I'm doing, but at least it's a decision and it's a publicly made decision that the person might be questioned about. But even without getting to the questioning, it just means that being open by default becomes the thing. So if we just do that, that is going to be, in my view, perhaps the biggest game changer for how people start working inside the university. And if people have got the advice on how we should do this without having another French Revolution, I mean, I'm prepared to take the ideas. So inside UNIWEL, the good news is that there's a work package inside the work package which belongs, or which is run by not, there's actually something called T7.7, you can see here, which is UNIWEL Open Education. So there is an idea adopted by this alliance to go open. So it's a good idea. Not pushing the agenda is able also to push the agenda in 10 other universities, which is also interesting. Again, I'm probably in charge of that. I don't have a clue how it's going to work. We're going to try. So very next, very next, very next, not many things happening here. So very next, the open educational research. Yeah, so one of the things we've been noticing is at least in France, we don't have enough of that. Not enough researchers investigating, looking at the issues of open educational research. Here, I was lucky to move from room to room and I tried to go as much as I could, not to the policy rooms, but to the research rooms. And it was great to see all the different activities that some subgroups were actually doing in research. Obviously, GOGN is the best example of what research can be about. But the research agenda in open education, in my view, is not clear. There's going to be subgroups, might be the social sciences working very hard in their direction, but what about the economy? Or what about the links with artificial intelligence? Again, in research. And so we're hoping to use this. And the first thing we need to work on is on the research agenda. So we're going to do this a first time here now in December 2023 with a two-day symposium in Nantes. It's going to be in French. That's another one of my hobbies, some of you might remember from Austria. Very keen on multilingualism. So in this case, it will be in French. We might have another workshop, who knows, in Spanish at another moment. But we have to sort of get into working on topics in different languages to bring different people to the table, especially in research. And it's also a concern of the unit in network I was speaking about yesterday. Okay, this is just a messy slide where you can see lots of partners just to say that it is important in this thing to not be isolated. So Nantes Open for Collaborations is already collaborating in all sorts of ways. And what we're most interested in is in people or universities that have, you know, there are perhaps a few steps ahead of us who've already achieved a certain number of things. So it's not about having an expert group of two, three people moving very fast through one department. Here the issue is the whole university, trying to bring a university, which is a standard university, to a degree of openness that is not at all common in the French universities. It is a huge challenge. So we're certainly helping, I mean, looking forward for any help will be welcome. Okay, no, these are just some nice little pictures. If not, to finish my talk. Thank you. Yes. Okay, so that's two, where's the half? How did this turn out? That's the half. Okay, so, well, let's start with the second one. We did give a talk on day one in the room there, which is exactly what we're trying to do. So we're not using machine learning. What we're using is going straight for the beast using chat GPT and different AI alternatives to try and sort of, if not generate OER, generate parts of the OER that we need to actually get somewhere.  For this chapter, you should use this and this. So this is a running project. Hopefully I might even talk about it next year. But we are doing that. So yes, we've got all sorts of projects where we're trying to use either machine learning or artificial intelligence to not yet to produce OER, but more to sort of take those bits of OER that are already there and to somehow combine them to produce courseway. And so then the first question was about what are our objectives for OER? To be fair, I'm a big fan of OER, but the university thinks that open education, and I think they're right, right, is more important than OER. The bigger picture in for a university is not to produce OER or to get OER adopted. The bigger picture is really to make sure that the teachers become or the professors or whatever become open educators. That's much more important. The Moodle example is just trivial. I mean, I've got great hair. I believe the university in France is less open today than it was 40 years ago. And this is what internet has achieved. It's very disappointing, right? All we've done is close things that before I could go into the coffee room and I could pick up the courseway by my different colleagues. Today I cannot get access to the courseway of my colleagues. I went to a meeting two years ago. I remember it was to prepare the next edition of The Masters. And so we sat there and the documents that were distributed to us was the syllabus we had written five years ago. And we all said, but you know, we've all changed. That's not what we're doing. And the guy who's in charge of the course said, well, that's all I've got. Okay, so when it's just so bad after the decision-making process for all the what we call pedagogic teams or whatever, we have to open up. So that's more urgent. So in this case, I would say that the goals of the OER, they are written about how many. We've still got to discuss the quality issues. Those are very important. But there are some numbers. I mean, there are some numbers which is a progression I'd remember of producing five, then 20, then 50 per year. There's some numbers. I believe they're magic numbers. I don't think that they matter so much. No, absolutely. One of the other case examples is we've got a problem in France. The students make loose choices when it comes to go into university. One of the drawbacks, if anything, of the university being cheap is that somehow they perhaps don't take the same energy to make the right choices when they go into it because of what all sorts of reasons. And so then they'll find themselves in the first few weeks, finding out that they're in the wrong thing, they're enrolled in the wrong place. And I just found out when I was speaking to these students that were having to re-choose that they had access to exactly the same information that they had when they were in high school. They didn't have access to say, well, go and have a look what's happening in that room over there. Well, you've chosen physics, but really you could choose chemistry. But for that, we have to open the curriculums. We have to understand what's happening. So yeah, that's one of the examples. But the best example isn't that, isn't even from us. The best example is an example from Politecnico Milano in Italy. I think it's a beautiful example where they've made open not only inside to their own pupils, but to the pupils in high school. So when they're in high school, they are able to make decisions on what they're going to do next year based on that. And they even get encouraged with the teachers in the high school to start preparing the lectures. And this is what we call in French, la cerise sur le gâteau, you know, the really, the big advantage is as soon as they arrive, they're allowed to take the exams. They don't even have to go through the studies because they've been able to study the material in advance and they gain whatever that means, perhaps, you know, two or three credits through that. I think it's a brilliant example. And that only works because you're going through an open education, open education resources, projects. One of my favorite examples. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Yeah, and it's a difficult one. Thank you for a bad question. Now, there's lots of little moments of happiness. Obviously, you're happy when, as I said, you know, when a lot of money pours in because you know you're going to be able to do things, but more because of the two reasons I was saying before, just because it really shows that it's not just commitment, you know, something you say for policy, but it's something that really matters both the university. And in this moment, I'm seeing how it's starting to matter at national level. So those are probably my biggest happiness. But then we've got a great team, so just working with the people that makes it nice. I'd say that, I'd say two things. A bit what I said before, the problem is that when you're too holistic, things get jammed. So for open education, it's much more complicated because you've actually got to be working with the companies and with the outside world. So the rhythm at which you can do things will depend on your capacity to sign contracts and to sign things. So for the moment, we do know we're in places. For example, they've moved us to a part of town where we are in contact, not just with the university people, but also with the outside world and also with the companies. So there's a lot of meetings happening. So I would say we're going in the right direction. We're starting to have courseware that we're trying to use in different settings to do different things. We're not good at sort of coming out with saying, look, let's see if this software to do multilingualism, we should do a startup with it. For example, that we show to not be capable of doing. And as far as governs go and the open governments pass. I mean, I like the idea and I think we should, no, not pass. I can do something about it when it comes to open education and in that setting, I will certainly do something about it. But when you're starting to talk about open government or open democracy, you're clearly going to go up into the highest fees of the university. So pass means that. I mean, I'm going to encourage them to do things, but you're right. In the case of open education, we should involve in a different way the people. You're right. So yes, I mean, in one critical sector, which is the medical sector, there is a huge open data initiative for France with all the particularities of the medical data where you can't be just completely open. So you have to do a number of things, but that teaches you what works and what doesn't work. So there are things happening. So that's as far as open data, I would say in that setting there is. And as far as open research, it is on the agenda and there is a vice president of research and open access. So it's part of his mandate and things are happening there. But again, it's very difficult where all what Cable was saying about the published and perished system and the fact that you need your publications in just those journals that are the wrong ones, we have got all that. But yeah, being holistic means we have to address that also. Yes, I'm not sure we've got time. Is the next speaker here or are we on coffee break afterwards? She's here.  So we're done. So she told me to stop. OK, thank you.


Call contact on home plate. Contact. Contact on the circular revetments. Yeah, contact circular revetments. Into good hits. Mission successful on the HVI. I'm tracking you guys to get five more minutes on the stations. C-2D cold in the open. Friendly. Why do you... Request reattack at 2-0. Hey, switch it to 1-1-1-2. So, Vengeance 0-4. Vengeance 0-3, looking for two combat proxies generally oriented. West of East, not even in my climate. North-East, South-East, North-East. Vengeance 0-3. I'm probably not going to be able to do all five of them. T-72, 1-2, over.


I've said this once, I'll say it again, the Build Back Better Act is busted. But there are people like Bernie Sanders who actually genuinely care about working people in this country and he's making one last-ditch effort to try and convince his colleagues to support the one thing that lots of people really want and that is an expansion of Medicare to include dental and vision. Now Bernie Sanders knows that these corporate ghouls, they don't care about anything but delivering for their corporate overlords. But if he can get them to at least think about this in terms of their own re-election campaigns. If you deliver a policy that's extremely popular, at least out of self-interest consider supporting it. And that's what he tried to do. That's the appeal that he made. And as HuffPost reporter Igor Bobrik tweeted out, overheard on the floor Bernie Sanders showing colleagues a morning console poll on his phone of the most popular provisions falling out of Build Back Better. So we drop what's most popular. He asks referencing the Medicare expansion. Now to him, this is what he cares the most about. This has kind of been something that he views as a red line. You can't take this out. He knows that we're not going to get Medicare for all in the near future. But if we can expand Medicare, that is a really important step. Because if you don't get Medicare for all past all at once, then you just keep further expanding and expanding. You get the ball rolling. You expand benefits. The more people include more things in it. And eventually, perhaps we arrive at a situation where actually going the full distance, giving everyone health care, is a little bit easier. So this is his pet project. And he's trying to convince these imbeciles that, look, it's not about anything but you. The American people want this. So imagine taking this back to your constituents. Look how popular this is. And he's right about that. I mean, if you look at that poll from morning console, well, it's obvious. The report Democrats dropped Medicare dental and vision coverage from their social spending bill. Voters say it's their top priority. Healthcare measures are the most popular among 18 provisions that were considered for the Build Back Better plan. So let's look at this poll here. Not only is the Medicare expansion to include dental and vision popular, but it's the most popular provision. So voters said the following measures were among their top five priorities and Build Back Better. And as you can see, adding dental and vision to Medicare is one of the top priorities with 41% of voters saying that this is one of the most important issues. And then you have Medicare adding hearing as the fourth most popular with 25% of people saying this is one of their top five priorities. You also see this trend of healthcare-related policies as top priorities for Americans, funding elder care, allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drugs. I mean, this is a trend. Now, if you look at this poll, what's interesting is that even more Republicans want the Medicare expansion than Democrats. At least as it relates to dental and vision. So this whole excuse that you have to be a moderate in purple states like Arizona or red states like West Virginia, it's just not true because Republican voters want this more than Democratic Party voters according to this poll. So it's to the point where Bernie Sanders is basically begging and pleading with them. Out of your self-interest, deliver. This is popular. And it seems unlikely that they're going to budge. It just seems like the Democratic Party is a black hole that is collapsing in on itself. And it's thanks to corporate ghouls like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and also other corporate Democrats like Mark Warner and Joe Biden himself. Now, Bernie Sanders tweeted out the same poll that we just looked at and he said more than 41% of the American people tell us that their top priority is for us to expand Medicare to include dental and vision benefits. One of the most popular items in the Build Back Better agenda. What should we do? We should listen to the people. Let's get this done. And look, as frustrated as I am with these negotiations, I've got to give Bernie Sanders credit. He is trying really hard. And ultimately, I don't know what he's going to do. I don't know if he's going to end up caving. But at least you see that effort from him. You see him trying to do the best that he can to include as much as he possibly can with his limited amount of votes that he has. So it's, it's frustrating. Even when Democrats try to do something good, it's always a watered down half measure that's usually just intended to placate voters. So an example of that is Chuck Schumer announced that they've reached an agreement when it comes to Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices. The problem is that it is woefully inadequate, predictably. So the agreement will allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices in limited instances, prevent drug companies from raising prices faster than inflation and cap out of pocket costs for seniors on Medicare at $2,000 per year. Also, Medicare could negotiate up to 10 drugs in 2025 and up to 20 drugs in 2028 and beyond, according to the summary, which the hill obtained. That's just embarrassing. Now, the good thing is that insulin co-pays would be capped at $35 per month, and that sounds great. I mean, I'd prefer it to be $0. But $35 is preferable to $400. But what's what's the catch? Is this going to take effect in five years, 10 years? I mean, allowing Medicare to negotiate 10 drugs by 2025. That's just bad politics, because by then there may be a completely different administration or a public might be in power. And when people finally feel the effects of this policy, the Republican can then take credit for it. And it's not like there's a lot. 10 drugs out of the thousands of drugs. You're only going to allow them to negotiate 10 by 2025.  And on top of that, so Medicare won't be able to negotiate drugs until they no longer have exclusivity. Got to make sure that these pharmaceutical giants can make as much money as possible. And most negotiations will be allowed for many drugs. I don't know what many means. After nine years and then more drugs will be negotiated in 12 years. So it's like they take a half measure. They water that down, cut that in half. By the time you get the actual product, it's a tenth of what it was. It's just it's laughable. And what we see here is Bernie Sanders is trying. Perhaps he's trying to appeal to their self interest, but also maybe appeal to their humanity. But the thing is that these ghouls, they have no humanity. These are soulless clowns who care about one thing. And that is appeasing their donors. So I just don't know what to say. I really am thankful that Bernie Sanders is fighting. But unfortunately, it's not enough. We don't have enough Bernie minded people in power. And as a result, the Kristen, Kirsten, Sonomas and Joe Manchin's of the world, they they get what they want. Whereas progressives get left in the dust. And sometimes these are self-imposed wounds. Like I've talked about how progressives under the leadership of Pramila Jayapal, they're so feckless, so ineffectual, so weak, even when they have victories, they end up caving. All it takes is one demand from a corporate Democrat. So it's just the situation is really it's helpless. And I can't not think about how bad it's going to be in 2022 when Democrats are absolutely obliterated. And then what? You didn't get anything meaningfully accomplished. You didn't do voting rights reform. You didn't end gerrymandering. You didn't even try to fix our democracy. The Supreme Court wasn't even touched. They have a supermajority for conservatives. How bad is it going to get before Democrats actually do what's needed to do to fix this country? And the answer is there is no bottom.  And, you know, I don't know what to say about that. I wish that I could offer you some rosy takeaway from this. But the situation is just it's it's really depressing. And at least we have Bernie there fighting for us. But Bernie Sanders is in his 80s. He should be retiring by now. But he's all we have, at least in the Senate, who's fighting this hard. I mean, we have some people who from time to time do the right thing in the Senate. We have more progressives in the House. But overall, things aren't changing fast enough. And we're circling the drain as a country. And I think that most people can see that that's apparent.


Can a rolling stand by can be and we're a lot Welcome back to the judge. It's just kidding. It's not the podcast this episode of Jenna's channel is brought to you by Do not just to give you a quick update on ad he's doing really well for those of you that follow me on snapchat You've seen his new tank his new cage all of his new stuff. He's doing wonderful. He likes kale He's a sweetheart follow me on there for all ad updates Although I was tempted to make him a tiny popsicle house today. I'm gonna save it for another time Okay, so we have that to look forward to so I've made one of these in a long time But I've made two in the past there some of my favorite videos to make because it's really fun No offense to anyone that makes apps for a living You know, I appreciate all the work that you put into it with some are better than others And I scoured the app store for the worst of the worst and we're gonna review them We're gonna review them. Thank you for that Honestly, let's start with the face app because it's what everyone's been using lately. There's my picture.  I don't even look that weird. Hell yeah. All right Here's a male. Oh my god.   All right. Well, yeah That's probably accurate. We can try this one though. This one was just called screaming.      Yeah, then pixelated titties girl Do you right babe Nate? No, I don't think that's the point of the app Julie.  Oh my god It's literally just to show people like your bank. Yeah watch 200 billion dollars. Oh wait two billion dollars The person you're trying to fool is gonna look at it and say World Bank I think that you can change the name of the bank upload logo.  Who is this fooling though you open an app called fake bank account? That's bad zero zero for that app this one. I downloaded it's called catcher cheating spouse I think and it looked very high-tech. Yes. Wait, is this just like a shop? I don't know But look at this high-hawk are see if you ever think of cheating on me.  She's a black light app that has really terrible reviews Everyone says it just doesn't work most of these I believe by the way I had to pay money for like 99 cents at least there is one coming later that costs 11 dollars It doesn't even open wait wait hold on wait a second because maybe This is the black.  Allow this like you just stealing from people this at this video You've made and the two before it is a great indicator of how poorly police the app store is like it You can just go on there and say that you have an app. It's literally steal money from people Apparently we've all heard of Kim oji and Amber Rose moji people have their own emojis, but have you heard of horse moji?  Okay. This horse is You made it cry hold everything.  You're getting blocked x-ray vision in progress. Oh, yeah Wow it is cold in here since when do I have a belly button ring girl?  My hand is great. It's look at his mic. It's really bad. That's right. Thank you We go B. B. I'm sick and pregnant is literally just a pregnant person.  This is called AR smongoo Do you know what AR stands for let's snuggle augmented reality. Yes It's loading okay, let it load for at least one hour.  Why is he sleeping upside down?  It's like Pokemon go, but why is it called let's snuggle even snuggled at all I think you're gonna do it We got him a strawberry.  Why can they name this snuggle on? I'm snuggling. All right, so that's all there is I guess. This is a click baiting app.  We got click baited by an app. This has equally bad reviews.  There's no sensor in it.  Yeah, I'm pretty sure this was 99 cents You're their first customer. No, I'm not because people have reviewed it.  Oh my god Why is it of their Facebook ID in the app description it showed pictures of like celebrities that your face looks like not like Like that's so violating delete that app right now comebacks and insults. Are you ready? Yep? Well seven grade starts in two weeks. I'm ready. Your mom said I'm great in the bedroom Insult me real quick so I can tell you come back.   Maplastic surgeon tips. Maplastic surgeon. My dad is harder than your dad Like in what context though all context especially like dick-wise If there's ever a comeback.  So is don't matter Did nobody prove free to any of these this literally a virtual spinner This next one is called the sex game and all of the reviews were like please remove this from my phone Like apparently it was getting installed in people's phones without the monitor and they're like kids And they're like I don't want to get in trouble for this except for this one that says gay This game gave me a really frustrating In my gay guy threesome sex game. Let's start floats into an ad There's like a flash of like some sex position and then this that's it all My god What's it gonna be? It's all the same after one thing Criminal Explosive into the ad because that's like they know what they're doing They know what they're doing and they're like okay with it this next app costs $11 had no real description no reviews obviously because I don't think anyone has ever been the only person by this 100% It just says like corn dog champion or something $11 it was 1099 in the app store You spent $11 on that that's like two bullseach dollars $11 So bad this is criminal this person should go to jail and give me my $11 back The worst thing I've ever seen. I'm not sure I've ever paid $11 for an app I don't think you have that is probably the worst of the worst of ever dress up Kelsey may slow down She looks like a contorted dead body. Why does she look like a stripper though?  I'm wearing an outfit that costs no more than $4 and I'm dead These episodes of lawn or SV are getting so weird Okay, that that is proportionally incorrect. Oh take a picture Camera why is her knee broken? She's just standing dressing her up for her funeral. Oh my god. Oh, she's outside.  Good job kiss her or read her Kiss her definitely going for it. Oh, you kissed me. Why did you do that? I couldn't help myself You're so kissable if you're going to bed together. We need to start somewhere. So what should we do kiss her? I need to use the bathroom go see the backyard.   Wow?  Don't go to the bathroom Go to the bathroom. She's so tough. Sorry, but the bedroom is off limits at the end take a shower No Quit right when we were about to get in her pants. No, we weren't she was gonna be like the showers app limits My feature baby. That's our baby.  Why would our baby have a hat on? This is just sound warped about Yeah 10 out of 10 6 out of 10 10 out of 10 for audio quality though. It's a good thing. I also got I feel Oh Yeah, I'm actually gonna use those every day. So Julian did you like it?  I liked horse moji a lot I honestly like gait dating Kylie because it felt good to like Learn some things about how to woo a woman. I liked the $11 corn dog app doesn't matter. You're a ginger Thanks for watching.  You're not getting really bad Make sure you subscribe to my channel. I put on reviews every Wednesday slash Thursday. I'll see you guys next week Julian Thank you for doing this here fine. The bedroom is off limits Read me a poem. Do you do you do you do you think it's cool to smoke pot? All right, bye


This is true. Well, hello. I'm great. Good to see you. And wonderful to see you. Thank you. So good. How are you? Good to see you. Yes. We're going to have to move back. We've got to come to the White House. Well, have we numbered you? Yes. They're pretty. Pretty dress. What's he saying? He's not going to give you a question. I don't know. I'm going to greet him. Good morning, sir. Good morning. Thank you. Listen, we enjoyed the last night. Very, very much. It was wonderful. Can you ever tell? Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you again. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you. Please start. Thank you, sir. I come to the White House. How are you? Good morning. Good morning, sir. Good morning to you. Thank you. Thank you. Sir, thank you. Good morning. Good morning. How are you? Thank you. How are you? But we remember our visit, it's a great pleasure to talk to you about the relations that did establish between my two countries, and I want you to know that our commitment, Korea's security remains steadfast, and together I think we can make a great contribution to peace and stability in Asia and in the cities. I was going to say I remember our conversations and hopes that you expressed about me having the opportunity to talk to you about the relationship between the two countries, and I want you to know the games after I left, but we haven't gotten to that. And I think if we play our cards right, we can persuade the Soviet Union between us that they ought to join the Olympics. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that we make some kind of plans and your cooperation for inviting the Russians to the Korean Olympic Games. We'd be very pleased to do so. President Chan was the first head of state to visit during my presidency, and it was my pleasure to meet with him again today for a useful discussion of international and bilateral issues. The ties linking the Republic of Korea and the United States are many and strong. Our security ties, which I reaffirmed today, remain a linchpin of peace in Northeast Asia. I vividly recall standing at the Korean demilitarized zone 17 months ago, perhaps nowhere in the world is the contrast between our shared democratic values and communism clearer than it is there on the DMZ. And nowhere is it clearer that strength is the surest path to peace. In reference to his country's security, President Chan and I shared concern about the continuing forward deployment of North Korean forces toward the demilitarized zone. We agreed that this deployment heightens the need for vigilance on our part. The two Koreas today stand apart, but this may not always be so, and we pray it will not be. I expressed support to President Chan for the Republic of Korea's creative approach in engaging North Korea in direct talks. We share the conviction that the key to reducing tension lies in a direct dialogue between the parties. The Republic of Korea is a growing economic power, and President Chan and I discussed the contribution that economic development makes to stability and security on the Korean Peninsula. President Chan and I agreed on the need to defend and expand the free market in our own relationship and multilaterally. I expressed appreciation for the steps Korea has already taken in this regard, and we agreed to intensify the close consultations between our governments. President Chan explained the steps his government has taken to further promote freedom and democracy. I welcomed the considerable progress that has already been made and expressed continuing support for such steps, which are contributing to the attainment of political progress. I reiterated our support for President Chan's commitment to a peaceful transfer of power at the end of his term in 1988. President Chan also discussed another event of a moment of support, which is coming to Korea in 1988, the Seoul Olympics. I expressed our complete support for Seoul as the Olympic site and offered to share our experience from the 1984 Olympics to help make it the best ever. The United States and Korea enjoy an especially warm relationship, and that was reflected in our talks today. We agreed that in addition to the annual U.S.-Korean security consultative meeting, the two governments should intensify their consultations on political matters in Northeast Asia. The President and Mrs. Chan will be stopping in Hawaii on their way back to Korea. Nancy and I wish them a safe and a pleasant journey home, and we send with them the greetings of all of us to our friends, the Korean people. The President and Mrs. Chan will continue to support the United States and the United States on their journey back to Korea. The President and Mrs. Chan will continue to support the United States on their journey home, and we send with them the greetings of all of us to our friends, the Korean people. The President and Mrs. Chan will continue to support the United States on their journey home, and we send with them the greetings of all of us to our friends, the United States and Korea. The President and Mrs. Chan will continue to support the United States on their journey home, and we send with them the greetings of all of us to our friends, the Korean people. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the opportunity today to discuss with you matters of significance to our two countries. First, let me say that the reaffirmation by the President of the United States of the importance of continued endeavors to further develop and strengthen the existing ties between Korea and the United States will be wholeheartedly welcomed by the people of the Republic of Korea. It is my great pleasure to convey to the great people of the United States of America the expression of unswerving friendship of the Korean people along with my own, and I transmit their high respect to you for your excellency, President Reagan as the leader of the free world. I'm satisfied with the results of the very good talks that I had with you today. The talks demonstrate that the solid foundation on which the traditional strong ties between our two countries rest. We pledge our continued effort to further consolidate the partnership between our two countries. We face the year 2000 with a sure feeling of confidence and hope. President Reagan and I have shared the understanding of the present situation on the Korean Peninsula. I am convinced the firm determination of the United States in close cooperation with Korea will resolutely cope with any military adventurism or terrorist attacks of North Korea against the peace of this region. And that our effort, such efforts will greatly contribute to peace and stability of our region. The next few years will be a crucial period for the prevention of another war on the Korean Peninsula and to establish a permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula. It is most reassuring therefore that the President of the United States has reaffirmed the firm commitment of the United States to the defense of Korea. We also shared the view that endeavors to resolve the Korean question through direct dialogue between South and North of Korea are more important than now than ever before. At the same time we exchange views on a wide range of diplomatic cooperation with a view to maintaining and strengthening peace on the Korean Peninsula. The Korean government is making in good faith efforts through direct dialogue to do something about the antagonism and mutual distrust that have been allowed to accumulate over the years. We must ultimately achieve peaceful reunification of the divided land through democratic means. I believe that the cooperation of our friends as well as other countries concerned is of importance to the success of such peace efforts. In this connection Mr. President I appreciate your understanding and support for the efforts aimed at stability and peace of Korea and the region. President Reagan and I also agreed that the expansion of trade based on the principles of free trade is important to the development of world economy and that we will continue to strengthen our efforts to this end. Recognizing the steady increase of bilateral economic exchange including trade would contribute to the interest and common prosperity both Korea and the United States. President Reagan and I have pledged our efforts to further enhance the economic partnership between our two countries. In particular we discussed ways to achieve a balanced expansion of our bilateral trade and to strengthen mutual cooperation in the field of energy technology and joint ventures in third country. We agreed to further develop the framework for economic consultation between our two countries including the annual Korea U.S. economic consultations. In this regard I stress that sustained growth of Korean economy is essential to the security on the Korean peninsula and thus to the stability of northeast Asia. President Reagan also shares this view. In addition the president and I agreed to further promote bilateral exchanges in many areas including social, cultural, educational and sport field with a view to establishing a solid foundation for the deep and mutual understanding and friendship between our two countries. Korea continues its efforts to build an open society on the basis of stability as we march toward a bright future of a democratic society with greater benefits for all. Ensuring abundance and freedom for all citizens based on such development Korea will be able to make ever more valuable contributions to the stability and prosperity of northeast Asia and to further strengthen regional cooperation among the Pacific Rim countries. At this particular juncture the talks which I had today with President Reagan have indeed been most significant and timely. Before closing my remarks I would like to express my greatest respect, continued support for the unwavering and dedicated efforts of President Reagan to safeguard world peace and promote democracy everywhere. I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to his excellency Ronald Reagan and Mrs. Reagan for the warm hospitality that has been accorded to us. I thank you very much indeed.


Welcome, everyone, to Know Before You Go, a new broadcast briefing powered by JSA and telegeography. I'm your host, Jamie Scott-Oketaia, CEO and founder of JSA. Know Before You Go is your show that covers everything attendees should have on their radar from insider talking points to conference logistics before attending the very next big industry event and, of course, talking big industry events. Today we are focusing on Capacity Europe 2023, taking place October 17th through the 19th in London. And you can go ahead and scan that code over on my shoulder to learn more. All right, guys, we are really excited to be joined by telegeography's principal analyst, Eric Kreifelt and Ms. Jezebel Gilmore, Chief Commercial Officer for ConnectBase and one of, of course, the featured speakers at this year's Capacity Europe Conference. Welcome, Eric. Welcome, Jezebel. Thank you so much for talking us through the conversations that attendees can expect in and around today's conference sessions. Thank you. Thank you for having me. We are so thrilled, so excited. Let's go ahead and get started on our industry insight. Okay, guys, let's go ahead and start with the state of the international network. Jezebel, what can you tell us about trends you're seeing within the European international investment? Well, there's so much good things going on everywhere. And in Europe, we are seeing that there's enormous amount of investment going into both the automation and the automation of the trading of the services. So investment in OSS-BSS across the board and how to make the asset you already have be known and seen by everyone that are in the market to buy. So, you know, get to the demand if you have supply, right? And moreover, we're seeing a lot of people interested in building. But what is the intelligence? Where can you find the data on where to build and how to put your investment to use in the most effective manner? So many ways, so much money, and so much new. So well said. Eric, with Europe's role evolving, what do you see as a digital hub for Europe? And where do you see hyperscalers fitting into this? Yeah, well, Europe, I mean, first of all, this capacity of Europe in Europe is one of the biggest bandwidth markets in the world. It's actually the biggest in terms of just primary regions and several reasons for that, one of which is certainly the hyperscalers, but part of it's just lots of borders in terms of international bandwidth that it also serves as a hub for itself as well as other regions, particularly Africa and Middle East that are quite dependent on Europe for exchanging traffic. And that role continues for all network operators, hyperscalers included. But also, you also have this massive connection with North America, a lot of it through the United States to interconnect all the huge facilities in Europe and the rest of Canada. So it all adds up to a huge market that is still growing, even though it's a very mature market, it's growing up in the last year, it was about 35%. Only 35% if you take that back about four years, compounded annually, it's about 41%. So still at that Moore's law, kind of doubling every year type of growth. So that's a lot of growth. And that aligns pretty well with global growth in international bandwidth. Yeah, in terms of the hyperscaler portion of that, I mean, they're doing a couple of things. They have some of their biggest facilities are in Europe and they're kind of augmenting that, they're kind of doubling down on that, but they're also augmenting that to expand to other regions. Some of that they will go to other regions, but some of those will continue, sir, out of Europe. So you have all the connectivity following on with that and diversifying all that connectivity as well, finding, you still have the traditional hubs, but you sort of have, you want some diversification around those, moving to some other ones as well. So lots of things going on Europe center. And that really takes us to another hot topic, network advancement. We're talking these into connections, global growth, expansions. So network advancement, absolutely on the minds of many. Of course, Jezebel, you will be a featured speaker on day one at Capacity Europe on a panel that's really exploring the potential of fully automated networks, as you mentioned earlier. And of course, you'll be joined by executives from Equinex, Uber, Deutsche Telecom, Talk Talk, Wholesale Service, Palo Alto, Innovation Advisors. So quite the lineup of thought leaders there. Can you give us a preview of some of the potential key takeaways you may think will come from this panel? Absolutely. As you know, that there are many industry leaders on the panel who have built fully automated networks in their region or their footprint, right? But is there a key focus area for anyone who's interested in building automation into their network? And what's the benefit from having someone like Uber on the panel that's really the consumer, the customer's perspective, right? In saying, hey, we are the consumer of this types of service. What's important to us? What does it matter? Why does it matter? And what is important for you to build that would attract us to come to consume in the fully automated fashion? And are we interested in particular type of SLA? A quality of service? Or what are the drivers, the motivation for us? What are the challenges that one had gone through in building a fully automated network? But lastly, what's really near and dear to my heart is how do we bring everyone into the platform where a fully automated session can happen across the world? So there's ubiquitous access through this type of automation for everyone. Because if it only reaches part of the world that you're trying to get to having it fully automated, it's not enough. Such great points. And Eric, are you seeing improvements in cost and performance that this automation can achieve now in the near future? What are those improvements? Yeah, well, there's certainly a motivation for that. I mean, you'd like to think you could take for granted basic inventory management and service delivery, but in this business, that can be really hard to do. And to be fair, that's hard to do because some of these networks are sort of have legacies extending from Alexander Graham Bell. I mean, there's a lot going on there and it's a lot to manage. And then you wanna try and modernize all that while taking all that with you. So there's a lot of work to be done there, but certainly in parts of this business where there's not a lot of margin to provide some basic connectivity services, you'd like to do that as efficiently and as automated as possible. But as the technical challenges weren't hard enough, you also have all the commercial arrangements that you have to bring along with that. Everybody wants to be special and get the best deal. And this is capacity Europe. It's a big part of what goes on there. So can you automate a protracted negotiation for connectivity and extend that as Jezebel was alluding to across networks, across borders and assure that service from end to end. And these aren't new issues.  And we're hinting about it. So let's go ahead and talk about it. Jezebel, let's talk a bit about interoperability. How do network operators ensure those network advancements across country borders and through partner network interfaces? Well, there's lots of different types of interoperability. As networks, we've always had interoperability because you have to be able to pass packets from one place to another, right? So the technologies already exist on the physical layer. We do pack packets easily, but when it comes to interoperability, Eric said it well. Beyond technology, there's a ton of complexities, right? There's commercial relationships. There's software, if you're actually doing automation, how are you moving packets in the software layer from one place to another? You need to have some sort of standardization, translation to be able to move, to speak. Everybody have to speak the same language to be able to move things from one place to another and to have a ubiquitous environment. And beyond the technology, right? Beyond the software technologies and the infrastructure technology and the software technology, there's also the business terms, right? We need to align the business terms for the different service providers so that their customer who used to be consuming service in a particular fashion can continue to consume that service in a particular fashion but in a different area where the network that they're working with does not have current coverage. No network can have globally ubiquitous coverage in their own network. There's just not enough capital to invest in that. So all of the networks really need to work together and collaborate to bring a ubiquitous, smooth and pleasant experience to the enterprise customer base. And that is what the enterprise customers are looking for. That's right. That's so right. Well said. All right, so Eric, with everything we just discussed, how do you see the service mix evolving? Well, there's a lot of different services kind of up and down the value chain and we covered a good portion of that. You can start at the very core.  And I guess part of what's going on there, they're getting less granular. 10G is becoming 100G, 100G is becoming 400G. And then in some really big time transactions, you've got more fractions of an entire fiber or even building up new fiber. But then you go the other way down the value chain where in the enterprise side or this whole wholesale ecosystem, again, that Jezebel was alluding to of, you have maybe 80% of the customer's locations you can service with your own network but nobody has ubiquitous network that other 20% or whatever it is, you have to go elsewhere with partner networks to achieve that. And a lot of the way that works now by default is with kind of a VPN and using local access from some other carrier and kind of terminating the VPN service on a partner network. But that's no longer the default option with new technologies that are available, that there's more internet involved and in some cases even private lines say for example, directly to cloud providers are in the mix as well. So that service mix is really evolving and it creates some really interesting opportunities for automation and I guess expedited delivery of those services since these VPN defaults are no longer, well, the VPNs are no longer the default option. So we have some, the market's kind of in flux with those choices but you still have that fundamental need to partner with other networks. So it'll be really interesting to see how that involves as the service mix evolves, as the technology available changes and yeah, to ultimately accomplish the same goal which is to interconnect all the end users seamlessly over a global network. Yeah, absolutely. We all need each other. That is definitely one of the core messages here. And one of the reasons why capacity Europe is happening at a very critical time. So Jezebel, Eric, thank you so much. We really appreciate you sharing your insights, especially as we rev up for capacity Europe coming up soon. Now let's go ahead and finish this briefing with some insider tips for making the most of our time at capacity Europe. Ms. Sophia Simpson, head of research Europe in Asia for capacity media to share with us some tips on how we can make the most of this year's capacity Europe. Welcome, Sophia. Thank you for having me, Jamie. No, thank you so much for being here, Sophia. And tell us what do you think attendees will be most excited to learn about during capacity Europe this year from an educational standpoint? This year's agenda covers challenges and opportunities across the connectivity sector from the future of the subsea consortium model to talent and how the industry can prepare for the disruptive impact of AI. New technologies and new business models are fundamentally changing how businesses operate and access capital for new infrastructure builds. And this will be front and center at capacity Europe. Yeah, I love it. So subsea, AI, finance, can you share with us what type of companies will you expect to see there? We're expecting to see the entire digital infrastructure landscape, those at the forefront of enabling and facilitating connectivity, including international, long-haul, short-haul, middle-mile operators, subsea operators, data centers, hyperscalers, cloud service providers, satellite operators, software enablers, infrastructure providers, messaging and SMS aggregators, as well as investors. Year on year, this list is expanding. And that's a reflection of the transformation we're seeing across networks. It's so true. We are an ecosystem, a digital infrastructure ecosystem. And you guys have all the key players attending, so exciting. Tell us again, what's new at this event? And what's different from this year than that our audiences might be watching out for? So we've got a lot going on this year. We're really excited about our new digital studio and the spotlight stage, to new concepts for content delivery, which will really wow our attendees. The digital studio is a newly built stage in the hub of the exhibition, where the keynote panels will take place, where CEOs and industry influencers across all sectors will take the stage to share their vision for the next five years. And the spotlight stage features more dedicated forums to cater to specific interest groups within the wider community at Capacity Europe, covering network transformation, satellite investment, sub-C and fiber connectivity. Also, there's a focus on Central and Eastern Europe, as that's a market for growth. And as we've sold out of every possible meeting space at the International O2 Hotel, where we've been holding the event for the last few years, we're also thrilled that they just completed the build of a completely new additional ballroom, which gives us a lot more space to host many new companies and meeting areas. And we're also really excited, you don't want to miss out on meeting our celebrity keynote guest, the incredible Caroline Criado Perez, author of Invisible Women, exposing data buyers in a world designed for men. She was appointed an officer of the Order of the British Empire, as part of the Queen's Birthday Honours in 2015, for her work in equality and diversity, particularly in the media. You can catch up with her at the Women in Telco and Tech Breakfast on the first day of the event at 9 a.m., where she will deliver a keynote presentation, as well as at the Digital Studio at 12 p.m., where she'll be joining the panel on talent. Oh my goodness, you just blew my mind from the digital and spotlight studios to a new ballroom, to celebrities. Amazing, so exciting. Also as an attendee, what should, how do we make the best networking experience? How do, are there special events or meeting apps that we should be checking out? Absolutely, and networking is really at the heart of this event. We always kick off the week with the famous welcome reception sponsored by Colt. It's always packed and sets the scene for the week ahead. And that's followed by multiple receptions throughout the event, including the networking lunches sponsored by Exit Infrastructure and Sparkle, happy hour reception sponsored by Nios Networks and Telehouse, as well as the NTT networking reception on Tuesday evening. And finally, there's what we like to call the Oscars of the connectivity industry, the Global Carrier Awards on Wednesday evening, where more than 450 executives will unite for a dinner and will celebrate this year's most vividly and innovative companies. Oh, how exciting. Yes, I have to say that award ceremony is always my favorite. Okay, so I love this next question. I try to share it and ask it of all my event organizers. So, Ms. Sophia, can you share with us your top three tips for getting the most out of this year's conference? Absolutely. Most important is to log into Swapcard, the event meeting planner, update your profile, view the attendee list and set up meetings in advance to make sure you get face time with your key partners. Diaries do get very booked. Get your digital business cards ready to make connections and have a point of presence at the event. The best way to impress partners and customers is having a meeting space or booth. Don't forget to book your pass at the Global Carrier Awards to celebrate industry successes at the glitziest night of the year. Oh, I love it, glitzy and all. All right, so without further ado, what is the best way for attendees to keep up to date on the latest from Capacity Europe as we lead up to our arrival over in London? Follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook. Keep your eyes peeled for our emails and download the Swapcard app. Thank you so much, Sophia, for joining us and to Della Geographies, Eric Kreifelt and ConnectBases, Jezebel Gilmore, for giving us such great insight on the latest trends. To get all the details so you are as prepared as possible for Capacity Europe, go ahead and visit CapacityMedia.com and be sure to use JSA 10 for a special discount on your registration. You've got a QR code right here on the screen just to make it a little easier to get to that event page. Also tune in this the week of Capacity Europe as JSA got broadcast live from the expo floor with interviews with top thought leaders. In the meantime, follow both JSA and Tella Geography on LinkedIn or find out more about us on JSA.net and telegeography.com. Thank you guys for tuning in to new Before You Go and as always friends, happy networking. See you soon.


So, hi everyone. I'm going to talk about this work on building non-interactive, non-malleable commitments from quantum supremacy. What I want to talk about today is how we make use of quantum hardness assumptions to get better results for classical cryptography, which is a technique, using a technique that we believe is interesting and new. And I also, so we use it to build non-interactive, non-malleable commitments, like I said. And we also use it, or more generally, it can be used to replace quantum hardness, sorry, it can be used to replace complexity leveraging with quantum hardness in many situations. And I hope to convey that to you today. Focusing on non-interactive, non-malleable commitments, let me start by quickly recalling what a commitment is. So, a commitment is a primitive that allows Alice, who has a secret input, M, to put this input in a box, lock the box, and send it over to Bob. And the requirement is that this box should not reveal the message M, unless Alice provides a key in the future that allows Bob to check that the message inside this box was indeed M. And we require that, at this later point, Alice shouldn't be able to change her mind about the message in the box. What actually happens in the protocol world is that Alice and Bob, either interactively or non-interactively, generate a transcript. This serves as a commitment to Alice's input. And later on, Alice sends some decommitment information that allows Bob to check that the committed value was indeed this message. And what we will care about in this talk is non-malleability, which is a stronger requirement, which requires that any adversary that has access to this commitment string should not be able to change the string in some way or hammer the box metaphorically to come up with a commitment to a related message. So note that this is stronger than hiding because it's possible that there exist schemes that hide the message M, but there are ways to manipulate the string so that you generate a string that commits to a related message without knowing what this message is at all. And that's what we want to avoid. So more specifically, the situation we want to consider is the following. There are three parties, Alice, Mallory and Bob. Mallory is expecting a commitment from Alice and Bob expects a commitment from Mallory. But what if Mallory turns evil and instead of generating her commitment honestly, she takes the string she got from Alice, tampers with it in some way, and uses the resulting string as her own commitment to Bob. So this is what we want to avoid. And what do I mean by avoiding this? We want to guarantee that the value X that is committed by Mallory is independent of the value A that Alice was committing to. And there's been a lot of work trying to build commitments with such guarantees. They've unfortunately mostly been interactive and there's this whole sequence of work very recently, there were two works, two concurrent works, one of which got two round non-malable commitments, which adds a message to the interaction pattern that I have here. From sub-exponential time rock puzzles and sub-exponential DDH. And so we now have two round commitments from sub-exponential standard assumptions. However, the more interesting question has been can we build non-interactive non-malable commitments from well studied assumptions? And the reason that completely non-interactive non-malable commitments are interesting is because they don't require any back and forth. So they don't require anyone to wait for the other party to respond. And they can be written down, so they can be broadcast on a ledger, they can be stored for future use, they can be relayed or transferred from one person to another. And that's what's really exciting about the non-interactive version of this primitive. And towards answering this question, there was a work of Pandey Paas and Vaikunthanathan that showed that if one assumes the existence of what are adaptive or non-malable one-way functions, which is a very strong assumption on one-way functions, then indeed non-malable commitments that are non-interactive do exist. Subsequently, there was another work of actually ten years later and a year ago from now, there was a work of Bytansky and Lin that showed that if one assumes time lock puzzles and sub-exponential keyless incompressible functions, which are similar in spirit to the keyless multi-collision resistant hash functions that some of you may have heard about yesterday. So with those types of assumptions, one can actually build non-interactive non-malable commitments. However, these are not very well studied assumptions. So can we do better in terms of assumptions? And the work that I'm going to talk about today answers this question. And says that indeed one can assume well-studied standard quantum and classical hardness assumptions and sub-exponential versions of those assumptions. So specifically, we rely on quantum hardness of LWE and classical hardness of factoring and non-interactive witness indistinguishable proofs. And we show that if you assume sub-exponential hardness of all of these primitives, then indeed non-interactive non-malable commitments are possible. So before going on to our construction, let's go back to the definition. And try to understand what it means to say that the value X committed by Mallory is independent of the value A that was committed by Alice. So what we want to intuitively say is that Mallory's behavior is independent of Alice or independent of even the existence of Alice. So how do we, how can we formalize this? Well, one way to do it is the following. Let's imagine another experiment where instead of committing to her input, Alice in this other experiment just committed to zero. So Alice's input didn't even exist in this other experiment. And now let's look at the distribution of values Y that Mallory commits to in this other experiment. If we can guarantee that the distribution of X in experiment one is indistinguishable from the distribution of Y in experiment two, then that means that X is essentially independent of A. Because X is indistinguishable from Y and Y is independent of A because the second experiment is independent of Alice's input A. So that's what we will strive, that's the definition we will strive to achieve. And towards achieving it, let me start with a very simple construction in a simplified setting. So let's assume that there are only two entities in the world, Alice and Mallory. And we will assign to Alice a commitment that is going to be quantum secure. So this is going to be an LWE-based commitment that is conjectured to be secure in the presence of quantum polynomial time adversaries. At the same time to Mallory, we will assign a commitment that is quantum insecure, but classically secure. So no classical adversary can distinguish commitments to input X from commitments to zero. However, quantum adversaries can actually break this commitment and find out the value that was committed. So this construction is binding and hiding according to the definitions of binding and hiding that I informally talked about before. Is it non-mallable? To answer this question, recall that we need to go back to the game with two experiments and argue that the distribution of X in experiment one isn't distinguishable from the distribution of Y in experiment two when Alice just commits to zero. How can we argue this? Well, there exists, so looking at these experiments, if one takes the transcript of an execution of either experiment one or experiment two, given a quantum computer, it's possible to find out what X and Y are. And the reason is that we started with commitments for Mallory that were quantum extractable in polynomial time. That were extractable in quantum polynomial time. So a quantum computer given such a transcript can find out what X and Y are. And if they're different, then we've built a quantum machine that actually distinguishes Alice's commitment to A from Alice's commitment to zero. So let me say that again. Slowly the man in the middle Mallory together with a quantum computer is now a quantum polynomial time adversary that is able to decide between whether it is in experiment one or experiment two. And so if X and Y are distinguishable, we have a quantum polynomial time distinguisher that breaks hiding of Alice's commitments. And this shouldn't be possible because Alice's commitments were quantum secure. And so the distributions of X and Y must necessarily be indistinguishable. Moving on, this was the case when Mallory was malicious. What if Alice and Mallory switch roles and Alice becomes the bad guy? Now note that we had a commitment for Alice that was quantum secure and one for Mallory that was quantum extractable. And this guaranteed that Mallory's message M is going to be independent of Alice's message X but not the other way round. So how do we guarantee security in this reverse situation? Well, we will rely on complexity leveraging now. What that means is we will take Alice's commitment that, so recall that Alice's commitment is quantum secure and Mallory's commitment is quantum insecure. But in addition to being quantum secure, we will make Alice's commitment quasi-pollinomially extractable. So extractable in classical quasi-pollinomial time. And this can be done by relying on, say, the LWE assumption. And at the same time, Mallory's commitment will be set so that it's sub-exponentially secure against classical adversaries. And this can be done by building a commitment that's a non-interactive commitment that's based on sub-exponentially DH. So Alice's commitment will satisfy both properties of being quantum secure and yet classically quasi-pollinomially insecure. And Mallory's commitment will be quantum insecure but classically more secure than Alice's commitment. And by doing this, going back to analyzing non-mallibility for the situation where Alice is malicious, we will see that, again given a transcript of this execution, there exists a quasi-pollinomial time extractor that is able to look at this transcript and find out what X and Y are. And if X and Y were different in both games, then this would be a quasi-pollinomial extractor that distinguishes experiment one from experiment two, which means that Alice, together with the quasi-pollinomial time machine, are a quasi-pollinomial time breaker for Mallory's commitment. And this would be a contradiction, which is how we will argue that it is non-mallible even in case Alice becomes malicious. So this is by the same logic as before. And at the end, we have a pair of commitments where no matter who the bad guy is, these commitments are non-mallible with respect to each other. And Alice cannot mall Mallory's commitment and Mallory cannot mall Alice's commitment. So now to, okay, and these are just to recap. Alice's commitment is based on quantum polynomially secure and quasi-pollinomally extractable commitments. And Mallory's is quantum polynomially extractable, but sub-exponentially classically secure at the same time. So these are two commitments that differ from each other across two different axes of hardness. One is harder than the other across one axis. And so going, so, okay, sorry, just a second. Yeah, so we have now two commitments for two identities that are non-mallible with respect to each other. But what if there are more than two identities in the world or in a cryptographic protocol? And we want to argue that every identity's committed value is independent of values committed by other identities. So we would like to generalize to this identity-based notion of commitments where the adversary can pick any identity that is n bits long. And the honest party can pick any other identity that is n bits long. And as long as the adversaries and honest party's identities are different, we still want to have this independence guarantee. And this is, it turns out that this generalized identity-based notion for identities of size n is identical to the most general notion of, is equivalent to the most general notion of non-mallible commitments, assuming the existence of signatures. And I don't have time to go into why. So you'll just have to believe me on that. But I do want to spend some time on explaining how we achieve this more general definition for exponentially many identities. Towards that, we first have a construction for identities that are in C log log n for a small constant C. And then we have an amplification step that helps us amplify the space of identities exponentially many times to go all the way to identities into to the end. Let me start with the first step. So to get commitments that are secure for non-mallible commitments that are secure for C log log n identities. We'll start with the technique of pass and v. Who said that it is essentially possible to use complexity leveraging to get a sequence of commitments, a C log log n in number, that are progressively harder than the other. And what I mean is that in classical time t1, the commitment with identity 1 is secure, whereas the commitment with identity 2 can be broken. And then the commitment with identity 2 is secure for some other time, some smaller time t2. Whereas the commitment with identity 3 breaks down at this time. And as a result, the sequence of commitments gives us a sequence of non-mallible commitments that are non-mallible whenever the honest identity is smaller than the adversary's identity. By the exact same logic as before, you can break the adversary's commitment and extract his value. And if this is correlated with the honest party's committed value, then you have a distinguisher for the honest party commitment. So it better not be correlated. So we have the sequence of commitments that are progressively less secure in the classical world. We will build another sequence of commitments that are progressively less secure, both in the quantum and classical worlds, by relying on sub-exponential quantum hardness of an assumption like LWE or LPN, or any lattice-based assumption. And so in the quantum setting, this means that we have a sequence of commitments where the last commitment is the most secure one. And therefore, again, by the same logic, these are secure whenever the adversary's identity is smaller than the honest party's identity, which is the opposite of what we saw in the previous slide. So now we have two different sequences of commitments. One is secure when the adversary chooses an identity that's larger than the honest party identity, and the other is secure when the adversary chooses an identity that's smaller than the honest party identity. Now we need to combine these in some way to ensure that we have commitments that are secure whenever the adversary chooses any identity that is either bigger or smaller, or basically any identity that's different from honest party's identity. To do this, we will arrange the two sequences of commitments that we had so far in decreasing order of security, so that all the quantum secure commitments, or the LWE-based commitments, will be less secure than all of the discrete log-based commitments in the classical world. So what I essentially mean is we will set security parameters so that they decrease in this direction. What that gives us is a sequence of commitments that are progressively less secure in this direction in the classical world. On the other hand, in the quantum world, all of these are broken, and they are progressively less secure in this direction in the quantum world. And how do we use that to argue non-malability, or first how do we construct non-malable commitments out of this? So let's do this with an example. Let's say Charlie has identity three. What he will do is he will look at both commitments corresponding to identity three in this sequence. So one is the discrete log-based commitment and the other is the LWE-based commitment, and he will split his message into two parts, into two parts using a two out of two secret sharing scheme. He will use the discrete log-based commitment to commit to the first part and the LWE-based commitment with identity three to commit to the second part. That constitutes a commitment for identity three. And why is this non-malable? So let's do this again with an example. Let's say we have Alice and Charlie who have identities one and three respectively. And you'll see that this is quite, this is a very general example. You could just place two identities anywhere in the system. And we want to argue that they're both non-malable with respect to each other. So how would we do that? Let's say Charlie is the bad guy. We want to argue that the message committed by Charlie is independent of the message committed by Alice. The reason for that is that these commitments are arranged in order of decreasing classical security, which means that the commitment on the top left of the slide is the most secure one. And what this means now is that the value committed by Alice using the commitment on the top left of the slide is secure even in time that's sufficient to extract both the shares of Charlie's commitment, which means that Charlie's values M1 and M2 are jointly independent of one of the shares of Alice's commitment, which in turn means that the message M committed by Charlie is independent of the message A committed by Alice. So that's straightforward in this direction. What about the other direction? So what about the case when Alice is the bad guy? Now note that in the presence of a quantum computer, the discrete log-based commitments break down completely, can be broken in polynomial time. And we arrange things so that the LWE-based commitments are in decreasing order of quantum security from Charlie to Alice. What this means is that it's possible to break all commitments except the one on the bottom right of the slide in quantum time t. And the commitment on the bottom right corner should still remain secure. And this implies that A1 and A2 are jointly extractable in quantum poly time t, whereas M2 remains hidden, which means that A must necessarily be independent of one of the shares M2 of Charlie's message. And therefore, A must necessarily be independent of the message M. So we've been able to argue non-malability in both directions now. And I only have one minute, so I'm going to very quickly give you some high-level insights on how we've managed to amplify this all the way to two to the n identities. The way we do that is by showing that it's possible to non-interactively amplify the space of identities exponentially, assuming sub-exponential and non-interactive witness indistinguishable proofs. Now, amplifying C log log n exponentially just gives something that looks like log n to the power of some constant, which is not enough. So we need to apply this amplification theorem multiple times to go all the way to two to the n, because I don't have much time to go into this. I'm going to hide all the details of the construction under the rug and only mention two features of our construction. So one, that this results in a loss in parameters each time we amplify. And this happens because we are restricted to the non-interactive setting, where we don't really have any techniques to do simulation. And the other is that this only yields non-malable commitments that suffer from a selective abort problem. Which means that the adversary cannot create commitments that are valid and at the same time correlated with the value committed by the honest party. But what he can sometimes do is create commitments where the probability that the commitment is invalid is a function of the message committed by the honest party. So that's something that we cannot deal with at the moment. And that brings me to the open problems. It would be really interesting to remove this limitation on selective abort and get non-interactive non-malable commitments that would, so removing this would result in commitments that satisfy the strongest definition that would be interesting. And another open question is whether we can make them non-malable in the many to many setting, which is true for some of the previous constructions that were from less well studied assumptions, but not true for ours. And finally, can we find some other ways in which we can make quantum assumptions to get better forms of classical cryptography? With that I'd like to conclude. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Okay, let's thank the speaker again.


For sure. What's going on, Johnny? Just wanted to ask you, we've talked to you about like tight ends that you've watched before, how many great tight ends there are in football right now. Kind of the evolution of the position seems to have really exploded with the level of athlete that's playing your position. I guess what have you kind of, have you observed that same thing and whose games do you kind of respect along those lines right now? The tight end positions have evolved tremendously from an athletic standpoint, especially man, you got guys now that are top tier athletes playing in position.  And the position manager just became such a key role in the league today, man, and it's allowing, you know, offenses to really open up and expand. How much of a benefit is that position to your guys' offense in particular? You guys, the four of you seem to do a great many different things than the offense. We do so much, man, and it requires a lot. And, you know, we take that role, we take that role along with a lot of pride and we embrace it, you know what I mean? Because it's a pleasure to us, man, to be able to just do so many different things with offense.  You know, the number one thing, the first thing that a defense primarily does, you know, see what the tight end is at, you know what I mean?  So, you know, because particularly that's where, you know, offenses set the strength for the formation. But you can kind of play with defenses, man, and just have two, three tight ends on the building. You know, then you got, you know, defenses making all different kinds of calls, man.  You know what I mean? And making plays when we're four to two and just, you know, taking advantage of the opportunity. To your point about defenses making the call based on the tight end, how can you, how much can you guys use that to advantage for the same reasons that you just mentioned about having so many guys that you can line up in different spots? Yeah, it's huge, man. It's huge.   Just taking advantage of the big bodies, you know, when you got, you know, multiple tight ends on the field. So there's just a lot of things, man, that we can do to give defense problems. Thanks. Luke. Hey, John, you played with Matt LaFleur in your second year. What did you think of him as a coach in that year? What did you learn from him and playing in his offense? Yeah, you know, he kind of developed from the West Coast style offense, man. You know, a smart guy to be around, you know, just, you know, good coach and I'm looking forward to going out there, man competing against him. I couldn't be happier, you know, the opportunity that he was given a few years ago, man, he's, you know, he's taking advantage of it.   Michael. Hey, John, it's supposed to be pretty cold up in Green Bay on Sunday. I'm just wondering if there's an extra challenge to catching the football in cold weather. Nah, I don't even, it is what it is, man. Any weather, cold weather, hot weather, you know, there's no excuses that ball coming away. You make the play, you make it happen as if, you know, those weather circumstances, man, that's part of the game. We can't do anything about that. So we just gotta go out there and do what we do.