everyone Shaber1000 here today we got some more hot stuff to try we're going to review one of them i'm not going to eat them both i think we're going to go for this one let's check them out okay guys so monkey picked these up for me this is one we're going to try today this is hot and spicy fire walk molten chili chicken flavor with other natural flavors okay so this one has got one two three four five six peppers all in the red that's your heat gauge this one the hot and spicy fire walk the sizzling rich pork flavor it's only got four four of them filled in so this one's probably not going to be hot as this one but we're going to try this one uh probably shouldn't be eating this stuff but i think i think maybe she's trying to do me in okay but it says uh no added msg but here's the nutritional facts on the back you can pause and read if you would like okay so take the chill take the challenge fiery chicken noodles coated with a spicy yet tangy korean chili pepper sauce that builds the heat with every bite and it says try our other flavors they got the sizzling rich pork which we have over here and then they have the scorching sesame shrimp which i probably won't try that one she might but i don't care for shrimp so i won't be eating that one so i can't couldn't tell you whether it's any good or not since i don't need it and i don't care for you know it'd be a bad or you know it'd be an unfair review if we did that so on here it says microwave instructions uh usually you can just put one in water in these but it says remove remove lid take out seasoning and vegetable pouches then empty both pouches on two noodles set aside fire sauce packet which is it says it's got one in it um add room temperature water to inside line place in microwave place in microwave center microwave uncovered for five minutes on high that's at a thousand watts let's stand for one minute empty fire sauce packet on two noodles stir and enjoy cooking time varies with microwave wattage okay and then there's you know you got your warnings there one of them is do not purchase of packages torn or open we know that but usually these kind of things you just uh you know put boiling water in it you wait like four minutes but this one does not say that okay so i guess we'll we'll do it the way they're suggesting the microwave um so let's go ahead and open this up here i'm out here okay yeah remove the lid okay so we're going to remove the lid yes it's just the same same things that i've done before um here's the fire sauce whoops okay but yeah i don't know why you just can't fill to the line with boiling water and let it sit like you do on the other ones but i i guess we'll do it their way because that way it'll be a fair review that way if there's something wrong you know i'll know that it wasn't me that did it you know because i cooked it wrong or something but okay now it says uh we're going to take out the seasoning and vegetable packets pouches and empty both of these we're going to empty both of these into onto noodles and set aside fire sauce we've already done that it's over here all right so we're going to go ahead back over here we're going to put we're going to put the seasoning in here that already looks hot without the fire sauce oh wow okay i can't i can't describe that i mean it doesn't smell bad it just got to smell it it's kind of like a spicy smell but kind of not and then here's our vegetables okay we're gonna put these in here then i believe it said fill to the line add room temperature water to inside fill line which is right there it's usually about as high as the noodles okay so i've got some room temperature water here this is what i was i normally normally make these noodles i just uh you know heat the water up in here and this thing here and then i'll fill it up to the line and i don't take the lid all the way off i just open it enough and then i leave it on there for like four minutes but like i said we're going to do it the way they want us to so we know we're doing it right and we're going to fill it to the line and then it says to cook uncovered for five minutes right okay yep place the microwave center microwave uncovered for five minutes okay we got a 900 watt microwave but i'm going to do it for five minutes and i'll check the noodles and we'll see how they are so i'm going to put these in the microwave and i'll be back with you in five minutes okay so while that's while that's cooking this is one of the ones i normally eat right here and um let me see i thought i seen a heat gauge on here somewhere but yeah right there there's a heat gauge on this one and suddenly got one and it's pretty hot and spicy i normally eat these this one says ready in three minutes um yeah this one you microwave for three minutes but this is one of the ones i was telling you about i just normally open it up pour hot water and close the lid and let it set for four minutes is usually what i do and then i'll take the lid off and put my pouches in and then stir them up um and they're fine so you know that's probably because it's you know just easier to dump some water in there so you know but the the serving suggestions whenever you do a review you always want to do the way they you know the way they suggest it and um that's what we're going to do but yeah these are pretty good too i've never reviewed these but i do eat a lot of these and um but like i said this one only has one one thing so a couple more minutes and we're going to give them a shot okay guys this is what it looks like when it comes out looks like there's some vegetables i don't know that kind of looks like a piece of cabbage but anyway we're going to stir this up just for a second now we're going to add our fire sauce the other sauce and the other one i showed you i just showed you that i normally it's really thick and hard to get out this is like a major hot sauce here so i don't know i think i think she's trying to do me in guys um all right i'm gonna stir this up and i'll be back with you and we're going to give it a shot and um well that's all right she's always trying i got you a video that's what she'll say she'll say she'll come in and say i got you a video that means she got me something to review all right so let's get this stirred up okay guys so we've got this stirred up pretty good well you know about the best it can be and uh we're gonna try this got me a paper towel here i got a coke here but uh as i i can't drink milk it makes me sick i'm hearing something really weird i don't know where it's coming from all right kind of gunshot because that one video i made and i didn't catch it but yeah there was something in that video but anyway it's about this so here we go and yes it is the uh it is the stuff i'm kind of i'm actually a little nervous but i'll try not to make any chewing noises okay there's some heat there but it says get hot gets hotter with every bite so i'm gonna take three or four bites here because it's still very hot i mean like heat-wise uh i'm gonna let this cool just for a minute i'm gonna take a few more bites and i'll be back with you i've eaten half of it um it does get hotter as you eat it um i haven't had anything to drink so i'm gonna drink it now okay so is as hot as the noodles that we tried not at first but i got half of this done i don't think i'm gonna be able to finish it all it's super super hot uh uh oh yeah it's super hot um two thumbs up for the heat two thumbs up for the flavor i'm gonna put the flavor and the heat at about a nine together so because it does taste very good but if you don't like heat you're not gonna like this i don't know how long it lasts the noodles were very hot uh but they didn't last long so i've been eating this for about 10 to 15 minutes now let me see i'll tell you uh no more like yeah i've been eating this for 15 minutes um so very hot i don't think i'm gonna be able to finish that one uh the noodles i almost finished off camera because i took another bite and monkey's like you're gonna kill yourself and i said so i got me a big old i said i'm gonna eat this she said whatever and i did i was super hot but the heat only lasted about 10 minutes but this is getting hotter and hotter as i eat it so if you don't like hot stuff of course you're not gonna like it you're not gonna be interested in it you probably won't watch the video but if you do and you don't like hot stuff you're probably watching the video just to see see me put myself through this which is cool i would do it too but anyway guys like i guess in my head it's just uh soaking wet with sweat so like i said a nine on the flavor uh nine on the heat two thumbs up on the flavor and the heat so yeah if you like hot stuff give it a try because i really think you'll enjoy the flavor and if you can really stand hot stuff and you can sit and eat this no problem i think you would really really enjoy it because it does have a great flavor to it it's got a great smell the texture is good all in all yeah it's it's awesome so there's another review for you uh i still haven't got my Edward Scissor hen uh videos even edited yet um i know it's been a week but i'll get to him you know uh oh life happens anyway i'm gonna get some of these uh videos thrown out for you like i said stay tuned this will be our next one our next uh hot review video um i don't think it'll be as hot as that but it does sure does sound good sizzling rich pork flavor this is the chicken so all right guys thanks for watching appreciate it shaber the myth man legend i'm gone for now excuse me i get to hiccups when i eat hot stuff and the noodles i didn't feel so much down in here down in my stomach i can feel that so yeah i mean it's it's it's not the hottest thing i've ever eaten by any means but it is hot it's there guys shaber the myth man legend did i just say that i said it twice in my other video i know i noticed and uh sorry about that guys my mind is always it's always working i'm always thinking of stuff you know so all right i gotta go we'll see you soon thanks for watching and um y'all be safe and have a great week coming up we'll see you bye bye okay guys


Good evening, everyone, and today we want to talk about Acryno Edge Stack and requirements to the OpenStack community. So thanks for coming in, and I'm going to talk about Acryno Edge Stack and the progress it has been made in the community, then these gentlemen will talk about Blueprints which are going to be supported in the Acryno Edge Stack. So when we talk about edge computing, every community is doing something with respect to the edge computing, and with respect to that, what is Acryno is really trying to do with respect to edge computing, that's what this slide is going to talk about. And when we look at the edge computing, there is many layers to it. There is a platform where the application would run onto it, then there is an API layer need to be supported, then there isn't a top-like application need to be supported. When we collectively see all this thing, that's what we call as a use case, which actually drives some specific business case. And Acryno is actually like taking a lot of car parts and compiling everything into a full working solution that can satisfy the use case. That is the key focus of the Acryno Edge Stack community. And when we look at all the open sources, and they are working on some part of the edge computing in the stack that we talked about, but some community has to put together everything together so that it is useful from an end-to-end stack for a user, that is exactly what this community is focused on. So it takes like a lot of multiple open source software together, that including open stack, Kubernetes, and other components, that including the hardware that need to be supported at the edge, because when we look at the hardware, there is a many type of hardware really need to be supported depending upon which edge location, because edge could be in a cell tower, edge could be in a customer location like in a home, or edge could be in a central office in a telco office. So depending upon where it is going to be deployed, the profile for that particular location will be different. So that is why we need a way to actually integrate everything together and test the solution from end-to-end integration perspective so that we can actually support that in production. So this community will focus on that integration part of everything together to drive a specific use case, and it will develop a CI and CD infrastructure for it so that the production readiness of that end-to-end integration can be tested. This will also focus on the features, and when we talk about the open sources, like it will bring all the open sources together actually in terms of bringing this end-to-end stack, but if there are functionalities which is missing in that specific open source component, this community will work with that specific community in addressing the need, but if there is a component like a need to be addressed in the end-to-end level, and this community will develop that and support it as well, and you can see that the member of companies like this is a list of companies so far have joined the Karina community, and there's going to be more people actually in the pipeline and joining, and this brings the user who's going to deploy this actually in the cloud data center or in any edge location, and also it brings the people who's going to support this stack as from a vendor perspective. So in the combination of all this thing is what this community is working on and delivering so that it is useful edge solution can be deployed at production, and this community is focusing on two key use cases at this moment, and you can actually see this use case as a umbrella of use cases, and it is focused on the carrier use cases. When I say carrier, you know, like you can think of a telecom, and the telecom has multiple use cases in order to support the edge computing, and this community will focus on all those use cases, either it is a deployment in a central location, or it's a customer location, or in a cell tower, so it will focus on all those requirements around it, and it will also focus on the enterprise and industry IoT use cases, because it's very key that, you know, the requirements are a little different when we look at the telecom versus like enterprise IoT use cases, there is some commonality, but there's also differences need to be addressed in. So this community will actually focus on the sub use cases in this major two categories. So this community uses a terminology called a crino blueprint, and it is very important to understand what is this blueprint, so you can think of like a blueprint that is like an assemble the car, so the car parts are like a different, different open source components, so the blueprint brings everything together in such a way that, you know, like it is a useful end to end solution which can be deployed in a production environment. So this is a real use case driven, and it is a fully integrated CI CD testing will be provided by the community, and the community will also look at the lifecycle support of all this component, because, you know, each community, open source community, will focus on the specific component that they are focused on. For example, if we take Kubernetes, OpenStack, an operating system, they focus on the lifecycle of that specific component, but this community will look at in the holistic picture for that use case, you know, like how do I support a whole lifecycle support for all the components, and provide that CI CD infrastructure so that the whole component can be deployed in the production. And this community is very complementary to a lot of open source which are currently there, so that's why, you know, like people ask, like, okay, every community is doing edge computing work. It is really complementary, because it is assembling all those factors together, and each community is supporting edge computing requirements within. It's also very important. For example, OpenStack supporting it, Airship supporting it, and Starling X supporting it. Each community supporting the edge use cases within, it is also very important. So this community is very complementary to the work which has actually been done in other communities, so it is not trying to duplicate the work, it is very complementary to the other communities. So this community come together and put together actually a structure in which this projects are going to be assembled and supported with respect to the kernel. As I stated, you know, like the blueprint is very key for this community, the assembled edge stack, that is what this community is focused on. In order to do that, this community articulated, you know, how this is all coming together. So there's going to be a set of future projects that this community will focus on. So I'll give you an example. For example, a blueprint need to be end-to-end tested. A blueprint need to be, you know, like end-to-end lifecycle managed. So those are like a future project that is not addressed in other communities, that is something this community will address. And the integration, what we call the blueprint, which actually brings everything together to support a particular use case, it will also have a validation project. So that takes the blueprint and run it on the exact hardware that the user would run it in production, so that the declarative configuration of that particular blueprint can be validated. And as I stated, this is very complementary to the other open source that including, you know, OpenStack and other projects.  And likewise, we expect the other communities to collaborate with Acrena as well, so that there is a very cohesively work that comes together to support the edge use cases. And so the way we actually address, like different requirements with respect to the use cases, because the use cases can have sub-use cases. And so we collectively bring together in a form that we call as the blueprint family. So you can think of, like, a blueprint family is like, you know, collections of blueprint, they all come together. And they share the same principle, tools, and it could actually use the same CI infrastructure. So that's what we call as a family. And within the family, you can have, like, multiple blueprints. So for example, if I take a telco use case, and I want to deploy a network cloud blueprint in a telco, and that particular blueprint can support, like, 5G core, it can support, like, RAN workloads, and other workloads as well, like a voice-related stuff. So a blueprint could actually support multiple type of workload and multiple type of use cases as well. But we actually have a way to actually support multiple innovation by having, like, use cases that can be supported using multiple blueprints as well. So this community is really, you know, like, bringing all the innovation together. The one key aspect that need to be noted compared to the other communities is that the architecture for the blueprint is actually very flexible in a way that it satisfies the use case. So we define the solution for the use case.  Then they will say that, okay, the use case is going to go look like that. But this community is really, you know, like, focusing on the use case itself so that the business needs can be achieved. So AT&T contributed the seed code, one of the seed code for this community, and that seed code is available in the Karina website. If you go to the Karina website, you can see the seed code. We call that as a network cloud blueprint. Again, this is one of the blueprint that Karina will support, but there's other blueprints currently in development and currently being reviewed by the TSE that also will be supported. And within this blueprint, again, it is a telecom focused use case and to support the 5G core and the voice-related application. And in this blueprint, you know, like, you can have like a single server install, multiple server install, and this blueprint is based on the airship. I'll talk about that in the next slide. And you guys can see this slide. This picture is also available in the Karina website. And we pulled together actually this entire stack using airship. And as you all know that airship, we talked about that in the morning keynote as well. It is an open stack foundation project. And it is used to actually deploy the the components of a cloud using a declarative way. And in this stack, you can see that a Karina brings like additional components as well to actually drive that into an integration that including bringing like one app as a VNF orchestration and additional other components for operational management. So that is the benefit of a Karina blueprint is that it brings everything together to drive a specific deployment in. So this is additional blueprints that we are actually working on. And from AT&T perspective, as I stated, there are many blueprint proposal. I would encourage you guys to go and look at the Karina website where you can see all the different blueprints being proposed right now. And we are working on a SIVA blueprint, which is a software SDN enable the broadband access. And this blueprint is a collaboration with the Open Networking Foundation. And this blueprint is to support the the G-PON access related workloads. And we are also working on serverless and real-time blueprint. We also like to have a third-party blueprint where like AWS Azure that get deployed into a location and have interoperability between the blueprints that a Karina was defining. So we'd also like to bring those innovation into the Karina community. We're also looking at, you know, customer-promised forage deployment as well from a network cloud use case. And these are the sample of like other use cases and blueprints that this community is working on. But the gentlemen's here, they want to talk like more about other blueprints that they are actually working on. So with that, Tapio? My name is Tapio and I'm also a member of the Acryno TSC. So the question was sort of why does Nokia participate in Acryno? So I formulated this a little bit different. Like why do we want to, why you should participate in Acryno also. So the first benefit is that inside of a project like Acryno opens this project you can collaborate with other companies. And it's also, I mean, which is obvious, other member companies, but it also allows you to collaborate with upstream projects. And we actually have, from previous projects, we have some experiences about that, that it's quite helpful if you have a sort of a group of people who have like a similar use case or same use case. They work together and sort of figure out what are the requirements. And then once they sort of internally know what they want, then they will sort of go and talk to the upstream community and say that this is actually what we want. These are the requirements that this is how we would like to do it. And then we have our own cloud offering, real-time, and sort of IT type of cloud offerings. And sort of collaborating with other companies, it's also, of course, helps with sort of improve those products. And there's an example is that the blueprint that we are going to present with this airship that we take this sort of airship-based network cloud blueprint and we add to it and sort of, and that's something that sort of can also benefit in sort of our products. And then, of course, allows to sort of work with other sort of related blueprints with other community members. And then sort of we have another sort of sort of interest is to sort of we are launching this inside of the open compute platform. We have to open edge hardware and we want to sort of test that and run it as part of the inside of the cryo blueprint. And then also to sort of create joint blueprints with other community members. And a kind of blueprints that we actually planning at the moment that we will that will be discussed in the TSC is what we call the open edge cloud. It's a real-time cloud. It's based on the network cloud blueprint. So it's a Kubernetes-based. It's running OpenStack on top of Kubernetes. And what we want to add to that is some real-time functionalities. And also to be able to run that on the OCP open edge hardware. And then another one that we are talking, collaborating with ARM, is what we call the micro-mic or multi-axis edge computing. It's the use cases. It's a smart city. It's a platform for running applications on the ultra-far edge. And this is sort of completely different than the other extreme. It's a single board ARM server with possibly some kind of accelerators for machine learning or things like that. And the idea in that is that it's an application platform which is container-based and it will be open for third-party developers to develop. To develop their own applications. Okay. So, my name is Martin Beckstrom. I'm working with cloud and virtualization technologies within Ericsson. And I would like to start with just explaining a little bit on how we see on edge computing just in general. For us, the edge is basically two things. One is that we have a distribution of workloads that can happen in accordance with policies on, for instance, low latency. There could be other policies. And that doesn't necessarily mean that the data center is particularly small. That's a little bit another problem, of course, associated with edge computing. So, one other problem is the distribution and to basically get a correct allocation or workload in relation to where the data is consumed. That is one thing that we're working with. The other thing is then how we should be able to build and maintain data centers that are very small. With small here, we mean 10 compute blade or less. And for this, we believe that our ship is a very good solution. The reason is that the possibilities to be without the open shift, to be without hypervisor is small for many applications that needs to be distributed, including our own applications such as virtualized run and parts of the packet core. And open stack is not really scaling in small deployments. With the help of our ship, we can basically then slice up the compute blade or the Linux plate in small portions and therefore deploy open stack in very, with a very little overhead and therefore make sites that even have 10 compute blade or less economical viable. We are therefore very interested in the Acrino development and I'm sitting in the Acrino board for Ericsson. And out of this, meaning our interest for orchestration as one key area, we have basically said that we are interested very much in the different portions of Acrino that either is helping us to take care of the small scale problem or very much on the orchestration and the distribution of the software so we get the right allocation of software and workloads out in the network. And to this, we have been able to so far actually change a bit of product plans to take care of our ship and also do lab and prototyping and we intend to be active in the upstreaming of both our ship and other ports of Acrino. Thank you very much. My name is Sudev Kapoor. I'm a distinguished engineer at Ginnepur Networks. I am a TSE member for Acrino as well as for tungsten fabric. So here I'm here to talk about the integration of tungsten fabric, which is also a Linux foundation-based product to bring tungsten fabric and Acrino together as a joint integration. So we are also working with the same foundation, which is a network cloud blueprint. And what we are looking at is how can we integrate tungsten fabric into it. So our goal is to replace it somehow. There is an issue with the animation, but this box should span few more boxes. But regardless, what we are doing is we're taking, so like the way Ericsson gentlemen mentioned, so for the tungsten fabric, what we are going to do is similarly replace certain components in the blueprint and bring tungsten fabric into it. And this is what Kadhan mentioned earlier also, that's what Acrino Blueprints are all about, that you can bring in different orchestration systems, you can bring in different technologies within the same blueprint family. So that's basically what we are trying to achieve and how we do is, our model is that we have original controller node and then we have edge site. And within the network cloud blueprint, we are using Airship Armada to instantiate tungsten fabric helm charts. So tungsten fabric itself today can be deployed by using helm charts and we are just integrating these pieces together so that Airship, instead of installing other components which are part of NC Blueprint, it can install tungsten fabric. In fact, we already have basic demos working with this and what that does is tungsten fabric is replacing Calico as a CNI into the Kubernetes as well as it's replacing, it's bringing in as a networking layer for OpenStack. So therefore, what it does is it gives a single SDN solution within a Crano where it can work with both orchestrators, Kubernetes as it's a CNI for its CNI as well as OpenStack Neutron for its networking. So thereby, we can orchestrate the parts, virtual machines. One thing which I don't show here is tungsten fabric can also orchestrate bare metal servers. So therefore, in the edge sites, edge pops, we can orchestrate all kind of workloads and seamlessly bring them all together. One of the biggest benefit of this integration is the middle box where it talks about the networking features. So that's one of the biggest strength of tungsten fabric is that it provides very, very feature rich advanced networking. And what this integration does for the users, the customers, the providers is they get to take benefit of all of these features as a part of the Crano integration. So that's the biggest benefit of this integration. And overall, the edge looks like you have an orchestration and monitoring system where you have full monitoring capability of all remote sites and it's fully secure end to end. We can have full IPsec level security between the sites. The site can be very simple, very thin edge site or it can be a very elaborate remote site. So the smallest footprint we can support is single core 8 gig memory requirement. That's it. That's the smallest footprint and the largest you can have a full blown racks of hardware and we can orchestrate all of that through this integration. So that's what really the tungsten fabric and the Crano integration brings. With that, I'm going to hand it over to Jim. Hello, my name is Jim Unerson. I work at Wind River and I fully realize that I'm probably standing in between you and some refreshing beers. So I respect that. But be in brief and I appreciate you hanging in there. I'm here to talk about Starling X. First thing I want to start with is what is the relationship between Starling X and a Crano because that question seems to come up especially today for some reason. So the first thing is Starling X is a hardened cloud infrastructure fully integrated and it is indeed deployable standalone. Some companies will choose to do that to productize and deploy its standalone. I'll tell you without a shadow of a doubt our day one intention and I was there on day one when we created Starling X was it would be a fundamental component that we would contribute into a Crano and we would do that to address certain blueprints that we felt are essential to the Crano mission statement and ones that Starling X is optimized to address. So I see there's no conflict at all in between Starling X and a Crano. I see Starling X as an essential component of a Crano. So why did we want to do that? Well, we want to contribute to a strong ecosystem so that we can collaborate. You've heard the other colleagues of mine here talk about building this strong ecosystem addressing the critical use cases for the telecom and industry and that's exactly where we want to be. We want to drive towards standardized APIs, standardized models, standardized requirements and Starling X we cannot do that on our own. We need a broader community with broader inputs to it. So the outputs will be critical blueprints that we will define that integrate Starling X into the Crano lineup and address these critical use cases. So the blueprint that we want to lead off with that we're working on right now is we call it a far-edge distributed cloud blueprint. And we see this is very essential for addressing use cases of geographically dispersed high-density locations be it in factories or stadiums or VRAM applications. These are characterized by scalable footprint but going down to very small physical footprint and the assumption has to be low physical security constraints. So we proposed this blueprint using Starling X where we would have a distributed far-edge cloud. It's essential to have a central presence because for operational efficiency you want to be able to control a patch, manage, monitor all sites centrally but you need actually local control as well because you need to be providing a level of autonomy in case there's communication breakdowns or loss of connectivity these kind of things. You don't want the services to be disrupted you want local autonomy and that's exactly what we see as the essence of this distributed far-edge cloud blueprint. So the edge sites themselves they'll be scalable from a small as one single server up to hundreds or thousands of servers and all connected together into a central agency to do the monitoring, management, and deployments according to again the acreno requirements. In the local sites we provided a lightweight control which has essential local functions which will interoperate with the central cloud control functions but also by the autonomy that you need so that you can survive these kinds of outages. The last thing I'm going to show you is our common software stack. I'm not going to go through this thing because it's been shown a couple of times already today but it's certainly on the acreno site if you want to go and look through the blueprint proposal you'll find it there. But we're aligning with the acreno principles that Candon has already laid down that zero-touch provisioning containers and the AMS both supported and for us it's a small infrastructure footprint for this distributed cloud edge sites. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. We still have a few slides. So what is up to the acreno and open stack community collaboration really need to happen? And as I mentioned that acreno community is very complementary to what has been going on from an edge computing effort in open stack as well as the open stack hosted project like Airship, Starling X and thank you to the open stack edge community working group and they have been working on enhancing the open stack to support some of the edge use cases as well. As I stated it's one of the components within the blueprint currently being used in the acreno and that work should continue and acreno community will bring additional requirements to the edge working group and as I stated it is complementary because there's a lot of use case discussion currently going on in the acreno community that will be fed back into the edge working group within the open stack community to collaborate and continue the collaboration between the open stack community and the Linux foundation acreno community is very critical in order to success in the edge computing and overall. So that's why we call this community as a complementary work and we have like two, three minutes and if anybody has any question for this gentleman or for me actually we can take it up. Anybody has any question? Right then I think it's a late, late evening. I, we all understand that. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. Appreciate it.


fasting has become increasingly popular for managing metabolic and inflammatory diseases. Despite the role that the gut microbiome plays in health and disease, little is known about how it responds to fasting when the external nutrient supply is reduced or suppressed. In this study, 15 healthy participants underwent a 10-day period of fasting according to the Butchinger Fasting Guidelines, which involves a daily energy intake of approximately 250 calories and an enema every two days. The participant's serum biochemistry confirmed the metabolic shift from carbohydrates to fatty acids and ketones. Their emotional and physical well-being were enhanced. Fecal 16S RNA gene-amplicon sequencing showed that fasting caused a decrease in the abundance of bacteria known to degrade dietary polysaccharides such as lachnospiracea and ruminocococciacea. This was accompanied by an increase in bacteroids and prochabacteria, escharicicoli and bolofila wardsworthia, known to use hoster. This article was authored by Robin Meenage, Francisca Grundler, Andreas Schwitz and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


Hello and welcome to NewsClick. We bring you a roundup of some of the international events that have taken place in the past one week and to discuss the issue we are joined by Prabir Prakash. Welcome to NewsClick, Prabir. So, there is new development which is happening in East Ghouta of Syria and people are being shown under the rubbles. Is it the West is again trying to repeat the same LPO campaign that they had done last year? Well, it is interesting to see that whenever something is talked about with response to shall we say any military offensive by the Syrian government against what are being called as rebel forces, then we always have pictures of bombings, people being buried under rubble, people being killed and so on. While if a similar offensive is taken by forces allied to say the United States, which is what happened in Raqqa or in Mosul, then even though the towns were literally flattened there is a huge amount of civilian casualties also. There is really no outcry over that. But let us be very clear war is something which kills people and it is also true that the civilian casualties will always outnumber the people who are actually involved in the war itself. So, it is nothing new in a scenario of war. So, what is the East Ghouta operations all about and that is the important issue. This has been rebel held, held by is essentially forces which are either a part of ISIS, part of Al Qaeda, what was to be called as a Bahat al-Nusra. All forces which said they are the Free Syrian Army, but were closely connected to these two formations in different ways. Even if they are not, at best they can be called Al Qaeda light. They really are not forces which are not sectarian, which are not against secular Syrian state and so on. So, given that it was a question of time by which the Syrian government would move against East Ghouta pocket because it is from here there have been a large number of shellings attacks on the city of Damascus, which is the capital of Syria. The fact that they haven't moved against Ghouta earlier is because its strategic significance was not that great. So, they had no particular reason except the fact that it was used to attack Damascus regularly. There is really no other significance strategically of the East Ghouta pocket. Now, they have resolved Aleppo, they have had there is all being relieved. They have may now really got at least a major part of their country back that now they have decided to take out some of this pocket. So, I think Ghouta is in that sense very similar to Aleppo, that the West is on the wrong side. The Western media is completely on the wrong side of this conflict and they are pretending that it is all as if one side is waging war. While the reality is it is a scenario in which external forces are being used to support forces within Syria against a legitimate government and ultimately whether we like the Syrian government or not. The point is the destruction of a secular state in West Asia today is perhaps the worst scenario that is in store for the region. We have seen that in Iraq, we have seen that in Libya. Now, Syria is in the sense not falling to this kind of forces. I think is something which we all have to welcome. Things are also changing in Afrin with where Turkey's invasion was going on. So, is there a chance of confrontation between the Erdogan's forces and Assad's forces now? Well, this is the other part of the Syrian war, which we need to take cognizance of. You have Turkey, you have forces which are allied to Al Qaeda and ISIS originally backed by the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia. You have the Kurdish forces, which were resisting both ISIS and Al Qaeda, but were also backed by the United States. But they also operated in cooperation with the Syrian government forces and the Russian forces. It is not that the Kurds were only with Americans. We saw both in Aleppo that there was a degree of understanding between the Syrian government and the Kurdish forces. And we also saw the Russians had maintained a certain kind of relations with the Kurdish forces. It's only after the fall of Raqqa that we see a sudden change in which the United States has backed the Kurds fully, particularly seizing the eastern oil fields and with forces which were earlier with Al Qaeda and seemed to have switched sides and joined the American offensive as well. So, this was read as a part of denying the oil fields to the Syrian government and therefore denying it to the economic resources. And United States backing the Kurdish forces was more to deny the Syrian government. So, this was one part of it. But what happens when you do that is that the Kurds have been seen by Turkey as their key enemy and partly because PKK has been in a civil war with Turkey for a very long time and they see the YPG, the Kurdish forces in Syria as really the extension of PKK. Whether it's true or not really doesn't matter. That's the way they see it. And therefore, they do not want a northern salient, shall we say, of Kurdish forces who will then be a permanent thorn in their sights is the way the Turkey looked at it. And therefore, the United States saying that it is going to be in the northern Syria for quite some time, that it is going to get into military alliances with the Kurds, if not it's already in the military alliances or see that something that the Turkish forces were deadly against. Afrin invasion was really a part of that and there the Syrian government did ask the Kurdish forces initially that accept our umbrella as it were, have local self-government and we will then negotiate with the Turks that this is our territory and you can't attack it. At that time it appeared that they were not very willing for it. Now they have battled the Turkish forces, how much the Turks have gained territory over there is open to question but they certainly have gained some and it's also true however well defended Afrin may be for the time being it is not something which can sustain itself in the long run. It's still a small pocket and Turkish army in the Turkish state is very big. So they need protection from the Syrian government. It now seems that there is some talks going on and it does seem that the Syrian government is trying to reinforce the Kurdish forces over there. The Kurdish forces have also withdrawn from Deir Ezzor and moved into the cooperation the Syrian government moved their forces to Afrin. So some realignment is taking place and this is going to also have an impact between the relation with the Kurds east of Euphrates as well as the Syrian government. So what the Kurds are going to do? Are they going to be de facto American allies only in the region and getting closer with them, break with the Syrian government, try to break north and the eastern part of Syria, a Kurdish dominated area. You know, Kurds are not the majority in lots of these places. So is that what they want to do or is it a temporary relationship with the United States and they are now going to seek accommodation with the Syrian government and also with the Russians as the intermediary. We'll have to see. It's a chess board which gets very complex because there are four or five sets of players. We shouldn't forget Israel sitting on the United States side trying to promote the Kurds not because they love the Kurds but because they would like to keep Iran, Iraq, Syria all in a state of war engaged internally. So there is no external engagement that they can do and therefore the whole issue of Lebanon, Jalan Heights, all of this will be forgotten is the hope that Israel has. So I think it's a complex chess board but I do not see too much of, shall we say, a traction either militarily or diplomatically with the United States. The net loser in all of this seems to be the United States at the moment. Yes, Turkey and the Syrian government forces, whether they will fight each other, how they will mediate their differences, something to be seen. But with Russia backing the Syrian government forces, the borders of Syria still is an international border. I do not think that a land grab by Turkey of northern Syria is sustainable in the long run. Yes, it does put the pressure on the Kurds to make up with the Syrian government and reach some sort of understanding which is autonomy but not independence which probably Turkey can live with. So this chess board also has a box called Idlib and situation things are changing there as well. Can you throw some light on that part also? Well that is where the Syrian and Turkish issues become even more complex because originally as per the accord they had with Turkey and Russia, they were supposed to guarantee certain shall we say status quo scenarios over there and they were supposed to have moved their forces in a way that they could guarantee the ceasefire that was proposed in Idlib. Now what we see from the map and this is you really have to see the map for this, that the Turks have moved beyond what area they were supposed to have set up their shall we say zone of peacekeeping in which they would keep the area quiet and they seem to be in a blocking maneuver to what the Syrian government forces are doing because the Syrian government forces have entered Idlib, they have taken over some parts of it, they have in fact relieved significant section of Idlib of the presence of Al Qaeda or other forces but if they wanted to proceed further then they would be proceeding towards the northern border as well and what the Turkish forces seem to have done is set up a set of check posts which are more blocking than militarily confronting Syria as of now. Will Syria bypass it? Will they actually go over the line the Turkey is trying to establish? Mind you this line is well in Syrian governments or Russian guaranteed areas. So they are beyond what they had originally undertaken to be but is that going to be provocation enough for the Syrian forces and Turkish forces to clash? We have to see. So I do think the chessboard of Idlib has become complicated with Afrin and because of that therefore the Turkey-Syria relationships can enter into a military engagement as well and let us not forget Turkey fully backed the rebels against Syria initially. This was one of the in fact the proxy fighters when you talk about Turkey was waging a proxy war in Syria along with Israel along with the United States and along with Saudi Arabia the Gulf monarchies. So Turkey has been complicit in the past are they going to be complicit again? We have to really see it's not it's not easy to really predict what this chessboard is going to play out as particularly as Russia and the United States are also in play so it's really a combination of factors that will decide and maybe it is Syria's relationship with the Kurds that will also decide how Turkey handles this shall we say this challenge. Also when we come to Asia things were getting normalized between South Korea and North Korea after the Winter Olympics but now US has imposed one of the biggest sanctions against North Korea. How do you see that actually what's happening when it comes to North Korea, US and South Korea? You know this is again a shall we say complex scenario that is evolving. It's clear that South Korea is not with the United States and with Japan completely in its engagement with North Korea that we saw the quickness with which the current president of South Korea responded and the fact that he had won the election on the on the basis of continuing of continuing with shall we say continuation of the peace policies that had been overturned by the new the earlier governments. So there was a peace process there was some thawing in the relation between North Korea and South Korea earlier and this was overturned by the new presidents which had come in for the last two terms. So the current president has actually said that we'd like to go back to that scenario and that's how he had won the election but then he was hit with this shall we say the nuclear missile and rocket test issues the hydrogen bomb all of these issues have hit the North Korea-South Korea relations just at this moment. It's clear that the United States if it militarily escalates and launches attacks on North Korea whether they North Koreans will be able to reach United States or not is still a very open question and probably not in my opinion right now but certainly they can reach Japan and they can reach South Korea they can south reduce soil to rubble without even nuclear weapons and we have always known that. So is a military attack to safeguard United States territory take out North Korea completely which is what militarily they would have to do is that something with the interest of South Korean Japan is the issue. In this Japan seems to be willing to take the risk and say let's take out North Korea and though it doesn't really go that far but it is saying let's continue to put the military pressure let's continue with the military exercises all of this is what they are trying to do which would essentially mean the thaw gets over the Winter Olympics thaw which is taking place would really get over because it's also a fact the North Korea has not done any test or any missile launches in this period. So they are very clear that it would start the military exercises with restart all of this though there has been no agreement on this there seems to have been a sort of hands off for the time being of these things don't do military exercises we don't do tests if the reduce resume the military exercises we are going to see North Korea resume its its earlier set of tests weapons program and so on. So this is where it stands the slew of sanctions which the Trump administration has put is still in a still a way of trying to ratchet up the tension along with military exercises so here how much the South Koreans would be willing to shall we say diverge from the American policies we have to see Trump's policy or the American policies have been very clear that they would like to continuously put pressure on North Korea Korea till North Korea surrenders that's what they are saying they will do no other course of action is acceptable to them and China and Russia though they have gone with the sanctions till now they have also said that there is no way out except negotiations and they said that we are willing to facilitate negotiations she'll take both sides into account no military exercises and no tests that should be the starting point United States is not willing to accept that what to be South Korea's position we have to see they have not said either or and Japan seems to be at the moment willing to play the American game so you have to see what happens but let's not forget when Trump says we will go over to phase two if this doesn't work that's this is that's really war talk because once you start military exercises once you say you can go to phase two you are getting into a zone of trigger you know hair trigger alert and if there is a hair trigger alert nobody can guarantee a war will not start by accident and that I think is also as much a possibility as war by intent and if it happens it will be a disaster not only for for the region nuclear exchanges are not going to only be restricted to that part of the world it has it has enormous consequences for the rest of the world and I'm I'm little shall we say disappointed shocked surprised that the global opinion has remained so isolated from what is an impending possible catastrophe for the globe thanks a lot probir and we'll be coming back again next week to discuss these developments and as these things proceed thanks a lot thank you for watching news click keep following our website and our facebook page


Down in Brainerd, four local veterans organizations are teaming up to serve a traditional Thanksgiving meal for the community. Clayton Castle has that story. Turkeys are in the fridge, pies are set out, and it's time for some Thanksgiving eating at the Brainerd American Legion. Tomorrow the Brainerd American Legion, VFW, Eagles and Elks will be teaming up to provide Thanksgiving dinner for any and everyone in the community. Last year they served in excess of 700 people between the people that showed up here to eat, as well as the shut-ins where meals were delivered. So hopefully this year we will exceed that. Between 1130 and 1, a traditional Thanksgiving meal will be served at the American Legion on Front Street in Brainerd. In addition, those who are unable to make it down to the Legion, food will be delivered as well. There's a couple places where we're going to be delivering 40 meals, and there's one where there's 20 going, and these are housing developments in town, lower income housing developments. We deliver a lot of meals, take out meals to them. Another important sector of the community will be making the deliveries on behalf of the organizers. Enter the police and fire department. By them delivering, it's another presence for them to show people they're there, they're available not only in times of distress or need, but also to give back to the community. Now obviously, Turkey will be the main food served here at the dinner, but the community will also be able to enjoy other tasty treats. They have more pies than you shake a stick at, but there's about 40 pies back there if not more. There's dressing, there's green bean casserole, garlic mashed potatoes, milk, coffee, bread. It's a traditional Thanksgiving meal. In the end, it's all about the veterans giving back to the community. It's just personal enjoyment, and it's a lot of fun, and you get to meet a lot of nice people. Reporting in Brainerd, Clayton Castle, Lakeland News. Any donations received during the event will be donated to the Salvation Army Food Shelf. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Welcome to CN Live Consortium News's coverage of this press conference. My name is Joe Lawyer. I'm the editor-in-chief of Consortium News with me is Bruce Afrin, an attorney for Consortium News. This morning in the Southern District of New York, the Consortium for Independent Journalism, the publisher of Consortium News, filed a lawsuit against the United States and News Guard Technologies alleging violations of the First Amendment and defamation. Consortium News's court filing charges the Pentagon's U.S. Cyber Command, an element of the U.S. intelligence community, with contracting with News Guard to identify and report on American media organizations that dissent from U.S. official positions on foreign policy. Quoting from the complaint, in direct violation of the First Amendment, the United States of America and News Guard Technologies are engaged in a pattern and practice of labeling, stigmatizing, and defaming American media organizations that oppose or dissent from American foreign and defense policy, particularly as to Russia and Ukraine. This quote is accomplished by a contract between News Guard's Misinformation Fingerpins Program and the Department of Defense Cyber Command, an element of the intelligence community. Under this agreement, media organizations that challenge or dispute U.S. foreign and defense policy as to Russia and Ukraine are reported to the government by News Guard and labeled as anti-U.S., purveyors of Russian misinformation and propaganda, publishing false content, and failing to meet journalistic standards. News Guard's contract with the government requires it to find trustworthy sources, a provision in violation of the First Amendment that does not permit the government to vet or clear new sources for their reliability, trustworthiness, or orthodoxy. Quote News Guard, working jointly with the United States, excuse me, works to achieve a form of censorship designed to compel the removal of viewpoints that challenge policies of the United States and its allies, labeling commentaries as false content, disinformation, or Russian propaganda. News Guard and the United States seek to silence or abridge debate and commentary. Quote in the course of its contract with the Pentagon, News Guard is acting jointly or in concert with the United States to coerce news organizations to alter viewpoints as to Ukraine and Russia imposing a form of censorship and repression of views that differ or dissent from policies of the United States. News Guard and the U.S. claims to be false content and anti-American material are merely six, six CNN commentaries that challenge or dispute U.S. foreign and defense policies. Despite its disagreement with the viewpoint expressed in six, only six articles, News Guard has flagged all of Consortium News' 20,000-plus archive published since 1995 with the defamation warnings, even though News Guard only took issue with a total of six articles and none of its videos. End of the quote of the complaint. The lawsuit comes at a time when many in Congress and elsewhere have charged the U.S. government with using private entities and internet platforms as proxies to suppress free speech and violation of the First Amendment. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, declaring the joint program unconstitutional, barring the government and News Guard from continuing such practices and as for more than $13 million in damages for defamation and civil rights violations. Consortium News was founded in 1995 by the late Robert Perry, a highly respected journalist who was a former investigative reporter for the Associated Press and Newsweek magazine. He was the first, he also created Consortium News as the first independent online news site devoted to critiquing U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Perry won the George Polk Award for his work on the Iran Contra Affair, in which he revealed the identity and role of all over North and fermenting a U.S. operation under President Ronald Reagan to illegally fund the Contras, a Nicaragua militia. Bob Perry died in 2018. Bruce Afferman is a constitutional and public interest lawyer who also teaches at First Amendment Lord Rutgers Law School. Among other cases, he obtained the release last year of former Black Panther Sundiata Akoli, one of the nation's longest-serving prisoners, after 48 years of incarceration. Mr. Afron is based in Princeton, New Jersey. I'm the editor-in-chief of Consortium News, a veteran reporter. I've had decades of work inside major media corporations. One of my first professional jobs with the New York Times in 1975. In 1990, I began reporting on international affairs from the United Nations in New York for the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, in Britain and later for the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal. I've also been an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London. So, Bruce, we have a reporter here. Stefania, please address any legal questions you may have to Bruce and any general questions to me. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Well, let me just introduce myself. I'm Bruce Afron. I'm counsel for Consortium News in this lawsuit, which was the original version of what was filed in August, alleging defamation against News Guard technologies, commonly known as News Guard, for labeling as providers of false content as being anti-U.S., as failing to have journalistic standards, as failing to correct errors, Consortium News as an entire news organization. And this was part of a pattern of News Guard labeling organizations in this way, when News Guard took issue with viewpoints expressed in published material. We later learned that the United States Cyber Command has a contract with News Guard that covers the period in which News Guard did this to have News Guard identify and report to the government on the existence of news organizations that speak about issues concerning Russia and Ukraine, including a 9-2014 coup in Ukraine, if there was one, the question of genocidal policies of the Ukrainian government or those closely associated with it. And finally, the third area was the question of the presence of neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government or governmental structure. These three areas are the subject of the government's contract with News Guard, under which News Guard is to report on and identify organizations that repeat what the government calls Russian propaganda in these three areas. And these are the very three areas that News Guard contacted Consortium News about in 2022, in March and February of 2022, demanding, excuse me, in March 2022, demanding that Consortium News retract articles in these three areas, the very same three areas covered by the government's contract with News Guard's misinformation fingerprints program. And so we've amended our complaint today to include allegations that the government and News Guard are working to violate the First Amendment rights of media organizations by labeling and stigmatizing those groups for publishing what the government calls false content or disinformation, which really is information that may differ from US government policies concerning Russia and Ukraine. And so now we are not only suing News Guard for defamation, but News Guard and the United States are sued for First Amendment violations based on this program of labeling and identifying and stigmatizing news organizations. Several hundred organizations have been targeted under this program and Consortium News is apparently one of those based on the public labeling of Consortium News by News Guard. And that's the essence of this complaint. And we are alleging, as I said, violations of the First Amendment on a widespread basis in which the government has given News Guard license to report on and identify for it, all organizations publishing in these fields and News Guard effect has done so. It has, in fact, flagged, for lack of a better term, Consortium News with a red flag warning that says, proceed with caution. This site does not meet journalistic standards. It does not correct errors. It publishes false content and needed anti-US. This goes well beyond an expression of disagreement with issues raised by Consortium News writers, but rather this is defamation of an entire news organization. As Joe Laurier mentioned, News Guard has taken issue with a total of six articles published by Consortium News out of its 20,000 plus archive of articles and videos. And yet it will flag on any News Guard subscriber's website, web search, all Consortium News material with this defamatory content, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the six articles. In fact, as we point out in the complaint, even a Thanksgiving greeting by Consortium News to its readers is flagged with the defamatory material, even an article from 1995 dealing with a completely unrelated question is flagged with this material. So basically the News Guard has acted to assume the power to label and stigmatize news organizations. It's doing so under a contract with the United States Defense Department. And it does so in a way that violates the rights of news organizations and commits defamation. $13 million plus in damages, which is twice the capital News Guard has raised in its fund rate, in its investment campaigns. We feel that's an appropriate measure of damages to bring to the court. So that's a summary. And although there aren't that many journalists on, just Stefania, here for questions. And so feel free as Joe is as well. Yes, Bruce, thank you. I would like to ask also News Guard contacted Consortium News. And did they clarify why it was false content? What was the problem specifically? Yes, what News Guard does is two-fold. One, it puts the three-fold. It puts a red flag warning next to any search result for Consortium News. Then, if you move your cursor over that warning, it brings up a box. They call a nutrition label, and that contains the defamatory content, as I describe. It says, proceed with caution. This site publishes false content, is anti-US, etc. Then, if you scroll further onto the nutrition label and press a button, an article appears in which News Guard then gives its reasons for saying those things. Now, if it just limits itself to giving an opinion that disagrees with the Consortium News writer or any other organization, that might not be defamatory. It would be an expression of opinion. But they're not doing that. They're labeling it with defamatory information. And only if the reader goes further and continues to press buttons will they see News Guard's explanation. Now, Consortium News, I think I can speak for Consortium News in saying that there's no objection to disagreeing with their writers. In fact, Consortium News might even publish such disagreement if someone wished. But to label an entire news organization's output over 30 years nearly as publishing false content, failing to meet journalistic standards, labeling it as anti-US and saying the reader must proceed with caution before going further with this website, that is defamation. And when tied to a government contract to report on organizations that right in the area of Russia-Ukraine matters, then it becomes a violation of free speech under the First Amendment. Absolutely. But before labeling Consortium News in such defamatory fashion, did News Guard try to engage with Consortium News? Let me briefly answer that before, Bruce. We were contacted in the very first communication from News Guard. We were accused of publishing false content before we had any chance to respond or even knowing what specific articles they were referring to. And also, as Bruce points out in writing the lawsuit, they did not identify themselves as having any relationship with government. They presented themselves as journalists without any connection to government. Yeah, I will say, Stefania, I misunderstood your question before. My apologies. Yes, they did contact Consortium News. But as Joe said, they started with the premise that you've published false content. What are you going to do about that rather than making an inquiry that's objective? And then they disregarded entirely any of the detailed explanations provided by Consortium News. Now, if it was merely a debate on the issue of are there neo-Nazis president in Ukraine, does Ukraine have genocidal policies? Did the US help organize a coup in Ukraine? You know, people can differ.  But that's not what News Guard appears to be about. They rather demand corrections and retractions of what they challenge. And if an organization fails to, it gets the red label with all of the warnings and defamatory material. So this is really trying to force a form of censorship on news organizations. You know, many of complaint News Guard focuses only on conservative organizations. Now, Consortium News is not conservative, but some of its viewpoints of its writers have differed from the administration's positions. So really, what we're saying in this complaint is that News Guard is focusing on those that dissent from administration foreign policy. And that's where the government contract comes in, because that contract is designed to identify and out, so to speak, organizations that take views on Russia and Ukraine. They're really a contrary to the administration's views. And we point out in the complaint how many reputable news organizations have addressed the very same issues in even more strident terms than consortium news writers, and yet News Guard fails to give them a red flag. What's really happening here is that News Guard is trying to target on a serious trick with the government. Those take a different view from the government line. And this violates the First Amendment. The government has no right to declare what is orthodox and acceptable in speech. But by the way, one example that Joe pointed out that we put in the complaint, there was a consortium news ran a reprint of an article from Common Dreams. I think it was on Ukraine, if I'm correct, Joe, and the article was identical. It was simply a reprint from Common Dreams. Common Dreams gets 100 percent rating from News Guard and a blue flag. Good. That's a good color for News Guard. And the same article is now labeled with the red flag in all the warnings and defamatory material for the same article when it appears in consortium news. So what we say in the complaint is that this appears to be targeting news organizations rather than really a debate about content. So when a news organization tends to dissent frequently from the government's line, they become the subject of News Guard's interest. And so I hope that's. Yeah. May I ask you? You mentioned that hundreds of news organizations had problems with News Guard. Could you please give some examples of these news organizations? Now, when I said that I was referring to a list of four hundred news organizations at the state that the United States has identified as allegedly being propagandist for Russia, the News Guard contract requires News Guard to report such groups to the government. Well, I don't know that News Guard has reported all four hundred, but they're on the list. And that list is partly the product of the government's contract with News Guard. So that's what I'm referring to. I can't identify all of them. What's the contract between the United States cyber command and News Guard that renews? Because I noticed that it goes back to 2021-2022. That's correct. Very interestingly, it appears to cover a period, I think, of 15 months. However, in May of 2023, Gordon Corovitz, the co-founder of News Guard, issued a public statement to a media organization and to journalist Matt Taibi that News Guard is currently working with the government on this program. So we think that from that statement, News Guard is continuing in its relationship with the government, even though that initial contract may have expired. Mr. Corovitz's email says we are, in fact, identifying sources of disinformation for the United States and its allies. So we believe on that basis that this relationship is continuing. What kind of, you know, what kind of journalistic criterion is to say is anti-U.S. I mean, you can say this content is not reliable. It doesn't, you know, it doesn't rely on journalistic standards. But saying that it is anti-U.S. is something really about controlling the content, controlling the editorial line and so on. Joe, as a journalist, do you want to take that question first? Well, you're very strong on that one, Bruce. I think you wrote out a very good passage there where it impunes the loyalty of the staff members, most of whom are Americans. Clearly, I feel that one of the highest forms of citizenship is to criticize your own government. That's what democracy is supposed to be about. That's the notion of adversarial journalism, that our responsibility to the public, to our readers, to our viewers is to challenge what the government says when it needs to be challenged. It doesn't make one anti-U.S. In fact, it makes one very pro-U.S. because you believe in those standards of free press and free speech. And if we were anti-U.S., we wouldn't challenge anything because when we disagree with the trajectory of U.S. policies that are damaging the country, we wouldn't say anything. But of course, we speak up, we criticize the U.S. because we care about our country. We care about the United States and its citizens. And we care that the government treats Americans correctly, according to the Constitution. And that's what we do. And what they seem to have believed is somehow anti-American or anti-U.S. Yeah, what's really shocking is this is the same line taken by organizations like Red Channels in the 1940s and 50s, which flagged people as anti-U.S. as pro-communists. If they took a position favoring a labor union or if they took a position against the Vietnam War or whatever it might be. This is exact. This is now a liberal version of this ultra-conservant hitting of people that we saw in the Communist era, the McCarthy era. You know, it is an American value to dissent and challenge your government. It doesn't make you anti-U.S., it makes you an American. And that's the American value. That's what every child is taught in school. So the very country was founded on dissent against Britain, against the king. That's the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So it's fundamental to us free speech values, which the Constitution protects and wants to see happen. The whole Constitution is based on this notion. So to say one is anti-U.S. for disagreeing with the U.S. government is really an absurdity. It also is defamatory. It's defamatory in any event. And how do you evaluate that as you started out to find you to ask? That's why it has. Yeah, how does one decide whether you are correcting error or it's an article, but how can you measure being anti-U.S. or pro-U.S., you know? Or pro-Russia, for that matter. I mean, one disagrees. I'm not offering a personal opinion here, but one disagrees with who is at fault in the Ukraine-Russia war is one now labeled pro-Russia, simply because they have a viewpoint that they may blame Ukraine in part for the war. I mean, these standards are so subjective as to be meaningless, but they're defamatory. You know, many young people opposed to Vietnam War in the 1960s and 70s by news guard standards, they're anti-U.S. Yet they consider themselves great patriots who are seeking to block an unwise invasion of a foreign country. Absolutely. Bruce, I have a couple of questions. Where are the six articles all about the Ukraine and Russia, the ones targeted by news guards? One was about a U.S. bombing of the town of Dumas in Syria during the Syria-Isis conflict. The U.S. did not be corrected. The U.S. did not bomb Dumas. There was an incident at Dumas that led to U.S. airstrikes. Sorry, my apologies. It was a question of what happened in Dumas that led the U.S. by the Syrian government, that led the U.S. to bomb Syria. And a report in consortium news by one writer suggests that this was a false flag incident in which the U.S. manufactured evidence to justify the bombing. News Guard criticized this article and in the complaint, we show that many, many other sources, very reputable sources, the nation and others, have in fact stated that the U.S. engaged in a whitewash and a cover-up of the true facts to justify that bombing. Precisely what consortium news reported. So to say this is a false fact or disinformation is to say that much of the mainstream media practices that way, too. Yet News Guard only targets a more left-wing organization such as Consortium News. One other article was slightly different in nature, but dealt with Russia. In August 2023, after we filed the first complaint in this case, just two months ago, News Guard immediately wrote to us, to Consortium News, demanding that it correct its article that said the alleged campaign by Russia to elect Donald Trump was a hoax. And we ignored them at that point because they had defamed Consortium News and there was no point continuing to speak with them. In September, they issued a new label, again condemning Consortium News in the same way because Consortium News would not retract its statement that Russiagate was a hoax, close quote. And of course, in the complaint, we point out how vast numbers of legitimate media organizations and investigators, including Robert Mueller and others, concluded there was no evidence to suggest a deliberate Russian campaign to elect Donald Trump or that Donald Trump was even helped by Russia. And so we're offering the complaint a whole discussion. It's just the tip of the iceberg of this vast array of public discussion about the absence of evidence of Russiagate being a true entity. And or that it even helped Donald Trump in any way. Not a single investigator or news organization has concluded that. Yet News Guard decided that it would label Consortium News, yet again, the purveyor of false content for debating something that millions of people have debated, vast numbers of people have debated whether Russiagate occurred, yet News Guard is now labeled as purveying disinformation false content yet again. I'm sorry, Consortium News is yet again labeled by News Guard in this manner. So there were six articles in total challenged out of new out of Consortium News's 20,000 plus archive. Five of those six articles dealt directly with Russia, only one dealt with another subject. That was the incident concerning a rising out of Dumas in Syria. Yeah, in the interest of accuracy, I just wanted to point out that the United States is not accused at NATO at that nation article on our own article of doing the false flag. That would the jihadis who it appears were behind that in order to get the US intervene. The US it is alleged here did cover up this up. And this was a leaked document. WikiLeaks published it in which the original inspectors there for the UN wrote something that's that explained all of this and was taken out of the final report and the US had some role in that. But the US didn't do the false flag. I just wanted to clarify that in the interest of complete accuracy here. Right. The point was, though, that Consortium News reported that the bombing arose from an alleged false flag incident. And this is purveying false information. Yet the Nation magazine gave a very, very vivid description of this, as did others, going far much further than NewsGuard. So Consortium News ever did. And yet they're not flagged. So really, this is evidence yet again that NewsGuard's modus operandi is really to target entities that differ from accepted government policy. That's that's the. Take this is Consortium News. The only media organization heavily targeted, the only US media organization heavily targeted by NewsGuard or are there others? Consortium News is all unique in this, Joe, isn't it? Because it's more of a left oriented publication. Most of the targeted groups have been conservative, right? I don't want to say that for sure, because I don't know the full list. But because it's however, the gray zone was also approached by NewsGuard, so there's been a full spectrum. And in fact, NewsGuard labels it as a left wing publication. They say it. There is a perception that NewsGuard itself is somehow left wing and only going after conservative outlets. I don't think that's true. I don't have the full list. But, you know, in essence, our lawsuit is I think Bruce will agree with me, a very substantive lawsuit that takes on these very substantial and important, very important crucial issues going on right now, including in great detail, the war in Ukraine, the horrible war in Ukraine and also what happened in Syria and the Russia Gate issue. So this is not this is a lawsuit that tries to argue that we did not publish false information by refuting that charge. Also, it's important to point out that the government is while it's prevented by the First Amendment from censoring or bridging the free speech of anyone, they could use private companies that they cannot legally use a private company. I said, I think we're seeing here proxy where the US cannot do something. They are using a private company, in this case, NewsGuard. Is that right, Bruce? Yeah, I would point out that the law says very clearly that just because the government does this to a private entity doesn't mean it is not a violation of the Constitution, where the government facilitates or works closely with the private entity or pays for it, that private entity's actions are considered governmental action. And so we've alleged here that NewsGuard is violating the First Amendment rights of consortium news and others and is working in concert with the government jointly to do so. And this violates the First Amendment. And obviously, this is somewhat of a new question. You know, there's very little caseload in the area of the government using private entities to stigmatize news organizations. And we'll see where this goes. But we think it very clearly violates the US Constitution. Thank you. Thank you so much. I unfortunately have to leave. I have to rush to an appointment, and I hope to report on it. Thank you very much for coming, Stefania. Appreciate it. Thank you. I hope you will succeed because this goes to the core of, you know, freedom of freedom of the press. You know, it certainly does. Yeah. Yeah, these are these are these are decisions generally historically made by editors, not by the government, whether they act alone or through a proxy. What is true? What is not true? What what is published? What is and read evaluation in a free market? Ideas if a newspaper continuously published lies, no one will read it. This is how these things have worked out traditionally over 250 years of US history. Absolutely, absolutely. Thank you. Oh, by the way, let me say one more thing, Stefania. An answer to your question. They did flag on a single day MSNBC and Fox at one point. And both organizations acted so strongly that they immediately withdrew it. And we think this really demonstrates that their intention is more to go to organizations that challenge policy more frequently. They were criticized for attacking two mainstream organizations and therefore immediately withdrew it. But a smaller group that challenges policy, not only have they not withdrawn their challenge, they've added to it as they just did in August. So I want to add that point. Thank you. Thank you so much. OK, bye bye, Stefania. Thank you again. Well, Bruce, I think we can wrap it up now. One thing we really found I think egregious is that they have only looked at six articles out of more than 20,000 published since 1995 or in our 28th year and not one of the 300 or more videos that we published. And they also put their red flag against all of our videos. And we find this in the words of the lawsuit reckless, I believe, and defamatory. I think that's exactly what we say. And the very fact that they label an entire organization's output in this way is a very definition of recklessness. They obviously haven't read any of it, and yet they're labeling all of it or they've read only a small part of it. That to me is recklessness. And I think this meets any standard under the New York Times to be Sullivan Doctrine, if we even need to meet that standard in this case. Joe, one other thing I want to point out to those still listening is that when one defames an organization's in its professional capacity, that's what we call defamation per se. One doesn't even have to prove damages automatically. There's liability, and so it's not even necessary that consortium news show that it lost viewers. You know, most likely it did not. We have been defamed in consortium news's professional stature. And that's defamation per se under the law. Right. I'd also be that there are alternatives to. Combating false information and Twitter has created community notes. And there was a recent incident about two months ago where the US Embassy in Prague published a photograph that it said came from Odessa and Ukraine from 2023. It was actually from 2014. And a lot of readers in the community notes pointed that out. And after three days or so, the US Embassy took that down and apologized. So there are ways to correct this. Without having to resort to the system that we are complaining about. And I would also point out that if you think someone's speech is bad because it's false or misleading, we always say in First Amendment law, the remedy is to make good speech. You give what you think is good speech to counter what you think is bad speech and let the listener or the reader or the viewer make their judgment. That's what it's all about. Not trying to stifle and squelch speech before anyone can make an evaluation of their own. We don't need internet nannies to tell the American people what they should find trustworthy enough to think about. Let the people hear different views, even if they're wrong. The people can evaluate what is truthful for their own needs. And by the way, being wrong is good because being wrong helps us all get to a point of truth. So even if someone publishes something that's incorrect, their organization should not be defamed. We all need to be wrong sometimes in order to have a debate that gets us to a point of truth. And so Newsguards' entire focus is really contrary to the whole speech value system of the Constitution and what the framer is expected. Very good. Thank you very much, Bruce Affrin for joining us and Stefania Morizzi. And for consortium news, this is Joe Laurier. Thank you for joining us for this announcement of a lawsuit against Newsguard Technologies and the United States government filed today in the Southern District of New York by the Consortium for Independent Journalism. Thank you and goodbye.