Hi, welcome back to 19th and 20th century philosophy. I'm Matt Brown today We're talking about two of the most significant figures of 20th century philosophy Martin Heidegger and Rudolph Karnapp and in particular their encounter with each other circa 1929 to 1931 And I'm going to argue today that this Encounter is a very different sort of thing than philosophers have tended to write about it So here in Karnapp's 1931 article the elimination of metaphysics through the logical analysis of language Karnapp quotes Heidegger's essay what is metaphysics as an example of Quote metaphysical pseudo statements that are quote based on a logical defective language And many commentators have looked at this criticism of Karnapp's and argued that Karnapp sort of cherry picks examples out of context mocks Heidegger without really an effort at understanding what he's writing about That basically what we have here is a is a failure to communicate across the analytic and continental divide I'm going to argue actually that this mistake this impression is quite mistaken Karnapp had carefully studied Heidegger's work and Karnapp and Heidegger shared a significant philosophical background In many ways the two of them were undertaking different versions of the same basic philosophical project and Karnapp's choices in his criticism of Heidegger were actually very astute and pointed Okay, but let's back up a little bit Martin Heidegger born 1889 died 1976 was a very influential German philosopher whose work is associated with the traditions of phenomenology Existentialism and hermeneutics. Let's not quite write to classify him as any of those things without a lot of caveats He was trained in neocontian philosophy and one of his mentors was Edmund Husserl who we've read And Heidegger's early work actually is a lot like Husserl's in that it's focused on the nature of logic and on arguments against Psychologism Notably in his early work Heidegger wrote positively about Frege's contribution to logic at a time when the latter Was not well appreciated when Frege was not well appreciated now when Husserl retired 1928 Heidegger took over his position at the University of Freiberg his ascension to that post That high position is no doubt a result in part of his publishing the year before his magnum opus being in time Clearly his most influential work, although it was incomplete when it was published and and he dropped the project thereafter Now one thing about Heidegger, which which many of you have probably already heard but which I cannot go without mentioning I think Is that he was a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party as of 1933 and in that same year He became rector of his university when the United States we typically call a university president He was the leader of the university now I Want to note that Heidegger? never apologized for this part of his life. He never expressed remorse for supporting or joining the Nazi Party. He did later on express a kind of Disagreement at a general level with Hitler's regime and its approach but no kind of personal repentance and while it's a matter of some controversy with the significance of this is for Heidegger's philosophy and it kind of goes beyond our scope today to get into that I Think the evidence actually is quite clear that there are some deep relations between Heidegger's philosophical views, especially his his later views, although not exclusively And his reasons for supporting the Nazis. So I think there is Some significant connection there and many Heidegger scholars agree with that and find those connections worth exploring But before those dark times just after his succeeding Husserl But before the Nazis and the rector ship and all that In 1929 Heidegger participated in a famous Disputation at a conference at Davos, Switzerland with one of the elder stars of German philosophy of the time Ernst Kassier The topic of the meeting of the whole conference was human nature And the focus of the disputation between Kassier and Heidegger was the interpretation of Kant of Kant's views on that topic or really Kant's project in general Kassier was there representing the Marburg what's called the Marburg School of neocontinism Though Kassier himself was kind of moving beyond Kant into developing his philosophy of symbolic forms into a kind of general philosophy of culture And Heidegger was there in a sense representing what's called the Southwest School of neocontinism Though he obviously was was moving beyond Kant himself in very significant ways and Heidegger's version of Kant in this debate turns out to be a kind of proto Heideggerian now it's not it's not hard to see the political resonance of their encounter Kassier was a kind of defender not only politically but philosophically of the liberal of the liberal Democratic Weimar Republic And Heidegger as well. We've said very much not a liberal Democrat Rather a Nazi in attendance at what we might call the rumble in the Swiss Swiss Alps was one Rudolph Karnapp Karnapp two years Heidegger's junior born in 1891 died in 1970 was another extremely influential German philosopher one of the founders and As significant members of the the philosophical Movement known as logical positivism or logical empiricism the logical empiricists combined ideas from classical empiricism With French positivism and with the new formal logic that had been developed by Frege Russell and others As well as formal techniques in the philosophy of language Karnapp himself was quite influenced by Frege by Edmund Husserl by Bertrand Russell And by the neo Kantian Bruno Bach after Davos where he found himself quite charmed by Heidegger actually Said he found him personally attractive Karnapp spent some time studying Heidegger's philosophy in depth including a close study of being in time and Leading a discussion group in Vienna in 1930 on on Heidegger's ideas So there's a quite a significant amount of work there. So let's look at some of the key texts for their encounter Martin Heidegger published his inaugural address to the University of Freiberg in 1929. What is metaphysics? Putatively concerns the old metaphysical question. Why is there something rather than nothing? At least that's the example of a metaphysical question that Heidegger gives Notice notably Heidegger does not proceed in a traditional way to try to answer this question Rather, he approaches it in a quite different manner He starts to unpack for us the various ways in which being And nothing are related to each other in a way we speak the way that being and nothing are regarded by science Kind of positing nothing as a as a sort of other or remainder outside of the scope of scientific knowledge Exploring and rejecting the connection of nothing and logical negation the knot of logic arguing that The nothing is prior to logic what Heidegger does in this essay is a kind of thorough undermining of the project of rationalist or traditional metaphysics Definitely different in approach, but kind of similar in conclusions to to Kant Severely limiting the scope of traditional metaphysics What is after all the subject matter of metaphysics for Heidegger at the end of the day nothing? Nothing is its subject matter what unifies and grounds the sciences on Heidegger's approach nothing nothing does The analysis that Heidegger gives of nothing is not accomplished by some theoretical reason Building up an account of of being and in relation to nothingness It's it's really accomplished through the exploration of a fundamental mood of What Heidegger calls angst or anxiety depending on your translation? That somehow reveals nothingness or a kind of human finitude Reveals the nothingness that's always there in a sort of behind or in contrast to beings So it's it's not really Rationalist metaphysics. It's this kind of exploration of a of a mood or a feeling That unpack something that's also kind of there in our in our way of speaking about these things two years later Karnat publishes and I apologize here for my bad German pronunciation uberwindung der metaphysics der Lodzisch and Anilis der Sprach I told you it'd be bad This is typically translated as the elimination of metaphysics through the logical analysis of language thanks to Arthur Papp's Central translation of this of this essay However, it really probably should be translated as overcoming That's the way that that same word uberwindung is Translated in When it's used as it is often by Nietzsche or by Heidegger, you know, we can actually compare Heidegger's own project of the destruction of metaphysics or of the the destruction of the history of Vontology here with Carnap's project or with the fact that that Heidegger in other writings sort of equates metaphysics And nihilism or treats nihilism as the sort of result of the history of metaphysics Indeed Heidegger himself speaks of the overcoming of metaphysics the uberwindung der metaphysics In a later essay. So there's a lot of there's already a lot of shared space here Despite the way that it's set up. It's not really a case of Heidegger the metaphysician defending metaphysics and Carnap attacking it so Looking at Carnap's critique of Heidegger. I think we should ask Is Heidegger really a metaphysician and is it fair of Carnap to call him one? Well, I mean the answer to the first question is muddy despite all the talk of overcoming and destruction Heidegger, you know, he wants to he wants to overcome traditional metaphysics rationalist metaphysics traditionalist philosophy But also perhaps kind of preserve preserve a sort of metaphysical philosophy grounded in mood and attitudes or stances And supported by the analysis of everyday language And so, you know, there's a sense in which It's not exactly metaphysics as it's been known, but there's some remainder which we might call metaphysics So the fairness of Carnap's calling him a metaphysician Kind of kind of gets at some of the details of their arguments And I think also points towards both their significant overlap in ideas As well as their central disagreements So according to to the philosopher Abe stone who's written on this Their their views on the overcoming of metaphysics in the background of the debate between Carnap and Heidegger are several common starting points and argumentative moves So first Heidegger and Carnap both have a background in neocontianism Heidegger and Carnap are were both heavily influenced by Husserl the third both Heidegger and Carnap accept the broadly Kantian project of overcoming or limiting metaphysics In order on the one hand To make room for freedom and morality right to limit reason to make room for faith as as Kant himself puts it while also like Kant Carnap and Heidegger want to retain what they think is right about traditional metaphysics Which is that it provides a kind of explanation for both the possibility of science and the unity of science Also, both of these philosophers identified the same problem with Husserl This is Abe stone's argument That the role of pure consciousness in Husserl's view thought And the the sort of his focus on logic as a kind of science of pure essences in his phenomenology Brings traditional metaphysics Back in in the back door, you might say And subsequently there's there's no room in Husserl's system for for what These philosophers would regard as genuine human freedom furthermore both Heidegger and Carnap make use of the analysis of language as the primary sort of methodology for overcoming metaphysics So it's along this background that Carnap chooses Just those quotations that express Heidegger's main strategy In order to criticize them. So the first part of the quote starts with a typical kind of statement drawn from From everyday use. So Heidegger says what is to be investigated is being only and nothing else, right? And that's that's makes sense, you know Science investigates being nothing else, right? And what Heidegger asks us to do is to listen to what we're really saying Take responsibility for it and then continue sort of following it out. So Okay, what is to be investigated by science? It's being only and nothing else Well, what about this nothing, right? That sort of Further question is sort of drawn out of these earlier more prosaic statements about being and nothing It seems almost like a pun on the word But like a pun it's drawing our attention to how the language actually works in a way The next part of the quotation Carnap puts on display Heidegger's argument that the nothing is prior to logic This is an important move for Heidegger to make In order to escape Husserl's holding up of logic as the science of all being in general as the science of essences And thus that move from logic back to metaphysics that's so problematic in Husserl on the on the Kant-Carnap-Heidegger line and while Carnap thinks that Heidegger's right to reject Husserl's views on the status and subject of logic He thinks that Heidegger is wrong to to think he can kind of look to something that's prior to any Sort of logic. So there's a there's a kind of Reflex to the prior Here which um, which Carnap thinks is is also problematic in the next bit of the quotation He picks out Carnap picks out the role of anxiety or angst in revealing the nothing for Heidegger And this is important to Carnap's Sort of alternative proposal for for what Heidegger should have been doing And here is where Heidegger intentionally has pushed us into paradoxical language And the attempt to push our use of language Kind of to its limits this this statement that nothing itself nothing's Seems like a sensible thing to say At one level that may be at a grammatical level, but um, actually, uh, you know, it's it's it's paradoxical. It's it's really Pushing us to think well, what does that mean, right? What we have here are two different orientations to how Language is to be analyzed and used in philosophy Heidegger says Listen to what our language really says in the way that we speak it in our everyday casual careless way And then take responsibility for that, right? Really, you know, this is the kind of This is a kind of Kantian move, right? Give yourself the moral law Give yourself the rules of language give yourself over to them freely, right and take responsibility for For what they say, right? Really take it seriously Carnap on the other hand, you know, while he agrees with Heidegger that our ordinary language Commits us to these strange ways of speaking He says well, so much the worse for ordinary language, right? He says we should use logic to remake language in the way that better suits our purposes Here he, you know, he, uh, emphasizes the Our freedom to give ourselves the law And the law here are the conventions of the language we've chosen, right? And so that's a significant part of of the conflict here So before concluding, I want to come back to the mood of angst or anxiety And its role in revealing finitude or or nothingness And and Carnap in a way gives Heidegger an out here He tells us that metaphysical statements serve for the expression of the general Attitude of a person towards life. He tells us that metaphysicians are musicians without musical Ability and I don't think that's meant to be an insult. I think what Carnap Is objecting to here is not the general project of expressing these kinds of attitudes What he objects to is expressed is sort of cloaking that activity in the intellectual garb Of descriptive assertions Of metaphysics That in fact have no real cognitive meaning. That is that they're not the kind of statements that could be true or false What they do is they express an attitude or a feeling or a stance towards life And Carnap points out that look the purest forms of such expression are things like art and poetry and especially music So what the metaphysician is trying to do Is use the talent they have right for philosophy to do what the musician actually accomplishes And Heidegger in his in his later work in a way seems to confirm Carnap's reading as he turns himself To poetry and increasingly to to artistic modes of expression Though Heidegger doesn't achieve anything quite like Nietzsche's thus spake Zarathustra a work that Carnap praises at the end of his essay He does seem to move in something like this direction in in his in his later part of his career So what do you think who got it right? Please let me know by By by posting a message about it or I'm telling us in class to be clear I'm not myself trying to take sides in this in this question about Carnap versus Heidegger My point is simply that Carnap is here acting as an astute critic Of a fellow philosopher with whom he agrees about much About a topic that's key to both of their projects although, you know These two German philosophers would become central To the analytic and continental traditions that would divide The the philosophy especially in the English-speaking world After World War II until near the end of the 20th century Around 1930 they were part of a largely intact Philosophical scene not divided And they were closely in in dialogue at least for this brief time Now let me just end by saying that given Carnap's commitments to a kind of democratic socialism And Heidegger's own political views which we've talked about It's also difficult not to read certain political valences into the positions in this debate But that's something that Perhaps goes a little bit beyond What we're what we have the scope to talk about here today So Thank you so much for for joining us. That's a complicated topic, but well worth our exploration I look forward to hearing what you think about it and talking to you next time Does the nothing exist because the not the negation exists Or is it the other way around does negation and the not exist only because the nothing exists The nothing is prior to the not and the negation anxiety reveals the nothing The nothing itself nothing Is Would it be fair to say that that's big wizard energy on that on that quote


I'm Dr. Sanjay Sanyal, Professor and Department Chair of Anatical Sciences and the Gavron persons as Sahiya, Jenny Glover, Zalika Stewart and a few other people, so there are too many of them around. Okay, so our first part of the discussion I'm going to demonstrate the anterior and the lateral compartment of the leg and then I'm going to mention a few other points. So we have reflected the skin from the anterior and the lateral side of the leg and the first thing that we see here is this tough fascia here. This is the trural fascia. We have seated open on one side here and this is the other side of the trural fascia and it's been split open. So let's reflect the trural fascia. As you can see on the medial side of the tibia, the fascia was densely adherent to the skin and to the bone and this portion of the tibia is subcutaneous. I'm showing the same video clip from the opposite side to show you the fact that this portion of the tibia is subcutaneous and because of this reason any tibial fracture tends to get compound either from within or from without. That means it penetrates through the skin and that adds to the complications of tibial fractures apart from the other problems which we have with tibial fractures. We are focusing on the anterior and the lateral compartment. So let's reflect the trural fascia from the anterior compartment of the leg and this is what we have done. And once we do that we see the anterior compartment. So what do we see here? Straight away we see this tendon here, the thick large tendon which is getting inserted onto the torso bone here and this is the tibialis anterior. This is the most powerful dorsiflexor of the foot and paralysis of this muscle of the anterior compartment will lead to foot drop as I mentioned to you earlier. This is the tibialis anterior. The next that you see here is the extensor halosus lumbus tendon and once this group of tendons that we see after that this are the extensor digitorum lumbus tendon and the fibularis tertius is situated in a small tendon on the lateral aspect of that. Having mentioned that I need to point out to you that all of these are running under two retinicula. There is one superior extensor retiniculum which I have removed which is here which is the thickening of the trural fascia and there is a stronger inferior extensor retiniculum where my probe is partially gone through. So all these tendons are running under the inferior extensor retinicula. I will tell you the details of the extensor retiniculum when I come to the ankle joint and the foot. Having mentioned these tendons now let me show you the neurovascular structures. The neurovascular structures are shown here. I have lifted them up here and you can see this is the deep fibular nerve. This is the deep fibular nerve which supplies all the muscles to the anterior compartment and this is the anterior tibial vessel and if you feel it you will feel that it's got a thick wall here and in here it is slightly corrugated. I think it's suffering from arteriosclerosis. What I would like you to notice is that these neurovascular structures are also going deep to the extensor retinicula and it is here that the deep fibular nerve can get entrapped and what we call as the ski boots syndrome, entrapment of the deep fibular nerve here. After the deep fibular nerve has supplied all the muscles to the anterior compartment it goes to the muscle on the dorsum of the foot and here it supplies some superficial muscles on the dorsum of the foot and then it becomes cutaneous and supplies only the first inter-digital cleft which I mentioned in the class. So that's about that. On the other hand the anterior tibial artery it also goes under the extensor reticulum and on the foot it divides into its two terminal branches. One of them is the dorsalis pedis and the other is the lateral tarsal and the dorsalis pedis is the one which we feel clinically just lateral to the tendon of the extensor halosus longus and that is clinically palpable as the dorsalis pedis pulsation. So that is about the muscles and structures of the anterior compartment. I have rifted up the clural fascia and I am showing you this video clip from the opposite side to tell you about a very important condition. These muscles in the anterior compartment they are enclosed in a tight osteofacial compartment composed of the bone, the introsius membrane and the clural fascia. Therefore if there is an excessive usage of the muscles of the anterior compartment especially in the TBRS anterior or if there is a trauma then it leads to swelling of the muscles of the anterior compartment and that condition is known as shin split and if this condition is allowed to progress it can lead to excessive swelling of the muscle and can lead to compromise the neurovascular structures in the anterior compartment and lead to even gagrene. Therefore the treatment for this condition anterior compartment syndrome is to do essentially what we have done in this dissection and that is to split open the deep crural fascia the crural fascia the condition the surgical condition being called fasciotomy and that is this. Now let's do something this is again the crural fascia which I am putting it back the crural fascia was continuing behind and so what I have done is I have slitted open to show you the muscles of the lateral compartment and let's because it's rather deep inside so what I will have to do is I will have to turn the leg so you have to come under this to have a look. This is the lateral compartment and I have slit open the lateral part of the crural fascia to show you the fibularis longus and the fibularis brevis so this tendon and the muscle that you see the muscle fibularis longus is the one which is taking origin from higher up in the fibular and the fibularis brevis is the one which takes origin from the lower part so this is the fibularis longus tendon and this is the fibularis brevis tendon and if you want to trace both of them the fibularis longus and the fibularis brevis tendon both of them are running behind the lateral malleolus. And the fibularis brevis gets inserted onto the tuberosity of the fifth metatarsal where the fibularis longus goes behind that and goes under the foot and it gets inserted onto the medial side of the foot. That's all we can see in the lateral compartment because the superficial fibular nerve as it winds around the head of the fibula which is here, it immediately divides into a deep fibular nerve which runs in the anterior compartment and the superficial fibular nerve which supplies the muscles here and it becomes cutaneous in this region therefore we cannot see the superficial fibular nerve here. So these are the structures which I wanted to show you in the anterior and the lateral compartment. I'm recording the same video of the lateral compartment from another perspective to mention a few extra points about the longus and the brevis, fibularis longus and the brevis. The fibularis longus originating from higher up on the fibula and winding around the lateral malulus gets inserted, it goes deep to the sole of the foot and it gets inserted onto the medial side of the foot onto the first metatarsal and medial cuneiform and here it helps to maintain the transverse arch of the foot. On the other hand the fibularis brevis, it gets inserted onto the tuberosity of the fifth metatarsal and when there is a forcible contraction of this brevis it can lead to aversion fracture of the tuberosity of the fifth metatarsal which is known as the Dancer's Fracture. Thank you very much for watching, have a nice day.


Because here we are at the university clearly we need to ask this question What is the impact of learning and education? Will we still need degrees? Well clearly the question is not black or white or yes or no We need places we need degrees will need certification But what happens now is that we're living in a world to where it's much more important to ask questions Not to necessarily know the answers Because that's the world that when we are building our own world where we need to rethink how we do things and Education needs to encompass this. I mean clearly this is a large change For educational institutions to connect with that fact And of course as you know you can already earn degrees online and basically in five years We're looking at the complete digitization of education textbooks lessons videos Certificates virtual learning vocational training what a fantastic opportunity for any traditional educational institution to transition So I have one piece of advice for you because I worked in the music business for a long time. Don't be a record label When you when you do what the music companies have done you end up with losing about 80% of what you had before It's very important also that we consider When we are in fact going back to a much more human model of education, we're just going to the right brain rather than the left brain well traditionally speaking at least the left brain is in charge of logic and Understanding things right in calculating this part of it machines will do Eventually all of it most of it. So we're moving back to a design part right a place of recognizing patterns of imagination and Education will change a lot because of this


One problem with many voting systems is the existence of what's called strategic voting. In a strategic vote, a voter casts a ballot that doesn't reflect their true preferences. We say they have cast an insincere vote. We can look at the problem as follows. Suppose a voter could change their vote after seeing how everyone else voted. If they do so, could they obtain a better result? Now, why would anybody submit a vote other than what they really wanted? Well, let's take a look. Suppose the preference schedule for an election is as shown, and if the election were to be decided by plurality, how should voters vote? To answer that question, we need to know how the election turned out, and we see that using plurality, T wins. So now the question to ask is, if you could change your vote after, would you do so? So let's consider. To begin with, consider the 3 plus 2, these 5 voters who supported T. In plurality, T wins, so these voters have no reason to vote other than how they did, they got the outcome they wanted, and hopefully they'll get what they deserve. Now, consider the 3 plus 1, the 4 voters who supported C. Again, in plurality, T wins, and so the question is, if they could have voted differently, would they have done so? And that depends. So let's consider this one voter who ranked C over T over S. Now, while their favorite candidate, C, didn't win, their second favorite, T, did actually win, and so T winning, well, that's a reasonably good result for them. So while their first choice didn't win, their second place did, and their least favorite, lost, and so they probably don't want to change their vote. But consider the voters who ranked the choices C over S over T. Now, since this is plurality, this means they voted for their first choice, so they actually voted C and lost, and since T won, their least favorite won. So the question is, if they voted differently, could they have gotten a better outcome? So if they ranked the candidates S over C over T, and voted for S, then the new preference schedule would be, and now, S has 5 plus 2, 7 votes, and S would win the election. For these voters, it's a better outcome. So if the three voters who really preferred C over S over T submitted an insincere ballot ranking S over C over T, the outcome, S wins, is better for them. Now, this is actually a major problem with plurality, and it's a very well-known problem. Because voters can only support one candidate, they often cast a ballot for who they think can win, and not necessarily who they like most. Likewise, third-party candidates can split the vote, leading to the victory of a candidate acceptable to the fewest people. Now, when we talk about voting theory, we say that a social choice function satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives, IIA, if the relative ranking of two candidates depends only on the individual rankings of the two candidates. So we saw that in the original preference schedule, T wins a plurality vote, and there are 1 plus 3 plus 2, 6 voters who feel that T is better than S. Now, if the three voters who preferred C over S over T voted insincerely as S over C over T, the new preference would be, and the thing to realize is there are still 1 plus 3 plus 2, 6 voters who feel T is better than S. But now S wins even though no voter changed their minds about S or T. The only difference is how these voters felt about C, a third choice that should be irrelevant to the race between S and T. And this says that plurality fails this independence of irrelevant alternatives. Does the board account satisfy independent of irrelevant alternatives? Well, suppose our preference schedule for an election is as follows. Now, if we use a board account because there's three choices, then a first place vote gets two points, a second place vote gets one point, and so using a board account, A gets 24 points, B gets, and C gets, and then C has the most points, C wins. Now, consider the voters who ranked B above A above C. They don't like the fact that C wins, and if they submitted insincere balance A over B over C, the new preference schedule would be, and again using a board account, we find, and now A wins even though no one changed their relative ranking of A and C. These voters began ranking A over C, and they ended ranking A over C. And with a little effort, we can also find a preference schedule that shows instant runoff also fails independence of irrelevant alternatives. We'll let you do your own homework and come up with an example. So the question is, can we create a voting system that satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives? And the answer is, yes, but let's consider some other ideals.


DeepServe is a novel deep learning approach to survival analysis which uses a deep neural network to model the relationship between patient characteristics and the effectiveness of treatments. This approach has been shown to outperform existing state-of-the-art survival models and can be used to provide personalized treatment recommendations. This article was authored by Jared L. Katzman, Ui Shoham, Alexander Klominger and others.


In 1957, an agency was created with a vision to harness the power of the atom for the benefit of humankind. It works with partners across the globe to help countries use nuclear science and technology to meet development challenges, boosting food supplies, improving health, protecting the environment and contributing to global peace. This agency provides the technology, expertise and training to make all this possible. Through nuclear science it helps countries to develop high-yielding crops that can thrive in extreme conditions, breed healthier livestock and protect fruit and animals from harmful pests. The work of this agency supports the conservation of our oceans and coastlines, protecting the marine resources that ensure the livelihoods of millions of people. It promotes the use of nuclear technology to fight cancer and improve human health. The organisation assists countries with their energy planning. If they choose nuclear power, it offers expertise to ensure facilities are run safely and securely. It provides standards and assistance to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials, guidance on the management of the waste generated by the use of nuclear technologies and helps nations to prepare for and respond to incidents and emergencies. It's an agency that prevents the spread of nuclear weapons by helping to make sure that nuclear materials remain in peaceful uses. It's the global platform for cooperation in nuclear security, advising countries how to guard against nuclear terrorism and prevent the theft and smuggling of radioactive materials, providing technology and expertise, promoting safety and security, assisting sustainable development. This is Atoms for Peace and Development. This is the IAEA.


Next, we are going to have a remote presentation by James Amati. He's a product manager with deep-lying interest in mobility. With this talk, he hopes to give more context to various points of interest in our communities, thereby enriching navigation experiences. And he will explore the power of Wikidata and OpenStreetMap by performing simple queries for different use cases. Enjoy! Hi, welcome to my very brief talk on giving context to the places we love, the power of Wikidata and OpenStreetMap. Now, my name is James Amati and this is what we are going to learn. We are going to learn, we are going to first of all define what the OSM and Wikidata models are and how we can and why they have a best feature for each other. Second one is to explore the interconnections between the sets and ways in which they complement each other. We are going to explore that. And the third one is to learn how to share data between the two platforms. And finally, if we have time, we will look at exploring what the data is, how to query the power of... Well, my name is James Amati and I am a product manager by occupation. I am focused on mobility and transportation, its cases, technology, and I'm also very enthusiastic. I happen to contribute to both OSM and Wikimedia projects, so I have some knowledge of both of them. And then finally, I live in a crowd, which I think is amazing. It is an open and editable database, actually the biggest open source map database. Teresa, he's celebrated it. So it has been around for... Represents data as ways and relations. Now notes have been... And then ways are a combination of points and relations with a combination of ways. We are drawing a building, building the museum. These are just that logic. Now, because maps have a base, it's used to represent data in this. As a result, you cannot really store, can really enhance the knowledge of it, unless you have something else that... So on each node on the sheet map is very useless, unless it comes together to form a way and a relation like that. So that's where Wikidesa comes in. Now Wikidesa is a structured open knowledge base. Also information as entities. Now entities are usually bodies of knowledge and they contain several pieces of information. And it's made up of items and their property. For example, a place and then the property of that place could be a city or a country. A place could be a building and the property of that... A museum. So yeah, entities can be done together by statements, which is a relation of an item. Usually statements will contain things like objects, which is what the item is about. A predicate, which is a property of the statement. And then the object, the value of a statement is mentioned. I'll show you a bit of the demo, but without wasting too much time, we are going to actually notify other places, because we need to understand why we need to combine both of them. We need to understand why a place is free. So John Agnew, who is a political geographer, he gave a bit of a mathematical relation to a place, which is a sense of... The place is the place in the last look of the last sense of the place. At least these three terms have to come together. So we are going to define each of them, or we need to get a comment. The first one is the location, which is basically... So before we begin, Tim Cressel actually admires the location and expanded it. So he defines a place as a space that people have attached to. So that's a sense of attachment, and that's mindfulness. This is just a piece of paper. And I think we should be able to read the book as it is very... It's very insightful as to what a place is from a geographic art. Now the location of the location is just a copy on the XF. It's usually represented as longitude and latitude. It's not the modern way. So usually some things, it's like a GPS... That's why we give the book a try. There are writers in the kitchen because of your coordinates. So this is what the location is. The location is a bit more human geography. It combines the features of the area, such as buildings, roads, and some natural features. So this is a platform, a platform, mountain. All of these come from how? As it is a bit of life through a place. And finally we define what a sense of place is, which are two different things. A sense of place is the emotional and psychological attachment. People have to usually define or influence by their experiences of the place.  Now, unfortunately, a fishy map can be able to map the town, but we're able to tell the story of a place. I don't do that unless we combine it with a context. The context you will not really understand by a place. I'm going to give you an example of a context that brings a lot of conversations around heritage where you can sense of place. Things that make a place feel special. And you just need the things that connect in the past and together. So long story short, heritage is one thing. Without the heritage, it has no meaning in your spiritual past. I'll give you an example, which was very smart on it to me. This is what it looks like. The population is around 98,000. On the surface of it, it doesn't look like the place you want to visit. But if I told you that it is the best place you can live, it was a famous one on that map. And also, this is where the Linen Tower is. Now, the Linen Tower is a building. What is the tree number? It's not a street building. It's actually a heritage that I'm not speaking of. And it also has the University of Pisa, which is one of the oldest universities in the world. And what was attended by Lillian himself, and Nicola, who you all know are very important parts of history. So now, if I give you this context about Pisa, you are not able to attach the process of belonging to Pisa and why he might want to visit there. I remember the view when Singapore calls for things that you've heard about Singapore, which you want to see. And this is the theme of our discussion today. So the magic usually happens when you put yourself together to create a comprehensive and relative record of heritage allocation. Like I said, because it's effective, you cannot store text as well as a graphic that's WikiData. So that you can really bring to Pisa and perform a review. So what time is used to provide a spatial information, such as a location that I define. And then WikiData can provide descriptive information such as a history and significance. Now to link us into WikiData, you would need a laptop and Internet. You would need both the WikiData and the Internet column. You need a browser, of course, or a user data, which I'll talk about briefly. And so you can stay here. And of course you need a plug-in. I'll talk about the plug-ins when I do that. So what is chosen is basically an expectation that is used to edit data. You can use the browser to edit. You can use the browser to edit, to add some data. In order to leverage more detailed files that are chosen to do that, so for things like it's not only data, basically it has a map of it. It's actually better to use it to edit the browser. I'll show you how both of them are done and then you can decide which one you want. This is time for a demo and I'll take a few minutes. I actually opened this before so you can see the demo. So this is the common common pack. This is a pack that was put in memory of Ganesh's presence very recently. And so when I checked the space, it did not have a reheated item. So this is a reheated item that I did a few minutes ago. You can check. You can see here that it has been added and the address. Now to be able to add that, you would have to make here in the task session, then you add the key data. Okay, so because I've added the key data you might not see this. You can also add the key data. I'll show you how to add the key data and here I'll use it for that so it can get the best output. So this is how you add the data to your app. You just add a new tag and then you can copy the identifier which is here and then you are able to then paste Now if you use Joseph's tag if you use Joseph's let me give you a bit of a background. So in Joseph's there's an editor like I said but before you use Joseph's you need to install plugins. But first of all you need to connect your OSM accounts to be able to make changes here that you can select on. So to do that you go to Preferences and then in your Preferences you can use your OSM server. In the OSM server you can use your position which is the element password which is the last one which I have used. Once you connect you will have to go to Remote Control which is usually disabled you will have to enable it to be able to allow you Joseph and then you will be able to download things directly. And then finally you need to include your plugins I've already installed some of them but you need to go to All you need to go to Available Plugins and then search for I hope I have already installed them they are here but when you search for them you just click and you click on the plugins and these are some of the things that you have to be able to add to the OSM server. Now that you have to send it out to you that's it. So now you can use Peter to connect to the OSM server and use Remote Control just press open what you saw in the browser chosen and you will be able to now map I'll just say this is the lack of magic selecting your view and that should be good. Now we can see that there is a bit of an outfit here but we are not going to tackle how to pick it up maybe for a little bit so as you can see there are two you can go here if you go to here and search for um I think it's there but just to the browser you can uh hide the item but now we can see that something can improve so to be able to do that there are a couple of you can come here and search um kind of hoping we can look for copy the ID we can just copy the ID of the different parts right here and it should give us this now we've been able to add and then also to add the video let's download um yes now this is one we are going to access it so you can see now this is the please route add you can add add a video with it so that's obvious then when you finish you have to update the browser that's enough but you can also do things um this doesn't have a not such career but hopefully this this will be a call for me to start so that brings end of demo if you want to maybe not play OSM OSM OSM OSM is like if you are it's it uses the query language much like it uses the query language much like to do more um now and now I know that this is basically the value kind of query I have already stated them I can put them around and I will show all the how to come into the files because there's usually a query based on what what you don't see what you are looking for you can just so now there's more than and you can give it how many more this for this is if you live in a place where you can be able to write so this is very much the end of my demo before I leave I leave you with first watch that heritage is heritage is OSM and I hope that you will collaborate on each project that we extend a bit of knowledge that is available and here are some resources that I will show you again just how you can create out and then the last table if you want to reach me these are the ways you can reach me I will link them from I am also in the the group and this is this and thank you very much James now ladies and gentlemen we are taking a very short break the time now is 3.21 so we will see you back here in 10 minutes at 3.31 ladies and gentlemen have a good break we will see you very shortly for the fire side chat with our panelists


Daily Tech News show is made possible by its listeners, thanks to all of you, including Mike McLaughlin, Miss Music Teacher, and James C. Smith. Coming up on DTNS, Sony promises more PS5s and a plan beyond game consoles. Will we all take air taxis in 2024, and Proton Mail takes on Google? Will you help them win? This is the Daily Tech News for Thursday, May 26, 2022 in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt. And from Studio Redwood, I'm Sarah Lane. From Austin, Texas, I'm Justin Robert Young. And I'm the show's producer, Roger Chang. Oh, my friends, we've got nothing but good news for you today. Let's start with a few tech things you should know. Well, the rumors were true. Broadcom announced it had tends to acquire VMware in a $61 billion deal. While Broadcom has made acquisitions to expand into the software market in the last four years, this deal would triple its software sales to about 45% of total revenue. Not special, Broadcom. Pretty much everyone's own VMware at this point. Twitter agreed to a $150 million settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over allegations that it misrepresented the security and privacy of user data between May 2013 and September 2019. During that time, it did not disclose that email addresses and phone numbers collected in order to secure accounts also happened to be used to aid advertisers. They stopped doing that in 2019, but they paid for it now. Also in Twitter news, SEC filings show that Elon Musk put up another $6.25 billion of equity in backing his acquisition of Twitter, his proposed acquisition, increasing his total equity in the purchase to $33.5 billion. And the Wall Street Journal says Musk is no longer going to rely on margin loans that are backed by Tesla shares. Remember, there was a whole deal about how this could tank Tesla stock. Tesla's not part of it anymore. Remember when we told you about Amazon Style? That's where you can order clothing on the phone or scan clothes in a store and then have them automatically ready for you in a dressing room or for purchase? Well, Amazon Style has finally opened in Glendale, California in the Los Angeles area. Oh, go get them. Three tech companies in China beat expectations, but the expectations were low. First the bad news, then the good news for each. Alibaba's revenue was the slowest growth since 2014, and that's the second quarter that it has set a record for its slow growth. However, it still rose 9% and that beat expectations. Baidu net income fell 22%, but sales rose 1%, mostly led by its cloud AI business, and that helped counteract slow sales in mainland China. Oh, and Baidu's streaming unit Aichi posted its first profit. Finally, Lenovo's predicted shipments would fall because of chip shortages in the coming year. But for now, the good news is Q4 profit was up 58%, and it led the global PC market with a 23% share. Bloomberg sources say that Apple will not raise its production target of iPhones from the 220 million it produced last year. Analysts had expected Apple to order around 240 million units. iPhone sales have been flat to start the year, so it may be Apple adjusting for a down market for phones overall, as well as dealing with supply constraints. All right. Let's talk a little more about this. The Sony news. Sony, Sony giving us hope. What are they? Yeah, well, one does hope. Sony gave a wide-ranging briefing to investors on its game and network services segment touching on the future of the PS5 and moving beyond the console. Starting with gamers biggest question that relates to the PS5. Why can't I buy one? Where are they? We have money. We want to give you money. Give us a PS5, Sony. What's the deal? Yeah, the PS5 is actually lagged behind sales of the PS4 in 2021, which shouldn't happen because Sony itself says that when you have enough consoles to sell, it takes 82 minutes to sell 80,000 PS5s and nine days to sell the same number of PS4s, but Sony isn't getting enough chips for the PS5, so there aren't always PS5s to sell. That is supposed to change, though. Sony promised investors it expects to sell 56% more PS5 units in fiscal 2022 up to 18 million units and that the PS5 will pass the PS4 in sales next year. It's going to happen. To get there, they're going to have to mitigate the supply chain effects from lockdowns in China and the war in Ukraine. Sony says it's going to source from multiple suppliers and that it is negotiating optimized delivery routes and it thinks that it can get around both those problems. Okay, so there. Making more consoles. That's great. But another big critique has been that Sony focuses too much on consoles, so what do they say about that? Well, how's this? Sony plans to launch 12 live service franchises for games that doesn't count Destiny, which will become part of Sony when its acquisition of Bungie closes, so other franchises, which is still a lot of new live franchises. It's only announced one so far and that's MLB The Show 2022. Sony also called out an investment in Seattle's Excelbyte, which provides back-end live game services. And as for the PC side of things, Sony projects that PC game sales will more than triple this year from $80 million to $300 million. It expects that by 2025, PC and mobile games combined will make up more than half its annual first-party releases. Right now, they make up about 25%, but wait, there's more. Indeed. Virtual reality, which is actually tied to the PS5, but Sony promised more than 20 major titles will be available for the new PSVR2 at launch. And they showed a picture of Horizon Call of the Mountain in their slide about that. Now, if you're saying, great, when is it launched? They didn't tell us that or how much it's going to cost. There was talk of expanding their intellectual property beyond game platforms. They pointed to the Last of Us series on HBO, the Uncharted movie as sort of examples of where they want to go more often. And to wrap things up by saying this, it would transform, quote, PlayStation's current console-centric approach to a future where large elements of our community extend beyond the console. So Microsoft's already doing this. They're like Xbox everywhere. You're on a phone. You're on a PC. You're on an Xbox itself.  That's their promise. And people have said Sony needs to catch up. PlayStation Direct is a small step that way, but Sony's saying we got more steps to come. But I think they're being conservative, Justin. They're protecting their lead with consoles while taking tippy-toe steps toward the future. Yeah, because they make money with consoles. That's how they make money. This is their chief revenue stream. So yes, they are going to protect and they are going to prioritize consoles. You can critique them for not investing enough in the future. You can critique them for maybe that they will rue the day five years down the road when they do not have as robust a streaming platform as Xbox. But as of right now, both of those companies primarily in this space make their money by selling a box to you every few years. That's it. And for Sony, they can say, hey, look, if we had the raw materials, we could have made more money. They don't. Until that corrects itself, they will continue to have this problem. It is interesting to me that last year, 2021, the PS4 outsold the PS5 so much. Now, I know it's because the PS5 is hard to get, but it was hard to get two years ago now, right? I mean, when did the PS5 first officially launch? It was about a year, right? More than a year ago.  But, you know, I was sort of like, okay, that's an extreme case of somebody going the extra mile to get this PS5. Most people either can't do that or, you know, can't pay the premium in order to do that. It is, it is, it's, it's maybe the biggest supply chain constraint story that accurately identifies the fact that these things just can't get made and shipped fast enough. Sony would love nothing more than to sell as many PS5 as possible. You know, the whole kind of like, oh, they're hard to get. That means they're like worth more. That only goes so far. That doesn't help Sony. That helps the guy reselling it on eBay, reading your friend at the library. Yeah. I will say anecdotally, I have not heard of a friend who has a PS5 or bought one for their family that did it in a normal way. Everybody's got a crazy drumpeel story. I bought mine on Walmart. Okay, well, except Tom. I'm the exception that proves the rule because I was, I could not, I've not talked about it because I feel bad that I was like, I was able to get one like that's without having to. I mean, but like, in all seriousness, do you think it was just good timing? They got to, you know, yeah, after Christmas when everybody else was distracted and not reshopping yet and I was able to just swoop in and get one. But, but yeah, it's, to sum this up, Sony is trying to tell the investors, don't worry, the thing that makes us money now is going to get back on track and keep making us money. And don't worry, we know that consoles aren't the future. We have a plan for the future. Well, speaking of the future, as we see the slow but steady spread of commercial autonomous taxi services in various places across the US and China, even Europe, the next trend will be air taxis. We're taking it to the sky, everybody. Someday these may be autonomous, but for now, not really. We're talking electronic vertical takeoff and landing or EVTOL aircraft with human pilots. Human pilots are still running the game here. Basically the closest thing to flying cars that's still practical for our lives. It looks like Joby Aviation, which bought Uber Elevate back in 2020, seems to be taking the lead. Oh hell yeah, Joby just got a part 135 air carrier certificate from the US FAA that lets it offer on-demand commercial air taxi service. Now, before you run down to book your flight, Joby only has two prototype aircrafts that still need to get FAA type and production certifications in order to actually, you know, operate the business. Although the company is confident it will get those, so that's good. Back in May, well in May, which is we're still in May, believe it or not, it acquired a company called Avionics. Avion with a YX at the end, which specializes in helping aviation companies secure certificates, kind of trying to get that all pushed through. It's also working with CAE, that's a flight training company on pilot training. It also thinks they can launch commercial service by 2024. Now that might be optimistic, but if it's true, that's not far away. In the meantime, it can develop its consumer-facing app and test its software with its employees currently flying a test route between San Jose and Marina, California. Marina, California is sort of near Santa Barbara for anybody who's familiar with the area. Didn't disclose what additional test routes it might add though. We do have some clues. Joby has partnerships with the parking garage operator Reef and real estate company Neighborhood Property Group to build out a network of verta ports on top of parking garages and helipads in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami and New York. And it already has partnerships with SK Telecom in South Korea and ANA Airlines in Japan to launch commercial air taxi services in those countries. Tom, are you ready to vert your way? Yes. Get me to the verta port. I am ready to make my connection. It's like, tired heliports, wired verta ports. Get me to the verta ports. Exactly. My aptly written futurism. We have air taxis now, but they're old and clunky and really expensive. I can't wait for this EV tall modern way of using an app to call an only somewhat expensive air taxi to take me from the airport to my luxury hotel. I wonder what these are going to be used for at first. I remember that Uber was first used for black cars. It was used for the most expensive form of hired transportation to make it easier. I think Justin, you and I were talking about this before that you're right. This is going to be expensive to begin with this. Even if this does happen in 2024, it's not going to be available to every pocketbook. This is not going to be ride share. Right. This is going to be a luxury item for people that can afford to pay it because there's no way that you could do this at the kind of share requires everybody in the populace to basically have a car. Everybody in the populace is not going to have an EV tall. In fact, Joby only has two.  But I do think that there is a market for it. Anybody who's tried to commute from San Francisco down to the South Bay where all these tech headquarters are understand that it is hell. There would be, there is a tremendous market for a lot of people who have more money than they know what to do with to take an EV tall from some parking garage in downtown San Francisco to Palo Alto or one of these surrounding environs. Where all these tech companies are. So, in places where you would otherwise be avoiding traffic and now you have alternative to a helicopter. If you were, if you were like, you know, I like taking the helicopter, but boy is it pricey. Then congratulations. The EV tall revolution is for you. Yeah. I can't believe how much I save over my private helicopter to take this EV tall from Joby. Well, I mean, but that's, you make a good point, Justin, that's sure LA, San Francisco, Miami and New York would be great, you know, places for particularly people who have money, but also people who don't want to sit in traffic to take advantage of this. But anywhere, anywhere in the world, you know, because once this once this turns into something that is proven to be a great idea, we'll see it all over the world anywhere that you got to get in the air and just go over everybody because you can't. Well, I was about to say you can't drill holes under the earth, but there are companies doing that as well. That's a whole different solution. But let's just figure out how to get out of, you know, the freeway system and, and if you, if, if, if enough people want it, then the infrastructure gets built out and then the price comes down. Yeah, but the thing is, is that if you're looking at these prototypes, they're not bosses. Right. There's a limited amount of seating that you're going to be able to do it. So I do think for the foreseeable future, and I would say probably the next 10 to 15 years, this is going to be a luxury. This is going to be a cheaper helicopter as opposed to what we would think of as a, you know, a taxi on a road. Somewhere between black car and helicopter will be the price point. And I would say closer to helicopter. Probably. Yeah. Roger. Oh, now I was going to say, you know, back in the 60s, there was late 60s, there was kind of a boom and heliports for people, for example, in Manhattan who wanted to fly out to the LaGuardia or Newark, so they get to the airport. And it was, it went pretty well until there were a couple of accidents with New York Air. And like these, whatever service comes up, it needs to be like better than spotless when it comes to safety because even one incident can shake customer faith. It's one thing to have a car that maybe doesn't run well. All right, you get to a fender bender. It's another thing. If you have an air taxi and you have an incident, that psychologically will be very impactful to the people you're trying to sell to.  That will help your business model. And you can have that piece of advice for free. Which is why they have to go through these certifications, right? You don't have to go through this many hoops to launch an autonomous taxi service, even as you do to launch this EVTOL. And this has a human pilot. We're not even talking about autonomous. That's also being developed. But man, they talk about partnering with companies in Korea and Japan. You know, the idea of even from Haneda, which is the closer airport in Tokyo, definitely from Incheon to get to Seoul. Those are long hauls and it would be so nice to just fly up above it all. Certainly true in LA as well. So yeah, I hope that this actually launches. I hope Rez Roger rightly reminds us it stays safe. And I hope that it gets scaled to where the cost comes down and it can be affordable for most of us. I hope that while Tom is verting from the airport into downtown Seoul, he is checking the DTNS subreddit. And there he will see conversations like we've seen over the past day. Reacting to RW Nash posting the news yesterday that Proton Mail is rebranding as Proton and going head to head with Google as a privacy focused alternative for personal productivity tools like email, calendar and more. The newly dubbed Proton offers four services under one unified login, mail, calendar VPN and the all new beta of Proton Drive. Proton also introduces three plans, which you can review and an all new domain name Proton.me. Hey Tom, why don't you tell us about these plans they got? Yeah, I feel like I'm on QVC for Proton suddenly. But the free plan expands storage from 500 megabytes to a gigabyte. You can send up to 150 messages per day. There is a cap though on the free plan. You can only have three labels and folders and you can set up one calendar and everybody gets access to basic Proton VPN for free. So that's part of that too. Basic access gives you slower speeds than the paid access of the VPN limited servers and devices. Keep in mind Proton does not serve ads. So this free tier just cost them money to offer at all. It's just a way to ease you into a paying subscription. It's subsidized by the people who pay. The first paid subscription is called Mail Plus. It's five euros a month. You get 15 gigabytes of storage, 10 email addresses, unlimited folders and labels and unlimited messages. There's no more limits on that stuff. Also supports one custom email domain and you get priority support calendars and of course the basic VPN. Finally for 12 euros a month you get Proton Unlimited. That one offers 500 gigabytes of storage, 15 email addresses, up to three custom domains, full calendar, make as many calendars as you want. You get the faster, more devices VPN and you get beta access to Proton Drive, one of their newer products. If you're wondering where you can access all of this stuff Proton has iOS apps for mail and VPN, Android apps for those plus the calendar and of course everything's available on the web. But here's the question, Tom. In a world that says it values privacy, will it value it enough to leave the free, convenient and long lasting in many cases Google accounts for free Proton accounts, let alone even paid ones. I mean, even, even though all things Proton sound very good to me, just the, the migration over and letting folks know that I have a new email address or even, you know, setting up some forwarding thing is just enough of an inconvenience that I think a lot of people would be like, that sounds good but I don't know what I have right now is working for me already. Well, I mean, obviously privacy has become more of a kitchen table issue than it was in the past where previously just nerds like us would say things like if it's free then you're the product. Advertising is something that has obviously shifted around a lot over the last even three years, but we have become more aware of it it has become more of something that people understand when ads are chasing you around the Internet, because of trackers. That being said, while people like to complain about it and an act like Facebook is using their microphone to target them with things. I don't think that it is enough by itself to get people to pay for a platform or like you said Sarah, go through the pain of migrating, but for people who are into it for proton fans for privacy. Yeah, I think this is great. Now, will that be enough to get a seat at the table for stuff like this? I think possibly, but I don't know. I think if anything it may or may not be a good model for other people to build products around. I don't know proton whatever be an acquisition target, but I do think that this is leaning into a current trend.  Yeah, I don't even know if this makes a dent in Google but you make a good point. This is enough to build a business on like I don't think proton expands because they've had a paid program before that a free program the paid program free program was even more limited. So they're loosening that up a little and they're providing a more compelling service that should make it more appealing to more people, but it's still people who are enthusiastic about privacy protection. It's not necessarily going to pull in the masses for that. I think Sarah is right. You'd have to make a big deal about how easy it is to switch provide some tools for switching because it is a great product. I use proton myself, but I don't use it as my daily driver and maybe I should. But every time I think about doing that I'm like, Okay, but then there's some work I have to do to move it over. And that's me and I know what I need to do. Somebody who's like, I don't even know how to do that. You got to make that easy if you want to have large numbers of people coming over and maybe protons like we don't need large numbers right now. We just we have enough of a business. Yeah, just get some cash flow and then enough in there. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. Well, folks, if you're feeling social, if you're like, Hey, I'm a proton male user, I don't want to let you know how great it is. Get in touch with us on the socials at DTNS show is our Twitter account and at DTNS picks with an X DTNS P I X is our Instagram account. Come by and say hi. Northwestern University created a little robot crab. You might say, how small is it? It's so small. In fact, it's half a millimeter wide.  The researchers who created it have found an easy way to control it remotely as well. So when heat is applied to the robot system, using a laser, it's thin coating of glass deforms the system shape, and it creates locomotion. When that laser is turned off, cools down quickly. If you do both in quick, in quick succession, the robot starts to walk. If you want to make it go left, the laser scans right to left vice versa to make it go right. The team says it fabricated precursors to the walking crab structures and flat planar geometries and then bonded those precursors onto a slightly stretch rubber substrate. Once the stretch substrate is relaxed, a controlled buck clean process happens that causes the crab to pop up into precisely defined three dimensional forms. Yeah, we've seen similar things to this where you like do something to make it bend and contract and that's how you can move it around. But this is a new new take on that. And popside.com was speculating this could be used in surgery to help guide medicines or guide lasers for surgery or even maybe even do small incisions and stuff like that. But these things are incredibly small. So they're going to be used for spying on me. Yeah. Yeah, the next time you see a colony of ants, you know, like kind of, you know, going around those grapes that you left on the counter laser light play around by them. Because remote control, they're not. You should have your own little laser pointer and see if you can make them turn left and right.  Everyone's like, okay, I'll do it. It's like, you're going to need the little robots to go in there and help out. All right. Or you're going to need leeches to get the little robots out of your body. Yeah. Or the robots to get the lea, yeah, or, yeah. Come on leeches, you're done. What's up with the leeches? What is this? The middle ages? All right. Let's check out the mailbag. What do we got? Oh, let's do it. James C. Smith from Irvine, California wrote in and said, the discussion of Blackberry in the 2012 rewind bonus episode, which is special for patrons, patrons. Hopefully you've heard it. If not, it's available to you and non patrons. It's very fun. If you'd like to become a patron, James C. Smith said, it made me think of this building in Irvine. And I don't know what they do inside, but to this day it's still called the Blackberry building. Every time I drive by it, it makes me wonder what goes on in there. Well, I found an article in the Irvine standard that says they're protecting privacy, but yeah, it's still Blackberry. Blackberry is still a company. Blackberry is a security company. They're a vendor of privacy software to banks and insurance companies and even governments. And you don't hear about them because their stuff is for banks and governments. It's not consumer stuff anymore, but they're doing all right.  But yeah, James is responding to us talking about those days back in 2012 when Blackberry was still a player. And it is a player just in an entirely different arena, I guess. It reminds me of in Oakland, one of the biggest coolest buildings is the Ask.com building, which there was a great article about several years ago talking about how much of a skeleton staff actually still works at Ask.com. It effectively makes money just being a premium domain. The board of directors meets once a year. They decide we're going to just keep kind of being a website that makes X amount of money. They all shake hands and then leave. Wow. But their name's still on the building, right? Still on the building. That's kind of crazy. And the whole building is Ask.com? Oh, I don't think the whole building. You would think another company within the building would be like, you know... We have a lot more floors in this building. But yeah, maybe that's a sweetheart lease. You know, it got one of those long lease deals back in the Dock.com days. Someone should ask Dock.com how they got it. Yeah. Well, thank you, James, for writing in. Thank you to everybody who writes us in. We love getting your emails. We love feedback. If you have questions, you have comments, you have ideas for future things, we might talk about feedback at DailyTechNewShow.com is where to send those e-mails. Thank you to Justin Rubber Young for being with us today. Justin, what's been going on with you? I got a new podcast because I'm not doing enough of them and it's called We're Not Wrong. It is a round table featuring myself of the Politics Politics Podcast, Andrew Heaton of the political orphanage and Jen Briney of Congressional Dish. You can go find it wherever you find your podcast, a new episode going up today dealing with the very, very grim and unfortunate news happening in Texas as well as the Young Thug RICO trial. Ah, Young Thug and Gunna. And Gunna. They got RICO'd. Yeah. It is one of the most insane. One of the weirdest things I read on TMZ. Yeah. There is a trial that involves several rappers that is, if you're not familiar with RICO, that is how you take down mobsters. And they are heavily using lyrics from their songs as evidence, which is fascinating to me. Fascinating indeed. Well, congrats on the new podcast. Yeah. If you haven't subscribed, do it now. I also want to extend a special thanks to Kelly Murphy, who's a top lifetime supporter for DTNS. Thank you, Kelly, for all the years of support. Thank you, Kelly. Yay. Thank Kelly. Kelly, Kelly, Kelly for press. There's a longer version of the show called Good Day. Internet rolls right in after we're done with DTNS, and it's available at patreon.com. If you haven't gotten it and you want to hear us talk about all sorts of things, you can. We're live Monday through Friday on this year's show, 4 p.m. Eastern, 200 UTC is when we start. Find out more at dailytechnewshow.com. And we're back tomorrow with Allison Sheridan and Len Peralta. Join us if you can. Talk to you then. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at frogpants.com.


My name is Ebert Wolf. I'm with InnoQ in Germany. We are a consultancy, so we mostly do software projects. I do consulting. I do a lot of architecture reviews, architecture work, and I do some trainings. I did write a few books. So I wrote a book about microservices and architecture approach. There is also a free booklet that sort of sums that book up. And I wrote another book about technologies for microservices. And again, there is a free booklet that gives a short overview about the subjects that this book covers. And last but not least, my colleague Hannah and me, we wrote a book about or a booklet, I should say, about service measures is a nice new technology for microservices. So what I'm going to talk about now are things that I saw out in the wild that made projects fail or at least have some problems. And I will start off by giving a name to each of these issues or challenges. And the first one is the common data model. And there is also a citation that I would give from some project that might run into that problem. The citation is the services need some common model to communicate. Let's start off with some microservices. We have one for order processing. We have another one that takes care about the delivery. And last but not least, we have another one that writes some invoices. And it seems to make some sense to come up with a common data model for those common business objects that you have such as a customer or an item. And you would use them for communication only because in the database, of course, there will be different databases for each of these microservices. So we will use it for communication only. And we can also have a different internal model in each of these microservices. So that's the first decision. And it seems kind of sound. And the next decision is, well, so there is this common data model, why would we implement it for each of these microservices? So we built a common library that implements that data model, which also seems kind of a wise decision. But now in the project that did that, all of these services need the latest version of that library. So if we have a new version of that common data model, we have a new version of the library. And we will have, we will need to update each of these microservices with the new version. So I would say congrats, because now if we do have such a change, we would need to redeploy all of the services. So we don't have a decoupled deployment anymore. And I would argue that we have created a monolith deployment monolith, which means that all of this stuff needs to be deployed together if we have some change in that common data model. But we also have the microservices challenges. So we have separate Docker containers or whatever it is that our microservices are built of. So we do have the complexity, but we also have that monolithic deployment that comes with a monolith. So that's how we end up in such a bad decision. And as I said, this is actually something that one team ran into.  If you look at them, I would rather say that you can sort of understand how they came up with those individual decisions, which lead up to this problem. There is a different sort of very related challenge. So let's imagine that we built one of these new fancy technologies or architectures, I should say, where all of these microservices communicate with events. And we store these events in Kafka, for example. So Kafka is a nice message oriented middleware. And the huge advantage of Kafka is that you can store large amounts of data in Kafka, and you do event sourcing. So the idea is that you can rebuild the local state from those events in the centralized data storage. So you have Kafka events are in Kafka. So a new order comes in. And if you delete the state, the database for delivery or invoicing, it can be recreated by processing those orders again. So essentially what you have done is you have created a system by the local database for the delivery process or invoicing is just a cache for the global Kafka storage for the events stored in Kafka. Because if you remove those local databases, you can actually recreate them from the events stored in Kafka. So what you have come up with essentially is a shared database. It's just that this database is in Kafka. And it is really the one database or the one source of data that matters, because your local databases are just caches. And I thought we would want to stay away from those centralized data models. We want to have separate data models in each of these microservices. So I would argue that there is something wrong here. Also, there is a general problem here because those data models for communication actually have many dependencies. So in my example, there is one microservice that issues events, the order process, and there are two microservices, the delivery process and the invoicing, that would consume these events. In a real-world application, there might be a lot more and maybe you don't even know who is processing the events because they are anonymous. And if you come up with or if you have that kind of situation, then these event data models are actually hard to change because you don't know who is processing the events. So if you want to change something, if you want to remove some data from that common data model, then some of your services, all of your services might fail. So that might be a problem. And if you can't really remove any attributes from your common data model, it means that your model is bound to grow because you can only add additional data. There is no way to remove data, so it will just grow. So what's the cure here? So one idea that you can have is you can have separate local data models and no global data model for communication. So this is basically applying the same idea that you have with the data model that you use for the database and applying that for the communication too. So you will also have different data models for communication. So you wouldn't have a common data model for communication or events. Instead, you would have separate data models for each two microservices that are communicating with one another. So in my example with the order process and the delivery process and invoicing, you would have a specific data model that has the data of an order that is interesting to delivery. And you have a different data model with the data that is important for invoicing. And I would argue that this is actually probably what you want to do because those are quite separate data models. So if you want to have a delivery, you want to know how many items are ordered, you want to know the weight, the size, and you want to know where to ship them. Why for the invoice, you need to know the billing address, the prices, and that's all information that you don't need for delivery. So maybe splitting it up into those separate data models makes a lot of sense because thinking about it, it's actually two different things that you're interested in. So also from that perspective, it's probably the better way of doing it. Now you could argue that you will have a lot of data models at the end of the day and you would have some kind of inflation there. And I would argue there is a trade-off here. So it's independence. If you have those separate data models, they are obviously independent. And on the other hand, you have one data model, which basically means it might be simpler because there's just one of them. So it's a trade-off between independence and having one model. So that's a trade-off. And I would argue that there is no one single best solution. So I'm not advising to use many small data models for communication. I'm just saying that there is a trade-off here and you should think about whether you want to have just one data model for the events or whether you want to have separate data models for the events in different circumstances. So that's the first thing that you might run into. The next one is a flaky system. And the citation that I have here is, what is resilience? And it's sort of like domino stones that, well, if the first microservice fails, the next fails, the next fails, and the next fails, and then you do have a problem. And in a microservices system, there are just so many more changes, chances for something to go wrong because you have a lot more servers. You have the network communication between the microservices. You have many services running on all of those servers. So there is just a lot more that can go wrong. If you have a deployment monolith running on one machine, there is just one machine that can fail. If you have just one deployment monolith, there's just one process that can fail. While in a microservices system, there is the network, a lot more servers, a lot more services. So there are more chances for something to go wrong. Now microservices will depend on one another. And I would argue that there is no way around that because at the end of the day, there should be one system made out of microservices, and you can only create that system if you do have those dependencies. And for that reason, one failed service might make another service fail, and then that one might make another one fail, and so on and so on, just like domino pieces. And this is actually a real challenge. So here is something that happened over in Germany. There was a fly that, well, just was sitting on one domino piece and that one fell over. So that one ruined that domino record attempt that was done in Germany. So that is what can happen with your microservices system as well, because if you have these microservices and one of them fails, then the next one, depending on that might fail. The next one, depending on that might fail, and so on, and so on, and so on. So what's the cure against that? Well, if you want to avoid such situations, you can build your system to be resilient, which means that your microservices will still somehow continue to operate, even if another one fails. It is very unlikely that that microservice will still work as if nothing has happened, because then the question is why it even talks to that other microservice in the first place. So if it can just continue to operate, if the other microservice fails, then why would it talk to that microservice at all? So maybe there is something like, okay, up to that limit, we can still process orders, even if we can't do a check on the customer, whether he or she will be able to actually pay for that order. So maybe there is some limit in there. And as you can see here, there is, that's actually more like a question of domain logic. So what will that limit be? Is there even such a limit that is those are things that you have to think about when you think about the domain logic? At least the least thing that you can do is you can provide some sensible error message. So you can say, okay, this microservice currently doesn't really work at all, because some other stuff doesn't work. And what you should avoid is to make other callers wait forever, because then the callers might lock up because they wait forever. And that is what you really need to avoid. So it's still fine to provide some kind of error message. It's fine to provide some kind of limited service, but you should not just lock up and do nothing and block all the requests. So what can you do? I'm actually a huge fan of asynchronous communication. I would argue that asynchronous communication has a sensible default for failure. The sensible default is you process that message later. So asynchronous communication means that you send some message, and it will be processed eventually at some point in the future. So if the receiver is currently unavailable, it'll just be processed later. And that's sort of built into the system. There are limits to that. So if the security service fails that checks for the authorization of some users, then it's probably not the best idea to build a system that will still work if that one fails, because then there will be unauthenticated or unauthorized access to some functionality. That's probably not a good idea. So there will be some limits to resilience, but still you have to think about the trade-off, and I would argue that it's also a decision about business logic, as I said. The question around resilience and flaky systems might be sort of obvious, but I included it into the presentation in particular to prepare the next thing, and that's synchronous calls. Something that a team that does that could say is, well, we do microservices the Netflix way, because what Netflix actually does is they do synchronous calls between microservices, and they actually do quite a lot of them. And the problem there is if you have cascading synchronous calls. This is something that might be easy to understand for developers, and I actually believe that's the main reason why we see it out in the wild, because it's so very natural to have a microservice calling another microservice. That's what we're used to. So we have some classes, and classes have some methods, and classes call other methods. So why wouldn't microservices just call other microservices? It seems to be something that people are used to in particular non-dissibuted systems. And what you end up with is a call graph that looks like this. So there is some call to some microservice. This microservice in turn calls another microservice, which again calls another one. This one returns eventually. Then there is another one that is being called. Then this returns, and then we have another one here that talks to even three microservices, then this returns, and then you go on. And the problem here is that there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 calls across the network. So those are 7 chances for the network to fail. And this also means that 7 times you have to pay the overhead for the network for serializing and deserializing data for the latency in the network and so on and so on. So what you end up with is performance issues because your calls go through the network latency issues because the latencies for each of those network calls add up. You could try to work around that by having calls done in parallel. So the first microservice called two microservices. The second one called three microservices. Obviously you can try to paralyze that. And if you do so, then the total time that it takes to process those services is just the time that it takes to process the slowest call. So latencies don't add up, it's done in parallel, it's just bound by the latest the call that takes the longest time. However, I would like to add if you do so, then one of the benefits of this model is gone because in that case you have to think about priority processing and you can't have that very simple model where everything is just processed one step after the other, but instead some things are done priority. You might end up with flaky services because it's probably hard to compensate those failures. It depends on what you're actually doing there, but if that service never returns, you have to think about what you do and in some cases that might be hard. And that is why I'm advocating asynchronous communication because then you do have resilience and it's pretty much for free. So what's the cure here? I would argue that you could try to do asynchronous communication and that might even be quite natural if you do business events and if your system is built around business events. So that's one way of doing it. However, to me, it is sort of the wrong level of cure. So what I would try to understand first if I have a system that has that kind of problem is the microservices maybe too dependent on one another. Is there a problem because the domain logic is so intertwined into one another? All those microservices are really one thing. So maybe we should have a different split into microservices. Maybe that's the problem. And if we do that split, then the problem just vanishes because we don't have so many calls because we can now introduce synchronous communication because there's not so much dependency. So that's what I would try to come up with. There is again another, I would probably call it anti-pattern that is related to that and those are entity services. So the idea here is to well start off with some kind of sort of object oriented modeling and to look at the domain and take each of these domain objects and make them one microservice. If you do that, then you would have entity services in my example as follows. So there's the order process, delivery process and invoicing. And we have some service that takes care of the domain object customer. And we have another one that takes care of the product or the item. And that would also probably mean that we end up with a centralized data model. That's the first anti-pattern that I was talking about that we have one data model that tries to represent an item or a customer. And that's something that we just introduced here because right here those two are centralized data models obviously. Also we will have synchronous calls because as soon as I want to process some order, I probably need to have some information from the customer and from the products. So I will have a lot of communication here and I will do it synchronously because there is no way that I can deal with the order if I don't have that information about the customer or the product. Which also means that probably every call goes through three services, order, customer and item maybe, which again gives me some performance problems, latency issues and also resilience issues. So entity services, talking about resilience, if I do have a failure here in the service that takes care about customers, then what's the solution? What's the sort of fallback? Is there sort of a default customer? So if some order comes in, it's probably an order by Ibar because he does a lot of orders anyways. I don't know. It's hard for me to come up with any sensible resilience approach at all. So probably as soon as the service that takes care of customers fails, all of the other services will fail too. So we end up with the flaky service anti-pattern. So I would argue and there are, well, closely related things. So maybe you will have a common database instead. So in that case, we are not implementing microservices, entity services. Instead, we have one database and in that database, there is all the information about a product, all the information about a customer and that information will be retrieved and used and changed by all the different microservices. That might be a centralized data model. And that's the very first anti-pattern. In that case, performance and latency is not an issue because it's just in one database. So it shouldn't be a problem and it shouldn't be flaky because, well, the database is probably always there, but it's still a problem because there is no way that we can evolve that those data models from the microservices independent from one another. So they are bound together and they meet in the database and that's not a good idea. So what's the solution? I would argue that you should have as much information about the customer in the order process as possible and the same for delivery and for invoicing and the same for product. And most likely that will be different information. So for delivery, concerning the customer, what I'm interested in is how am I going to get that stuff to the customer? So what's the shipping address and these kinds of things? And for invoicing, I'm probably interested in how is the customer going to pay for that and maybe also the country he or she lives in because of VAT or whatever there is. And there are simpler things for the product. So the product for delivery, I'm interested in how large is it and how am I going to get it to the customer? Maybe it needs to be cooled or something like that. And for invoicing, I'm interested in the price and how much VAT there is on that thing. So it's separate data for all of these different processes. So it makes sense to start that data in each of these separate microservices in their local databases. So I would argue that microservices should have their own data model. That's something that Domain to Design talks about. Domain to Design born in context and that's another subject for a completely different talk. You might share a database that's fine for me, but then you should have separate schemas. So each of those databases should have each of those microservices, sorry, should have its own separate schema so that they don't depend on one another in the database and that there is a clear separation there in the database. Here is another pattern. It's actually something that I do see in customers and what a team that does that maybe says is, well, we want to have some flexible and maintainable system, so we are going to use microservices and then we will have such a flexible and maintainable system. Here is an architecture diagram with a bad structure of some deployment monolith. Here is a diagram of a bad structure with some microservices. It's the same thing. Microservices just say that the modules that you implemented are microservices. It doesn't say that you come up with a different, better structure. It's just how you implement those modules and for maintainability and so on, the problem is the structure. The problem is not how we are going to implement those modules that make up that structure. So microservices are just different modules. It's just a different way how we split our system into modules. So you wouldn't use Java packages. You wouldn't use C++ namespaces.  Instead, you will come up with some distributed big ball of mud that is not maintainable and changeable. Actually, if you do use such an approach where you have that bad structure and you use microservices, it's actually getting worse. The reason why it's getting worse is because microservices have something that I call extreme decoupling, which basically means that there is a lot of decoupling in the microservices architecture. So you can have those microservices deployed independently. There is network communication. So you can scale them independently and so on and so on. There is a lot of decoupling. Usually decoupling just means if you do a change to some module, the other modules are not influenced. But if you have microservices, if you scale up one microservice, the other microservices are not influenced. If you deploy one microservice, the other microservices are not influenced, and so on and so on. So there is a lot more decoupling going on. But if you do have that bad structure, then you probably need to do multiple coordinated deployments because your change will affect a lot of different modules, so a lot of different microservices. So somehow you need to deploy all of them. And for that reason, bigger changes might become even harder. And because your microservices might talk a lot to one another because they depend so much on one another, they might become chatty. So you will have those network performance problems, you will have latency problems, you will have resilience problems and so on and so on. So if you have a bad structure, it's a bad idea or microservices make the problem even worse. So just moving over to some microservices architecture because you think that will fix your structure is probably a bad idea because if you don't really fix your structure, then you will have much worse problems than before. So what's the cure? I would try to decouple logic and again the solution that I propose is domain-driven design and boundary context because in that case you have separated loosely coupled domain models in each of those microservices. You will probably have less communication and you can also use a migration approach where you migrate each boundary context and therefore you have a stepwise migration approach where you would migrate one boundary context after the other. So for that reason, I would not reuse an existing structure for migration because chances are the structure is bad and if you migrate that into a microservices system it becomes even worse. So my advice is if you want to fix the structure, microservices won't help. If you want to fix the structure, fix the structure and fix the architecture and don't just migrate the whole thing to microservices. So as a conclusion I think there is a lot of bashing concerning microservices lately and I think that's actually sort of well unfair or I should rather say it's sort of limits people because they think well microservices are a bad idea so why would they use them? I would argue that there has to be a trade-off. So microservices are a solution for specific problems. They solve some problems. They don't solve other problems. So for that reason you would need to decide in architecture for the problem at hand and come up with the right approach and that is what makes software architecture so interesting and challenging and that's why I still enjoy it after all that time.