Good morning ladies and gentlemen, can I start the next session please? First of all, welcome, it's the last day of Davos. We're going to try to make this a sparkly and rapid fire session and hopefully also invite questions and discussion preferably with the audience, so hereby as you pick up thoughts, have questions, have comments. Feel free to interject them. If not, I'm sure this panel is capable of continue to talk. First of all, let me introduce the people that are around me. Ladies first still, if you don't mind, to the left of me, Inga Bale, the CEO of Lloyds of London as it's always a welcome to her left is Minister Pradhan with two very interesting portfolios as he explained to me, energy and skills and entrepreneurship in India and particularly the last one. I think it's very relevant for this discussion. To his opposite is our good friend Tarek who's a regular visitor of this forum, heading in particularly in the Middle East a logistics, can I still call it a startup? I think I can. And otherwise you can correct me later on. And to the right of me, Gilbert Riel is the CEO of Gleitner in Germany. Startup too? Not really. Not really. 110 years ago. I think that's old enough isn't it. So welcome. The topic of today and let me briefly set the scene and then I will ask the panelists to inject that is called from linear to exponential value change that that's a bit of corporate speak. So let me try to translate that and put it in perspective if you if you if you don't if you don't mind. Now first of all, it starts from technology as this whole week in Davos has been dominated by by technology. The impact of technology is not what it always has been.  It's really pervasive towards our revolutionary. Those are words that I think are proper to use in this case. And what has happened a few years ago or let's say 10 years ago when you talked about the technologies that were that were talking about AI and the Internet. The impact was typically still involving consumer, the end consumer. It was a consumption element and it typically involved startups and we all know the companies that have brought them to bear the the Facebooks of of the world. What has now happened over the last years and that the impact is really I think still only hardly understood. It has moved to the heart of the company I've called the Internet is beginning to affect value chains, companies, how companies produce, where they produce it. Countries are becoming increasingly impacted by that. So the technological revolution from a consumer product from a gadget if you could call that often involving startups affects now the heart of the company and this beginning to affect established companies in every in every industry. The technologies that we're talking about is a wide range. Yes, everyone this week talks about AI, about artificial intelligence, which is a very, very large one and the impact is is progressing dramatically fast. But it's certainly not the only one. Robotics is increasing dramatically over the next two years. Robotics is forecasted to double with an impact that we only are beginning to to imagine IOT 3D printing is beginning to allow that that production does not have to take place at one central large plant anymore, but can be can be localized with everything involved there.  The importance is all these technologies take place more or less at the same time and have a converging effect. The reason that we talk about the force industrial revolution. It's running very fast and it's not allowing any country and any individual and any company to sit still and to plan for it. It is largely it's difficult to plan for this and it's partly why why we talk about it this week. And therefore you need to think about it in a different way. Now it's changing value chains value chains. So you first have to design a product. Then you need to buy the components of it. You need to manufacture it. You need to distribute it and if I need to sell it to the final consumer. Typically, I'm generalizing. Typically, we're linear in the sense that we're largely vertically integrated within a company. Most companies vertically integrated these functions because it allowed for scale. For those of you that want to read up to the theory, there was a great British actually economist, Ronald Coase in 1937 already, who wrote that the size of a company of an enterprise is determined by the transaction cost. And by the way, he got a Nobel Prize in the late 90s of that. And there was a good reason for it because the internet has the big impact of the internet is that it lowers transaction costs and it increases transparency. And that's precisely what's happening to value chains. Value chains are breaking up like Lego blocks almost and can be rearranged with dramatically improved transparency and dramatically improved connectivity. Different scale is beginning to emerge. For those of you that were able to read last week's Economist, it started to talk about the increasing scale of Facebook, of Amazon, and companies like that. And increasingly, some governments, some people are beginning to challenge that where the truth is that we will see but new scale elements are beginning to emerge. So instead of a linear value chain, we have more value networks or exponential value chains if you want to call that. That is what's taking place with platform economics, with AI on top of that, etc, etc. Now, is it good or bad? As always in life, I suppose it's a bit of both. It's first of all, largely a good thing. Consumer value is dramatically improving. You can now order something and often get it delivered at the same time. Years ago, it was impossible. We regularly all offer on our phones to Google where we are so we can find the way and we think that's a good trade off. So consumer value has dramatically improved and that's what's driving a lot of this. And I think we've only been still at the start of that. I think there's a lot more to come going forward. It allows startups to come from nowhere and to really grow. It allows innovation. It allows new countries to develop. So it's largely a good thing. But they're clearly also derailers and warning signs, including this article in The Economist about new monopolies that we need to be careful about. Cyber security is obviously a danger if everything is connected everywhere. You really need to think that through what the dangers are. Jobs is a big topic, certainly, this week and I think rightly so. So that is the reason that we're talking about it here. That's why it's a topic of other votes. And that's what I would like to explore with all of you in the audience. And with this panel. So first of all, I would like to start with technology, if that's okay. What do you see are the biggest impacts? What are the most impactful technologies in your industry that you see around? Tara, could I start with you on this? For me, it's an easy one. I think digitization is going to fundamentally change the way supply chains work.  If you look at the way trade works today, a lot of it is manual, whether it's in the private sector sphere or in the sphere of governments. There's too many processes that are offline. And I think that's the first order of benefit. And to the extent that we can improve the level of technology in that area, I think we'll dramatically reduce transaction costs. And we'll enable the SME segments around the world, which is going to be really important to getting a favorable political dialogue around these new technologies. Yeah, Inga, to the left. What is impactful for Lloyds of London and for your customers, by the way? Yeah, so Lloyds of London, definitely not a startup. 329 years old this year, and we do lots of complex insurance. So our customer base are businesses, fundamentally. And of course, their business models are being transformed with technology. That means our products have to transform to fit them. But for our own business model, the technology is changing dramatically. We have an incredibly manual process that is all paper-based. We have a trading environment that's very physical, with 4,000 people coming together in one big trading room and doing business with paper. And that's got to stop. So we've got a massive modernization program digitizing all of that. But the important thing is, then, the AI you can apply when it gets digital. So suddenly, the experts, the technicians, the technical experts who have been sitting there, and a lot of what they do is in their brain, and as they're assessing risks, pricing it, we're going to start using computers to do that. And even though it's highly complex, the computer won't forget. So once the computer has looked at thousands and thousands and thousands of risks, it will remember every single factor. It'll know what's good, what's bad, and what to look out for. So we will start using artificial intelligence much more in that sphere. But the next thing we're looking at is using blockchain technology, and that's for the transparency thing you mentioned earlier about. This will lead to much more transparency, and that's got to be good for the customer. Right now, a customer, if something goes wrong, they need money. They need to be paid. They've hurt. They've had something's hurt. Something's been lost. Something's been damaged. They have no idea where that is in a process. So using blockchain technology, we're hoping, is then going to have one place for everyone to look at. They've submitted some documents, some claims, something to us, and that everybody can track it through the process. So that's going to be our next big investment, and that's happening this year. Minister, in the US, in many ways, still a developing country, it's a very large company. And if you look at the typical rankings that we always see every year, in terms of technology, it's not at the level of the Koreas and Japan, but it's rapidly changing. What do you see as the technologies that will have the biggest impact on growth in India and also on the way society develops? See, we're a developing country. Rightly, you have mentioned, we're a developing country. Our challenges are multi-dimensional. We have to adapt technology very fast. We have to implement and percolate the technology for convenience in the society in a big way. If I can say two statistics in India, we are very fast-adapting new technology and our base is increasing. Ours is a 1.3 billion country. Out of that, now my mobile number is, mobile connection is more than a billion. 30%, 35% of that mobile network is now connected with internet. Internet is fast-emerging. Enter India is now connected with 4G. We're using 5G in a pilot basis. And now, very soon, we'll be converting it up to 5G. We have a unique identity number of near total of the population. Recently, in one of the welfare scheme, Prime Minister Modi initiated one scheme, we have to open, we have to bank the unbankable. In the short span of one and a half year, we could open more than 300 million new bank accounts. We could only achieve using this technology route. This is our experience. This is our practice of linear to exponential growth. In every aspect, India is a aspiring country. India is a country of young population. In the short span, in the first, second, third industrial revolution, we could not match. But as you said, industrial revolution 4.0 is not going to make anybody sit idle. So India doesn't want to miss the bus also. Using technology, adopting technology for financial growth, for developmental project, for health care, for education, the ministry I am in charge skilling, we are using this method of technology adoption and make it scalable and have a positive impact in the short span. This is our practice. Thank you very much. Gilbert, finally you. Kulitnar. Yeah, concerning technologies, so maybe not platforms yet, but technologies, I would say artificial intelligence and machine learning has definitely the biggest impact currently because it just impacts also all the technologies you mentioned. It impacts robotics, 3D printing. This is all based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. And the impact of corporates will be very significant. So we expect within our company that more than 50% of, for instance, of the repetitive work will fall apart with artificial intelligence. So we already implemented, for instance, artificial intelligence for IT administration. So we don't need any IT administrators more. And this goes through the corporate and also then in terms of predictions, predictive sales and all this. So this is all based on artificial intelligence and also platforms to a significant part. And also when we're talking about the big ones, the most important basic technologies, in my point of view, artificial intelligence, machine learning, going forward, it could be blockchain, but not for everything, I think. So here, also in Davos, blockchain is, I would say, the buzzword of, and what I learned, so it's good to come to Davos. What I learned here is that blockchain really doesn't work for everything. So we, for instance, and we may come back later to this, we have initiated a platform for the steel and metals industry and we're thinking also about a blockchain technology for this platform, but if this is the right technology, we don't know yet. At least we have a better understanding about what it is now. Because I think one of the things about blockchain is that when we were talking about it a year ago, we didn't quite, we didn't really understand it, did we? And I think at least we're moving on because a lot of these technologies, they are difficult to understand and we need to, particularly if they're going to interact with our customers, our customers have got to understand. When you have data which has to be changed, for instance, then blockchain doesn't make sense. So it doesn't work for everything and I have the feeling here now that everyone wants to move to blockchain, but this will also not work properly. But the biggest one for you is AI and AI is developing now. It's not something over five or ten years. That's a clear message I have this week too, would you agree? Yeah, I would agree. Unfortunately, primarily in the U.S. and in China, so also our AI technology comes in this case from the U.S. and but, yeah. Can we briefly pick up on that and particularly I would like to ask the minister the question. It is clear that all these technologies are highly unequally divided. Let's put it that way. I think something like 70% of all robots are in five countries and it's the usual suspects. It's Germany, South Korea, Japan, U.S. and all the rest of the technologies highly unequally divided. So not only within the society, but also between countries. Mr. Edemar, I must concern you. How do you bridge that, you think? You see, it was, if I equate with one example, few years back, with basic mobile phone as a rare commodity in Indian society, in Indian economy, when the base of pyramid will increase, the pyramid will be strong. The base of the pyramid will be strong. Then the challenge of adaptability of technology also reduce, also it will be cost-effective. Few years back, the cost, we have to pay for per unit cost in mobile. That was the primary reason mobile became the starter symbol, it's a commodity of elite. Now, when I'm talking about one billion mobile users are there in India, that means enter societies, sizable section of societies adopting technology because it is creating convenience, it is creating value, it is creating, it has its economic impact. Yes, today, I vegetated Microsoft's hologram virtual classrooms, it's very interesting. Today it is costly, today it is costly, it has to be cost, has to reduce. It can be scalable and basic nature of the society to adopt new things in the shorter span. Now the developed country has to, if it is economic proposition for them also, if they want to have a bigger market, they have to create a business model, how it can go to developing countries, how it can be cost-effective, how it can be regional language-based. Then only artificial intelligence will be much more useful for me if it will convert to my language. So these are the challenges, some of the major challenges in front of this industry. I want to jump a bit on upsides, downsides, and derailers and winners and losers, and not just because that's provocative, but I think it's important to understand that.  Can you elaborate a bit on that? Well, we're a startup that's in 100 countries, and so I think it's important to preserve the culture of a startup even when you start growing. And I think when we look at this paradigm, it's clear that there's a $2.4 billion, a trillion dollar, I would say benefit from these technologies when you measure in terms of social impact and economic impact. Those are coming in two areas. One is in the area of the environment. And I think it's important that we recognize the fact that 50% of trucks are basically coming back on empty legs. And there's technologies that are out there now that we're investing in that are improving this situation dramatically. So one of the, I think big, the other benefit are the SMEs. And I think we need to talk about how we make sure this benefit is going in equal way to the SMEs. And one of the ways we got into trouble with the WTO in the past is that most people believed that the WTO was about big business. And when you see that nine out of the 10 new jobs in the emerging markets are coming from the SME segment and 95% of all businesses are in the SME segment, we need to do what the SME segment really needs. And that means to make the trade much more efficient and easier to conduct. What are the ways to lose this in your industry? Yeah, so we are a steel and metals distributor. So we're buying principle steel from the big steel producers and then we're distributing this to all kinds of steel users, small craftsmen from small craftsmen to automotive. So what will happen in our industry, and this will happen probably also in more or less all industries, we will have this kind of platforms going forward. And but what these platforms are doing, these platforms are moving themselves between the producer and the customer. And they are not moving it. So the producer loses, if you like, the customer, but not only the customer, it also takes a significant share of the margin. And this, by the way, and what are you doing now as an incumbent when you know this is gonna happen going forward? We started with digitalization four years ago. So we were setting up our own hub in Berlin and we have meanwhile, there are 85 digital natives and we produced a lot of so far proprietary platforms. But finally, it has to be an open platform. Finally, this works only when also competitors can join the platform. And this is the reason why we launch now a separate venture, which we will finance, by the way, by with a networking capital and where Kruppner will end up in a minority position so that we cannot dominate this company because when we would dominate this, we would not lose, we would not make sure that competitors come in on the platform. And but this is then also finally disruptive to our own business because this will then cannibalize our own business. And the question now is what happens going forward when it works, when platforms are successful and platforms are only successful. Finally, I would say when the platform is dominating. Yeah, then they also the value will move from the physical business in this case, probably to this platform company. Yeah, and I want to come back on that later, by the way. Indeed, in theory, the most successful business model is a monopoly. In the end, everything is stopped. That's where it often tends to move to. But I want to come back on that because that's indeed a very typical. I first want to continue on winners and losers and the arrears. Inga, you're in the trust business, I think. And you mentioned cybersecurity. And that brings it back to trust. Can you elaborate on that? Yeah, so because of everything being connected and a lot of things now being stored in the cloud, one of the big things we're concerned about is something happening to that and disrupting that. And Lloyds is the largest insurer of cyber insurance and many businesses, although predominantly in North America at the moment, are buying insurance against cyber attacks. Now, the thing that we've just done a piece of research, actually, which looks at how dependent a lot of businesses are on these cloud providers. And we've done an analysis in just in the US alone, if one of the top three cloud providers fails, they are hacked, something happens, and their services down for three to six days, which is perfectly feasible, that would affect 12.4 million businesses in the US alone and could give rise to $15 billion of economic loss. That's one cloud provider. And that just goes to show how when people think of their suppliers and you're talking about a monopoly, I would dread to think that there would be a cloud provider monopoly because already there's a high, high concentration in very few cloud providers. And that's what technology is doing. It's bringing new risks that we never used to have in our supply chains before. So you still insure against those risks? We do. And there have been some more high-profile cyber attacks and the cyber insurance demand is expected to grow exponentially because as it spreads out across the world and particularly regulation, which has a big influence on this, creeps out around the world, we're expecting to see a three-fold increase just in the next two to three years. Yeah, so you would argue for more regulation on that point? I think there needs to be some regulation around cyber and the internet in total. I think that it's going, no one's really taking ownership for it and every business, so our business is highly regulated, banking insurance, highly regulated, but because we've got technology happening all around it, the regulators look on and they don't know, well, I don't really regulate that piece, but it has a big influence on the customer. How do we get our arms around this? Who is going to be regulating this web that we all rely on? So I think something needs to be done about that. Minister Zephyk, yes? You want to pick it up? Yeah, only by the way. So the winner, you asked about the winner. Yeah, the winner is the platform orchestrator, platform provider. This is the winner and we have seen this in B2C and we probably will see this also in B2B. Yeah, yeah. Minister, have you started to look at regulatory aspects on this or is that? I would like to answer the part one and then you come to regulatory one. Winner is society, winner is system. There is no loser, there are challenges. Here lies the role of regulator. This is a new area. Startups are coming up with new solution, innovative solution. They're scaling up in the old days. We never thought this can be scalable in such a big way. Way, my friend as I told, now this company is working in 100 countries. There are 100 domestic laws that are involving the same product. So there must be some interest regulation. There must be some, and this is a distrust related issue. There must be some non-interfering regulation, self-guided regulation has to be there because this is breaking all the boundaries, all the boundaries and their typical issues are there in a different part of globe. There must be some framework, some protocol, some self-guided protocol has to be there. Yeah, yeah, sorry, yeah. Just going back to the SMEs, I think one of the really challenging issues for them is that the trading environment is still complex.  And so we can either sit around and wait for governments to fix those and digitize their own supply chains and we're working on a number of projects where they are, or you can use technology to take that complexity and simplify for the SME. It's one of the ways that we are responding to this. So you can take that complexity and put it in a transparent platform for SMEs and basically allow them to get more of a dividend from this trade and this potential. And I think one of, again, the big risks and we talk about whether we're gonna be creating more monopolies or where the value is going to, is if we don't look at those sorts of initiatives, then the value is gonna be concentrated in larger companies. And I don't think we can afford that this time around. The reason that we're going down this path is we need to make this an inclusive opportunity for everyone. And the way to do that is by bringing the SMEs along. And I think it's a really important message and that's one of the things that could derail the success of the future of these technologies. Yeah. Gilbert, you come from the country which is the champion of the Meadal Stonters, it's called so now nicely, maybe not SMEs, but maybe MEs or whatever you wanna call that. How is that in Germany? That's a big debate, isn't it? The spread of technology and whether what made Germany, the German economy great over the last day, I guess in many ways, whether all are participating with that. Can you comment on that? Yeah, the problem going forward is of course when these platforms finally dominate the market, then it's of course difficult for all these mid-sized companies to catch up. Exactly. They already have difficulties to catch up with the digitalization anyhow, but when they are then finally connected to all kinds of platforms, and when the value is really, or the margin is then moving to the platform, then they're getting difficulties. And these platforms finally have to be big. So have to be big. And every platform tries, to dominate the market. So we have seen this in B2C, and we will see this also in B2B. For instance, in our industry, it wouldn't make sense to have five platforms. And then also the convenience for the customers, no more there. The convenience there when there's one access, when there's one interface to one platform. So this could be challenging going forward for these companies. Minister, can you comment on that? Monopolies and platforms in India, are you afraid of that? Is that too early? No, we're not afraid of that. We feel the more company, and those who are already there, because recently India is debating on one issue. That's also now is in front of judiciary. When we develop the unique identity number, even UID, is it data? How do we use that? Some companies are using, payment banks are using that. Some consumer derivatives companies are using that. When they're using all these data, sometime some overlapping, some exits are there. Some kind of little bit monopolies are there, but society, finally, that product is available in different platforms also. That creates an internal competition. I don't see any, because technology is not a single window affair. It's a multi-dimensional, it's a multi-window. If I'm not satisfied with this product or this platform, I may, I may, that because fair competitions are emerging, new startups coming up with a higher version, so I don't see what, with our experience, I don't see monopoly will be a challenge, but regulation has to be there. Yeah. But regulation often comes too late. There's a problem because the technology is changing so fast, and when it was regulation, that's too late anyhow. That's the dynamic. So that's what I say. This is self-derived regulation has to be there. Some code of conduct has to be there. It's a very dynamic. But the only thing with that is that if there's existing regulation that limits using it, and one example we have, I mean, that's the concern. We're the largest insurer of shipping around the world, and of course, autonomous ships are basically there, they're ready, they can go, but ports can't take them because of the regulation around controlling port areas. So they can't take it into their own hands, or the shipping sector can't, because they physically won't be able to take their ships in, they won't be allowed to because of the existing regulation, and it's slowing down progress. Yeah. Can we think here, blockchain can be our use? Can we put some of the transparent information in the blockchain so people will interact, people will know, there will be self-accounting, self-certificates will be there. Yes, here can't, we should not use regulation. We should use code of conduct. Some self-declared code of conduct should be there. It should not be restrictive. Then any regulation, any restriction is detrimental for technology. Yes, so your point is regulation is always has a certain time lack by definition, so use codes or use other means to basically have something in the short term. Yes, you're laughing, I think. No, I just think at the moment it seems to be holding certain areas back, that's all, because there is existing regulation. If it's something brand new that doesn't have regulation, of course it's moving ahead quickly, but existing old industries, I think, are being held back. I know you can cite one example, it's in brand new. Recently, seaplane came to India. Till now, we don't have any idea of seaplane. We don't have any regulation. How do we do that? So no, no, no. Usually, how do a government behave? No, we don't have written information, written documentation, there is no. It should not be. Technology is the, technology will be, who is the sufferer? Sufferer is the poorest of the poor, greater society. He should not be devoured from the technology development of industrial revolution 4.0. This community has to find out some way. What are they? I mean, there are students, so I just want to say, so in insurance, and we're very global, there are some countries that demand a paper insurance policy. You go to China, they've got millions and millions of consumers buying insurance on their mobile device, and yet some countries, because they're established, insist on paper, and that's where it can, that's where it slows down progress for some parts of the world. So I think this is where there's a little bit of a disconnect. If you were to, we did a survey of SMEs. 86% say that technology levels the playing field for them. So they perceive technology as being an enabler for the business, and the statistics show that 100% of technology enabled SMEs actually export. So I think the biggest problem that we have is that when we talk about regulation, the regulations that we have are actually impeding the development, and if you look at Europe, for example, the laws about the protection of data, et cetera, it's no accident that the majority of the successful companies are coming out of the US and China because they don't have those same restrictions. So we have to look at the, we have to look at minimizing regulations and look at, talk about empowering these technologies because the future, whether we like it or not, you're not gonna be able to regulate away the developments taking place. It's just inevitable, it's happening. We need to be part of the future enabled. I have a quick look around. I want to make sure that we recognize the audience. Are there any people in the audience that have a question to the panel? If not, I continue. There's a question right behind me. Please go ahead. Maybe we can have a mic. You can say who you are and where you're from, please. I'm Arun Sharma. I'm a member in the Adani Group Board in Australia, and I'm also a Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research at Queensland University of Technology. Your question about blockchain, it's not suitable if you change your data very frequently, but it is suitable if you care about the history of the change, who made change when. That's very important. Anyway, the question I'm talking about is, we are focusing on AI robotics and everything. And you did mention 3D printing. In some ways, for the discussion we are having among the value chain, if 3D printing technology really takes off, and if you look at companies like HP Inc, who are betting the farm on manufacturing, basically moving to 3D printing. So in a way you can look at manufacturers as the ultimate middlemen. And so the consequence of value chain, 3D printer manufacturers, they will make money, but they will be competition. So everyone is trying to manufacture things locally. The value then shifts to the designers whose design is being used, and you can use blockchain to put a digital signature every time the 3D printer prints, and the value shifts to the designer. But the value also shifts to the countries that produce resources. If they have the wherewithal to reduce their power cost so that you can make powders and ship it, and shipping powders is a lot cheaper than shipping finished goods or raw materials. The consequence for insurance companies is that container shipping will go down and bulk shipping will go up. And this is a profound shift over the last two centuries. Manufacturing has become this day, and we have been thinking about disintermediation in the digital world. The physical manufacturing world might be completely changed, and that might be even more profound for value chains than we think about. That is a fantastic provocative question. Thank you very much. By the way, if for those of you that know companies like Maersk, they would confirm that already. And the reason is the world where a lot of manufacturing is done, for instance, in China, and for instance, based on low labor cost, is rapidly, rapidly, rapidly shifting. Tarek, can you pick up that question? Are we, how rapidly are we moving to a world where production will be more reshort, reshort, near-short, much more local, much more small, completely changing what you produce and particularly what you distribute in between? Yeah, we're there already. I mean, if you look at the way that container traffic has been stagnant in the last few years, I think one of the big drivers of that is some of these assets taking place. So I think Maersk knows that, we know that. But I do think, going forward, when you look at technologies like blockchain, we have to think really carefully about why the problem exists in the first place. So if one of the benefits of blockchain is transparency, well, there's many aspects of competition between countries, the way customs organizations work that don't necessarily want that transparency of information between organizations. So we have to really look fundamentally at why the problem exists before we can start looking at technologies. A good example of where blockchain could be helpful is in the area of payments. So if you were to try to transfer money into Africa, oftentimes the cost can be up to 12% of the transfer. But there are services out there that use blockchain to do that same transaction for 2%. So that's a real enabling way to enable trade, to enable money transfer. That blockchain, you're not speculating where you're speculating for half an hour, but you're not really speculating in the way that a lot of us are starting to think about blockchain, but that could be a real enabler for SMEs, especially in the emerging markets. I think it will work. Yes, go ahead, please. To pick up on the aspect about the manufacturing impact, of course, it's also gonna have a huge impact on services. A lot of people offshore, they had call centers and humans, of course, in other countries providing that advice. That's all going to chatbots and robo-advisors now. And so that's gonna have a huge impact on some of those countries as well, just not just the physical manufacturing, but also this service community. There's a question there right behind you. Yes, a question. I would like to build on what was just said. Because I'm from Dassau system, we provide platforms for almost all airplane manufacturers. Everything you flew is designed simulated with our software. I want to comment on what Boeing announced six months ago because I think it's a very profound story. They have announced that they will digitally control all suppliers and to end on their digital IP. That way they buy will change and they are going to move from supply to value to value network. The consequences are significant because basically what is going to happen is they are going to use the platform to control spare parts, services. So the platform can be good for companies. And more than that, they are going to trade in the supply by comparing the cost internally with what can be printed by someone else real time. And they will be able to track the cost on produce as close as possible where the spare parts are needed. So I believe that it's much more than digitalization supply chain. It's really the digital asset becoming the value and therefore being produced wherever it has to be produced because this is changing all the ecosystem. And if I may add, and heavily impacting the competitive dynamics as well. It is at a point where the robotization, for example, is at such a level that a plan can be built in the countries of the world without losing any IP. Because the robot does the job and it's difficult to understand how the robots work. Yeah, and on the, we've done analysis on the intangible nature of assets these days. And if you look at the S&P 500, few decades ago, it was made up of fundamentally sort of 85% tangible assets, 15% intangible. That's completely reversed now. 85% of the S&P 500 assets are intangible. In other words, data, something we can't get our hands on. There are many questions. Who's first? Did you keep track? Okay. Go ahead. I guess along the same line of thought, my question is about the title of this session, you know, exponential supply chains. I would like to get your views on the word chains. Because I think, in fact, we're more talking about networks, webs, complete change of players and so on. So your view on that one. Gilbert, you want to take that? Are we moving from chains to networks? Yeah, of course, to networks. So a platform is orchestrating a network and not a chain. So in our case, for instance, producers, distributors, service centers, customers, they're all connected in the platform. So it's clearly not a chain anymore. And I think that's going to mean everything's much more flexible and modular. So you can take things out much more easily without breaking a chain in the old way. Well, I used the example of Lego blocks a little bit because in a search for an analogy where, well, we often go back to our childhood, maybe we should, and it can be reconfigured constantly with both advantages and disadvantages, particularly competitively, I would argue. Thank you for that. Next question. My name is Andreas Richig. I'm with the German media company responsible for legal and compliance. I have a professional interest in regulation and I love this discussion here because it shows there is a complaint on existing regulation, saying it's slowing down and it's no longer adequate. It's preventing innovations taking out speed. And on the other hand, everybody agrees that if, let's say, if a big brother meets big data, we need regulation and we have a monopolistic situation in many areas of our business. When we talk to the European Commission, they are, I would say, they capture what should be regulated in the business-to-consumer world. What they have a huge difficulty in understanding how regulation should look like in the business-to-business world. And you mentioned, for example, in your industry, now you're focusing on the points of failure because the concentration is so high in the cloud business. What is the kind of regulation in these business-to-business areas which should be adapted? And I wonder who is making these proposals? Politicians are not able to. They are in their perception years behind and because, so the question, how could we organize a process of coming up with the right proposals for the right regulation? And one final remark, if I talk to US executives, they say, don't wait for the US. They will be the last to come up with regulation proposals. So the Western internet and the Western style of dealing with artificial intelligence has to be regulated in Brussels. So that's a great question. Thank you for that. And we'll go to the next one in a sec. I need to defend the regulator here for a sec. The technology is developing so rapidly, even young startups are grappling and are fighting with following that and let alone established companies and let alone regulators and people in government. So it is extraordinary hard. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, of course, which I think is what your argument is. Tariq, you want to comment on that? This is a great question because if you look at how these trade agreements are done and who is negotiating them, they tend to be older trade-oriented professionals and there's nowhere in that dialogue where you have guys that are experts in blockchain or in the new emerging technology. So we need those discussions with the regulators to involve these younger emerging technologies and there's no place for them to actually do that in the way that we've set up international trade. So I think one of the ways that we get around, we want to regulate, but we don't want to impede, the one of the ways we do that is by engaging the right experts in those discussions and they're not the same experts of the past. It was very interesting this week, Macron was arguing to make the institutions better, if I can paraphrase it like that. So that's one way of doing it, upgrade the regulators. The other ones is I've heard from some of my American friends that have more or less given up and they look for different ways of doing that. Not quite sure what it is though, but there's a next question there. Hi, I'm a business school professor so I've got some different points of view. Yeah, I'll be very quick. We need regulation when markets fail. At least that's the theory I subscribe to, not everybody subscribes to it. And so I'm not sure yet that we know that the markets have already failed and we're already asking for regulation. So it'd be nice to first point out where have the markets failed? So for example, your situation where you cannot take an autonomous ship into port is a good example of a market failure and now we need to figure out how can we overcome this market failure? Regulation may not be the only way, certainly what's looking at it, but other solutions to market failure is something that I would like to suggest. The second thing I'd like to pick up on is your introduction to the value chain. You kind of stopped at sales. I'd like to go to service and customer service of course, which I'm sure is in a rodent on your part. And then returns. So I have not yet come across HP making a 3D disintegrator. So those empty trucks are going to have to bring back stuff that needs to go back for recycling. Talking about recycling and renewal, there's now technology that takes old roads and reuses them in place. So you don't cart the old material away someplace and process them and bring it back. You process it on site. And if you look at the renewal that has to occur now in the war-torn areas, all of that concrete and steel can be processed on site. You don't have to take it away anywhere and bring it back. So there's another area in which I think the value chains will change. And as soon as Apple fixes my phone, I can tell you my next point, which I have forgotten obviously. I'm sure we can arrange that for Apple, too. I'm sorry. Okay. The last point I wanted to mention was we haven't talked about skills development. The minister is in charge of skills and I'm sure with the exponential growth of the use of new technology, skills on both the part of the user, as well as the producers have to grow exponentially. That's a great question. Can I ask the minister to comment on skills given that it's a huge part of your portfolio? There's a good suggestion. As I said, in India, what I'm practicing, if I cite that example, in India, our working population is 500 million. We have to upskill them, re-skill them. Otherwise, they'll be useless. How do you do that? Who are my product? Who are my commodity? Here, I have to use this technology route to virtual classrooms, digital information, and upscaling, re-skilling, and with a scale. I have only answered through this technology's energy. That's a question here. Yes, hello. I'm Tim Mowen, chief executive of the Global Reporting Initiative. Actually, in a previous role, I worked in a supply chain for Apple, so maybe I can help my colleague with his phone. But some of my question actually goes to that. Now, we're talking about digital technology leading to the fourth industrial revolution, but we're still dealing with a lot of the problems of the third and maybe even the second industrial revolution. We have forced labor at huge and growing rates. We have child labor. We have entire villages in Bangladesh that are now under water. So how can we use this digital technology to create a race to the top, to really address some of these lingering issues? That is a great question, and if you don't mind, during this week, there have been several sessions on a web initiative called The Future of Production, which is really where, and it started last year, by the way, and my company, AT Carney, has been lucky enough to be one of the partners in that, where we started to look at what is these impact on production systems, where, what is being made, and all the consequences of that. And by the way, to the point, the human skills and human resources were one of the biggest topics around. But this year, there has been work, and I would recommend that you all read that, on readiness of countries. And it was actually quite startling, perhaps not surprising if you think it through, but still startling if you look at that. We looked at 100 countries, so that's only half of the total countries there is, and the vast majority, two-thirds, were way behind, and were not even close. And indeed, to come to your point, we're still largely agricultural economies and dealing with many different aspects. And at the other end of the spectrum, you have the Koreas and the Japan and the Germanies and the United States that are beginning to move into monopolies of platforms and these types of issues. So the distance between the two has been extending. And one of the questions that comes up, what do you do at the country level? What do governments do? To basically stimulate that, to leap ahead, to leapfrog, to perhaps not wade through the various stages of the development going forward. You wanna pick that up? I am in charge of clean cooking failed to our country. When we took charge, we found there are a lot of ghost connections out there in the LPG. Through digitalization, through deduplication, using technology, we could block some of the ghost consumers. And secondly, in India, we subsidized the cooking fail, LPG. Now what we decide, we'll sell it in the market price and we'll pass on the subsidy to his bank account. Recently, India is presiding over the biggest ever DBT mechanism, network, in our country, in the world. Using digitalization, using technology, we can govern, you can speed up the governance. We can find out, you can map the problem. With a fixed time in 2018, we have a plan to connect 40 million households with electrification. How can we do that? Unless until we use technology, we use digital network, we cannot do that. Exactly, now some of the perennial issues, some of the legacy issues of industrial revolution, one, two, one, three, we have to address using this kind of innovative methodology. And maybe even this kind of countries have better opportunity to catch up like a startup because they don't have this path, they don't have all this regulation, but only, of course, with technology. I would say there's two sides to this coin. I think SMEs are asymmetrically impacted by regulation. On the other hand, the engines of growth are SMEs, so nine out of 10 new jobs are coming from SMEs. So it's really, to me, obvious that we need to deregulate and reduce the amount of complexity and to get the benefit and the trade benefit and the dividend of this growth going forward. So all that we really need to do is reduce the barriers, reduce the complexity, and the SMEs will take care of themselves. There'll be a natural beneficiary of this growth. And it's the countries that have the most complexity that are actually diminishing the returns from growth in the greatest way. So it's a pretty straightforward answer. Let's reduce the barriers, and everyone's gonna enjoy this next 10 years of growth. So we have room for one more question, and then we're gonna wrap it up. I just wanna pick up on Minister Pratam's thing about that we can't regulate everything right away. And there has to be a code of conduct. But how do you make code of conduct appear quickly enough? And one of the mechanisms to have code of conduct is actually to have a ranking of social responsibility in a particular domain. We know the pharmaceutical industry, the access scheme actually has worked. When you start producing a list of pharmaceutical companies which are actually providing medicinal access, suddenly there is improvement in that. So what governments can do is encourage civil society to come up with rankings of social responsibility where that actually happens. Now coming to the regulation thing, I actually also am worried about too much regulation too early. We had a discussion yesterday about agile governance in the fourth industrial revolution, and right now people are talking about big tech being tobacco. And most of the focus actually is not yet on robotics, it actually is on the big platform companies with two-sided markets that use our data to make huge profits. Now obviously European Commission has looked at privacy and use of data, but I think what we need to do is let the market decide and come up with mechanisms where we can monetize our data. There are technologies now emerging that actually allows that if a company uses my data to generate revenue, then I should get a micro payment of the revenue. And if they don't use it, then I don't get a micro payment, and that will force other market-oriented mechanism to address it. So finding the right balance in regulation is going to be extremely important. Market has solutions, so is social responsibility. And I think we should do everything to encourage it. I think there's work ahead in terms of regulations. I wanna wrap things up with the panelists. So is it a good thing or is it a bad thing? What is your greatest hope? What is your greatest worry? You wanna, who wants to go first? Can I ask you a question? I think it's a good thing, it has to be a good thing. We've got to keep moving on. My biggest hope is that we'll get a better balance across the world in terms of this wealth because you talked about trust. I think we've got a huge distrust from a lot of the people of big business. And if it can bring more leveling of that, then I think it's something to be hopeful for. Yeah, I agree. So also my point of view, it's no doubt about positive. Negative is, I think, that governments are too slow. And they have to move from debates to execution. And this is what I'm clearly missing, especially also in Europe. There's no debate here. 86% of small businesses say technology is an enabler. And I think we should, we need to just keep it at that. It's inevitable. We can't escape. It must come, it's a good thing. I would like to hear by thank everyone. Thank first of all the panelists and thank everyone in the audience that have been so active in this debate. There's clearly work ahead. I think that's all our conclusion. There's a lot still unknown, but we're positive on the road ahead. Can I summarize the discussion this way? Thank you very much. Thank you.


Any problems with the technical stuff? Not really. We kind of got that south. We can build pretty much anything. So, a game with unhaffamillion lines and actually quite simple. Doctors should be easy for us. But things are not. So, disciplines. Design, art, audio writing, coding. There are others, but I'm sort of going for a very high level here. The main thing to look at is is it polished? Every time you look at the game, there's something that jobs. There's something that you can do to improve it. So, on the design, is it Unix? Do you know this? I'm assuming this is not a spoiler because everyone's seen Jurassic Park by now, I'd hope. In Jurassic Park, you've got this fantastic world. They've managed to recreate dinosaurs from their DNA. Those are moving around. We believe every single world of it. And then this 12-year-old goes up, this is Unix. I knew this. And all of a sudden, you don't believe that world at all. You believe dinosaurs can be built from their DNA, but when you see that as Unix, it just takes you out. Every time that happens, you have to fix your game. You don't want any of those issues. That's the design level. That's the design phase. So, you've got to make that play-care.  It's just right. It's not too easy, not too hard. My general rule for this is always the first level of the game to be so easy, even I can win it. That makes you feel good. You play the game, win it, think, yeah, I get it. I understand this. I like playing this. Then you go on the second level and make a little bit harder. There's always lots of design questions. Put the hangman up there as a very interesting case of design. How many lines should there be in the name of hangman? How many lives do you get, or how many things you do before it ends? There, I think I've got about 10 or 11. That's probably a bad number. Hangman, you just guess letters to try and work out the word. The most commonly used letters in English language for English words is E-T-A-O-N-I-R-S in that order. Well, that's always 10 letters. If I just went for each of those letters in turn, after 10 of them, I have got 80 cent of the most common words spelt. So, having 10 on hangman is not a good game design feature. So, you've got to think, well, what can I do with no vowels for first three turns? How do you improve what can you change to make that game worth playing? Art stuff, most of the thing, your image data is not your collision data. You should be very generous with what you let the player get away with. And you should allow, you know, in the case of the hitbox, you want the player to feel, yes, I just managed to miss it. If they technically hit it, let them get away with it sometimes. Because it does make you feel good.  Really? Yes, let them off occasionally. Everything's, yeah, make the data interface. Remove, relocate, and reprocent. I tried in the iteration at the places I could find. The less interface you can have in your game, the better. Real life does not have a HUD, but every game seems to want one. If you can move it by putting into the game itself, making it something in-situ, that's more natural. What I did this years ago is, you know, you'd have health, but actually there's a picture of the main guy with blood coming out. And more blood there was, the less health you had. It was a very nice way to see you in game, which wasn't the HUD.  Can I go into this firefight? It's worth it. You just want to be able to look quickly and go, yep, I see that the health bar's right down. I can see there's lots of blood on the character so it's going to be dangerous. So you can see them on the gun, for example. If you can't, then move it somewhere where it's as intrusive. Audio, this is one of my favorite things. There's a lot of audio in real life. But it's not actually real. Newton Foley is partly named four size of Newton. He realized that for every action there was an equal and opposite reaction. And for a guy called Foley, who back in the 1920s, I think it was the 1930s, in Hollywood came up the idea that everything you see on film has to have sound. Now, even those in the cheap seats can't hear my footsteps. But if this was film, my feet would be making footsteps sounds. You can't hear there's enough other noise that means you can't. But if you see a film, you expect as a human to hear that noise even though it's immatical. So you've got to have those sound effects in there because you're used to it. Because Hollywood has brought you up in this way. And if you think about how many sound there are, you might be surprised. Tell you my example of the first person shooter again. How many sounds are there for a gun? Well, it's just a gun sound. Bang! That's it. But there's also the reload sound. There may be a separate sound for the safety catch. Cocking with the gun. You might have additional sounds for the bullet as it hits the wall. There may be a ricochet sound. Every different type of material in your world has a different ricochet sound. You might have the bullet casings dropping on the floor. Again, every different type of floor surface needs a different type of sound. This is seven types of sound effects for one gun. You want to have three or four guns? You're looking at 20 or 30 set effects. Every time you say, oh, I'll just add one more little sound to make it better. You are then creating another set of sounds that you need for every other gun. You want to make it better. Every time you add something, because it makes it good, you've suddenly realized you've got to then make everything else just as good. And the work goes on and on and on like that. Funnily enough, we don't pay enough attention to writing. It's the kind of thing we should. Everyone seems to have a word processor on their computer, and as a conference, everyone thinks they're writer. It's not that easy. Witting good dialogue is hard. Good dialogue is even harder. But even the banal shooter games have a backstory. Even if it's like Demon Quake, it's just something simple.  That is enough of a backstory to go, okay, I get it. But you still have to create that story. There's no reason there. Are you running towards something? Are you running away from something? Even those two different simple ideas actually changes the way you as a player think about that game, how you interact with it. Create yourself a non-locature. If you're saying press the A button, don't switch it to touch the A button a little bit later on. If you're talking about firing a bomb, don't switch the terminology. Say Missile, halfway through. This includes available namings as well.  Oh, and off by one note. So keep the same names everywhere. And try and use contextual and emotional language at all possible. The pirate game example is a Kadankan example. If you're writing a pirate game and you have to have health in this game, how do you label the health? Maybe percentage, maybe a little bar. Well, how about having health ranges where it's made as rabid, infested, crippled or something like that.  A life of a pirate is not nice. So create those words which really match into that environment. And with the pirate thing, it's very easy because you can say, well, even the 100% health level is called rabid, which shows you that life as a pirate is never nice. Even when you're at maximum health, you're still a bit syrupy related. Oh, and if you're doing games in the crossover between English and American, then words like punk and lid are kind of the same thing. But if the game is set in America, you have to use American words. It might seem obvious, but it's the obvious things that get missed. I even had to translate one of my games from English into American once. It was quite surreal. On the technical side of meeting, handle translations. You have all the text in a separate file so again, you as a developer don't have to go through the mass animations when someone updates the text. You also have a lot of collateral to write. It might seem like the easy bit at the end. I'll just write the instructions later or I'll write the website copy or odd. There's still a lot of work needs doing to write all of that stuff. Coding. This is kind of really easy bit. Make sure you test everything. The length one is a really fun example. There was a game way back where you could go into a store and you could buy minus one bullets. This actually meant you got given money and the computer just says, oh yeah, number bought, multiplied by cost and add this on. It's a really nice way of getting through the game. You've got to check this stuff. Random is not random. I take everyone knows that but it's unfortunate because it makes testing really awkward sometimes. I'll go onto Space Bounce and say this is a simple game. It's just a simple five thing. I'll just play through it. I'll briefly play through it and see what that might be or cover assuming it's going to work. It says I've got Wi-Fi. If not, this talk will be even shorter than that. Oh, okay. We're loading again. I'm aware that the fade is slow. It's an iPad. Well, another thing you can't hear here actually is there's a three chord motif. It's just to say, it's a title screen. There is an identity associated with it. Again, it's not a big thing to put in but it is something you should always remember to put in. Here on the title, the O of bounce in the area of space are slightly different to the normal form. That's giving an identity. Doesn't take a lot to do but again, it's a nothing. Yeah, it's only a little thing to little thing here. If every little thing here just takes one hour to write to put in as a hundred things that you need to do, that's already a hundred hours. So let's play. Here we go. This is a little space eye. Oh, now he's got sort of he's going down this chart.  He's collecting the dilithium crystals here which help power the spaceship so that you can escape from the planet. Again, it's not big but it's still to an absolute age to do. So when we get to the bottom here we go. Success. And it goes on to the next level which is slightly faster. So, what's actually going on in that game? What are the extra bits that put in there? Well, give yourself a point for everyone you've spotted. So, the stylized font, it would look pretty silly if it was using a font like the 18 or something like that. The imprints we did was fading in there although it's lower in my pad. Each button has an in-out version and a hover. The level design. Of course it's been put in a position to ensure that it is possible to do every level. The wind sequence at the start is unique. The health bar fades in. It's impossible to lose that level even if I didn't touch anything and you hit everything on that screen you'll still get through it. All the fading in and out that's all in there. Each level, that's going on and on there's more crystals, it's deeper and faster. So every single time you go into a new level something changes. There's a little bit extra going on. There's lots of nice visuals in there. The sky is a gradient. Did anyone spot the moon on the game? Nope. Well, the moon's up there in the top left and what I do is I actually look at the time and date from the computer and I put the moon in the correct astronomical position which is to say if it's a full moon out that moon on the screen will be in full moon and the crescent in the moon will be crescent. Who could honestly say they spotted that?  And there's animations on everything the screen effects loads of pulsating things so I'm going to wrap up there and open to questions these are the books I've written on games but I get so little in royalties it's not worth you buying them just buy me a beer and I'll do everything that's in them and anyone who asks good questions I actually got a couple of copies here which I can throw out so that's me, I'll update my scorecard now so there we go, 64 stems so questions, oh I'm ready does it mean that the astronaut in your game escapes the Earth since it's the actual moon from there? yes, it isn't really can you repeat the question? so the question is, is this nor actually technically on Earth because it's our moon and it's like, no I did not want to name for the planet do that, it's you know it technically isn't correct but I think people are going to be more interested in the fact that it is completely correct then they're going to start querying that you know what I said earlier about making sure the world is cohesive other questions oh yes we do so to someone I guess, would you say it's better to have a simpler policy than something with planets and graphics that actually doesn't play well? so the question is, is it better to have a simpler game that is nicely pushed and the answer is yes if you're going for a job you want to do this stuff commercially having one thing that's really nicely polished is better than having 200 things that are all half done, maybe a little bit broken here and there just get one thing it's safe to start something, it's so difficult to finish, if you can finish it with all the polish in you get a lot more costs and credit and everything else by doing that, definitely the way there's one, I've got two at the back first so the question is if you polish the title screen everything else does it not raise the expectations the answer is yes it does and yes it should you should set the player up to really want to get into this game there's a tea show in England called Mastermind which is a very simple quiz show you get us questions on your specialist subject and then on general knowledge the show starts with deep booming music the studio is black all you see is a chair in the middle there's a irrigation that sets up your expectation for the rest of the show which is firing questions at you one after another it's good to set up those expectations it really draws you in there's a question also here with early access games that release less polish than they would had they waited they would have more money to release a polish version because releasing the unpolished version early sort of takes the game's image to the public and you recommend they waited longer and the extra funding was finished yeah the question is with early release games would it be better if they waited and actually finished release the finished version and yes they really should unfortunately commercials such as they are require you to get something out because a game that has been released will make more money than a game that sits on someone's hard drive so there is that commercial requirement that's often above the integrity of the game you are pretty sure that every time you get a game that's a bit broken you know the developers who are broken they knew it shouldn't have been shipped but it wasn't their decision make or some management somewhere that said no we have to release this or there's no company I've worked in so many games companies where if we didn't get the game out there literally would be no company left but the margins were that small there's a question here this last question brings us to the open source mantra of release early and really often is it compatible with the games does it have a meaning to release it even if it's just beta so maybe you attract tributaries or something like that yeah so the question is this goes against the open source mantra for release early release often unfortunately it does and this is one of those dichotomies between open source and games you really don't want to release early you do want to be able to say this is finished again there might be other commercial reasons we've got to ship it out but if you are able to just say no it's you know you will get some people go oh I kind of like this I'm getting into it now I'm going to start helping on this project but a lot of the time it looks awful what I'm going to spend time on this particularly looks awful or it plays badly it's very difficult within this kind of environment with games for you to look past that something that's a bit short the question is what is the smallest practical size of a group of people to start on a game like you need so many disciplines you need the original people you need the right one what's the smallest number of people you can start a game with don't be one because it will always start with one it's very difficult to have an idea with someone you'll have the it would be great to do a game where you're falling down a mine shaft you then talk with some about that they go oh yeah this or how about that and from that point it starts growing most people have to be more to be disciplined in the arena because you'll get it from that idea in your head to something you can tell someone else about you have to at least do either a little bit of coding or a little bit of artwork it's not great it says this is my idea and then plant it that way but as I said you can get them you know you always start with one then maybe two generally an art and a code side and you work on the design bits together and it can just grow up to as many people as you could possibly fit in there was something over this side yes I was wondering you said you should make level one as easy as possible but if you make that you get it without doing action are you really not making it not playable because I would think you got to do something to know game mechanics so if you make the question if you make the game so easy you're not really given a game at that point and I do kind of agree with it the player doesn't know that the game is going to be that easy and when you start the game you are essentially giving them a training level you need to get them used to the controls they need to learn how to jump then they need to learn how to run and jump at the same time introducing these things progressively after the other allows them to experience the controls get used to it so when it really does matter and they're going to die if they don't jump at the right point they don't feel cheated if you do die it's like well I've had enough chances at this I've got through level one I've done all my jumps before it's in their fault for not having learnt the control system I think we should stop there okay


What's up everyone? Take it down here. Welcome back to another video. Today I'm going to be sharing with you how to fix the black screen of death on the PlayStation 3. Let's get right into this. So just like the videos in the past where I shared how to fix the blue light of death for the PlayStation 4, today we're going to be talking about the PlayStation 3 and what to do if your PlayStation 3 is not displaying on the screen. It is actually called the black screen of death and there is some ways that you can fix it. Of course if the easy fixes do not work there is going to be bigger things and more expensive options that you can do to get your PS3 working once again. So like always for this video is we're going to start off with the cheapest and easiest things that you can do yourself even if you are not tech savvy. So the first thing and the easiest thing to do is to try replacing either the AV cord or HDMI cord whichever one you use for the PlayStation 3. Now of course if that does not work it's not the end of the world there is other options that you can do and other things that you can try to get your PS3 to work once again. Now the next step is you're going to have to go into the safe mode for the PlayStation 3. For this you would simply press and hold the power button on the PlayStation 3. You will hear a beep in a couple seconds you'll hear a second beep and then after that you will hear two or three rapid beeps. After the rapid beeps you can take your finger off the power button and on the screen it should start displaying the safe mode. So the first thing you're going to do is connect a controller to your PS3 with the controller cable and then you're going to press the PS button on the controller. Once that is done you are going to be in the safe mode on the PlayStation 3 and see a bunch of different options. The first thing the easiest thing to do first is to try to restore the database. This is going to fix hopefully the black screen of death within the console. So you're going to select that you're going to let it do its thing which might take a couple minutes or a couple hours depending on how much you have saved on your PS3 and let it run its course. If that doesn't work you're going to want to go back into safe mode so you're going to turn off your PS3 and do the steps I just shared you to get into safe mode and then you're going to want to select the bottom option which is to basically check to see if it is updated. So if your PS3 is connected to internet usually it should be able to access and check to see if it is updated if not it will update it. If it is not you're going to want to go on to the PlayStation websites get the update save it to a flash drive and then put in the PS3 and choose that option and it will take it from the flash drive to the PS3 and update it that way. So now unfortunately if those three options did not work changing the HDMI cable or AV cable restoring the database or checking to see if your PS3 is up to date then there may be a bigger problem with your PlayStation 3 that needs to be addressed. The first thing that you can try while in safe mode is you can factory reset your PS3 to see if that will work and fix the problem. If that doesn't work chances are the hard drive and the PS3 is faulty you will have to remove and replace the hard drive and try to see if your PS3 will work once again. If you have the black screen of death I would check everything that I mentioned in this video first before resorting to purchasing the new hard drive purchasing a new PS3 or trying to change any of the ports in the back of the PS3. I hope this has helped you fix the black screen of death for the PS3 I know this console is well over 10 years old but people are still playing the PS3 especially me as a collector and I know this is a problem that people are now experiencing and I want to look into it and share this video for you guys so hope you guys enjoyed I'll see you guys in the next video please take care peace


So, now we will start with our study of dynamic games and the key issue we will now begin to tackle is the issue of information. So, first let me ask you this, we I kept mentioning that all in all our games the players were playing simultaneously, so when when do you say that players are playing simultaneously. So, let us take the the example that we had that we had looked at in last class right it was this is game of matching pennies, I had looked at the asymmetric version but the here is the symmetric version. So, the game of matching pennies with a symmetric version is something like this, these are the payoffs. So, the players have to put down the penny coin with either heads up or tails up and if both if both players put up the same face then player 1 gets 1 and player 2 gets player 2 gets minus 1. If both players if one player puts up heads the other player puts up tails then player 2 gets plus 1 and player 1 gets minus 1. This was the situation. Now, what this this game obviously is meaningful if so this was a simultaneous move game. So, what does it mean for players to play simultaneously? So, simultaneous if you think about it in the in the in the in the in the in its English meaning you would mean that they are actually instead putting the coin down at the exact same instance okay. So, physically at the exact same you know cosmic time that is when they are in fact putting down the coin but that that is not so the game remains strategically the same even if they put the coins down one after the other but without knowledge of what the other one has done right. So, what we mean by simultaneous really is that the player does not know what the other player has done. So, simultaneous in a in a game theoretic or strategic context has not not so much to do with time as it is to do with information right if players do not have information of what the other player has done then it is as good as simultaneous is this clear okay. So, so now now consider the following let us take the let us take another game okay. So, so this let me just write out whatever I just said that this is simultaneous and we mean that it is simultaneous really means players do not know what the other player has played this is what it means for a game to be simultaneous okay. Now, here is another game let us this is this is actually a game in with infinitely many strategies for each player. So, player say suppose there are two players that are producing some homogeneous good two firms let us say they produce a homogeneous good the homogeneous means a good they are producing a commodity or a good that that genius a good is homogeneous means that the the the the one that is produced by the the thing that is produced by one player is is indistinguishable from that produced by the other okay. So, what matters is how much they produce not what they produce so long as they are producing the same thing okay. So, so there is that means there so examples are for example electricity electricity produced by one plant is the same as the electricity produced by another plant you know you do not really distinguish between the electrons coming from one plant and the electrons coming from the other. So, there that so this this this sort of a good is a homogeneous good you know many of the other things that we you know that we use on a day to day basis are homogeneous you know cereals rise wheat etc there you know it does not matter whether this come from this firm or that firm so long as the the breed of the of the of the rice is the same it is it is the same rice right okay. So, that is not the same in other goods like for example, shampoos will be different for different shampoo made by one company will be different from that made by the other company toothpaste made by one will be different from the other cars etc etc those are not homogeneous. So, one thing that we know about when goods are homogeneous is that what matters is the total supply of the quantity in in the market that determines the price okay and the the price is can be characterized usually by some sort of a formula you would kind of know what the how the price would behave as a function the market price would behave as a function of the amount of quantity produced alright. So, in this case so we have two firms producing homogeneous good suppose Q i is the quantity produced by produced by firm i and let us say that the price okay the price the price in the market that is the is a function of the quantity is produced by both. So, it is a function of Q 1 and Q 2 and so I am going to and I will assume it has it takes a very simple form I will assume that it is takes the form 1 minus Q 1 plus Q 2 okay. So, this has been normalized to eventually give you this sort of form if the price is 1 minus Q 1 plus Q 2. So, it is a function of the total production okay that is Q 1 plus Q 2. So, if this is what the firms are faced with then the firms have what they would do is they well they they each firm has a wants to maximize its profit as a function of its profit is is a function of Q 1 and Q 2. So, that would be equal to 1 minus Q 1 plus Q 2 which is the price times the quantity it has produced which is in this case Q i minus the cost that it that it incurs in producing it okay. So, then let us suppose that is C times Q i okay. So, this is the so this is a cost okay. So, this is per unit cost per unit quantity okay. So, this is the this is what these firms produce this is what the objective of each firm is. So, the each firm wants would like to now decide the quantity it should produce in order to maximize this profit okay. Now, when the firms are trying to decide their quantity is simultaneously okay then essentially what they are doing is they are they are trying to decide what quantity they should produce without knowing what the other would would be doing right. So, then what would be the then what the way we would solve for this look for a an equilibrium a solution for this sort of a situation through the Nash equilibrium. So, can you tell me what would be the Nash equilibrium of this game? So, this U i is actually you can see is actually quadratic and concave in Q i okay. So, you can solve for this can you tell me what it would be?  So, I let us differentiate this and put this equal to 0 with respect to Q 1 and let us also put this equal to 0. What do we get here? So, I will get yeah can it will be what this would be?  So, can let us solve this simultaneously and tell me what you get 1 minus C by 3 right. So, Q 1 you get Q 1 star equal to Q 2 star equal to 1 minus C by 3 okay. So, this is the Nash equilibrium. So, the Nash equilibrium of this if these of the game where if these players were playing simultaneously would be that they would each choose these quantities 1 minus C 1 minus C by 3 okay. Now, let us take this one step forward and let us ask what if player 2 what if this game was not simultaneous okay. So, what this means is suppose player 2 okay suppose player 2 can observe suppose player 2 can observe what player 1 plays if player 2 can observe what player 1 plays okay then what is the strategy of player 2. So, let me go back here. So, first tell me here in this game what were the strategies of the players they had to decide the amount of quantity to be produced what is the space of strategies in this case it will be said well I have not put said it explicitly but it is it is all non-negative numbers right any any any any basically the space of strategies is 0 to infinity is a space of strategies is for each player okay. Now, what is the now here player 2 can observe what player 1 plays okay player 2 still has the same objective it is still profit profit is still given by the same formula okay. So, he is still the the the price that will come in the market is still going to be 1 minus Q 1 plus Q 2 alright the cost is still C times Q C times Q 2. So, on the face of it nothing seems to have changed in the problem in terms of its specification right it seems like well the utility the utility function is the profit expression is still the same the the price is the same the the cost is the same but somewhere something has changed when P 2 can observe what P 1 can has played right because when P 2 can observe what P 1 has played he will obviously play differently. So, where is that manifested now. So, what are this let me ask again this question what are the strategies now of the players in the other earlier case the strategies of the players was 0 to infinity now what are the strategies of the players okay very good why right right. So, what are the strategies for the players see there are so this this is your first introduction to a simple dynamic game this is a dynamic game is one where players have some there is some player who has some information which is different from another player in a simultaneous game every player starts with the all players start with basically null information 0 information with right whereas here there is player 2 who has the information of what player 1 has played and when he has this information it makes sense that he picks his quantity then as a function of that information right if he had say see here in this case the information is the amount of quantity that player 1 has produced if the information was something else like for example it was the information is about the weather or something like that which player 1 did not have then he would pick his quantity as a function of that right. So, the point is that now that player a player has additional some additional information his strategy is not merely to decide how much quantity to produce but it is to decide how much quantity to produce as a function of what he knows. So, the strategy is not really the quantity the numerical quantity itself but the function that maps his information to a quantity okay. So, the players player 2 strategy now strategy is a function from 0 infinity to 0 infinity. So, here we distinguish between two different terms. So, this is what we call a strategy in a dynamic game the quantity that he actually produces and that is what in fact eventually influences his cost and his eventually influences his profit is that is what is called action okay. The quantity that he produces is the action. So, Q2 here this is his action and Q2 is chosen as a function of his information information being Q1. So, let us call this function gamma 2 this here is his strategy and it is chosen as a function of Q1 this here is his information is clear. So, the so strategies now are whenever you are in a dynamic game strategies now necessarily become functions okay because there is someone has some information which is not trivial right. So, the the strategy for that player is a function then from that goes from his from his information to his action all right. So, the the immediate shift that you see when you go from a static or simultaneous move game to a dynamic game is that the problem necessarily goes into function space because now everything has to be dealt with in the space of functions all right. So, those of you have taken my stochastic control course you would have seen this over there as well when you are when we write out we cannot write a stochastic control problem in terms of only actions you have to write it in the space of policies right. And that the space of policies there is basically the again the space of functions okay. So, then the reason for that is again because stochastic control is about at the end of the day about information it is about what information you have at at instant in time. So, because of and because you have to map that information into into an eventually a control action this issue is usually moved in the case of deterministic control because there you have to simply see take a sequence of actions and the information and the information is available to you as a look ahead because of the lack of randomness in the problem all right okay all right. So, I will not go into that those digressions but the point is the so now that you are now that p2 knows q1 it makes sense that he chooses his he tunes the quantity that he takes based on what q1 is and you have to allow for him to have that that flexibility and so therefore his strategy then is a is a function that maps q1 to is a function that maps q1 to q2 all right. So, so the space of strategies then for player 2 is then the space of all such functions space of strategies let us call it capital gamma 2 is a is these functions gamma 2 and gamma 2 maps now what is the space of strategies for player 1 yeah the space of strategies for player 1 is still to pick a quantity right he has no information to start off with. So, there are there are two different questions here one is what is the space of strategies okay means what is the allowable space through which he is picking his picking his strategy the other is what is the optimal strategy that he should be playing okay now I am not asking you what the optimal strategy for player 1 is I am asking you what are this what is the space through from which his strategy has to be chosen and the space from which his strategy has to be chosen is simply a quantity player 1 has to pick a quantity player 2 then observes that quantity and then decides. So, in terms of so the strategy for player 2 is a plan effectively right it is a plan which says that okay you know if if player 1 may produces 100 quintals I will produce so much if player 2 produces 200 player 1 produces 200 quintals then I will produce so much player 2 produces 300 quintals then I will produce so much essentially for every value of q 1 he has a he has a response planned right he has a he has a he has a plan that gives him a quantity to produce as a function of what player 1 has would hypothetically produce player 1 does not have any need to make such plans because he has no you know there are no contingent informations for there is no contingent information for him he starts he is the one who starts the game he plays player 2 observes and player 2 responds okay now that does not mean player 1 does not have to strategize that is a different matter altogether but he does not need to have a contingent plan which says that you know this is my information then this is what I will do that is my information then that is what I will do etc. So, player 1 space of strategies for player 1 is this is still 0 infinity okay all right now that we know that these are the space of strategies for the players. So, now tell me how should these players play okay so now P2 so P2 does so he will pick fine P2 looks for a quantity such that Q2 star such that if he looks at his utility from Q2 star that is better than playing any other Q2 now this looks oddly like the Nash equilibrium but is there something that I have that is different yeah so if this is a potential mode of play is what I am writing here so what P2 could do is that he could say well I will play a Q2 star that maximizes this expression and the what in this expression what do you observe about Q1 Q1 is not fixed at a star value so this is just some value of Q1 right so he is going to just take up a hypothetical value of Q1 find whatever is the maximizing Q2 right maximizing Q2 from here and take that as the Q2 star so his so then as a result Q2 star will necessarily be a function of Q1 is this clear so this is this is then the function of the dependence the functional dependence that we just said so the so potential mode of play for P2 then is to say well he could play this strategy gamma 2 star let me call this gamma 2 star where what is gamma 2 star gamma 2 star is is the is that gamma 2 star of as a function of Q1 produces a quantity Q2 star where Q2 star satisfies this right so so gamma 2 star for every Q1 will specify is the quantity Q2 star which which optimizes this is clear so okay so now with this in mind so this is this is the mode of play for for player 2 and what is the mode of play for player 1 if player 2 is going to respond is going to play Q gamma 2 star which is basically specifying the quantity that maximizes his utility as a function of Q1 okay now what is the mode for how should player 1 play okay so a mode of play for player 1 would now be would now we see like like she asked does does player 1 know that player 2 is going to respond okay or player 2 does player 1 know that player 2 can observe player 1's quantity well so this is that that that is known to player 1 so the players know that this is the this is what will be known to them okay during the game so now that player 1 knows that player 2 is going to respond with Q gamma 2 star what player 1 should then play is well he can say well let he can play he can essentially anticipate that that is going to be the response of the player okay so a potential mode of play for player 1 now is to play Q1 star so let me use star star here so that there is no confusion okay so what player 1 would then say is he plays a quantity Q1 star star such that it maximizes the utility that he would get assuming player 2 would respond with gamma 2 star star okay so assuming taking Q2 to be Q2 as to be equal to gamma 2 star star of Q1 he maximizes this over Q1. So you see one thing that has happened here so the there is now a dependence here the the quantity of the other player is not just the quantity that the other player is producing is not fixed in this optimization the quantity that the other player is producing now is a function of what player 1 would produce so player 1 is anticipating that that player 2 is going to respond in an adaptive way so he is going to adapt to whatever quantity I produce and so keeping that model in mind he optimizes his is he maximizes his profit is this clear so his so he is maximizing this knowing that Q2 star star is a function of so knowing that Q2 star star is a function of Q1 okay so now in a game we always assume that the utilities are common knowledge we assume that who knows what at various times who would know what at during the game during gameplay is also common knowledge so gamma 2 star star is something that player that player 1 can in fact compute on his own right he can compute that that is that is what player 1 would play and then respond and then come as a result he can then compute this whole expression is this clear so he can compute this and get his gamma Q1 star star