I'm going to be very brief, I have some questions for Ravi at the end, so I want to make sure that I leave time for him to answer those. So Marcus and I came from the same meeting in Berlin this week, and I think our thinking has been shaped in slightly similar directions, and Marcus has some very specific things to say, so I also want to leave time for him. Okay, so, okay, should I stand here, let me move this, is that better? So very broadly, what did we talk about in this session? We talked about the fact that we need more data, we need better data, and we need new theory. Okay, that's not exactly, that's rather too broad a brush, that would apply pretty much to any session we could be in. So I want to talk very briefly about the WID data. I think you and your wider needs to be congratulated on the production of this amazing data set. It's highly transparent, it's very well documented. And does know exactly where the data is coming from, and very importantly, there's no imputation. So unlike with the SWID data where one appears to have data, but a lot of that data is in fact generated by the database rather than coming from an original data source. Having said that, of course, Kathleen Beagle yesterday in the session on Africa made this point that data is still fraught, even if you've done as much as you possibly can in the office to try and harmonize that data, the fact is that what comes from the original statistical agency is not necessarily the same. These data sets all use very different, well, somewhat different survey methodologies. They have different reference periods for consumption across different types of surveys. There are very different sampling methodologies. The data producers themselves tend to truncate the data, they deflate in different ways. And one can't entirely address those issues when you get the data after the fact. So I do think that we need to see more collective action globally on standardizing how survey methodology happens. And I think there have been massive movements in that direction within, certainly within the EU and within the OECD countries, but for the developing countries, I think beyond the massive efforts of the World Bank, we haven't seen that much push towards getting stats agencies to do things in a consistent way. I think where we're moving to is towards saying, well, survey data takes us part of the way. But actually, most countries now have an increasing push to make available administrative data as well. And so I think where the frontier now is in terms of trying to say, how do we combine these two things? If we have survey data for most of the distribution, but we know that the survey data is probably missing at the top end of the distribution, are there good ways in which we can combine that with administrative records? So both of these data sources have their own issues. Tax register data has some missing records, either because of tax evasion or because taxes are only correct, of course, for a small proportion of the population. The household surveys have problems of unit non-response and potentially inaccurate information. So even if we have both data sources in a country, I think combining those data sets is quite a fraught exercise. I want to very quickly show you two slides for South Africa. So this is South African data, where we use a household survey, which is the blue line, and we use tax record data, which is the red line, just for the very top end of the distribution. So these are the richest 8% of adults in South Africa. And we see that there's quite some similarity between those two distributions, which seems quite comforting. When we look at that in detail, we find that even within that small part of the distribution, there's quite a lot of consistency in the two data sets, except right at the top of the distribution. So that seems like a very plausible story. One doesn't expect to find the very richest households participating in the household survey, so one might then think, well, this is excellent. We've got tax register data for the very top. We've got household survey data for everybody else. So even in a situation like that where you've got quite a lot of consistency between the data, you still have a whole lot of issues to address in terms of at what point of the distribution would you try and join these two distributions? And how do you deal with the inconsistencies? And so I guess I'm wondering a bit about what one then does, even if one has this type of data. How would a database like WID ever try and incorporate data that is in some sense synthetic? And so I think as we move towards a situation where more and more countries are producing these types of data, one needs to think hard about how one might standardize methodologies out of time. So I'm going to pose one question to Ravi because I don't think he spoke for nearly long enough. The chair already asked him a question about inequality of opportunity. I had another question for him. So we've heard that we need more empirics. OK, so we need to understand better what is the nature of inequality. We need to understand better the drivers of inequality. And then as Ravi said, we need much more theory to try and fit to those empirics. And something that was very hot in yesterday's business price was this new work by Charles Goodheart, who's the former chief economist for the Bank of England, who said the Piketty thesis is dead. Piketty is history on the basis that demographic change is going to make a massive difference in the future. So he makes this argument that the global labor force is no longer going to continue to grow nearly so fast, that therefore the returns to labor are likely to rise rapidly, and therefore we are in a very different world. And I'd love to hear Ravi's response to that. So to sort of caricature it, he's saying we've been worrying that the robots are going to take all the jobs. Maybe we should be worrying instead that the robots aren't taking the jobs nearly fast enough. So that's my rather difficult question to Ravi. Thank you. Thank you, Professor. Professor Ingrid Ullard is professor in the School of Economics at University of Cape Town and principal research officer of the Southern African Labor and Development Research Unit. She has been studying a lot on the National Income Dynamics study. Thank you for complimenting our presentation. Now I would like to invite Professor Marcos Senti to be short. There we are. Since it's me standing between you and lunch and possibly a couple of questions from the audience, I'm going to be extremely brief in my remarks. I did prepare a few sets of comments on each of the papers, but in fact I'm going to skip those and go directly to two issues which relate to both Fintarpe and Yocapirtiles and Ravi's discussion. So Ravi, in the text I got ahead of the conference, there's an interesting discussion about the impact of family background on economic outcomes and how that might affect inequality. And Ravi touched on the issue of the formal equality of opportunity approaches developed by people like John Romer. Now one of the interesting things, it used to be believed in a text very well formulated by Milton Friedman in the 1950s that essentially that if you have more inequality in the cross-section you're going to have more dynamism in the economy and consequently you'll observe more mobility in the economy. It turns out that once people started looking at intergenerational mobility across countries, the opposite turned out to be the case. There's this notion of the great Gatsby curve as formulated by Alan Kruger at the time, the chair of the Council of Economic Adviser in the US which essentially argues based in both on economic theory and on empirical observation that you're going to observe more intergenerational mobility if you have less inequality in a country. It turns out also that even if I think Ravi's reservations about equality of opportunity can be quite well founded if you look at the correlation between intergenerational persistence and equality of opportunity, you find the same kind of thing, but the countries with a lot of equality of opportunity are the ones with quite equal outcomes in the cross-section, they're also the ones with not so much intergenerational persistence. So these things may all be, in fact, these kinds of good things may all be positively correlated with each other. Now from this, of course, it flows that in the Western world where inequality has been on the increase in the past, yes, in the, among most OECD countries, if we do indeed value equality of opportunity, things like having outcomes being less dependent on your family background, we're going to see less of these good things as inequality increases. Whether or not that's true is anybody's guess, but economic theory seems to support it, empirics seems to support it. And most people, when queried, say they support equality of opportunity, so this may be one of the reasons we should be worried about inequality. Of course, once you explain to people what equality of opportunity actually means, that support tends to evaporate, but that's then a completely separate matter. So I think, but I do think we're in dire need to know more about both equality of opportunity and the importance of family background for economic persistence, despite the fact that, say, the World Bank with Chico Ferreira and others before have done admirable work in finding these things out, but many of these things we could very easily find out a lot more about in surveys, as long as we're actually interested in finding them. So that about the equality of opportunity. Another one of these kind of, I think, old ideas, which are well worth discussing is Arthur Oaken's great trade-off. It's a wonderful book, well worth reading 40 years after the fact it was written, where Arthur Oaken, I think it's frequently misunderstood what he actually was trying to say. He wasn't saying that there's this terrible trade-off that if you want growth, you have to give away equality. That's, in fact, quite different from what he said. What he said was that if there is such a trade-off, we need to realize that we want both more equity and we want more growth. And then we need to kind of make a decision about how much we want to trade-off of the one against the other. His solution was definitely not to abandon equity and take all the growth he can. Now, as a consequence of the kinds of things Joe Stiglitz was talking about today, we now know that this trade-off may look quite different, and in many cases there is no such trade-off. It then follows that those who say that focusing on distribution is some kind of luxury we can afford once we've gotten sufficient amounts of growth really should think things through again. And in fact, this is one of the reasons I think Oaken's book is clearly well worth reading still, because Arthur Oaken was a macroeconomist who really took equity quite seriously, but was worried about this leaky bucket. It turns out that in many cases the bucket doesn't leak at all. So the people who still believe this should probably update their beliefs in view of what the world actually looks like. Thank you so much. I think we did talk many different aspects of inequality, mostly from the point of a macroeconomics. I would like to invite Dr. Kanbura a little bit to add from your observation on this discussion. Well, let me perhaps I can respond quickly to the points that Marcus and Ingrid raised. On inequality of opportunity, I think my concern has really been that it should not be used as actually a device for standing in the way of progressive redistribution policies. Because the moment you move to redistribute, the argument is made you're violating the inequality of opportunity because this income was justly earned by their own efforts, et cetera, et cetera. I think that's my big concern in this regard. And so when we have a philosophical structure which separates out circumstance from effort, and then we have an empirical effort to separate those two out, both of which, as I argue, are really very dicey things to do. And then we use the motherhood and apple pie notion of the phrase, equality of opportunity.  But you say, no, I'm for equality of opportunity. Oh, please come in. Let's discuss and so on. And we very happily go into the room. But then when the door shuts behind you, you realize that actually the ticket on which you came in, the other person has something very different in mind. And you say, well, what I want to do is to redistribute parental income because we know that that's one of the main determinants, let's say, of children's test scores and outcomes, et cetera. No, no, no. That's not what I had in mind. Because to do that would be to violate equality of opportunity, that the effort doctrine of the parent. So that's been my policy concern, leaving to one side the conceptual difficulties and the econometric, empirical difficulties, and the thing. Let me make one other observation on separation of efficiency and equity. Again, this is a very deep-seated trait in economists. I don't know if some of you remember, maybe Joe remembers, James Meads tracked the Intelligent Radicals guide to economics. It was actually self-consciously sort of a reflecting George Bernard Shaw's track, The Thinking Woman's Guide to Socialism and so on. So he said, the radical part of the Intelligent Radical is that the person is concerned about distribution. But James Meads said it was that the Intelligent Part is that the Intelligent Radical will not use market mechanisms, rather will not interfere with market mechanisms, with the pricing mechanisms, to get out those objectives. So you get the classic sort of thing, you have property redistribution, but marginal cost pricing. It's those twin things, and you have a separation of equity from efficiency. So it's not just separation in that sense, but in terms of policy instruments, that this set of policy instruments are targeted towards that, and that set of policy instruments are targeted towards that. And I think it's that separation, which is very deep in our training, which has actually been questioned by the developments of the last 20, 30 years. Thank you for very interesting response and analysis. I think we still, at us, in a way, by habit, or by training, or by preoccupation that the suspicion still exists. I'm sorry to say that this is suspicion that the redistribution or fiscal policy can really help the inequality. But I think that at the same time the opportunity, inequality of opportunity, has some different aspects, philosophically or economically. It needs to be analyzed in more detail with the scientific data. Anyway, I would like to invite questions from the audience. I hope someone would raise the not only inequality question within OSD and developing countries, from a macroeconomist point of view, but also extreme poverty and poverty related to inequality in developing countries. Please, please introduce your name properly and make a question. Can you hear me? My name's Jim Davies. I'm from the University of Western Ontario. One thing that's next in inequality is climate change. In fact, it's already upon us. Just a couple of relevant examples here. Ravi was talking about the stability of inequality in the MENA area. One thing that's been suggested to me, actually, by colleagues in other disciplines, climate people, is that there was an increase in food prices leading, in the period leading up to the Arab Spring, and that that fueled the discontent and led to some of the political activity at that time. So I don't know whether that's absolutely true or not, but it suggests that we need to think about what's happening to prices for people at different levels of the income distribution. And clearly, if there's a surge in food prices, the real income of the poor is going down and there's a systematic change in income distribution, which we don't capture if we don't have adjust for those price changes. The other thing I would mention is, here's a plug for some of my own work. Together with John Wally and Xiaoyang Shi, I had an article in Journal of Economic Inequality last year about the interaction between carbon tax and inequality. If you use the revenue from a worldwide carbon tax, you could have an enormous impact and redistributed, you could have an enormous impact in reducing inequality. That might seem like pie in the sky, but actually something, this is an issue that does need to be addressed, because within each country there's a lot of empirical evidence that shows that carbon tax is regressive. So something has to be done to offset the regressive effects. We need the carbon tax in order to save the planet, and you can't escape that. And it has distributional impacts. Because we need the other questions, so please make your questions short. Oh, I'm all done. Thank you. Your question must be addressed to Professor Kambu, right? Everybody? You can take some questions. And please. I'm Andrea Cornia from the University of Florence and formerly at Wider. I have two very quick questions. Now one is for Ravi. When Ravi commented the trends, and I praise him for pointing out that Toma Piketty basically talks about the OECD countries, it looked like that you were attributing the changes in the patterns, I mean the rise in the falls, basically to Kuznets. And my argument would be, well, it is important to try to separate what is due to sort of endogenous factors, like China is exhausting its labor reserve, and so wages are rising, and therefore, blah, blah, blah. And what is basically driven by policy? Now in Latin America, the decline is there's been no changes in the labor reserve, and then basically the decline is been due to a massive increase in expenditure on secondary education and on redistribution by social security. Now if you look at Malawi, when Malawi had the falling inequality, this was large something like the starter part in agriculture, and what has kept the inequality law in Ethiopia, with the gene at 26%, has been, again, agricultural policy which has been favorable to that. So I think from a policy perspective, it is very important to separate what is sort of endogenous to what is policy driven, because if we discover what policy is, then we try to replicate. Now a very quick question to Fin. In doing our work on Africa, we are a little bit scared because we use WID, and we complemented WID. But now the World Bank is doing this re-standardization using the micro data, and they will be coming out soon with the new estimates of the gene. So will WID be including this I2D2 new estimates based on re-standardization of micro data? One more question. Yeah, you were the first. Thank you. Andy Summler from King's College. My questions are kind of normative in a way. I mean, first of all, thanks for a great panel. I think WIDA should have lifetime funding for 200 years for what it's done on the WID and inequality work. It's a data set that everyone's going to use. I mean, I have it on almost daily use myself. I think there's a slight issue with the SALT data set. I'm judging by your very diplomatic comments that the author there didn't enter into a long dialogue and negotiation discussion with you. I suppose there's a worry, of course, that these data sets become, as Andrea just made about, these data sets don't become competitors, I guess, and how they can all be put together. So my questions are actually more about the normative questions about inequality, what next, but they relate to a lot of what's being said. The first thing is, no one's responsible for global inequality, but clearly governments are responsible for national inequality. Does that mean national inequality actually trumps global inequality? I'm not saying global inequality doesn't matter, but maybe our focus, there's a normative question, maybe our focus should be national inequality, because that's what someone has responsibility for doing something for. The second normative question is really about the measures of inequality and the fact that Atkinson's point from the early 1970s, about the measure you choose has normative assumptions embedded in it. Of course, the genie is very sensitive or oversensitive in the middle and less sensitive relative to the extremes, and it made me wonder about whether do we need a measure of inequality that covers the whole distribution or do we need a measure of inequality that's about the bits of the distribution that are important, either the richest and the poorest, which pushes you more towards ratios. I'm not going to mention the Palma ratio. And the final question is just about redistribution. And I was thinking about this, and some of the work I've been doing recently is dividing the world up into segments to look at redistributing the growth increment rather than redistribution per se. And what we found is the world could have easily ended $2 poverty already and could probably have ended $4 poverty already with the growth since the Cold War if those on over $30 a day had had slightly less growth of their consumption. So I wondered whether there's anything to say about the redistribution question about focusing on the patterns of growth and the growth increment, which arguably is politically easier and relates to the inequality of opportunity question than going after a redistribution per se. Thank you. Well, because time limit, I would like to invite panelists to respond first and see if we can do some more. Would you please start? Yeah, so just very, very quickly, Andreas, I fully agree actually. In fact, if I had more time to discuss the detail of the Chinese phases, those are very much policy-related phases. And one of the reasons why we're seeing this, I believe we're seeing this turnaround is specifically related to a policy which came in from the mid-2000s onwards under the harmonization label and so on. So I was trying to get the cousinessing purely from the rural-urban population shift point of view, although even that is related to policy, the Hukou and so on. Yeah, so I wasn't... On climate change and inequality, I think again, a very important set of issues, and I tell you my great fear is that given the instruments that we currently have, the only way we might have of fixing the inter-temporal externality, the inter-temporal market failure that we have might be on the backs of today's poor. I mean, that's my great fear. And you sort of alluded to that in terms of carbon tax and so on and so forth. And we can see that from a standard public economics standpoint. If we had sufficient instruments, if we had sufficient lump sum transfer instruments and pricing instruments, we could fix the inter-temporal externality and our current distributional thing. So a lot on the inter-temporal market failure, inter-temporal externality, and we're looking at instruments which do that. But those same instruments one can show, and you alluded to carbon tax and so on, could very well have distributional issues in the current generation. And therefore we need more instruments to address that. And in fact, it's a transfer instrument, which I think is what we need. And the $100 billion that's been mentioned in the context of the Copenhagen, Paris agreements and so on, those are the sorts of things that we should be thinking of. And on global inequality, again, very interesting normative question. What exactly is the normative import of global inequality per se, compared to within country and between country inequality? So we have a file decomposition, which gives you a global file and within and between country file. We can show the graphs, et cetera, but should they be weighted in some way to say that actually this is more important than this component, the between of within is more important than the others. And it depends on what normative framework you have. So if I think of ourselves as being behind a global veil of ignorance, behind a global roles in veil of ignorance, then one might think of global inequality as being the thing, and everything else as being instrumental, simply as a component. And the main critic of that view was Rawls himself, who argued that in fact you have to look at the jurisdiction over which the social contract is actually being negotiated, and that for Rawls was the nation state, rather than some fugitive global government in this way. So what normative framework one has matters here a lot in this context. Before I address to Dr. Pintar, I have a little question in the extension of this question. The reason why we are talking about and concerned about inequality is because increasing inequality within OECD country, advanced countries mostly. Because we have, you have presented that inequality global scale in a relative scale has been decreased while absolute scale has been increasing. And then inequality between countries have declined. So is it because advanced countries have a problem while developing countries have less problem, or inequality itself is hurting everyone, and then we have a global problem on global scale. This is my question, not as an economist, but as an ordinary person to ask. I just remember that I haven't responded to Ingrid's point about the demographic change. And I don't really have a proper response to it except to say that there isn't a single, there isn't one single global demographic issue, so to speak. In the African context we have very different demographic patterns compared to China, let's say, or compared to other countries. And indeed it's a very OECD perspective that Charles Goodhart is putting forward in that context. So that would be mine. Thank you. Thank you very much for a very good set of questions and comments. Now, obviously we can continue the discussions both over lunch and in the corridors and so on. And I do want to highlight that there is a session tomorrow, which continues straight on from our discussion today, where the countries I mentioned before are going to be in focus plus the global. I mean, I hope it's clear from what I've been saying that I completely agree with Ravi's last points that your sort of normative assessment of these things does matter a lot. And this was in many ways a little bit what I was trying to get across. Now, let me first say that I'm not against imputation per se. I mean there are situations where it makes a lot of sense to try to impute. Being careful and doing it in a very sensible way. But a mindless effort where you just plug in an algorithm and then just push the button and then the output of that is put up as if that were the real world. That is what I personally consider to not be particularly careful. But carefully executed imputations where you are trying to account for things where you have a lot of reason to expect that there are issues. Such as, for example, in the top end of the distribution, I consider that to be absolutely appropriate and very sensible to try to account for that. And one of the challenges and one of the inherent things in this is that I want to convey that this is certainly something that we are in the process of discussing how we can do that.  Then we will be very careful in specifying what, for example, has been done to correct for the top end. Now, this leads me also to and that relates a bit to what Jim was saying. There are lots of cases where it jumps straight into one's face that we do not have a global specialized inequality surveys like we have household surveys. I mean, the inequality measures that we have are derived from surveys that are conducted for other purposes and we should not one single minute forget that. You could ask the question whether in the midst of discussions around the post-2030 agenda and so on one should not put that up that there is that issue that really when we are thinking about and we're trying to measure and so on whether there isn't actually a need to be addressed by those who are taking these decisions rather than just trying to do the best with what we have and make adjustments and so on and so forth. Is there a space for a major initiative along the lines of the Living Standard Measurement Service but on the inequality area? I'll just leave that as a question but I think it is an important point and it's an important point because White has actually just conducted a 16 country comparative study of African countries where we have very detailed looked at what some called the Boken Young Triangle in other words try to do the best we could to make growth inequality and the last part of it the consumption growth to make that could we actually come up with a convincing story and what comes out over and over again is that major developments in food prices and things that are happening at different spaces in the distribution are not caught in our regular household surveys now what that means is that we do have to take this challenge serious in a very different way also because this is where we bring the sort of complementary information we can put together and we are missing a lot that inequality part of it so I would strongly say that and for example just to be very specific take Tanzania or take Mozambique the data we have suggest limited inequality increases now why I mean anybody who knows sort of Tanzania and Mozambique will probably say that inequality has somehow gone up it's probably buried in this fact that prices, food prices affect people across the distribution in very different ways than what we actually capture and a fact such as that people in different parts of distribution are not paying the same price for the same good well we often don't capture that so those kinds of things are looming in the background when we are discussing that to the chair's discussion about the global and the national I mean obviously national policymakers are responsible for their countries and that was sort of how can you say the implicit hint that I made when I made a reference to my own government but it is clear that there is a global set of issues where we need of course sometimes to be a little bit careful that we don't take the US and then think that what's happening elsewhere is exactly the same and that was the other sort of part of the warning that I tried to leave with you I think that's what I would respond here and now I think there are some people who are not happy with their own government including Dr. Tarp and Professor Stiglitz and probably myself too now I would like to invite Jukka to to compliment some questions very briefly thank you excellent interventions from both on the floor and then by the discussions very briefly just one point that regarding Ingrid's and its observations that the how can we improve to be, we are very very interested in developing it further and all comments along these lines of ideas are very welcome so this is not meant to be the final word on this but for example how to give even more information would be one idea which we need to think about but thanks useful comments I think there are some more questions but I think we have overrun so I hope you will continue by group overlaunch or individually and continue to contribute thank you very much for your attendance


Hello everyone! We'll get started now. My name is Christophe Blacker. This is the Kubernetes Steering Committee Ask Me Anything session. So this is going to be an interactive session between us and the community for you to hopefully ask us some questions and understand how the Kubernetes community is governed. So brief introductions on who we are. As I said, my name is Christophe Blacker. I'm a principal SRE at Red Hat as my day job and I'm in my second term on the Kubernetes Steering Committee and we'll just keep going down the line. I guess I'll start since I'm holding the mic. My name is Bob Killen. I am a program manager at Google. In Kubernetes I'm a member of the Steering Committee and also chair of Sick Contruder Experience. I've been involved with the project more actively since 2017 or so and I am still in my first term as Steering. I'm Tim Pepper, a software engineer by trade and currently the interim head of VMware's open source program office. I've been active in contributor experience and SIG release and the working group around long-term support and previously was on the code of conduct committee but was elected to the steering committee this past fall so I'm one of the newbies. Hi, my nickname is Jim's. I work for VMware as well, software engineer by trade. I help with things in SIG architecture, SIG node and SIG kits infrastructure. Hello everyone. I am Paris, I work at Apple. I'm an emeritus chair for SIG contributor experience. This is actually my second and last term on Steering Committee and I'm also the Kubernetes governing board rep. Hey everyone, I'm Steven Augustus, head of open source at Cisco. Currently one of the co-chairs for SIG release, one of the steering committee members and emeritus SIG PM and SIG Azure chair. And we have a seventh member of our committee who isn't here today, Jordan Leggett. Unfortunately he wouldn't be able to join us but we did want to call him out that there are seven of us that sit on this committee. We are the kind of like top governing group within the committee. I think Steven, if you want to briefly touch on us and our roles in the community governance model, I was like, do I remember the picture? I remember the picture. So there are a few different governance shapes within Kubernetes. There are committees. The SIGs are special interest groups within SIGs are sub-projects. So sub-projects are actually the groups that are responsible for owning code. And I put code in quotes because we have a lot of things that can qualify as code that are not necessarily just code. So there are groups of people that can maybe not be made from time to time and they may be a time-bounded effort to figure out some really interesting topic. Those are called working groups. So a few different things may get together, choose representatives, start a working group. Tim mentioned LTS earlier, our long-term support for Kubernetes. And that was SIG release and Snowden architecture. So basically, yeah. And that lasted for almost two years. So working groups are time-bounded efforts. SIGs are one of the primary governance models. We are responsible for the operations of a specific group within the community. SIGs are pretty interesting because there are some different ways that you can carve them. I'm hoping I'm doing the slide justice. But there are cross-cutting SIGs. They're kind of vertical SIGs for various efforts. So if you think of previously the cloud provider SIGs, for example, so SIG Azure, SIG AWS, and so on and so forth, those were dealing with a very specific model. But now if you look at, say, SIG cloud provider, that's kind of cross-cutting because it's hitting every one of those. SIG release, SIG nodes, SIG architecture, these are kind of concerned with SIG contributor experience as well. They're kind of concerned with cross-cutting community efforts. And then kind of, I won't say the top level, but off to the side are committees. So we are the steering committee and it's the primary governance body for Kubernetes. The steering committee is meant to be effectively a delegate of last resort, ideally. There should be a group that has the charter to do a certain thing within Kubernetes. If it doesn't exist, we're the group you talk to to kind of make the determination where that should go. And then we help form that group, identify leads, and they kick off operations. But the steering committee is meant to handle kind of operations of the community as well as marketing, messaging kind of to the wider community, not just within Kubernetes, but to the world really. And then for committees, we also have the security response committee, our SRC, and the code of conduct committee, our COCC. And those committees are responsible for kind of the names imply for one kind of looking after the community's code of conduct and making sure that we have ways of having those discussions incident resolution. And then on the on the security response committee, kind of this similar mandate, but as it relates to vulnerabilities within Kubernetes. So I said a lot of words as someone want to say more. Okay, so to get us started, I'm going to just throw in a seed question to see if everyone could take a minute and talk about, what do you see as one of the big challenges that Kubernetes as a project is going to face in the next coming years? Who wants to start with that one? I kind of immediately want to toss it to Paris. I think this is going to be the primary one for most of us, and that's the sustainability efforts. We have a lot of areas of the project that are like lacking maintainers, and we are trying to figure out ways to sort of in either engaged like Paris has been involved in with engaging the governing board or other groups to think about ways of how we can get more people involved in the project and staring secondary experience and a bunch of groups. I see a lot of the groups I've been working on trying to think of ways to ensure continuity of the project and growing people in like future leadership roles. One of the big things that's been on the table right now is actually thinking about like terms for chairs as well as like separating out like some of the more roles to make it easier for people to sort of grow into these future roles. I know other people have stuff to say on the subject, so I'll just like pass it on. That gave me the mic. Yeah, I think that's definitely something that we've been working on a lot, which is talking to member companies about how they can get more involved and support full-time maintainers. One of the things that happens in the life cycle of a project is people eventually fall off for whatever reason, whether that's they grow away from the project because they want to get involved in something else, like their day job or they want to go to another project, but that leaves a hole of institutional knowledge. It leaves a hole of vision. It leads a hole of working on major complex problems. That's kind of where we are today. When we talk about new contributors and bringing on new contributors, we have 70,000 contributors, so what we really need is maintainers and growing maintainers. A major effort is how do we get member companies to help support us in ways that are dedicated time? We are working with CNCF and the governing board to come up with different kinds of programs and incentives to better align with those member companies and the work that we have to do upstream. One of the aspects for me in that is communication because so much of this comes back to people. How do those 70,000 people learn what the more core, long-standing people do? So ensuring that our documentation, our developer, our internal documentation, our processes are good and clear, that we have durable artifacts, that our KEPs are understandable, relatable, that they progress. We get some good conversation and it doesn't just peter out. Getting back to having a community meeting again. When I first started, that was one of my entry paths to understanding what was going on. It represents, there's hundreds of hours of YouTube videos that are historical knowledge, institutional knowledge. We kind of paused for a while because it was friction for us leaders to have to create that additional content. But getting back to doing that is enabling our next folks, hopefully, to understand where we are, where we want to go. So we talked a lot about one end of the spectrum, where there are systemic issues that we need to deal with and we are trying to deal with it in various ways. For the people in this room, if you are not yet participating in a SIG, please participate in one. If you're participating in a SIG, see if you can participate in more than one because that's where we are losing more people more quickly because people are not spanning the horizontal one. Yeah, exactly. So, for example, if you're doing things in SIG storage and say, hey, storage in my area, my expertise, I know all these things in storage. I would say, please do some investigations about SIG node because most of the storage related stuff goes on in SIG node and you need to have good working relationship with them. And when some things get changed in Kubelet, your stuff is going to break. So make sure that you can talk to that SIG and make sure you can talk to a SIG testing, for example, right? So you can look at jobs that are breaking apart between multiple SIGs. Steve, if you want to respond. So, yeah, I mean, just to dig into the growing leadership, we're now entering the, we're in our third phase of leadership, roughly, within the community. I think the first round, the first two rounds where there was a lot of time spent with kind of transfer of knowledge and with a big-strap steering committee and having the opportunity to kind of really make sure that the second generation of leaders knew what they needed to be successful. I think right now what we're seeing is there are lots of folks who are in SIG leadership roles, whether it's a chair or a technical lead, they, as y'all were mentioning, don't have the same time and energy to dedicate to the projects, or they are maybe not in a job role where they can dedicate that energy to the projects. But what I think would, I would love to see more of is how can we create people who are, who are leading, right? As you know, there are a lot of, I think, I think, you know, as we've gone through these iterations of the steering committee, we haven't necessarily done the same iterations for SIG chairs and technical leads, right? And we may be in a place where their chairs, I could be one of them at this point, their chairs who have been working on the specific SIG for several years, they're, you know, they're over capacity, they don't know the things they may need to know, or they were kind of there at the time that the SIG was formed and maybe are in leadership because they were there at that time, not necessarily because they were the right leader for that group. So definitely as you contribute to some of these groups, I would love to hear more about how we can create that kind of, you know, building that leadership. And I think a lot of it comes with like understanding, like, when it's time to let something go, or when it's time to delegate something out. So just keep that in mind. Shout out to Tomb. To make sure it was on that. Thank you, everyone. I work with such intelligent and articulate comrades here that like, we, I don't have anything to add to that. So thank you all for that answer. At this point, we'd like to open up to questions from you. If you have any questions about the Kubernetes project about our governance model, about where we've come from or where we're going, we'd love to hear them. Yeah, first would be like, what's going on right now? So where's your biggest support of interest? And on top of this, like, is there any block or anything where kind of a person like me can just look up and see what's going on? Yeah, so, um, so the first part of the question was, what are what's one of the biggest problems that we're trying to identify or that we have identified right now? The second one was, if I wanted to help, where do I get started? Like, where is there? Is there a blog post? Yeah, for sure. Yeah. So yeah, we are going to publish probably hopefully in the next 36 hours, the annual reports. This is a new thing for us. We only have done one edition so far. It's if and I see some folks on their laptops right now, but if you go to cncf.io slash reports and then find Kubernetes community report for 2021. That was our first edition. And that was a way for us to bubble up that roadmap of current initiatives, the things that we celebrate from the last year, where you can get involved each thing actually has like a help wanted area. And they actually detail out what's help wanted. Because you know, the infamous thing to do in open source is to say, Oh, just go take a help wanted issue. But since we're trying to grow maintainers, I think it's important that we identify what that actually means for someone trying to grow into that maintainer role, meaning what would you actually be maintaining. So that's what they're that's where they're going with the help wanted. I'm trying to think of what was the other part of the question. Oh, big problem. We need more reviewers everywhere. That's there's no say we have I think 37 groups at this point. There's no group that we have that doesn't need reviewers, which is very concerning as if y'all are following supply chain security, and the open SSF efforts. Everything that the industry is telling us is that code reviewing is great. Yes, we know that. But how do we get more quality reviewers for such a complex code base, because growing reviewers takes a lot of time. And a lot of us in this room don't have the time, especially when you don't have aligned incentives to have the time. So growing and finding more reviewers for us is imperative at this point, because it does take so long to onboard into the project and grow trust. Trust is the foundation of all of the roles that we have within the project. And that is not something that can be quantified. So that's really kind of the one main like theme. I think that we can pull out from every single group. Obviously, every group runs a little bit differently. That's the whole deal here. They are allowed to have that kind of autonomy so that they can get the work done. But that also introduces complexities, because as Dim's mentioned earlier, when you're going across SIGs, that means you kind of have to know what their norms are and how they do business as well. So yeah, I think that's my answer. Next question. All right. So is there a list somewhere of companies that are hiring people to be full time entertainers? We actually just worked with CNCF recently to create a feature on the CNCF job board that will allow companies to identify where they can provide upstream support. However, if you want something a little quicker than perusing job descriptions, I think dev stats, where we collect the contribution metrics and going through the like the top 10, 20, 50, whatever it is, companies, that's probably a good indication that they at least have some kind of department, whether it's one person, five people, 50 people, 200 people, but it's at least a good way to start a conversation. So if you know people that work at those companies, I would definitely advise reaching out to them. I also tweet about this a lot. So yeah, I always retweet other people's. There's a job board in the main pavilion as well that typically lists like over in the pavilion center that has a bunch of like links and stuff about open recs, different teams that are hiring and speak to them when you're when you're speaking to a potential employer about this state your interest that you're interested in contributing to upstream and what what do they offer as far as a potential slice of time to do that, especially going into that that kind of job relationship, understanding. Okay, what is how much of my time like we all listed at the top, we have day jobs, we have employers and that kind of stuff we have responsibilities to our employers. But all of our employers know at least we're going to spend part of our time working on upstream and having that conversation early and often with your with your employers, they understand what is the value that that that you're bringing to upstream to the community, what value can working in upstream bring to them is an important thing. If you don't know how to talk to your employer about the value that upstream can bring to them. That's definitely a conversation you can have with us. We do this, we do this all the time trying to advocate for like, why contributing to Kubernetes can bring value to your your particular employer. Yeah, I think that so originally I was going to do a shameless plug and say that like, all of us are people that you can have conversations with about that. But also, I think that, you know, especially regarding the time spent upstream, it doesn't always come for free. And I think, you know, over the last five years or so, it wasn't until very recently that I was in a role specifically for contributing upstream, right? It was slices of time at work until people said, what you're doing upstream is more valuable than whatever this job function is. So just keep doing that. So like, sometimes you have to rest it away from from your employer. But yeah, we can help you have that conversation for sure. Sorry, apparently, it was muted. Tim's taking the mic to Tim. No, no, you're all right. I have a comment and a question. On the topic of more reviewers, I want to emphasize you do not need to be an area expert to be a reviewer. All we're doing is writing code. Anybody who knows how to read code can review code and find things that are wrong with it and flags, things that need more review by area experts, that helps so much. So now my question. Once upon a time, we described what we called our swim lanes, what Kubernetes was, who it was for what we were going to do and what we were not going to do. That was seven years ago, maybe eight years ago. Since then, things have changed a little bit. You can look around the conference to see the size change there. We all know that the death of project is sprawl. So when and how do we go about redefining our swim lanes? I guess I'll start out with maybe one point around how we do that. Over the last period, going back to the maintainers question, there have been a number of projects or dependencies that have struggled on maintenance. One of the questions has been, well, can't we just roll that into Kubernetes? This fits well in SIGs such and such. It fits here or there. Shouldn't we just roll it into Kubernetes? We've had to say that actually doesn't make sense. That project has other uses and resources. Yes, we could step to it, but it's not necessarily going to be any better because we're short. So part of it is just sticking to that original mission, I think, and not allowing things that are desperately in need of help to simply come into us because it would be convenient. So when the pressure of, hey, do you think that we can have a 2.0 of Kubernetes? That would be like a signal. When we add more things to the 2.0 bucket, that increases the things about like, okay, what did we do wrong? What did we get right? How many things did we have to fix how many times? So there is a bunch of knowledge that we all have that can be rolled into a thing for a V2 at some point in time in the future, which we are not there yet. Oh, we're not near the bash rewrite. Should I reopen the issue? So I think there's a lot of iteration around this, too. What is currently in the project doesn't necessarily need to stay. I think part of what we've done for the annual reports this go around is definitely look at areas where sub projects were in need of help are maybe so far gone that we're like, hey, let's have a conversation. And on the sub project and the SIG level, right? Okay, let's have a conversation about like, if this still makes sense, if we have the people to support this, if it if it fits somewhere else, right? So like, sometimes the, I guess the call is coming from inside the house, like trying to figure out where these, you know, like where the knobs, you know, that we can we can tweak to make the project a little bit more sustainable, right? I think that comes down to like, so the annual reports, the fact that all of the SIGs, all of the SIGs and other governance groups should have something in even if, even if it's, you know, not as heavyweight as one would do for a special interest group, some sort of lightweight charter to explain what they should be doing and and occasionally reviewing that charter to make sure that still fits, right? And I think that, you know, as we do the annual reports, we do reviews of the charters, we do like, we kind of ask the question, do you still think this this thing does what it says on the tin? And that's a really great conversation for SIG leadership, because you don't realize you're like, hey, I, wow, we aren't touching that anymore. We should like, could we hand this off over here? I think service catalog, you know, the formation or the questions about formation for working group batch, for example, right? We're created opportunities to say, this is something that needs to exist on multiple fronts on the CNT up level, as well as as a working group within and Kubernetes, right?  But I think that, you know, the annual reports are a great start. And as SIG leadership really understanding what your charter is, and if you're still fitting into that model, one of those, one of those kind of swim lane principles that that we've, we've talked about a few times is making understanding what the Kubernetes core is, and in understanding what's part of that, and where we can add extension points to allow an ecosystem to flourish around Kubernetes and not being afraid of that. Not being, and also not being afraid to say no. The, as we go through, as we go through that, that, that the evolution and the expansion of the cloud native ecosystem around Kubernetes, there's definitely opportunities in a lot of areas. And even sometimes where Kubernetes has set and created standards for things, thinking like CNI and that kind of stuff, by creating a standard and creating an interface, an extension point, entire ecosystems within the CNCF have sprung up because of that. But we understand there's a lot of those components that don't necessarily need to, and it's not beneficial either to Kubernetes or to those, those ecosystem projects to reside in the core. So it's being unafraid, at least from my perspective, to say no, that isn't like a core competency that we want Kubernetes to focus on. We want to allow an ecosystem to kind of flourish around it, and we'll just provide that, that kind of stable foundation and interconnection points. So a slightly related thing, we've had a push, so probably not everybody in the audience knows, we have alpha features, beta features, and GA features. There's been a push to make sure that we have the core functionality graduated up to GA stable. And through that, and through production readiness reviews, we actually identified a lot of things that were sort of stuck in alpha and beta and decided, you know, these were ideas, they've coalesced into this other place, or they're just not as relevant. We're going to choose to say no and kind of clean house and declare what is our current core. My question actually is a kind of a combination of what I hear that you're arsenic. You're mentioning that you have, like the community have actually a lot of maintainers. This is some of the challenges, right? And what I probably didn't figure out properly, based on my experience, is how actually a company, because we know that for charity, all developers can contribute for free, but in case we want to have more dedication of professionals, because the reviewers means more experienced people that know what to see, what to mark, etc., based on the process. But from accounting and financial perspective, actually the cost of the people which are going to work for the project, whatever it is, how this is going to be managed, because they can, let's say, work one day in the week, or something like this, how this actually, this is answered. I don't know your all companies are recognized with such kind of contribution, but other companies actually doesn't have this experience. Probably, I don't know if this is answered somewhere in the community, but if you can address this, then the senior guys, the experienced guys, the available guys that can actually, the leader types, they probably will become more available for you, because actually each contribution from experienced developer to IP, which is going to, actually is not going to be owned by the company where he or she is employed, is going to be a pure cost for the company. So this is a kind of a challenge that I see in case I decide to propose my company actually to contribute somehow. So one of the business values there that you can pitch is that you're de-risking for the company. So the company has risk, and depending on the project, and if they have some employee embedded in the project, it gives them an early signal of changes that are going to impact the company. And I tend to think of it as an older notion of innovation to have specific IP generation, even as a person who has multiple patents. The real benefit comes in the mindshare, having the humans who can solve problems on staff and are connected to the space to make that problem solving more efficient. If you're outside the project and you're just kind of echoing a bug report, you're not going to get anywhere quick on solving the problem. You know, we've also talked, there is another model where foundations come to employ people. We kind of joke around that we, it doesn't matter who our current employer is, we kind of bounce around, we do our job, we have our position in the community not tied to an employer. And certainly when you get to a level of maintenance, companies are coming after you. They want you to work for you because they value what you bring. One of the comments, let's have like de-risking your investment of it, like, sorry, feedback on it, open sources, honestly done by the people that show up. So it's great to have someone that can represent your interests within the project, like on feature direction. There's a lot of times where, you know, the project is looking for end user advocates and people like that to help provide feedback, people to test early to help contribute code. And like, otherwise, we're sort of developing features. I don't want to say in a vacuum, but you know, we're sort of doing what we think is best. And by having more end user groups and other people, like, directly contributing and directly getting involved helps, you know, us develop the features and develop the things that are better for you, better for the other end user groups that want to use the project. We're running up on time. If anybody has any final quick thoughts. Yep. I think the foundation has a huge role to play here. And that's something that I've pitched now. And I'm going to continue to pitch, which is helping member companies find business value, teaching them how to hire and maintain and retain maintainers. One of the things that a lot of companies don't have is open source strategists. It's a role that I think a lot of our companies should have. Maybe you don't have an OSPO, but you should definitely have an open source strategy at the end of the day, which is where you're contributing and why. Because it's, and I feel like in the case of Kubernetes, it's very advantageous to align with upstream. We have a ton of benefits. If you align with upstream, then you get our beautiful doc set, which means you don't have to build docs in house. And then also there's a ton of other business value like expertise. It just depends on what your product is and where your product is going. And that's how you can align those folks in those areas. Another big one is influence. By growing that person in that area, you're gaining the influence because you needed a seat at the design table. A lot of us are investing very large sums of money into this project and ecosystem. And it's very important that you have a seat at the table if you're going to invest that kind of money. So I want to like distill something that we're seeing here to kind of riff off of the other side of Tim's point. Hey, you can just get up and write some code. You don't have to just write code, right? All of these roles that we're talking about that go to sustainability of projects and talking about the business value internally, they're not necessarily engineering roles. In fact, most of them are not. Right? So think about like you have you have folks in your company to have those discussions with to activate around open source that are maybe not focused on open source right now and they could be.  Okay, so we are we unfortunately at time for this session. However, we're highly available people. We may sound like very busy people, but we're also very friendly. You can come up and talk to us ways to get in touch with the Kubernetes steering committee. We have a steering committee channel on Slack. We have email addresses up there for both our public mailing list as well as our private mailing list. If there's any concerns we've raised privately, we have a public recorded meeting every month that is open to community members to both listen in to the issues and things that the steering committee is actively dealing with, as well as to raise concerns directly to the steering committee. If you have questions about how something's operating, or if you have concerns to raise. We also this this is an elected position. We have elections every fall. So if you're interested in getting involved in open source governance or what the nature of this role is, please come and talk to us. Thank you everyone. We'll be walking the halls. We're also extremely online. Hit us on Twitter.


Welcome back to this today's lecture, we have been studying statistical mechanics. More importantly, we are trying to understand many aspects of natural phenomena that we study in the name of physical chemistry and chemical physics and those things the understanding of the huge number of physical and chemical phenomena like solutions, chemical reaction dynamics, phase transitions, all these important things important both in physics, chemistry, biology, material science, physical chemistry get you started on them because it is through physical chemistry you learn about properties of solvents, it is through physical chemistry you learn chemical kinetics, you learn electrolytes. Now how does physical chemistry do that? If you reflect a little bit the physical chemistry that you studied in your undergraduate books or even in some time in advanced schools, physical chemistry introduces many many concepts. In certain sense it starts with kind of clear of gases that we have told many times then it might also takes the help of thermodynamics and we get to give free energy and emerge free energy all these different conditions and then goes into talk little bit of phase transition. So physical chemistry tells you phenomena and tells you to a certain phenological explanations of that and to be specific to the today's lecture let me take the case of binary mixtures. A mixture of two species A and B in the language of physical chemistry I will talk one as the solvent and one as the solute. The other alternative language more popular in organic chemistry is solvent and co-solvent. Solvent and solute has the disadvantage because it always assumes that one is in small quantity which is the solute but many times we have 50-50% mixture of two species B and B. Now we know from physical chemistry that a binary mixture of two species like the very common binary mixtures is water and ethanol and they show enormous number of range of properties. Binary mixtures are very common because these are much of our common solvents are a binary mixtures because many things are not soluble in water. So you add a little co-solvent like add a little ethanol and become and water is a fantastic medium for reactions and it has lot of properties like the polarity. So another solvent if we can mix it together and tune the properties then we get a huge amount of diverse range of properties by tuning by varying the composition. But how do you know about the interactions between them? How do you know how water and ethanol interact? We might know about water we might be able to construct a force field that means how two water molecules interact there is a huge amount of work that has gone into it or even ethanol some amount of work has gone into it. Water and ethanol still is somewhat less thing but is very important. So the water starting into a mixture by the characteristics of binary mixtures starts in the following way. We construct, we will study a property P and we have added the mole fraction. We go on adding increasing the solute little by little and then start the property. What are the properties we are going to study? We can start the properties for example what is the volume or excess volume and I will define what is excess volume? What is the volume of the mixture? We can add constant pressure sometime when you add a co-solving the volume of the two decreases then what it should be if they are ideally mixed we talk of viscosity we can talk of the dynamical properties like diffusion. So the range of property is that an experimentalist measures and you will study in that experiment is binary mixtures. In India it was a very common and very popular research of the study of binary mixtures. I know many many people who studied whole their life on binary mixtures and it quite significant work. Another method of doing experimental study of binary mixtures is through sound attenuation you send a sound wave and you find out how the sound get attenuated how sound get absorbed. There are a host of thermodynamics and dynamic experimentalist tool that we bring in to understand these binary mixtures. So what I will do now in the in this lecture today we will talk of binary mixtures, motivate it and tell you how this very important class of physical systems very important for physical biological science how we could begin and understanding of the physical properties of these things. And this is done by as I said the statistical mechanics and this is do we describe in this book that we have written and this is in chapter 19 or something chapter 26 in this book that we have done the discussed the subject in quite great detail and we will follow this book closely but there will be some simplifications that will okay. So I just recap what I said that binary mixtures constitute wide and highly useful class of solvents then properties are quite different from those of the PO solvents. That means I have A properties of A and properties of B when I mix them A and B has properties which are very different from that of A then something which you have studied at length probably even in schools but certainly in your physical chemistry is Raoult's law Raoult's law says that the properties of a property P is X1 P1 X is the mole fraction. So if there are two species 1 and 2 if I mix them then property P of the mixture becomes mole fraction of species 1 multiplied by the property P1 then for example I can take of viscosity then viscosity would be written as X1 N1 plus X2 N2 then the composition dependence for mole fraction ideal Raoult's law gives you a certain dependence on mole fraction which is here but you find a very large deviation from that. Now many properties are obtained by using the Ising model as we discussed in a previous lecture that how Ising model now the binary mixture can be mapped quite well into the Ising model it was really done in the more appropriate in the context of the binary alloy. The reason it is more is the binary alloy because I can put a binary alloy in a lattice like brass, beta brass that is copper inch, this is a lattice space center to the lattice and then I can it is easy to map a liquid in a desoldered systems and in the next lecture or two will be will be discussing property the structure of liquids that is different that means structure of liquids is quite different from that of a binary alloy or that because here we have more use of statistical mechanics because properties are much more statistical that means we have to talk in terms of probabilities. So let us get started then so some simple eye opening kind of things that you have one species A by the red balls and then blue by the B and we mix them and one thing that you realize immediately that A and B can interact differently. So if I have an interaction potential and they can have diameters differently. So the diameters let us see these diameters is sigma A and these diameters is sigma B then A interact with the interaction potential A, A, B interact with the interaction of B, B. So what do I mean by that A, B and A, B I have what in back of my mind essentially a interaction potential you are and I have this kind of potential inner zones then it is the depth that I am talking of course harsher part of the potential is important but harsher part of the potential makes its presence fail in giving you the structure of the liquid and but the thermodynamics the internal energy enthalpy many things which are property of the which are manifestation of property of the structure is really very interesting role that this part and this part plays you know that means one part give you the structure then the thermodynamics that structure of course the thermodynamics and dynamics but on that structure you have a liquid because you have internal interactions is epsilon. So these two play very interesting role together and that I think I want you to appreciate. So now vector outlaw as I said outlaw is a law which is called ideal solution. So ideal solution then ideal will be p ideal or p rows p r you can call it p r p rows is just what I wrote down however it is a very remarkable many, many solvents so very minor remarkable deviation from this ideal if it are ideal then these should be the line these should be the line of the straight line these should be the line but what do you find the all kinds of behaviors the real numbers like here carbon tetrachloride erythyl acidate here you have a cyclohexane which is very quite inner solvent inner solvent and then ethanol then that has a mar deviations this is a positive deviation of viscosity yes and this is a negative deviation of viscosity and here in the methanol and toluene these are fairly common solvents you know we all chemists all know about it that carbon tetrachloride erythyl acidate cyclohexane ethanol bethanol and toluene but look at the kind of behavior they show one is a positive deviation and there is a negative deviation and there it is negative now this kind of behavior has given rise to certain nomenclature and this nomenclature is the one that we will go into now and then we will try to do stress chemical mechanism so purpose of this chapter is partly to try to tell you how we can understand these things this is still very much an active area of research and lot of papers are being published and that one of the reason that such such sudden interest in the last 10-15 years in this area is the use of complicated simulations these as you can see carbon tetrachloride erythyl acidate or cyclohexane they are common solvents but they are complex molecules they are not spheres they are not like the spheres we just do in the previous slides so they are more complex molecules and so the interactions are very complex so our analytical work towards this has been as a slow our progress in analytical work and so it needed to for computers to become really important and then of course in order to get the computer going I need the interaction potential which is the force field and that force field also has been developed or being developed for all these systems and that is a very rigorous and very respectable way right now the developing of force field is a for force field development of force field for allows us to simulate the system is a very respectable branch of work in physical chemistry and so on the way along I will tell you what are the fields that one is working so that you basically know what is the current status so then physical chemistry attains statistical mechanics attains so this is what physical chemistry handed us from under graduate these these these and now physical chemistry statistical mechanics rather wants to provide an explanation for these things and how do we do now we start with an interaction potential and we find that this kind of thing which is we where the viscosity goes up that means the structure becomes more rigid that is called structure forming here viscosity become less and we call this structure breaking and here there is a crossover from structure breaking in the negative part to structure making so when a structure breaking the structures they will be and we like each other and structure making the weakest structure which is coherent and that becomes more rigid viscosity goes up and when there is structure breaking there they are kind of stay away from each other and there are there is always an entropic component but there is an entropic component but and they interact with each other in in these two cases to give this kind of a bizarre and wide and different behavior okay so how then we go in statistical mechanics everything starts with the potential now we have the interaction potential such that we called a structure forming liquid stronger interaction between a and so now a b like a and b like each other more than a a like each other b b like each other similarly there is a model 2 which is structure breaking in this case we assume either by note a by convention a a like each other more than b b like each other but most importantly both of this interaction potential that I continuously will draw this thing is more than a and b that mean a and b we do not like each other or they like they might like each other but they like less than b likes b and a likes a this is structure breaking and structure breaking is the one that gave this viscosity if I wrote viscosity against composition this is the Ralph's law this goes like that the negative deviation is viscosity and will be positive deviation excess volume if I plot the excess volume excess volume and excess viscosity go in the other way because when the volume increases excess volume is positive then volume increases on addition of two solvents then the viscosity goes down because the molecules kind of expand they kind of go away from each other okay and that is the structure breaking state they come closer together so the excess volume goes down becomes negative and if viscosity goes up okay so our force field then we write a we write in a we are doing the simplest possible thing now then we will go into make it much more rigorous but at the level of starting we are starting to build a theory starting to build an understanding based on certain mechanics so we start into force field the force field is the reandoms interaction potential and our old friends for epsilon but now a and b like a and b is for when you have this for u ij is very u ij so when I have a u a then that would be for epsilon a a and the rest of the things sigma a sigma b so this ij is important and this should actually be lower okay so again to recap the whole thing if this is positive this is a taking a model like that then did some theoretical work both computer simulations and some sophisticated statistical mechanical theory and you can see now that you can generate by this kind of a model that we described here these kind of model one can indeed describe so this would be the Raoult's law you have the positive deviation and negative deviation so the model that I am so this is structure breaking and the structure making this so what I am telling you in victory any can one can do and I will describe how does one do that in a in a next half an hour so now there are some beautiful phenomena we studied little bit of it is called and it is given in the book in the stat mac stat mac book by CRC that we done now there is a very interesting phenomena that a and b that I was I was just going to address if a and b they do not like each other how come they still together in a liquid well if I ask you the question I think some of you already know and we will be able to give the answer they stay each other because what is the fact what is the reason that they stay together because the entropy when you form a binary mixture you get a large entropy that is entropy of mixing so that entropy of mixing contributes to making free energy negative so the mixture it makes but what happened if I suddenly cool the temperature if I suddenly cool the temperature then entropy contribution become this then they cannot stay together then they face separate so the structure breaking liquid where a and b they do not like each other but still are together in high temperature they lower temperature they face separate and space separate through a beautiful pattern formation which is we see in nature all the time in volcanic rocks and in all the other systems and these are those kind of the beautiful structures that I am showing you here is this that so so a and b are two different spaces so the a sorry red and blue are two different spaces if this is or no this is our a and this is our b then when you lower temperature then they become beautifully face separate this is another very interesting aspect of binary mixtures which is very popular in in binary alloys and very popular in material science okay next we go and we now describe two cases where which are very very common I am still in the process of entering the introduce the students to this beautiful beautiful world of binary mixtures one is water and dimethylsulfoxide the two popular two popular and useful highly useful highly useful in chemistry and biology is water dimethylsulfoxide DMSO and water ethanol so DMSO let me draw the DMSO then DMSO is is a sulfur oxygen CH3 CH3 this is the dimethylsulfoxide and ethanol you know CH3 CH2 OH so the and then I have water so everywhere there is water here these are water molecules now you notice something very interesting in the dimethylsulfoxide oxygen is negatively charged sulfur is positively charged and me a methane group nearly spherical has very little charge so water molecules just surround this oxygen and water molecules kind of go away from you know they kind of form a cage structure but they little distance away because they want don't want to disrupt the hydrogen bond ethanol again has these two parts which are not very polar so they don't form hydrogen bond but these guys from hydrogen bond like oxygen oxygen form hydrogen bond to hydrogen bond hydrogen from one hydrogen bond so there is a show these kind of molecules are particularly good because in these molecule a and b together so I have a molecule where a and b together I would say this is my structure making thing and this is my structure breaking thing if a structure making structure making then together with respect to what with respect to water molecules so this is called hydrophilic group this is called hydrophobic group and these kind of solvents which are very important are that called apophilic solvents okay we will now go doing and when you do that then the kind of spinality composition and in dimethylsulfoxide you see this kind of beautiful phase separation you know first they are together and so the they are in a small composition they kind of form they kind of form micro micro droplets like this droplets showing here but when I increase the composition this will be what may be 10% and this would be what would be by 20% that they would here islands are connected and lot of many beautiful properties of water so very many beautiful properties because of these two these two phenomena so what I am trying to tell you now is that we are going to do a quantitative theory we are going to explain a quantitative theory but you should never you should never fail to appreciate that there is certain understanding which is coming from physical chemistry the understanding in terms of structure making structure breaking is a very powerful paradigm then hydrophobic and hydrophilic this is again a very powerful concept so what station mechanics does takes this powerful concept and terminology and picture from physical chemistry and then kind of put them into a quantitative predict theory so these beautiful language that we use and the concept they are not predict they do not give you numbers they give you some understanding but they do not they are not quantitative they are qualitative so but now station mechanics what gives you a quantitative they give you how to add okay now let them get going now as I am telling you that we want to a and b interaction potential a so I have some idea of the interaction between a and a I have some idea of interaction between b and b but I do not have any idea of the understanding between a and b how do I find now interaction and in a and b now remember go back again and again I told you something that the force field before how do you get the force field the first force field was done after the expression of second virial coefficient b2 in terms of interaction potential you are remember the expression of b2 is it is a integration over dr r square e to the power minus u r by k b t minus 1 so I have a temperature dependence of experiment later mine temperature dependence of the second virial coefficient so now I can put it into a form like a little form and now I can fit I can evaluate away these if I have this temperature then I should have this second virial coefficient and I already have measured second virial coefficient so I have a non-linear field and I get the properties the epsilon and sigma of the linear potential that is this is called force field then I can do many other things now for a and b we have host of properties we have diffusion constant we have the equation of state we have second virial coefficient so we have a control over sigma and epsilon the force field parameters of the internal but how about binary mixtures how about a and b that is much more complicated because if I now want to say okay let me play the game of second virial coefficient dot but then problem is that when I do that I have not just have to do with a and b I have to deal with a and b b also so then the basic idea is that divide and conquer we get a and a we get b b b then I want to make a and b but then I need a phenomena certain certain particular experiments which is sensitive to interaction between a and b because I already have two other interactions hanging around and confusing and that is the osmotic pressure osmotic pressure gives you this your in road into interaction between a and b the reason their osmotic pressure is so important that the osmotic pressure has been taught in such great detail in other kind of physical chemistry it is a very big thing in biology in if you have biophysical chemistry then osmotic pressure is extremely important and we will explain now that how that goes and one of the major thing of this particular lecture of statistical mechanics is bringing home that particular point that statistical mechanics gives you an expression for osmotic pressure and then you can from there it essentially defines a secondary coefficient of the solute and from there you can find the interaction potential between a and b is very important I need to know how a and b interact experimentally and okay that is let us get started then so osmotic pressure as defined here that you say when I put a and b together then and I put them in a semi permeable membrane then the semi permeable membrane that allows a but not does not allow b so a starts coming from one side to the other like showing here it shows from goes from a to b and how do I stop that I stop it by putting a pressure up there so these guys in pressure p but these guys in pressure p plus these in p plus pi and pi is the atmospheric pressure we know that so we put a pressure on right side where I have solute due to pressure on solution to stop the flow and that excess pressure is the osmotic pressure now when I stop the flow then the systems are in equilibrium now there in chemical equilibrium there in mechanical equilibrium there in thermodynamic equilibrium chemical potential of the two are the same which is in here so chemical potential a solv is for solvent chemical potential of the solvent molecules so it will be particular we have two chemical potential but chemical potential of the solvent molecules because it is solvent molecule that was coming from left to right same on the two sides so so the solute chemical potential of the solvent solvent is the same so chemical potential of the solvent must be the same on the two sides as is means in the presence of this solution these I know these you not pt this is the chemical potential of these guys so now from thermodynamics I can now if I have mu in the presence of small small concentration of a solute then I can write that the chemical potential is written as the that of the pure solvent so this is a interesting beast this is say at this is a bold fraction of the solvent that p plus pi is the pressure which I am talking of this this right hand side of my slide and then at temperature T then I now write it in for in terms of the pure solvent but it has to be a pressure p plus pi and then the correction term that is RTLNX solvent okay this comes from thermodynamics so now since I have this thing and this thing this thing now must be by equation 1 and equation 2 I equate these two and I get mu naught p plus pi this guy here RTLNX i is mu naught pt so this is the this is the one equation that I derived this is only one of the equations on the way we are going to derive them but remember this equation next equation we are going to do is the following okay now we have to use the Gibbs Bohm equation what you are going to do now we are going to the whole idea is if you smart enough you would be knowing from ideal gas law or from gas law that we are I whole idea is to get whole aim is to get an expression for the optimal pressure pi right that is the goal that is why I am doing all these things that is what I have written derive the equation in chemical potential so now if I do that is my star equation here I want to use it but how do I go about now now I need then next piece of the puzzle next piece of the puzzle is to find out the variation of chemical potential as a function of pressure I have done variation of chemical potential in terms of mole fraction what I am going to do now as a function of pressure right and who gives you that who gives you variation of chemical potential with pressure that is the Gibbs Bohm equation that is one of the really I equation I like and it is a very very powerful equation and that is why Gibbs Bohm equation is so so important so here is the Gibbs Bohm equation N d mu V dp sorry about the notation of P many different kind of me but it is actually P is pressure here I divide this by N and divide the space V volume V then I integrate from pressure P to pressure P plus P P plus pi pi is the optimal pressure I integrate d mu then I integrate this guy I will of course integrate this one in a minute and then I integrate I can do this integration this mu naught P plus pi t minus mu naught P t the same thing as integration of V dp because the integration of that number so I have first done just the integration and the and got this thing then they I put it equal to V dp I probably would have in other way around okay now this integration is from P to P plus pi so I would have probably written it dp V dp equal to then there is then integration mu naught P plus pi forget about P so now we are almost there so now I bring this the combined the two things together and I get V dp and now what we are going to do we are going to go back to the previous slide we have already derived that so I bring this on the side so mu naught P plus pi minus mu naught P equal to RTLN so I my equation is done so I have this now I assume V is weakly dependent on pressure the molar volume is increasingly dependent on pressure then I get the integration the V comes out this comes out and then this integration just give me pi so V pi equal to RTLN X and take I take on the right hand side so I derived this beautifully this was done by great Vantov one of the three major people who is physical chemistry one is Arrhenius the other is Ostwald another is Vantov and first Nobel Prize in chemistry went to Arrhenius second one went to Vantov third one would have gone to Ostwald but presumably story I know that Arrhenius did not like Ostwald at all so this in 2007 was Ostwald Nobel Prize 1901 was Arrhenius 1902 or 1903 Vantov I remember I was asked this question in a one of the quiz because in India we have very strange kind of factory entered exams and I was asked who got the first Nobel Prize in chemistry I thought why to be chewed my pain and then I selected Vantov but no it was Arrhenius who got the first Nobel Prize but you know what Vantov is one of the father figure of the solution phase and thought that was what was the early 20th century that was the most important because people realize that we must understand solution okay so this beautiful relation now now something even more interesting we are going to do this is RTLN X solvent now I write it as X solvent is 1 minus X solute this is here then LN 1 minus X solute is X solute minus this is the expansion logarithmic expansion and no and behold I get a beautiful so I take this term first term minus and minus plus and I get my ideal gas law this is the ideal gas law for solutions this is one of the most important thing of the binary mixture osmotic pressure is the most important thing and this equation Vantov all these things were done by Vantov so we now beginning to get an idea we are now beginning to get an idea okay okay this is how it goes that I have been able to derive the ideal gas law now if I get a deviation from the ideal gas law in terms of the concentration X solute then I will be able to get a second ideal coefficient thing like that so I will then get an idea of interaction effective interaction between B and B you know and which is very useful and also interaction between A and B so that was exactly the strategy was followed by mayor in many years later and it was also the strategy that was Vantov and Ostwald has is really all the really makes a beautiful


Hey there lads and ladies, it is Petrifying Pumpkins here and today I want to do our very first trailer analysis for our very first official first-party Sony PlayStation Virtual Reality 2 exclusive ground-up title. It's a mouthful, but it's exciting, I promise. Horizon Call to the Mountain. So there's two things I want to look at here. There's going to be a blog post from Sony themselves and then there's going to be the trailer that I want to go into in more detail also. So hopefully we'll learn a little bit more about this title even though they've just given us a little sliver. So there's not too much to go on, but there is enough that you know might be interesting to take a look at. So let's jump first into the blog post. So Horizon Call to the Mountain revealed for PlayStation VR 2. And this is from studio director and studio art and animation director of Gorilla Jan Bert Van Beek. I can't highlight the name, but yeah, I could be saying it wrong. Maybe it's Jan Bert. Anyway, with only a few more weeks to go until Horizon Forbidden West, we're thrilled to reveal that we'll soon be journeying back into the wilds in a brand new adventure with Horizon Call of the Mountain. Created for PlayStation Virtual Reality 2, this unique experience will be designed to push hardware technology, innovation and gameplay. The stunning visuals and brand new PlayStation VR 2 sense controllers give a new meaning to being fully immersed into the world of Horizon. We don't want to reveal too much just yet, but this story will be told through the eyes of an entirely new character. So that's important. That's something we were wondering, would it be Aloy? No, it will not be Aloy. It will be a brand new character. You will also miss Aloy, other familiar faces and new characters along the way. So even though we're not going to be controlling Aloy, we will be meeting Aloy in the story. And we'll be introducing you to the protagonist of Horizon Call of the Mountain soon. Horizon Call of the Mountain has been proudly developed with the team at Firesprice and will soon be revealing more about what you can expect from the game. Until then, check out the teaser trailer, which is exactly what we're going to do. But the interesting things to take away from this blog post is that the protagonist is a brand new character and that Aloy will feature in the plus somehow. So that will give us a sense of not only that it's not Aloy we're controlling of, but maybe the time period will run alongside the events of Horizon Forbidden West. Will this character that we're controlling in Horizon Call of the Mountain be like a side character in Horizon Forbidden West? Will their tales like intertwine? That could be very cool if that's what they're doing. And seeing as they're in development alongside each other, it seems like, you know, that's ripe for an opportunity like that where you can tell interweaving stories together. So we'll have to wait and see, obviously. But let's take a look at that teaser trailer and see if we can get any clues or hints or whatnot. Okay, so the trailer is going to open with the director, Asgurula, doing a bit of talking. So we might skip past that and just go straight into the actual glimpse of gameplay that we guess, or in-game fuzzage, at least I should say. So let's just play through it once and then we'll start going in a bit deeper. And there you have it, Horizon Call of the Mountain. Now that really was a teaser. Very, very limited information to go by here. Plus, more than nothing. So we'll start here. I wonder if I can adjust the play speed. Okay, let's see if that works. So the first thing to notice there is that this gentleman, whoever he is, lifts like a bag or a sack over, presumably, the main character's head. So I'm just going to go by the assumption that we're looking through the eyes of the main character. I think that makes the most sense in this virtual reality game. It's probably going to be in first person the whole game, if I had to imagine. So yeah, the first little teaser of a story here is that maybe your character has been captured by this fella and he's accomplished over here. You can see this lady in the background.  So I was hoping I could look at this guy's outfits and his companion's outfit as well and kind of see, figure out, you know, what tribe this guy belonged to. I'm not really happy with the results I got. The closest thing I got was this concept art here that I'm going to pop up on the screen of a Shadow Carrier. But I get the feeling that maybe he's going to be part of like a new tribe that will be revealed in Forbidden West. That's my guess. Another thing to notice is that he doesn't seem too hostile.  So I'm just going to continue playing on. Next up, we got to look at a tall neck.  They're Horizon World, I should say. Also, we've got this lush jungle environment. Doesn't really narrow anything else down. Either we've seen these, I mean, those lush jungles in the first horizon and there will be lush jungles in Horizon Forbidden West. So it's hard to say if this game is going to be set in, you know, the map of Horizon Zero Dawn or the map of Forbidden West or maybe it will be its own entirely unique location made just for this game. And of course, the tall neck is an excellent machine to show off in terms of the sense of scale. It's one of the biggest machines in the entire game. So obviously, you're going to have this big well moment when you see your first tall neck and you're looking up and your neck is going to be sore looking up this thing because it's massive. So it sounds like the protagonist, but I'm not too sure, says what's that tall neck doing? Now, it could be the lady who's with them, but I think it's the protagonist. And then he says it's heading towards, I think, Stern's grasp is what he's saying. I'm not too sure about that. Maybe it's Stern's grasp or some other kind of grasp, definitely something grasp. So I took that name, I googled it, didn't pop up on anything. I looked at the map of the first game, I went and looked at all the named locations. I couldn't see anything called anything grasp. So I don't think this is going to be set in the map of the first game. Maybe Forbidden West is going to have a place called Stern's grasp or something like that. So maybe that's where it's going. And then I think the other lady who's rowing at the front is the one who's saying it's heading towards us. And then there's kind of like, you know, a bit of action.  Take a look at these water effects here as the foot splashes down. It's actually pretty impressive looking. And I should have pointed that was earlier on as well if we go back and touch. Maybe not that far back. But you can see on the bottom of the screen here that this is captured on PS5. Game in development, final content may differ. But the fact that it says captured on PS5 is like fantastic. You know, this is actually what it's going to look like probably most likely. Obviously everything's subject to change as they say themselves. But you know, just look at how much detail is on the screen at any one point here. And this is all running on a PS5 obviously within the viewer headsets. And then the trailer just ends as this big large foot just passes over their heads and we get the title reveal horizon viewer. There is a little viewer, although I don't think they mentioned this in the actual official title. Call of the Mountain. Now of course the title itself is going to be a bit of a clue. Call of the Mountain, what does that mean? What is the mountain? Again, I think this is something that we're not going to be really able to speculate too much on that until we get more of a bigger picture onto what this game is actually going to be about. So we need to wait for more information on the trailer. You know, maybe E3 or something like that where they go into more depth and detail about this. So that's all I've got so far. Not much, you know, slim pickings. It really was just the briefest of teasers so there was not much I can do with that. Hopefully we'll start seeing more trailers for more first-party Sony games and whatnot. And I will continue to analyze these and I will continue to follow Horizon, Call of the Mountain also. So if you like that, give the video a like, maybe subscribe to the channel, et cetera, et cetera. Excuse that bed in the background. Don't tell anyone I live like this, okay? And thank you for watching this vid. Before I go, let me thank Decepticon for letting me use his music in all of my videos. You can check him out at Decepticon.com, link in the description. And with that, I'll end this video. Thank you very much for watching. Please stay nice and moist.