Section 81 of England. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Sonya. The World's Story, Volume 9, England, edited by Eva March-Tappen. Section 81. The Revenge, A Ballad of the Fleet, by Alfred Lord Tennyson. In 1591 an English squadron was on the way to intercept the Spanish vessels with their vast amount of treasure from the New World. A strong Spanish fleet came upon them, but Grenville, who was second in command, delayed till he could get his sick men safely on board. He then tried to sail through the Spanish fleet, but was overpowered after many hours of desperate fighting. The Editor. 1. At Flores, in the Azores, Sir Richard Grenville lay, and the Pinners, like a fluttered bird, came flying from far away. Spanish ships of war at sea, we have sighted fifty-three. Then swear Lord Thomas Howard, for God I am no coward, but I cannot meet them here, for my ships are out of gear, and to have my men as sick. I must fly, but follow quick, we are six ships of the line. Can we fight with fifty-three? 2. Then spake Sir Richard Grenville. I know you are no coward, you fly them for a moment to fight with them again.  I should count myself the coward, if I left them, my Lord Howard, to these inquisition dogs, and the devil-doms of Spain. 3. So Lord Howard passed away with five ships of war that day, till he melted like a cloud in the silent summer heaven. But Sir Richard bore in hand all his sick men from the land, very carefully and slow, men of Bideford in Devon, and we laid them on the ballast down below. For we brought them all aboard, and they blessed him in their pain, that they were not left to Spain, to the thumbscrew and the stake, for the glory of the Lord. 4. He had only a hundred seamen to work the ship and to fight, and he sailed away from Flores till the Spaniard came in sight, with his huge sea-castles heaving upon the weather-bow. Shall we fight, or shall we fly? Good Sir Richard, let us know, for to fight is but to die. There'll be little of us left by the time this sun be set, and Sir Richard said again, We be all good Englishmen, let us hang these dogs of Seville, the children of the devil, for I'd never turned my back upon Don or Devil yet. 5. Sir Richard spoke, and he laughed, and we roared the hurrah, and so the little revenge ran on, sheer into the heart of the foe, with a hundred fighters on deck, and a ninety sick below, for half of their fleet to the right, and half to the left was seen, and the little revenge ran on, through the long sea-lane between. 6. Thousands of their soldiers looked down from their decks and laughed, thousands of their seamen made mock at the mad little craft, running on and on till delayed, by their mountain-like Sun-Philip, that of fifteen hundred tons, and upshadowing high above us, with the yawning tears of guns, took the breath from our sails, and we stayed. 7. And while now the great Sun-Philip hung above us like a cloud, whence the thunderbolt will fall, long and loud, four galleons drew away from the Spanish fleet that day, and two upon the lair-board, and two upon the star-board lay, and a battle-thunder broke from them all. 8.  9. And the sun went down, and the stars came out far over the summer-sea, but never a moment ceased the fight of the one and the fifty-three. Ship after ship, the whole night long, the high-built galleons came. Ship after ship, the whole night long, with her battle-thunder and flame. Ship after ship, the whole night long, drew back with her dead and her shame, for some were sunk, and many were shattered, and so could fight us no more. God of battles was ever a battle like this in the world before. 10. For he said, fight on, fight on, though his vessel was all but a wreck, and a chance that when half of the summer night was gone, with a grisly wound to be dressed, he had left the deck, but the bullet struck him that was dressing it suddenly dead, and himself he was wounded again in the side and the head, and he said, fight on, fight on. 11. And the night went down, and the sun smiled out far over the summer-sea, and the Spanish fleet with broken sides lay round us all in a ring, but they dared not touch us again, for they feared that we still could sting. So they watched what the end would be, and we had not fought them in vain, but in perilous plight were we, seeing forty of our poor hundred were slain, and half of the rest of us maimed for life, in the crash of the cannon-aids and the desperate strife, and the sick men down in the hold were most of them stark and cold, and the pikes were all broken or bent, and the powder was all of it spent. 12. And the masts and rigging were lying over the side, but Sir Richard cried in his English pride, We have fought such a fight for a day and a night, as may never be fought again. We have won great glory, my men, and a day less or more, at sea or a shore, we die, does it matter when? Sink me the ship, Master Gunner, sinker, splitter in twain, fall into the hands of God, not into the hands of Spain. 12. And the gunner said, I, I, but the seamen made reply, We have children, we have wives, and the Lord has spared our lives, we will make the Spaniard promise, if we yield to let us go, we shall live to fight again and to strike another blow, and the lion dare lay dying, and they yield it to the foe. 13. And the stately Spanish men to their flagship bore him then, where they laid him by the mast, old Sir Richard caught at last, and they praised him to his face with their courtly, foreign grace. But he rose upon their decks, and he cried, I have fought for queen and faith, like a valiant man and true, I have only done my duty, as a man is bound to do. With a joyful spirit, I, Sir Richard Grenville, die, and he fell upon their decks, and he died. 14.  15. Was he devil or man? He was devil for all they knew, but they sank his body with honour down into the deep, and they meant the revenge with a sworthier alien crew, and the way she sailed with her loss and longed for her own. A wind from the lands they had ruined, awoke from sleep, and the water began to heave, and the weather to moan, and or ever that evening ended, a great gale blew, and a wave like the wave that is raised by an earthquake grew, till it smote on their hulls and their sails and their masts and their flags, and the whole sea plunged and fell on the shod-shattered navy of Spain, and the little revenge herself went down by the island crags to be lost evermore in the main. End of Section 81 End of The World Story A history of the world in story, song, and art. Volume 9. England Edited by Eva Marchtappen


Hello people of the internet! My name is Johnny and welcome back to another Five Nights at Freddy's news video. We have a lot to go through. Most of it however we have covered in previous videos so I won't be going fully in depth with some of the things that we have already covered. I will bring it up when we get to those topics but keep in mind while we do have a lot to go through some of it we're not going to spend a whole lot of time on. Also if you're new to the series we have a brand new feature that we are using in these videos. So if you hover over the timeline of this video you can actually see when I cover certain topics. So let's say you have already seen my video on Fazbear Fright number 6 Blackbird and you just want to skip to the news about Security Breach feel free to. But anyways let's hop right into the FNAF news. So speaking of Fazbear Fright number 6 Blackbird it's a thing now. We have done a video previously on it so I won't take up too much time here but for those who haven't seen it let's talk about it. So this is the cover for Fazbear Fright's book number 6 titled Blackbird. This is a brand new character that we have not seen in the entire franchise. Now while some people do have their theories you know this could be the crow at the ending of the fourth closet we really have no clue who this new character is. Also in the video that I covered on Blackbird some people told me in the comments that in one of the previous stories in the Fazbear Fright series there is a crow in one of the stories. So maybe this is the crow from that story we really have no clue. It is also worth mentioning that the cover has been slightly changed since that video. The new cover has a more green text to Fazbear Fright's book number 6 Blackbird. It's really nothing too major so let's keep moving on. Still on the topic of Fazbear Fright's book number 8 and book number 9 have been confirmed. While they don't have any names they have no descriptions and they have no cover they do have a release date. Book number 8 will release on May 4th 2021 while the 9th book will release on July 6th 2021. Hey boys pop it in real quick because I talked about this later in the video but I recorded this yesterday on the 3rd and I was crossing my fingers that no news was going to come out before I posted this today. But that's obviously not going to be the case. I want to make this one quick I will pop in one more time later in the video but bear with me. Alright so the Turkish versions of FNAF the Silver Eyes and FNAF the Twisted Ones have gotten an update. Because I am not Turkish I did not know about this but apparently this is what the two covers looked like. As you can see they look completely different from what they should look like especially the Twisted One which uses a fan made model of Withered Toy Freddy. How did this slip through? Recently they have been fixed and they now look like this. As you can see they look a whole lot better. They use the official covers now with the official models and it looks great. So again I will pop in later on in the video to cover the FNAF One mobile port which got an update recently but I'll see you then. Moving on to the port sister location was released on the PS4 in Europe. It was then also released in North America the following day and then recently Clickteam tweeted out that they will be releasing a patch for sister location on all platforms very shortly. Before this patch was announced Clickteam released a poll asking players if they wanted the controls of sister location to be changed and while the winning response was no, keep the controls the way they are it seems like they are doing the opposite. Because this patch includes adding an option to change the speed of your cursor control for both analogs, revamping certain parts of the custom night control scheme and adding quick camera pan shortcuts to the d-pad. Clickteam said that they will inform us on more information about this patch once it gets closer to releasing. If you guys watch my series on sister location on the Switch you guys know I am so excited for this update because the bad controls for custom night is the reason why I stopped doing that series so hopefully they fixed it because I would love to come back to it.  Yeah so FNAF One the mobile port got an update and this is what it has to offer. It says today we pushed a new update for 5 nights at Freddy's for Android and iOS. It includes the following option screen which includes aspect ratio toggle improved audio support and various fixes and improvements. We look forward to providing more updates in the future stay tuned sincerely Clickteam. But yeah that is the new update that should be rolling out today for Android and iOS. Clickteam asked you to keep in mind that it may take 24 hours for the update to roll out so if you don't have it just yet just be patient. And now back to myself in the past. Here we go. And now a bit of YouTube news. Darko is releasing more songs. Who would have thought? So his next song To Be Beautiful is releasing on Saturday August 8th. Who released a preview of the song over on his YouTube channel which to be fair is a lot longer than the previous preview so I can't fit it all in this video so I'll link it down below if you want to go check it out. As a warning it does contain some blood and gore so if you don't like watching that stuff I suggest skipping that video. Some other Darko FNAF song news is that he is currently walking on and is almost done with his next song After To Be Beautiful on Count the Ways. He released a preview of the song a couple days ago and here it is. So I just imagine Funtime Freddy singing it. That's all I'm showing. So keep in mind that based off of what Darko said in that preview that that is not the final version that is not the voice actor that will be singing the song. He says just pretend that it's Funtime Freddy singing it so it seems like maybe he will do some voicing of Funtime Freddy or maybe he will hire someone else to do that. I personally don't think Scott would allow Kellan the voice actor of Funtime Freddy to do this song but you never know man you know Darko and Scott they're pretty close but I wouldn't get your hopes up. There's no release date for that song just yet but I'm sure it'll be released maybe sometime in September. By the way I will be doing reactions to all of the songs that he releases so if you don't want to miss out on those I suggest that you subscribe. And now moving on to Illumix slash FNAF AR news. It was confirmed by Kellan that yes they are creating brand new technology for FNAF AR. Kellan did another Q&A on her Instagram and this is what the question says. Are the new characters going to need some other AR technology like Shadow Bonnie? Kellan's response is yes some are. We are building a lot of our own AR technology to enable lots of new interactions in AR. This is a massive undertaking and will be one of the first of its kind in history. So really exciting news for that. I don't think the character coming out this month in August will have this new AR technology. Based upon the warning it seems like they're still working on it currently so maybe sometime later this year. Illumix also released a brand new wave of their FNAF AR merchandise recently. They teased it on July 31st with this tweet right here. And then a couple days after that they dropped a video showcasing all of the brand new items which we did a video on linked down below. They also released a video on Twitter but it's kind of long it's not that long but it is still kind of long so I don't know if I'm going to be able to fit all of it. In this video it might be edited up slightly. So the new wave of merchandise is for the arcade madness event that FNAF AR had not too long ago. The new merch includes t-shirts, sweatshirts, mugs, posters, stickers, all that stuff. If you want to go check it out go look at the store it's linked down below. And again it's only limited supply and you only have four days to pre-order it and it's pre-order only but everything will ship out on August 24th. Now we move on to security breach. So we have done three videos on the topic so I'm not going to take up too much of the time right now but Scott has been constantly pumping out brand new voice actors for the game. Again we've done three videos on it already so the link down below go check them out if you have not seen them. Another thing going around recently is the release date of security breach and its teaser trailer. You guys remember the trends calendar that leaked the prototype designs of some of the glam rock characters? Well that calendar actually released a couple days ago on August the 1st. There were a couple posts on the reddit saying that yes it did come out on August the 1st. However when you go to check out and actually order the calendar it says that it's all out of stock. So it seems like the calendar has been delayed to a later date. That date we don't know. Because when you go to the Amazon page it still says that the release date is August the 1st. Something that's even stranger however is when I was researching for this very topic I came across Booktopia and apparently on this website the calendar actually came out on July 15th. I really hope Scott and still will get on this very fast because again it's very confusing for people that are trying to look for possible release dates. But if we really want to know the release date we might not have to wait too long. You see I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement that the trailer might release on August the 8th. Not only is it 5 minutes and 40s 6 year anniversary but it's also the one year anniversary of when we got the very first security breach teaser on ScottGames.com. Well you see it might not release on that day. It might release earlier than the 8th. Where am I going with this? Well let's take a look at this tweet by PlayStation. Earlier today as of the recording of this video they made a tweet saying state of plague returns Thursday at 1pm Pacific. What to expect? A focus on upcoming PS4 and PSVR games. A quick check-ins on third party and indie games from June's PS5 showcase. No big PS5 announcements. Tune in details. So if you guys remember the very first teaser trailer we got for Help Wanted was in a PlayStation state of play. It wasn't a whole lot keep in mind. If you guys don't remember basically all it was was the security cameras and then Freddy turned around I think it gave us a few jump scares from Mangle, Nightmare, Fredbear and the Puppet and then it said coming soon. I'm pretty sure that's what it was. But it all started in the state of play. So could we get the teaser trailer or at least some teaser for security breach in the state of play? It's you know it's possible. I think the timing of it is very well too. Like that's two days before the 8th. Two days before the anniversary it fits perfectly. I think it does have a shot at getting in the state of play but I can't say for certain so you're gonna have to tune in for that. I will be watching it. I will be recording just in case it does show up and if it doesn't oh well we just gotta wait two more days. Hopefully. Oh my god. Can you imagine if they just don't release it? They kind of have to at this point you know. Or at least a teaser like a huge teaser or something. We need something. Anyways the final thing I want to take a look at today is a brand new interview with Steel Wolf Studios. So I did a whole video on this very very recently so I won't be going over the entire article. If you want to go take a look at that link is in the description. However I do want to hit on some of the main points. So this interview was done on UploadVR and they interviewed the CEO of Steel Wolf Studios. They asked a few questions. Again I'm not gonna go over all of them. Watch the video if you want to see all of the questions. I just want to hit on the main ones that stick out. What is the time frame for bringing Curse of Dreadbear DLC for 5 nights at Friday's VR to Quest? The CEO of Steel Wolf Dayton replies with it is in the works but we can't share any timelines yet. So they are working on it but they don't have any details. They don't have any release dates for it just yet because keep in mind they have to do this for all of the consoles and they still have to port the original game onto Xbox One. Although any plans for additional DLC releases for FNAF VR unfortunately we can't speak to future plans. Does this mean there's gonna be more DLC for Help Wanted? We really have no clue. That would be awesome though. Christmas DLC? Maybe? I mean they did tease it in the non-VR trailer right? We all thought oh my god it's Christmas DLC along with the non-VR version of the game but it was just the non-VR. I mean we got a few holiday decorations but it wasn't anything too big. Do you plan to continue supporting the non-Quest versions of FNAF VR? We will continue supporting all versions of Help Wanted. So this doesn't necessarily mean they're gonna keep pumping out updates on DLC more content stuff like that. It just means they're gonna keep releasing patches for the game you know bug fixes all that stuff. Can you hint at what you're working on next after FNAF VR? We are working on the next Five Nights at Freddy's game. It is an ambitious project and will be the biggest title we have ever worked on. We also have a VR Enterprise Division that is working on a VR therapy application with a medical technology company. We all knew this, they're working on the brand new Five Nights at Freddy's security breach but they're also working on therapy VR which I think is really cool. At the end of the interview it says this Pawn receiving the Q&A responses we reached out for further clarification on the final answer regarding the new FNAF game. At this time a company representative has told us that quote the new game mentioned is not confirmed for VR at this time. It feels like that was worded very carefully but as of now we're treating it as if it is not coming to VR at least not yet. So there you have it, it is not a VR game at least upon release. Now my thoughts on this whole article and you want to see all the questions asked again the full video is linked down below and that is that. I'm recording this currently on August the 3rd so if anything major news wise pops up before then you know why it's not in the video. I'm planning on releasing this on the 4th so hopefully nothing too major should come up but you never know with FNAF. So that is all of the news. Again I told you it was gonna be a lot but thank you all so much for sticking with me and all of the resources. Everything that I ever talk about in these videos are always linked down below so if you don't trust me or if you just want to go exploring for yourself it's all down there. So thank you so much for watching and I'll see you all on the flipside. Goodbye.


Hi, good morning, and welcome to today's products and focus starting off the US 30 You can see they were just on the downside already just touching potential support at 1773 a after Friday's doji there Most global equity markets are a little bit in the back foot this morning There does seem to be deflationary pressure impacting most markets and some big moves in FX as well So just we actually just ticked a little bit below this or their own during the session But you've managed to Just ever so slightly go on the right side of the line But let's see if that will continue on as we have a whole raft of more PMI data to come out today There's already been some really weak PMI data coming out of China Which isn't helping the markets any any time a lot and I'm not we've got a whole bunch of European PMI data due later on today as well You can see we've got over in Germany and we've also got some US data as well as to keep us going So moving on to the UK 100 also on the wrong side bouncing off the 21 period SMA I'll be at we are trading the bottom end of today's range. This is a technical breakout gapping lower this morning next potential support is at 6589 And this isn't so good For the UK equities in the short term crossover in the MACD You can see we firmly crossing these levels here technical levels on the RSI and the slow stochastic so Technical pressures combined with some fundamental aspects. It's not a good starting block Moving on to Japan 25 it broke through potential resistance at 17496 as dollar yen basically has Has kind of broken out hitting about 119 On the back or basically the US dollars just going rampant across a lot of its a lot of its other majors out there Down to the fact that there is a thought process that most of these other world governments Japan and the ECB I guess Need to do something to tackle the deflationary aspects. They've got and play right now So looking at a dollar yen, you can see there We're just having a bit of a retest of potential resistance at 118 spot 99 it just took put his heads above 119 earlier on this morning, I believe 119 spot 0 3 Which is the highest it's been for for many many years only just talk slightly below it again This level has is not had a proper technical break out yet needs to break and close above it But certainly there does seem to be a little bit momentum We have to wait to see how US PMI comes out Which is widely expected to be way better than the eurozone if you look at the forecast of 58 right here And then you look at the eurozone or the German figure there the forecast is 50 nothing below 50 seen as a contraction So that gives you a bit of an idea of massive gulf there is between between Europe and America So moving on to cruel West Texas this goes from bad to worse. We've already hit 64 dollars This morning Actually, it's going to weekly chart. Let's see for the next potential support level is off. It's a long way away Oh matter of fact, we you could arguably take $60 has been one of the next levels in the fact I'm actually gonna go have to have to go back here and tidy up some of these support levels now Because literally there's been so many technical breakouts now. There's no point in looking at these levels again for some time Let me switch back on to the daily interval So, you know, obviously things have not been looking that great for West Texas crude For some time. I might get rid of this level as well just now So these are arguably the the core levels to look at these are all historical levels $64 will be the potential support next potential support will be 5950 That will possibly be a big psychological floor for for West Texas crude Technicals are just completely out the window right now as the fundamental factors are huge to drive in this going forward But certainly the the strength of the moves that we've seen has been quite incredible and just seeing it on the weekly standpoint You know, I kind of post that into context. So Those are the core levels to be aware of gold as well completely reversed after the Swiss had the referendum about the Utilizing gold as part of their reserve look against the currency You see we actually get lower this morning But we have had made up a little bit of lost ground 1137 is a potential support. So we could be getting kind of a hammer formation right here Could be a bit of a short squeeze as well after such a short move to the downside But the winners and see how this plays out throughout the day We've got a crossover in a slow stochastic them right there and the MACD Whereas the RSI is kind of neutral right now kind of very unusual patterns to have right here But we are still in the middle of two ranges as ever. So 1186 is going to be potential resistance Where the fundamentals are definitely quite negative for gold in the short term Finishing up with your dollar and GBP USD your dollars again on the back foot as ECB is going to have to look to potentially cut rates as ever. It's Looking kind of ugly out there, but one spot 2367 is the next potential support We're not there yet. So there's still a lot of room for maneuver. We're on the wrong side of that 21 period SMA I'm finishing up with GBP USD. It's also moving to the to the downside. We could have short term Potential support right here around about one spot fifty-five. Let's say one spot fifty-six Okay, and the next potential support level is just at the bottom right here with one spot fifty-four twenty-four And if we actually look at the economic data there today, and we fast-forward on to Tuesday You can see that you've got domestic domestic auto industry sales Tomorrow and not much else and then when we fast-forward on to Wednesday, you've got more Chinese data more UK data And you've got ADP private payrolls So GBP USD my for most of major FX pairs will be very much in vogue and people will be talking about quick for some time to go Keep behind the chart forum as ever make insides part of your leg going forward and join me again tomorrow to find out what happened next


Well, welcome back to our closing plenary session for the spring 2019 meeting. From what I've seen, it's really been a wonderful set of sessions, and I'm particularly grateful for some of our colleagues from the campus research computing group who are having a workshop here tonight and tomorrow who also were able to join us for some of our sessions and to be able to share some of what they're doing earlier today. I'd like to just thank a few folks before we start off our closing plenary, which I'll introduce in a moment. First off, I'd just like you to join me in thanking all of our presenters. They've made it a wonderful, rich, enlightening, and exciting conference, and let's thank them all. I'd also like to just express my thanks to the CNI staff. They always make this look easy and make it run really smooth, and that is an art form, and one that I am very grateful that they are so very skilled at, so thank you. With that, let me get on to the main part of what we're here for this afternoon, and that is a talk by Michael Nelson. Many of you know Michael. He's been a long time CNI attendee, and he shared his work with us on several occasions. His work often is collaboration with other folks that you would know here, people like Herbert von Dessampel, Martin Klein, and others. Also with his students, of course, as all good professors at the research frontier. Part of what they do is bring their students into active work on that research frontier. If you've attended many of his talks here, you'll note that they have been very deep looks at specific areas around, for example, how we can preserve and track the web. When you aggregate up his body of work as he's shared it here and in publications, he's really developed, I think, an exquisite appreciation of an understanding of just how fragile our history, our archive of the web is and why it's so fragile, why it's getting more fragile. I think he's going to try and give you that sort of broad insight at a high level. In addition, Michael and I both share a growing concern that while what we have in place is really fragile, even in an environment of what I might characterize as sort of benign neglect, it's now being placed into an environment that in some cases is actively hostile. That's something that I think both of us worry about a lot. I believe he's also going to share some of his thinking about the vulnerabilities there and some of the steps we might take to address them. Mike is a professor of very longstanding in the computer sciences department at Old Dominion University and has, as I said, really amassed quite a wide ranging and deep body of work in this area. I think we're in for something kind of special today in that he's really going to try and synthesize some of that for us rather than share a particular result at great depth. Getting that kind of perspective, I believe, is going to be very valuable for us. Please join me in welcoming Mike Nelson. Thank you, Cliff. First thing, this is the title of my talk, but this is actually the title that I wanted to use. When I submitted this title, I was told very politely that you could not use that title and you needed a more appropriate subtitle. So I'm really happy to be here. I'm happy for this opportunity. I want to thank Cliff for inviting me. I also want to thank my collaborators, Michelle Weigel, Herbert Vandesampel, Martin Klein, a whole host of students. But the reason for this title, how many of you are Blade Runner fans? Philip K. Dick, right? So for those of you who aren't, I'm going to try and make you into a Blade Runner fan before it's all over. So Philip K. Dick's book came out in 1968. It was called Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. And then Ridley Scott, 1982, came out with a film. They renamed it Blade Runner. And in 1993, this is obligatory library reference. The Library of Congress inducted it into the Film Registry for aesthetic significance. So I'm trying to tell you this is serious cinema, right? So the part that it begins with is Blade Runner is set in 2019. Very opening credits as Los Angeles 2019. And then we pan in and we see this horrific post-apocalyptic civilization is collapsed because of pollution. We have robots that live off world. It's a dystopian post-apocalyptic future. Now, both Philip K. Dick and Ridley Scott predicted a lot of things in these movies. And because it's 2019, there's all kinds of links. And by the way, I tweeted this, the links to the slide, there's going to be gazillion links in the slide. So you can go online and find all the material there. But there's a whole bunch of links about what Ridley Scott got right, what he did not get right and so forth. So we're not going to talk about flying cars and so forth. What we are going to talk about is I'm going to tie it back to really the larger canon of Philip K. Dick's work. So a lot of the themes that he covers are things about identity, the relationship between self and the other, memory, the essence of humanity, what does it mean for something to be authentic, the difference between a reality and a simulation, and this concept of an unreliable narrator. So the idea is anything we're saying now, today in the world that we live in, has to be said and expressed in a tweet. So Blade Runner summarized in 239 characters, had one character left. So we're in this post-apocalyptic future where replicants are off-world slaves and not allowed back on Earth. And they have their indistinguishable few humans, and to make them more manageable, they have fake memories implanted in them. And if they return to Earth or otherwise deviate from their programming, they're to be identified and then retired, which means killed, of course. The movie begins with the Voint Kompf test, which is this idea of we can tell a replicant from a human by asking them a series of questions, because otherwise they're indistinguishable. We ask them a series of questions, and based on their empathetic response, particularly empathy towards animals, we can tell whether or not they're real. And it begins, this guy is in Star Trek, he's a red shirt, he dies almost immediately because the replicant that he's interrogating eventually realize he's failing the test and then kills him. All right. So we've got robots indistinguishable from humans, we've got off-world slaves, we've got a perpetually dark and stormy Los Angeles. So this is all the essence of good science fiction and good cyberpunk, right? But that's not our 2019, right? Well, the future is already here, the cyberpunk future is already here. On the left-hand side, you see a description of the Jeff Bezos situation, and when you read it like this, you're like, yeah, that's definitely at least a couple of cyberpunk novels that I've read. And then the equally fascinating and horrifying demos from Boston Dynamics, it is clear that the future is already here, the cyberpunk future. Now at this point, you're wondering, when is he gonna start talking about web archiving? And Herbert warned me not to go too fanboy on Blade Runner, but it's really tempting. But what I'm trying to establish here is web archives are science fiction, right?  Now web archives are like science fiction because there's a paradox to we need significant and continuous investment today in order to take a page and say this page used to look like that. It takes continuous investment to be able to say that. Now in this audience, it should be obvious web archiving is not file backup. I have this slide just in case. So backup that essence of backup is you want to prevent, detect and repair changes. In web archiving, we're continually changing the content to better simulate the past. So in essence, web archiving is a simulate room of the past. It's not really the past. So the essence of a web archive is to modify the holdings that it contains. Now here's a page of CNI from 1997. The web and HTML was very simple then. But we can see what the web archive, when it was replayed through the Internet Archive's way back machine, it rewrites the links and it also inserts a banner to let you know metadata about the past. It was captured at this date. It is a copy of this URL. There are these additional copies available. It's completely transforming the page to give us a simulation of the past. Now, it's not just rewriting links that are involved. So David Rosenthal on the left had a seminal paper in about 2005 where he addressed concerns. So it used to be we had this idea that someday we'll forget how to remember render JPEGs. That's never going to happen. But if it did happen, the web archive can silently transform the content into a format that's more amenable for our processing today. Now, the JPEG situation hasn't happened, but it has happened with Flash. On the right hand side, you see an HTML page, a YouTube page that was archived in 2010. And when I tried to replay it today, my browser does not want to replay it because it's Flash and Flash was a terrible idea. So we're continually modifying the web archiving playback software. So here are the GitHub release pages of Open Way Back and Pi Way Back, two of the most popular open source versions. And you can see the updates are just happening all the time. And they're doing this in order to have a more authentic version of the past. Now, the idea here is this version of the past, it's no longer just for vanity, this is what the page looked like in 1997. Just a year ago, there was a court case in which screenshots of Internet Archive pages were allowed as evidence. Now, on one hand, that's a terrible idea. And we'll explain why. Now, in this case, they had someone from the Internet Archive go and verify that what was in the screenshot matched the Internet Archive's business records. Now, what we didn't establish in this court case is whether or not the Internet Archive's records matched what actually happened in the past. That's an open question. So why is it hard to recreate the past? If the web was just JPEGs and PDFs and MP3s and static files, this would be really easy, right? But real HTML pages, the pages we enjoy interacting with are not that simple. They're actually super complex and involve hundreds, several hundreds of embedded resources. So here's a Twitter page from a couple of days ago. And obviously, there's links that need to be rewritten and so forth. There's embedded resources, audio, video, and so forth. And then the bar that says 12 new results up at the top, that's inserted by JavaScript. And so this page is continually updating. It has advanced media in there. This is super difficult to capture and render as in the past. Now, the main problem here is JavaScript. JavaScript is why we can't have nice things. And if we can stop JavaScript in our lifetime, then we will have accomplished something. So let's look at an example. Here is a page from the Fish and Wildlife Service, archived 2013. So we load this page and we get an equal at the top. Now, we hit reload immediately. This is the archived page, not the live web. When we hit reload, we get a tiger. We hit reload again, and we get a mountain. Now, what's going on? We're hitting reload, but I'm getting a different page. Now, in this case, it's pretty simple. We look inside and I promise this will be the only code slide that we have. When we look inside the HTML, there's some JavaScript, and it's clear that it's randomly deciding which one of the images to show you. Now, this is pretty simple. We just make sure that we reload the page enough in our crawl so we get all three images, and then we can recreate all the three versions that somebody would have seen in 2013. Most pages are actually a lot more difficult to figure out what's going on. Now, this is an animated GIF. It is a CNN page archived also in 2013. The right-hand top corner, you can see when my student hit reload, he was waiting an hour in between. The top left-hand corner, you can see that on each reload, the archive itself is not sure how many copies of that page that it has. Now, this is actually going to be a source of much confusion. If you have three copies, it probably knows, hey, you have three copies. Once you get above some large number, exactly how many copies you have is not entirely clear. It depends on which indexes can answer in time and so forth. The more disturbing factor is in the bottom left, you see that we're getting different temperatures for the high temperature in Atlanta in the summer of 2013. Now, I'll buy the 90 and the 80 degrees, but the 39 degrees, I'm willing to bet it was not 39 degrees in Atlanta in the summer. So every time we reload this page, we get a different result. So we can't replay the past year. The combination of the embedded resources and the JavaScript makes sure that our simulation of what CNN looked like in 2013 is flawed. It will never be 2013 again. So in some assets, we can't, this page is lost, we can't go back and get it. Now, you can say maybe the headlines are there, the important part of the page is, but we don't always know in advance what the important parts are going to be. Now, this actually manifests itself in a lot of different ways. This is something we identified a long time ago and we called zombies. And when you reload a page, the live web would leak into the page and sometimes produce results that were jarring. So this is a CNN page that was archived in 2008, but my student, Justin Brunel, rendered the page in November 2012, right before the 2012 election, and you see on the right-hand corner the Obama Romney advertisement for the debate where in the left-hand pane, we see that he's running against McCain. So these combination of resources could not have existed on the live web. Now, this is happening because the JavaScript would run dynamically and then create a URL that the web archive could not transform in advance and would reach out into the live web. Now, about two years ago, the Internet Archive fixed this and prevented zombies. Mostly fixed it. It's not complete, but this is something that can happen where the live web and the archive web mix and produce a result that didn't happen. More disturbing is when you don't reach out into the live web. When everything is legitimately archived and in here, we have a weather underground page for Verena, Iowa. Anyone from Verena, Iowa here? I figured not, right? It says in the text in the bottom left-hand corner that it's going to be a miserable day, 41 degrees, and it's going to be rainy and cloudy and so forth. That web page is archived in December of 2004. The radar image shows a clear sky and it was archived in September of 2005. There's a nine or ten month difference between the HTML page and the JPEG of the radar image. When they're recombined, both are archived resources. We did not reach out to the live web. When they're recombined, they produce a page that never existed. Now, I'm claiming that you should be concerned about this, but you're probably thinking West, Nowhere, Iowa, the weather forecast in 2004, who cares? This is hardly the essence of dystopian cyberpunk. Why do we care about that? There are cases where these temporal violations begin to look like tampering and they actually have more real-world impact. So, does anyone remember the Joy Reid case with her blog? It was about a year ago. She wrote some in 2005, so she wrote some homophobic things. She apologized and then she started saying, I never wrote those things. And then people on her team used something called robots.txt and basically blocked the internet archive from replaying those pages because she didn't like what was coming out of them. And then she started saying, oh, it's been hacked and so forth. What the people on our team didn't realize is there's more than one web archive. So, we went and got copies of the same posts from the Library of Congress web archive and were able to demonstrate that the screenshots that were being circulated actually matched the text that the Library of Congress had. One of the common complaints at the time was, well, you're showing me this replayed page, but I don't believe it because she was a prolific blogger several times a day and she had a big audience and there were a lot of comments on the blog. And I assume everyone in this room remembers blog if I was talking to a younger crowd I'd say it was like Twitter but a long time ago. So, when you replayed the page you saw that there was no comments and people thought, well, that's weird. Clearly you're lying to me, right, because it does not match what I remember from the past. And what I found, and this is actually kind of complicated, but there's a temporal violation. So, she used blogger at the time but the comments were served from a different service, halo scan or so. I don't even think it exists anymore. But the HTML page had some JavaScript in it and it would load a separate JavaScript file that was an index for which posts had which comments. And this is one example that I worked through. The HTML page was archived January 1st, I'm just kidding January 11th, and then the JavaScript index page that was loaded at the same time was archived almost a month later in February. And it was the index from February that corresponded with the HTML page from February. So, when you recombined them, it produced what you see here is when it failed to find the copy in the index it would say comments as if there were no comments. Many of the posts, most of the posts, actually had no comments. There'd be a little bit of overlap, so some posts would have comments, but most of them didn't have that many comments because these things were so far out of sync. Now, I can tell I'm already losing part of the audience here. Now, imagine me trying to talk to someone who doesn't want to believe that Joy Reid did that because it's very complicated when I'm like, no, there's HTML, there's JavaScript, and there's toxic other JavaScript. But wait, that was... And it sounds like you're telling a bad science fiction story where you're introducing characters as needed, but it was archived later. I know I didn't tell you about that before, so I understand why people don't think I'm telling the truth. But the reason why this page does not match people's historical expectations is because of these temporal violations. Now, this has more real-world implications than the Verena, Iowa weather forecast. But it's not just JavaScript. Now, established JavaScript is almost always the villain, but there's some case where cookies by themselves are the villain. This is something we published, blogged about not too long ago. I could do a whole talk about how web archives and Twitter work at cross-purposes. But here's a case where we have Obama's page, his official page, replayed from the archive, and I can't read it, not that long ago, 2017. And his posts are in English, because he's writing in English, but because of how Twitter sets up their support for multiple languages, the template information comes back in Urdu. And Urdu is a lot like Arabic, it's a right-to-left language, so you see the template information for when he joined and how many followers and tweets and replies and so forth. That's all in Urdu. And clearly, this supports the narrative that he's a secret Muslim, right? Because why does his page look like that? But when it's crawled, what ends up happening is the Internet Archive associates the Urdu language page at the URL of the English language page. And the blog post explains how that's happening, but if you're already inclined to believe that he's a secret Muslim, then this is a smoking gun, right? Then we have another example where the combination of cookies and JavaScript does all kinds of crazy stuff. So here we have an Indian journalist, and we replay his page from just like a month ago. And in the bottom right-hand side in yellow, we see that the template information there is in English. And then the blue on the right-hand side in the top, the template information is in Portuguese. And then there's JavaScript running, and it waits a minute or two minutes or whatever it is, and it says 20 more posts. And that's the red bar in there. That is in Urdu. So we actually have three different languages combined into a page. It's clear there's no Urdu, Portuguese, English language conspiracy happening. But there's also a temporal violation because if you click on those 20 more posts, it's not the 20 posts more from the archiving time, it's 20 more from some time in the future. So you can click more and get the posts, and you'll get these posts and those 20 posts, and there's this gap in the middle where you don't have any posts. So we're replaying this page, and you think you archive to Twitter page how hard that can be. It turns out it's really hard. So the idea here is web archives are unreliable narrators. And the problem is if we have an unreliable narrator, we have to start to question everything we've been told. Now here's another example where the stakes get higher. Imagine we had a president that admitted obstruction of justice in a national TV interview. Just purely hypothetical. And in August of 2018, he tweets something that Lester Holt was caught fudging the tape. We know this didn't happen, right? And then a journalist replies on the right hand side and says, look, the NBC website has had this video up since August of 2017. Now if you're a conspiracy theorist, if Lester Holt fudged the tape, then the copy on the live web is going to be the fudged copy, right? So what we need to do is consult the web archives. And now I'm going against the dark angel of demos here. I'm going to try and pull up something so I can show it to you. So here is the Internet Archives page. And the first time it shows up, that NBC link, the first time it's not 2017, it's in 2018. Now I'm going to click on this and you need to pay attention because it's going to happen. I can't really control it because, you know, JavaScript, right? So I'm going to click on this and pull up the page. And at first it's going to look legitimate. Come on, network, you can do it. So there's the Lester Holt. I'm not touching the keyboard. It's going to just click through by itself. And then the damning evidence of how Lester Holt fudged the tape. All right, who else is on the network at this time? So I'm not sure why it's looping, but the image, the video is of a letter carrier walking in the snow and falling down. And it just sits there and loops over and over again. And after we show this and his bag slides down, it's going to go back and start playing again. And this is the damning evidence that we were going to catch. Here's the original source of the interview. This is what the archive has. Now imagine trying to convince a skeptic that Lester Holt did not fudge the tape here. And we go to the archive and this is what we get. Something's gone horribly, horribly wrong here. All right. So the essence here is this came about in errors and crawling and probably compounded with errors and playback. But at some point, the errors in crawling and the errors in playback become indistinguishable from someone tampering with the record. So Kate Starbird and then Cliff Lynch, basically, and others have said this, the goal of disinformation is not necessarily to make you believe a specific thing, but cast doubt on the entire process. So if we consult the record to find out what was actually said and we get this humorous video of a letter carrier falling down, at some point with the Obama playback and the Urdu and the Verena, Iowa, are you guys still trusting web archives at this point? Can we really trust this? So disinformation applied to web archives doesn't mean that we necessarily have to believe a specific narrative. We just need to doubt about the entire archiving process. Now in fairness, I have to say we're unaware of any specific hack that has occurred in the Internet Archive to accomplish some larger goal, right? What I'm going to say is that web archives are not immune to this kind of hack. It's just the theater of conflict has not moved to web archives. So here are some examples. Here's one of the first tweets from Jack, setting up my Twitter, and that's from 2006. And in 2006, Twitter's just this weird gateway between SMS and the web. And about 10 years later, we have the IRA influencing the election through Twitter accounts. Here's Facebook archived Mark Zuckerberg's page in 2009, and we learn interesting things like he likes Katy Perry and Lady Gaga and other super important things. Less than 10 years later, we find out about Cambridge Analytica. Gmail, when it came out, this is one of the first blog posts about this, it was awesome. All the other web mail services sucked. Gmail gave you a gigabyte of data when that seemed to possibly large. And then now it's used as a spearfishing attack to release the DNC emails, right? Here's one of the first articles I could find from 2002 about the Internet Archive. There's probably others, this is the one that I found. What's going to go on the right-hand side? What's the big exploit that we're going to have here? I've given you little teasers, but of things that don't really matter. What's the big social impact we're going to have? Why do we expect things are going to be different from web archives? One of the things I want to convince you of is our trust model for web archives is still firmly rooted in a 1980s, early 90s mindset. I started working at NASA as first as a student in the 80s and then later in 1991 as a full-time person. In the late 80s and very early 90s, we had supercomputers that were very expensive and I used an X-terminal to connect to the machine. I was one of literally hundreds of people on the machine at any time. So there was one machine and many users. And about 1992, they decided I was worth some investment and so they bought me a Spark IPX. Anyone remember their first Sun workstation? Just talking with Simeon now. But that was, I mean it was thousands of dollars. It was probably $10,000 or more, but it was mine. It sat on my desk. I set up the first NASA digital library, the first NASA homepage on that. It was all on my desktop machine, but there was a one-to-one relationship. That was my machine. I was able to do a lot of things with it. I got one of my students to take this picture now. I don't even know how many computers I have access to. I get email reminders from the inventory police telling me they have to go through. And I look at these and I'm like, I don't even know where these computers are. There are so many computers that we have. The idea here is, and this is an email that I got from a guy named Brewster Kale when he was setting up a startup company called Waze Incorporated. Anyone remember that? So he's blasting out and it's this weird email of don't talk to the press about this company that we're setting up or so forth. But on the left-hand side, he's just blasting out this email to everyone that has used Waze in the past. And you see my name on it. But in the bottom left-hand corner highlighted in red, you see Root at this machine, Root at that machine, Root at this other machine. Back when machines were expensive, if you sent an email to Root at some machine, you had a pretty good idea that the person at the other end was a responsible person. They would not be given control of thousands if not millions of dollars worth of computer equipment if they were not a white hat. Clearly this seems quaint now, right? If you get an email from Root at some machine, you're not going to believe it. But in the 80s or 90s, that meant something. And what I'm saying is web archives are like the Unix mainframes of the 80s and 90s, right? We implicitly trust Root. How well do you know Root at archive.org, right? And I don't mean did you meet Brewster at a conference one time. I mean, do you know him well enough that if you emailed or called him, he would reply? Some people in this room, given this on it, that answer might be true. But in general, it's not true, right? Our entire national digital preservation strategy is dependent on Brewster Kale not being evil. If he's running a sleeper cell, we're all doomed because he's got all of our stuff. Now I'm going to say how well do you know Root at all these other archives? And there's at least one of them on here which you absolutely should not trust. There's a bunch more archives that I didn't bother to find icons for. So there's a gazillion archives. We can no longer implicitly trust Root at archives. All right. Up until this point, we've looked at failures of crawling and failures at replay. And it produces weird results. Let's talk about deliberate fakes. Now, we've had deliberate fakes for some time. So we've had Victorian photo collage and then copy and paste to make funny music videos and so forth. The one on the right is Brian Williams rapping gin and juice, which Snoop Dogg song from 1993. It's hilarious. You should listen to it. Now, clearly this is done for comedic effect, right? And so because we have the cultural context, we know this is not real. But there are other fakes that require knowledge and skills and access, right? Even if I could create some of these things, I don't have access to a monastery in Europe to go and place it for discovery there. So some of these fakes exist in the real world, but the threshold to create these fakes is much higher. We have to worry about deep fakes now. And deep fakes being a combination of deep learning and fakes. And here we have a couple of clips from Reddit where people, two people asking for the creation of deep fakes and one person advertising the capability to create deep fakes. Now, we're not going to look at these examples, but we have a safe for work example you've probably seen. So the mail carrier is still falling down here. I just like, it was just, I, this was, this was very truly surprising for me. Yeah, I was just really surprised. I share the Watson from best view.  Oh, it was your favorite and least favorite housewife of all cities. My favorite is probably Lisa Vanderpump. All right, you get the idea, right? That's pretty convincing, right? We can tell it's fake, but, you know, given the right circumstances, we'd have to be concerned about this. I'm going to, while I've got this load, I'm going to show you another fake.  You see, I would never say these things, at least not in the public address, but someone else would. Someone like Jordan Peele. This is a dangerous time. So you get the idea of that, right? We're going to come back to the Jordan Peele thing, but I figure I'd save on the switch. So this is the level of deep fake with the Steve Bushimi, Jennifer Lawrence combination. We just put his face and maintained her voice. And the Jordan Peele Obama version, we essentially had Jordan talking and mouthing through Obama, right? So it's sort of related approaches, but you know, it has become mainstream in the sense of there's now a website. You no longer have to go to the deep dark reaches of Reddit to get this material. You can go to a website and create it. It's not that difficult. Now I'm going to put a part aside for a moment, the illegal and creepy and all the other aspects of the deep fakes that you see on Reddit and so forth. As far as detecting deep fakes, this will happen. There will be an arms race of we get good at detecting them, we get good at covering them up and so forth. Preventing them is never going to happen. And the idea here is the mementos of a past, even a fake past are core to the human condition. We're going to be so attached to these that we're going to continue to find a way to create them. And this actually has a significant plot point in Blade Runner, where on the left hand side, Leon, the guy that killed the interrogator in the first scene, he actually is eventually caught and killed because he returns back to his house to recover the photos. Now, he knows they're fake, but he's so attached to them that he actually risks his own life to get them. So now imagine that's your next Thanksgiving dinner with Obama and Peel video. You just take that three or four second clip, edit that out, embedded in an HTML page, use JavaScript to rewrite the URL that shows up in your banner. You also set the date time to be November 2016. You claim that the deep state has removed the page from the live web, that's evidence of how deep the conspiracy goes. And then they have endless conversation with your uncle. This is not just hypothetical. Here's an attack that we've demonstrated of a page inserted into the Internet Archive that shows Brian Williams wrapping gin and juice. And if we zoom in, we see that it's at a URL that's fake that did not exist then. And we see that it has a date time of 1992. That's one year before Snoop Dogg's version came out. So we've proven that Brian Williams is the original gangster and Snoop Dogg was copying him. Now this is obviously fake and it's fake on inspection. But imagine we can do this. My student did this. Now imagine this with the Jordan Peel video, just that slice where we don't see Jordan Peel, we just see Obama mouthing it. Now we've known about these attacks and other attacks in a series of seminal papers for about two years. Fixing this, preventing the archives from being an attack vector is going to be a great deal of work. It hasn't happened yet to my knowledge, but only because people haven't figured out that it's important yet. I don't think that's going to continue. Of course there are other ways to attack the Web Archive or the Internet Archive. They host a Friday lunch. It's really awesome. You could just show up and have lunch with everybody, but it's an insecure facility. Now they have geographic distributions and so forth, but the thing is you can go have lunch with all the archives, archivists there, and then go and abduct them and hit them with a lead pipe and have them insert anything into the archive that you would like. Now you're probably thinking that would never happen. I think there are some journalists and dissidents and so forth that would like to say it could happen. If the Saudis or the Russians or any number of other governments decided they wanted some information to appear or disappear in the Web Archive, they've already killed a lot of people and don't think for a minute that they would hesitate to add a librarian to their list. We're not special. The idea here is we can't have it both ways. We can't claim we're doing important world-changing stuff and then pretend like we are somehow immune to the associated dangers. We can't have it both ways. Now maybe they don't attack the Internet Archive. Maybe they set up their own Web Archive. Now setting up your own Web Archive is not that expensive. Now the run-out costs are still expensive.  Forever's a really long time, so there's a lot of costs associated with it, but there are a lot of open source software packages that are quite good and with AWS, it's not the cheapest way, but it's the fastest way to get set up with a lot of storage, you could have a convincing Web Archive set up in the same amount of time it takes for somebody to render the Jennifer Lawrence Stevie fake. Then we can start talking about placing fakes into fake archives. I don't know root at any of these archives and I wouldn't trust them even if I did, but if these archives existed, what happened if most of the time they faithfully replayed the pages and then they just changed the pages that they wanted to change access to? What if they're not even four different archives but it's really one person controlling all the different archives to give the illusion of independent observations, essentially mounting a sock puppet attack? Going back to Rosenthal and locks, they've done a lot of nice work at talking about threat models for digital preservation, but I think even in their work, there's an assumption that all the nodes in the network begin as trustworthy components. They might be corrupted later, but what if we begin an environment where everyone is not trustworthy? I want to introduce another possibility. What if archives including trusted archives like the Internet Archive were targeted to amplify a specific narrative, right? Prior to this we talked about disinformation, can't trust anything, mailman falling down, that kind of thing. What if some agents come with a court order and decide you're going to put this in your web archive? How much is Bruce going to push back on that? So I don't know if you saw about this, but DHS set up a fake university to attract students who want to stay in the US but don't actually want to attend class. Now this came out just recently a couple months ago, I think. Unfortunately, and they did a reasonably good job. So there's a university of farmington.edu and it has course schedules and all kinds of stuff. And it even has sort of a confusing narrative about how they began, which sort of fudges the dates. But we look it up in the Internet Archive and we see that the first time it was archived was October of 2016, which is a little disappointing because that means the operation began under the previous administration. But the archives don't lie on that. Now we can claim if the would-be students had checked in the archive, they'd see hey, there's a university that just came online two years ago. That's hardly believable. What if the DHS decided the Internet Archive was going to host some backdated pages to the 1990s when all the other universities were coming online? Or even easier, DHS could have put a robots.txt at that page which effectively blocks the Internet Archive and they could have co-opted all the other archives and put the fake pages backdated and that. So DHS already got a .edu registration. You're not supposed to do that, but obviously they can do it. So why do we think that the boundary, they just didn't think about it. But now that I've told them that we'll think about it. Now at this point you're probably thinking shouldn't you be talking about blockchain by now? Blockchain to the rescue and the lasers and sirens and a soundtrack and so forth. We're not going to do that. So everyone's seen all the Rosenthal articles. We all know that that's not good. There's no shortage of deep fake versus blockchain articles. And some of them I'm going to claim start to look a lot like a Voigt-Kopf test where you have to prove that your photo is legitimate and so forth. There's a good article that talks about the unintended consequences of that. Probably more than we will catch deep fakes, we will succeed and surveillance of tracking who posted this photo if this happens. On the other hand, I'm less worried because anyone with pets and microchipping their pets and multiple competing standards for microchipping our pets, we can't blockchain our pets. I'm hard to believe that we're going to be able to blockchain all the photos that come out of our phones. Now we'll note that the synthetic pets in Blade Runner have serial numbers so that's how you know it's the future. They figured out how to blockchain their pets. As far as blockchains and web archives, you might have seen this blog post almost two years ago where they claimed, oh, we've time stamped, hashed everything in the NRR archive. Then you read further on and says, basically what they did were the MP3s and the PDFs and so forth, which is awesome, hooray, but they didn't do it for the web pages. And they said, we're going to get to that in the future. That's not going to happen. Absolutely not going to happen. At least not in the conventional way that you're thinking of it. So we have an ongoing work now where we sampled 16,000 mementos archive pages distributed across 17 public web archives. We replayed each page 35 times over the course of a year. And here we just have a visual representation of it. So this is University of Michigan page as archived in Permacixie. And then we see at some point they have some security problems with their server. They upgrade the server. It's offline for a while. We get different content. It comes back online. And then it becomes variable. We never quite always get the same thing back each time. And the punchline here is 16,000 times 35 is a big number. If we do a histogram of how many times we get different hashes, about one in eight of the pages always gave the same hash all 35 times. And ironically enough, that was the worst archive web citation. The reason why it gave the same hash is it doesn't know how to process JavaScript. On the right hand side is more concerning. One in six pages always gave a different hash every 35 times. So every time you visited it, it produced a different result. And that should be clear just there that fixity base approaches, conventional fixity base approaches are not going to work. Not through a playback mechanism. Now you're thinking hash the screenshot, not the HTML. That doesn't work either. Here is one work file, an archived page. And horizontally we have two different way back machines. And then vertically we have three different browsers. And the takeaway here is even though the same source material that never changed, when it's played back and then rendered, we get six different answers. And which one is the right answer? Now some are clearly better than others, but it's not entirely clear which one is the right answer. Now why don't we create a locks for web archives? I've been talking about locks a couple of times, right? Why don't we do that? Here's the dirty secret. Web archives are not very interoperable, right? And here we have upside down tortoise, if you remember your void conf test. There are many issues regarding interoperability. I have 99 problems. I'm going to show you one of those problems just as a parable. So here's that tweet that I had earlier, and I pushed it into the Internet archive. And it looks pretty good. We get the banner so forth. I take this page from the Internet archive and I push it into archive today. And that's still pretty good, but it's taken away the Internet archive banner, but inside the banner it's smart enough to know that it came from the Internet archive. Then I take this page and I push it into permaccc, and it keeps the archive today banner, adds its own manner, but the content below, it's starting to change, right? We're just seeing the banner image and so forth. Now I take this permaccc and I push it into website, and it's totally banged up at this point, in part because it doesn't do JavaScript well and it has its own idea of frames, but you see in the very bottom left, there's this little portion of archive today that's holding on. All right. And then you're thinking, well, that's web citation, that's an archive that's not being developed, that's not fair. Here's that same page pushed back into the permaccc page, pushed back into the Internet archive, and that's not much better. We just get the banner, but none of the content. Then I take this page, push it back into web citation, and we've lost everything at this point. So this is not the only problem with web archiving interoperability, but this gives you an idea, right? Every web archive thinks it's the center of the universe, and it'll be clever of dealing at any page it finds except another archive. We hate those guys, right? So the metaphor here is web archives are like cats, and they don't really, if you're a pet owner, you know that cats don't really have a strong pack mentality, right? They do their own thing. All right. Now to summarize, existing trusted archives can be compromised by a number of ways. One, they can crawl malicious pages, pages that know they're headed towards the Internet archive and use JavaScript to attack the archive. We can also attack the facilities and personnel. We can also just get a court order, and that's probably the easiest way to do things. The other aspect is the lowered threshold for archives means we're going to have a lot more untrusted archives. People are going to try and commercialize archives, and there'll be a lot of activity in this space. Most of it will fail, but it's going to produce even more uncertainty. There's no reason to think that the Russia and the Saudis and so forth aren't investigating their own archives. They can afford to have a long game archive where they set things up and it does the right thing for a long time and then defects later on. They've also set up sock puppet archives where it looks like there's multiple archives, and our state of interoperability is so poor that we can't track what things move between archives. Again, the nature of web archives is to change content so the current fixity-based approaches won't apply. Now looking forward, I don't have a lot of how things are going to get better. I'll give you a little vision of how things are going to get better. We need new models for web archiving and verifying authenticity. We need a Voight Conf test for web archives. The Heratrix way back machine technology stack is very successful, but it's in some ways limited our thinking about what it means to have an archived web page. I'm just going to make an observation that we spent a lot of time on the web proving that we're not a robot. We solve captures and almost half the traffic on the web is in fact bot traffic. It's true in web archives as well. Robots are the primary consumer of archived web pages. I don't know exactly what the solution will look like, but it's got to leverage things like ClickFarms. ClickFarms are going to exist to drive up fake engagement with videos so that you have thousands of views and so forth. This is a cyberpunk future as well.  But we need to leverage this kind of concept for observing web archives. So I'm going to go back to Cliff Lynch. She had a paper out a year or two ago. There was a million things in it. One of them is documenting instead of web archiving. The idea of robotic witnesses, new Nielsen families. This is also in contrast with something I wrote about a while back where game walkthroughs as a metaphor for preservation. So this was a game that I played constantly in my teenage years, Star Raiders. How many people played Star Raiders? Just me. It was an awesome game. You're thinking, I don't believe it was an awesome game. Well, there's an embedded YouTube link of somebody who's a very good player solving the game. And you can experience how I spent my teenage years by watching that YouTube video. I'm going to claim we can learn a lot from what it means that this is what we saw when we crawled it. And then we need to figure out as I replay it, can I measure the difference? We have to assume there's going to be a difference, but how can we measure the difference? All right, now finally, some of you are thinking, I'm still not convinced about Blade Runner, right? So I already know I'm not a fan. And what can I take away from this talk if I'm not a Blade Runner fan? My wife refers to the movie, A Serious White Guy's Talking. So I realize not everyone will be a Blade Runner fan, but after this talk, you might be, or later going home, you might be in crowds of people where you're talking with fans. We saw there are a lot of people who are fans. Give you two ways to pass the Voight-Kampf test for Blade Runner fandom. Number one, you ask the question, is Harrison Ford's character Deckard a replicant? Interesting enough, the answer to this question depends on the source material that you read. In the book, Deckard is a human. It's clear, and Philip K. Dick had said he's definitely a human. Ridley Scott changed it, but there's several different versions of the film. And some of the versions are, it's ambiguous whether or not he's a replicant, and some it's very clear that he's a replicant. So you can ask this question and watch all the other fans fight, and you can walk away and you'll fake it. The last thing is the Tears in Rain monologue. Who likes this? So you just asked the question of the greatest monologue in science fiction, or the greatest monologue of all time. All right, thank you. I look forward to your questions. I'll ask you one, because I think you glossed over it towards the end. But this whole thing has been reminding me of the problem of archiving games, and is what is the thing you're trying to archive? Is it the code, the gets of the webpage, or is it the experience of it? And you did talk a little bit about this, but there was a joke at MIT where if you wanted to archive the digital theses, you would print them out, shrink wrap them, and send them to the salt mine. Because that was the only way we could be sure. And of course, that's silly, because a lot of them can't be printed. But why not just videotape the screen or something? And you talked about that a little at the end. So how does that relate to all this research you're doing? So I think it would help. So take a step back. I think we need to reexamine what does it mean to have an archived version. So the the Heratrix Wayback Machine gives us the HTML, it gives us the JavaScript, it renders client-side, everything's copy and pasteable, and that makes a lot of sense most of the time. The archive IS, a web archive, has actually a slightly different model. It gives you HTML, but server-side at crawl time, it flattens out all the JavaScript, so it removes all the interoperability, interactivity, which is both good and bad. But what the good part is, it freezes that page in time, and it doesn't screw up anymore. Now we could also do screenshots, and we kind of have that. And then I think adding the game walkthrough, the video component, the robotic witnesses, and sort of filming, recording people playing the game. So Google Maps, what does it mean to archive Google Maps? We're not going to archive all of it, but maybe we can archive a walkthrough through Google Maps. And that maybe helps us establish later the page that I'm getting back, maybe with or without JavaScript, it establishes a baseline of what we can expect from that page. The flip side is the footprint to archive a page just now ballooned. But on the other hand, once we get to real-world implications for incorrectly playing back a page, like governments making decisions, militaries making decisions, political outcomes, maybe that's a level of investment that we have to have. But I don't have all the answers on that. Other than, say, read Cliff's paper on that has a lot of good ideas. Anyone else? Anyone want to talk about whether Deckard's a replicate? So Michael, I'm trying to sort through, archive that. I'm trying to sort through, there are many unsolved problems. And thank you for this uplifting ends with a blade runner. This is well done. What are your thoughts on getting more archives or more archiving activity? So other than a upside down tortoise test, what can we be doing in a simply collecting more and doing more collecting other than through internet archive a good first step? So what I would like to see is more interoperability from independent archives. So there's pie way back, there's open way back. That's a good start. I'm concerned that some universities are closing down their archiving efforts. And I understand that. It's easier just to pay a subscription to archive it. I would like to see multiple independent web archiving efforts not and with variation in the technology stack. So I mentioned the archive IS archive today. Web citations sort of interesting. Archiving solutions that come from different communities have different presuppositions. And they actually, some things that get wrong, some things they actually get surprisingly right. And I think setting up more way back machines is a good start. But we need to investigate something beyond just hair tricks and way back machines. And I know we're moving towards headless browsing and so forth. But the way back playback paradigm is still constricting our way of thinking. So part of this is what does it mean for images? What does it mean for video? And how do we interoperate and say I observe this, you observe that, let's measure the difference between them. And also having the semantics to express some of my content I observed independently. Some of it I got from a seed from the Internet archive because I didn't exist in 2005.  So I'd like to see more of a move towards standards and a focus on interoperability. And I welcome more people participating even though it comes at the security and authenticity risk associated. Now I also admit that's completely self-serving because I do web archiving research. So obviously the answer is we need to have a lot more web archives. So I get that. But on the other hand I do think it's important that we move. Hi, this is more of a comment than a question but this was a really inspiring or actually just what's the word I'm looking for? My mind is kind of really on fire thinking about all of this. And I'm going back in my own head to earlier days in my archival career where many universities relied upon printing emails as a way of archiving and archivists, and I was an archivist who made the case to our chief business officer that in a court setting you need to produce the email in native format. So you can't just print it out. And so I feel like what you're showing us is that archive it as cool as it is to have a print out of an email or as cool as it is to see a rendering of old web content. It's not submissible as you know it's not the native format. And that just caused into question that whole larger digital preservation infrastructure that's required if we are going to have to reproduce evidence. Right. So thank you. Right. For some things now I've sort of cherry picked my examples I have to admit. Right. So I didn't show you the gazillion cases where everything's unambiguous and works right. Are we sort of so there are certainly some cases where you can say that probably is what we saw at the time. But there's enough ambiguity that if anyone wanted to hire me for the defense I could mount a pretty convincing defense of you can't trust this stuff because I can produce fakes convincing fakes easily. Hi Michael thanks for the talk. I was listening to your talk. I mean this is really important stuff temporal violations. That's like the first thing we now talk about when we're teaching our students to work with web archives. But I was wondering as you're going through the sort of dystopian scenarios right. Someone coming into the Friday lunch at kidnapping Jefferson Bailey. You know or the or the really you know the heavy force of a state actor trying to manipulate these archives. And the question that came to my mind is how how is this different than a traditional archive. Like I've worked at our national libraries in Canada and I do have to take a lot of it on faith that the sensor who's going through during the ETIP request is being faithful to this that someone hasn't manipulated it that the person who donated the record was doing so. You know there's a lot of things that I just put faith in Library Archives Canada. I don't know if that's if you have any comment on what makes web archiving different than the faith you have to put it right.  Part of it is the reach involved right. So IRA had significant impact on on I guess you can argue about how much impact they certainly tried to have the impact through social media right. So you know they could have had radio and they could have had TV and they could have had conventional communication mechanisms. But for a small investment they were able to have a tremendous impact. I think that's the key difference. If they wanted to in a hearts and minds operation if they were able to establish something as trusted as the Internet Archive or corrupt the holdings of the Internet Archive that would be worth their effort because people implicitly trust the Internet Archive at this point. So I think at some point that empty box in the slide will be filled in with some significant impact and even if later it comes out oh we discerned it was fake I mean you can't unring the bell that's one of these things and this disinformation campaign. So even after it's fixed the damage is still done. That was just amazing and I guess if you didn't have enough to worry about before you should feel you know really fully satiated at this point. Michael that was really tremendous thank you so much and we did take video of this so it will be available in a bit and you may want to share this with some of your colleagues. I think there's an awful lot to think about here but with that let me draw this meeting to a close. Wish you safe travels and I hope to see many of you at various gatherings in the coming months and again for our December meeting in Washington DC. Thank you so much for joining us.


G'day. I was inspired by a video I saw by Grant the other day. If you're not familiar with his work I'll drop a link down in the description and you can check out some of his awesome videos But I was inspired by a video He did really basically listed off a bunch of his favorite CDs in front of his bookshelf and I Tend to do a lot of videos in front of my bookshelf or over there near the desk With its own bookshelf basically in an effort to make myself look smarter So I just thought I'd do a series of videos because I'm desperate for content But I take you through three of my favorite things from the bookshelf So we're gonna start today right at the top here. This is a drawing dummy or model I suppose you'd call it that my wife bought me and a long time ago a friend of mine gave me a Michael Jackson figurine The actual doll is still around, but that's got Michael's clothes on it. So shum on So that's one of the favorite things of this bookshelf here as you can see when I show you these things are probably Probably won't leave you with the impression that I wanted you to have when I started filming in front of the bookshelf And that was that I was smart One thing that probably you know will step me up in the in the credibility stakes is this is one of my favorite books This is all about living in share housing John Birmingham is an excellent writer if I had Leviathan's His biography on Sydney. I probably would have held that up instead of this because I only read that because he wrote it and It taught me so some valuable lessons that book lessons that I'm not sure the author actually set out to to teach That was basically when I became a staunch advocate for anti-racism after reading that book and the The whole book just blew me away if you haven't read Leviathan the biography of Sydney by John Birmingham do so favor and Head out there and and grab a copy from your library and or buy one and help old Jeep JB out in his mansion there in Brisbane and But yeah, this is one of my favorite books led me on to read Leviathan's I probably crapped on about Leviathan's not this book But you know, this is a really good read if you if you're a young and and you just moving out to sharehouse Or you're thinking about moving out to share house. Give this a read. It'll get you going. All right. One more thing Three things from the bookshelf. Oh, yeah, okay. We'll pull this one out M is for metal. This is a book that we bought when my son was young It's probably against copyright to show you too much of it But like I'll read one of the bits for you. I'll show one page and F is for feedback The buzz in your ears. Let's hope we're not deaf in a couple of years and that's the picture I won't show any more in case I get in trouble for the copyright boys come around and handcuff me That's three of my favorite things from the bookshelf. We'll do another one of these real soon. I'll see you again tomorrow


What's up guys, mine is Michael and welcome to my YouTube channel today. We're gonna do another Lee code Challenge question. I've really been not really doing these questions at all for the days But this is the best time to buy and sell stock All right So let's say you have an array where the ith element represents the price of a stock on the day I so we have to design an algorithm to find the maximum profit you may complete as many Transaction you like buy and sell one of their share stocks multiple times You may not engage in multiple transactions at the same time. You must sell the stock before you buy again so in this case we have the 7 1 5 3 6 4 array and the output is 7 and the reason why is because if you were to buy 1 like buy on day 2 and then sell on day 3, which day 3 is they're counting Index 1 so 1 2 3 day 3 is 5 If you buy 1 and then sell day 5 when the price is 5 You make a profit of 5 minus 1 is equal to 4 then if you buy on day 4 which is The price of 3 and then sell on day 5 price of 6 You're gonna make a profit of 6 minus 3 equal to 3 okay, and Let's look at the test cases the second test case If you were to buy on day 1 the price is 1 and so on day 5 you would make a profit of 5 5 minus 1 is 4. Yeah, so if you were by on day 1 you were to sell on day 5 When the price is 5 5 You would have a profit of 5 minus 4 and just go for it. Okay, so Essentially, they want you to find the They really just want you to find the difference Right sum up the differences, but It's not just like find the next difference that's right next to me because like Let's say I have 7 and then I subtract 1 that'll be minus 6 so I lose money Right like if I do like 1 minus 7 that'll be minus 6. So that's not really what I want Let's look at this example 3 7 6 4 3 1 the output is 0 because no transaction done maximum profit is 0 Okay, so if you're by on 7 all the values afterwards are less than it so You so you can't really sell anything with a better price So your maximum profit is 0. So I actually solved this problem and Here's what I did This is really ugly code but What I did was I started from the beginning and I went to the end and then I pretty much just kept track of the index of Whichever value is greater than it Right. So like if I have 7 then I find a value. That's like larger than 7 then I'm going to subtract I'm gonna stop right. I'm gonna stop and I'm gonna Add my profit. I take I subtract the large value from the small value and then yeah, then I Re-like reset my new index at where that starting point ended it from so that's what I did and It passed actually actually passed the test cases, but I'm not really sure like It's not really it's not really a good solution. I guess So what I did was like I went through it and then I pretty much found whichever price I was larger than it in the current one. I'm at right. So this is this. This is just going through every single price afterwards Comparing it with left and right the one next to it and finding if I get to a larger price Then I stop and I subtract by the difference at each indexes That's why I did and I'll add them my maximum profit then I Re-ad my whichever index I stopped at I set that to equal the new index and I returned max profit and Ideally worst-case scenario is that you have to Maybe this is O of N. I don't know. I'm not really sure worst-case might be over and Squared When I don't know no Take it is still open. I Don't know I'm not really sure. I don't know the time complexity to this. I should really learn more about that, but um Let's look at the actual solution So if you look at the actual solution what they did was They wow they actually graphed every single profit. Okay, so they graphed every single profit Like every day with its profit. So day one they have profit one day two. They have seven day three. They have two day four they have Four they have day four they have three day five they have six they six they have seven Okay, so they graphed every single of this and then from the above graph you see that the sum of the differences a b and c from every single ones that are greater than it is really just the difference between the heights of the Smallest and the largest peak right smallest and the largest peak. So What did they do? They just looped through and Wow, that's all they did Okay, well, okay, maybe we should use this code instead. So they loop through and then if they found a I was just taking like what I did sort of but if they found a price That's larger than the previous price then they add the differences of The current price and the previous price Hmm Okay, wow, that's way shorter code. Yeah, that's that's pretty much the solution So you're gonna loop through from every single price and then if you find a Price that's larger than the previous price You're just gonna add the difference of the largest price and the previous the larger price and the previous price And then after that you just return it. So yeah one single pass over and over one constant space Yeah, so that's how you do this question It's basically just trying to find you the differences when you mean like Selling for profit in the price. Yeah, that's how you do this question raycom subscribe. I hope you guys enjoy this video It's pretty short. Yeah, peace