How do you do? I have a ref-opening statement here before I take your questions. Yesterday, Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan sent to the Congress a request to raise the debt ceiling to $985 billion. This represents a dramatic jump of $50 billion over the previous debt ceiling. The administration took this action with great regret because it's clear that the massive deficits our government runs is one of the root causes of our profound economic problems. And for too many years, this process has come too easily for us. We've lived beyond our means and then financed our extravagance on the backs of the American people. The clear message I received in the election campaign is that we must gain control of this inflationary monster. Let me briefly review for the American people what we've already done. In moments of taking the oath of office, I placed a freeze on the hiring of civilian employees in the federal government. Two days later, I issued an order to cut down on government travel, reduce the number of consultants to the government, stop the procurement of certain items, and called on my appointees to exercise restraint in their own offices. Yesterday, I announced the elimination of remaining federal controls on U.S. oil production and marketing. Today, I'm announcing two more actions to reduce the size of the federal government. First, I'm taking major steps toward the elimination of the council on wage and price stability. This council has been a failure. It has been totally ineffective in controlling inflation, and it's imposed unnecessary burdens on labor and business. Therefore, I'm now ending the wage and price program of the council. I am eliminating the staff that carries out its wage pricing activities, and I'm asking Congress to rescind its budget, saving the taxpayers some one and a half million dollars a year. My second decision today is a directive ordering key federal agencies to freeze pending regulations for 60 days. This action gives my administration time to start a new regulatory oversight process and also prevents certain last-minute regulatory decisions of the previous administration, the so-called midnight regulations, from taking effect without proper review and approval. All of us should remember that the federal government is not some mysterious institution composed prized of buildings, files, and paper. The people are the government. What we create, we ought to be able to control. I do not intend to make wildly skyrocketing deficits and runaway governments simple facts of life in this administration. As I've said, our ills have come upon us over several decades, and they will not go away in days or weeks or months. But I want the American people to know that we have begun. Now I'll be happy to take your questions. Ellen? Will your policy toward Iran be one of revenge or reconciliation, and will the United States honor the recent commitments to Iran, especially since you approved of most of them during the campaign? Well, I'm not certainly not thinking of revenge, and I don't know whether reconciliation would be possible with the present government or absence of a government in Iran. I think that the United States will honor the obligations. As a matter of fact, the most important of those were already put into effect by the preceding administration in negotiating the release. We are, however, studying because there were four major agreements, and there were nine executive orders. We are studying thoroughly what is a pretty complex matter we've discovered, with regard to whether they are in keeping with international and our own national laws. And so I won't be able to really answer your questions on specifics until we've completed that study. The Treasury Secretary said Monday that your budget cuts will be of a much higher magnitude than most people thought they would be, and you said they would be across the board. Now that you've had some time to study the budget, can you say where these cuts will be made, what program will feel the cuts the most? They'll be made every place. What we meant by maybe across the board was the wrong decision, although it describes it, what I meant was that no one is exempt from being looked at for areas in which we can make cuts in spending. And yes, they probably are going to be bigger than anyone has ever attempted, because this administration did not come here to be a caretaker government and just hope we could go along the same way and maybe do it a little better. We think the time has come where there has to be a change of direction of this country, and it's going to begin with reducing government spending. Mr. President, in your welcoming address to the freed Americans, you sounded a warning of swift and effective repribution in future terrorist situations. What kind of action are you prepared to take to back up this hard rhetoric? Well, that's a question that I don't think you can or should answer as to specifics. This is a big and it's a powerful nation. It has a lot of options open to it. And to try and specify now, just particularly what you should do, I think is one of the things that's been wrong. People have gone to bed in some of these countries that have done these things to us in the past, confident that they can go to sleep, wake up in the morning, and the United States wouldn't have taken any action. What I meant by that phrase was that anyone who does these things violates our rights in the future is not going to be able to go to bed with that confidence. Walt? Mr. President, you campaigned rather vociferously against the SALT II treaty, saying it was slanted toward the Soviet Union, yet I noticed your Secretary of State, Mr. Hague, now seems to suggest that for the time being at least the United States will abide by the limits of the SALT II treaty, and he hopes the Soviet Union will, too. How long do you intend that the United States should abide by the terms of a SALT agreement which you consider inequitable and what do you consider its greatest inequities to be? Well, the SALT treaty, first of all, I think permits a continued buildup on both sides of strategic nuclear weapons, but in the main thing authorizes an immediate increase in large numbers of Soviet warheads. There is no verification as to the number of warheads on the missile. No method for us to do this. I don't think that a treaty, SALT, means strategic arms limitation. That actually permits a buildup on both sides of strategic nuclear weapons can properly be called that. And I have said that when we can, and I am willing for our people to go in to negotiate, or let me say discussions leading to negotiations, that we should start negotiating on the basis of trying to affect an actual reduction in the numbers of nuclear weapons. That would then be real strategic arms limitation. And I happen to believe also that you can't sit down at a table and just negotiate that unless you take into account and consideration at that table all the other things that are going on. In other words, I believe in linkage. Sam. Mr. President, what do you see as the long range intentions of the Soviet Union? Do you think, for instance, the Kremlin is bent on world domination that might lead to a continuation of the Cold War? Or do you think that under other circumstances, détente is possible? Well, so far, détente's been a one-way street, and the Soviet Union is used to pursue its own aims. I don't have to think of an answer as to what I think their intentions are. They have repeated it. I know of no leader of the Soviet Union since the revolution in including the present leadership that has not more than once repeated in the various communist Congresses they hold, their determination that their goal must be the promotion of world revolution and a one-world socialist or communist state, whichever words you want to use. Now, as long as they do that and as long as they, at the same time, have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve under themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that. And that is moral, not immoral. And we operate on a different set of standards. I think when you do business with them, even at a détente, you keep that in mind. Let me take someone in later. Mr. President, what's your opinion of American companies that now want to resume business with Iran? My opinion of American companies that want to resume business with Iran, I hope they're going to do it by long distance. We wouldn't want to go back to having just a different cast of characters but the same show going on. I can understand that, particularly in the field of energy. They're wanting to do that. But we are urging that people think long and hard before they travel to Iran because we don't think their safety can be guaranteed there. Mr. President, three Americans are still incarcerated in Vietnam. Can you tell us the status of their cases and whether the administration is doing anything to get them back? I have told our people about those three. They knew about them, of course. But I've told them that, yes, we continue. And we want to get them back also. Now, I know I've been staying down front here too much. I've got to prove I can look at the back rows there too, sir. Oh, sorry. You'll be next. Oh, OK. Mr. President, some administrative officials have promised adherence to the civil rights laws, which are on the books. But there has been considerable discussion about dismantling the affirmative action aspect of that, give those laws to some people, greater meaning. And I'm wondering, Mr. President, if there will be a retreat in the federal government on the government's advocacy of affirmative action programs, generally, and in federal hiring of blacks and Hispanics specifically. No, there will be no retreat. This administration is going to be dedicated to equality. I think we've made great progress in the civil rights field. I think there are some things, however, that may not be as useful as they once were, or that may even be distorted in the practice, such as some affirmative action programs becoming quota systems. And I'm old enough to remember when quotas existed in the United States for the purpose of discrimination. And I don't want to see that happen again. When and how will you seek the decontrol of natural gas prices? Well, we haven't dealt with that problem yet. We thought oil would do for a starter. But I can't really answer your question. That will be a matter for discussion in future cabinet meetings. Lou? Mr. President, during the campaign, you repeatedly talked about the unfairness of the grain embargo, as you saw it. Do you have second thoughts now, or will you lift the grain embargo? Well, with the grain embargo, my quarrel with it from the first was that I thought it was asking only one group of Americans to participate, the farmers. You only have two choices with an embargo. You either lift it or you broaden it. And we have not made a decision, except that at the request of Secretary of Agriculture, John Block, I have taken the matter of the embargo out of, you might say, the discussions of the National Security Council. And it next week is on the agenda for a full cabinet meeting as to what our course will be. So I can't answer what we do about it until next week. It, as I say, it was asking one group of Americans to bear the burden. And I have always thought was more of a kind of gesture than it was something real. Yes, ma'am? Mr. President, what will you do to honor the request by federal officials, well, from Atlanta officials for you and the federal government to intercede in the Atlanta case of 17 missing or black children? Just a few minutes before I came in here, that message was handed to me that the Atlanta mayor wanted to talk. And we are going to get someone in touch with him immediately. Now you recognize, of course, that possibly civil rights would be the only basis upon which we could have any jurisdiction down there in this. For FBI, for example, on any other thing, there's been no evidence of crossing state lines or anything. And yet we want to be helpful because that is a most tragic case. And so we will be meeting on that very shortly. Mr. President, when the Jamaican prime minister was here yesterday, Mr. Siaga, he suggested publicly that now might be a good time for you as the new president to have a foreign policy initiative for Latin America and for the Caribbean. Do you intend to follow that suggestion? And if so, how would your policies differ from those of former President Carter? Well, I think we've seen a great reverse in the Caribbean situation. And it came about through prime minister Siaga's election. It was the turnover or turnaround of a nation that had gone, well, certainly in the direction of the communist movement. Kind of was a protégé of Castro. And his election was greeted by me with great enthusiasm because it represented the people by their vote having experienced that kind of government turned another direction. And I think this opens the door for us to have a policy in the Mediterranean of bringing them back in those countries that might have started in that direction or keeping them in the Western world and the free world. And so we are looking forward to cooperation with prime minister Siaga. Mr. President, I think you met Caribbean in that last answer. What did I say? Mediterranean. Oh, I meant Caribbean. I'm sorry. What do you intend to do, Mr. President, about the draft registration law that was passed during President Carter's administration and in view of your opposition to it and the campaign? How is that consistent with your avowed intention to strengthen our national defenses? Well, to answer the last part first, I just didn't feel that the advance registration on all the evidence we could get would materially speed up the process if an emergency required the draft. It did create a bureaucracy. It caused certainly some unrest and dissatisfaction. And we were told that it would only be a matter of several days if we had to call up in a draft that we could do that several days earlier with the registration, then we would be able to if there was no registration at all. We, this is one that's something to be looked at further down. I've only been here nine days. And most of these nine days have been spent in cabinet meetings on the economy getting ready to send our package up to the hill. And so I just have to tell you that we will be dealing with that, meet with that, and make a decision on what to do with it down the road someplace. Gary? Mr. President, speaking of your economic package, could you give us your thoughts on an effective date for the tax cuts that you plan to recommend in your economic recovery plan and specifying whether you prefer one effective date for business and another for personal cuts or whether you'd like to combine them?  As to date, I know there's been talk about whether it should be retroactive back or whether it should be as of that minute. That to me isn't as important as getting, for individuals, the principle of a 10% cut for each of three years in place and the business tax is also so that we can all look forward with some confidence of stability in the program. And we're going to strive for that. And I can't really answer you about what the date will be until we submit the package. Mr. President, I know you said earlier that you were not thinking of revenge toward Iran, but does that preclude any punishment whatsoever for what they've done? Well, again, I have to ask your forbearance and wait until we've finished our study of this whole situation as to what we're going to do. I don't think any of us have a friendly feeling toward the people that have done what they have done. But I think it's too complex for me to answer until we've had time to really study this. Just one follow-up. Would you go so far as to encourage American businesses to resume commercial trade in Iran? At this point, no. Then I'll go back there in a second. Mr. President, do you intend to follow through with your campaign pledges to abolish the departments of energy and education? I have not retreated from that at all, yes. The process, however, that I have asked for is for both Secretary Bell of Education and Secretary Jim Edwards of Energy to reorganize to produce the most effective streamlining of their departments that they can in education to look at the appropriate role of the federal government in education if there is one and to report back. And then we will decide making our recommendations much the same thing holds true with the Department of Energy. The reason for this being that while they were new cabinet level agencies, they incorporated government functions and programs that had been going on in them and they came under that umbrella. And we have to find out which of those functions that have been a federal government function continue and where they would best fit. But yes, I'm determined that and I believe that it was wrong to have created the two agencies to begin with. Now there. Mr. President, during the campaign, your chief farm spokesman put you on record as favoring for the time being continuation of the dairy price support level where it had been. Within the last couple of days, your budget director and your secretary of agriculture have indicated that the dairy program is too expensive and should be cut back. Could you reconcile those differences of approach for us? Well, I could only tell you that this again, something to wait for the next cabinet meeting, all of these things are worked out between the appropriate cabinet members and our director of office of OMB. And then they come to the cabinet for full discussion so that others who have an interest in this and can have their input. And so I can't answer you because that has not yet come to the cabinet. And lady. Mr. President. Well, there were two young men, as far as you and them. Your Honor, the Soviet Union share a long border in a region vital to the peace and stability of the world. Given the anti-U.S. sentiment there, how do you best think the United States can ensure the stability of the region? Of the, you said Iran, the border between Iran and the Soviet Union. Well, I think one of the first things that has to happen is for stability has got to be in Iran itself to establish a government that can speak as a government for Iran. And part of our problem in all these long 444 days has been the inability of anyone seemingly to speak for that nation to have a government. Now, I think that any country would want to help another if they really showed an intent to have a government that would abide by international law and do what they could to help them in that regard. But until such a thing appears apparent there, I don't know that there's anything we can do. Now, young lady. Mr. President, if it's your intention to signal the world that this country will respond with swift retribution in cases of international terrorism in the future, why is it your policy not to retaliate against Iran? Well, what good would just revenge do and what form would that take? I don't think revenge is worthy of us. On the other hand, I don't think we act as if this never happened.  Who said? I know I've been on this side too long, but someone said poor Favore and what? No. No. No. Thank you. Mr. President. Yes. Still, I am impressed when I listened the other day, Viva la Roja la Blanca y Azul. Mr. President, it's ensured that when Hispanic are given the opportunity to serve this country, they serve the country with diligence and dispatch. In view of this undisputed fact, when are you going to appoint Hispanic American to serve in your administration policymaking position? We are definitely recruiting and definitely trying to do that. I want an administration that will be representative of the country as a whole. And please don't judge us on the fact that we have only picked 100. There will be 1,700 positions to fill in the executive branch and the White House senior staff and staff. And the personnel committee in our administration that is talent hunting and looking for these people contains members of the minorities, Hispanics, and even a majority of women. And we want that very much. So don't judge us now over the tip of the iceberg. Wait till it's all in. Mr. President, yes, thank you. Mr. President, Paul Volcker, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has been implementing policies that are exactly opposite in basic thrust from what you recommend. He has been squeezing the productive sector of the economy in favor of the speculative sector. Now, I mean, frankly, Mr. President, there are important sections of the American economy that are about to go under and won't even have an opportunity to benefit from the programs that you're putting forward because of the Federal Reserve's policy. I have two-part question. First of all, do you think that objective economic conditions justify the interest rate levels that we now have? And I don't mean for your answer to imply criticism of the Fed. It's just an objective question. And the second question is, are you concerned that there might be a sabotage, so to speak, of your policies by programs that the Federal Reserve might be putting forward? No, I'm not concerned that there would be sabotage. I've met with Mr. Volcker and not with the intention of trying to dictate because it is an independent agency, and I respect that. But I think that we have to face the fact that interest rates are not in themselves a cause of inflation. They're a consequence. And when you have, as we have had, double-digit inflation back to back for two solid years now, the last time that happened was in World War I. And when you have double-digit inflation there, that way, there is no question that interest rates are going to have to go up and follow that inflation rate. And so the answer to the interest rates is going to be our program of reducing government spending tied to the reduction of the tax rates that we've spoken of to bring down inflation. And you'll find that interest rates come down. We do want from the Fed and would ask for a moderate policy of money supply increasing relative to legitimate growth. All of these things have to work together. But I don't think that the Fed just deliberately raises interest rates. The reason that we've got to tie taxes and we have to tie spending together is we, for all these decades, we've talked and we've talked about solving these problems and we've acted as if the two were separate. So one year we fight inflation, and then unemployment goes up, and then the next year we fight unemployment, and inflation goes up. It's time to keep the two together where they belong, and that's what we're going to do. Yes, sir? Mr. President, a number of conservative leaders, among them some of your staunchest and most durable supporters, such as Senator Jesse Hill, are very concerned about some of your appointments. The basis of the concern is that many people who have been longtime Reaganites and supporters of yours do not seem to be able to get jobs like Bill Van Cleve, who played a key role on your defense transition team, whereas other individuals who have not supported you throughout the years or your philosophy, like Mr. Terrell Bell, the Secretary of Education, who was for the establishment of this department, which you've said you want to abolish, and Mr. Frank Carlucci, Deputy Secretary of Defense, who was not a supporter of yours, that they have gotten jobs. My question is, why are these individuals in your administration? Why isn't Mr. Van Cleve? And how much of a problem do you think this conservative dissatisfaction with your appointments is? The only problem that I've had that is more difficult than knowing which hand raised to point to here, and believe me, it bothers me. I go home feeling guilty, and all the hands that I couldn't point to. The only problem greater I've had is in the selection of personnel. Now, in many instances, some of the people that have been mentioned, whose names have been mentioned by others, did not want a position in the administration, helped, worked very hard, and wanted nothing for it. But you also have to recognize there aren't that many positions. After all, look how many votes I had. You can't reward them all. But thank you. All right, thank you all very much. Don't feel guilty. Don't feel guilty. That's what country you live in, sir. That's right.  Ha ha. I'm a man. I'm a man. I'm a man. I'm a man.


And then when students are here, you should put donuts or candy on the table. Yes, probably. There's a guy named Ganon who has free chips and like right here and he has like a full on tent above his thing. And I'm like, that's smart. That's smart. He always has people coming up. Again, project, let's chat. Personal hobby, just have to talk about whatever anyone wants to talk about for five minutes. Sounds like you're cool with it. He's good. I'm Ty, nice to meet you. Eric Green. Eric Green, we are actually pretty good friends for the cameras. And I've been to your house a couple of times, you've got a brilliant family. Thank you. What do you want to talk about? Well, I want to talk about what we both want to talk about. Free will. Free will? Free will is a happy topic. Yes. Okay. Free will, what about free will are we talking about? I'm convinced it's an illusion. That there's no such thing as free will. Right. You don't mind if we talk about it for five minutes? Sounds good. If we go over, that's totally fine, but I'm not here to waste your time. Anyway, so free will doesn't exist. What do you mean by free will and how confident are you that it doesn't exist? Probably good to define. Are you able as a human to make any decision on your own of your own free will? Or is it deterministic? You have free will in that definition. Would you mind redefining it? Sure. Sure. Are you able to? What is free will? If you look at, you have two buttons, a red and a green. I got a red and a green button. Free will would be the ability to choose which button to push. Okay. Just to decide. The ability to choose is free will? Yeah. Do we have the ability to choose? Right. Do we have the ability? I think we have an illusion that we have the ability, but we don't have the ability. The only reason I would pick button, what I say green and blue, the only reason I would pick green is because of some neuron that's firing that is making me think, Oh, let me push the green, or I might even go, Oh, I don't want to push the green because I just had green salsa on my tacos today, so I'm going to push the blue. Can I throw something at you? I want to get a better idea of what you mean by free will. Are you saying free will is, in a sense, as you're calling it, Being able to spontaneously come to a choice or make a decision that's not influenced with anything in your past or background or upbringing or anything like that? Okay. Is that fair? Yeah. Okay. In the event that I agree with you, in the event that we can both agree that everything that we choose is based on something that's happened to our past or some biochemical process that we may not even be aware of, Is there a possibility that that thing may not actually be free will? We can both agree to call something free will, but it may not actually be free will. Could there potentially be something else that is actually free will that might actually exist? I suppose if you believe in a soul, that would be the best explanation, I think. I could throw out another popular concept of free will. Sure. If I were to sit at this table and talk to you and have a good time with you like I am right now, That's me exercising my will to speak with you. Yeah. Now, two things could happen. One, you know, we can have her finish her talk and I can get up and walk away exercising my free will. Right.  I don't know. Some crazy guy who invests in Apple. An uninnovated company of the year, right? Right. Just decides to pick me up and drag me away from the table. In both cases, I leave the table. Right. But in one case, my free will has clearly been violated. Right. And here I think we're just using a term. This is a different term. Yeah. Like my ability to exercise my will is being act on by an external force. Yeah. And it's no longer a free will. Yeah. That's a very different conversation. It's a very different thing. I think where I would frame this is if we could roll time back to before either this guy pulled you off the table or you decided to leave out of your own volition. Yeah. My statement would be it doesn't matter if you roll it back in time. The same thing's always going to happen. Sure. Like a VHS tape? Yeah. Like everything's already been pre-recorded? Well, I hesitate to say pre-recorded. Or how do I put it? It's very hard due to the machinations of the machine that is reality. Right. For anything that is unprescribed or non-naturalistic to occur spontaneously or randomly. Or truly randomly. Okay. I'm not sure if that's free will, but I can also agree with you that probably something like that may not exist. Yeah. But I'm not sure if that has any relationship to the free will. Is there a possibility of that? I mean that might be free will, but I'm not convinced yet. Yeah. I'm convinced 100% that that is free will. Like what would you say is your confidence level on that actually being free will? Maybe that's the better discussion. Yeah. I think we're bouncing around a little bit. Rephrase what you're thinking. I'm wondering what actually, how confident are you that the thing that is a spontaneous choice is in fact free will? Like we can agree, even if we agreed and call that free will, like how would you say that's a necessary and sufficient definition for free will? For calling what free will? The spontaneous choice. Yeah. I guess I'm saying that spontaneous choice seems like it's a free will. Okay. But it's really just biology. Okay. Right? Yeah. I think people call that free will and it makes sense to call it free will because you have agency. Sure. You know, the worst, I think the doomsday version of telling everybody in the world we don't have free will is that everyone's just going to, well, who cares?  It doesn't matter. Okay. I don't have free will and blah, blah, blah. But really that's not what it is. It's just understanding our biology I think is important and if we could find out that you actually don't actually make these choices in your mind. These choices are actually being made for you by your biology. Sure. It's still you. You know, you have agency and it's still you and it's still be a good person. Okay.  I think in terms of science it's so much more important to understand what it means then to pretend that we have this thing called free will. Okay. And to blame it because, and forgive me if I'm going. No, no, no. I think this is totally fine. I think we've come to the agreement that there's no such thing as a spontaneous choice. Things seem to be based on everything and I'm fine with you. Yeah. I think as far as whether or not that exists, I think we're both in agreement that it doesn't. Okay. And I'm fine with that. Yeah. I think there's pretty good, there's a reasonable amount. It sounds like you're absolute. It's also sound like. I mean, it's one of those things where I don't see any science. Same here. For it. Yeah. I don't think it's been demonstrated yet. Yeah. You alluded to it.  Right. We can't see it with our microscope right now. But I found it detecting this. I think some people even have studied free won't. Free won't? Yeah. That's interesting. If you hook up a MRI or fMRI to the brain and you ask someone to push button A or button B. Yeah.  There's patterns in place before.  Yeah. The brain already knows what it's going to do. Brain's really, really cool. Yeah. And it's a fascinating thing. And I'm agree. I think we're on agreement. Yeah. I think we also have a reasonable amount of evidence to come to that conclusion as well. I'm just saying also, and I think you're on par with me. If it was a popular alternative definition for free will that seemed to point to something that might actually exist. We'd be able to say, okay, well, this definition of free will exists. Yeah. But this definition doesn't seem to have any basis for it. So. Yeah. Conversation as far as that is good. Yeah. Mind if I push it to a different weird area? Oh, yeah. Are people under the definition where we live in a deterministic universe still culpable for bad things that they do? Yes. And I think that's where a lot of the importance is in this topic is, yeah, if somebody murders someone just because their biology did it and they didn't do it, doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up, right? You know, you still have responsibility. Okay. And I think the importance there is the way we treat other people is influencing other people. So, you know, if we never locked people up for doing bad things, people are more likely to do bad things because there's no disincentive for it. Okay. So you don't have that free will, but you're still influenced by things outside. Is there anything that I could have done that was based on my environment that I'm not responsible for if it would hurt another person or impaired the good, the well-being of another person? Could I ever be forced into a situation where I do something that harms someone well-being but the fault is the environment that I'm in and not necessarily me as an Asian? Yeah, I think mental illness. Oh, okay. And I think, and I'm a neuroscientist here, but it's my understanding that some very, very bad people have, it's been discovered that scanning their brains has found tumors and different things that have caused behaviors. Sure. I forget the guy's name that actually donated his body and his suicide letter. Oh, yeah, he shot a lot of people. I know who you were talking about. We'll have to edit this back and insert in what that is and make it look like we've sent it. I'll put a little picture there. Max, I don't want to promote the guy, but yeah. It was a criminal who did some terrible things, but he donated his body to science to see what was wrong with his mind. Yeah, because he knew. He knew he was not making these decisions and it turned out they found a whopping tumor and it was pushing on that part of the brain that scientists had determined it. This makes sense. This is understandable. I did it. So in that case, yeah, I mean, should you lock someone up if they were still alive after they did it? Yes, but if we know enough about biology and we can go in there and pull that tumor out, I mean, are we curing them? Are we taking a part of their body away and they're no longer them? Are we removing the external force that's causing them not to be able to act freely? Yes. It sounds like this is a blend of the two that I was discussing. That's interesting. And calling it an external force is kind of weird when it's in your body. Well, I mean, like... Well, you're right. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's an unneeded, you know, people. Well, maybe. I mean, we might learn so much about the brain eventually that we can, you know, remove parts of the brain to create people that are more docile or, you know...  It's a bit of a tangent. But I'm thinking, like, is it possible that the concepts of free will that we brought up, one where it's a spontaneous choice, the other one where it's a violation of, like, or a susceptible target to a violation through external forces, is there a middle ground there where free will may actually exist like a combination of the two? And if that's the case, since we could both agree that you could... If I violate my free will by, like, having someone dragging me out of here, that's something that might actually exist. Whereas with the spontaneous choice doesn't exist whatsoever. Like, I can agree that it's always based on something. It seems like an ideal. If it's something that's actually in the middle, could it have an aspect to it that actually doesn't exist? And does that seem like that could be a possibility? You know, I hate to rule anything out, but, you know, I don't see any evidence for that. Like, the guy who was shooting and he had the tumor that was growing in, like, I feel like there's something that's violating my free will. I can't really explain it. I would make my body to science. They find it.  That's an external force that's acting on his free will. We might be onto something here. Maybe some more study off to the fact. But, like, there could be grounds for saying, as much as we had said before, like, yes, everything that you make a choice is deterministic on your brain chemistry.  Sure. But it gets weird, though, because we are talking about the brain. They were born with that brain. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, then it just gets down to what is morally good to do to someone's brain. And I think in his case, it sounds like it would have improved his quality of life. And certainly the quality of life of the people he ended. So, yeah. But I see that on the far left. Sure, sure, sure. Where you were talking about the spectrum. Yeah, it's like a spectrum. Yeah. But I don't see something in the middle that's not known. I guess you're saying not known in the sense we don't know of it. We don't know about it, yeah. And that could be. Yeah. But we could be, like, getting closer to something. Yeah. But I think admitting, and a lot of people have trouble admitting that free will is illusion, because, you know, I've talked to artists before that, you know, people that are very passionate, artistic people, and they're like, no, there's no way I have free will. Right.  And then, you know, you were going to paint that, regardless of what you think you thought before you were about to start. But I think the more we, the more comfortable we are admitting. Okay. That it's, that it is an illusion. The more science can go that direction to discover. Can we now get one more cool thing? Okay. Yeah. We've got 10, 11 moments or so. You had mentioned, I think there's a concept of self that you want to talk about with you. Yeah. Because it sounded like, as you said, like the painter, the painter says, hey, I painted a lot of things and your response was something I came to. Well, that's not you painting it.  Right. Who's the your? Who's the, hang on, let me, David is, I'm just going to respond to him and tell him. He thought we were at the algorithm. I'm going to tell him. The person you're talking to is not the immersion property of brain chemistry. Who is that your? So that's, now we're talking about self and talking about, of course, I don't really go down consciousness and all that. But yeah, I think that's a whole another. Okay. Okay. But the self, yeah, it's interesting. I think, you know, I think it's something we kind of create or invent to kind of group together all of these pieces. Who's the we? Yeah. It's something that we construct. But like, what is doing the construction? Right. I think consciousness really is the, the, the, the bit of, you know, consciousness is that they're, I forget who says it, but there's something like it to be.  That's consciousness. Something like it to be me. There's something like it to be me. Okay. It's like, if you had my consciousness. Yes.  You would think you were me. Right. There is, that is, and I think that's just a collaboration of all of this, all of the biology inside of you. And then we, you know, as humans and as humans with, with language, I think we've created kind of like this person sitting in a chair with, you know, looking behind the eyes, kind of controlling things. Sure. And that's really just. It's like a way for us to make a pattern to explain the phenomenon of our existence. Yes. Just a person in a chair. Yeah. Like someone behind our eyeballs exploring the world. Right. Like that must be us because nothing else kind of really makes sense. It's how we, like we look at a car, there's a person inside driving it. Right. Look at a plane, someone driving it. Yeah. It's very analogous to. Yeah. It's easy to interpret. Yeah. Right. So I think in itself, it's certainly an interesting. But is that accurate?   Where is the, where's the you? Where's the you? Yeah. Where do you put it? So like, you know, would you have an issue if someone said like, well, if you cut off my arm, I can still have the same concept. So I must not be in my arm. Okay. I like that. People have lost their legs. Sure. Still have that. People lost the lower half of the bodies. Yeah. People had like parts in the paralyzed, still had it. Mm-hmm. But when you mess with the brain. Yeah. That's when you start to affect the person specifically. You can mess with the heart. You could definitely mess with the heart, but you could replace the heart. Sure.  Dick Cheney. Yeah. You know, vice president cyborg of the, of the century. True. Still kicking around. Okay. And we've lost, I think, enough body parts from that mess with that. Yeah. You'll affect the person as they see themselves and how they express themselves to other people. So if we took that brain. I would say at least we're definitely the major function of our central nervous system located in our cranium. Sure. But that still, does that make it to you? I would, wouldn't you say there's a pretty good evidence for that? I mean, it's the closest thing you can get, but I mean, I suppose if you. Like if I chunked out a huge part of your brain and kept everything else intact. Yeah. There's no more you in there anymore. Right. Right?  It needs to be like, it's an, I would say it's an emergent property of an intact brain to an extent. If you put that brain in someone else's body, say we could. Oh, that'd be cool. Can't wait for that day.  Yeah, that's, there's, that's the body ludonarrative. Right, yeah. There's some great science books for that. And I suppose in some ways, if you cut off the arm and got it replaced. Bio, what do you call it? Augmentation. Yeah.  Then, I mean, yeah, there's still you, but boy, they're going to have a different life. Sure. Sure. Absolutely. Yeah. They're still, they're still them. They use it, they use it in the brain somewhere. Yeah, I think so. I'm not sure where. And of course that's where you get in. You start taking pieces of the brain out. Yes. Are you taking away parts of the you? So this is fascinating.  I think we need to talk about this. Guy. Yeah. To stop seizures with, there's like a little band that connects both hands together. Cuts them. Yeah. Yeah. And then all of a sudden you have these two independent sections of the brain. Right. That start at the same place, but quickly diverge to completely different personalities. Right. Different needs, different wants. And they express themselves differently because they. But there's a consolidation that occurs too. So. Weird. Yeah. Yeah. There's a, there's a process where they start split brain and then they end up wrecking the cell again. Hi. They actually help each other reason out things. This is like, so they'll cover up one eye which only one brain can see out of.  And one side doesn't see it. And they're like, I can't draw anything. But the hand's drawing a hammer because the other brain can see it.  And so now both brains have to work with each other. They have different choices too. If they're dressing themselves, one will reach for a button-up shirt and the other one goes for the graphic t-shirt. It's fascinating. And it's, in that sense, like if you believe in a soul, like how many souls does that person have? Like a split brain patient? Is that two different souls? Right. They've had questions. They've asked a split brain patient, do you believe in God? Thumbs up? No, I don't.  Yes, I love my wife very much. Of course.  The verbal and the, yeah. Like once that has a sense of humor, the other side's very serious about the love. So very interesting. So in the context of our conversation, does that mean that there are two us? Does it? In that person? Yeah. But does that mean we have two us in all of us? Yeah. They're merged together. Well, it's a really fascinating thing. I can't wait to learn more about the brain. I like this. Yeah. Well, hey. Wasn't that great? Just lovely to meet you. Lovely to meet you too. That's cool.  I think I more or less agree with you on the fact that Spondane shows you don't exist. And your base is foreign to lifestyle. I don't have enough evidence to support it. And you weren't absolute. So I'm like, great. Is there anything else? We had to agree. That's done. We already figured out. Here's some alternative ideas of free will. What do you think about those? I never thought about free will, definition of a spectrum before. And I think I learned a lot from that conversation. Because now it feels like it may not just be one or the other. There could be something or a merged thing in between. Another whole argument to it is instead of being...


All right, I think it's time for us to get started. Thanks for all of you that walked all the way here. I know it's a pretty significant walk, so it's nice that with all your other options, you decided to come here about container D. I'm going to try and keep the slide portion to a minimum. If you are really interested in a lot more detail on container D architecture and design, I'm going to briefly kind of overview that. But I'm going to really focus more on the client API. Actually, we're going to build a very simple client together, and then I'm going to cheat and jump to a more complex client that I'm not going to write live because we don't have a lot of time. We'll demonstrate some of those capabilities. That's going to be the focus. Again, if you want to hear more about architecture and design, Steven Day, who's here and myself, have given two or three talks over the last few months. At least the Moby Summit talk is online, so you can find that and kind of get a deeper dive into architecture. But again, I'm one of the maintainers. We have a couple more maintainers here. We've got maintainers from the CRI Container D project here. So if everything goes horribly bad up here, we can just chat around about Container D together. But hopefully you'll get something out of how you can actually use Container D in your project for your use case. So why did Container D come about? Michelle covered a very brief highlight on that earlier in the keynotes. Again, it came out of this desire across the ecosystem for this boring, stable infrastructure idea. The Docker engine obviously grew with a lot of features and capabilities. That wasn't as interesting to the entire ecosystem. And so you saw Lib Container, which was originally part of the Docker engine, got spun out. That's what created the OCI RunC and that work. And then Container D was a lightweight management layer above that that became, as of last December, a much more ambitious project. So last December, it was announced that Docker would be spinning out Container D as a separate project, contributing that somewhere. In March, that somewhere was announced to be the CNCF at the Berlin Kubecon. So again, the intent was here, like Craig said in his tweet, let's create some boring core infrastructure that everyone can use, usable by any higher layer container native orchestration piece. And then more recently, along with that year ago promise, was that the governance model would move away from BDFL. And so as of a few weeks ago, the Moby Technical Steering Committee has been formed. I'm part of that. If you want, again, more information on that, I'm in the middle of writing a blog post about that that should be out soon. But again, these are all the pieces. Boring core container infrastructure, governance that's open, contributed to CNCF, because that's really why we have Container D today. Who's using it today? There are a few core use cases already using it actively. We've talked to a lot of people who are earlier on, which I'm not going to talk about here. But hopefully, we'll see this list grow. Obviously, a very important use case is CRI Container D, implementing that container runtime interface. So Kubernetes can use Container D as its kubelet runtime. LinuxKit, the project out of the Moby project for a minimal secure OS image assembler, uses Container D as its core runtime. And again, higher layers can use that. So if you build LinuxKit, build a Kubernetes assembly, it will actually use Container D as the runtime. BuildKit is a new project. There's a great blog post from Tonnes, one of the Docker engineers, who assembled BuildKit. Again, a container image construction builder that's separate from Docker and can use Container D directly. And then obviously, the Docker engine itself, as Container D has moved from that earlier version into the full 1.0 version, you'll see 17.12 if you're talking Docker CE versions. And above, we'll be using this Container 1.0 code base. So that's really where you see Container D used today. As I said, I'm not going to try and unpack this whole architecture. There's a couple of things that are important to say here. One is that the Container D architecture really applies a lot of the learnings from the history of the Docker engine, all the OCI work. So a lot of the concepts used in Container D are either, hey, this didn't work so well in the early versions of the Docker engine. Let's try and do that better. So the Snapshotter model is very powerful. The graph drivers were very tangled in with the rest of the engine. The Snapshotter design is much clearer. Again, if you want more on that, we can provide more resources. And then using known good technology, again, using the OCI runtime underneath, using GRPC, exporting metrics with Prometheus, and not opinionated toward a specific platform. So Docker engine can use it, and that it's opinionated capabilities on top. Kubernetes can use it. But again, I'm going to skip over a lot of the detail here. And we're going to jump in to actually using the API, which will bring out some more of these components in a more hands-on fashion. The API, I think, has been kind of one of the shining examples of what Container D has done to apply some of the learnings of the earlier runtimes. One was to have an API that was simple and clear, had stability guarantees. Again, using GRPC and Protobuf versioning, we can provide that now. So Container D10 is out. So now the API is versioned. You can guarantee to use that API. We have CI tests that make sure it doesn't break. And it's also the API uses a pass-through model. So we're not trying to abstract the whole OCI JSON configuration. So if it changes, then we have to change. So it gives our API more of just that lightweight metadata and passing through the OCI config to the OCI runtime. And then, of course, we have the Godoc published, which gives you a nice way to learn about the API, and we'll provide those links as well. And a couple of early responses were just, this is a great API. Love it. Clean. And that's important for what we're trying to accomplish. So we are doing fairly well on time. What I'm going to do is switch to an editor that has a skeleton of what I want to do. You can go to this GitHub repository, example CTR, under my GitHub ID. You can see the finished example there. But the part we're going to code is just quite simple. We're going to connect to the daemon. We're going to pull an image, create a container, and start the task. I'm also going to set a namespace. Again, one of the nice features of container D is namespacing, similar to the Kubernetes model of when I set my namespace, now I only see resources associated with that namespace. So let's try this out. So here, is the font going to be OK for folks in the back? All right. If not, there are some seats further forward. What I'm going to do, first of all, is we're going to have to connect to the Unix socket where container D is listening. So I'm just going to set that as a console. Run container D, container D.soc is going to be my default address. I'm going to set a default image that I'm going to pull and run. Again, container D is not opinionated, so it's not going to add in Docker Hub or the tag. So I have to provide all of that. So I'm going to talk to Docker Hub, one of the library images. I'm going to run the Redis Alpine tag. So those are just some defaults that will help me out. To connect to the daemon, very simply, I provided the address. So that's the address I'm going to connect to. That's going to return to me a client. And he wants to see me put an error handling on every single call. That'll be fun, right? Yeah, exactly. If you're coding go, it's painful to skip this. So we'll do that. I couldn't connect, and here's my error, and we'll go away. So that's all we had to do to connect to container D, fairly straightforward. I now want to set a namespace. I need another import for that from the namespaces package. And so namespaces with namespace, we'll do context background. And let's just call it example CTR. And that will return the context that I'm now going to use for all the rest of the API calls. So at this point, I want to pull this image that I've already talked about. One of the things I'll do with my client is I'm first going to say, get image with this context, the name of the image, the reference to it. Because it's possible in this namespace, I've already pulled the image. So this obviously won't talk to Docker Hub and pull the layers and manifest. I'm going to cheat a little bit and just assume that if I get an error, it means it's not pulled. So I'll actually do pull image. Again, fairly straightforward. I'm going to pull that image. And I'm going to provide a with pull unpack, which means that container D, the snapshotter, is going to unpack these layers of my image. If I get an error at this point, we're probably going to have to just get out of here because that means I couldn't even get the image, couldn't pull image, and the error. So at this point, I've connected to my client. I've set my namespace. I've pulled an image. The next thing I want to do is create a container. And this, again, is a fairly straightforward context, kind of a container ID. I'll call it example CTR. Now the interesting thing is I have a set of, if you look in the Godoc, you'll find a bunch of with helpers, container D with. And one of the things we're going to want is a snapshot, I'm sorry, with new snapshot. So that means that now my image is unpacked in the snapshot driver, in this case the overlay. So if you use Docker, graph driver, the overlay to driver, that's your default in container D. So now I'm saying my root file system, I want that to be based on a new snapshot that I'm going to call example CTR. And the parent will be this image that I've just pulled. The next thing I need to do, so if you've looked at run C or the OCI runtime spec, you know that to run a container I need two pieces of information I've now provided kind of this root file system with the snapshotter. I also need a OCI runtime config. That's the JSON file that has what program's going to be run, what namespaces, Linux kernel namespaces I'm going to isolate in. All those settings are within the OCI config. That's bound up in the image, so there's a nice helper that I can use to, I'm sorry, I actually need the OCI package here, because we're going to basically say OCI with image config and not make any modifications to it. And so we'll just be, this Redis Alpine image already says its configuration is in its image. So let's do with, actually I need to tell container D, I want a new spec, and here's where I'm using the OCI with image config and the image. Who thinks that's right? Oh, yep, thank you. Yeah, see this is fun, isn't it? If you want to see this done well, look at any Liz Rice talk on YouTube. This is my Liz Rice impersonation talk. All right, so new container, with new snapshot, with new spec, OCI, with image config, and what do I still have wrong? Yep. OK, well that was a little more fun. What, and the world just happened there. I think I did a, yeah, there we go. So we have a container, that was a little more exciting. But at this point, obviously we don't have a task, we don't have a running container, this is just the metadata is now set up. Let's make sure we have a reasonable container object before we go on. All right, so at this point we have the container. At this point we are going to use that container to create a task, and this is fairly straightforward. I'm going to create it so I don't care about the output. So again, we need a new package, CIO, it's not about the person in your company, the chief information officer, it's about container D's IO. And so when I create this task, I'm basically saying, I don't care about standard in, standard error, standard out, just get rid of it for me, pipe it to DevNol. This will create a task object. And couldn't create task. So we have one step left. We are actually going to start this task, and this doesn't require anything other than the context. And we're just going to check and make sure that it actually started. And couldn't start task. And actually we should really delete the task, and we should really delete the container at this point. That makes it easier. We can obviously go, this one I always forget, with snapshot cleanup. Yes. So that means that that root file system I assembled will actually get cleaned up and deleted, so I don't have to use the snapshot tooling to go do that. And I really should have done this as well here, just to make it cleaner. All right, so in 60 lines of code, we've connected to container D, we've set up a namespace, pulled an image, created a container, created a task, and started it. Who believes this will actually run? Any votes? All right, so I call this file skeleton.go. I've already rendered in everything into this project. Again, you can see this on GitHub under example CTR.go. I didn't want to check in the blank skeleton, so I just created that for this. All right, that's built. You can see, I already have container D running here. This is version 1.0 that we just released a few days ago. I'm pseudoing because I need to talk to container D socket, demon socket, which is protected by root. All right, obviously we didn't output anything because we know all the information, but we should have a started container. Sure enough, example CTR. If you wonder why I didn't have to say anything about the namespace, I've already put that in a variable in my environment, so container D underscore namespace. I didn't have to type, I could have typed dash namespace, example CTR, and seen the same container. It's running the Redis Alpine image. If we look at tasks, we should actually see that there's one running. If we PS on the system, you'll see that Redis server is actually running. Okay, so we wrote the container D simple client. It actually worked. It started a container. Hopefully you see again just the simplicity of the API and how simple it was to assemble that quickly. I'm going to stop the task with the, again, CTR is a simple command line tool. It's not really something we officially see as part of the container D promises about stability, but obviously for administrative tasks, it's quite easy to use. So again, I can stop my Redis server. Sorry, I can kill my Redis server task and I can remove that container and you can see that it's gone. Let's go back to the slides for just a second because I have an advanced example that as I mentioned, I'm not going to have time to add these other API calls, so I've done it for you. We'll look at the code and then we'll run it, but we added some more concepts to the container D client. If you know that I've worked on username spaces and various container runtime contexts, you're not going to get out of here without a username space example. So I've added that to this example. I've also added a with helper in my own code. So again, we used some with helpers that container D provided us. Now I'm going to add my own with helper to do a bind mount for my host and then we can also do things like an optional custom command to override the image config. So if you do Docker run in some image and a command, it runs that command instead of the default one in the image, so we've added that to this example. So let's go back to our editor. Let's look at advanced. I'll try and skip over. This is the ugliness that gets produced when you don't use a flag parsing library. I thought it would be easy and then it got really ugly, so don't follow this example. Use a nice 2E library for that. What I've done is I've basically said when you call my example CTR, now you're gonna provide a username. I'm gonna look up to see if that username has any sub UIDs and GIDs, so if you know anything about username spaces, that'll give me some ranges that I can then apply to the container config and then obviously I've let you specify an image and a command. You can see here I'm using a package that I just copied over from the Moby project that I wrote when I originally did user namespaces, so the ID tools, new ID mappings just does that look into sub UID and sub GID and gives me those mappings.  I've created a small object so I can have this runContainer function and not have to pass around all the client and context. But you can see the same things are happening. Getting an image, pulling an image, creating a container, creating a task. Creating a task got a little more interesting because now I actually want to modify the OCI config to add in the username space configuration. Actually, in this case, sorry, the task, I need to tell RunC, by the way, don't make the IOs owned by Root or else my username space process won't be able to read that. We'll look at new container, which actually does the other thing I was about to mention. But once we've done that, all we're doing is creating the task and checking for exit status because now if you give me a custom command, I want to know that it actually ran and give you the output. So again, this client is a little more involved. Here's the part I meant to talk about. So here, from line 175 to and below, I'm actually saying, did I find some ID mappings for this user? Okay, if so, let me grab those maps and pass it into the OCI helper with username space. And so again, at this point, I'm modifying that image's default OCI config to add the username space options. And then again, we pass that spec on and actually create the container the same way we did before. All right, so hopefully that wasn't too much of a whirlwind tour through that. Again, this is all in that GitHub project. So you can look at this at your own leisure. I've already built this example CTR2. I've called it example CTR2 here. Again, I need to pseudo that. S2P is my local user. I know I have UID maps already on the system for that. I can provide, let's just run alpine latest. And we can do, actually, let's run it like this first because then you can actually, we can verify that it's running in the username space. So let's try this out. Oh yeah, alpine latest isn't pulled. So it's actually pulling alpine latest over conference Wi-Fi, which shouldn't take too long. Yes, I am a gambler. Images LS, it looks like it's there. Oh, you know what? Don't pay attention to any of this. Yes, you'll find out in a minute why I had to do this, but this container D path was modified. Because in a minute, I'm gonna run this inside Linux kit. Hopefully we're gonna have time to wrap that up. And I had to run a separate container D because we're working on a bug with username spaces inside Linux kit. So I had to point it at a different. So let's try this again. All right, so now we have a running container. If I look at the task, there's its PID. If I grep 31698 out of AUX, you can see that UID 100,000 is running the shell in this alpine container. Okay, so simple enough, we now ran a container with username spaces using my advanced quote unquote advanced client. And that was easy enough. Let's actually get rid of this task and delete the container. As you can see, I also added something to the ID so I can run more than one container and not clash on the name. That's just the PID of the example CTR. So the other thing I talked about, let's look back at the editor for a second. I have a Utils program. Utils, it has a couple more tools. You could build out your client a little more with stop, delete. So again, you don't have to use the CTR tool for that. But here I've added with mounts. And the way I've done this just for demo purposes is actually look for a file in the local directory called mounts. I expect that inside it I'll have a target, the type amount like bind and the destination. And then I'll basically modify the OCI spec. So you can see at the end here, I'm appending a new mount to the specs mount. So this is my own with mounts helper that I've created. So now my client has the ability to do mounts. And let's just, actually I think I already had a mounts file here in the local directory. I'm gonna mount Etsy host, bind mount that. Let's do something more interesting. Let's just mount that over home in Alpine so you can make sure that it works. And so at this point, if I do ls home with this mounts file. Oh yeah, so s to p was actually mounted in there. Let's do home ssp. And there's a couple files that are readable to the user namespace. So again, it's not showing a ton of content in there but a file named Fred was located in that folder. But the problem is when I'm doing this, one of the trickiest problems with user namespaces is that because my process is running as an unprivileged user, usually the volume I'm mounting doesn't have the right permissions. And now if I run multiple containers with different mappings, I can't actually come up with privileges and permissions that make sense. And that's pretty frustrating to a lot of user namespace interested parties who want to use it in a broader way. And so what I'd like to kind of finish with is that Linux kit is an interesting way to try out new features in the Linux kernel. That's one use case of many. And so there is a shift FS patch set that is attempting to solve this problem of mounts inside a user namespace. And so what I've done is I've already I've already created a Linux kit assembly. Again, if you look in my GitHub project, I don't have time at this point to go through that. You'll see the Linux kit directory and you'll see a YAML file in there called shift FS. And that's what's being used to build this Linux kit image. There's also scripts to build that there. Here you can see I'm running Linux kit. As I said, I'm already running my own container D here. That example CTR is using. So if I run example CTR 2 here, if you look in that YAML file, I created two users, Bob and Alice. They have different UID mappings. So if I run a container for Bob, we should see a container was created. And if we look at that one, PID 1094, it's running as UID 100,000. If we look at sub UID, we can see that's Bob's range. If I go over here and run another one with Alice, and I now have this other container running with PID 1170, you can see that's running with UID 200,000. Now, what if I mount the same volume into each of their containers, or bind mount a directory from the host, they're not gonna have permissions to access that. I was gonna show both modes where I could have access and where I could, but we're running out of time pretty quickly. So let me kill these tasks. If you'll give me a minute to type. And just remove the containers just to make the output clear when we start the other ones. Linux kid isn't being friendly to my output here, but that's fine. So at this point, I should have no containers running. As I said, the example CTR 2 looks for a mounts file. So if I do mounts, shift FS and copy that here to where I'm gonna run it. And we look at this file, you can see it's gonna take home from var external volume. Again, this is inside my Linux kit VM. Use the shift FS driver that I built into Linux kit and mount that on home in the container. So now if we start Bob's container, and we start Alice's container from here, we have both of them running. I've got a simple script so I don't have to type the whole command, but if I go, if I exact into those containers, so I'm gonna go into, I think this is Bob's the first one I started. And I look at home, it's empty right now, but if I touch a file, I can actually, I can do that. And it actually looks like it's owned by root here. We'll go, obviously we can go out into var external home. Sorry, external volume. And we can see that that was actually created with UID 100,000, 100,000, which is Bob's ID within the container. Obviously we can do the same thing in Alice's container. Let's look 1404. As I'm running out of time, my typing is getting worse and worse. So we can actually see Fred, but he doesn't match any ID in our container, so he's assigned the nobody user. I'm gonna touch Alice in here. Was I in home? Let's do that again. And if we go back to var external volume, we can see that that was created with 200,000, 200,000. So again, I've had to rush through this part because we're basically out of time. But again, Shift FS is giving us a way to do that without being blocked by the permissions. Shift FS needs more work upstream, but Linus Kit gives us an easy way to play with those features. And with my container decline, I can actually try out those features. So a few final slides. There are some resources here. I'll post these slides as soon as we're out of this talk. If you wanna see more interesting uses of the API beyond kind of what I've just showed you, look at CRI Container D. You can look at my Bucket Bench project which has a Container D driver using the same API. You can look at Lib Container D in the MOBI project. These are all users of the API. Obviously above here, the Getting Started Guide and the Godoc are also great resources. So with that, I think I am more than over with time. So thank you very much for your attention and time. Thanks.


Maxime Varsher Lagrave had a great day in office as he convincingly beat Ariantari from Norway. He joins us in our studio. Maxime, a pleasant opening and it looked like you were always in control today? Sort of. I mean, it never is as easy as it looks, but yeah, I managed to keep control on the center of his potential base with D5 and after I got 95, I thought I already had a present edge. And at what point did you feel you had a decisive advantage? Well, when things fizzled out and I got to play E5 and break through, of course after I won the exchange, I felt like it was a matter of technique already. Right now, after your game got over, I went down and saw you analyzing with Tari. Now, we don't see that happen often enough. People almost always go back and check the lines with engines. Do you recommend analyzing games with your opponents once it's done? Well, I don't do it always, but generally if my opponent offers, I will go gladly. Of course, it's always a pleasant experience to share thoughts about the game and before we see how badly we played with the help of engines. Five and a half out of seven. Pleased with your play so far? It's going much better since round four, so I hope to keep the trend going and I'll need one or two wins in the last three ones, so we'll see how it goes. It's definitely not going to be easy. Are you also having a good time in Gibraltar? Yeah, of course. Gibraltar never disappoints. That's great to hear. We wish you all the best for the remaining games. Thank you, Tania. Thanks.


Hello and welcome to the News Clicks Show, Mapping Fault Lines where today in one second we will be talking about the attack on Gaza, the assault on Gaza by Israel. The latest news of course is that a ceasefire has been declared after 11 days of intense bombing by Israel and counteractions by Hamas as well. The death toll has been quite horrific over 230. The destruction of infrastructure, the injuries, the number of people that have been displaced, all this has been a substantial and it's going to take a lot of resources, a lot of effort and time to rebuild for the Palestinian families which have been affected. So today we're going to be talking about the situation on the ground, the impact of the region and related issues we have with us, Prabir Burqai. So even last time we talked about the possibility that you know how long would this conflict last because Israel clearly had some goals while entering this conflict and it defied for a long time the calls for ceasefire by the international community and of course even calls for ceasefire by the US. So how do we see the accepting by Israel of this ceasefire right now at this point? So in terms of how do we see the situation on the ground? You know the key question always was what was Israel going to invade Gaza militarily and that is something that they it appeared at one point they were planning to do but they somehow backed off. Now did they actually just make motions of doing it for some ulterior motives as a claim or they were really in a mood to attack Gaza and physically destroy parts of it really increasing the slaughter much more or was it simply a ploy to keep the pressure on? We don't know but the reality is that at the moment Israel's ability to enter Gaza has decreased considerably. We saw that in 2014 that the first day they entered Gaza they suffered the military suffered serious losses and that included senior commanding officers as well. So I think this has shown that increasingly physically entering Gaza is something that Israel cannot do and that changes the military equation in the in this conflict. The second part and again that's a takeaway which the Hamas will benefit from is the fact that in the first time the bubble of Tel Aviv was also threatened and the citizens had to scurry in the shelters and this happened not only in Tel Aviv but also in other major cities of Israel. So what was essentially a local phenomena limited to areas within say 5 to 10 kilometers of the Gaza border extended to the almost entire Israel and all its cities. So all of this shows that though it's an extremely asymmetric war it's the damage destruction casualties are far more on the side of the Gazans than Israelis. The fact is that Gaza can inflict some damage disrupting the normal life in Israel itself makes it you know makes it not equal but changes the equation in favor of Gaza. Now let's look at also the numbers you're talking of really the the the best military in West Asia supposedly at least has the best arms has nuclear weapons. It is refurbished every time it expenses munitions in Gaza by the United States immediately they have offered 700 odd million dollars of intelligent munitions which is really precision munitions so that it can attack the AP buildings and the Al Jazeera stations if they rebuild it over there. So all of this goes to show that the battle is really one sided in in terms of what the military power each side holds but the fact that Gaza can inflict damage they've increased their range of their crude rockets which are really pipes filled with some fuel and some munitions but the range has increased what was earlier about 10 to 15 kilometers now go over to about 200 to 250 kilometers. Now that's a huge change if they can if they can add intelligence to it guided designs or even of a crude variety that will also mean weakening the iron road protection that Israel now has which gives it 90 percent ability ability to shoot down 90 percent of the designs that are likely to land into in populated areas. So the fact that Gaza can inflict damage it's only two billion population it's a it's a small packed place where all the you know 50 percent unemployment destruction at a massive scale each time this kind of wars takes place but the fact that it can still inflict damage makes it difficult for Israel to do what it does in the West Bank which is inflict punishment on any population which is restive which wants to protest by destroying their homes putting the people in jail battering them physically and so on it's completely one sided over there but the fact that there is some resistance over here in military terms means the equation has changed and each time that this conflict emerges again and again as it has now three times so if as it emerges again and again the equation will continue to change and I think that's something which makes Hamas a much more important force in Palestine and it's not just in Gaza but also in the other occupied Palestine territories and that equation means Fatah which at least had the leading voice in the Palestinian community is now going to see a serious challenge from Hamas a more militant challenge which will then force the equation to change also in the occupied West Bank. So I think this is not something which is changed in favor of Israel in fact each time the war erupts whatever damage Gaza or Palestinians take I think equation changes in two ways one it changes in Israel to the right which we now can see further and further but it's also changing the Palestinian issues bringing forth Palestinian issues to the fore and I think that's a very important change that we have to now recognize after this particular limited 11-day war. Absolutely Prabir so in this context I also want to take a look at the regional context because we have seen quite a few developments over the past one to two years you've seen the Abraham Accords where Israel with the help of the US has signed deals with some of the countries the UAE for instance we've seen of course the consolidation of the US-led alliance and the Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt all these parties becoming much closer to each other so how do we see the regional situation after this conflict because Egypt of course has been involved in the ceasefire but how do we see the role of the various players? See one thing is to recognize that Abraham Accords are virtually dead it's not that United Arab Emirates and Saudis were not playing footsie with Israel for all this time they were so it was a physical open acceptance that we are in bed with Israel that was the Abraham Accords but the fact that they also have to recognize that Jerusalem is an issue that changing the demography of Jerusalem attack an al-Aqsa mosque Haram al-Sharif those are things which none of these countries can take and say that's okay that's something to do with us so I think that Abraham Accords will change the record that Israel is the dominant power in the area can do what it pleases in Palestine Palestinian question is now gone completely on the back burner all of these things have changed also because of this limited engagement war whatever we want to call it in Gaza so I think that is a major issue that how will the larger west Asian map look like politically after this limited war that is taking place in Gaza and I think increasingly the Palestinian question will not be on the back burner as it has been and therefore the those who signed the Abraham Accords thinking that Palestine question is not going to be at the forefront and the Israelis are able to handle it and therefore we can face a near normalcy and go ahead with what we are doing I think that's going to come into question increasing already we can see stirring in Jordan have taken place before all of this now how will it affect the population in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Saudi Arabia is a crucial issue now United Arab Emirates doesn't have much population so we can forget about that but Saudis do they have a fairly large population basis in large country and it has a monarchy it really does not have it's not a nation in the strict sense of the term because the people do not feel a part of the nation it's really a princely state it's a kingdom of Saudi Arabia as it calls itself because the king who represents Saudi Arabia not his people so all these things are now possible that they will be in the mix so what we see is increasingly that you will you will see multipolar forces emerge in West Asia you will see Turkey becoming a player it already is you will see Iran is a player it already is and of course the Saudis and Emirates are there but you also have players like Qatar and they are they represent muslim brotherhood which again is what Turkey is at the moment Turkey said the gun is essentially muslim brotherhood so you have these forces in the region which are not going to be led by one hegemon as it was earlier which was the united states so you are really increasingly going to see regional arrangements come in and the fact that Egypt negotiated the ceasefire and not united states in fact the united states main role was to block any attempt of ceasefire coming from the united nations it calls the rule based global order the world order but here was the rule based global order protagonist supposedly the united states stopping a unanimous resolution in the united nation security council by virtue of its veto that was the threat that if you try to move the resolution and veto it and the stop to three times before finally Egypt negotiated unconditional ceasefire so i think those are increasing signs that united states sway in the region is going to decrease regional forces are going to come into the forefront much more Iran turkey are more important players in this it's not just the Emirates and the Saudis and increasingly you will see that the Palestinian question the question of Jerusalem cannot be buried as it has been for us and then on this it's really the Palestinian population in occupied territories including within Israel that has brought this agenda back onto the table thank you so much for talking to us that's all your time for today keep watching you