Hello everybody. I am Kalev Lember. I work at the desktop team at Red Hat. So nice to see all your smiling faces. Thank you for coming to my talk. So my talk is a quick overview of what's going on in GNOME Software, what we have been up to last year. So in case someone doesn't know what GNOME Software is, GNOME Software is the software center for GNOME. It has a handless application installing removal updates. It supports various different backends. It supports installing RPMs, flatbacks, RPM OSD updates.  And here's a quick screenshot for this. So 2018, GNOME Software saw quite a lot of changes there. And I was also actually surprised by some of the changes since I was gone half of the summer or actually most of the summer. And then I came back and then a lot of changes had landed. And then I had a mountain of bug fixes waiting for me to fix so that Fedora 29 could release and it's been a busy year.  And we'll go through all of them one by one. So Richard Hughes wrote a new library called LeapXMLP. It's a new parser for upstream. Upstream is the format that describes all the desktop applications. The description and so on. And the way LeapXMLP works is that it writes a build step involved there. So it reads in all the files and creates a binary cache. And then the client application, which is GNOME Software, then M maps the binary cache and reads it from there. This makes things faster because we are reading it from a binary cache which is optimized for fast lookups. And it also reduces GNOME Software memory use by, I believe, 100 megabytes, which is quite a lot because we no longer need to keep all the data in memory for quick lookups. So that's a new thing and that is landing in Fedora 20, Fedora 30 cycle. And sorry, the library is there but GNOME Software is not using it. No, it doesn't, no. And so in Fedora 30, we are switching to it. And there's quite a lot of regressions there. So if you could try out Rohe, then report those and we'll try to get all of those fixed. So the next item also starts with Leap. And this one is in Fedora 29 already. This is Leap Flatback. Flatback now has a library that supports client-side operations. And we are now doing the Flatback CLI and GNOME Software transactions through the same library, which makes it so that we share bugs and features with the CLI. We've had some long-standing bugs where runtime extensions and application extensions were dev-sold in a different way in GNOME Software and Flatback command line and this should fix most of them. This was one of the things that landed during the summer when I was gone and I've spent quite a lot of time in bug fixing this. So hopefully it should be in a good shape now. But as always, report bugs, if you see any. New thing that landed just two weeks ago. This is work by Mattias Glassen. He's to show permissions for Flatback Flatbacks. So Flatback command line has showed them for a long time, but now we are trying to catch up with it. So Flatback permissions are like, what kind of file system access it has? Does it access D-Bus? Does it access some other service? And so we have a way to show permissions for already installed apps. And then when an app gets an update and new permissions appear, then we hold back the update and ask the user if they want to update until the list of permissions and so on. So that's the same kind of concept as Google Play Store has. It shows new permissions. Here's a screenshot. This set piece is a cooking app, and it shows the permissions it has, not many. And yes, when it gets an update, it shows new permissions. There's some UI fixes that need to be done here, so it looks a bit prettier, but the groundwork is all there. And this is also landing in Fedora 30. And it's already in Growhead. Then we have automatic updates in Fedora 29. We close after updates Flatbacks in the background by default. There's a new settings dialog where you can control that. You can turn this off. And offline distro updates were prepared automatically before as well. But now it looks a bit different in the UI. When you are not using automatic updates, when you go through Grum Software manually, before there was a refresh button and then you clicked on it, and then it took two hours because it downloaded all the updates, which was not good user experience at all. So what we have now is the refresh button only refreshes the metadata, and then it shows a list of things to download. Then we have a download button, and after that comes a progress bar when things are downloaded. And finally, there's a restart and update button. And here's a screenshot. We have a preferences dialog, and behind there is the new download step that's split out. Then we have a new thing that Owen was just talking about. Since we are getting flatbacks built in Fedora, and we also have the same things available as RPMs, we need a way to choose between those. So we have a source selection dropdown, which allows selecting between flatback and RPM packages. And here's a screenshot of that. This is Inkscape. In the upper right corner, there's a dropdown that we can select between the FlatHub version and the Fedora version. I think it needs one more thing. We need to have a way to select between different flatback versions, because right now, up until now, we've only had flatbacks from one source, which is flatback pretty much. But I think we probably need to show multiple flatbacks there in the future. Anyway, that was my quick talk. Thank you for coming here, and I'm here for questions. Who goes first? You. So the question was how often is GNOME software checking for updates? GNOME software tries to refresh the metadata daily and also does the automatic updates daily. But for the steps that require the user to do something, for example, to restart, then we only offer them to the user once a week. We just prepare the updates, but we don't actually ask the user to restart. We don't want to get them to restart every day. So the question was that so far, when GNOME software has been updating flatbacks, it has not correctly updated extensions. And the question was, do we plan to add more user feedback? Because GNOME software only shows a circle, a spinning circle, and then we can add more user feedback. So, yes, that was major motivation why we did that, so that we could get both app extensions and SDK extensions, and runtime extensions correctly updated. So the question was, do we plan to add more user feedback to the spinning circle, and it's hard to know if it's doing anything. The answer is yes. We've already started doing that. The splitting up the updates into two separate steps was the first step in that direction, because we also feel that there's very little user feedback right now. So we split up updates so that the download step is completely separate with the progress bar. And I think we'll try to do the same pattern in other places as well to show the progress bar and some useful messages. One thing that we didn't manage to do in time for Fedora 29 was to show textual progress for updates. What we want to do is to show downloading one megabyte out of 10 gigabytes. So it's not just a short progress bar, but actually useful information. The comment was that the Flatpak CLI shows how much data is being downloaded, and my comment is that yes, we are going to show that in GNOME software as well. Any more questions? Do you know why this sometimes happens when OpenQA tries to actually enable the system updates? I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. We talked about this on RC, too, and I don't know. So Adam showed a policy dialogue that sometimes shows up in GNOME software, and we don't know why it's showing up in this investigation. Yeah, a filobog, exactly. I don't know. I've been buried under a mountain of bugs, and lately it's been just me fixing bugs. One person against bugs. Anyone else have a bug to report? Because people collaborate. The question was, what's the current state of GNOME software and TNF to collaborate? So there's a library called LeapTNF, which is a bit... The name there kind of implies that it's a library TNF uses, but up until very recently, it was actually GNOME software using it, but not TNF itself, and TNF is getting rewritten to use the library, and so my hope was that in a good future, GNOME software and TNF both use LeapTNF and then... There was a comment that there was a talk earlier that said that TNF is getting rewritten in C++, and that's true. But the problem is that TNF is not starting to use the same API that GNOME software uses, but TNF is getting rewritten into C++, and the C++ is getting added to LeapTNF, but added. So that GNOME software still doesn't go through the same code path, so... So yeah, it's not really sharing a lot of code with TNF, yeah? So related to this movie? The question was, what's the future for a package kit? Do we have any bigger changes coming? So package kit uses LeapTNF, and like an earlier comment said that LeapTNF is getting rewritten into C++. I guess we will have to maybe port package kit to the NeuroC++ classes at some point, but that's pretty much rewriting all of the package kits back end. And right now, my manager is saying to not spend time on package kit, so we'll see how it goes. The question was, does GNOME software use package kit or LeapTNF directly? GNOME software uses package kit, yes, and package kit uses LeapTNF. Yeah. So what I'm saying is that all of those should actually be used according to LeapTNF. So that's basically the future. Quite far from now, probably, but... Yeah, so that's... It should be much simpler in the future, like the whole layout should be much more simpler in the future, right? Yeah, that would be nice, yeah. Yeah, Jiri? The question about the download size is for platform applications because when you go through a user command, you often see there is quite a simple application like calculator, and it shows easily, like, the amount size of 1.2 gigabytes that the original user commands like, yeah, this is just very close, and it is without any context. So it doesn't say that it will slow down the amount of time the application requires. And even with this included, it's very... from my experience, this future estimation requires them to download the time, the application until it was, like, 200 megabytes instead of 1.2 because there was, like, the application in flight, et cetera. So I wonder if there is any time to give those numbers, like, markup to their mind context or maybe I don't know if we're going to complete it because it does more time than it would in my experience. So the question was that flatback download sizes are wildly overestimated and is there a plan to solve that. So I know Alex has been thinking about that, how to get size reporting from flatback more accurate. And one thing we can do in GNOME's other side, I guess, is to show two separate lines so that there's the runtime size and the app size and maybe users can make a better guess based on that. But I don't know. I'm not working on that problem. If flatback command line... If it gets solved in live flatback then we'll get the same thing in GNOME software as well. Any more questions? I can actually listen to my robot at 6 megabits per second. So I started feeling the pain when I started computer Monday morning and it started the Monday morning for the last week. And with that connection I got full bandwidth and I was occupied by GNOME's software and I don't think that it is something I have to do.  So the question was are there any plans to use delta rpms? Because on low bandwidth connections you can take quite a lot of time right now to download all updates. Maybe five or six years ago I once upon a time did a batch to LeapSif If anyone knows what that is LeapSif was a library that Richard Hughes wrote to do step solving better than YamDid and then LeapSif grew into LeapHeaf and then LeapHeaf grew into LeapDNF which is now. So there is actually a really old batch to do delta rpms and I remember finding it last year and I was like wow this is so old so maybe we should try to make that happen I have no recollection why we didn't merge it back then but there's a new project instead of delta rpms there's what's it called yeah that thing so maybe that's a yeah exactly so the comment was that the plan with Z-shunk is right now for metadata and maybe in the future for packages so I guess we need to support both then so all those package kit questions if anyone wants to help improve the package kit DNA back end that would be awesome because I have a lot of pressure to work on other things not package kit because that's the old technology so things are progressing super fast there but we can go home or go to pub so thank everybody for coming


Today, let's study skip counting by 2, 5, and 10. To count by 2s, you add 2 to get to the next number. So starting at 0, the next number will be 0 plus 2 is 2, 2 plus 2 is 4, 4 plus 2 is 6, and 6 plus 2 is 8. So the pattern goes like 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and so on. To count by 5s, you add 5 to get to the next number. So starting from 0, the next number will be 0 plus 5 is 5, 5 plus 5 is 10, 10 plus 5 is 15, and 15 plus 5 is 20. The pattern goes like 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, and so on. And to count by 10s, you add 10 to get to the next number. So starting from 0, the next number will be 0 plus 10 is 10, 10 plus 10 is 10. 20 plus 10 is 30, 30 plus 10 is 40. So it's 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100. So kids, now you know how to skip count by 2, 5, and 10. Just remember that to skip count, we keep adding the same number each time to the previous number.


ThinkTek Hawaii, civil engagement lives here. ThinkTek Hawaii, don't forget to like, don't forget to give that a like, just drop a comment and share a button, and drop a comment if you've got questions below. But as always, I don't have a lot of time, and I definitely know you guys and girls don't have a lot of time, so we're going to jump straight into it. So as you can see on the title, and in the description box, this episode is going to be about why you shouldn't invest into startups. Now, I know you read this, I know most of you read this, they're going to say, what are you talking about? Why should I invest in startups? You know, I've heard great things about plenty of companies around the world, all of the great things like that. But in this episode, what we're going to talk about, we're going to talk about, one, what are startups? Two, why you shouldn't invest into them? Three, the alternatives. And four, we're going to give you some alternatives to what you can do, and also hit you with some statistical data and numbers. So first, let's start off with what actually is a startup. So most of the people, most of them already know. We've seen things like Shark Tank. You probably watched so many documentaries of something ventured, and so many autobiographies of different companies. How did Google get started? How did Amazon get started? How did Netflix get started? How did Walmart get started? And they all had that story of that one person or two people, a group of people that started out very small, and they became something great. Every big company was small. What could it mean? I'm 61, 280 some pounds. And at one time, I probably was this big, a loaf of bread, and I grew, right? Why do I say that? Because sometimes when we watch chocolate shows, like ABC hit show, the Shark Tank, and also when we watch television and documentaries, something ventured, like a documentary called Something Ventured on Netflix, it gives us the belief, like myself, I did the same thing.  They started with an idea, and people invested into them in an early stage. Now with the new crowdfunding laws that have passed, you've seen a lot of people come out with ways that you can invest in the startups, right? But here I am. And it makes some contradiction because I created the app for the ones who really followed me back in 2014, called IABOH, IBOA, which is the Investors and Business Owners Hub, and I created that concept around pretty much putting Shark Tank on a app, right? Let's say if someone who wanted to start a coffee shop in North Dakota, or who had started a coffee shop in North Dakota, versus, and they wanted to get an investor in Hawaii, how do they find each other? How do they meet each other?  How do you find people? So that was my concept behind creating that. But that was over four years ago. And throughout that time, I've had a lot of experiences with small-cap, medium-cap, and large companies, and I've been able to meet a lot of people and to see, meet a lot of companies that were small, medium, and large, and I've also been able to meet investors from beginning to immediate to expert. And over that time, and also going and educating myself more and more, I'm always a student, and I learned something. I learned something, and I want to pass it on to you guys. So first step, mostly if you guys don't even qualify, excuse me there, don't even qualify to be a, to invest into a startup. What do you mean, for example? For prime example, most people that are tuned into the show will probably rough around the age of 20s to late 30s, middle 20s, 25s to about 40s, and some older. Thank you for the older listeners and the younger ones, right? But most of us are not even, most of us in the age range, and most of us have a network that somewhere probably between zero or negative, or what's between maybe a hundred, 200,000 dollars, right? Of course, if you listen to Black Prince, I got a quarter million, million dollars, I'm just speaking for the majority, right? So the thing is, when you look at companies, you, when you're looking to invest into a small startup companies, that's very, very, very over a high risk of you to do. Because first you gotta look at the statistical data and see how many companies fail, how many startups fail, especially how many companies even survived that five years. Most companies can't make it to five years. So with that being said, when you look at the data and you look at the standard deviation, the risk that you're taking, most of you guys do not qualify to take that type of risk. Prince, what do you mean? So what do I mean is, if you're taking that type of a risk, it should be no more than about 10% of your portfolio. If you only have $50,000 in your portfolio, if you have $50,000 in your portfolio, that means you only have $5,000 to invest into a new startup. Now, the thing is, of course, everybody has an idea.  You get people that DM you with that great idea. You get emails with people's great idea. And just like that, it is an idea. It's not been executed. Most of them don't have it written down and it has not been executed and it has no traction. What do I mean by executed and traction? I can type with a beautiful business plan, right? But execution and traction calls for, let's say if someone wanted to start a barbershop, if you wanna start a barbershop, you're probably gonna need certain licenses to start the barbershop. And have that person even, do they even know what they need to require? Does that person even know, hey, this is what I need with this barbershop, this is what I need with this barbershop, this is what I need with that barbershop, right? So the thing is, some people, do you have the education? Do you have the requirements? Do you have the manpower? Do you have the know-how? Do you have the building permit? Do you have a slew of things that can potentially go on with an investment that can go wrong once you put things into the execution phase? So yes, it looks great on paper, but the execution, when a person goes to execute, you're always gonna have lumps in the road.  But most startup people don't have the resources to know-how or the knowledge to get through those very earlier things when it's time to execute. Now, we just spoke about execution. Now we're gonna move on into the next phase, the portion of your portfolio. When you see shows like Shark Tank, or you hear about venture capitalists, and they're talking about how they invested into so many different companies, it's because they know, for a prime example, they know so many companies are gonna fail. They know for all that. They don't invest in one company. They invest into 10 to 20 startups. Out of that 10 startups, for example, out of the 10 startups, they are expecting seven of them to fail. They're expecting one of them to break even. They're expecting, and the last two, maybe one or two, one to pay for the mistakes of the other ones, and the other one will become a big thing. So out of that 10, they're expecting 70, 80% just to not work for whatever reason. Hey, 70% of these things are not gonna work. And one of them is going to work. They may break even. And then another one is going to, another one is probably gonna take off and pay for the ones, all the money I lost in the first seven. And you may have one that can take off and be the next big thing, right? So with that being said, most companies spread their investment out of the 20, what you call it, 20 different companies. So when you watch this TV show like Shark Tank, that's why the show is still on the air. That's why people are still investing. They always highlight the great companies, the ones that they invested in became great, or the ones that they passed on and became great. But what about those failures? What about the companies that just didn't work to usually don't highlight those, right? So when you see people making an investment and a company does well, it gives the illusion that, hey, I can do that too. So the thing about it is, it's just like the lottery ticket, right? They never highlight the losers of the lottery. Because if they highlighted the losers of the lottery, it would discourage people from playing the lottery. People would then recognize like, whoa, 99% of people lose. Once in a million, a person may win. So, but if I constantly highlight the winners, like a lot of investors like to do, if I constantly highlight the winners and forget all of my losses, if I constantly highlight the winners, guess what happens? I start to think that, hey, a person who's not looking objectively, they start to believe that it's reality. Because every time they see, there's always someone who's winning the lottery. So they start to believe, man, you know what? Maybe I can win the lottery as well. So that's one of the things that you would think of. Two, the smaller the company, the higher the risk. Most people don't have enough money. If you let, hey, well, my friend, I still don't do some great things and they got some great momentum. So I want to jump on board because I think I'm going to miss out, right? When someone is in the startup phase, why would I take that high, high Uber high risk when someone just has an idea on paper? If I want to get into a startup, I want to get into something that's already established and it's just looking to get to the next level, right? There are startups out there like that and they're not really startups. They're more making an investment into a company. I would say, let's say for a prime example, I open up a barbershop and I'm doing pretty well. I open up a funeral home, a barbershop, or let's say a restaurant. And restaurant is doing great, business is doing great, but I'm looking to open up another location. I'm looking to expand my current location. That is less riskier. That would be something that I would have my eyes on more and that you, if I've been looking to it, something that you may have your eyes on more too. Now they're a little bit more difficult to find because usually they're a little bit more high quality. They require more intuition. I always like to see how much sweat has the person put into it. How much sweat equity they have. Can they just up and quit this thing tomorrow and not look crazy? Can they? Because I like to see someone who is, hey, I have placed too much time, too much money, too much effort into this for it not to be able to work. So with that being said, it's not as new as a start versus someone who just has an idea on paper. But someone who can show you, hey, I have a company, I have established, I have opened the doors, I have customers, I have sales, but my sales are not strong enough to keep me up. So I need a little bit of money so I can change my business plan, but they have execution of their plan and they have traction within their plan because they have developed sales, right? But the thing about it is, most people who are tuned into this do not qualify or should be looking into something like this because they don't even qualify to even think about something like this, right? Because you are someone who maybe have a job, you may have a 401K, you should be looking at the ground roots of investing first. Once you become a most invested one, it becomes successful or they quarantine or they make an investment group that now you have experienced investors that are behind the table that says, huh, my friend has a clothing line or a friend has a whatever and I'm looking to make this investment. Now I can do that because I can take something off of the ground floor. Most people don't have the money or don't qualify or not ready to that point yet. So let's think about it, you took $25,000 and you spread it over 10 companies. 25,000 times 10 is $250,000. For $250,000 to be 5% or maybe 10% of a portfolio, you're looking at upwards to like $4,5 million, right? You need a $4,5 million portfolio to be able to find 10 companies that you can give $25,000 if you decide to do that and for it to be just the 5 to 10% of your portfolio or 5% of your portfolio, right? So with that being said, if that's the case, when you're looking at different ways to invest, you're looking at ways to put money and you're looking at ways for things to go, that's something you need to be considered of. Do I even have enough money? Am I even at that point, a level to even start looking into those type of investments?  So, okay. And the thing about it is, when you're looking at those types of investments, you have to ask yourself, what am I doing? Am I ready for that point? Then the smaller company, the higher the risk. When a company is that small, you know, when the smaller company is the higher the risk because the bigger the company becomes is just in the same thing on the stock market. When you have small cap, medium cap and large cap. When you have a large cap company, the likely of a large cap, large capitalization company, like a Walmart, the one on the business is very him compared to a small technology company. And that's the way you need to look at it. That's the way you need to think of it, right? So, when you're looking at making those investments, a lot of you guys may have been to that point yet when it's time to even look at that thing. So I hear, and the reason why I brought this topic is a lot of people always email, ask, comment and say, hey, Prince, I'm looking to make this investment into this new technology company. I'm looking to make this investment to my friends investment, things like that. And these are people who just started investing maybe a day or two ago. Like, do you strike gold? Of course, right? Can a person become lucky and strike gold? Of course, right? But many times they can't. So it's too risky, especially for the lower, for the lower level, beginning or intermediate investor to start looking into investing in the company. But what's gonna happen is everybody is Superman. Every company or every idea is great. And so the money is transferred. Once the money comes, once the money is transferred, that's when all the mistakes start to happen. That's when the old side didn't know this, this, this, this, and things like that. So you know how to draft with those contracts. What if a person doesn't pay? What can you do? What if a person doesn't contact you? What if you can't find the person as you transfer your money? So those are very Uber high risk that are probably made for the expert at the minimum intermediate investor who is well, well financially established and looking to different ways to expand their money. Okay? So that's gonna be my episode. I'm gonna wrap this up. But before I wrap it up, I wanna go over this thing. You talked about what is a startup? The risk associated with brand new startups, the different levels of startups, why you shouldn't be considering them at this point, at this time, if you're a brand new investor. Also, you need to be educating yourself and become more experienced and first. This should be one of the last things you should be looking at. And this is why you shouldn't be looking at them in the first place, but extremely high, high risk. Don't be fooled by what you see on television and radio and things like that. They don't tell you about all the venture capitalist companies and investors, don't tell you about all the companies that they lost. I won't say they don't, but they'll tell you like, hey, yeah, we had some fairies along the way, but you're playing extremely high risk.  This is probably one of the last things you need to be looking into, right? My friend, I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just telling you, laying out some ideas and laying out what makes sense and risk, all right? Well, guys, until the next video podcast, start soon on what I don't seem to do crazy around the globe. My name is Prince Dice. This is the Prince of Investing. Catch you guys the next week on Think Tech Hawaii. Thank you.


So, this talk is about the gap between selective and adaptive security in various cryptographic protocols. So, as we all know, selective security is a notion of security in which we require that the adversary commits to some or all of its choices ahead of time before seeing either the public parameters or other features of the construction, whereas the adaptive notion allows him to do all his choices adaptively as the protocol continues. This is, of course, much more natural, but much harder to achieve usually. As an example, think of garbling where the standard notion of security requires the adversary to commit on his input that he wants to garble before seeing the garbled circuit. This is the classical security notion of garbled circuits, and, of course, the more natural notion, the adaptive one, in which we require the adversary not to commit to his input ahead of time, but only after seeing the garbled circuit, is much more natural and harder to achieve. There's a long series of works in the past decade showing that various protocols that we only knew how to prove selective security can be shown to satisfy some notion of adaptive security. It all started in the work of Manjwani in 2007, where he devised a game he called the general selective decryption, which is very easy to prove its selective security, but seems super hard to prove its adaptive security. The latest work in this series of works is by Jeff Orgolian Weeks showing that Yau's Garbled Circuit construction is actually adaptively secure. One downside of all these works is that whoever knows them had a feeling that they're all somehow related, this series of works. They all had the common features in the proof and the analysis looked similar, but nobody could really point out what's the main common thing. And the second point is that the original work of Manjwani and some other works are very hard to understand. They're super complicated. Our first main contribution is a framework that shows that all of these constructions basically follow the same framework. They have the same pattern in the proof, and we recover all the results from all these previous works using our framework. Our framework is quite modular. It basically takes a problem and it reduces it to some combinatorial problem about pebbling of graphs. And as a bonus, we also get a new result for the adaptive security of Yau's secret sharing scheme, which I'll talk next in this talk. So these are our results. I would like to spend a couple of slides about the framework. So there is a very classical way or a very trivial way to take a selectively secure protocol and make it adaptively secure. And it's usually a combination of a hybrid argument and guessing. So here's how it works. Think of two games, G-left and G-right, GL and GR. They're adaptive games. So keep in mind the adaptive Yau garbling as an example. And one to prove that they're indistinguishable. So what we usually do, we just selectivize them. We just guess the adaptive choices of the adversary ahead of time. Define selective games, H-left and H-right. And now we just apply the selective proof of security, which usually consists of a sequence of hybrid H1 till HL. Now the result is that the original adaptive games are indistinguishable, but the security loss is huge. It's two to the N for guessing the choices of the adversary. And there's a factor of L, which is the number of hybrids we had in the selective proof of security. And this is, of course, something not very good that we would like to avoid. The main idea in our framework can be said in one sentence. It's very simple to say. It's basically saying, devise a new sequence of hybrids, not the original ones from the selective proof of security, but a new one, and make sure that in order to move from each hybrid to the following one, you don't need to know the whole set of choices of the adversary, but only some small fraction of it, some H of the choice of the adversary. Two small comments that are important. You can choose a different H at any two consecutive hybrids. So that allows you to have much more flexibility. And overall, you might need to know the whole choice of the adversary, but at any specific point you will need to know only few bits. As an example, think of, again, adaptive yaw garbling. So if we had a sequence of reductions in which we could only know in every two consecutive hybrids only a few wires, not the whole input, then we would be able to devise a much more efficient reduction. So here's a glimpse of the formalization of our framework. So again, we have the adaptive games, G left and G right, and we have a hybrid, the selective hybrids H1 to HL, but now the selective hybrids have an additional property. Not only they're the selectivized versions of the adaptive games, but each two selective hybrids are the selectivized versions of something we call less selectivized games that I symbolized by H hat. And the property that these less selectivized games have is that in order to move from one to the consecutive one, you need to know fewer bits about the choices of the adversary. So that's the formalization. You can have a different pair for each two consecutive hybrids. If you have this property, then you can get a security reduction in which the loss is 2 to the M times L rather than 2 to the N times L, and if M, the number of bits you have to know in every two hybrids is much smaller than N, we win. We get a much more efficient reduction. So this is the main idea of the framework, and I'm going to show how it applies to secret sharing, the new result in the paper. So what is secret sharing? Secret sharing is a very simple game introduced in the late 70s by Blakely and Shamir. And the game is described as follows. There's a dealer that has a secret. Think of the secret as a single bit, just 0 or 1. He wants to distribute it among N players such that there are qualified sets and there are unqualified sets. The qualified ones should know the secret and the unqualified ones should not know the secret. So we just take the whole set of N inputs and we split them into two sets, one of which is good inputs and one of them is bad ones. And the goal is that the subsets that are qualified will be able to recover the secrets while subsets that are unqualified will not be able to recover it. And cannot, can be formalized in various ways, either information theoretically or computationally, and we know a bunch of stuff on each one of them and I'll talk about it in the next slide, but now I want to talk about the security definition. So in the selective security definition, the dealer has a secret.  And the adversary commits to his whole set of parties that he wants to see their shares, I1 till IK, and sends them to the dealer. The dealer replies with the set of shares of the corresponding parties. And then the adversary has to say what's his guess for the secret, either it's 0 or 1. He wins if he succeeds in his guess. In the adaptive game, the dealer does the same thing. He chooses a secret asset random, generates a set of shares. But now the adversary only sends one index out of N to the dealer and gets back the share of that dealer, of that party. And he can do it multiple times. So he can choose the share of the next party based on the shares it has seen so far. And again, when he decides to finish, he sends what he thinks the secret is. And he wins if his guess is correct. We say that a scheme is secure in either case. If the probability that the adversary wins and he chose only an unqualified set is at most 1.5 plus something negligible. Okay, so what do we know about this notion? There's a long line of works about information theoretic constructions that achieve perfect security and they're all perfect. But we'll focus about the computational ones. In the computational setting, we have two main schemes. The first one is a scheme of Yao that I'll talk about more in the rest of this talk. It basically allows us to share a secret to a set which is described by a monotone Boolean circuit. So there is a monotone Boolean circuit, which is public, that tells you who are the qualified sets and who are the disqualified sets. There's also another construction that allows us to share a secret to every axis structure, not only to ones that are described by monotone Boolean circuits. And what we currently know is that both of these schemes are only selectively secure. We have no result about their adaptive security. Of course, you can do what I said in the beginning, hybrid argument and guessing, but lose two to the end factor in security, which is something we would like to avoid. So our result is the following. Based on the axis structure, it is described by a monotone circuit that has various parameters. But basically our result says that if the axis structure is described by a monotone circuit of size S and depth D, then Yau's secret sharing scheme is adaptively secure and the loss is only S to the D, and not 2 to the N, which is much better in several cases. One notable example is an axis structure called directedistic connectivity. It's an axis structure in which parties are edges in a graph and the qualified sets are those that form a directed path from some specified vertex S to some specified vertex T. Before this work, we didn't have any adaptively secure construction for this axis structure in which the security loss is less than 2 to the N. With our result, the security loss is only quasi-polynomial. It's only 2 to the polylog, okay. So I'll continue with the description of Yau's scheme and then I'll show our analysis. So Yau's scheme works as follows, you give me the Boolean circuit, which describes the axis structure. And I am going to label each wire in the circuit with some label. The labels of the input wires are going to be the shares of the parties. So we start by labeling the output wire with the secret. And then we see either an OR gate or an N gate. They might have multiple, like fan out larger than one and fan in larger than one. Let's assume it's just two, both of them are just two. So let's say we see an N gate in which the output wires are labeled with L1 and L2, or an OR gate with the same labels. So the first thing we do, we sample a fresh encryption key for a symmetric encryption, anyone. And we associate this encryption key with the gate. Now if it's an N gate, we label the left input wire with the random label. And the right input wire with cake sort with this random label. So we just one time pad this key. If it's an OR gate, we just duplicate it to both input wires. This is the scheme. The last thing we do, we publish on some board or just give each party the encryption of the label L1 and L2 with respect to the key K. We do this in both cases. So that's the scheme. Correctness is quite easy to see by just reversing the process, going from the leaves to the output wire of the circuit. And let me talk about security. So in the security proof of this scheme, the selective proof of security, which is the classical proof of security, we do a sequence of hybrids. What is this sequence of hybrids? What we're doing is we're replacing the encryptions that everybody see. This cipher text, we replace them with bogus ones. So instead of encrypting real labels, we are encrypting random stuff or junk. But we can't do it for every gate, right? Because some gates, the adversary can know the encryption key and can open the encryption. So we do it only for the gates for which the adversary doesn't have the encryption key. But how do we know which ones? So we know because this is where we use the selective security. We know the set of parties the adversary opens their shares ahead of time. So we know exactly which gates the adversary can compute their key and which gates he cannot compute their key. And there must be a path from the input wires to the output wire in which we can replace all cipher texts with bogus ones and thus replacing the output wire with a bogus one, which makes the whole thing independent of the secret, so the scheme becomes secure. So this is the high level idea of the proof. And notice that it seems in this approach, using this approach, it seems inherent to know ahead of time the set of parties the adversary is going to choose, just to know the path of gates that we can replace with bogus ones. So what we do, we devise a new sequence of hybrids that allow us to use our framework. So here's our sequence of hybrids. Each hybrid H.I. will correspond to a pebbling configuration of the graph, meaning that on every, we think of it as if on every gate in the circuit, we either put a pebble or not put a pebble. So all gates are either pebbled or not. Pebble gates will correspond to circuits that have bogus cipher text, bogus associated cipher text, and gates without the pebble will correspond to gates with the real cipher text. And our goal will be to start with the game in which there are no pebbles. So all the cipher texts are honest and devise a sequence of hybrids in which in the last hybrid there is a single pebble on the output gate. And what it means is that the cipher text that corresponds to the secret will be a bogus one, and therefore the secret is hidden. Okay, so this is our high-level approach. Let me tell you before showing the sequence of hybrids, how we go from a hybrid in which there is some set of pebbles to a hybrid in which we have a different set of pebbles. So for this, we use something we call pebbling rules. We define two pebbling rules that we allow to make in order to move from hybrid HI to a hybrid HI plus one. The first rule that we allow is if you have an end gate in which one of its inputs is pebbled, meaning its corresponding cipher text is bogus, then you can also pebble that gate. And you can reverse it by unpebbling it. And if you have an or gate in which both children are pebbled, you can also pebble that one or reverse it. And the idea why HI is indistinguishable from HI plus one is just due to the semantic security of the encryption. So our main idea would be to find a sequence of hybrids in which in every two consecutive hybrids we apply one of our pebbling rules. And in addition, the number or the description of the pebbles or the pebbling configuration would be very short. And this is what we are going to guess in our hybrid argument. So our goal now is to find a pebbling strategy for Boolean circuits with not so many pebbles at any point in time. And in which the number of hybrids or pebbling configurations is not so big. So this is the goal. And our result is a pebbling strategy that requires two to the D moves or pebbling steps. And in every step, every pebbling configuration requires only D times log S bits. And here is where our loss as to the D comes from by just guessing the description of the pebbling configuration in each two consecutive steps. So the configuration will consist of two things. It will consist of a sequence of pairs of the form, a label of a gate, like a name of a gate and a bit. This bit will just represent either whether only the left subtree is pebbled or the right subtree is pebbled or both of them. So if none of the inputs wires of a gate is pebbled, we will just not write it. If only the left one is pebbled, we will write a zero in the bit. If both of them are pebbled, we will write a one corresponding to the gate name. And we'll have another bit just to specify if the root gate is pebbled or not. So this is the configuration. And let's see how we pebble a circuit. So that's what we're left to with to do. So think that you have the following circuit. There's an OR gate. And for example, it has two inputs which are by themselves OR gates. And there's a big subtree underneath each of them. So we're going to recursively pebble this circuit. So first, we pebble the left subtree of the circuit recursively. We put the pebble. We add the pair root gate comma zero to the configuration to symbolize that the left subtree of the root gate is pebbled. Then the next step is to pebble the right subtree and to update the configuration to contain the pair that the root gate comma one, meaning that both of its children are pebbled. At this point, we can pebble the root gate which is an OR gate. So we need both of its children to be pebbled. So we pebble the root gate and update the bit corresponding to the root gate in the configuration. And now we reverse this process by unpebbling the right child, updating the configuration and unpebbling the left child and updating the configuration. And now we're in the situation we wanted to get to. We wanted that there is only one pebble in the tree and in the graph and it's on the root gate. So this is what we wanted. If you followed me then what you can show is that the number of pebbling rules has a recursive equation which is four. If you want to pebble a tree or a circuit of depth D you need four times whatever you needed to do with a circuit of depth D minus one. The four comes from the fact that you need to pebble the left child and then the right child and then to reverse everything. So that's the four. And the size of a configuration is just the size of a configuration in the subtree plus the description size of the name of the root gate which is log S bits plus two more bits which are minor. Just this is the bit to specify whether the root is pebbled or not. And that's it. That basically gives us whatever we wanted. If you solve this recursion you will recover what is written in the top. So I'll conclude. What we have is a framework. What I showed you is a framework, general framework for proving adaptive security of various protocols. Using our framework we recovered many previous works and simplified their proof and some of them significantly. We have a new result for secret sharing that I described to you. There's a related framework in the work of Fanant et al from last year's TCC in the context of adaptive run delegation which leads me to the following question of whether we can find more applications or more works that can be phrased in this framework. It's really easy to define, really easy to use. Of course it raises questions, many questions about pebbling games. And I think a very nice question is whether there is a relation in the opposite direction. Namely, if we can prove a lower bound for pebbling can you use it to devise a text on the adaptive security of various protocols that we're trying to prove? And that's it.


and I think the only other stuff that I would add in terms of the one that you put forth is in the second paragraph it talks about developing guidelines and it seems like what we're looking for on an annual basis is some projections guidelines should have a lasting power of some sort more than just an annual so you're tweaking the projections is something but the guidelines should be more long-standing and be explicit like I think one of the other ones talked about that we're tying it in part to budget information so there's two reporting in that the superintendent does ones in the spring which should inform the budget discussion and then there's one that's in the fall which is really informational and it's helpful to point out so just being more explicit about that If I understand it correctly I think we're conscious of that and we're looking for a range as a guideline to avoid the possibility of every time the budget has to be cut or what have in particular you have to rewrite the policy I think there's a reluctance to go to specific numbers anyway but that's what we were thinking about I was just saying like the guideline this year is not 18 to 23 and the guideline next year is 19 to 24 that doesn't work So I think a policy is the guide practice and whenever there are exigencies that require a that the policy is not feasible that comes before the committee in a waiver we can look at a waiver without necessarily having to rewrite the policy but in circumstances where there is not an exigency I think you need to have numbers and not numbers like this Andover for first grade going up to 27 Okay, so we specifically have this conversation at the Amherst School Committee it was before the election so it was before the new members came on and we specifically decided that we did not want to have in the policy at the elementary school level guideline numbers written into the policy for the various reasons so we discussed at the time that there should be more flexible up to the superintendent we talked about having ranges and we thought that that would be useful and for that reason I do prefer the guideline language in the draft policy that KIP has given us here much more so than the Andover example policy because it does speak to guidelines and it says that those would be reported to the school committee now if that instruction of the Amherst School Committee were to change or if we wanted to revisit the discussion with new members present then I would think that we would need separate policies because I don't think it makes sense to have a regional board pick absolute numbers for elementary and secondary school so can I just clarify? I wasn't advocating Andover for specific numbers I think the idea of a range makes sense so you build in flexibility I just like the beginning of the Andover because it's a statement of vision and purpose of why we actually care I'm totally fine with the range and I think if you nail down a number you're never going to hit that number just to clarify when you say range you mean a range of numbers from this number to that number? it seemed like there were some that were saying like 18 to 22 the thing that KIPP put forth didn't have anything and so I just like how do you hang your head on that? well we don't and I mean the Amherst School Committee when we discussed this decided that we didn't want even a range of numbers put into a policy because that range could change on a year to year basis and we thought it was made more sense to have that range discussed with the school committee and presented by the superintendent to the school committee but not be the policy and I when we when we looked at this topic you know I did a fair amount of research of looking at different school districts and what they had and there's very few policies policies that are actually in place there's some guidelines which are not policies but you know kind of ranges of people's what people are comfortable with and we did provide a synopsis of research around optimal class sizes for the elementary level and we did consults with legal as well and it was very clear that the school committee should not put parameters because it is ultimately the superintendent's decision around class size within an understanding of you know expectations of the community therefore the school committee so it was not to go too specific but again I think some connected to budget was the only place that they really said if you have to increase the budget because of a class size decision then it would come back in front of the committee so I think it was a distinction which I'd be happy to bring back in front of this committee and we can look at again if that's helpful. So my two cents is I actually like the policy I agree with the rod that I like the policy as it's written here in draft it's very broad but what I would love to see is more specific on when the superintendent brings the numbers to us what does that look like so I'd like to see like a five year history of what the numbers have been in that report and I'd like to see that for the state average and for some districts that we want to compare to because too often I think in a lot of reports we get a snapshot and we don't get what the history has been and we sometimes don't get the comparison to other districts Catherine and Debbie. Yeah I agree that I like the guidelines in this in the policy subcommittees and one of the reasons one of the most important reasons we decided in the Amherst elementary school committee not to I mean I was against having a policy period. I thought that given our charge as in terms of the budget that it was potentially limiting I mean you don't write a policy if you intend to change it but I would certainly be supportive of a policy that was that gave the superintendent and the building administrators the flexibility they needed to with the understanding which I trust that they all have of what is best for what are the best class sizes for kids to learn and that if it requires going above a number that the superintendent and principals feel is too high or there's a budget issue then it comes to the school committee. So again since we're writing this policy for all of the three districts back to Pellum I completely understand why in Amherst you might want all of that information but from the Pellum perspective it's just not necessary that you know we have done it. It's so small and so specific to the class and the kids in the class and the teachers that we don't need that much information. So again I think Pellum we can kind of work around some of this but I would be reluctant if it was written in such a way that I felt like it was kind of placing an undue burden on the superintendent around what was necessary for Pellum. I wish I had thought that the outset of Catherine's point about not having a policy at all that's maybe where we should have started and maybe that's where we should go because I don't know we talked about having a contents to a policy but maybe the bottom line is we don't want to have one because that would you know make it difficult for you to make a decision related to budget. I don't know but that's a very, very good point I'm sorry I didn't bring it up earlier. So for a little bit of the history that I know because for example one I don't know any history where we were talking about a policy on class sizes for secondary. For me I always thought the discussion was around elementary. So that's number one. Number two a lot of it came up around the discussion of choice and the presentation that was given around different kinds of enrollments what the pattern has been looking like we had very compelling presentation from members of the community with data driven research economics of education review, Journal of Education so on and so forth that really showed from the community there is interest particularly in light of when they're seeing documents being circulated saying that our target population our target number class size guidelines for budgetary purposes, target number for kindergarten first grade, second grade is 22 people were concerned because that's out of line with what the research is showing is what is optimal at that size and that's our target size we're offline from what the data already shows. Now in truth we're not at 22 and as the superintendent presented this was sort of some unfortunate you know words that were put here that didn't really reflect like a hard and fast target that she works with as superintendent to make all of our kindergarten classes and all of our first grade classes and all of our second grade classes 22 students so that was a context for why we came at this discussion and I think it is important that somehow we are saying clearly for our schools that that is not the case and that we have some sort of optimal number range or whatever we're putting in place that shows clear language that this is what we strive to do I think is important for the community. I think especially when we choose whether to be choice or not choice as a district be it Pellum or as Amherst chooses or at the regional level that we want to be careful not to pack the classes as full like she was saying you want to make sure keep agreeing with you tonight to make sure that we're not just shoving in as many kids as we can in a room and that because when it's school choice it just leaves you that opportunity like oh we could get a little more money and we don't want to lose educational benefits for the kids by just stuffing more kids in. For the reason that Chabaz mentioned and we've been talking about those numbers for two years since I've been on the committee I mean that's why this all came up is we wanted to get rid for that reason I support having a policy but I support having a policy that requires a superintendent to come up with the guidelines and then report them back to the school committee but doesn't include the guidelines as specific numbers in the policy. I honestly care about that more for elementary although I can see why middle school might be something you'd want to talk about with team numbers as well. My main focus is elementary less so for the high school middle I can go either way. I would agree with what Rob just said and I'm just wondering the conversation that being less attached to the numbers I think in retrospect we always talk about the difference between a policy and the guidelines of the procedures and so the procedures you're going to develop and that might have the numbers. I think it's essential and it gets to what Chabaz is talking about I'll agree with you too. The policy is about the values it's the guiding part. So if it comes to the point where you're suggesting 30 kids in a class and we're saying that's not what we're about this is what we're trying to do it's optimal it's prioritizing educational quality whatever it is but that's the policy and then the specifics I think getting to what Rick talked about is that we need some procedural that's very clear about how you report back when you report back so that we have the information to ascertain what's appropriate. I wanted to clarify for Chabaz Chabaz I agree when we discussed those numbers one of the first things we said was the use of the word target was incorrect. I think we understood that to be a ceiling and certainly not our target not our target number so I just wanted to clarify that. I'm not against a policy but I just want to be very careful not to lock the superintendent and ourselves into a situation where we're going to have budget issues because of our policy serious budget issues and I also wanted to again clarify school choice that I don't think anybody here understands school choice to be a way to pack classrooms and make money for the district I think one of the advantages of school choice in fact for class size is that if we have a class that we feel that the superintendent feels and the principal feels is too large school choice actually allows us to make smaller classes so but I just I just want to make sure that that's out there so I probably would prefer guidelines but I would certainly be happy to vote down the road for a general philosophical policy or sort of guiding principle so I I think if you go for a general philosophy and we start with elementary policy I would be happy to write guidelines that are more specific with ranges so numbers for the different levels based on the research that we reviewed which Shavas mentioned a few of the different research studies that we took a look at and then also talk about where in the process are projections you know where are you bringing October 1 your actuals where when are you actually updating projections for the following year to the committee so I'd be happy to include that in guidelines I just want to can you send I see some of these copy and P maybe some of those papers that you sent out I'd be happy to thanks thank you I hope so it's helpful thank you Maria you did mention something a few minutes ago about you could make available something I'm used to what that was it won't just come by it had to do with numbers and I was wondering if you could supply them to the subcommittee I mean I did create a document and a recommendation that I sent out to Amherst which I'd be happy to thank you I just want to say thank you to Kip and everyone else on the policy subcommittee you guys you really have done so much work time out in the past year really it's been huge and I just want to say I really appreciate it the person who really deserves the credit is Elaine she has been just outstanding and I honestly I can't speak for Lauren she has been just a God sent to us and if you're out there Elaine she just was fantastic I can't say enough about how much she's contributed don't mention that he can't take the credit we'll pass on our thanks to her which brings up a point however the next meeting we reorganize and right now it's Laurence, myself and Debbie and I think I know we could use a third person right now but if you can give it some thought we organize we need to make that decision I think it would be very helpful to have a third body preferably I don't know we already have someone from Amherst we have someone from Lever that does an excellent job representing central office I'm not sure where we need a person from but I think it would be helpful to have a third person and our timeline is we just have to wait for Pelham to reorganize correct which is in the beginning of and so by the 12th we will be set to reorganize here by your next regional meeting excellent thank you we're not the last we're not the first thing ever so are we done on policy? yes so the next meeting we do reorganize keep thinking about budget suck committee whether they own suck committee if we have the moment also at the next meeting we'll have an equity update we may or may not have discipline update probably not another meeting we're also going to have a secondary math update so that will be on there and I put down retreat prep we'll just talk about the agenda for the retreat how can we do those better what's the role of school committee versus the superintendent that discussion how can we come up with a report card to know if we're doing better or not related to that last thing there used to be something called the how are we dealing committee on this committee back in 2009-2010 and actually did some work on that and other ones that came up with these comparison districts that we should compare ourselves to or they thought we should and they also came up with some criteria for creating a report card I mean it wasn't, didn't get super specific but it was a list of things so I'll forward that to you before the next meeting and do some thinking about what should we be measuring maybe before the next meeting we could have a little bit of discussion about that before the retreat and also maybe want to think about reestablishing a committee like that I don't know to maybe well we can't decide on the goals until the retreat but if we were to decide to have a committee to help with that or to help with how are we doing maybe we'll decide to do that but I guess we won't decide to do that until the retreat so that's not really for the next meeting anything on the calendar you'd like to see added or just confirming the times of the retreat the retreats is six to nine and then remember that for those six is a school committee training we don't ask isn't that mandatory for all new members or all people who haven't been oriented yeah but you don't have to go to this one there's other ones is it only for regional members or if there are new Pella members who aren't on the region for anybody okay so we need that to be stored Debbie I'm going to send out an email to all the Pella members which is everyone but me so we also can I also see the other date we have to think about is the meeting with the select board to hear about the retiree questions which would be on the when was that June 16 June 13 thank you so we'll have to send something out about that and Debbie had one just reminder for people I just want to put on your radar on June 18th we'll have our retiree years of service awards for staff and faculty and you're not required to come but you're certainly invited it's a really nice night it'll be at 7 p.m. on the 8th where the middle school cafeteria did we talk about high school graduation no that's what I was just going to do too the A is high school graduation which typically all school cleaning members regional members are sitting up on the stage so the 8th and I don't know what time and I should know what time so we get there's a time we have to be there ahead of time we go into this green room blue room whatever they call the background and then we sit up on the stage and it's a beautiful thing so all the members because we're graduating our seniors will be inviting you to join us and then I get to say wonderful words of wisdom so what time should we be there I will send out a specific no a specific yeah I can't even like and we will also say where you need to go what time if you haven't and we will need confirmation if you get that confirm if you're coming all about the seating and making sure everybody's in order if you haven't done it it's really a blast it's like makes being on a school committee worth it your face first smiling at the end of it it's really wonderful so we haven't yet reorganized in Pellum and that's going to happen the day before I mean I think I know how it's going to go would you like me to say that I just want to make sure that the person gets the invitation the appropriate he will get the invitation so I don't know if she'll say anything that's fine this is I've been very open this is my last meeting so we want to formally thank Debbie because she will be stepping down from the regional I just want to be respectful Debbie so you know I want to thank Debbie personally for the time and energy you put into the regional school committee and I feel and have felt 100% supported by you through this process and your voice in terms of asking really wonderful hard questions and working collaboratively with us has been a gift so I want to thank you and I'm glad I get to keep working with you Pellum yeah thanks and I'm glad I get to continue to work collaboratively with you because this past year has been a great committee a great experience I want to thank you too it's been just a pleasure working with you and like in the budget subcommittee she just knows the numbers better than any of us it's just fantastic you've been great thank you we'll miss you yeah thank you Debbie okay I guess a little do germ okay


Going on everyone Sam you're late sports car from a 23 tops up top scrum update series baseball hobby in jumbo 8-box mission number 8 random team style look again at your random results as always you can find those on the website Other results tab as well as a link in chat. It's a good look See some cool stuff come out of this been pretty solid so far Breakers the lights have been really good Hobby was really good last break a Garrett Mitchell orange otters on card 25. That was pretty big Dumbos are easier No, no debuts yet, please unfortunately no debuts Hopefully hopefully you see one. I just want to I just want us to pull one man We need at least one As a company My favorite burner ever Presum loose gear may Josh young I'm her candle are a refractor Corbyn Carroll debut Trash That's Gonna fix that Brandon Williamson Mason angler Jesus 299 I know Adley Rushman. It's not like the Bulls are good either Edward Julian. That's tough Senga There's um Kobe Allard Diamond Dominance Gunner Henderson on the Kate on the short print nice one there congrats Orioles very nice There we go Baltimore Go into Jeff M. There you go Jeff get that into a mag for you, but one Fen Shea Langley's Masatake Yoshida There's Spencer steer base rookie auto for the men Reds. There you go Reds. Congrats since he ox one is done Stack them is Holy Figure that out last break Gunna. Yes, sir Keegan. What up Keegan Keegan? That's just a bad look right there Yeah, he ran over to the thing to say hawks are trash and then he said that in the in chat Do you see that he ran over? Got like two feet away from the camera. He ran up to the camera to type in hawks are trash That was because that close-up was scary. Yeah, like two feet away from the camera Giggling Penelope you want to play? Oh nice open you on channel two if you want a person Nothing Fourth quarter five minutes left clock it to that 80 Joey Weimerch They did it to the steal over here Terrible I couldn't believe that That's all they got to fix now fix the fourth quarter Like that either Riley green looks stupid Joey Ortiz, but it just looks too gimmicky Like they're trying too hard Donner Henderson Jake bird refractor rookie Brett wisely prison Purple yinzhen Rai you to 250 DJs Jake Irvin Prism Eddie Rosario Yuri Perez Dylan Dodd Harris eggy Rosario to 299 purple mini diamonds rookie auto for the Padres Did he know we went that way you sure you might have to come back. I don't know I didn't see Oh Killed it in your starting spot. Hell. Yeah. I know you was like sim to do pretty well big Donovitch Hell, yeah, Matt McClain. I love big Donovitch. He's such a stud Bogey tater bibby adley-rushman for Hummel refractor Smith Jordan Walker rookie could I sing? Luis Medina to 1.99 to a wave rookie auto Springer Feltner was a Hernandez refractor. He might be too afraid to go if he France. I think he's too scared to go now Crushed Corbin Carroll nice, dude Let's go another short print Jonathan with a couple of personals Jonathan Bunch of personals actually Boba chef Daniel L with a couple of personals as well Do-do-do-do-do-do Prism Vince Velazquez Cooper Hummel on the Lava lamp to 125 went out to dinner and I think I spent 60% of the time watching the Celtics game I'm not a good date nice. Oh God Poor girl Colas Garrett Mitchell Swipe left I think you should just tell him to wash his hands. Anyway, we won though. There you go There you go, Sean. What'd you say?  Levi stout Uh, oh be Harris Nice. Is that another one? Yes, it is Juan Soto celebration 225 on the orange.  These have been killers so far Those have been killer, man The hobbies have been really good really good Hey, Brandon Williamson Adley and Jared Schuster Jake said Jose Caballero Helen jer Action stars of Corbin Carroll and action stars of Corbin Carroll back to back Hey, Riley green Senga colons, what'd you say? What are we doing here? David Bednar nice one there for the pirates on the all-star game auto Grats on that pirates On to the jumbos now You might be drooling Williamson 399, Frism of Conor Wong, Yoshida and Brent Hedrick What do you say? Not a good look man Blue Elvis Andrus to 150 Miguel Amaya, Trout and Dylan Tate Volpe Refractor Dave Hew You know it Yeah, we are we're making fun of them as always Jose Caballero rookie auto for the Mariners nice one there Corbin Carroll Jordan Walker and Christian Vasquez. We were joking around.  I'm like you're always telling me to wash my hands like I'm at a bathroom He's like come on Come on Dude, he's been getting wrecked like this since I've known him It's the same Bachman Josh Young Peyton Battenfield I've been wrecking that kid as long as I know He's used to it Oh yeah Frism Brewer Hickman, Volpe rookie and Tyler Anderson At least we got Jake out of here That works Thank God Blue Josh Young to 150 Nice one there for the Rangers Rats on that Rangers Vaughn Grissom Refractor Dave Hew Jordan Walker Frism Adley, Judge and Grayson Rodriguez Adley Rushman Atis Bobby Miller Refractor rookie Oh gosh here we go This is the account where he pretends not to know us Frism Pablo Lopez What'd you say? Ignore him We'll go late Orange coming up of a Jose Azucar 225 Nice one there Drew Maggie Rookie Auto for the Pirates Personals Shane with a personal With some Shippet Sealds What'd you say? Wish it was Maggie I don't have any attention to him dude I don't know who he is And I don't want to know who he is Probably Stinks Oh there's Highly Jonah Hime to 25 Jake Oderizzi Judge and Neto Refractor Radiating Rookie It is Todd Bradley Radiating Rookies for the Rays Grads on that Tampa Both Addeus Ward Corbin Carroll Refractor rookie Chrome Dust Mark Vientos to 199 Rookie Auto for the Mets Cements my nostrils Christopher Morel Rookie Stewart Fairchild Corbin Carroll Brayden Shoemake Frism Zach Weiss Jones Refractor It's a good thing with Jake you can't hear the dog working J.P. Frantz base auto that's true I think it's yapping right now you know it Nice one there Astros Yapping it's head off We can't physically hear on it it's nice Yeah We should make Jake play a fort with us on the chat Gunner Rookie I don't have to hear that dog There's Patrick Bailey Grayson Rodriguez Richel Oh my god one break off of a red auto and both Chrome This year good what was the first one Von Adley Yoshida Volpe Repeti debut Refractor Oh god There was one off of Yoshida good lord Peyton Battenfield who are you off today? Oh Yuri Peyton Battenfield Yeah I was wondering it because I saw they sent a picture of the year I was wondering if you headed or not but I guess that answers my question Two to go We got our triple case coming up after One case of each Purple Jesse Winker to 250 Jordan Walker Rafi Devers James Paxton I like the addition of the yellow mini diamonds that's pretty cool No Joey Wendol to 75 Marlins, Gunner Soto and Ryan Walker Negative Brett Phillips Refractor Gurriel Gunner Henderson Michael Plush Taryn Vovra to 299 Purple Mini Diamonds Auto nice one there Orioles Jose Azucar Rodriguez Alcantra Triton Casas Refractor Smith Gunner and Ruben Adore Gold Wave Logan Webb to 50 for the Giants nice one there Giants Nice one there Gold Wave Auto to 50 Jason Delay Brazil of Nicky Lopez Adley and Lamont Wade Jr Stubbs, Rep Beatty and Andrew Mosteria Carlos Vargas Refractor Rookie Matt Mervis Refractor Rookie Auto 499 congrats on that Redcott yeah that's valid that's valid that's very true that's a good point Vaughn Alright last box to break everybody good luck Lava Lamp Xavier Edwards Rookie to 125 for the Marlins Here's Orlando Arcia Brayrod and Rob Ruffschneier Joey Weimer Refractor Michael Bush to 250 Here's some Casey Schmidt Volpe Rookie and a Garrett Acton He's acting up Haha Thank you I thought you'd find it funny Matt Walner to 199 I'm glad you did Brendan Jury Hunter Renfrow, Judge and Kevin Kiermeier Logan Allen and Oscar Gonzalez going here Bassado Garrett Hill for the Tigers nice one there on card Garrett Hill Asa Ciri Perez Josh Bradley Refractor Rookie Donner Henderson Miguel Castro Donner again Donnen Solano Cindergarde Corbin Carroll Ben Joyce Refractor Rookie Negative Danny Mendic Elia Hernandez Refractor Rookie Last pack of the break good luck everybody Blue Brian Rockio nice one there for the Guardians to 150 Brass Cleveland Luba Volpe and Carlos Rodan Alright quick recap here everybody Bassados of Garrett Hill Peyton Battenfield JP France Drew Maggi Jose Caballero David Bednar Spencer Steer Matt Mervis Teran Vavra Mark Vienzos Matt Walner Luis Medina Brian Rockio Josh Young Logan Webb


Hey guys! What's up? Welcome back to Lone Fox. Today I have a new video for you. This is a video that I've actually done in the past. I've only done it one time before and it is DIY Your DMs. 100% inspired by the Sorry Girls. I actually love their content. I love their videos and I love this concept for a video because it's a great way to interact with you guys. So if you don't know what it is, essentially over on Instagram I actually asked you guys to send in DIY projects you might be curious about whether they'd be in like a room styling photo, a Pinterest picture, an Instagram photo. Whatever you want to see, I try to recreate them live for you guys for a fun little chuckle. But the thing about it is that yesterday I filmed all four of these DIYs for you guys. Went home last night to edit the video and there was no audio. It sounded like this. Which is exactly what we didn't want. And I decided that some of this footage could be saved. There are some really great parts where you can actually really see me DIYing stuff. Even though you can't hear me I figured I would do voiceovers just to give you guys an idea of what I'm doing for each project. So do keep that in mind if you're watching and my mouth is moving on the screen and I'm not really talking the same at all. Which is probably gonna be happening. It's because I'm voicing over all this because there's zero audio. I tried to edit it down as good as possible to where it just seems like a normal DIY video from me. I even went to the hassle of filming this entire thing at the ocean. I'm lying. I'm completely lying. I actually just hung up a tapestry on the wall. Thought it looked so pretty. Left it there, filmed in front of it. Now I can't even use the footage. So kind of sad but if you see an ocean background it's just tapestry. And last but not least before jumping into today's video it is sponsored by Squarespace which is amazing. A huge plus and I'll get to that at the very end of the video. So if you guys stay tuned watch these DIYs and let's just get started. This first project here was sent in by Lana Del Reina. Love your username by the way and the supplies needed are on the screen right here. So what I started off by doing was actually removing these little hangers that are on the back side of the sign. I opted to go for a wooden sign from Michaels as opposed to a piece of wood from Home Depot just because it was on sale. It was super affordable and it was already pre-cut for me. So I found this large piece of wood. You could do whatever size you want. I taped off the diagonal section because I wanted to create a color blocking element to this just to make it a little bit more graphic and a little bit more interesting. So basically half it's going to be white and the other half is going to be raw wood. I know the original inspo photo is complete wood but I thought this would just add a nice element and if you don't want to include this step you could feel free to leave it out.  Set it off to the side and we can move on to the next step which is going to be to grab a pencil and a ruler and we're just going to be marking where we want the nails to go. So I just marked mine every two inches down on each side and an inch in from the edge. So the ruler was an inch wide later on the edge and then I marked it every two inches and I used a pair of pliers to hold the tiny tiny nails. I love these tiny nails. I found them at Home Depot for just a couple of dollars and a hammer just to hammer them in all the way down the side. You don't have to do too much force at all.  I just found this black string in the jewelry section at Michael's and I just wrapped it very sporadically, very randomly and organically. Any other word that I could say that's organic, I guess, down this entire little wooden section and these strings are basically going to allow you to clip on your photos, your mementos, concert tickets, passes, whatever it may be, just sort of as a memento wall. So that sort of finishes up this project and you can hang it up and enjoy. This next project here was actually set in by my roommate and we're creating these Venus at floor boxes. These are literally boxes of flowers that cost like 300 to 500 dollars but they tend to last forever and I wanted to recreate them. So basically what I did was I bought two bunches of roses from Michael's. It was buy one, get one free in the spring floral section. We love that for us and then I bought this little paper mache box at Michael's as well and you're just gonna need some white paint. So all of these roses are actually different sizes because typically in a little bunch like that you would want different sizes but I actually wanted my roses to be all the same exact size. So what I did was I just pulled off the petals until every rose was the same size and I used a total of 16 roses and I went all the way around every single rose and pulled off any petals that were unnecessary and you can keep these for future projects if you want to but I just set them off to the side and then I also kept all that greenery as well for future projects because I'm only using the actual rose pieces and once I have all of those roses completely like customized I guess you could say and small I glued them all together and I'm not actually gluing these roses to the box here. I'm actually just using the lid as sort of like a section to hold them all together if that makes sense. I'm only gluing the roses together I'm not gluing them to the box it's just sort of to hold them together while they dry and then I'm using a little bit of white paint to fully paint my paper mache box. So all around the entire edge I'm doing a coat of white paint and I did a total of two of them because you really want this to be nice and clean and keep in mind that you could actually create this whatever color you want. I've seen full black rose boxes which is like a black box with black roses in it so you can just spray paint all your roses if you wanted to and create like a very cool minimalistic box as well and then once all of my roses were dry I left them in there for like 30 minutes or so one of them didn't attach so I just glued that one back in quickly. You're just gonna go around on the inner edge of the box with a lot of glue and then just push your flower cluster in there. As you can see it did not actually glue to the inside of the lid it just held them together so it kind of molded them while I dried. You're gonna glue that in there and it looks like this which is so pretty and so beautiful and then I did a nice white coat of paint on the lid and if you wanted to you can go in and actually add the Venus at floor logo if you want to print it out and glue it on there but I just opted to leave it pure white like this just to respect the brand. Now this project here was sent in by ksh.ivan and this one is a little bit more tricky. I honestly would not really suggest you guys create it but I added some safety goggles on and I also got some latex gloves from the cooking section because there was no safety gloves and I was so nervous to do this. Basically we are working with glass and it's kind of challenging. I have some light bulbs here. This one was one that I found in James's house. I also bought two different light bulbs. You have to essentially start off by taking pliers and pulling off the little metal adapter and then attempting to break that black piece of glass.  Honestly the amount of time you spend on creating this DIY is not even worth the outcome. I just wanted to put it in this video because I thought it was funny and it was so much more funny with audio I swear because I could not get it to work but I did switch over to a smaller light bulb and I was actually able to break this one open so you have to just use your pliers and keep breaking and keep breaking and breaking off tiny chunks until it actually fully breaks off on the inside. It just creates such a mess there's so much glass there's so much like you can do so much harm to yourself by doing this too like if you break the glass in your hand could you imagine like it's just scary I don't know this DIY is a little bit scary but I wanted to create it for fun measures and then I literally broke off the inside piece and it flung across the whole room like I was so scared you guys look at this right here instant replay do you see that it just flung out of the whole glass bottle like it flew out I was supposed to just break off and I was supposed to just like you know like tip it over and it comes out but no it just broke off and flew out so then when I was done and I created my light bulb I only created one because I was a little bit scared I cleaned my surface really well clean the glass off the wall and then I use a little bit of hemp cording to tie around it and then you could go ahead leave yourself a long tail to tie it to the ceiling or wherever you want to add it to and you just fill it up with a little bit of water and put a little flower in there and you were good to go this last project here is sent in by Anna dot Rosalind and this is actually probably my favorite product in the video because I love how it turned out I started off with a simple lumbar pillow from Target it is picked up for $15 and I also got a very thin yarn this is like a sock yarn I think and the reason I got a thin yarn was because I really really wanted the tassels to have a lot of like fringes to it so I started off by freehanding on a chevron shape which I ended up not even following in the end I don't know why it was just a little bit too tight with the tassels I created so I actually kind of just freehanded on the tassels but you can create a guideline if you want to I then use my yarn and cut seven inch sections so I create a seven inch section and I just like loop the yarn back and forth on each other to create the tassel so you just do this like probably 60 times just however much string you want in your tassel and you're going to cut all the end loops to create them nice and straight and then what you're going to do is loop in your crochet hook push it through and then pull through the loop and then pull back down I know that was a little bit challenging but I'll show you guys again so you're going to create your seven inch lengths just loop it all back on forth on each other this is going to be your tassel here folded in half stick your crochet hook through your pillow and I got a thicker woven pillow so it's kind of easier to and you're going to pull the loop through and just pull the tassels through as well and it's going to create your tassel I feel like everyone knows kind of how to create these little tassels they're pretty simple and pretty easy to do and you're just going to do it in a chevron shape so you're going to repeat this process over and over and over again and I love the fact that I use a thinner yarn because I think it makes it look so much more intricate and so much more detailed so again push your crochet hook through pull the loop through and then pull the tails through the loop and you can go through and cut all those little tails as well if you would like to and I just did this all the way down the pillow you could do two sets of it like the inspiration photo she sent or you can do one set like I did I just wanted it to be a little bit more simple and I love the navy over the top of the white pillow I thought it was a really pretty accent so as you can see it's creating sort of a chevron shape here and then I did finish the rest of it off camera so it ended up looking amazing and incredible just like this and that was my audio list video that I voiced over to everything for and I hope you guys enjoyed I hope you gave me some tips and tricks and hacks and all that sort of stuff to recreate some things that I shared in this video so if you at home would like to send in any DIY projects or any inspo photos please feel free to do so you can follow me on Instagram at lonefoxhome I'll put it on the screen for you guys and you can just DM them over I keep a little like a folder on my phone that has all those pictures in it and you might be featured in the next DIY your DMs video and like I mentioned at the beginning of this video this one is sponsored by Squarespace which is so fun Squarespace is an online platform that you can actually go to to create your very own website whether that be a blog a shop um a little biography on yourself a portfolio online store whatever it might be you can create your very own website using Squarespace and the thing that I love that I always mention is that they have the best templates out there like these websites are so aesthetic they're so clean they're so functional they're so beautiful and they're so pretty there's so many features about these websites that make them amazing but also super simple and very functional which is great for the people that attend your website not to mention they also have 24 7 award-winning customer service so whether you are a musician a restaurant a personal blog a fashion blogger a stylist a photographer a videographer Squarespace is a space for you to create your own site so definitely do so and if you would like to you can go to squarespace.com slash loan box for a free trial plus 10 percent off of your first purchase which is amazing I'll put the screen for you guys and also link it at the top of the description box but I hope you guys did enjoy that video and if you did definitely give it a thumbs up I'd love to know if you guys like to see more DIYing your DMs on this channel I think it's just fun and a little bit more interactive than just a traditional DIY but of course these are going to come every now and then when I want to plug one in so if you guys did enjoy give it a thumbs up leave a comment below and don't forget to subscribe for a brand new content every single week focused on home decor and DIY I love you all so much and have an amazing day bye guys