Ko smo prišli na to, da se se zavrili. Ja pa vse bila.  Zelo, da je začno koncentrativno, če izkončilo, ne čečenitva nečater, nečastr, nečastro, nečastro teori, da je vse blj edited, temperatur of unnaturalness of the Higgs mass which is in turn an electoral-wiximary breaking scale is the degree by which it is unpredictable. And as you can understand it by, if you want thinking that linking composites, we will one day have, if you have reductionist viewpoint on natural that the Higgs mass is a low energy effective parameter which is derived from a true theory which is indoked by this own true theory parameters and it comes as an integral over different energy modes. You may have localized contributions that stand from three-level contributions, you may have loop contributions and in composites you do have only loop contributions, and so you really have these integrals here. And then the usual argument, if you want, due by the poor man version of the Wilson idea, is that you can split the integral into low energy and high energy mode contributions, and the ones which are at low energies below the standard model cutoff, well, that ones you expect to be able to predict, because you do know how the virtual particles that run into the loop are into the standard model, there are, there is a top with its own coupling, and if you just focus on this part, you find what we usually call the quadratic divergence contribution to the X-mass. The other one we cannot compute, we can just estimate, and if the first one is very large, it means that the second one has to be almost equal and opposite to the first one to give the X-mass of 125 we see. This is fine-tuning, and it is given by the usual formula that for 126 or 25 gvx tells us that the standard model cutoff should be around half a TV, okay? So that's the usual argument, and the usual implication of the usual argument is that if this degree of cancellation or fine-tuning is, let's say, 10 digits, well, it doesn't matter if your theory formally predicts the X-mass, like composite tics with all that tuning will still formally predict the X-mass, but, well, we will have no chance of really computing the X-mass starting from the UV theory, because, well, if you have, I mean, 10 digits cancellation going on among these two pieces, you will need an accuracy of at least 11 digits on each of them to just have an order of magnitude estimate of what is on the left side. So that's a quantitative measure of how unpredictable the X-mass is, and, of course, if the tuning is very large, then, well, better be that the X-mass, at that point, is a fundamental input parameter, as it is in the standard model, or it has some other origin, which could be entropic, which could be, I mean, we recently saw a relaxing like, but, in any case, it's an important information to know about the X-mass, and this we can do by studying where is the cutoff of the standard model, I mean, we can do it experimentally. So, I was saying it's quantitative, and then that's what many people say, say, if you have a partially unnatural theory with a tuning of 10, well, we will just not care about that. After doing a lot of work, we will be able to overcome this one digit cancellation and make prediction of the X-mass, and perhaps in 40 years from now, we will even forget that there was this little fine tuning going around, while if the tuning is 1000, that's probably not okay. So, the LAC and future luminosity, and perhaps even beyond, are for sure, this is an opportunity, testing and naturalness, for even a certain degree of unnaturalness, at the LAC is interesting to be found, even if what is found is the unnaturalness option. Let's go to composite X. Why is this? Okay, I hope. Yeah, it works, okay. Let's talk about composite X. Composite X is the idea that you can generate the X-mass as a bound state, okay. The confinement scale of the composite sector that delivers this bound state is called M-star, is TV or multi-TV-like, and if you want one of M-star is the size of the X, okay. The hierarchy between the high scales that we can take to be gut, for instance, and this one is generated like it is in QCD by dimensional transmutation. There is slow running close to a fixed point by a new composite sector. And the composite sector, well, it first of all contains the X, which emerges as a goldstone boson, and that's why it is much lighter than this M-star, which is, again, a few TVs, and this is due to a global symmetry group, okay. G that gets spontaneously broken by the composite sector. Composite sector is characterized by two parameters, one I already told you, it's the mass, and the other is the typical coupling, G-star among composite sector resonances, and we know that theoretically there is, well, no reason why this coupling should be the maximal one of four pi, there are, I mean, large intensity theories display the possibility of having this coupling, say, freely ranging from zero to four pi, even though, well, we will take it large-ish, okay, let's say, above the couplings of the other sector is gonna appear here. And the other important parameter is F, okay. So F is the order parameter of the spontaneous symmetry breakdown, and it needs not to coincide with M-star, actually, the ratio of the two gives you G-star, okay. And the other sector is the, well, the standard model sector, let's say, aside from the Higgs, of course, which lives here, and it contains the gauge fields, including actually also the gluons, okay, and the fermions, and this sector is weakly interacting, or at least is more weakly interacting than this one, and for, as an analogy, you may think to QED, okay, QED photon and electron, coupled to the QCD Lagrangian in the infrared, that's exactly the way in which things behave. The way in which this is coupled, I mean, in which, really, the interaction proceeds, it's rather straightforward for the gauge, the degrees of freedom, they are gauge particles, so they interact by gauge interaction, so there is, say, W mu times the current, a current that lives partially also in this composite sector here, and this gives an interaction. While for the fermions, there is the analogous think, which is called partial composiness, and it's a linear interaction between this elementary fermionic degrees of freedom and some composite operator. That's the way in which you do understand how things may work, especially for the generation of the Yukawa coupling of the top. The other, the important thing of this interaction is, of course, that, as you see, it breaks, right, the global symmetry, so the global symmetry is exact from the viewpoint of the composite sector, so the X is exactly massless, it gets some mass, which is dictated by these couplings, which, of course, are also the same one that make the Higgs interact with the gauge fields and the fermions, and so generate the masses after electroveximetry breaking, okay? So that's the generic picture, and the only last parameter you need to understand the phenomenology is xi, which is the ratio between the electroveximetry breaking scale of 246 gV, so that's fixed, and f, which is, again, the order parameter for the breaking g2h, and these parameters we knew before the starting of the LIC, it had to be somewhat below one, okay? It can be shown that it goes actually from zero to one, okay, given that it is the sine square of something, but we knew already from electroreposition test that it should have better been around or below 0.2 or 0.1, okay? And that for us is a source of fine tuning, because in most models where, of course, you compute the x-potential, right, or at least you compute the form of this potential by knowing precisely how this structure is made, you do find a minimum that is generically pointing, say, in a random region from zero to one, and so if you have 0.1, there is some tuning you have to do in the x-potential, okay? This doesn't mean to me that we have yet explored all the possibilities. There are actual examples, even though they do not work in which this xi could be naturally small, in which case, well, this would not be true, but for the rest, given that our current, say, understanding of the theory, xi small means large tuning, okay? Okay, here we go to the signatures that we have, that we have to discuss, so there is, of course, the commodification of the x-couplings, okay? The production of resonances, and there can be electro-week-charged spin-1 vectors, and there can be fermionic top-part in states, so let's go through all of them. It's coming up particularly interesting because they are universally predicted, so assuming that you do have only one x, okay, which is not necessarily, well, I mean, a good assumption, and so we should check, of course, at the LEC, the presence of more x's, and if you do have more x's, then these results, if you want to mix up, okay, with the effect of the other x's that mix with a guy, but if you have only one, there is only one coset, say, one symmetry breaking pattern you can consider, which is the minimal one, so five broken to S of four, in which case you do are able, in any model, independently of any detail, to predict the deviations, for instance, of the x-coupling two vectors, which is given by the standard model result, time and deviation, square root of one minus xi, which is just, I mean, the same that Gustavo was talking about before is cosine V of f, so that's universal, all all models where the x is a good tomboso. Fermion kaplings are less sharply predicted, because they depend on one extra model building ambiguity, which has to do with some representation of some fermionic operator, but still there is a discrete choice of possibilities that you can explore, and they define trajectories in the experimental plane of Kv, so vector coupling modifications Kf, which you can compare with data, and that's the first, say, the simplest exercise that we can do, and we show that basically xi equal to, say, as far as CMS is concerned, xi would be, I mean, there is not much constraint, xi could reach even 0.2 or even more, atlas is more constraining, because it points in the wrong direction, but still 0.1, 0.15 is still allowed, and again, this is more or less what we did expect already from a retro-whip position test, so for the time being, x-couplings modification, current measurement of x-coupling modification are not particularly new with respect to the bounds of this scenario. The expected final reach of the LAC, which, of course, means assuming that all the ellipses are centered inside the standard model, is of around xi equal to 0.1, and this we will be able to know in some years, if there is something or there is just a standard model. Sping-1 vector resonances are also very important, because they are a very direct manifestation, and it is very direct for the reason that in these theories, we do expect to find all the particles that come corresponding to all the operators that we have in the theory, and in particular, necessarily the composite sector as an operator, which is the global current, and even forgetting about custodial SO4, there would be the global current associated with the standard model as you to left group, and that's the same, actually, also in other previous attempts, like Technicolor. I mean, you do always have this kind of operators that lead to this kind of vector triplet particles, and they can be searched for at the LAC, and they're phenomenology described by basically two parameters, which is their mass and star, and their coupling g-star, that I mentioned also before, and also you see that f is connected with g-star and m-star, and so xi, which was v square of s square, the level of tuning if you want of the theory, can be also extracted by these two parameters. The phenomenology is quite peculiar because it's true that g-star is the intrinsic resonance coupling, so it means that the large g-star makes the v, for instance, interact strongly with other composite objects, like the Higgs and the logitudinal component of the w and of the z boson, so that vertices v to logitudinal w, z and x aren't answered by g-star, while, instead, the couplings with the right quarks and fermion are suppressed at the large g-star for a reason which is very similar to the, say, the raw photon mixing in QCD, and this makes that v interacts with w, only through a mixing, and this mixing is weighted by the coupling of the w divided by a coupling of v, and this makes, so, the reduction of these vertices. So, these particles tend to be difficult to see at the LHC because the production mechanism, dominant one, is Drljan, and it's reduced for large g-star. And furthermore, given that for large g-star, the decay of v to vector bosons grows, while the vertex to light quarks and fermion decreases, you do not expect strong bounce from dileptons, from dilepton-finance surges because most of the branching ratio of the branching fraction goes into diboson-finance states. And that's shown in this plot. So, you see that for an ordinary weakly coupled-like vector, the search that dominates is, in this case, a leptonic one, okay, in particular lepton-neutrino, and you set a limit which can be around 3Tv, but, however, it's not a generic robust limit on vectors, and in particular, not on the interesting one, which have a coupling that if I had to take the energy, say, with QCD, it should be strongish, and we do expect it to be, say, in the 3, 4, 2 region, okay, for sure, not down here. So, as far as these models are concerned, as you see, diboson-finance state surges, which are these blue contours here, are much more important, and furthermore, well, we have to pay attention that if you go too much above, say, with a coupling, you are really not seeing anything yet at the LAC. And, well, and also notice that this region here, well, all these surges are competitive, both diboson and dileptons. So, the first run of the LAC, well, again, didn't tell us much, also because there is an electro-whip position test constraints that tell us that, even if you relax them a little bit, at most you can leave around this region, okay, but, well, going to this kind of mass is very unlikely, okay, because these particles contribute to electro-whip position test. Okay, this is just to compare with the case in which you have, for instance, another triplet, but it's coming from a gauge theory, okay, just to show that, well, in that case, of course, you don't have the mechanism according to which the branching ratio to dileptons are reduced with respect to dibosons, and so dileptons are much more powerful in absolute reach, and so they dominate all the way, and in particular, they exclude everything at least up to around 2Tv, also, okay. So, the message is that composite strong vectors have weak bounds, and for this reason, they have to be searched more extensively at the next run, where, of course, the situation will improve. So, assuming, of course, there is nothing, these are the exclusion contours that you may find at LAC 300 inverse pentobard, here in between, you see there is a huge improvement, not only in the mass direction, okay, you can test higher masses, but also in the coupling direction, which for us is very important, and also you can appreciate that iluminosity LAC, which is sometimes meant to be basically useless, is not so useless in this context, because it's true, it doesn't understand much on this axis, on the region mass, but as far as weak couplings are concerned, weak coupling, remember, sorry, this is strong coupling direction, which means weak or small production rate, of course, the iluminosity helps quite a bit. And on the same plane, you can also superimpose the limit on xi, because I told you that xi is related to g star and n star, so all what is above here is excluded by, it will be excluded by LAC run one, so the 0.1, okay, which of course over will arrive probably much, I mean in many years from now probably, because it will need a lot of luminosity and a lot of improvement in analysis, and this is iluminosity, some projection of how better it could do, and so all this region is covered by that, and that's other precise machines like ELC or T-Lap and Click that clearly measure the x-coupling better, and so they exclude more. Of course, it's an obvious exercise to generalize this to future colliders, for instance, under TV collider, you just get the same picture, but enormously enlarged in the mass reach and also in the coupling reach, and well, here there's not much to say, it's completely obvious that by result like this, that extend the reach in a mass range that deeply goes from 10 to 20 TV, okay, basing independently on the coupling, okay, or and or also using say like indirect information coming from T-Lap like colliders, you see that basically, I think there is no doubt that this will make the naturalness hypothesis, I mean, we'll say the final word on naturalness in favor of unnaturalness. The question is whether the ELC itself would be enough to tell this final word on naturalness. Okay, the, well, perhaps the most important source of constraints will come, it's not yet there, but will come from another kind of particles, which are top partners, and the way this works is like the stops in supersymmetry, so you do have that the potential of the Gorson bosonics is due to breaking of the Gorson symmetry, so it has to fill this insertion of the elementary couplings, and the ones which are bigger are those associated with the top quark, and so the diagrams you will have to compute, you do compute when you compute this potential, are something like an insertion of the coupling of the top quark, which is a linear coupling by partial compositeness with its own operator, which means with its own composite resonance particle, which is the top partner, and well, you can say count how many insertions you have and expand the potential. Okay, the second term will be relevant in a couple of slides, for the moment I focus on the first one, which is of course the dominant, and it gives a correction to the X-mass, it gives a contribution to the X-mass, which has precisely the same form that I, well, estimated on the previous slide, so it's some star of a 400 gv square, was not for the fact that actually here what appears is not directly the yukau of the top, but it's G's GE elementary composite coupling, but well, it can be shown that this GE is necessarily larger or at most equal in some models to Y-top, okay? So this is the usual formula, and that's with the usual interpretation that says that fine tuning is at least given by the standard model cut-off over fine energy v square, where the standard model cut-off is identified with the mass of the particles that give rise to the X-potential in a more, say, significant way. So in supersymmetry we identify this with the stop in composites with the top partners. And the top partners are massive fermions, okay, of spin one alpha, they carry QCD color because they have to mix with the top. They have suitable, well-defined electroweak charges, okay, and they also have so specific phenomenology, so we can say a lot about these particles and how they behave, or they would behave at the LAC. But the first thing we have to notice is that they have to be light, basically because of this formula, this is one way to appreciate that they have to be light. This is the mass of two charge five-third and two-third guys in TV. That's a low-tuning model. And well, these black dots are all the ones that you have to look to want, too, because they have the right light x-mass. And you see that, well, in this theory, no matter what you do, at least one of these two guys has to be below around 1.5 TV. And that's general, okay. It's obtained by a scan in a model, but it can be, as I argued also before, it can be proven on general grounds. While on the same kind of theory you may still well have three or four TV vector resonances because they are less involved in the tuning and in the x-mass. If you do more tuning, you can decouple everything. This is psi equal to 0.1, but still you can never reach, say, two TV. I mean, you cannot go above two TV with both of these partners. So there is a clear direction because these particles are colored, so they are easily produced at the LEC. There are also other production mechanisms, single production that can be exploited and make that there is a well-defined program of testing this axis here for testing these models. And if you want in a simplified version of the model, which is made of only two parameters in which we can put all available searches, okay. There is some reinterpretation going on here, so don't take this too much seriously, but we are quite confident. This is the current situation, psi equal to 0.2, still there is space, but not, I mean, we still have started scratching this possibility. Now we have psi equal to 0.1, which is much more free. And here is what the 13 TV run can do with 20 investment bar and the small psi, right, because the big one is excluded already if nothing is found and you are left with this narrow strip here. This is what we can do with under the investment bar. We exclude 0.1 and we go down to 0.05 and so on and so forth. So that's what we heard already that, well, colored particle searches are the most dangerous for these kind of models at the LAC. We have also heard already, yeah, we take just two minutes, more, so the, you've already heard from the previous talk that model builders are already at work to escape possible future bounds and in Composite X, there is one simple way to do this, which actually defines UV complete theory that may be too complicated to be believed or too crappy, but still, I mean, still is there. And the idea is that you can engineer for some selection rules that realize the tuning cancellation that makes that, remember the first term in the X potential, well, was quadratic in the coupling, you can cancel it away and you are left by structures and symmetries, only with the quartic order terms, which leads, of course, to a smaller X mass and in particular what is important to a contribution to the X mass, so to a tuning scale, that is not anymore the resonant scale before, but it's the elementary coupling square times F square. So you disentangle tuning from resonant scale and this can lead to prediction, like resonances from the 5 to 10 TV range for all the standard model charge resonances, still a tuning of around 10 and only neutral, completely neutral light states, which is, I mean, which could be, but still has to be checked, there are signatures in visibot at the LAC and we may need future colliders. I think in the last three minutes I can leave you with a message of hope, concerning the Atlas success that is telling that maybe we don't need all these, so the, I mean, the other success you probably know about is an excess in the die jet environment distribution, where these two jets are tagged as adronically decaying electro weak bosons, you can discriminate a little bit between W and Z and so this is the selection that corresponds to one W and one Z. You see it shows a sort of a little bit of a peak that then goes down, okay? So it's quite, I mean, it may seem a resonance. The statistical significance at the peak, I think it's of around 3.4 sigma, 3.4, but, well, looking elsewhere becomes 2.8. And the same, but is seen in correlated channels, which are not independent at all, but they are not even completely correlated in the sense that only 20% of the events in the excess fill the three histograms, okay? But still, again, they are not independent because these W or Z selections that they do to tag the jets are very inaccurate, everything can fit in, but still you see the same, more or less the same behavior. So this fits with the very same triplet models I spoke about at the beginning, which I advocated as a generic and robust signature of composites, but of any model which has electrowicks sector involved in electrowicks, sorry, strongly gavel sector involved in electrowicksim re-breaking. And this is the region where it fits, okay? Notice that the mass, even though the peak of the excess is, say, at 2 TV here, but it's at 1.9 TV on this other plot, remember that there is systematics, okay? So you can move points here and there, and also remember that the beams are under GV wide. So it's not obvious at all that this is at 2 TV resonance. So we try to consider these values, 1.8, 1.92. We determine the only parameter in this theory that controls the production of this resonance, this triplet, which is made of a charge and the neutral, and it decays to WZ or WW, which is relevant in this channel, all controlled by the same number, and we try to see which values of the parameter reproduce this excess, and well, we also cross-checked that it also reproduces the excesses in these other beams here. This is interesting because this point of around 2 TV, let's say, and around three couplings was the one which we knew already. It was close to the specter sensitivity in several other channels, okay? So, for instance, that is CMS digest. Actually, say, privately people from CMS are those who first advocated the existence of a little excess. Their analysis actually doesn't have such a big excess, but what's important is that we are, I mean, the signal hypothesis with the one sigma band is, of course, not excluded, and it may also explain this little fluctuation. It may also explain this other little fluctuation in the channel, in the electronic channel, with ZZ, it has to be seen whether this is enough to produce that, but I found that sometimes it's surprising what, say, a weak signal can do in terms of jumping the exclusion. There is another one, which is HW by CMS, that also displays a bump, and there is also a dilapton surge that displays a bump, but dilaptons are more model-dependent, so, well, I will not talk about that. Zero, yes. So, some others do not, okay? Some others do not fluctuate, and the most dangerous one being WW by, what is this, by Atlas, and maybe it's just how it should look like, okay? Perhaps a weak signal should show up exactly in this way, that searches with a comparable reach, some of them must fluctuate to an half sigma up, or three, some others should fluctuate less, and some others should not fluctuate at all, okay? I think that it should be worth studying it more, waiting for the new data that will tell us more about this excess.  Top partners are the best probes, and model builders, indeed, are trying to avoid possible future constraints to answer the question whether the LAC will have the final word on naturalness, and the other success, to me, is just a suggestion that, well, after all, there is no natural implosible new physics that could show up at 13 TV, and so we should look for it, hope for the best, but still, I mean, I still remember that natural or unnatural, the physics will be, the LAC will tell us, and this will be an important information, okay? Thank you. You can shout perhaps. Sorry for the question. I am very new to this field, but what's wrong with dimensional regularization? Using it will have not these quadratic divergences. I mean, you see, when I compute the mass formula for the Higgs, for the Higgs, for the Higgs in my compositing, I don't have to do any normalization because it's a finite formula, okay? It's a perfectly finite formula, and so all these issues, I mean, if you look at the model that gives the physical origin to the Higgs mass, it really disappears, and in this formula you do recognize exactly that there is one piece that goes back to the standard model because it has two, because the theory has to go back to the standard model and another piece, and that these two pieces cancel. Okay, if you want, it's a very instructive pedagogical example. Regarding your explanation of the Atlas XS, so presume your SUT left triplet has a rather large coupling to quarks? No, no, no, exactly. Well, large enough to be produced, okay? And doesn't that lead to problems with zed decays? With the what? Zed decays, the hadrons. Zed decays? Well, zed boson decay, you mean precision electro-wik physics of the Zed? Ah, sure, sure, well. So, this was the, more or less, so this is at the boundary of what is reasonable with the electro-wik precision test. And this is shown also here, the dashed line in this plot is, I mean, is the, you see that two lines, okay? The continuous line is strict electro-wik precision test, and the other one is relaxed electro-wik precision test, assuming some other contributions that come in this theory, which is complicated, right? There is no part in floating around. And so, 2TV sits a little bit on the left of the strict electro-wik precision test, but still, you see, it's not dramatic, okay? Of course, the philosophy here is that, I mean, if I see that particles, I would be sure that there is other contribution that can change the electro-wik precision test, okay? But again, it's not that electro-wik precision test limit is 3.5, no, okay, it's close to that. No, because if the particle is there, they have to make it better. Just a quick one. On the atlas axis again, would you imagine that there will be strong couplings to TT bar? Sure, sure, sure, that's a, sorry, yes, that's a very good. Now, this depends also on the model. I mean, the fact that we haven't seen top partners, we will have to see how this will end up, right? But assuming the structure of the theory is the one we believe, which means that it has partial composiness, then there is another, so there is another decay channel of these particles, which is the decay to tops or to top partners, which is enhanced with respect to what is assumed here. As far as the excess is concerned, as far as the bounds are concerned, they are not strong enough. TT bar, final states, or TB, they are not competitive. As far as the interpretation of the excess is concerned, you lower it a little bit all the branching ratio because you have another channel, but this, well, you absorb it in the couplings and it doesn't matter. Another question or remark? Okay, then we thank the speaker again.


Graduates, families, friends, and guests, welcome to the University of California Berkeley and to our spring commencement. As Berkeley's 10th Chancellor, it is my great honor and pleasure to preside over the celebration of the graduation of the class of 2017. Graduates, today is your day. Today we celebrate and honor you.  And I'll take, I promise, as many selfies with you as I possibly can, all right? Okay, deal? Today we recognize you for your passion, your perseverance, and your accomplishment. All these enable you now to join and renew the long line of alumni reaching back to 1868, whose lives are forever entwined with our great university. Today, you become one of 485,000 living alumni who can call themselves UC Berkeley graduates and Cal Bears.  Graduates, please join me in thanking your families, your partners, your children, your friends, and your mentors, everyone, who has helped pave the way for your arrival here today. Now, I have to confess, I hold a particular affinity for the class of 2017. It isn't away my class as well. Four years ago, I came to Berkeley alongside many of you to begin my tenure as chancellor. In this summer, I'll also move on, though in my case to join the ranks of the Berkeley faculty. Like many of you, that is, I'm not gonna move that far away. Who would if they could stick around, right? But while I'm sure none of us would trade our experience at Cal for the world, our years together here have no doubt been marked by challenge and change. The Berkeley campus is facing unprecedented financial difficulties after years of stagnant funding by the state of California, threats of reduced federal funding for research, and a loss of political support for our great research universities. We are under fire sometimes for refusing to back down from commitments that we see as inseparable aspects of our public mission, such as our strong support for undocumented students. And because though we are a public university, we stake our identity on remaining competitive with the very best of our private peers. That is, we're under fire for the fact that we hold to our twin goals of access and excellence always. We also continue to have other challenges that we are continuing to work to meet head on. We have had and continue to confront serious issues related to sexual violence and sexual harassment on campus, the pressures of a housing shortage in a red hot real estate market that poses serious challenges for students around basic needs, the need to educate large classes of students with the personalized attention, support and resources that you need, and the process of making the campus more genuinely welcoming and inclusive for all communities and all identities at a time when certain national trends make this even more difficult and yet more important than ever. Most recently, as you know, Berkeley has been singled out by some extreme groups from opposite ends of the political spectrum that have few reservations about turning our college campus into a political and sometimes literal battlefield, particularly when it comes to provocative speakers with whom they passionately disagree. But on this front, let us be clear, the university's commitment to free speech is non-negotiable. We honor our tradition as the home of the free speech movement, but we are also committed to maintaining the physical safety of our campus community. We know that these paired commitments can be upheld because throughout the years we have done so. We have welcomed and hosted speakers from across the political spectrum without problems or controversy, at least when those speakers come without the objective of senseless provocation, but rather real engagement with you, the faculty and our campus groups through impassioned debate about the great issues of our day. But that being said, we will continue to host any speaker invited by legitimate campus groups subject only to the need to make sure we can protect safety.  So while the road has sometimes been bumpy, and yes, there have been literal fires we've had to put out, I'm proud of the work we have accomplished together. And I mean we. Members of your class have been instrumental in some of the university's most important endeavors over the last four years. It was the efforts of survivors and student advocates who helped the university critically examine our policies and procedures for handling cases of sexual assault and harassment and begin the process of improving them. It was the work of the Black Student Union and other groups that in partnership with the administration helped us create the Fannie Lou Hammer Resource Center and Craft the African American Initiative. It was our student athlete's discipline and diligence in the classroom that enabled us to make a cultural shift regarding academic success in our intercollegiate athletics program. It was the interest of our students that drove us to create a new set of courses and programs in data science. It was our student groups who modeled strength and resolve in support of our undocumented student population. And it was you who helped to clean up the mess, literally, left by rioters in the wake of the Milo-Unopolis event, as well as you who attempted through student groups like BridgeUSA to use dialogue, not violence, to cross the partisan divide. Thank you. Now Berkeley is no ivory or ivied tower. It's a campus that not only lives in the world, but seeks to make a better world. We know that our university must engage with difference and often polarizing ideas and issues, not shelter students from them. We are committed to maintaining our public mission through our full engagement with the public sphere. It is a defining quality of you, of our students on this campus, that you do not sit idly by when you see the need for change. You reflect on the issues, you consider solutions, and you confront problems in all their complexity, and with all their deep and enduring difficulty. You live the words of James Baldwin, who said, not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced. You've done that as Berkeley students, and I know you will continue to do that as Berkeley grads. Now, as you move off campus, away from the comforting embrace of a share-tea, ba-ba, ba-ba, ba-ba, ba-ba, at a Berkeley haunt on a hot afternoon, gotta keep trying. You must now be the leaders to whom the world turns as we seek to navigate a future that is being transformed so quickly by new technology, expanding globalization, resurgent nationalism, changing social and economic structures, new cultural and political threats, and dangerous political and environmental trends. The key, I believe, is not only to remember your education, but to activate it, by being unafraid to imagine new futures, by matching those actions to those dreams, and by anchoring yourself and your communities to an abiding moral compass.  As our relationships with the university changed this summer, it is vital, absolutely vital, that we all keep Berkeley close, remain committed to it, support it, speak out about why it must be supported, and yes, cherished. For Berkeley is not only the best university in the world, it is also the most important university in the world. The University of California was founded here nearly 150 years ago as part of a monumental American experiment based on the belief that a nation benefits collectively from broad access to excellent higher education, that society is more just and morally sound when the possibility of social mobility is afforded to all based on merit, and not origins or family circumstances, and that democracy thrives when all of its citizens, not just the privilege, not just the elite, have the opportunity to garner, perfect, and produce the intellectual tools necessary to fully engage with the issues of our day, and this philosophy continues to guide us as our North Star. Graduates, you cannot know where the future will take you, but as you go, know that Berkeley will be there with you. We hope and expect you will be there for us as well. You are now part of the greater Cal family whose members help sustain each other and the university in order to ensure that for many generations to come, Berkeley will continue to open doors to a better tomorrow for all of us. Graduates, may you be the bearers of Berkeley's torch, carriers of its influence, promoters of its spirit. May the education you have received here serve not just your lives, but your society well in the years to come. May your lives be richly rewarding and fulfilling, and may you all enjoy much happiness. Congratulations. Good luck, class of 2017. Fiat Lux and Go Bears!


Today, we're diving into the historical drama film that swept audiences off their feet. It's the story of one of the most legendary leaders of all time, Winston Churchill. Darkest Hour is a film that showcases Churchill's bravery and determination during the early stages of World War II. Starring the incredible Gary Oldman as Churchill, this film will take you on a journey of leadership, courage, and the fight for freedom. So grab some popcorn, sit back, and get ready for an inspiring tale about one of history's greatest figures. Let's dive in. Darkest Hour is set in May 1940, when Germany was making rapid advances in Europe and Britain was facing an imminent threat of invasion. The film opens with Churchill, Gary Oldman being appointed as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain, Churchill was a controversial figure, and many of his own colleagues and the public were skeptical of his ability to lead the country through the war. The movie follows Churchill as he grapples with the difficult decisions he must make regarding the war he's torn between negotiating with Hitler or continuing to fight against the odds. On one hand, Churchill is urged by his war cabinet to consider peace negotiations with Hitler, while on the other hand, he's also facing opposition from King George VI, played by Ben Mendelsohn, who is not sure of Churchill's leadership abilities. In the face of these challenges, Churchill decides to take the matter to the people and decides to deliver a powerful speech in the House of Commons, in which he declares that Britain will fight against the enemy, no matter what the cost may be. This speech inspires the country and gives them hope in the darkest of times. Throughout the film, we see Churchill's bravery and determination as he continues to lead Britain through the war, withstanding opposition and adversity. Despite the challenges he faces, Churchill never loses sight of his vision for Britain and continues to work tirelessly to secure its future. Now, let's talk about what the movie got right about the actual events. In darkest hour, we see a dramatic and emotional portrayal of Churchill's appointment as Prime Minister, as he takes on the challenge of leading Britain through the war. The film does an excellent job of capturing the tension and uncertainty of the time, as well as Churchill's legendary leadership and determination. One of the things that the film got right was the events surrounding Churchill's appointment as Prime Minister. The film accurately depicts the circumstances that led to Churchill's appointment, including the resignation of Neville Chamberlain and the country's desperate need for a strong leader. This accurately reflects the historical events and provides a detailed and accurate portrayal of this important moment in history. Furthermore, the film also accurately portrays the political and social climate of the time, as Churchill faced opposition and skepticism from his own colleagues and the public. Despite this, Churchill was seen as the best candidate for the job, and he was appointed as Prime Minister in May 1940. Accurately depicts Churchill's controversial stance on the war, and the opposition he faced from his own colleagues and the public refers to the way the film accurately portrays Churchill's views and actions regarding the war and the resistance he faced as a result. In the film, we see Churchill firmly opposing peace negotiations with Hitler and advocating for continuing the fight against the enemy, even when faced with opposition from his own war cabinet and the public. This accurately reflects Churchill's actual stance on the war, as he was known for his determination and bravery in the face of adversity. Despite opposition from his own colleagues and the public, Churchill remains steadfast in his beliefs and continued to lead Britain through the war. The film does an excellent job of capturing the political and social climate of the time and provides a detailed and accurate portrayal of Churchill's controversial stance on the war and the opposition he faced as a result. This aspect of the film helps to paint a comprehensive and nuanced picture of Churchill's leadership and character, and it provides a unique insight into one of the most difficult and trying times in British history. One of the standout moments in Darkest Hour is the powerful and inspiring speech that Churchill delivers in the House of Commons. This speech, which became known as the We Shall Fight on the Beaches speech, is considered one of the greatest speeches in British history. The film accurately depicts his speech and its impact on the country and the world, as Churchill's words provided hope and inspiration to the British people during one of the darkest times in their history. In the film, Churchill delivers the speech with passion and conviction, and it's clear that his words have a profound impact on those who hear them. This accurately reflects the historical events, as Churchill's speeches were known for their powerful and inspiring content, and they played a significant role in rallying the country and the world during the war. The film accurately portrays Churchill's relationships with key figures such as King George VI and his work cabinet. This is another aspect of the film that is historically accurate. The movie accurately depicts Churchill's relationship with King George VI, who is skeptical of Churchill's leadership abilities, and encouraged him to consider peace negotiations with Hitler. This accurately reflects the historical relationship between Churchill and King George VI, who had a strained relationship at the beginning of Churchill's premiership. The film also accurately portrays Churchill's relationship with his work cabinet, who were divided over the issue of negotiating with Hitler. Some members of the work cabinet were in favor of peace negotiations, while others, including Churchill, believe that Britain should continue the fight against the enemy, no matter what the cost may be. This accurately reflects the political divisions and tensions within Churchill's government at the time. Now, let's talk about what the movie got wrong. General, are you telling me that we should have lost? The movie exaggerates Churchill's isolation and lack of support within his own government. This is one aspect of the film that strays from historical accuracy. In the film, Churchill is portrayed as being isolated and unsupported by his own colleagues, with few allies within his own government. However, this is an exaggeration of historical reality. As Churchill did have support from key figures within his government, including members of his work cabinet, despite this exaggeration, the film does a good job of capturing the political divisions and tensions within Churchill's government during this time, as some members of his government were in favor of peace negotiations, while others, including Churchill, believe that Britain should continue the fight against the enemy. Moving on to the next point, depicts events and conversations that may not have happened exactly as they're portrayed in the film, this is another common issue in historical films, as filmmakers often take creative liberties in order to tell a more compelling story. While the film is based on historical events, some events and conversations may have been altered or added for dramatic effect. However, despite these embellishments, the film still provides an accurate and compelling portrayal of the events and circumstances surrounding Churchill's premiership. Portraised Churchill as being more pessimistic about the outcome of the war than he was in real life, is another issue with the film's historical accuracy. In the film, Churchill is depicted as being uncertain and pessimistic about the outcome of the war, and as having moments of doubt and despair. While it's true that Churchill faced many challenges and obstacles as prime minister, he was also known for his tenacity, optimism, and unwavering resolve in the face of adversity. In reality, Churchill was a strong and confident leader who inspired the British people and rallied his country behind the war effort. He was known for his powerful speeches, including the famous, We Shall Fight on the Beaches speech. We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. Which inspired the British people and solidified Churchill's reputation as a great leader. Moving on to the next point, Ober emphasizes the role of Churchill's personal secretary, Miss Kay, in his decision making process. In the film, Miss Kay is depicted as being a key influence on Churchill and is playing a significant role in his decision making process. However, this is an exaggeration of the real role that Miss Kay played in Churchill's life. While Miss Kay was an important member of Churchill's staff and was responsible for managing his affairs, she was not a major influence on Churchill's decisions or policies. The movie also fails to accurately depict the role of other key figures and events in the lead up to the Battle of Britain. It is another aspect of the film that is not entirely historically accurate. The film focuses primarily on Churchill and his leadership during this time, but fails to fully capture the contributions and impact of other key figures and events that played a crucial role in the lead up to the Battle of Britain. For example, the film does not give sufficient attention to the role of Royal Air Force and the bravery of its pilots, who played a vital role in defending Britain against the German Luftwaffe. Additionally, the film doesn't fully capture the role of other key figures, such as King George VI, who is an important figurehead for the British people and provided support for Churchill and his government. While these oversights are unfortunate, they don't diminish the overall impact and message of the film. Darkest Hour is still a powerful and inspiring film that provides a glimpse into Churchill's leadership and the events that shaped British history during the Second World War. As we continue to explore the events of this time period, it's important to remember the bravery, determination, and unwavering spirit of all those who played a role in securing victory for the Allies. In conclusion, Darkest Hour is a captivating film that tells the story of Winston Churchill's leadership during one of the most critical times in British history. Despite some inaccuracies, the film provides a powerful insight into Churchill's unwavering spirit, determination, and bravery in the events that shaped the outcome of the Second World War. The film serves as a reminder of Churchill's leadership and the sacrifices made by the British people during this time, and it's a testament to the strength of the human spirit in the face of adversity. Whether you're a history buff or just looking for an inspiring story, Darkest Hour is a film that should not be missed, so grab your popcorn and be ready to be transported back to a time of great change and great leadership. Thank you for watching, and we hope you enjoyed this overview of Darkest Hour.


The Carnegie Foundation lists the University of Alabama as one of the top doctoral research universities in the United States. The research leading to these transformative achievements largely takes place in the facilities on UA's Science and Engineering Quad. Shelby Hall, the Science and Engineering Complex, and the North and South Engineering Research Complex are among the most modern science research and teaching facilities in the southeast.


As Domenica said, I'm Julia Wester and I am a consultant or coach or whatever you want to call it at Lean Kit and we make Kanban boards so it's not unusual for me to talk to people about Kanban. And what I really love about today is that all of the speakers that have talked so far have introduced things that I want to talk about as well. So we're planting these little seeds, that's one of Domenica's tips, is plant a seed. If you don't germinate right away, that's okay, just keep watering it. So throughout this conference, we're watering all of these seeds and hopefully eventually they'll start to take root where you're going. And when I go out to help customers, because that's what I do, I go out and I help them see what their work is and how they deal with it and find ways to tame that chaos to make it just a little easier and just a little better for them to get their work done. But what I see a lot happening is that people get started but then they get stuck and they don't know what to do next. So that's actually happening to quite a lot of our user base. It's really easy to do those first few steps. It's easy to learn how to click buttons on tools but it's hard to really make the change, the underlying change that helps you make those big wins. So that's what I want to talk about today is how to get beyond those quick wins and help get some real deep meaningful change in your organization. So I want to start by telling you about a team. And this team, like many of those others that I described, they started visualizing their work. That's the first win that you get. You get your board up and you start to see all of the craft that you've got going on, right? And it's not a pretty picture. It can be really scary. But the win is that you're facing it. Someone said, I can't remember who at this point, that you're embracing reality. And that's exactly what we want to talk about. We don't want to just deal with falsehoods that doesn't help us get any better. And these people, unlike many who just start, had also started limiting their whip. That's a term you've heard a few times, their work in process, how much they allow to get started before they really worry about finishing things. Now, so they had gotten some of these quick wins but they weren't getting the gains they heard about at these conference talks. They weren't getting the Starbucks gains. They weren't getting the other things. But they didn't know what to do. What they ended up doing was yelling at each other. They knew that they had a bottleneck somewhere in their system that things got stuck. But they really didn't know what to do about it.  It means my definition of that is that you've implemented a very thin layer of something good. Now you heard about this earlier, this J curve here. I as a lean coach go out and tell people all the time to make little changes. So the fact that people are out stuck with a thin layer of something good isn't a bad thing. I mean it's a layer of something good. And that happens because when we make a change, we think what's gonna happen is you start here and you have this nice little happy path all the way up the mountain to your final destination for now. And then what really happens, no matter what change you make, whether it's hiring a person, implementing a new technology, you have an adjustment period. And the size, the width and sort of depth of that adjustment period really depend on the size of the change. That's why we make a lot of suggestions about making small incremental changes.  And that's where a lot of good changes go to die. You're just not ready for that size yet. That's what we call the J-curve or the satir curve. So we don't want that to happen to you. We're gonna talk about how to get a little deeper, but I wanted to let you know that it was okay to be in that place. And I wanna share with you some ways to identify if you are maybe in a shallow implementation of your process improvement or a combat implementation. And when I did some research for this talk, I mean, I knew what I thought, but when I researched that, I found about four common indicators. And the first is that initial quick win. You've got your view of your reality.  So that's actually a win. Seeing that blood loss lets you stop it. So you have a view of reality, even if it's scary. The second common thing that we see is when people start to visualize their work, they're maybe visualizing about their personal work. So a lot of personal combine boards or maybe the team is visualizing their work as well, but oftentimes we're still visualating isolated teams. And we haven't yet gotten to the part where we can get our head enough above water to look out and see who else is around. And so we want to get there, but usually these teams that are in the shallows aren't there yet. Now, if they are limiting work in process, which is a key component for improvement that we'll talk about later, they're usually doing it to relieve the overburdening of the individuals. And that's often the second quick win, is when I first implemented Combon at NBA.com in Atlanta at Turner Broadcasting. The first thing was that people started feeling this relief. So I could immediately limit what was coming into the system. And people would feel like, finally, I can just focus on this one thing and I know that it's allowed. But I wasn't doing it for any other reasons like flow or business value yet, so I wasn't yet at that level of maturity. And then the fourth identifying factor is probably no focus on continuous improvement. So you might stumble upon a great improvement idea. You may have these occasional feedback loops that work for you. But a lot of times what we see is we sort of have these retrospectives and things fall into the trash can. You know that's happening to you if you go to the next one and you're like, did anybody take notes from the one before? And are we doing anything with that, right? And it's just crickets. So we don't want that to happen. Don't want to waste that time. So again, not bad to be in that spot. But the key is that we don't want to get stuck there. Getting stuck there is what's bad. And I like to think about a couple of laws of science when I think about this potential problem. The first is the law of inertia. And I'm going to paraphrase it, that things at rest tend to stay at rest. And things in motion tend to stay in motion. And when we're thinking about how we want to be moving as a business, as a team, as an org, we want to be one of those people that's caught in the perpetual motion, not the people caught at rest. We don't want to be the next blockbuster, right? That leads me to the next. I feel bad. Everybody picks on them. But they're such a great story of what not to do. And we need those. Maybe we should find some more and stop picking on them. But that leads me to the law of entropy. I think that's what, the second law of thermodynamics or something like that. And it really says that everything is in a state of decay. So there goes the idea that we can stay here in our little status quo and maintain the peace and keep all of the value just as valuable as it is without doing anything better. What's happening is that Netflix and all these other people are moving ahead constantly. And you actually have to swim to stay the same distance apart from them. If you want to catch up with them, you actually have to do even more. So we can no longer think that we can sit down and be complacent and not worry about continuous improvement moving forward. Deming said improvement is not optional. Survival is not mandatory. So you don't have to survive. If you don't want to improve, that's OK. So when this team got super frustrated, all of a sudden, here's how I picture it happening because I wasn't there. The guy got so frustrated. And he said, well, what the heck is our bottleneck? What's going on? And in that moment of frustration, what happened is that they actually started diving into the problem. He was super frustrated and he was yelling, but he was getting somewhere. They started focusing on the issue at hand. And that took them a little bit away from focusing on the people. They were starting to think about solutions. And so he said, what's the bottleneck? What's its throughput? How much can get through that place where everything gets stuck? And even better, are there things that we can put through our system that don't have to go through that bottleneck? So now these people are actually starting to think about how their system works and how things move through it. And without even realizing it, they were starting to get into a little bit of deeper maturity about how to make their business more productive, more productive of customer value. So how can you go from a shallow process improvement mindset to something that is a bit more habitual and deep? How can you find those big wins that people come to conferences and talk about? Are you here in the books like the Phoenix Project or the Goal, all these other things? The way I want to cover that for the rest of the talk is to talk about three overarching areas and then within those areas of focus, maybe I hope that you find them to be tactical things that you can go out to do. I don't want you to hear about these things and go, that sounded nice, but what the heck do I do to make that happen? So I want to give you a few things that you can actually go back to your office on Friday or Monday to do and maybe start you on this journey to dive a little deeper. The first area of focus is what we've heard a lot about whether we've used the name or not and that's systems thinking. We want to think like a larger part of the organization, not an isolated team.  We need to understand our entire business line, not just your little piece of it. And we're here in Dev Ops, you know, day Seattle. And I look at that as a little microcosm of the concept of systems thinking. So at one point, the Dev Ops were like, what the hell is going on? This is so bad. We have got to do something about this. So they took a handoff in their system. They said, this is so horrible. It cannot be allowed to continue anymore. And they figured out things that they could do to improve that handoff. And that's what all of the stuff that we're talking about really cover. Now, what systems thinking is, is if we take that, that mindset, and we move that to another handoff and another handoff and another handoff and improve that whole value stream that Jeff showed, or that Sarah showed, then we're really starting to think like a whole organism. The thing that is good to remember is that it really doesn't matter to your organization how great your team is if your team isn't helping the whole organization move forward. So the way to do that, again, like Jeff, to just really great example of this, is to start building relationships with other teams. And that actually takes conversations. And you're probably thinking, well, duh, we know this. But how many people are actually going out and building those relationships? We know things, but we don't do them. So one of the ways to tactically get started with that is to look at who needs things from you organizationally and who you need things from, and start making that list and maybe even write down what kinds of things they need from you and what kinds of things you need from them. And then maybe start with the people who need things from you and go out and proactively say, hey, I noticed that you often need this from us. How can we work together and make this better? Maybe we can start attending each other's team meetings and get an understanding of your whole work life, and you can understand ours. And that way, when we have a problem, we don't have to wade through seven levels of relationship issues before we can get to the problem. And then if we go out and help others, then we've built social capital and credibility that we may be able to capitalize on when we need help from other people. So we wanna start breaking down the other barriers. We're already talking about DevSecOps. As soon we're not gonna be able to put that stuff together anymore and we're just gonna have to say systems thinking. So once you do that, once you identify the things that you need from people and the things they need from you, the next thing is to look at your combine board, your visualization. This visualization serves to help you with your problems. You don't serve it, it serves you. So one of the things that we wanna do is take that cross-team information and try to make that as visible as possible. Now we can do that with things like dependencies, and I don't mean code dependencies, like in Maven or anything like that. I mean work dependencies. Like I need this from your team and you need this from me. And so I've got an example of this here. You can do this on a physical board, you can do it in LinkedIn, it really doesn't matter. As long as you're trying to visualize that. So I've got team captain here, he has a project going on and he needs a couple of things from Tony. So they have visualized that on their board and not only that, but they visualize the relationship and that they're dependent upon each other so that everyone can know the impact of what they do or don't do. And then another example of this is I talked to a customer just a few weeks ago and this, one of the teams that I talked to and out of the two wasn't even using visualization yet, they were about to get started on their journey. But he knew enough to know that he needed something from Carol's team over here that was visualizing their work. And he said, I'm gonna get started, but I know that I need information from Carol's team. So if I work with Carol, she can understand the things that I need to know and then she can update her Kanban board so that I can get that information before that work ever hits my team because they were the next step in the process, the handoff point. So he could find out things like, oh, this is missing a document way before it ever even got to him and be ready for that. So visualizing that. We talked about metrics a lot too in this conference and the thing that can break your system is measuring the wrong things. So you can do all of those other things and you can do them very well, but if your metrics are driving the wrong behaviors, it's just all gonna fall down. So Eli Goldrat said, tell me how you measure me and I'll tell you how I behave because everything we measure tells people what's important and what to do to make that happen. And so he said, if you measure me in an illogical way, then don't complain about my illogical behavior because it's pretty much your fault. So you're telling me what to do with how you're saying you're measuring me. And so we see this all the time in organizations with these departmental silos where they're pitted against each other and no one seems to be working very well together. I can almost guarantee you that's because of how they're measured. They're measured by the goals of their department and not the goals of their organization. So we absolutely have to look at this if we want to have any chance of thinking like a system. Start with your team. You can't affect everything, but start where you can and start teaching others how to think about this. Look at your metrics and say, is this fostering, my dev team to be the best, my ops team to be the best, or is it helping us be a better company team? Now once we have our system in place, then we have to start to think about what happens inside of it. So this next area is focusing on the flow of customer value. There's two things there, customer value and flow. I'm gonna talk mostly about flow, but the customer value is important. We don't wanna just focus on personal tasks, the little things that you're just trying to keep track of, that's all important, but we wanna frame that all as in what pieces of value are we trying to deliver through your system? What makes your company money? And you need to know what that is. The flow part is extremely important. What we see a lot in organizations is the concept of thinking that keeping people busy equals the most value for our organization. So we see a lot of things that I would call an anti-pattern like personally named swim lanes or other things that are really engineered to make sure that someone stays busy. And what this does is it makes us focus on capacity management instead of throughput. And it makes Sally and Ahmed and Tamara and Blake, it makes them focus on their work. And even though you see everything else, it's a subtle clue that this is your lane, you stay in your lane, and it takes that aspect of trying to function as a team away. It makes it one little step harder to do. So we wanna remove all of that, we wanna function as one team, visualize the whole body of work, and then we want to make the cards important. We wanna make them about customer value. Now the second thing that we wanna do once we have our board showing the right stuff and sort of laid out in a way that's promote, something called pull, we wanna use something called pull to manage flow. And flow is just like a river, okay? I'll talk about that in just a second. So we want work to have a steady continuous movement from options all the way through deliver. And this doesn't matter what your columns are named here. Most of the time, the teams that I've seen before they know what pull is work in something called a push system. So that means I'm Julia, the developer, I used to be a developer, and so I start work. I learn every time starting is all the rage, right? So I start, start, start, start, start, and I just turn things out because I think that's what's important. And then when I'm done with my piece, I push it to the next step of the workflow and I'm like, here you go. And either no one's there, they're like, holy crap, I've got 4,000 things to do already, right? And so that doesn't help anyone. But we don't realize that yet. A good question to think about is does it matter if you deliver something if no one can pick it up? Right? The answer's no. So one of the things that we can do to build pull into your visual board is to do something as simple as these sub columns. Some people call them sub lanes. Now what this does, two things. It gives a visual indicator to the next step in your workflow that, hey, this is ready for me. When you have time, you can pull it in. That's why it's called a pull system because I'm not pushing it over there, they're pulling it in. So that's the first big one. The second thing is, is that it's much more accurate. If I don't have those columns, I just see a bunch of stuff and build and I have no idea whether it's all actively being worked on or if it's waiting. And once you start working in this kind of system, you start to see how long things actually spend in weight and you find out that that's reducing the weight is where you're gonna get the majority of win from a cycle time or a lead time perspective. If I'm a coder, I tend to think the thing I need to do is focus on how fast I write my code or how great my code is and those are great things to focus on but if 85% of the lead time of a piece of work is stuck in waiting places, then your improvements are gonna be small gains. Really where we need to also start focusing on is reducing the weight but before we can reduce it, we have to visualize it. Once we have pull in our system, then we're really set up to start thinking about the volume of work in our system. And so then we wanna limit our work in process to find problems. And this is the key tool in a Kanban implementation that you need to have an order for it to really achieve its purpose, it being the Kanban system. Now, Taichi Yono that I think that we saw earlier, he said that the goal of Kanban is to make problems rise to the surface. That's the entire goal. Lip limits are an enabling constraint. We constrain us to the amount of work we start so that we can find those problems, fix them and then in the end get a faster delivery of work through our system. So if we do not limit our work in process, we're not gonna find the problems. It's much like a river. If you look at a river that's sort of filled up to its banks and it looks like it's just flowing along, we don't know whether or not it's really a smooth flow or if there's a lot of rocks and logs under that river. So our version of bringing the water level down is to use a whip limit in different parts of our workflow or if you want to just to start, put a whip limit on just the work in process in general, just try to bring it down a little bit, that lets us start to see where our problems are. If we get stuck because of a bottleneck and then we just start more and start more, we never fix that bottleneck, right? We don't make ourselves feel that pain much like we heard from our local coffee company earlier today. So it's really, really important to feel that pain like they said. Now, a lot of people don't know where to start with whip limits and good thing is there's no one right way, so you're not gonna get it wrong. The only wrong thing is to not try it and you want to hit your whip limit sometimes which means sometimes you want to feel that constraint or you don't find the problems but if you hit them every day, you're gonna give up. So you need to find a happy medium of what makes you hit your problems every now and then at a nice enough cadence that doesn't completely stress you out or that doesn't help you at all. We don't want you to give up. So if I had to sum up this whole section, it would be just to remind you that waiting to do something until it can be used or utilized is that elusive thing we call working smarter, right? And not harder. We all know that time is really our most precious resource and we're wasting it all the time by the choices that we make about how we process our work and that's not responsible once you understand that concept. Now the last area of focus is continuously assessing and improving and this shouldn't be too far into you. We want to complete that loop. We want our outputs to be looked at, processed, then we decide we're gonna do something with it or throw it away and then we want that to inform our future decisions. The first thing that helps us get into a concept of continuous improvement is to make it a habit and one of the easiest ways to make a habit is with a cadence. Repetition makes a habit. So here are some examples of certain cadences you may want to implement in your organization to start getting habitual about thinking about improvements at least. Now just because you have a stand up doesn't mean you're gonna improve anything so you still have to do more work but you're thinking about it hopefully. So at Kanban stand up people may wonder why I put the word Kanban there and I do that because I find it's a little materially different from what you think of as your average stand up. You don't get up and ask the three questions, a lot of which have to do with status and that's good to know but that's on the board. We don't need to know what you did yesterday and what you're gonna do today, it's on the board. So we focus on how do we move things to the right, right? We start at the right of our board actually and say okay what's here and can we move any of it? Why not? Can we do anything to help that and we work our way left? We don't talk about things much unless they are exceptions and we figure out how can we help other people remove blockers or just get things done faster? We focus on finishing. And we do that on a daily basis if possible but at least two or three times a week something habitual. And then the next is a retrospective and I like mine blameless, I don't know about you but I like to focus on solutions and not throwing blame around. And you do that every couple of weeks and in my next, well one of the tips in this section we'll talk a little bit more about what to do with your retrospective. And then maybe on a monthly cadence you have an ops review and I don't mean ops like server people, I mean ops like operational review, let's look at how things went and review that on a monthly cadence, look at your performance over the past month and whatever you decide will drive the right behaviors whichever measures you choose and then look at it as a trend as well month over month, year over year to really see how you're moving. When we do those we want to cast a wide net, we tend to be insular and just ask for feedback within our team. But what I started doing when I worked at F5 Networks was that I started reaching out to every person that we touch, every stakeholder we have, every two weeks and say how are we doing for you? I didn't let it hold me back, I didn't wait on them and not do anything if I didn't get their answers but I asked because I know that if I just ask my team I'm getting a very narrow perspective, we're not the customers of our work, someone else is. So yes, we need to understand our feedback because we have to live through the delivery and we have to improve it but we also need to make sure we're doing the right things for the people that we're working for. The third thing about feedback is to make sure you do something with it, okay? We want to focus on outcomes and not only that but we want to be scientific about it. I love Rub a Little Science on it, I don't know if I heard it from Nicole or who but I love it so. Yeah, we want to put some rigor back into our retrospective process. One of the best things I heard from someone is that the goal of their retrospective is to design an experiment. Every time they leave a retrospective an experiment comes out of it and what I mean by experiment is like the actual scientific process. Like here's the thing, I have a thought about that thing, I have a hypothesis that this caused this so if I do this, this other thing will happen and then I determine how I'm gonna test my theory and how I'm gonna check it and when I'm gonna check it, right? Because if you make a change without a hypothesis you have no way to check and see if it's right or not, right? And you might want to repeat that, you might want to have other people repeat that just like a scientist, you need to be a flowologist. What are the experiments I can do to improve the process, the flow through our system? So rigor with a focus on outcomes. We don't want the feedback just to go in the circular file. Now when our team that in the story when they started really diving in to the flow in their system, when they started understanding the impediments, making decisions and experiments on what to do about it, implementing lower width limits and really focusing on making those relationships, what happened is they saw system wide improvements essentially in their lead times. Now it took a long time for their bottleneck to be alleviated, but well before that they saw immense improvement across all other parts of their system because they were treating the whole system and not just an individual piece of it. So that obviously made people happy. You can see these trend lines getting greener and happier.  And that looks really awesome. Can you come to my team and help us figure out how you did that thing so I can do that thing too? That's happened to me before. And before, sooner or later, you're gonna become this person who's doing the conference circuit in your organization because these things that after a while seem so common sense are just things that people don't know to think about, okay? And by thinking about these things, we can provide that business value that Jeff talked about in his talk. So I couldn't in this talk without asking you to start thinking about tracking that progress from where you are now to where you want to be, right?  There's no one right way to do that. You could always take the Dora assessment and get a little more scientific about that. I'm pointing there, because Nicole was there earlier, she's not anymore. But no matter how you do it, start doing it. So in summary, the things that we have talked about today to improve from where you are, first embrace that where you are is a good thing.  Think about the entire system, where you fit in, understanding what the business really means to you. Think about how you move work through that system. What's valuable and what can you do to improve that? And then finally, feedback, make it a habit. One of the things that I like from SAFE is their concept of everybody takes a new spin on continuous improvement. They call it relentless improvement. I really like that the flavor of that word relentless because that's really what we're striving for. And not just relentless crazy stuff, but actual purposeful improvement that will get us where we wanna go. So if you want to, you can take out your phone now and email Julia at linkit.com, just put the subject Kanban. And I'll send you the slide deck. And I'll send you a roadmap, a Kanban roadmap ebook, free, to help you figure out how to take a lot of these concepts, again, tactically execute them in your organizations. Even though it's from Linkit, it is tool agnostic. You can use stickies, so not trying to give you sales material.  So thank you very much, appreciate it.


Welcome to All Hands Update, I'm Petty Officer Brandi Wills with your headlines from around the fleet. Beginning July 1st, the Department of Defense will no longer require decals for vehicles entering military installations. Some may still require a sticker or a visitor's pass for access, so check your installation's guidelines. Same-sex domestic partner benefits will be available August 31st. Training on the administration of these benefits must be accessed by commanding officers, executive officers, and command master chiefs before August 23rd. The training provides guidance for new rules for deer's enrollment by same-sex domestic partnerships. See NavAdmin 152-13 for details. You can read more about these stories at Navy.mil. From All Hands Update, thanks for watching.


All South Carolinians, age 5 years and older are now eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine. For help finding a vaccine location in your area, visit scdhec.gov-vaxlocator or call 1-866-365-8110. COVID-19 vaccines are free and don't require ID or insurance. Visit scdhec.gov-vaxlocator or call 1-866-365-8110 to find a vaccine location near you. All South Carolinians, age 5 years and older are now eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine.


Hello and welcome to this session in which we will discuss finance lease specifically from the lessor's perspective in the prior session We also looked at finance lease, but we looked from a lessese perspective Remember the lessor is the in quote the owner of the asset the lessee is the Renter of the asset the one that's using the asset.  They're identical So that's the good news. So whatever we learned in the lessee accounting finance it applies to the lessor So the classification test which is remember there are five of them I will briefly review them are identical to that of the lessee to determine the classification of the lease whether that lease is a finance lease or an operating lease which is we're gonna be dealing with finance leases in This session in the next session. We'd look at operating lease So when we have a finance lease for the lessor we're gonna consider this as a sales thigh police So when I say finance lease Sales lease or sales thigh police. It's the same thing because when it's a finance lease as if the owner is Selling the asset to the renter now How do we know if the owner is selling the asset to the renter? What if the if the lessor if the owner in substance in essence Transferred control now. We're gonna see what does it mean? How do you interpret transfer control of the right of the use of the asset? Then guess what the lessor has a sales thigh police? It means the lessee took ownership or consume a substantial portion of the underlying asset If that's not the case if the lessor in essence or in substance does not transfer ownership Which is gives control to the lessee all the lessee consume a substantial portion of the asset Then we have at our hand an operating lease Now, how do we how do we determine this transfer of control? Well, remember the five tests that we go through this is a review first We have to have a non-cancellable agreement We have to have a legitimate agreement of course because no contract without an agreement for leases will really exist Then we have test of ownership test Does the transfer of ownership occur at the end of the lease if the answer is no, you don't have a finance lease Purchase option do we have a purchase option on that lease and specifically when we talk about a purchase option? It has to be a bargain purchase option enticing enough to let the lessee by the asset if the answer is no We don't have a finance lease is the lease term equal to 75% of the economic life of the lease property 75% or more If the answer is no, you don't have a finance lease Present value of the lease payment equal to or greater than 90% of the asset the asset that we're gonna be working with is the ladder That's why I call it ladder, but it's an asset if the answer is no, that's not the case We don't have a finance lease is there an alternative use test if there is no alternative use test in other words We leased something we leased an asset a ladder and that ladder is so specialized to that company Technically we sold it for them. So if so, we have to pass the alternative use test Let's assume there's no alternative use test then we have a finance lease. So here just for the sake of illustration Remember no alternative use. It means the asset is not useful for the lessor They can do anything with it when they get it back technically the lessee bought it Therefore we have a finance lease so notice for all these knows they fail the finance lease But this know will give you a finance lease now if this answer was yes And the all the others were no then we have an operating lease because it did not pass the test Accounting of for sales lease is simple if it's a sales lease Remember what do you do when you sell an asset and you sell it on account? You have a receivable so the lessor account for the lease in a manner similar to an asset sale What does that mean? It means I'm gonna have a receivable Specifically I'm gonna have a lease receivable nevertheless. It's a receivable and since I sell the asset I'm gonna remove the asset. So simply put I'm gonna debit a are basically simple accounting credit sales Debit cost of goods sold credit the asset inventory. Okay, this is basically when you sell using perpetual inventory system This is the entry that you make now the AR is called a lease AR and the asset and the inventory is really a Particular asset, but the concept is the same now. How do we? Capitalize lease receivable so this amount lease receivable. What is it equal to when we debit lease receivable? What does it equal to it's gonna equal to the present value of the payment received? Remember the lease would involve a series of payment remember when you lease something the the person The last seed that you leased it to will give you payments. Well the lease receivable you have to Find the present value of those payments plus so notice here plus for the lessor You also have to find the present value of the residual value So when it comes to the lessor and we'll talk about the residual value later on in a separate session The lessor would always find the present value of the residual value to compute to compute the lease receivable Whether that residual value is guaranteed or not So this is what's this is how we record the lease receivable the present value of the payment plus the present value of the Guaranteed or unguaranteed residual value and the best way to illustrate this is to take a look at an example We're gonna take a look at the same example slight changes slot change change it slightly, but basically the same example that we looked for the Let's see assume that Boeing capital Which is a subsidiary of Boeing company and Delta Airlines signs the lease agreement dated January 1st X1 That calls for Boeing to lease a mobile airplane ladder We're gonna call it ladder to Delta beginning January 1st X1 So we have two parties Boeing and Delta Airlines now We're gonna go over this example and show you the details of it Which we saw on the prior and the prior session Before we do that most likely if you're watching you are an accounting student or a CPA Kennedy if that's the case great You have arrived Please go to farhat lectures calm I can help you the reason you are watching because you found me on YouTube and you're looking for some help go a Step further go to farhat lectures calm subscribe. I can give you additional information I don't replace your CPA review course. I'm a supplemental tool to your CPA review course I give you access to lectures multiple choice through false exercises. That's gonna help you understand your accounting courses That's gonna help you understand your material your your leases your bonds your CPA material better If you have not connected with me on LinkedIn, please do so take a look at my LinkedIn recommendation Please click on the like button on this video if you're liking it like it Why not it doesn't cost you anything it helps me it helps others connect with me on Instagram Facebook Twitter and Reddit So here are the details for the deal between Delta and Boeing the term of the lease is five years It's non-cancelable. You always have to have it non-cancelable. Otherwise It's if you have an agreement where either party can walk away with no penalties No stiff penalties and it's not really a deal It's requiring eco rental payment of 20,000 now, although it's I told you it's 20,000 I'm gonna show you how to compute this payment in this example because it's important that you know how to do so The fair value of the latter is 95,000 or the fair value is important here The fair value of the latter is 95,000 It means if they want to sell it today, they would sell it for 95,000 with an estimated economic life of five years So notice five year economic life five year lease it met one of the lease it met one of the lease It met one of the lease requirement, which is 75 percent greater than 75 percent of its economic life here The lease is 100 percent of the economic life We have a finance lease the expected residual value after five years is 2,926 and you're gonna see why I made this number. So there's no renewal option The ladder would revert back to Boeing at the termination of the lease. That's fine Delta incremental borrowing rate is 5% Boeing sets an annual rate of 4% per year and we know this rate and the collectability of payment by Boeing is assured Remember, we are doing accounting for the less sore So it's very important to understand that if the collectability is not assured not probable You really don't have an agreement. You don't have a sale because think about it. It's easy to lease things to anyone Why just tell them you could find someone that beats. Okay, I'm gonna lease you this But if they cannot pay you you didn't really do any good Well, because anybody will take your asset and use your asset, but you want to make sure that this individual this party You can collect from them collectability is assured Now the cost of the ladder for Boeing is $80,000 This is giving because we need to compute the cost of goods sold So this is the information that we are giving and we already we already know that this is a finance lease because the economic lie The lease term and the economic life are 100% so the first thing I'm gonna show you how to compute the payment Although I gave you the payment of 20,000, but here's what you do You will take at the you will take the fair value of the least asset 95,000 Then you deduct from it you deduct from it less the present value of the residual value Which is the residual value is 2926 you multiply it by the present value factor And this is n equal to n equal to four percent I'm sorry n equal i equal to four the interest rate is four n equal to five five periods And this is the present value factor So the present value of the residual value is two thousand four hundred and five dollars You will take a look at the fair value minus the present value of the residual value Now why are we doing so to find the payment because the payments that the lessc pays Should be the payment amount received by the lessor for the least payment So those are the payments that cover your Lease that cover your lease Okay, the residual value that asset is is is is given back to you So you don't have to cover the payment from that you have to cover the payment for the lease payment Therefore they should be 92,595 in total Now what you do is you you have to find the payment you will take this amount You divide this amount by the present value factor of an annuity do which is 4.62990 I keep mentioning those you know those Decimals like 0.82 and here there is no decimal. That's a present value factor If you're not familiar with what I'm coming where this is coming from Please go to far hat lectures and look at my time value of money If you're doing leases you need to be very familiar and comfortable with the present value of money So I'm not going to cover this here. I have five to six lessons explaining the concept never nevertheless You will take the amount to be received By the lessor from the lessc payment and you'll divide it by the present value factor of an annuity Do why annuity do in this example because the first payment was due immediately January 1st x1 Which is this happens to be the factor and if you do so you're going to come with approximately 19,990 a Point something you round it at 20,000. So this is how we came up with that payment This is how we came up with the payment. So this is the payment Sometime it's giving I gave it to you and I showed you how to compute this now Let's go back to our lease receivable. How would our lease receivable looks like it's equal to 95,000 It's composed of the payments to be received from the Payment plus the guarantee residual value, which is the present value of those notice those together Those together will equal to the lease receivable, which is the fair value So the fair value is the lease receivable. Let's debit the lease receivable Let's put the lease receivable on the books of 95,000 credit sales 95,000 And I told you cost of goods sold the cost of the ladder for Boeing happens to be 80 Which was giving and credit inventory or credit the ladder or the asset for 80,000 So this is the entry that Boeing makes on January 1st 20 x 1 and by doing so notice they made a profit of 15,000 Because they on the income statement the sales of 95,000 is recorded a cost of goods sold of 80 They have a profit of 15,000 now Obviously, they're gonna make more profit from the interest on the deal But this is the profit that they make on the sale It's the profit that they make on the sale now They're gonna have to prepare an amortization schedule with the annual lease annual lease payment that they would receive interest on the receivable reduction of the receivable and the lease receivable The lease receivable we already know starting at 95,000 Immediately delta airline signs a check for 20,000 So well if they signs the check immediately Immediately the check would reduce the amount of 95 to 75,000 It's a reduction in the lease receivable because they sign the check on the same day There's no interest component to that payment. Well Boeing will debit cash credit lease receivable Then we're gonna have to compute the interest A year later Delta will make a payment of 20,000 Now boeing will have to determine how much of that payment goes toward the lease how much of that payment goes toward the Interest on the on the lease. Well The lease is 75,000 the interest rate is 4% will take 75,000 times 4% And that's going to give us an interest of 3,000. So first you compute the interest component and the interest is based on the Lease receivable times the interest rate, which is 3,000 So of the payment of 20,000, we're gonna say 3,000 is interest revenue Okay, we're gonna and this is in this entry we make on December 31st And that's why we debit lease receivable because the payment is received January 1st So this is December 31st 20x1 to accrue the interest So of the 20,000 we allocate 3 to the interest and obviously the remainder would be allocated to the lease receivable It's to the lease receivable itself, which in turn will lower the lease receivable to 58,000 Then the process would repeat itself then we'll make another payment. We'll we'll we're gonna have to make another payment on January 1st 20x2. Well on December 31st 20x1. We're gonna have to debit lease receivable 2,320 In credit interest revenue Now let's see what the balance sheet would look like as of December 31st 20x1 Well, here we go. We're gonna have a lease receivable of 3,000, which is this lease receivable Which is the interest component plus we're gonna have a lease receivable that we have to pay Soon the following day of 17,000 therefore under current assets We're gonna have a lease receivable in total of 20,000 and the remaining of the Least asset, which is non-current asset. It's it's a form of an investment If the if the 58,000 so we're gonna have a current asset Plus a non-current asset presented what we will show on the income statement on the income statement We are going to show three things. We're gonna show the sales of 95,000 Less cost of goods sold of 80,000 plus we're gonna show the 3,000 of interest revenue that we recorded on December 31st 20x1 to accrue the interest. So this is how we show things on the Income statement now on January 1st January 1st 20x 2 we're gonna receive the cash we debit cash and credit the lease receivable for 20,000 So the the lease receivable consists of 3,000 interests, which we already computed as interest revenue And 17,000 a reduction of the principal which already being reflected in this entry. Okay So that's the January 1st x1 now again if we want to do another accrue another interest the December 31st 20x2 so December December 31st 20x2 again, we will accrue interest revenue of 2,332 which is this amount here Then the following day will do the same thing And notice interest revenue went down because the lease receivable went down And the process would repeat itself year after year. So if you can if you can if you can Work the first two three years, then you can do Actually, if you can do two years you can do an amortization schedule of 20 years That's all the same. So make sure you know how to read this So after we make the payment the second the third payment The interest is 2320 the principal is 17,680 the principal goes down to 40,000 320, which is the lease receivable Then we compute the interest again based on the new lease receivable The interest revenue is lower the 20,000 goes to the interest revenue the remaining to the lease receivable So on and so forth now we're not done yet Because notice at the end of the lease it has to go down to zero at the end of the lease what's going to happen We're going to have January 1st 20x6 at the end of the lease We're going to have an interest component of 115 dollars and 89 cent which is this amount times 4 percent And we're going to have to remember we're going to get back the inventory bowing We means bowing bowing is going to get back the inventory remember the inventory will be referred back to bowing So when you give them back physically the ladder, they're going to debit inventory 2926 and remove the lease receivable. Therefore, we end up with the lease receivable of zero So this is the how how you would process the entries and this is how the Amortization schedule will show for the less so what should you do now go to farhatlectures.com work mcqs True false look at exercises look at additional resources Because you need to learn a little bit more invest in yourself. Don't sure change yourself Accounting is important if you're studying for your CPA exam. It's a long-term investment Good luck study hard and of course stay safe