So, our next speaker is Stacey Lindow, and Stacey has the real quality of being an international expert in two pretty different areas. First, she is known as, basically, the international expert on sex, particularly in older people and women who have had gynecological cancer and also serious cardiac conditions. And then second, Stacey is like, as one of the pieces of this morning, she is basically one of the go-to people now in terms of social, in terms of health. In particular, she's one of the leaders in the identification of both social needs in the community and then social assets in the community and the linkage of those assets to those needs. And so, Stacey will be talking this afternoon on community determines health, not medicine. Stacey. Well, I know you all want to talk about sex now, but that's good for cocktail hour. Let's start by defining what is a community. It's a group of people who come together with a shared concern and a desire to take action collectively to protect the values and to address concerns. Every time I've had the privilege to stand at this podium, at this conference, which is now many years too many to count, I've thanked Mark for creating an intellectual home for me at the University of Chicago. And really, of all the conferences I have the privilege to present at, this is the one where I feel like I'm with my people, I'm with my community. And so, Mark, thank you for creating this community. And what we all owe to you is to keep it together, to keep it going. And I'm certainly willing to help on that charge. So let me start with acknowledgement of disclosures and funding, the journey of understanding how it is that community drives health led to an innovation award which had an expectation for a sustainable business model which resulted in founding not one, but two companies, one of for-profit companies, which leads to this disclosure slide. And for those of you who heard Monica Peek this morning, she just did my disclosure for me. I did not pay for advertising, but you've had a chance to look at that. And then funding for the research comes from a variety of federal sources. I don't know if Albert Wong is still here, but he's one of my dear collaborators on the work we're going to share today as are many, many others. The good news is that you have my favorite disease. And what this doctor means by favorite, of course, is he knows just what pill he's going to prescribe or what procedure he's going to do, and he's going to generate some revenue, some fee for service. There's not a lot of beneficence in this cartoon, nor autonomy, nor justice, but it's emblematic of the healthcare system I joined when I completed my training in medicine. Sick care has been our business. Sick care is about the drugs, the devices, the procedures, the facilities we can bill for. Sick care is where the patient is a disease.  The community is the other, and it's typically referred to the geographic population surrounding the hospital. Technology in this context silos. Healthcare, which, you know, Harold Pollock gave me some hope that maybe it's still there in our future. Healthcare, the business of health, is more about education, delivering information, prevention, and more and more of it happens at home and in the community. Value-based payment means we pay based on outcomes rather than procedures and devices and drugs. The patient is a whole person. The community is a care partner. We share responsibility with community-based service providers, human and social service professionals. We're not alone. The community is us, and technology in this scenario connects. It's inclusive. We all can see what's going on. We can share information efficiently and we can improve quality over time. The fee for service world, the patient is pregnant. I don't mean to call pregnancy a disease, but I'm an obstetrician, so it's a good example. The patient is pregnant, and I have some folic acid for her, and I'll see her next time. I could do an ultrasound. That generates some revenue, and the more ultrasounds we do, the better. The value-based world is a little more colorful. It might be a little more complicated, or it might make us feel like we're actually the carers we signed up to be. In this world, the patient is not just pregnant. She's a pregnant mom. She has children at home to care for. She's a caregiver of a dad with dementia. She's recently unemployed. And she has a lot on her mind. She has medical needs and wants to adhere to those recommendations. She has economic needs, behavioral needs, self-care needs, caregiving needs. And if we're going to develop solutions to address this whole person's needs, we should think like we did when we built a solution to address people's pharmaceutical needs. We didn't develop one technology to prescribe antihypertensive drugs and a different technology to connect people to asthma medications. We created one solution that would allow us to care for whole people. And one of the things that's happening as we try to integrate the idea of addressing social needs or basic needs or social risks into our daily practice of care is we're thinking about those needs and how we're going to incorporate them, but we're forgetting to think about how we're going to address all the other needs a human person has, which is going to prove ineffective. So what is value-based payment? This is a paper just published, October 29th, lead author from Penn. They used a Delphi method to survey leaders across the country to come to a consensus statement about what is value-based payment. Value-based payment aligns reimbursement with achievement of value-based care in a defined population with providers held accountable for achieving financial goals and health outcomes. It encourages optimal care delivery, including coordination across health care disciplines and between the health care system and community resources to improve health outcomes for both individuals and populations. The yellow sentence? I wasn't part of the Delphi conversations, but I imagine if this conversation happened five years ago, the yellow sentence might not have been there. The idea that community resources ought to be in the business of health care is a relatively new idea, even though we've been working on it for a long time. In our own work, we started with this, I mentioned this innovation award and I've shared this slide, I think in the past. We employed youth and trained youth from our communities to conduct an annual census, feed on the street, technology-based, to document every business and organization open and operating to serve our communities. Why did we have to do that? Because Google and other mainstream data sources don't have high-quality data when it comes to higher-poverty communities, so we can't rely on that. We took the data that the youth collected about community resources and plugged them into electronic medical record systems using medication e-prescribing as the frame of reference. And we generated more than 113,000, what we called healthy prescriptions, a list of resources generated to meet a person's needs as they were defined in the electronic medical record. This wasn't obviously a full scope of needs, but it was the place we started. And one of the most interesting findings from this work was that when people were permitted to call in to be surveyed, so these were volunteers, a few hundred of them, and we asked them, what did you do with the information on your Health ERX, 49% of these volunteers told us they told somebody else or used the information to help somebody else, which I found fascinating. And I started to think about beneficence. We recently repeated a study, but this time using experimental method. So we conducted a real-world controlled clinical trial of what we called CommunityRX, this Community Resource Referral Intervention. In that trial, we randomized people by alternating calendar week, and people either got usual care or if they came in during the week when the system was turned on, they got this auto-generated list of resources personalized to them based on everything we knew about them in the electronic medical record. Everybody got it. You didn't have to be high risk for something. You didn't have to have a special condition. If you came in on that week, you got the intervention. It was delivered by nurses in the ED who handled discharge and by clerks in the primary care unit who were responsible for discharge. And in the primary care clinic, the physician could opt to use this tool. She didn't have to. So this was a way to indicate adoption, sort of natural adoption. So I'm really interested in this resource sharing, this information sharing, because when we deliver a drug or device, it's really a one-to-one situation. Although I do know sometimes people share their Viagra with other people, but in the delivery of information, we have the opportunity for information to spread well beyond the clinician or the patient involved in the intervention. So do clinicians share community resource information? Well, these are some data that are actually in review now. So the tables are intentionally difficult to read, because I don't want you taking pictures and tweeting them out until they're peer reviewed. But here's a description of the nurses and physicians who participated or who are exposed to this intervention. You see some of their sociodemographic characteristics and occupational characteristics and some expected differences. 50% of doctors and nurses exposed to this intervention told us that they shared information from the HealthyRx. Remember I told you it was 49% in the Volunteer Collins survey study of patients who got the intervention? One of these groups was more likely to share than the other. Who do you think? Nurses or physicians? Nurses. So let's look at, let's see if I can make this work. Let's look at the rows right here. So clinicians shared HealthyRx information, 50% of all providers. It was actually 57% of primary care physicians and 42% of nurses. We also asked you generally share community resource information. And where's Sharon Markman? So think about what you talk to people about, especially if you live in the same neighborhood. I didn't orchestrate it. You started it. But standing in the back of the room, we live in the same neighborhood. Two minutes into the conversation, we probably shared 10 different community resources. People are excited about the assets of their communities. How confident are you in your ability to address your patients' unmet social needs? Not so confident. 28% of physicians versus 9% of nurses said they weren't confident. 25% is the median estimated time nurses and physicians said they spend addressing their patients' unmet needs. The range was 5% to 90%. Let's assume it was just 5%. Imagine in dollar amounts what it would be if we told a 5% of all nurse and physician time in the United States spent on caring for patients unmet social needs. Could we identify interventions that cost less than that, that connect people to community-based supports and alleviate the burden on the health care workforce? Well, what about patients? In this trial setting, what proportion of patients shared community resource information? So here you see the enrollment flow chart. We had a subset of people, about 117 people, for whom we had longitudinal data at all three time points. Half of those shared healthy RX information. And there weren't a whole lot of differences between sharers and not sharers. We looked really hard to figure out, what are the characteristics of people who share? Because if you can identify that, you might target the intervention to those people. To use the Yiddish, these are mavens in a community. People you can count on to do what Sharon is for Sharer maven. You know, the chit chat in the back of the room, or when we run into each other on the street, or at the grocery store, we're going to share information. Remember, this is health-promoting information. So we didn't see a lot here in terms of differences in sharers by their sociodemographic characteristics. Although, as you would expect, there's a trend. People with larger social networks look like. They would be more likely to share. 49% of patients shared information from the healthy RX. And 21% of people told us that they gave their healthy RX to another person. We learned a little more about that in our qualitative interviews with people. But remember, this isn't just a generic resource list. This is a resource list targeting the conditions a person has. So you have to be willing to tell something about yourself when you share this information with somebody else. Patient sharers were more likely to have gone to a place on their healthy RX. So if they actually used the information for themselves, they were more likely to share it with somebody else. 26% of sharers went somewhere versus 6% of non-sharers. Overall, it was somewhere between 12% and 15% of people within three months told us they used the information to go somewhere. Interestingly, it was people in poorer physical health who were more likely to share information.  The national mean on this physical component score of the health-related quality of life measure is 50. So the whole population was really sick. But the sicker you were, the more likely you were to share information. Why would that be? People who gained or retained information specifically about mental health-related resources like counseling, stress management resources were substantially more likely to share. Here's a way of looking at the information spread. The gray box are people over time who got a healthy RX and didn't share it with anybody. The purple are people in the community who received information from the healthy RX who were not directly exposed to the intervention. Of the 117 people who were able to follow over three time points, 59 people shared with 183 others. And this has to be a conservative estimate because it's based on people's recollection. It's very possible people shared more than they remembered. And this doesn't include nurses or doctors sharing just the patients. The other colors tell you how people's state changed over time, how many time points they shared, and it is a little more nuanced and takes a few more seconds to take in. But people's states did change over time. So we've created this concept called social dosing, or we're sort of expanding the application of this concept. Some of you who work with illicit drugs might know the term is used to describe micro dosing of psychedelics, for example, or peer-to-peer dosing of drugs. We're taking back the night on that term, and so we're talking about social dosing of information versus clinical dosing. And we define it as the diffusion of health-promoting resource information from patients who got a clinical dose to the broader population who didn't get a clinical dose. People showed others they're a healthy RX, so when they 21% told us they gave it to somebody else, they let somebody else look at it. But only a few people described actually giving it away. They wanted to hold on to it. So you see a quote here. He read what he liked, so he wrote it down, and he's planning to call for more information. But I'm not giving it away, so people seem to value this information. People emphasize the locality of the resource. People were proud to say these are resources that are near us and our neighborhood on the south side of Chicago. People valued, in addition to the information about basic needs and their social needs, they value it having health-specific information. And like I said, in sharing their healthy RX, they were revealing something about their own health conditions, but they really wanted to be able to help people who they knew had serious conditions and needed resources. And it was interesting, there were some insights, and we need to do more in-depth work on this, that the healthy RX helps legitimize or credentialize these recommendations people were making to their peers. It has good points on it, or I'll even go with you if you don't want to go alone. To understand this social dosing concept better, we've been working with computation scientists at Argonne National Labs. We've been using an agent-based model, a computational model to simulate the same dynamics we saw in the clinic, but at the level of the whole population. The study I just shared were people ages 45 to 74, and they were, as I mentioned, really pretty sick people, but we wanted to think about how would information spread in the whole population if everybody could be exposed to the intervention. So here are the results of the simulation, and it's very, it's risky of me to present this to you and just expect you to believe the whole black box of the computation piece, but I'll do my best to answer questions if you have them. What we did is we looked at how information spread by clinical dosing alone, and we generated a model looking at physicians delivering it, nurses delivering it, and clerks delivering it, and the map looked almost exactly the same. It didn't seem that who delivered the information in this very low intensity way really determined the spread of information, so I just show you the map for physicians. Look at the increase in breach to individuals. These are individual households that were exposed to the information when we simulate the intervention across the whole population over a several week period. Here we see about a four-fold increase in reach. In the clinical trial, it was three-fold. Remember, 59 people reached about 183 others in three months. So the findings, whether it's a computation-based model scaled to the whole population or an empirical study looking just at the 45 to 74-year-olds, the magnitude of impact is about the same. Why do people share? Why would sick people socially isolated compared to the general population living in poverty? Why are people sharing? And that's what I think is really fascinating. We can draw on information science. There's a body of literature that looks at information sharing and what motivates information sharing using data in online communities. It's a great place to go for data because you can literally see exactly what people share because they're doing it digitally. So you see somebody shares and you see how people respond and that's the kind of data that is behind the science. But it gives us some insights. People might share because they're looking to promote their reputation. Sharing information might be a commodity. A sick person might be dependent on somebody else and this is something they can give back. It might be about reciprocity. There was certainly evidence of empathy in the qualitative data. So what are the conclusions? Clinicians spend real time addressing non-medical needs and I know in an audience of humanitarians we spend way more time than most people do. This is not something new. SDOH, social determinants of health, structural determinants of health, that phrase is new but don't let anyone tell you that you never did this work before. We've just been doing it in the most inefficient and not joyful way. Personalized information delivered in a clinical setting spreads. How can we leverage that as we move more to an information and prevention intervention world? At scale, the mode of delivery might matter less than who has access to it. So the message is let's get as many people access to community resource information as possible. The shift to value-based care presents a new opportunity of forced multiply beneficence. Can we start to deputize our patients to be sharers of this information intervention to benefit their community? And lastly, if we evaluate information interventions and technologies like we do drugs and devices, we're unlikely to capture the population level impact and they will be undervalued. Thank you so much.


Hi everyone. Welcome. We're very happy to be here today at the Microsoft Accelerators. Thanks again to Pradip to welcome us here. Where is he? He's not here. Okay. We started the round of flash talks. The first one is by Satish. We'll talk about the AngularJS animation. So you have 10 minutes to talk about that. Okay. I'll be timing you. Just let me know when to stop. Okay. Before I start, just have a quick show of hands and how many of you actually know about Angular? We've worked on Angular already. It's quite a bit right. I myself am new to it. So also a lot of the JavaScript thing. But I was very interested in how Angular is working compared to what I did in jQuery. So I started doing a couple of applications. It worked really good and real fast. Though for this particular ngAnimate, I'm not completely prepared because of the power outages in my house yesterday. And only this morning with the power comeback. In any case, since there seems to be quite a few people who don't know what I'm going to do is I'm just going to walk you through a basic Angular application and then how to quickly add ngAnimate to it. I hope you guys can see the code out there. So as with most apps, the way you do an AngularJS app is similar to the other things. First, you need to include the script. I've already got it downloaded here. Slightly weird typing at this angle. So once you have this set, I'm a little problem typing it from this angle actually. Do you know what I'm going to do? I'm just going to copy over from things that I already have just to make it easier. What I do have is a small script module where I've got my controller and the directives that allow me to see that or to put that in the view. Okay, now with these two things in place and after having defined this as an ngApp, I can see all the items in the list without having written any amount of code with manipulating the DOM. If you look at, if you compare the jQuery and other things here, I don't have any IDs. I don't have any classes on any of the elements. Just by putting the data directly into the scope, what is called a scope over here, this becomes a model and from this model I'm able to extract the data directly into the view. So I'm not doing any manipulation. I'm not looping through all the elements. I'm not doing a search for hash, dev, dot class or any of those things. I get all the data I want right there. Now the interesting thing is, let me do one other thing. I've added a class called big box over here just so that I can get a certain, you can just see it slightly bigger. Okay, that won't work. I'm going to add a style to the elements in the box just so that, you know, we can view it a little larger. Descript, go there. Add the style. Just forget the, this animate part will come to that soon. So now we see, there's not very much I've added a CS thing. It just looks larger. It'll be better for me when I do the animations later on. Now one interesting thing about Angular itself is how everything goes into the model and most of your code should be based on the model itself. What I'm going to do now is add an input field to the top of an app just so that we can filter the items. Okay, at this point, I will have a text box in which I can get some text by which I can filter the data coming up in the view. Since I copied the code, I would prefer to have done this incrementally, but right now, since I've copied the code, in the ng repeat, what I've done is taken one item each from the items, which is here within the scope, and the scope has a direct connection because in the same my control. See my control here. I see my control here. This scope and whatever is in there, in this case items, automatically becomes a part of that view or we can access it from within that view. Then what we can do is just by saying filter colon pattern, this pattern already part of the model because we've added to the model over here as part of the input, you can filter the items directly. I'll show you how it works now. If I type, say, HO here, it'll reduce the, it'll bring, you know, it'll filter those items. The animation is already a part of it right now, but again, like I would prefer to show it incrementally. The idea being again that you don't do much of the manipulation. The framework, AngularJS takes care of everything for you. Again, as you've seen, I've written very, very little code to filter the data. All I've done is added one element to the model, which is pattern, and filter the items based on that. You've not run through the loop of, you know, finding the items, doing all the query or the string pattern searching and index and all those kind of things. So this is absolutely easy. It's very fast to do this. Now the thing about animate goes like this. It's a new directive that is there in version 1.1.4 of AngularJS. So it is not stable yet. If you use Yeoman, it won't come down. You need to do this separately. You need to take it from the AngularJS or the Google CDN, which I've done already. It supports both CSS animations and JavaScript animations, but the CSS is much more cleaner, it's much easier to do. You have to use it with one another Angular directive. So for those people who've done it, who've used it before or not, or for those others, these are individual end directives like ng-repeat, ng-show, ng-hide. ng-animate does not work by itself. It works along with some of these directives. So you need to have that. And then you can just say, for example, in mine as an ng-animate, use myanim as the animation, the CSS animation. Then there are two items that you need to do. Myanim, enter setup, and leave setup. So the way it works is you just give this definition exactly in this syntax with myanim, whatever name you've given. And it says, at the beginning, this should be the setup. At the end, what should be the setup? And whatever transition that is there within that is automatically taken care of by Angular. Again, you're not doing much manipulation. Just saying, this is the beginning, this is the end, Angular, you figure it out. So these classes are automatically added by Angular at the beginning, at the end, but you can additionally, so you can see this already. When I do this, it does the transition automatically without, again, doing too much of the animation code itself. You can also increase that a bit or control that a bit in addition to say, at the beginning, when the setup happens, how should that animation start itself? So in this particular case, I have added another class .to enter setup. I've said enter start. How should that setup itself begin to work? This is how that works, since I've already got it there and it's going to show it to you. So you can see with just one additional directive, you're able to control how the setup part itself should behave. Similarly, you can do for a lot of other things. I don't know if some of the other things will work, but you can do a slide animation that's already there on the site and other very simple animations just using one directive engine. Thank you. So next is Arjun. He will talk about the node application he did. I will let you see more.


So I'm here with Mayor DeVal from Mayor DeVal Incorporated Attorneys and and also obviously rent-to-bar Really curious is to find out what that means because I understand what renting is I understand what buying is What is rent-to-bar? Rent-to-bar is a unique concept. We started with rent-to-buy being a property attorney 11 years ago and last year Group fund came to me and said they're gonna change my life And I asked him how you're gonna do that you give me a lot of stock because I'm always looking for rent-to-buy stock And they said well, we've got lots of money for you So I said well money talks real listen So what we put together is a rent-to-buy concept where the price ranges are from 400,000 rand to 1.8 We started with a pilot project in the price range 200 to 1.8 and in Cape Town Metropole 2010 so at the moment we can pre-qualify a home buyer Issue with a certificate and that certificate is as good as a cash buyer The buyer has to put down a 7% deposit if he buys from an investor that has to be a free to 5% deposit We then take transfer of the property we keep a property for a period of two years During that time we bring in all our goodies like home and issue vacations, debt repair, budgeting tools and Month 22 we have a look at the customers profile. Did he pay his rent every month of time? Were he up to date with his credit record improved? Because I'm confused what happens after the two-year period. At the end of a 22 month period We can convert that rental into free Opportunities the first opportunity is we can do an installment sale for you And you pay back that rental amount the purchase price We pay that back to us over a period of 20 years We freeze the price for you from day one and the second opportunity is where we can apply for a home loan Maybe you want to do a little bit of a less rental Monthly installment and with that the bank will maybe give you a prime Maybe prime lease a half and with that you can actually take transfer and become the home owner The last opportunity maybe you want to move on with your life and you say to me mayor I actually want to move out to a different property where we can assist you to actually market the property Put you on the market and you find a buyer that has got is going to pay you a higher price We can then assist you to take transfer Sell the property and put the profit of the money into your pocket Private property a home for everyone


I want to come at this from a particular perspective and talk about a particular potential use of data that I'm getting increasingly involved with and that's in connection with the City Deal. The Glasgow City Deal has associated with it a commission for economic growth and what we're been asked to do as an independent body chaired by the principle of the University of Glasgow, Anton Muscatelli, is to look at how the expenditure that's been allocated to Glasgow City Region, which is 1.13 billion, is going to deliver the outcomes that are being projected, which are 29,000 jobs and a particular level of what's called GVA growth that's a technical measure of growth. I want to talk about the role of data in that because it's a huge expenditure for everybody and increasingly I think policy is shifting from an approach where you took a decision and then hoped it would be alright and if it sounded good it would be okay, to a system of contract basically now where money is allocated on the basis that you deliver a particular return and the onus is on you to be able to demonstrate that you're able to deliver that return. There's some really interesting issues in my view about how you go about that and how data can actually feed into that which might affect a number of things across the public service looking ahead. The actual City Deal that's been struck in Glasgow is a deal with Glasgow and the Scottish Government and the UK Government. The parameters of it are really, as I said, quite narrow. There are about jobs growth and there are about additional GVA per pound spent. In that sense, the primary role of the commission is a technical task. It's to contribute to the design of a local evaluation framework that if everything was done properly in terms of specifying the projects and managing everything. That the City Deal will deliver what was promised. But the way in which these deals are constructed in Glasgow isn't unique was through a kind of, I suppose, a data modelling exercise where if you like, historical data was fed in about the performance of Glasgow City Region, the performance of other regions and what happened with our road structure. Quite a complicated process of essentially historical data and a model was produced out of that as if you took forward particular initiatives then in the end you would get certain kinds of results. Nobody can explain how that model works, not even the people who actually produced it. It's highly technical, it's mathematical, there's all kinds of statistical structures to it. But what we have to do, I suppose, is identify the logic chains. The things that kind of link together the inputs, the infrastructure investment with the outputs, which is, for example, the number of people using a particular transport facility and then the outcomes which are supposed to be additional jobs. So we need to be able to construct that. And that poses us questions about what data we need for validating the effects and also the attribution how these things are linked together. So those are the core tasks. Under the terms of the city deal, this kind of information is needed at different stages. We're not just doing a summative evaluation, saying by the end of the process we have delivered everything that was set. The deal actually involves a process of what's called gateway reviews. So money is released at different stages through the review based on where you are with that process. So it's very important to the city and its partners that we actually are able to design an evaluation that feeds back to the city deal cabinet at key points. And in that sense what we need to have is a continuing constructive relationship that allows the people who are actually, if you like, at risk in doing the projects to maximise the return for the investment. And that's not just in terms of growth, although that's the actual deal that's been struck, but they want to do other things with it. They want to address what's called inclusiveness issues, the wider inclusiveness agenda, which the council has, which the Scottish government has, less so the UK government. And the objectives are less tightly set. We've got very specific objectives in terms of economic growth, less specific objectives in terms of these other things. The city deal is intended to distribute benefits across the authorities and create more employment opportunities for people living in less affluent areas. We don't have aggregate targets for inclusionary outcomes or mechanisms really beyond the selection of projects for delivering the aspirations that have not yet been identified. So how do we go about this? I mean we're not quite clear what it is we're trying to do.  We know that there's added value to it. How do we do that? And one of the things we're thinking about doing is establishing a small set of carefully selected measures that have the potential to capture these inclusionary outcomes. But what we have to be aware of is that there may be complementarities between inclusionary outcomes and growth outcomes, but there may also be trade-offs. So it may actually in some circumstances, for example, if you put all the investment in Glasgow, then Glasgow might benefit more than let's say Inverclyde or wherever else. There has to be a distributional process. And what we might want to do as well is to identify particular groups that you'd want to support. So you might, for example, want to look at lone parents. How do they benefit from this? How do black and ethnic minority people benefit from this? How do young people benefit from this or some other targeted groups? So you develop a kind of a policy framework for what you're trying to do. And then what you're trying to do is to construct the data that allows you to measure and specify what it is that you're trying to do and inform the policy of how you achieve it. So, for example, you might make decisions about how you did your procurement link to this or whether you concentrated on reclaiming vacant and derelict land in areas that are immediately adjacent to poorer areas rather than more affluent areas. You might make discriminant choices about what you did in terms of the growth impact and the inclusionary impact. So what's going on here? Let me just try to draw some lessons out of this task. In the case of city deals, large sums of public money are being targeted on the delivery of specific outcomes through a deal in which success and failure and whether the next tranche of money is explicitly dependent on evidence. So evidence is going to drive what happens here and the councils and others, government, are actually going to have to be able to explain what they do and justify their policy based on evidence. There's a real focus on data in this process. The validation process for this is going to be rigorous. It's not just gathering data, it's going to be analyzed to death and you're really going to have to be able to show that your data captures or the way in which you analyze the data captures exactly what's going on and just justify it. And there'll be all kinds of peer review processes attached to that. You've got a question about what kinds of data might be of use. As I've said, the way in which the deals were constructed was based on, if you like, traditional economic data, so surveys, aggregate economic data of that kind. But what we've got available in Glasgow and in other cities is different kinds of data that maybe wasn't available before and hasn't been fed into the model. So you've got censored data, you've got administrative data that councils and others have. You've got, in Scotland, you've got input and output data that we've actually got that isn't available in the rest of the UK. And above all, you've got the capacity which, you know, vonna, I'm sure we'll talk about it, you know, with great enthusiasm. Possibility for using real time and synthetic modeling data to do this. So instead of actually, you know, looking at year end to see how many cars have gone along a road, you can actually do it minute by minute, almost second by second and do some really interesting patterns about that allow you to see before you've made a decision on infrastructure investment or even while you're making decisions, discriminant choices in ways that you simply weren't able to do before. You're able to look at who's using what piece of transport, you're able to look at a whole series of things that simply weren't possible before because of the nature of the data that's now being created. And that expands the quality, the logic chains that you're able to create. So instead of, you know, the black bots model, you're actually be able to produce very concrete information about what's going on at a fine level of granularity potentially. And that can feed into other things as well. It might not just be about the city deal, it might be, for example, about service design across a whole range of things. So the information that authorities are being obliged to gather for the city deal, they might be able to use for other purposes and use these techniques that have not been available before. And what that's going to create in Glasgow, and I think it's going to create it in Manchester and West Midlands and other places that got city deals, is the potential for data to move out of, for example, the silos of the people who collect it in the first place. So instead of data being defined by local authority boundaries or data being defined by departments within local structures, different kinds of data are going to be brought together and used to get a much more refined structure of information. So although the initial focus for this is actually about providing an evaluation for a city deal and see whether we can get the money from central government, the reality is it creates an opportunity for local government and local government's partners to think more carefully about what they know about what's going on in the area that they're trying to cover, to work together at a city region level and to make policy choices that actually they can do on the basis of data that they don't have to wait three years until they can assess, if I'm going to put it like that. The great advantage of the kind of big data we've got now is you don't have to wait this lag period until you can use it. And there's another dimension which I'm just going to end on, which is that it potentially this kind of data allows people to make much better or better informed policy choices. I mean I spent some time in politics and sometimes when you're making policy choices you are in a sense choosing in the dark, you don't actually know what the effect is of the choice you're going to make. Now potentially data and data analysis and the two have to go together, it's not just about data, it's about how you use the data and understanding how that data can be used is really important within this, might allow you to look at different futures or different options or different alternatives rather than testing them out and finding that you've made a mistake two years later or three years later, whatever. So there are all kinds of opportunities in data to actually think about how we run things better and how we govern things better and how we get more people involved in making the choices and in making the choices that we make more explicit, so all of these things can run together. And I think the other thing we can do is actually think seriously about the efficiency of delivery of service, so we all know that funding is tight for all kinds of things in the health service and local government and whatever. If we can actually get people's needs more clearly defined so that you can actually allocate or make service decisions that allow resources to be more appropriately applied and data can make a big impact on that, for example look at the interface between health service and social care, if we have better information about how we deliver social care to whom, we could actually probably reduce the level of demand on acute care services and that would be economically effective but it also would actually be better for the people who are using these services. If we can find ways in which data can actually move in that direction, then that's something that's really worth working towards. I think we're at the relatively early stages of this where there's a lot of cutting edge work being done in UBDC and in other places along these lines but it's actually getting that to the point where people are using it and people know how to use it is really where we need to go. But I think it's a very interesting time to be talking about the possibilities of this and the dynamics within the governance arrangements we've now got that are actually driving this forward. It's not just a group of people who are interested in data who are going to find that the world is changing and find that interesting. I think more and more policy makers, people who run things are actually going to find that they can use data to do things that they haven't been able to do before and that's what's really exciting about where we're headed.


In many ways it's the first proper opera, it's certainly the first opera that's the first opera written that remains in the repertoire today. Orfea was written in 1607 and it was the first opera ever written and it started a wave of musical theatre that became quite high-tech for the times. It's a complete masterpiece. I mean there's a very good argument for it still being one of the greatest operas there is in terms of innovation but also in terms of just the sheer beauty of the music and also the invention of the composer. The music is incredibly expressive. I've seen engravings from 1640 out of stages with fog machines, with angels suspended from wires, with massive mechanical devices underneath the stage that drive boats and waves. I thought how incredible at that time, so I thought it would be nice to mirror that sort of technology in using the technology of today. I really like two moments when we try to visualise what they have in mind, what the singer have in mind. So we have these two kind of moments where like a pixel digital phase appear and in these two moments I really like the visual because it's like represent what the singer have in mind. So Feo and Rodic, it is this big search of love and this was a big challenge. There's an amazing range of stuff they can do with it and it really adds an amazing dimension and depth I think to the performance. It means that what happens on stage is complimented all the time by what you see on the screen. It's a really fantastic job that I think. I was in touch with Brian Smith who was very generous to guide me to some astronomical data which I imported into the software and then used to set up the star field for the final scene where Feo and Apollo were sent to heaven.


Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States and Mrs. Reagan, a company. So this is where you've been all evening. We just dropped by to say a heartfelt thank you to all of you, and kind of apologize for the weather, but you know, I just told some people here that with the weather and all I was reminded that if the pilgrims had only come across that other ocean to discover America, the capital would have been in California, and you know the weather is always good in California. For those who aren't Californians, I have to confess there are a few times when you can fall asleep under a rose bush in full bloom and freeze to death. But anyway, we've been, this is quite a tradition, the inaugural balls, and it all started in New York, May 5th, one week after George Washington became president. And then it grew and continued, and Andrew Jackson, he had one in the White House, and everybody kind of got so worked up over the punch he was serving that he had to bail out a White House window to escape, but they've been going on, and again I just want to say thank you for all that you've done that made this possible. We thank you for being here, helping out in this great occasion tonight, and... Viva, ole! Now just wanted, I just, I wanted to bring some glad tidings, and every place I've been I found out that everybody's heard about the stock market today and how it went up, but I do have a couple that I can only halfway tell you about. There are a couple of economic figures that are going to be released tomorrow morning, and they're embargoed so that I can't tell you exactly what they are, but I can tell you this much, that one of those figures will be the best since 1967, and the other one will be the best since 1951, and you know they said the whole thing wouldn't work. Now they're saying it won't last. Well, wrong once, they're wrong twice.  Well, God bless you all, and thank you for being here, and I think that we ought to start the music and dance, don't you?


Scream 5. The last screen movie came out in 2011. There have been four screen films, three seasons of a television series, and it was finally announced last year in November that a Scream 5 is on the way. A couple of months ago, we learned that Matthew, Betinelli, Open, and Tyler Gillette are directing the film. They are the directing pair that came out with Ready or Not last year, a horror movie that was pretty well received, and it was announced today by The Hollywood Reporter that David Arquette is returning as Deputy Sheriff Dewey Riley. He was in all four screen movies, so he's been around since the beginning of the franchise. In an interview, David Arquette said the following, I am thrilled to be playing Dewey again and to reunite with my Scream family old and new.  What else do we know about this movie? Neve Campbell is in talks to return. She played Sydney Prescott, main character in the old Scream films, and it's going to be written by James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick. Every time there's a movie coming up, we all put our heads together and try to figure out, is this going to be good? Should we be looking forward to it? And we do that by looking at the cred of the writers and the directors. So the directors are pretty new, and they do have at least one good, successful horror film under their belt. Let's look at the writers. Vanderbilt wrote Zodiac. Good movie. Great movie. He also wrote Murder Mystery, the recent Netflix Adam Sandler Jennifer Aniston film, which we didn't see because we don't watch the Netflix Adam Sandler movies. And just overall, I haven't watched it, but from what I hear, not a great movie. And then Busick was one of the co-writers on Ready or Not. So this is one of those cases where it could go either way. I'm going to stay optimistic. I'm a fan of the Scream movies. But let's start there. Adam, Alon, what is your relationship to the Scream franchise? Have you seen the movies? Do you care about them? Does it move your needle at all to hear a fifth Scream movies on the way? A little bit. No, I mean, I do even temper it as always. I do like the Scream movies. I'm not sure I saw the last one, though. Yeah, Scream 4. Did you? I saw that one. Yeah. Was it good? It was solid. It was, I think, a 60% on Rotten Tomatoes. And I would agree with that score. I feel Scream, it's got the nostalgia bump for me. So even if it's bad, it's going to get a few more points from me. My subconscious can't help it. The same is true for me. I think I've probably only seen one or two of the Scream movies. And it was so long ago that I don't remember or I was so young that I didn't understand it. But I loved wearing the Scream masks for Halloween. We had just the classic one, the glow in the dark orange one. There was one that you could connect this like little pump to it and squeeze this fake blood and like drip down through the mask. We own that mask? I don't think so. But I was jealous of my friends who had it. Do we have the Hollywood Reporter article pulled up right now? Pull that up because I just want to pull the Scream mask up on the screen. What child of the 90s could look at that and not get excited?  And then a laugh because the movies did such a great job of balancing true horror and funny subversion of the horror genre. And that's why I've been such a fan of the Scream movies because you and me, Adam, I think are both horror fan alone.  But we lean at least I lean more towards the fun horror, not the dour disturbing and depressing horror. I like that stuff too. But for me, Scream was that great middle ground where it was scary, but it was also just fun. I even enjoyed the TV series on MTV, which then moved to VH1. At least the first two seasons, to me, it successfully delivered that slasher vibe every week. And it gave me an excuse to watch teen melodrama without feeling weird about it. And like I said, I thought Scream 4 was solid. And do we need to Scream 5? I mean, for me, the horror genre continues to change and evolve over time. Every decade of horror looks different than the previous decade. So I think you can continue to update the Scream franchise to just come back and subvert horror tropes. Now, one thing I'm curious about, though, is the slasher film is not a really a thing anymore.  We saw Halloween in 2018, going back to one of the oldest slasher movies. But what are they going to do in Scream 5? Are they going to try and subvert new horror tropes? Are they going to somehow comment on the fact that slasher's have gone out of style? I don't know if you guys have any thoughts on what you would want to see. It might involve technology. Oh, good point. The internet or some kind of spooky element there. Right. And we've seen elements of that before. There was a terrible Halloween movie back in the early 2000s, I think, where it was a reality show. And then Mike Myers showed up and started killing people. Was the letters like the number H2O or something? Something 2K? I think it was Halloween H2O. Okay. So they could go that route. And I'll also say, I'm glad that they're going the sequel route and not doing a total reboot. We didn't know that for sure until we saw this casting today that David Arquette is back. We heard that they were talking to Neve Campbell. So that seemed to be the way they were going. I'm also not that surprised by it, though. After Halloween came back, bringing Jamie Lee Curtis back into the fold, after Terminator Dark Fate brought back Linda Hamilton, the reboot slash sequel or legacy sequel as people are calling it these days seems to be the way to go. I am curious which way they're going to go, though. They could take the safe route, which is what I think Halloween did when they brought back Jamie Lee Curtis. They didn't really do that much new. They just did their best to create a solid entry in the Halloween franchise. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure these writers and directors can do that and I'll enjoy it. But I would love to see them take a little bit of a risk. Somehow reinvent the franchise, do something new while still paying tribute to Wes Craven and everything he did. That'll be tough to pull off. I have no idea what that would look like, but that's what I'm hoping for. I think it'll look something like this. I think you're probably right, though. The first two seasons of the Scream TV series somehow couldn't get the rights to the Scream Mask. So they had to invent a new one where it was less like this and more like this. You know, the masks that we own didn't look like that either. Maybe they were unlicensed. These are the discount masks. They were a little different. Yeah, we were trying to sell unlicensed Scream knockoff masks out of our garage back in the day.


So here we have the three basic forms of linear equations. They are point-slope form, slope-intercept form, and standard form. In both point-slope and in slope-intercept form, we can see that we have slope. And so what that means is this value of m is always replaced with or substituted with the value of the slope in your equation. Now in particular in point-slope form, we see we have point-slope. And so that means there is a point on the line that's used for the equation for that linear equation. And so that point, x1, y1, is found in this linear equation. Now in the slope-intercept form, we have this parameter b. b stands for the y-intercept. And now a y-intercept is where the line would cross the y-axis, would cross the vertical axis. And we'll take a look at that more in future videos. And then lastly, standard form, we have these parameters a, b, and c. Now a, b, and c must all be integers. Now integers, of course, integers are whole numbers. We could have one, we could have two, we could have five, we could have negative eight. So a, b, and c are integers. And in particular a must be a positive integer. So there you go, the three forms of linear equations. Here I have all three forms of linear equations to describe the same line. I have standard form, 2x plus y equals 3. I have slope-intercept form, y equals negative 2x plus 3. And I have point-slope form. y minus 1 is negative 2 times the quantity x minus 1. Now the only form of a line, the only equation that could possibly be different is point-slope form. Right now this point-slope form is using point a as its point. And so if I had, let's say, a different point a, if I moved point a to a different spot, kept the same line, but now a is at negative 1, 5. The standard form is the same, 2x plus y equals 3. The slope-intercept form is the same, negative 2x plus 3. But then the point-slope form is different and it's different to reflect this new value of a. A is now negative 1, 5, so therefore the point-slope form is y minus 5 is negative 2 times the quantity x minus negative 1.