So the idea of this both is to discuss the instruments of community instruments that we have today. We have a group of conducts since about a year, and we have a statement, what's it called again? Diversity statement. Diversity statement, thank you sir, about that. Sorry, I'm going to do it. We have a diversity statement since about two years. The idea here is to discuss what we have, see if it's working well. Maybe see if we need something more. Well, if there are issues that we have, general issues, we can talk about them. But I would like to stress that the idea is not to be talking about particular issues in much detail. I would prefer that we don't start pointing things at people, everybody can have a bad day, everybody can be badly tempered sometimes. And talking about how blah blah did something wrong three months ago is not going to help anyone. So I would like to stress that. Having said that, I know that when the Code of Conduct was voted to exist, there was a number of people who opposed it. And I must say it was something that surprised me. I would have expected some opposition, but the number was higher than I originally thought it would be. So just to start, is there anybody in the room who voted against the Code of Conduct? Let me phrase it that way. No, I was silent. I had voted for the Code of Conduct. But seeing what happened based on the Code of Conduct afterwards made me wish I wouldn't have voted for it. Well, that would have been my next question actually. But there's nobody in the room who voted against it if I get it right. Is that correct? Right. So my next question is indeed, would somebody in the room have voted differently with the things they know today? So it's you, somebody else? Nobody. Okay. Karsten, would you please explain then why you think that way? It gets a bit long, I'm sorry about that. Yeah, that's fine. For me, the Code of Conduct represents a role model, something to strive for. Which is fine and sensible in my eyes. Unfortunately, my impression, it needs to share that, but that is my impression. Some people view the Code of Conduct as a stick to beat up people they don't agree with. This is a very shortened, right, but there is the basic problem that things that are completely innocent for a person to say without bad intentions. Create the impression of being aggressive or abusing on people often coming from other cultural circles. I'm definitely not going to point fingers, we had several cases where somebody said something thinking of it being insulting to somebody, because it is a common colloquial expression where they come from, but people who read that felt severely insulted by it without it meant to be insulting, and things have been pushing up each other after that. And also there are things like somebody making, let's say, some sloppy expression which somebody else actually read as being physically threatened with physical violence. I haven't seen that, but yeah. I have to say that. You have to have that as well. You're talking about buses. I'm talking in Bang, other things also about buses. If you live in the same area as the person who used the bus, you clearly see that it was an innocent joke, but for the recipient it did not appear to be an innocent joke, but he actually felt threatened. And this is something that I find hardly to avoid in an international project, because there are just cultural differences. Often there are expressions which to a native speaker are completely innocent, but the expression a non-native speaker gets is different. And things start piling up then, and I'm not sure that it's something that can actually be avoided. Just one sentence. I'm actually a fan of the IATF principle. He conserves it in what you're sent and be liberal in what you accept. I wanted to maybe pull back a little bit from the idea that a code of conduct is going to avoid all conflict or all people providing effects. And propose that maybe one way to think about the code of conduct is... Can somebody take notes please? It's gobby, so you do gobby and you connect to... Is it gobby, or is it fine if you install that and then you connect to gobby.demi.org? I'll do it on the text file given to you there. That works, dude. Thank you for both of you for picking on us. So I was just going to say that we like to, as technical geeks and process geeks, we like to try to come up with ways that we can prevent all of the bad things that never happen. We're doing sort of defensive programming in our social environment. And I want to say that maybe sometimes it's worth thinking about the code of conduct not as a way to prevent something bad from happening. Because as you say, given the international nature of the project, that's probably impossible because we have all of these different people coming together. But instead, see the code of conduct as a way of saying, hey, sometimes bad things will happen because maybe someone says something unintentionally that turned out to offend or insult someone, and the code of conduct can be a way that we can come together and say, oh, I screwed up. Will you forgive me for screwing up? I'll try to not do it again because now I understand where you're coming from differently. So rather than seeing it as a way that we can, you know, beat people up for making a mistake, for doing something innocently that, you know, hurt somebody else's feelings or discourage others from participating, we can see it as a way to say, look, we're committed towards working together across these complicated international boundaries that we for sure can't get right all the time. And it's a way to say, oh, like we can take responsibility for the things that we didn't mean to do even and grow and work together in that sort of community way. So do not see it explicitly as, we're going to prevent all bad things from happening because I agree, we're going to fail. That's our goal. But instead say, how do we acknowledge when bad things happen and move forward in a way that builds the community instead of tearing it apart? I think, yeah. I agree. And I think, because I remember the case in question, and it was at the end of a lot of things going wrong in the discussion. And it's a bit like writing a program to handle the condition of the computer being on fire. And there's little that the program can do. And the problem is that the computer isn't fired. So, I mean, it's perfectly okay to talk about bus factor in normal daily conversation.  Who's going to maintain an end of your life? I don't think that's a problem with that. But in a normal conversation, I thought that they accept that people say, what if you get hit by a bus? But in a conversation where things are heated, where I thought they lost trust on the good intentions of the person in front of me and if somebody tells me what if you're hit by a bus, then I was like, go away. And please never be seen next to a bus in my presence. But the problem there is not the expression. It's that there is the loss of the trust that I have on that person to actually care for my existence on the planet is an addition rather than a problem. And at that point, I'm not sure how much code of conduct or something a behavior can do. And I don't really agree. I would be totally interested in figuring out how to take that as a point of growth. It's not a problem in a relationship to end up in a situation of conflict. But in a healthy relationship, it's nice that there's a way to say, oh, wow, we are in a situation of conflicts. How did we end up there? What was the actual problem? Rather than, oh, you said that, but you said that. Right, right.  Yes, so I'm very new to Vivian at large. And I'm here because I'm helping to organize DECOM 2016 next year. Right. So I've been hit first with the problems in Olga, which I think is very much probably an intensification of the problems generally. Hopefully. Okay. A lot of this is happening. So one of, two questions, one is, it feels like there's some people, probably native speakers, who are more dominant. And the non-native speakers already feel marginalized. So it really links up to what Erica was saying. That it's not about the expressions, but that you're feeling marginalized as a point of departure. Right. Are the marginalized communities involved in all these things I've heard about as my first question? That's a good question. What was the question? If you feel you don't belong to a place, so marginalize me. And then someone writes something to help protect you, but you weren't involved in it. That's patronizing and useless. So I want to know if people were involved in creating the structures that shouldn't be taken. The code of conduct, I wrote an initial draft and it was then discussed over middle-lists and over above last, or two years ago during DECOM. I tried to be as inclusive as possible about that, but it was impossible to say you have to help me. I did try to listen to people who had disagreements. Sometimes I agreed with them, sometimes I didn't agree with them, but I think I did try to do that. I'm not sure if it actually happened, but that's maybe a good question. I don't know if that intense actually happened, if it actually happened, but I don't know if people who felt marginalized felt included. Maybe that's one of the reasons why more people voted against the code of conduct than I was hoping for. I don't know. Does anybody have an idea about that? Probably not. I can't remember whether I voted against it. I think I'd say... You can look this up if you want me to. Go ahead. I was teetering on the brink of doing so, but maybe I had a nice day and voted for it. You want to point to the camera? I'm going to do that. Was there a reason why you said that? The reason I would have voted against it is the same reason that I would have voted against there being a DPL if I voted in that, which is that I don't think that these structures really work in this sort of organization. But the optimism of the thing, I think that's why I'm saying it's because it could work, so let people play with it. But I think it's been quite often used as a weapon because we like in certain people, depending on their culture, interpreting suggestions as rules or Americans seem to think that everything needs to be written down in a constitution and then it's set in stone. English people tend to think that if you haven't actually been told not to with on-payment death, then it's probably allowed. And Germans, if there is a rule about it, there must be a little bit. So if you don't have any innocuous statement that you're going to try and put in a place that's a bit like a rulebook, then you're going to get three completely at odds interpretations of that at least. That's only three nations. Throw in the Japanese who never haven't got a word for none. So we have a problem. Just for the record, you voted one, two, three, which means you voted for it, so you didn't vote against it. I must have been feeling optimistic that day. I wanted to go back to the using as a stick or as weapon. I think it's in some part just very natural. People fall back to authorities. Sometimes malicious as a button, but more often innocuously because they just have, especially if they are not very sure and have problems to convince people, they crap everything they see as authority and throw it at the other side. It's not only a quote of conduct. For example, one often sees it with the list of fantasies, which is a useful tool to see what it is, but in the end you often see people just telling the other people what fantasies they, as you and they, just have told instead of arching what they do. I think it happens with everything and the quote of conduct will be used this way. If there wasn't the quote of conduct people would use something else there. And I think there is also the thing that if the other side uses something like this perceived as a button, it's too easy to see it as malicious on the other side that they use it as button. I think it might also help there to see it as that there is just an uncertainty, an angst in them that causes them to crap the next thing of authority. For example, in some heated discussions with some newcomers, we all knew sometimes they will throw in Debian free software guidelines numbers anyway. At which point you know he is just trying to make an argument. No, it's the emotions got over them. They cared about something and the emotions got over their head. I think with the other points where you see that people use it as a stick would also be more important to perceive this more or try to perceive this more that it is most likely more that they are also too much in emotion that they are even unsure. Maybe try to find a way to calm them down actually. There you go. I am at the quote of conduct now and I was thinking about the heated discussion like the system-d discussion I think the system-d thing itself is some fortune that we've heard the quote of conduct into existence in the midst of the system-d thing. Anyway, go ahead. I was trying to see in those heated discussions there are patterns that are probably not addressed in the quote of conduct. The quote of conduct is mostly about the average everyday conversation. When we are all nice and peaceful and fine this kind of says how to keep it nice and simple and fine and then things spiral out of control. I was thinking about the situations where things spiral out of control and one problem we have is that it's things in which the participants are uncomfortable being there but they see no alternative to being there. In other examples of interaction there are ways of getting out but no means no. I would like to discuss this with you but now it's not a good time for me. Let's bring it up after I have breakfast so I don't feel like bothering you. These kind of things are quite normal but in a mailing list we do not have the possibility of safe working out of saying I care about that but I don't feel comfortable discussing it in these terms. There's the general feeling that if I bail out because I'm uncomfortable then my voice will not be represented. At that point the rules of the conversation change and then things go weird. That could be abused by pleasantness. I care a lot.  You are getting so uncivilized about these things and suddenly they take a moral high that they kind of win by moral high ground but in a way that's twisted. So it's what you're saying is that we should maybe try to figure out a way of seeing if we can do something about that. The code of conduct doesn't seem to of ways out for when somebody is out of the comfort zone Is that something we should add to the code of conduct? I see this as a relationship I see most things as a relationship So when in trouble ask for a relationship counselling which is very, it could be from very basic things my first go-to thing is always like when you say that I feel this which can get nasty when the other person is being a booty because then it's not locking you but often I feel like that's often the other person goes oh my word I don't know and then it already resolved. So my question was is the code of conduct to general that everything just slips through the crack so I would definitely suggest adding very specific counselling things like try doing this try asking you know or try telling the other person if you say that I feel this you know it's something to do and it feels stupid when you look at it but it actually is very useful. Right I'm not sure I agree with Enrique about not not getting out or because I think that when you are in minority or underrepresented group and you are not feeling comfortable with language or with heated discussions and you also see that other people are using code of conduct to as a stick it might mean that some minorities will tend to draw out either from discussion or even from project because they are afraid that they will be misunderstood because of heated discussion because of their not being proficient enough with language and then they will be afraid that even though they mean well the code of conduct will be used as a stick against them so they will use and then they will Is that maybe something we should try to work on to use the code of conduct as a stick and you are not involved in the discussion it's maybe a good idea to step in and say hey please don't do that because that's not what it's for does that sound reasonable? I think that happened in the discussions where that was said as well Yes it did happen The code of conduct was used as a stick and people said it's not a stick and that didn't help resolving the use of the stick I was just wondering what I was going to say is that there's kind of two principles which seem contradictory so on one hand there's the code of conduct which can be read as don't do this, don't do that and on the other hand there's the kind of older principle of always seeing the good intent which is so important that it's actually right at the top of the code of conduct assuming good intent and so when you were talking about what you sent and being liberal with what you received I feel like those two principles one can be applied to one and the other so in terms of what you sent one can use the code of conduct to think about what they are saying to others but then when you are interpreting what you hear from other people then it's not to use the code of conduct but rather to use the principle of always assuming good intent so I feel like if there's a separation when you hear stuff don't use the code of conduct to police what other people are saying but only use it to police what you yourself are saying and using the principle of assuming good intent when you hear stuff from others so I feel like those two principles taken together they seem contradictory but when they're used in different contexts I think that they are both very useful and not using the code of conduct as a stick when you hear stuff that is probably the most productive way of using it I have a question a throat question what would be the best practice if I find myself in a condition of being unable to assume good intent so I'm in a situation in which I'm like even what I see I do not think I mean I have every rational reason to believe there is no good intent on the part of that person so I can't assume good intent because that means I get a little used what I've done in such situation in the past is just state that so I'd say I'm not sure you actually mean this very well anymore but assuming I'm wrong I'll answer this and if they then still go like whatever then I stole the discussion make my point clear at that point that's what I feel if they read that statement and go oh hang on that's not what I meant then they will come back and apologize and then to me everything's fine but I think if you clarify that what you just did to me I don't feel good about it in my experience people will usually either confirm that they meant it that way in which case to me the discussion is over or apologize and then we can move on and to me that works really well I'm not saying it will work for everyone but that's what I've done in the past Could there be a couple of personal stories about how to deal with such a thing and maybe a guideline camera? That's a good idea, anyone want to contribute? I have had similar experiences with voicing that I don't feel that there's good intentions so quite often it has turned out that there has been some some misunderstanding and also for me it has helped to often say like sometimes I've said instead of voicing that I don't feel there's good intentions it's kind of like pushed myself despite like emotionally healing and kind of feeling that I rationally have every right to believe that they don't have good intentions and gone like there's like tiny tiny tiny possibility there has been a misunderstanding so let's say that first and see what happens I guess that's the good assumed good intent part But at that point when I have pushed myself to do that I totally don't feel that I can assume good intentions it's like yeah I know lightning sometimes strikes 5 times in the same place so maybe this is one of those cases but I don't truly believe that I've been also wondering whether there has been any cases of people just saying that please can we continue this conversation the next day because many conversations they're not really that urgent that they need to be finished that day I have never never been in a situation on mailing list where I would have asked for that or seen it happen but this is getting sidetracked in this last I don't think this is getting sidetracked at all I think the code of conduct should include these or scenarios as examples to guide the behavior well the code of conduct doesn't currently because it was always my feeling that if you start listing things like don't do this and don't do that you get up, you end up with an enumeration and the light of a particular item might make some people feel that they can do that because it's not in the list so that's why I consciously avoided such a list but so I'm a dog don't do anything translated into do something apparently dogs don't think of the negative so you always need to use positive reinforcement so instead of saying don't do this so suggestion perhaps ask if a conversation can be continued the next day so there's no don't, there's only suggestions that could work I suppose so you know that better than I do go ahead, this is more like people so don't swear, don't do this is not helpful, especially as an awful lot of the time in tech communities we swear and we don't mean any offense by it that's just what we do but suggesting to people well if you're getting it's late at night, you're tired and this conversation is getting very heated suggests that you continue it in the morning that's giving somebody a tool that they can use which is not the same as an instruction at all it would be nice also if we saw this behavior model on the list more I mean like you said I don't know that I've ever seen a conversation on a mailing list where people have said can we have a time out for a day? I do this on IRC nowadays I haven't used it a lot but I used it when I was much more active when IRC I used it a lot I had this little script alias that would basically block everything from the person for 10 minutes and if the conversation got too personal I would say that can we calm down please can we take a step back and have a little break from this and if they would keep on continuing I would say that I will come back in 10 minutes to see if we can continue this and it worked super well usually when I came back after 10 minutes we would return to the same conversation in a much more rational way in the worst case I ended up using it three times in a row and then actually when I came back the other person was like sorry I was totally out of line can we now return to the topic but I don't know how a similar thing would work on a mailing list yeah what I was just saying there's a huge difference between a mailing list and IRC where IRC is more or less the life action I say something and I can expect a reply within seconds whereas on the mailing list the average response time is in the matter of hours so if you're like I don't feel very well now about answering this I am very upset about it if you sit for a day without asking the other person can I reply within a day I don't really expect that behavior so it doesn't really make a lot of difference it's fine but I think saying that you're uncomfortable might go some way that's true but that's separate from can we wait for an hour I just want to make a comment I've been in very hearing organizations that's bad and I just want to make a comment that I've been surprised being well versed in that I'm grumpy now I'm going to leave and people go with it so I think as a community you are very well already very so I think we just be encouraged by that thank you for that yeah I think what's a bit missing is the problem if there is a larger heated discussion what we have now is if one self is a bit too heated the problem is what do you do if in larger discussions with thousands and we had some in the last time where there are people that seem to be for months in a quite emotional stage where you can't come near a topic or they will claim you are a troll or not that or they are do you agree with that troll and things like this the question is what can one do with that's larger problems I'm not sure if we want to fix every problem and in fact to be fair it's 10 years ago now that's the Vancouver proposal happens where Jalek Komun as an observer as an anthropologist made the observation that through conflict we have aligned our values and we re-evaluated how Debian works it wasn't fun if you were in the midst of it and I was in the midst of it because as a portrait of the 16th cake board which was threatened with destruction at the time or not destruction but obsolescence it was very emotional but Debian the issue at the time decided that maybe we don't need to support all ports for all time and I wouldn't have said that at the time but I will say today that it was a good decision that we made when we made it so it wasn't fun but I'm thinking that it's not always necessary for conflict we should try to sometimes conflict is necessary we disagree with someone of course if it gets personal that's a different matter but conflicts may also get emotional and may also be difficult but we shouldn't go out of the way to avoid it at all if you see what I mean Yes, but I'm especially speaking about a large-scale discussion where it's obvious that a technical discussion is too hard because no one looks for technical discussion or if someone tries he is still shouted as a troll and go away That's a good question I'm not sure how to answer that one I'm wondering if anyone can think of examples where I know they're not as spectacular but where some kind of conflict has been resolved with everybody kind of happy or at least not very upset So there's been some suggestions about changes to the world and so some suggestions have been good So you mentioned basing it off of mailing lists if there have been actual examples of where things have actually worked can anyone think of the usual way in which I see things function correctly when there's a conflict and there's a resolution is when both of you somehow get the other side that's let's say one side is being pressured getting them to or asking them to try to empathize with your position and you empathize with their position in other words trying to understand each other when you come to a resolution that works rather than basically shouting no in both directions if that helps that is a very good proposition unfortunately it only works if both sides do it that's right and it's been my experience that it is a skill that unfortunately some people just don't have that's true so you can try it it's always going to work I've had this happen with people who are actually close to me in those situations it's rather difficult you don't actually want to yell at them you don't actually want to close the door so usually what I would try to do is to let them know that what they're saying is unacceptable or in some way actually confront them but not actually attack back with some force but yet not being overwhelming and trying to get to understand where I'm coming from why what they're doing is being a problem and usually lately that's really worked okay so I like your your point and it's been pointed out to me that if you want to solve a problem there's no point looking at where the problem is but where it isn't and figure out what are they doing right right so I think you're looking in the right direction unfortunately it's pretty hard to remember good examples because the bad ones are more memorable but I think we have at least one memorable good example that I've been which is the discussion about the diversity statement in which at the beginning everyone was like oh my god it's going to be so and the discussion was on for a month of excellent discussion and it came out with a wonderful what was the pattern in that I don't know possibly one thing is that the discussion had a person who took care of leading it and summarizing it somehow so it didn't just maybe that is a pattern and that person was quite respected yeah I think that is actually if there's something you really care about this the discussion that I started on a while back I think about facilitating external variables and then with a few males in there very long males with arguments much going sarcastic and ironic stuff like that which I could have interpreted as flame data but I decided not to and I think of course I can't tell what would have happened had I not interpreted it that way but I feel that by replying in a reasonable manner as possible the sarcasm and the sting got out of the discussion and that can help as well so it's always that's assuming good faith that's the part of assuming good faith it's also the part of ignoring the flame bait yeah that's just fine it's also the part of ignoring the flame bait and not giving into the temptation of replying to bad inventions with bad inventions which also helps I think I was thinking about communication in lists it's a bit than I have seen because for example there's no concept of let's discuss it against tomorrow because we start all the time zones and there's no such thing as it's a continuous day you also may read the meal let's continue tomorrow after you reply to the meal already because you were behind a couple of meals and I get there tomorrow and the discussion is as lifted towards something I need to read like 15 meals but an interesting thing is that splitting the level of the content not the topic of the conversation with the level of the meta communication so I wonder if that could be a suggestion of try to agree with what the other person the needs of the other person in the communication even if you don't agree with that point that I can make so if I say I think we shouldn't have a graphical installer people may disagree with me but if I say I would like to take some time off this discussion and come to you later with why I think the graphical installer shouldn't be there I have two things I'm saying I'm not in a condition of participating for this discussion with the best of my abilities at the moment but I care about that topic and one can take me seriously kind of agree with me on that bit and figure out so when would you have time to discuss this, would you like to write down a proposal for it and come back to me so that they can agree with that without agreeing with what I want and it's not obvious in such a discussion that one can agree with one but not the other it's like it is agreeing with you therefore everything you say in an email is wrong I have seen that kind of behavior and sometimes it's annoying I've also had games where I say I'm going to come back to this later and then it needs a month later to say this is why I think it doesn't work and because of the medium of email you can actually do that because you can always go back every batch which is difficult with things like RSC anyone else want to contribute something so a large part of the reason why I feel comfortable coming here is because you have a WS to state the code of conduct so I'm very glad that you do and please don't take it away that these tools need to be reformed somehow something else people have talked a lot about conversations getting heated it might be helpful to remember that when you're talking technical stuff and people are getting angry it's because they care right that's right I think that's a good note to end on because we're about to run out of time maybe we can get one more I have one proposal it might make sense to link to some text about Harvard's principles negotiation to the code of conduct because it has a lot of good advice about how to separate people from the problem that's right it's a system that is described by a book written by a couple of people who have been involved in international diplomatic negotiations where I'm sure emotions get much higher I've got a question with respect to your mark you said we agree on that the topic time or that they should be revised is that something that we agree on? I'm not sure if we do now the way that I've heard your words that they should be tools added to help implement this yes having a problem so you should definitely have a diversity statement you should definitely have a code of conduct that doesn't mean that they are carved into the surface of a granite they can be revised from time to time just to be clear I want to evaluate what we have I'm not necessarily sure myself we need to revise it if the result of the discussion is that we think we should revise it because I've been giving it out of this right now and I feel it should be someone else's I've got one proposal because I agree with you that we need to avoid that we can just do this do this, don't do this maybe it would sound nice to have something similar like there are the laws and then there are comments from judges from different lawyers so maybe do something like this code of conduct like the judge and then additional at the level to code of conduct when one could some advice it's maybe important to remember in that context that the rules that we decided on for the code of conduct is that while we cannot change the code of conduct except through GR the DPL does have the ability to add a further reading link at the bottom so if you think we should add something that is valuable in the context of the code of conduct it might be good to explore that option we haven't used it yet that doesn't mean we can't Daniel first so I just wanted to point out that we do have a culture within Debian of people writing documentation for other people to use to interpret the social contract and the DFSG and then write without being part of the contract and in many ways the things that people reference the most that have been written about those are things that someone has written on the side and then become incorporated by practice as a community so if we have people who you just give an example of a reference that we should link to and sorry I don't know your name I'm Bernal in Debian so you give an example of specific actions people can take to try to align their work with it it would be great to have those written down even if they're not directly linked to the code of conduct right now as a community we can point to them and say here's some examples of how to do this stuff right? and I think that a dating number is a brilliant idea because code of conduct are really by definition dry and boring right and then if you can link you can go to some things that feel like they resonate with you I think that's the wonder of it that's why it's possible to do that do you want to say something? I think there is in my experience a certain problem with not the code of conduct but the way that a complaint might be interpreted depending on the context and who the complaint is about in American law there's a concept of vexation where if you start suing everybody in your town eventually the code gets stopped they just throw your case out and say next time we see you unless it's someone having a go at you as long as it's not you suing people for having blue cars then it's okay but otherwise you're in jail so it's possible that if someone just complained about everybody in a discussion that doesn't agree with you then you don't have to take the last of those complaints seriously as if it's the first time they complain and I don't think we've got that this goes back to we don't have that wait a second I'm not saying wait a second viewers it's in the process it's not a wait a second thing where if someone complains for the first time that's a big thing to overcome the inertia of thinking well this is the best of the community everybody would hate me for complaining if you feel like you should complain you should complain and you've overcome quite a hurdle to do that the first time if it's your 17th complaint that day and your 20th I don't think that's ever happened but if that did happen so that the people the people that end up being interested in this have an interest in protecting the victims and that's completely right because if you're privileged then you're not going to spend all the time crawling through this crap that you might have to put up with from both sides because you're going to get attacked by both sides when you're trying to sort this stuff out you're not going to do it so the people that do it of course community but there is a point to which the victim isn't actually innovating they're just sort of machine going people with actual conduct I actually think that it's not unreasonable the rotation of the code of conduct of this part of the code of conduct to say that if you start abusing the code of conduct and spewing it at everyone you are in breach of this part that says that you should adhere to the relevant parts of conduct that you are no longer respecting other people and not assuming good faith and stuff like that of course it might be a bit of a weird interpretation I think it is I want to go to the second paragraph series of of that series of persistent offenders may be banned that's fine but I want to know is there a follow up process to understand why there are a series of persistent offenders because I'm assuming that these people already have a history in their being that they're not some random troll that's just coming in to spam you and if I can speak it well then those are easy I was one of those persistent offenders as I was going into a nervous breakdown and yes I was banned but I also had our head of department coming to me and had a private conversation with me to find out what was actually wrong and I think that solved the cause of the problem much better than just banning you would ever have done and so I think a bit of sympathy there would be you know from a public ministry ban that's a procedure that's fine but from the back in come in and find out why it's actually happening I think you can resolve a lot of things that's an interpersonal thing that I think we can I think it's part of the procedure in the cases I know about there's always been someone or several of someone who has tried to get in touch with the person private channels the trouble is that normally if they, you know people don't normally go completely potty on depends on their personality but people normally don't do it on deviant because of deviant they do it because they're going through a divorce or they've just been diagnosed with cancer or whatever and so they're stressed about all their ability to deal with stress they've taken up with that other thing and then someone says something that can they read the first sentence or post the person that sent it or they reading it misses the knot towards the end of the line and the rest of the post means something completely different and they respond with strange words and then that's the end of that we have actually very few cases of people being thrown out and those cases were quite spectacular and they had extensive normal channel website channel negotiation before possibly important of those cases is that there's been way too much attempts not to get to that where it couldn't be like please get out of the project and come back after a year after things may get better but in all of those cases in all of the cases in the past they could think of except one there would be no problem if the person came back and I think the general attitude would be oh let's get to know each other again I can think of two okay videos but yeah I think that is usually the case and that's why it also says temporary or permanently and why it doesn't go into detail on when we do one or the other because I don't think that makes sense in any kind of procedure but yeah it should be the exception anyway and I think currently which is good do we have anything more to say or to make an answer to that we've had at least two cases in which I know where people haven't been thrown out formally but where they have been heavily suggested to resign themselves in a form which made very clear that if they do not resign for themselves when moving them out we had one person being kicked out at that point but he was kicked out during that conflict and we had one person being banned and effectively kicked out from the analysts I'm also not going to name him but this was a personal conflict that's the two names I can think of there are other people who have been temporarily banned as well many more of those I'm sure there's been people who have been invited to leave right yeah I'm sure but the general thing is that we can't bring kick a person out we can revoke a position membership and say we don't think you are an official part of the project because you're not following we're not interacting contractively with the rest of the project or you are acting a way that contradicts the foundation documents of the project that you signed and you've shown no way of acknowledging this that's why accounts have been closed but even in the case of accounts being closed people are still some of the people are still contributing to that in their own way in other forms it could be that they could not contribute according to how their view works and maybe not together with people that are happy to work with them and that is working fine so I've thought so far we're kicking out the post kicking out path let's say does leave the open unless there's some spectacular growth planning happening we can reconsider things potentially right can I conclude for the minutes that you are genuinely happy with the post kicking out this interview well my gut feeling is that it's not so bad but I'm also in a position such that if people have a problem with that they probably wouldn't complain to me I think we can conclude on this we're almost out of time anyway we have time to move on to anything else I do encourage you if you feel we should take some action to maybe post something on that project wellness because this is really only very small subject we do have ways to add links to the growth conduct fairly easily so if you think that's a reasonable thing to do go ahead and try to get that on other things I don't think I should be the one to use anymore because I've already known this that for me to do everything but also on that thank you for being here for this discussion and thank you


Today's video I'm gonna be talking about the top five jobs in the Air Force. Now this is entirely my opinion. You could think, dude Kyle, you are so far off with what the best jobs are in the Air Force. You don't even know. Comment down below and let me know what the top five jobs are in the Air Force in your opinion. So do not hold back in the comment section down below. Now I served a six year contract in the Air Force and I separated at the very end of 2018. My job was also aircraft structural maintenance. We're gonna go ahead and just jump right into the fifth best job in the Air Force in my opinion and that is administration. Bro, you're picking non-or jobs for your top five jobs. Well yeah, I was maintenance and we got worked like dogs. From what I've heard from people that were admin, they had a pretty good experience. It was pretty chill. And at the end of the day, no matter what job you are, you get paid for your rank. So an E3 in admin gets paid the same as an E3 in aircraft structural maintenance. So when I was working 50, 60 hours a week and I'm coming home covered in hydro fluid and oil and grease and then you have admin getting off early almost every day and going home and has a pristine uniform. They're not dirty or sweaty. Yeah, that sounds pretty good. Now I'm not saying that admin doesn't do a lot of work. Admin doesn't do a lot of work compared to like other jobs and you're getting paid the same. So I'm like, cool, I'd be fine with that. Admin people, fire back, let me know why you guys do more work than other people in the Air Force. I would love to hear it. I'm sure other people would too.  Either way, you probably know somebody that is joining or if you're joining yourself, you should know about Sandbox. Friends and family can send you a letter from literally anywhere. All they have to do is use the Sandbox app or use the website online, type up their letter and hit send. Your loved one will get tracking. It will include the message that they wrote, a photo if they choose to include one, a piece of paper for you to write a message back and it also includes a pre-addressed envelope. All you have to do is add a stamp to that letter and mail it back to your loved one and they get tracking for your letter back to them. That was literally my favorite thing about Sandbox was being able to know when a letter from McKenna was going to arrive in my mailbox. So if you haven't told your friends or family about Sandbox before you leave for basic training, you need to get on that. Be sure to use the link in the description below. All right, now let's get back to the video. Now the fourth best job in the Air Force in my opinion is non-destructive inspection. Now this is actually a maintenance job but non-destructive inspection has the acronym of NDI. NDI secretly stands for not doing it or no dirt involved. So as you can tell, you're probably not gonna be coming home soaked in hydro or oil or grease or sweat. Now I'm not saying that NDI doesn't do anything but they didn't do a lot. Now with NDI, you're gonna have a lot more repetitive or mundane tasks which make your job seem more easy compared to other jobs. Now don't get me wrong, NDI is an extremely important maintenance job. We would not be able to have the type of aircraft that we have today or the abilities that we have today without NDI. So I'm not pushing down on them and saying that they aren't a good enough job. I put it on my list of top five best jobs. One of the reasons why is because you get paid a lot of money as a civilian. Now if you guys are interested in what these jobs do in depth, we actually have on airmanvision.com we have all these job interviews or here on YouTube you can search the job and type in airmanvision afterwards. And if we've done a job interview with somebody that's currently in or was in at one point in time, we shared it with you guys so you guys can see what these jobs are all about from somebody that's actually done it firsthand. Now my pick for third best job in the Air Force is gonna be aircraft load master. Now this is actually a pretty popular job that a lot of people want and it's not a very big career field so not a lot of people get it. Now I've met several people that were load masters and they absolutely love their job but I also know some of them that decided not to relist and to get out and become a civilian again and pursue a different career. But overall I've never heard anybody that was a load master talk bad about their experience as a load master even if they decided to not continue pursuing it. It's a lot harder if you have a pet in your single like if you have a dog or a cat and you have to constantly keep going away for a week or two, you gotta find people to watch your pets.  Load masters travel all the time. That's their job as they load the aircraft and they fly with the aircraft. There's not really a set schedule for load masters. You can't expect to be I'll be home for a week, I'll be gone for a week, I'll be home for a week, gone for a week. That's not gonna happen. It's gonna be all over the place. So there's not much consistency. So if you do have a family, you're gonna have to have a family that is very resilient and can handle you being gone all the time or at least on a sporadic schedule. But in my opinion, that's also one of the best perks of the job is that you get to travel so much. The amount of money that load masters make, one, great perk, two, the amount of travel that load masters get and then when they land, they might be like, we're here for three or four days. You guys don't need to check in until the day before we're gonna load up. So then they're on vacation for three days. Such an amazing opportunity. The amount of travel that load masters get to do is unreal. Public affairs is in my opinion the second best job to get in the Air Force. I'm interested in videography and photography. So I think that it would personally be an awesome job because that's what I did the whole time I was in the Air Force, just on the side. And that's what I did for years before I joined the Air Force. That's what I already do here on AirmanVision. So I think being able to do that for the Air Force would have been an awesome opportunity. Unfortunately, I was maintenance, completely different opportunity. But I think if you were interested in videography or photography, becoming public affairs in the Air Force and having access to all the equipment that they are given an issue, 10, 20, $30,000 worth of equipment that you get to learn on and practice with and shoot with is an amazing experience and opportunity. Especially if you wanted to use it as a stepping stone and then get out and start your own business or do photography or videography. Plus I think just being around super creative people would be awesome. I was maintenance. It was not a creative field. There were a lot of people that were just very like narrow minded and it was very frustrating for me because I'm obviously more open minded than a creative person. Now my number one pick in the Air Force and this was a toss up between public affairs and this job. I wasn't for sure which one to put but I ended up putting this one as the number one which it might be a surprise to some of you guys because I feel like a lot of people that are joining probably have never even heard of this job or they've read it and they're like that doesn't sound like anything I wanna do. I'm good. Aviation resource management, also known as ARM. Now what you do in this job is you essentially work with the pilots and you make sure that they're signed off on all of their paperwork, that everything is good to go. So you work with pilots all the time which is one huge for connections because you're gonna meet a lot of high profile people in the military and also you're gonna be able to talk to them like one-on-one all the time. Most people in the Air Force don't talk with officers all the time because for instance I was in maintenance and we have like three officers in our unit of like 400 people. But if you're ARM, you're dealing with pilots which are all officers all the time. You're getting a lot more professional experience in my opinion that can help set you up on the outside. But from the people that I know that have that job they absolutely loved it. The connections were amazing but they also were given a lot of time to go to school or volunteer and do a lot of things of personal growth. Now the work schedule sometimes can fluctuate because the flying schedule at certain bases can change a lot as well. So sometimes you might be coming in at two in the morning or sometimes you might be just coming in normal nine to five. So that is one of the downsides to this job is the schedule isn't very set. ARM, it's one of those little known secrets about the Air Force, I think it's one of the best jobs if not the best job in the Air Force on my list of top five jobs to have in the Air Force. Now I know that some of you guys are probably like, one, I don't even know what ARM is or two, you're completely wrong. None of these jobs should be on the top five jobs in the Air Force. If you disagree, again, do not be shy. Comment down below, let me know some random dude on the internet why I'm wrong about what the top five jobs in the Air Force are. I would love to hear it everyone else would too. And be sure to check out our other videos of top five Air Force bases overseas and top five Air Force bases stateside. So we'll link those in the description down below and we will see you guys in another video.


The project today comes from Big Bang Analytics and they partnered with the Ministry of Education. Big Bang is a Victoria-based company whose goal is to help owners of big data access that data and make better informed decisions from it. They are eager to grow their business based on this project and they're looking forward to offer solutions to multiple markets based on their business intelligence needs. So, I would like to call up Robin Quinn and Chelsea Shalifor, Director of Analysis and Reporting at the Ministry of Education to join me on stage. So, I'm Robin Quinn. I'm a co-founder of Big Bang Analytics based in Victoria, a women-founded tech company which makes us a little bit off to the side, but very proud to be here. And I'm Chelsea Shalifor. I'm the Director for Student Outcomes Analysis and Reporting with our Education Analytics Branch in the Ministry of Education. So, one of the things we do at the Ministry of Education, as was mentioned in government, we collect a lot of information. We collect a lot of information about students and particularly we collect information about student outcomes. And with that information, we do a number of things, but one thing we do is we also share that information back with school districts. So, they give us information. We correlate it all and put it together and then share it back to them securely. And how we've been doing that, securely because there's a lot of personal identifiable information about students, individual students. So, we're very careful of how we share it. And so, we do it through SharePoint and we do it with Excel spreadsheets. And what we've found is that while we know there's really powerful information, there's a lot of information within that SharePoint site and in those spreadsheets. It doesn't seem to be used by districts very much. And we also know that we've really had a big disconnect with what school districts want from us around that information. What do they do? What do they need with information? And how can we help them to access that information? So, the other piece we also know anecdotally was that regardless of what they weren't doing, they were very frustrated with the SharePoint and the Excel spreadsheets. They required a very advanced tech type of data analyst to access it and school districts don't hire those people by and large. They maybe have one or two, but it's not an area that they have a lot of expertise in. And so, largely this wealth of information was being ignored. Yeah. It wasn't a very user-friendly system. So, for us, knowing the predictive power of that information and the wealth of resources of the data that was there, the mission for us is to really give superintendents a tool that can help them understand trends and patterns with their students and specifically on the outcomes of their students, how they're doing today, are they on track to graduate, that kind of thing. Giving them data in a format that they could actually apply and use in day-to-day operations versus a special request. So, one of the kind of foundation elements of our proposal was recognizing that a lot of technology and IT projects fail. And that's actually the basis of the startup and residence program in San Francisco. For us, we looked at it from the user perspective is that if you didn't talk to users about what you were designing as a solution for them, you were missing the point. So, we conducted in-depth interviews, user consultations with our five school districts that were part of the pilot project. And we asked them, what is it that you're looking for? How would you use this data differently? And that's, I just want to put a plug in here, we did this because of timing issues in the school year. We did our consultations in September, so we had nine weeks. And I should point out when we did our original inception, it was very telling the fact that when we looked at all this data that we had, and they said, what do you want to tackle first? We had no idea. We went, I don't know, what's most important? We couldn't really say and we went back and forth with a number of different ideas. It was very telling about how disconnected we were with really what school districts were using most. But we got great insight from them and we really took that. And Big Bang Analytics did an amazing job transforming that insight and their frustrations and their interest into what you see now. One of the things that they really wanted, first and foremost, we took a whole bunch of their feedback. And one of the things was to compare how they're doing against an aggregated provincial model. So what you see visually is their ability now not just to look at a spreadsheet with their data, but also to see the green line is their data. The gray line is the provincial data. So that's your provincial average as a whole. And that allows them to really see where they stand and what specific kind of elements should they be considering when they look at all this information. So just if you drill down and just to note some of the things we tackled, we looked at a couple of our six-year completion rates so that identifies our students graduating within a six-year period. We looked at the foundation skills assessment and specifically focused on grade four and grade seven reading. And so the first dashboard had all of that in one spot. You could see all of those different elements. Then if you drill down, here we're looking specifically into completion rates. And while it's much more simplistic than the big spreadsheets, they were like A to Z column. There's lots of information. None of that information is lost. It's now more dynamic. So now you have the same information visually represented and you can go and toggle over pieces and see the same information you had, but it makes sense. It's clear and you can pick out the things that you need. The other piece is custom filters. So what you see over on the side here, and this was a piece of feedback we heard, the province reports this information on student outcomes in a very prescriptive way. And for school districts, what they were looking for was a much more flexible way to identify certain cohorts of students for their needs. So we would report on all students. They only wanted to know about a subset of students at times. We would report specifically around, you know, all male-female. They would just want to pick and choose depending on their needs, depending on how their planning is going or interventions. They wanted to be able to select and deselect a number of different parameters around those students to get into how are the outcomes for this particular segment of our students doing. And then maybe tomorrow I need to know about a different segment of our students. And so this allows them to do that again without having to understand pivot tables and data selecting, which all of us in the data world like, but not everyone does. So it basically became very user-friendly to select the filters that you needed for that particular search. And you could drill down as specific as you needed to in those subpopulations. So essentially what we wanted to do was give the superintendents, but also teachers and principals an opportunity because this is what they asked for. When do we need to help? How can we help if we don't know where our students are at that space and time? So this particular visualization is allowing them, by student, and the data here is mass, they would see names. And they would say, you know, is this student at risk of not graduating? And then they can plan and they can set up some sort of intervention or action based on the information that they can see without having to go and try and gather up information or ask someone in IT to go in and check on a data source for them. So this to us was really the prime kind of answer to our user consultations is how can we use this data to help improve student outcomes? That's the bottom line. And so where do we go from here? Well, we are actively involved in our users and we've had a really good time working together in the co-development side of this thing. So, and I think that our first presentation when you said, you know, hey, it was great to say something we're doing is going to have an impact on people, on kids. So that is important to us. So we have the workshop sessions happening in December and January because we all know it's lovely to say fabulous technology. Here you go. Use it. Not going to happen. So we are going to go out with our pilot school districts and work with the users. So there won't be like one person who knows how to use this. It'll be a group of people. That's our goal. We're going to keep asking for feedback from everyone. And that includes the admin assistant who helps the superintendent track some information down. We know who the real users are and we recognize that. We're going to look at integrating new data sources into this next iteration. We're going to be building predictive capacity. So that means instead of looking at a situation where where can we help, we can kind of predict that the student might not graduate. We're going to look at even more predictive capacity. And I personally like to thank Chelsea and our team at the Ministry of Education for being so welcoming and patient with us as we go. Can we do it now? Can we like we want to do it now? And so they calmed us down and said, no, that's not going to happen. Well, and likewise, thanks to Robin and Katie for speeding us up because that's one thing I guess we seem to like to take our time. And the agile approach is fantastic in seeing results quickly and really getting to work on that iterative approach. As Robin said, we were able to build it with a pilot group of districts. We were able to take it back to those districts and some of them, you know, looked at that and gave us their feedback. And they were immediately excited and had far more questions and wanted to do even more. The first time you show them something, they went, this is fantastic. Can we go here, here and here now? So it's going to be a really great ongoing project. Thank you very much. That is fantastic. I, similar to the all day demo inception meeting I mentioned for the ARCIT project, we spent a day drinking coffee and working through and had a few moments where we decided, what are we really doing here? And we didn't decide, we called it. And it's so awesome to see how far this has come and see, yeah, definitely the lessons on all sides.


So, welcome to the Anthropocene, or rather the talk about this possibly up-and-coming epoch that we humans created, started, initiated, might be useful verbs here. So I can, thanks to the introduction, I can skip a little bit about this, but I do want to make it clear that I am not a geologist myself.  That's one of the EU programs that definitely works for you. You might have to take care of some credit points before you go at your home university, but do it. And even if they don't accept some thing from your guest university, it is worth it. So now, I think a little crash course is in order about chronostratigraphy. So this is the science of analyzing rock layers, assigning ages and events in Earth history to them. In this example, you can see a so-called sea stack, which is located off the Irish coast. And you notice the rock layers. They are differentiated by color and by material, most obviously. And in this example, you have several hundred million years of geologic history.  So as you walk down to the valley, you cross the different strata, these rock layers, and the deeper you go, the older the strata will be. Now how do they form? Simplified, they form by any kind of material sinking down through a water body, like an ocean or even just a lake, to the seafloor where they form sediments, and by a variety of processes, which essentially amount to crystallization, the sediments solidify into hard rock, and then we have a stratum or in plural strata. The type of material can be really anything from sand to the biomass of the organisms that live in the water body. And whenever something changes in Earth history, the sedimentation might also change. So stuff might sink faster, more stuff might sink down, or different types of material. And therefore you get a new layer which you can distinguish. And before I showed you some photos of how the geologic record looks in real life, now we're going to have a look at the textbook example. This is the average consensus international chronographic chart. It shows you all the rock layers from the past on the right hand to basically now. So please note the version number up here in the right corner. When I submitted this talk in September, it was still 2016-09. So if you thought geologists are working at a glacial pace, you're actually right, because climate change makes the glaciers move much faster as well. And we're going to focus now on the very recent past. You have here from left to right the hierarchy of geological time units. We are currently living in the period of the quaternary and the epoch of the Holocene. And that one, you can see it on the right there on the time scale, started at about 11,700 years ago, which is the end of the last Ice Age. And the epoch before that, the Pleistocene, was the epoch of the switches of ice and warm ages. And that's where we humans evolved, that's where we come from, and now we're living in the Holocene. The last important detail here in this crash course are the so-called GSSPs. Again, I'm simplifying a bit, just keep in mind it's the so-called golden spikes. And these are needed by the geologists to define the boundary layers between the strata. So they can, for example, in the case of the Holocene, be a shift in deuterium concentration in a particular ice core from the Greenland ice sheet. And there are different types of methods to define them. For example, chemical properties, physical properties, but also, as this comic shows, the fossil record. For example, here in the middle in the Green Mesozoic, that was basically Jurassic Park, and you know that had to close because an asteroid hit it. And we find, therefore, at the upper layer of the Cretaceous period, we find a lot of dinosaur fossils. And afterwards, we find only mammal fossils. And in between, we also find a chemical signature that is iridium from the asteroid. So to summarize, please read this yourself. I'm going to have a little break. It started out with a bit of stress for me, so I think we're good. So just please keep these three points in mind for the next part of the talk. Now, we dive into the Anthropocene discussion with the currently running definition, and that is that the Anthropocene is the present time interval in which many geologically significant conditions and processes are profoundly altered by human activities, which have a decisive influence on the state, dynamic, and future of the Earth system. Conditions and processes, we just covered a little bit. The human activities, well, you can guess what they are. And I'm going to talk about them a bit more. And the state of dynamics, that is the stuff you hear about in the news. So climate change, the ice caps are melting, the oceans are acidifying, species going extinct, and quite importantly, there are changes in the global cycling of nutrients for our plants, such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and obviously carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. What I do want to argue is that these forces are also what will shape the Anthropocene, and not, as you sometimes hear in the popular press, that this is like our age, we are in control of this planet and so on, because influence is definitely not the same thing as control. I mean, we are quite influential on many of the processes on this planet, but we don't understand them completely, and some of them will behave in ways that we cannot predict, or most of them maybe. Also, the Anthropocene is currently just a concept that has been popularized in 2000 and has been floating around a little bit before that. The guy here on the left, Mr. Crutzen, he's a Nobel Prize winner for his work on the ozone hole, which is actually a very positive example that the international community can gather together and solve an environmental problem with an economical component quite quickly, quite quickly if it is necessary. And in the coming years, this epoch will be proposed, so again, it is just a discussion currently.  It is not even staged yet, so keep down, everyone. It will be super interesting, but it's nothing to boil up too much now. And one important piece or point that I want to make is that this concept collects a lot of different parts of the discussion. We have on the one hand the geological discussion, like how do we define this in the geological record, but we also, of course, have all of these environmental problems mixed into it, and they are related, but sometimes it's necessary to focus just on one of them, but still keep the big picture. The people who are keeping the big picture are definitely the so-called Anthropocene Working Group, or Working Group on the Anthropocene. They are located at the University of Leicester, and that's their secretariat, but of course it's a global consortium of scientists from a range of different disciplines. And maybe you noticed this summer, the discussion did boil up a little bit because there was a vote and an intermediary report about how this working group wants to continue preparing a formalization proposal. And what I want to do now, in the next part, is to walk you through of these voting options and explain a little bit what they mean, what their background is, and how they were received. And the two core points are that they are discussing which golden spike do we want to use, which chemical signal in the geologic record, and of course closely tied to that is the question, when did the Anthropocene start, or when will the start be defined? And to do that, we're going to use these awesome XKCD chart. No, not yet. Oh, there we are. Okay, and we start at the end of the last ice age. You see in the middle, this white part is basically the minus one degree plus one degree range that our civilization has experienced, because that's after the last ice age, we started settling down, we started developing agriculture, and also one clearly negative impact already, maybe not in the case of this predator, but we did have a hand in the extinction of many large mammals. So wherever we went on this planet, on every continent, we find evidence that very quickly after humans arrive, the big mammals start to vanish. In some cases, there's a climate change component in it, but sometimes we just hunted them down. The keywords here are megafauna extinction and defonation, in case you're interested. And these three parts, for example, or these three sub-discussions, they are visible in the archeologic record, and also in the chemical record, in the geology, and therefore there has been the suggestion that basically the Holocene should be replaced with the so-called Anthropocene. However, this has received little attention by the working group. So we move on a few thousand years, and now we have all over the world cultures and civilizations rising, and with that, of course, you can imagine you need some level of intensive agriculture. So for example, converting forest land into farmland, mechanically tilling the farmland, fertilizing it, and in some cases, even changing the morphology of the landscape to suit the particular crop that is grown in some regions. So because we find these signals all over the world, and still after hundreds and thousands of years, you can still detect chemically that a particular soil was created by humans. This is called anthropogenic soils. And yeah, there were a few more votes, but essentially there's a delay here, I'm sorry. Okay, it was rejected. Let's leave it at that. Then we move on. Now you're going to see the replay. I'm already at the next slide. Is there anything we can do? Okay, well, we go to one obvious candidate, the Industrial Revolution. As you know, the coal, the fossil fuel coal, became the major energy source, and with it came the pollution from coal dust, from coal soot. And now, because especially the European nations, they basically conquered the world, they brought this pollution with them. So finally now we also have a global signal of anthropogenic pollution. However, for some reason, this option was also rejected. So, and now the question becomes political, because up to now all of this has happened in the very far away past, and nobody alive was basically at fault, but now we're entering the 20th century, and for the geologists, fortunately a lot of candidates can be used here in the geological record, not so fortunately for us. There's also a third one, which is not in the XKCD chart, and that is the plastics from convenience products that of course rise with the consumer culture, and there is already evidence that this is entering the geological record, for example in this case from Hawaii, where of course volcanic activity creates new rock all the time, plastic trash is simply incorporated, and additionally microplastic particles are in all of the oceans and they also sink down into the sediments. So now we have a show, so sorry, the plastic part was also rejected, although quite an interesting stratigraphic evidence in my opinion, and now we basically have a little showdown between the nuclear weapons here and the fossil fuel emissions. But before we resolve this showdown, I'm a bit lucky that both of these topics have been featured at this conference before, so I encourage you to re-watch these talks in January, as early as possible, before you have a big tsunami of all of these talks here. There is interestingly a connection between these topics, so on the one hand we have this engineering and physical and of course political topic of the nuclear weapons, and on the other hand, geology, chemistry and climate science, and archaeology plays into this as well. You maybe know the so-called radiocarbon method that is used to determine the age of biological samples. So you know that in the atmosphere there's a certain amount of radioactive carbon-14 that filters down to CO2, to the plants, to the animals, and when some kind of living organism stops breathing, the decay starts, both on the biological side and also in terms of radioactive carbon. And when you find a biological sample, you can measure how much radiocarbon is left and thereby calculate backwards with the help of the half-life, which is 5,370 years, how old this sample is. But because of the nuclear weapons testing, we have added a lot of, it is delayed again a bit, I'm not going to use the slides.com again. Or only with the LAN cable, then it might work. Okay, now you see it, okay. This is the so-called radiocarbon bomb spike, so we added a lot of carbon-14 into the atmosphere, so biological samples that were generated in this time start out with a lot more radioactive carbon, so in the future, archaeological record, they will appear much younger than they actually are. However, in the near future, we will reach the equilibrium point, basically, or the baseline again. And then, depending on which of these representative concentration pathways we take, future samples will appear much older because we have diluted the radioactive carbon from the nuclear weapons testing with fossil fuel emissions from the, yeah, coal and the oil we are burning, and you can easily imagine with 5,370 years half-life, the fossil fuels are millions and millions of years old, they do not contain any radioactive carbon anymore. So we are, in effect, polluting both the present and the future, but also the past, or the future's past. So now, this is quite an interesting golden spike, but also rejected. So, and now we basically have the end of this showdown, we have, on the one hand, the plutonium fallout, and the fossil fuels, they produce two possible golden spikes, that is, of course, the fuel ashes and also the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Yeah, and the final vote was 10 to five, basically, for the nuclear weapons. And remember, I mean, we're talking about geologists here, they need to have stuff in the sediments, in the rocks, so something that actually falls out of the sky and then even is radioactive in the rock is a much more interesting signal to look for than something that stays in the sky. And now I want to make two important points here. I mean, I was talking about this a bit notionally, but these are, of course, quite problematic and horrible topics, but the chart goes on. We have the problem here that science sometimes needs to be a bit devoid of emotions to keep a clear head because that's how it works. Now we have to stick to the science, but we don't, we shouldn't forget that these are quite horrible topics in some cases. And also we have a mixture here now, again, as I mentioned before, between the geological part of the discussion, which is purely on the nuclear weapons side of the discussion and all the ecological problems that arise from fossil fuel emissions. And the chart goes on, as you know. Robin Frank talked about this last year, so I encourage you to also re-watch this talk again. And now the geologists have basically everything they need. They have a clear goal what to search for in the stratigraphic records. This will take the regular amount of time in science, like projects are going on, expeditions are mounted, drill course will be drilled and in a few years there will most likely be a formal proposal to have the Anthropocene accepted as an epoch in the geological record. And then the International Commission on Stratigraphy will vote on it. That part, I don't know how long it will take and I have not read any good estimates. In some cases this has taken many, many decades and those are not influenced by the glaciers. But when they do, we can be pretty sure that this nice international chronostrategraphic chart will be updated quite quickly. So, and sticking to the theme of this Congress, I mean, does it still work? Right now it does not, really. I mean, you saw these representative concentration pathways here, they are from the IPCC. We're on this path currently and just from a few days ago, the CO2 reading in the atmosphere is over 400 PPM before the industrial age, it was 280. So, and please notice that these are not fossil fuel emissions, these are concentration pathways. So they include natural sources for greenhouse gases. So we have to account for that as well. But what we need to do definitely is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. A few years ago, the recommendation was by 10% each year, let's make it 20 to be safe. So, if you want to do something, try to identify something in your life that directly produces fossil fuel emissions or greenhouse gas emissions, and 20% is an easy thing to calculate, just try to do 20% less of it. Also, this is of course not an individual thing to solve, this also needs global campaigns. You probably know the Students' Divestment Campaign in the US, where students try to convince their administrations in the universities to stop investing endowment funds into fossil fuel companies. We also need to stop the operations that we're currently doing, because just the resources that we have already tapped will most likely push us past the two degree goal or 1.5 degree goal that was at the Paris Climate Conference last year was agreed politically. So, the so-called stranded assets that the companies have in their books, they are worthless, and also the stuff that they think they have found that is also worthless basically. And one, yeah, maybe a bit more critical thing is you can still study how to find and extract fossil fuel resources in universities. So, we also have to think about maybe we need to divest educationally as well, because it's maybe it's not ethical to train young people for jobs that will not be available in the future. Yeah. Also, there's a closely related to education is of course behavior, and there we have a problem with a so-called rebound effect. So, you sometimes expect to save some amount of energy or some amount of resources if you introduce a new technology, for example, but then the adaptation of behavior of people eats up all of these savings.  And by the way, if you know an example of the so-called super conservation where not only do you save everything that you are expecting but you save actually more, please let me know, I tried to find something. No. So, we have, as I mentioned before, the cars, I mean the engines are getting more efficient all the time, but the cars get heavier, more functions are built in, they use more energy in total. Also, in this community, we get more batteries, better batteries all the time, but we use our devices much more intensively, so many of us require apparently external batteries. So, these are behavioral problems, of course. And I don't want to pick on GitLab specifically because they really build a great product, but what they are advertising is what I would like to label convenience computing. CPUs are becoming more efficient, computing becomes cheaper and cheaper, so we use it just for every single little thing that we can imagine. And this is ineffective behavior that invalidates the improvements in technology that we definitely have, but the solution or the takeaway point here is that technology alone will not save us, so we have to adapt the behavior a little bit. Or not a little bit. So, to start the summary, I think I'm good in time. I'm answering my own questions a little bit. So, it is not yet a new geological epoch, but it will be in a few years, or it will at least be proposed, and then we will see. Did we do it? Yep. Was it an accident? This is interesting. More than 100 years ago, the discussion, whether CO2, or in this case, carbonic acid in the air, might actually be a problem for us, was already going on. I mean, the pollution directly from coal was very visible, but also the understanding that increases in CO2 concentration will change the chemistry of the atmosphere was already known. And there's also, I think this is something Rob and Frank called for last year. There is a campaign to prosecute the managers of Exxon Mobile, because they, through some leaks, we learned that they were internally conducting pretty good research, actually, on how fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions and climate change were related in the 70s and 80s, but they still continue to mislead the public, as, for example, the tobacco industry did about the health risks of smoking for a long time as well. So, it was not an accident. And the welcome part? Well, that is on us, of course. I want to quickly give you an overview of the blogs and podcasts that are used for this research. Also, you saw maybe the academic references in some places as well. These are all highly recommendable, and the slides are online as well. So, that's how the opening ceremony closed, you know? And also, if you saw the movie, yeah, let's get to it. This is not too difficult to do. Thanks. Thank you very much. Let's see if we have any questions. Okay, five minutes, okay. Everything from the internet, maybe? The IRC channel? I mean, while people line up, I already got one question from the internet myself that I can already answer. Yeah, the Anthropocene will, of course, end at some point, most likely when there's a different type of influence, globally, that a new type of strata will form and a future generation of geologists will find the next gold spike. How long that will take? You see down there, there's current research that probably the sea level rise, for example, will go on for many, many thousand years. So, what we most likely have already done is to stop the cycle of ice ages and warm ages. That was actually due, so maybe we're lucky, but only we. I see we have one question from microphone three. Thank you for your very dense upbringing, bringing everyone up to speed on the Anthropocene. I've been following it for some time because in how Hauster Kulturen in Berlin has been covering it for about four years and now they've moved on to a new framing of the issue called technosphere. And in both of these terms, for me, where the controversy gets really intense and perhaps the struggle gets very intense is that the term and the way it's being used by the academic departments is a bit confusing the issue in a way that points the blame on us as a human species. And there's another analysis that points the blame at something like the capitalocene or the corpuscene. And it's that the systems of our society's operating mechanisms are really what are behind something that could and looks very catastrophic for not only the human species, but millions of species. And in fact, we're perhaps moving into what's being called a sixth mass extinction. And the Anthropocene, the problem is that it's almost like it's describing it in a way that, oh, we can handle this with some technological solutions. And it's really kind of something that's out of control. And it obfuscates the fact that we really need to repair nature rather than thinking we're going to fix nature for our benefit now. And so it's a really long debate and I've been following this for some time, but I think it's really something to extend the conversation from what you just gave us for information. So I thank you for that. And if you've heard about this technosphere, I would ask you if you know where that's leading. Not about this particular term. Thanks, I wrote it down, research it. Yeah, I did mention this mix-up and I agree. It is an extremely difficult topic with many sub-topics. I can agree only with you. I'll be available later for discussion up here. Thanks. Thank you very much. If there are no further questions, I will thank Elayma once again. How about a big round of applause for her? Thank you.