Y'all were calling me real dramatic when I said that she destroyed that dress and now here we are having the same conversation And there's so many people saying it's just a dress who cares. If you don't like history just say that. If you slept during history class, just say that. It's fine if you have the opinion that you don't care about the dress, that is you're prerogative, you're allowed to feel that way, but your opinion does not outweigh the importance of history. And it definitely does not outweigh the importance of the dress. Hey guys, welcome to my channel. So today we're gonna, we're gonna follow up from my original video where I was talking about the fact that Kim Kardashian destroyed Marilyn's dress. I called this the second it happened, the second the news outbroke that she was wearing it.    And we can see that now because they did not put that dress on Kim Kardashian safely. Now let's get some photos of the dress. Let's pull up, let's pull up before photos of the famous dress. So as you've seen in the photo before, the rhinestones are perfectly in place, the zipper looks good. This dress fabric thinned out a lot throughout the years, but everything is still you know, ordered, orderly. And then let's look at the dress after. So we see some rhinestones have fallen off. Remember what I was saying?  Bingo, bingo, there it is. So we definitely see a lot of rhinestones falling off. We also see a lot of loose rhinestones. So a lot of the rhinestones are like hanging off and there's also a lot of pulling at the zipper line. You can see where it was stretched out right there. And that's really exciting to see. What irks me is how now the museum is kind of low-key saying like, well, it was like that when we bought it. Oh, really? So we stretched it out at the zipper line because it doesn't do that by itself. It doesn't do that by itself. And there's no natural wear and tear of it being hung up that would cause those rips. So we're lying down. Come on. Like all up to the mistake and call it a day. So here is a very clear before and after shot of when it was up for auction and when Kim wore it. Initially when I made my video, I said that I didn't blame Kim Kardashian for this, that it was mostly just the museum's fault and I don't blame Kim at all. But now that we see how many rhinestones have fallen off, I kind of do want to put the blame on her now because I see there's at least one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, around ten minutes. Let's say ten rhinestones missing minimum off this dress and when rhinestones fall they make a noise. So that means that she had ten opportunities to hear the rhinestone fall on the ground and she still proceeded to wear this dress out. So there is a level of disrespect there that I just can't condone and definitely a level of negligence that I can't condone on Kim Kardashian's part. Most importantly, it's the museum's fault. Unfortunately, this dress was in auction and Ripley's Blader not got their hands on it and they aren't a respectable museum.  So ICOM said, Historic garments should not be worn by anybody, public or private figures. The organization said in a statement following the uproar, prevention is better than cure. Wrong treatment will destroy an object forever. About this particular situation, the dress that belonged to Marilyn Monroe was custom-made by French designer Jean-Louis in the color to match her skin tone. It was sewn on her before she went to the event where she sung Happy Birthday for then US President John F. Kennedy in 1962. She didn't use any underwear to give a more vivid sensation that she was naked and the material is souffle silk, which is no longer available, so it is irreplaceable. Our conservator, Kara Marnell, told the paper, we just don't wear archived historic pieces. Something that's archived means it's enough cultural importance that we value it and want to see it. The dress represents something very important. It's part of our collective cultural heritage. I'm speechless over it. Another one said, I'm frustrated because it sets back what is considered professional treatment for historic costumes. Sarah Scotero, chief conservator at the Cleveland Museum of Art, told the LA Times in the 80s, a bunch of costume professionals came together to state a resolution that historic costumes should never be worn. So my worry is that colleagues in historic costume collections are now going to be pressured by important people to let them wear garments. So yes, that's exactly what Kim's decision caused.  The situation should have stopped at when the designer said, hey, Marilyn Monroe made me make the dress with the intention that it's a dress only Marilyn could wear and that would be a historical piece. Now a lot of you guys don't know that Marilyn Monroe was actually a huge history fan and she has expressed in her life that she finds it really upsetting when people mistreat historical items. So it's leaning more towards the side of no touchy because if Marilyn didn't want other historical garments being touched with when she saw that happening, what makes you think that she wants her historical garment being touched with? You know what I mean? So really disheartening, it's sad. Marilyn Monroe has been a figure that has never been respected by the public, literally never has been respected.  In fact, when she started her career, it was by accident because, hi, my dog, it was by accident because Playboy leaked one of her nude photos. So her nudes were leaked without her consent and she was forced to play a sexual role because people loved her for that. She just did what she had to do, but that was a big root of her depression and the reason why she had so many problems is because she was playing someone that she was not. She was not Marilyn Monroe. She was Norma Jean. So her voice was fake. Her voice was much deeper, much deeper and much raspier than the, oh, hello. And, you know, when she was at home, she wore pants all the time. She wasn't in the sexy dress. In fact, a lot of her relationships have fallen through because they all thought that they were going to marry Marilyn Monroe, but they realized that she was nothing like Marilyn Monroe.  Blows my mind. She is a human being. She was a human being and people want to say that she's not or shouldn't be treated with such respect because of who she was. But again, that's something that she didn't consent to. That was a path of life that she didn't consent to. She kind of had to go and roll with it if she wanted to put food on the table because she was an orphan. She was poor. So, like, could you blame the woman? So, like, she's had so many injustices and so many things were so unfair and unjust. And it's got to stop. Let the woman rest. Let her rest and let her rest with respect. Like, she can't even get respect in her death. Like, that is just so sad. So, that's my opinion on this. I did decide to do a follow-up because literally everyone's had to be to do a follow-up and these are just my thoughts. I kind of just word vomited them. And let me know what you guys think down below. What's your opinion? You know, if you have any fair statements against mine, so far I haven't seen any, but you know, if you do, just let me know. And I guess we'll see where everything goes from there. Otherwise, stay tuned for more vintage content. Also, be sure to check out my Kickstarter. I am making a film series, so I'll link that down below for you guys. Thank you for all the support and I'll see you guys in my next video.


Thanks, Aaron That's a hot mug guys. Hey guys. This is my review for doom annihilation the movie that everyone was ripping on last year I'm admittedly a little bit late to this. It's also because of my co-worker friend Aaron who Slipped me this movie. I couldn't resist watching it. I kind of regret actually know I very much regret now having watched this movie It's pretty much as bad as everyone says it is it's not God awful It's just very bad low-budget sci-fi horror movies There's so many of them now that it doesn't seem that much different probably the big moniker about it is that it's got the Doom title to it and trust me it's That's pretty much all it's got going for it.  I've got some pretty good skills to them I will have to say that these zombies are really well committed to Tacking and taking down their prey. They will flip over walls. They will climb up walls They'll do all sorts of stunts and that's One really weird bizarre thing is they keep on trying to put a bunch of stunts in this movie Like at one point after this guy lets out the lamest ultra nightmare reference motherfuckers The zombie does this incredible nuvor on his back and it's ridiculous They also really liked every single scene in the Marvel movies where Black Widow did the whole Head leg lock thing and twirl and shooty thingy.  He just threw his name on it. I guess not there's the billion dollar question In comparison to the original film back in the early 2000s with the rock and Carl Urban At least that movie had a higher production value Semper fi motherfucker The money in this one is non-existent except for maybe the heavy CG hell scene at the very very end of the film Because otherwise the lighting's flat the costumes are laughable, especially when the imp appears It's probably one of the worst costumes I've ever seen it looks like they took something From the 90s Power Rangers episode and they put it on the guy. They can't even do blood squibs They have to do the CG blood squibs, and they're all terrible We're not supposed to break ranks. There's no sense of urgency. There's no sense of terror There's no sense of care throughout this whole film Maybe it might have been a little bit fun to work on it, but at the same time it's just so irritatingly boring I couldn't care.  I thought that was a little Odd to reference that be their way doom annihilation is terrible.  It was doomed from the start But otherwise doom annihilation gets a 1 out of 7 for me. It's a very poor movie. It's a very bad movie I I Literally did this review as an excuse to put all of these funny clips in because these are really funny parts in the movie Anyways guys, that's all for me I hope you enjoyed this review if you did leave a like and if you're interested in more subscribe Otherwise see you guys next time Thanks for watching the video You're probably wondering who I am My name is nits and you might remember me from the animated cult classic TV show undergrads It's been a while, but I'm happy to say the click is finally getting back together in an all-new movie Thanks to a successful Kickstarter campaign, but we are still asking for your support, you know nits You can't get more money unless you offer questionable favors Yeah, unless of course those favors involve the ladies guy by support. I mean getting the word out guys Oh Well, couldn't you find a better means than this guy? All he seems to talk about is supernatural or hold a coffee mug real awkward Why didn't you ask a Kardashian or something? Yeah guy get in with the ladies guy? Hey, he's trying to help out like you've been trying with Kimmy Burton. I've seen job in the hut finish a marathon faster Yeah guy, you're a massive slug thing guy To see any and all updates about the upcoming undergrads movie be sure to check out and like the bring back undergrads Facebook page And with any luck, we'll see you guys soon


So you've probably heard the word carillion over the last 24 hours repeatedly having never heard of it before it's a large company 40% of its turnover was coming from government contracts in 2016 employs 20,000 people in the UK it's involved in a bunch of things like catering cleaning construction in the public sector feeds kids in 900 schools and it's helping build HS2 now there's a lot of things to be angry about when it comes to carillion first and foremost the fact that it was subject to three profit warnings and yet the government still awarded 2 billion pounds worth of contracts everybody knew the company was facing problems which is why hedge funds now stand to gain more than 200 million pounds from shorting the company's stock repeat the government was giving this billions of pounds worth of contracts while hedge funds were shorting it and yet ministers didn't think anything of it but perhaps even more galling than that is the fact that the company's CEO one Philip Green no not him was given a CBE for services to business in 2014 he was even advising the prime minister guess what for business responsibility from 2011 to 2016 but even more galling than all of that more galling than the hedge funds the CBEs and the advising prime ministers is the fact that Philip Green was one of 103 signatories in a letter on the front page of Daily Telegraph ahead of the 2015 general election imploring the electorate to vote for Cameron's Tories over Labour because of their economic competence and because of jobs and because of growth well the next time you see a business leader or one of the greats in the good on the front page of a paper or in the news or on the television saying don't vote for Labour vote for the Tories remember this when they say competence they mean keeping a rigged system when they say inevitability they're talking about political choices that we can change if we want to create a country where everybody has a chance at living precisely the kind of life they deserve to live it can and will be different


Organized crime and corruption reporting project reacted to the illegal arrest of Aziz Oradov. Wave of journalist arrests continues in Azerbaijan, according to organized crime and corruption reporting project. It is noted that Azerbaijani police arrested journalist Nagiz Abzalamovar of Abzaz Media on charges of smuggling foreign currency. The arrest comes amidst the new crackdown in the country on independent media funded by US and EU organizations. The crackdown on independent media in Azerbaijan started on November the 20th with the detention of Ulvi Hassanli, the founder and executive director of Abzaz Media. Organized crime and corruption reporting project says that the crackdown has not only affected Abzaz Media on November the 29th. As is Oradov, the director of independent YouTube news channel, Canal 13 was detained and given three months pre-trial detention. Oradov stands accused of unauthorized construction on land without ownership, use or lease rights. If he's found guilty, he could be sent to prison for up to three years. Recently, some Azerbaijani media has published accusations against US and EU donor organizations, focusing particularly on USAID accusing it of running illegally financed political influence campaigns in the countries where it operates. Azerbaijan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the interim heads of the US and German diplomatic missions, as well as the French ambassador to answer the accusations of illegal financing.


Everybody forced here ripping it 2022 tops museum collection baseball hobby six-box half case number 31 pick your team style Andrew B has the Giants Danny see Mariners David B. D. Bax David W. Cubs Derek you Red Sox Pirates Padres Eric R. Royals Angels Francis M. Yankees Frankie G. Reyes Gavin with the Astros Jeff B. Orioles Jeremy H. Marlins Jonathan Q. Rockies Rangers Justin S. Nationals Matt W. Phillies Mike P. Cardinals Nicholas S. Guardians Blue Jays Peter M. Metz Scott V. Dodger Steven U. Tigers Suzanne Reds Ty W. Twins Thomas V. A's Tim B Braves Troy L. Brewers and William R. with the White Sox here we go y'all Let's pull a sketch Let's pull a sketch for to go on pristine case guys ran into vision style Just 500 bucks of spots for an entire division eight relic autos 16 in case thought I was in the case I am not gonna recap this break. We are behind To catch up, but we'll get through it fairly quickly. Should only be like a 10 minute break You lose choice Almost got double play. Oh Hoskins drops it would have been double play Turned it right in his glove, dude. That's like inexcusable. Oh Yeah That's a bad error. Well, you know what? He did hit that Homer, so I mean can't hate him copper rookie wander Yeah, I know he just saw that illegal archival auto Josiah Gray. Nat's rookie 50 50 That's last spot mojo right there first hit of the break Yeah, I'm not sure what it'll be Paul, but Lane was telling me that it's gonna be about 70% cards and 30% memorabilia Ultra hand memorabilia. I've seen some of the memorabilia. That's gonna be in it and whoo It's some cool stuff, man God triple Jersey auto white Soxie one Moncada Nice one caught a three at 25 and that brings in a run. Look at that killer error copper rookie Joe Ryan twins Canvas Miguel Cabrera tigers quadralloc Randy Rosarana Tampa Bay Copper parallel our numbers in the front 49 of 75 way to give him life Gave him life blue Verlander for the Astros 106 of 150 patch card Nat Steven Strasburg 16 of 25 35 excuse me Not our last spot purchased it Mojo Is there tonight? Oh nice niks bet over on hits you hit it already the six. That's awesome I mean after the Strider outing. I'm sure you were you're feeling pretty good about it copper judge Archival auto for the Angels Tim salmon 188 of 299 Tim salmon six and a half. That was it copper contrarus Alex Thomas rookie Dual Jersey auto Whitmer field Royals 197 to 399. Oh man.  I'll get her soon. I nobody likes her soon. Oh Copper judge Quadralloc Phillies Harper Hoskins Bowman Real Muto 33 of 99. No no Braves come back. Oh bad throw Harry stole second Copper rookie Pirates O'Neill cruise and patch card nice three color Mario on a Rivera Yankees 24 of 25 Box three. Let's get pristine filled up everybody I'll be the reason I think it's okay. All right, they survived for Aronato canvas artist proof is Nolan Ryan for the Astros limited to 50 with checklist says Copper Chris Bryant wonder Franco rookie a dual Jersey auto Byron bucks than twins 189 of 299 three to go on pristine now everybody Three to go last baseball spots of the night right there We got some football. We got some diamond memorabilia boxes Quad Jersey Yankees Garrett Cole Louis Severino or oldest Chapman Zach Britton 39 of 99 Most of those guys made the playoff roster most of them geez illegal.  That's what I know blue jays of laddie jr. 124 of 150 on the blue color Bumbo patch Glaber Torres one of five. Oh my goodness. Look at that patch, dude That is awesome. Is that supposed to be this way What part of the patch is that at the NY on the away Jersey? It might be ankle That's sick. There you go. Yanks one of five Glaber patch Add a good game today. I would like to pull out of any problems a snoop lion auto on sketch sketch sketch sketch It pulls 25 of 50 cardinals nice one cardinals the machine wander got a Can I say his name Vladimir Guerrero? Nationals via the Expo's Sketch Adelpia. Yeah, maybe a Philly sketch. Maybe Philly sketch Nationals via the Expo's on the canvas here archival auto white socks Tim Anderson 100 of 125 That's the my worst fear about getting injured is that illegal just make fun of me I Can't break for a week. I Broke my wrist I Can figure out a break with a broken wrist archival auto Brewer's Josh Hader 82 of 250 nice hater Probably the best closer left class is pretty good though. Kelly Jansen has been good for the Braves Affluent for the Phillies has been good copper rookie Jaren Duran Red Sox Quad relic Lorda Scotty L. Junior blue jays 1975 Purple Vidal Bruhan rookie 19 of 99 rays copper Hank Aaron And Hunter Dozier dual relic auto Kansas City 326 at 399. Yeah, man. He's the new best closer. Now. He's good again illegal. He's good again After he went on the IL he's good again now. Well, it's got a really good closer. It was a dodge closer Sounds like they're one place on their team that they're not like really really good at copper Griffey Canvas Red Sox Raphael Devers a patch card Astros Kyle Tucker 14 and 25 under the Astros have Presley. He's pretty good Blue for the Mets Mike Piazza 96 of 150 Canvas. Oh, there's a redemption. I was like, where's the other card? It's straight on the back of it Canvas his cubs Andre Dawson All right, let's see Zach Wheeler Philly's momentous material jumbo patch auto So that'll be a patch similar to the one that glit the Glaber, but it has an auto on it, of course There you go. Philly's ice redemption copper Yvonne Rodriguez Quad relic Cardinals are in auto Molina Goldschmidt Carlson 67 or 99 Yeah, I was gonna say because they took what's his name Kimbrell out of the closing spot because Like he was really hit or miss. So yeah, I definitely more committed, but I guess They probably have better arms in the pen. I mean, I'm not probably they had better arms in the pen copper Rookie Kirby and Back relic Ballinger 3350 Dodgers last box. Good luck everybody. Thank you for joining Christine sold out baseball sold out for the night everybody. That's awesome. So we've got legacy football NT collegiate 2021 NT football and a diamond memorabilia boxes either read for the Nats Steven Strausberg a 250 Archival auto Cubs Derek Lee 113 of 125 and on to the 7th Crunch time Ariana Rivera one of 50 Yankees Yankees having a nice break J rod rookie base a triple relic auto raise Wade Boggs Bogsy 126 of 275 How many beers thing I can drink on my flight to Philly Try to compete with Wade Boggs.  I'll be like, we know what you're doing and it's not happening here Different days now Blue jays canvas Vladdie jr. God quad relic Nats Steven Strausberg 33 of 75 Well, last it's gonna be a Corey Kluber Yankees Jersey 48 of 50 I guess that'll do it And like I said at the beginning of the break we are behind not gonna be able to recap that one We got to keep going here. Thanks everybody more museum up next


Hi everyone, good morning. Welcome to our talk on standardization and security. My name is Vinnie Carpenter, and I am the vice president of engineering at a company called Northwestern Mutual. I lead the cloud and DevOps organization at Northwestern Mutual. I'm honored to be joined by my colleague, Ravi Devanini, who is the senior director of engineering and it leads our DevOps engineering group. By the way, I totally feel overdressed. I should have listened to Ravi, but you know, I didn't, but I'm gonna persevere through, so. So, today we're gonna tell you this story of the journey we're on, of standardization, simplification, and how that journey has led to improvements in our overall security posture. But before we dive into the meat of the topic, I just wanted to spend 30 seconds to tell you a little bit about our company, just to sort of do some context and level setting. So we're a Fortune 90 company that strives to be at the center of our customer's financial life. We do investment, insurance, advisory services, planning. Our goal is to provide financial security for our clients. We have about five million clients and a revenue of about $34 million annually. We're a privately-held, 165-year-old company, right? So that's the key part. We've been around for 165 years, so as you can imagine, that means a lot, so just putting that out there. But we're lucky to be privately held with great financial strength. I think we're the only two companies that have a triple-A credit rating from Moody's and Fitzgerald's rating agencies. I believe Microsoft may be the other one. So on the agenda today, we're gonna start by talking about and discussing sort of what I think is a seminal work of Barry Schwartz, who is an American psychologist, author. Ravi's gonna talk about it a little bit. And Barry talks about this notion of paradox of choice. So then we'll dig into our experiences with sort of unlimited choice, unlimited flexibility, and then sort of pivot into how standardization has helped us simplify, and more importantly, secure our environment. As part of this, we'll talk about the cultural implications of standardization and what that means for us and share some of the outcomes and the lessons we've learned as we embarked on this journey. So without further ado, Ravi, take it away. Thanks, Vinny. Hey guys, I'd like to introduce this concept called paradox of choice, right? As Vinny mentioned, there's a lot of these ideas are borrowed from this book by Barry Schwartz. We highly recommend this book. So the first and the most common example of paradox of choice is found at a grocery store, right? There's a target nearby, I think it's this way. Try walking into any aisle. You will see 14 varieties of Cheerios, 23 varieties of olive oil, 40 varieties of toothpaste, 15 varieties of bottled water, right? 55 varieties of shampoo. If all of this is giving you a headache, don't worry, there is 80 different varieties of pain relievers in the over-the-counter medicinal, with aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen in the form of capsules, liquids, tablets, you name it. That's a lot. Next example is TV, right? Because in America, we spend most of our time doing two things, watching TV and shopping. The number of TV channels you get from cable TV is 1,761. And let's look at some of the streaming services, right? Netflix has over 4,000 titles available. Prime Video has even more, millions of hours of content. Just scratching the surface, right? And many choices in the providers, way too many shows and way too many movies available. This is practically true for everything we see in real life, right? Choice is a luxury. More number of choices is considered as a symbol of privilege. Too much choice is essentially the current reality of our society. But wait, isn't that a good thing? Having a number of options will help us choose what's good for us, right? Not really. According to the research, look at the graph here, right? Like you will see as the number of choices are small, the satisfaction is low, right? But as the choices increase, the satisfaction increases, but more the number of choices, as the choices keep increasing, people tend to feel more pressure, confusion, and potentially dissatisfaction with their choice. This can then lead to anxiety in decision analysis, paralysis, and dissatisfaction, right? There are several names for this same phenomenon. It's called fear of missing out, FOMO, right? And law of diminishing returns. Whatever you wanna call it, this is quite real. There's another more scientific angle to this too, right? There's this research by American Psychological Association. It's very official. It says that the more decisions an individual makes in a short period of time, the more each decision decreases in quality. It creates what is called a decision fatigue, right? Because we have a finite amount of energy to exert, the more energy we use for trivial everyday decisions, the less energy we have for critical ones. Steve Jobs, right? He used to wear the same kind of dress every day, every single day, black turtleneck and jeans. And that's all you ever saw him in, and everywhere he went, he was like that. President Obama used to wear blue or gray suits, and that's the statement he made in an interview with Vanity Fair. He talks about paving down trivial decisions because he has a lot of other decisions to make.  Now the paper talks about multiple ways in which we can fight decision fatigue, right? But we don't need to go into that. This is not a psychology conference. Instead, we will talk about how this idea applies to us in the cloud-native world. So this is a quick look at the tool landscape. This is just a small sampling of a plethora of tools available in the market. We try to organize this into logical categories, right? All of these logical categories are high-level steps in the software development life cycle. At each of these stages, you will see how many options we have that provide a similar capability, right? For example, source code. We have GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, code commit from AWS. All of these tools provide a way of version control. Similarly with coding, right? There are hundreds of programming languages available, and I only listed a few here. I'm not talking about all of the options available in the market, right? I'm talking about how companies typically end up with multiple tools that they actually use for the same capability, right? For example, a company may have GitLab, possibly some GitHub, an older version of SVN, and maybe a version control for mainframe as well. That's like four different tools for the same capability called version control. But the question is, why do we end up with so many tools, right? There are two main reasons for this. Technology evolution. A company like ours, Northwestern Mutual, we have been doing technology since the 1960s, Vinny, and we're big on experimentation too. And we have experimented quite a lot with technologies that were in vogue at the time, and that footprint of that technology never actually goes away. And then you try something new, and some of the teams adopted, so it creates a tool sprawl, basically. Next is what I call as technology islands, right? This is basically also called a shadow IT. If a company is sufficiently big, there's a lot of technology teams that are spread over several departments, right? And these teams tend to create their own set of tools, and hence these islands are created with very little communication between these islands. So shadow IT is also created sometimes when a team decides that they're gonna do something of their own, because just to work efficiently, right? Because everything else is slow, we wanna do our own thing. So what happens, right? When if we have so many options in the tooling? First is high cost of maintenance. You're probably paying multiple licenses for the same capability, right? Or you're probably logged in with multiple vendors. The automation that you create is reusable only within your technology island and not broadly. So your technology islands are creating these islands of automation, right? Too many tools, and hence the complexity is high. And you're creating standards, if you wanna create standards that apply to the whole enterprise, that becomes a challenge. Toolspral leads to data sprawl, to your data is all over the place, hence capturing metrics that measure your success, that becomes a challenge. Security is a challenge, obviously. This is a security conference, and with so many tools in our supply chain, our attack surface is really high. Supply chain attacks are one of the most common ways in which attacks are happening these days. It has, if you look at the stats, two years ago to now, it's like it has risen by 430%. And you need to be constantly patching all of these tools too, right? This adds to the cost as well, and obviously that results in a lot of lost productivity. All of these tools mean that your skills are siloed, your team members can change from one team to another team very easily, and Vinny's gonna touch upon that concept a little bit more later on. So what do we do? So what I've described so far is like a buffet, right? What we say with a buffet is, here's all the things that you want to eat, and go make your own plate, right? When we do that, every plate is different from every other plate, right? Very few people think about nourishment and health when there's a buffet, like people wanna eat. I would load up on dessert, and then there's a lot of wastage too. With too many tools, that's exactly what we're doing, right? We're saying here's all the tools and go create your own applications. What we wanna say instead is, we will provide a set menu, limited options, but good options. We think about health and nourishment. We wet and select these tools very carefully, very intentionally, and we wanna streamline our process, we wanna streamline our tools. We say that we wanna improve efficiency and free up resources to invest in things that are actually differentiators for our business, right? Because four tools for source control is not gonna add business value, right? Basically, a purposeful evolution of technology is what I'm talking about. We say, we wanna create a golden path, a paved road, a standard approach for creating applications, right? With all the standards and all the god rails built into this paved road, and all you have to do as an application developer is to drive on that paved road. So an application development team basically doesn't think about how to actually deploy their application, or what supply chain tools to use, or what CICD security god rails they should use. All they do is develop and deploy their application. This is an example of what a standardized platform might look like, right? You can see this is very different from the other diagram, very limited number of tools, right? And these are standardized across the enterprise. This is our set menu. If you need to write code, you use GitHub, and maybe a small number of approved programming languages. That's it. One tool to do your builds, one place to store artifacts, and one tool to orchestrate your deployments. One tool for infrastructure as code. Maybe a couple of monitoring tools, right? Intentionally standardizing your tools landscape. Now compare that with this, right? This is a buffet. This is definitely much cleaner. Now, once we standardize on the tools, right, we want to create a single way in which application can be deployed all the way to production. All the steps, for example, that a change needs to go through from commit all the way to production. That's your pipeline, right? Like we want to standardize that pipeline. One pipeline to rule it all, right? This basically provides a standardized build, scanning, testing, artifact storage, and signature, and all the way to the deployment as well. If you do this, right, a lot of different development standards can be enforced. Things such as code reviews, artifact security, if you're an application developer, you don't need to think about how to deploy your application, right, or what security steps you need to take.  That's your payroll, you're just driving. I often think of developers as cooks, right? They're good at making a meal. Not necessarily good at taking that meal to the customer's table. That needs to be somebody else's job. So if, one of the examples we talked about, we said we want to use only a few programming languages, right? So what happens if someone just ignores this mandate and chooses to use the programming languages that's more modern and more fun, right? What can we really do? So what I've showed you before is a carrot approach, right? What we're saying is if you want to deploy faster and in a more secure way, right, use our standardized pipeline, that's a carrot. You want to start off this process by offering carrots, right? But only carrots and no sticks, it's not going to work. We need both. We need to enforce certain standards, standards such as code reviews or the fact that you need to create a change ticket for every production change or security scanning in your pipeline. Even things such as setting limits on how much cloud spend you want to have you want to have in your organization or how much CPU limits you want your applications to use, right? Pretty much anything your organization wants, we need to be able to enforce it. And this is the key to success. Sticks are as important as carrots. I can see some of you are frowning. This sounds like way too much policing and less freedom and stopping everything, cutting down everything. There's obviously a lot of cultural and organizational implications to this whole idea. We need to going to touch upon a few of those. Thanks, Ravi. So I think Ravi essentially laid out the case where unlimited choice and unlimited flexibility isn't really what it's cracked up to be. I think having unlimited choice, at least it's been our observation, leads to cognitive load, anxiety. And I think really thinking about like the broader picture of the enterprise, it leads to variability and the complexity in the environment, right? Decision fatigue as Ravi described is a real thing. I worked at organizations where developers had unlimited freedom, right? So you could write and go or Rust or Java or JavaScript or Python. You could pick Spring or Spring Boot if you wanted to or you could make your own. I mean, unlimited choice led to when new engineers would start on the team, especially decision fatigue, they're like, how do I get started? What's the standard way that I can do it? What's the majority of developers in this organization doing so that if I need help, there's somebody I can go to? And so I think decision fatigue is a real thing. And so I'll talk briefly about sort of the process we followed on choosing the right tool. And I'm gonna start with this quote from Alan Kaye. If you're not familiar with Alan Kaye, Alan was a computer scientist at Xerox Park in the early day where I think literally everything that we use today in computers came from Xerox, including the mouse and graphical user interface and all of that, right? And he's a pioneer in the world of object-oriented programming. And I just love this quote. His quote is very famously quoted saying, simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible. And I think that idea sort of enforces our approach when we're picking tools. Robbie talked about, we don't wanna pick a tool because it's new, it's shiny, it has all these things. When you're going through this tool selection process, think about the end goal in mind. Have you looked at the pros and cons of this tool? Have you thought about how this is going to integrate into your environment? Robbie described earlier the sort of perfect world we have this notion we internally call our ideal pipeline. And so what we give our developers is the ability to write code in a prescribed number of languages and frameworks.  The pipeline kicks in. So whether it's container scanning, so we use Sysdig for container scanning, right? All of that's done for you, vulnerability checking, coding standards checking, automated testing, automatic artifact checking, automated deployments to production, automated, like all of that is built into the pipelines. And so it simplifies the role of the developer so that he or she is just focused on writing code and doesn't have to worry about, how is this going to code get to production? He described the chef making the meal and then somebody else taking it to the table. The engineers are focused on just writing code and not having to worry about all of the things that go around making this, building it, testing it, securely checking into an artifact repository, making sure it goes through the right communities environment, making sure it has the right scaling parameters, making sure cost is managed, all of that stuff is done for you so that you can end up in a world where you're just focused on code. One of the things Rob and I were talking about, as we're kind of discussing this presentation in this slide specifically, I recall going to a presentation, I think it was 2015, the CTO of Etsy presented, I think it was in 2015, and the title of the topic was very provocative. He said the title of the talk was Use Boring Technology and it's a phenomenal, it really is a phenomenal talk. If you get a chance, Google Use Boring Technologies and please do it after this talk, don't do it now, but really the premise of his thing was, sometimes we're all attracted to try the new and shiny things and we wanna do that, right? We wanna experiment, we wanna allow people opportunities to try new things, build new things, but the premise that he's making is, if you're using Java and Spring Boot, for example, if you're using JavaScript and Node, or React, or Python and Flask, these tech stacks are being used by millions of organizations across the globe. Tens of millions of developers have sort of battle tested these tech stacks in every single scenario that you can think about. So there's not a use case that you're gonna come up with that somebody hasn't already gone to production with and so all of the issues, all of the potential known issues are known, either resolved or documented, so that you're literally standing on the shoulder of giants because they've done the validation for you. Maybe you start with the Rust and this is a bad example, Rust is an awesome programming language, but I'm just gonna say Rust is a relatively newer language is so all of the issues, maybe not known, right? So if you're going to production with a Rust application, you might be discovering things that maybe somebody else hasn't discovered yet, right? So this notion is, focus on business outcomes and not really on undifferentiated technology choices, right? Technology is cool, we're all engineers and I think technology is critical, but focusing on undifferentiated technology, like if you already have a source control management system, you don't need another one, unless it does magic for you, right? Unless it has chat GPT built into it and just writes your code for you, right? Maybe then it's worth migrating to. So talk a little bit about this notion of tools consolidation. As we pivot to kind of focus on business outcomes rather than undifferentiated technology choices, I think the path becomes clear, right? Because you have a vision in mind of how we want to get there and as you embark on this journey, we went on a journey, we used to have GitHub Enterprise as our source control management system, it did everything, all of our pipelines ran in there and we migrated to GitLab. You just have to know it's a multi-year journey and as you're doing this migration, it can't be a big bank thing, right? You have to figure out a way to do this where you're offering incremental value so that you don't have this. We're gonna go do this, we'll see you two years later and there'll be this new shiny thing in two years because technology will change, the business will change, the organization will change, the needs will change and so these things have a long life but you have to provide incremental value as you go on this journey. The other thing, obviously, pretty obvious, like you wanna do it in a way that you're not disrupting the business because obviously that's the most critical thing. Data migration is pretty critical, right? Like again, I'm gonna beat to death this example of moving from GitHub to GitLab as an example, right? Like the commit histories, merge requests or pull requests and comments and all of that stuff, issues have to come along so that the new system essentially has all of the data that the old system has. So you could safely go and say, I'm on system B, I can cleanly turn off system A, retire the hardware that was running on and not have to pay for licenses, right? Because what we've observed being a 164 year old company is, I think we bought our first mainframe in 1950 in the late 50s, I believe and a lot of the technology, unless you're aggressively investing in decommissioning old technology, there'll be a facet where you migrate 80% of it and then this 20% just stays around and then now you're responsible for care and feeding of it, securing it, making sure it's not vulnerable. So the last note is, as you pick new tools, training on engineers and training the engineers on the new capabilities becomes critical. So one of the things that comes up often when we talk about standardization, right? We talk about standardization, governance, like they all sound like developers instantly revolt and go, whoa, whoa, whoa, what do you mean? Like, you hired me because I'm an awesome developer and I just want to write code and so this question always comes up is, is standardization detrimental to innovation, right? I think the answer is no, right? You can innovate and live in an environment where you have standards, right? Like you think about technology decisions, I've been doing this for almost 30 years and think about every single technology decision is a set of trade-offs, right?  So based on the information that you have, you've got to move forward, but you need to be able to pivot as more information becomes available, you sort of change your path. Historically, a lot of the organizations I worked at, we've given our teams a lot of decision making at the local level and I'm gonna describe myself as a recovering software engineer. I wrote software for 20 years and as a geek, software engineers love building stuff, right? And I know I've done this in my career where you're building a new application and there's this great five, like five to six great caching libraries that are in the open source that are used everywhere and you're like, yeah, but I could just write my own and so you do because that's what developers do, right? And so I think it's crucial to know what's worth building and what just is a commodity, right? This is not to suggest that we shouldn't let people experiment. We want to encourage people to experiment. We want people to try new things. We want people to build. Like we encourage people to write software at Northwestern Mutual. We encourage people to open source stuff, build communities, participate in open source projects, give back to that, right? Not to suggest all of that, but like focus those energies on things that differentiate your business, right? Don't focus on commodity. Like building another caching framework, you're not gonna make anything better than Redis or Memcache or the sort of leaders that exist in that space. Is it a good thought exercise? Great, do that in your 20% time if you want to just to learn and grow, but think about like building things that are differentiating and not sort of commodities. And the last thing that I think is really important and every organization has to arrive at it based on how they work, but it's the incentive model. What is the incentive model at your organization? I worked at places where if you open source something and you got a bunch of stars on GitHub, like that was celebrated because it's like, hey, you've done a phenomenal thing and it is a good thing, right? Like we want more of that again. I keep repeating myself because I wanna make sure we should encourage people to contribute to open source. We wanna keep doing that. But if that's the only thing you celebrate, that's the incentive model you're setting for the organization that, hey, if you do something cool, you'll get accolades. If you do your job and do an awesome delivery on a project and have phenomenal business outcomes, well, that's great, but like, we won't celebrate that publicly, right? So you have to have this incentive model where you celebrate both things. You celebrate people doing really cool and innovative things, but you better also celebrate phenomenal business outcomes because that's really why we're here, right? To build and deploy and secure our businesses. So talk briefly about outcomes. I know we're a little over time. I'm gonna speed through some of these things. So just a couple of quick items. Centralized governance, I think we talked about, is possible. I think Ravi described the, I think we call it the one pipeline to rule them all is like, we encourage our application teams to use kind of the centralized pipeline. So all of the things that need to happen, whether it's built in a certain way, code quality scanning, checkmarks for vulnerability scanning, assistive for container scanning, X-ray for open source vulnerabilities, like building a build a mature, like all of the things that you can think about and future needs as our security team thinks about more things to do to secure our environment could be built into that pipeline and the developers don't need to change anything because they're just leveraging our standardized pipeline and they're getting the benefits of all of that. I think one of the other benefits that I briefly wanna touch on before I turn it back over to Ravi is this notion of standardization, right? If all of the engineers on your team are working in a similar way using similar programming languages and tools, using similar frameworks and processes, it's easy to essentially swarm engineers to the biggest opportunity, right? We talk about this notion of fungibility, right? Like if you have 50 engineers and they're across, let's say, six or eight different teams and they all work differently and use different programming languages and use different ways to sort of get code into production, if we had a new business initiative that was gonna be transformational and we wanted to put all those engineers on it, there's a lot of ramp up time to say like, okay, what are we doing? Like are we building in Rust or Go or JavaScript or Python or Java? Okay, let's pick one or maybe we just build APIs and it doesn't matter what we build in but there's a lot of sort of organizational structure and friction that comes into play. But if you're all sort of building in a similar way, leveraging the standard pipelines, the standard tool, deploying in a standard way with the standard set of security controls, it's a lot easier for us to come together and make that next business initiative successful. So Ravi, I'm gonna turn it over to you talk about some lessons learned. Thanks, Mini. So in all of these, there were a few key lessons that we've learned. And I'm gonna try to sum it up quickly. First, single source control is an absolute must. If you have multiple SCM systems, your code is fragmented. Some source code is living in one place and other source code is living in another place. Your developer permissions are fragmented as a result. Like some developers have access to some repos and other developers have access to other repos. That affects your developer collaboration. If, for example, a developer creates a common library that could be reused across all of your software, which of the four tools would you put that in, right? Like how would you make sure that is not being duplicated? Not to mention the high cost of maintenance, double licensing cost, quadruple licensing cost probably. It's a nightmare. So if you don't have a single SCM system, please fix that first. Like one SCM for your entire organization is a must. Now we talk about DevOps as a culture and not a role, but every application team is a DevOps team. If you think about the idea of DevOps team, a DevOps team is an application team that is cross-functional, which means that team does everything that an application needs and every skill that the application needs to be deployed to production is within the team. But we don't want to end up with several applications optimizing their application teams, optimizing their process locally, because more often than not, local optimization leads to global degradation. A team that takes a global view of things, right? Of the entire process of all the automation of the common libraries, right? Creating an overall vision for your company and centralized metrics and centralized governance. All of this is essential, right? Like you can call it a centralized DevOps team, you can call it a tools team, call it a platform engineering team, whatever the name is, right? But such a team is essential. Next, we need to talk about this idea of picking the tools with end in mind, right? And we have to understand that when selecting a tool, we don't need the best tool in the market. We need a tool that fits the business needs, right? If a tool is pretty good and it fits all your requirements, that's all you need, right? And choosing one tool that is pretty good is much better than having multiple amazing tools that do the same thing in your environment, right? Consistency in the environment is that it leads to far better outcomes than having multiple custom solutions. And finally, we talk about standardization and governance and security. It could be considered as boring and too much policing, but it doesn't have to be, right? It can be made fun when we can implement a lot of gamification techniques and build excitement and make it fun, right? This idea of gamification exists everywhere in the real world, loyalty programs and badges of achievement and reward points and all the big companies do this. Like a leaderboard, for example, right? If you want your teams to reduce security vulnerabilities, create a leaderboard that ranks the teams that reduce the most vulnerabilities and reward them every quarter. Or if you want evangelizer and DevOps practices, right? Measure those and create incentives that reward people for such behaviors. Goes back to the point that Vinny was making about incentives aligning to your business outcomes. And this is a great way of making standardization and security super fun. That's all we have. Thank you, folks, for coming. And I want to thank CNCF also for giving us an opportunity to come here and present some of our ideas. You can see the QR code. You can scan it if you want to send us any feedback. But please, let's have some questions. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah, so the question was, we couldn't hear it, is let's say your enterprise standard is C++ and a developer comes up and says, hey, I've been learning Rust and it's a phenomenal language and I'd love to sort of start doing work and incorporate that maybe into our standard. So great question. So we actually have a formal process, right? Because as I said, every technology decision that you make, even standards that you make are based on the information that you have at hand, the needs at that time, needs of all things change, technology changes, right? So we actually have a process. So all of our standards were considered essentially living documents. So we have a process, we have a centralized architecture team where you can come in and say like, hey, here's why I think Rust should be an approved standard language and walk through the pros and cons of it. And as I mentioned, the formalized process will take that into account, figure out the value proposition and if it makes sense, actually make it a standard. So we absolutely have that kind of process where our standards evolve.  They have to be kind of living, breathing documents. So we absolutely do that. Just to add to that, for every business process, right? If there's a rule, there needs to be an exception. And in this climate where your technology is evolving constantly, you cannot be married to a rigid process and say that everything is fine, right? Your process needs to be flexible as needed. So we all, we definitely love an exception process. Yeah. There's a question in the back. Yeah. Yeah. So you want to talk about Dora? Yeah. If you look at the Dora metrics, right? There's lead time to change and number of change deployments per, you know, whatever quarter and time to restore. All of these four metrics are defined basically looking at speed and stability, right? And there's a lot of, if you look at the book on Accelerate Nicole Forsgren and Jess Humble, right? They talk about several behaviors that actually lead to such outcomes, right? These are business outcomes, but a lot of different behaviors actually contribute to that behavior. There's like 24 behaviors that are listed in that book. And collaboration is definitely one of them. How your people collaborate, how closely interactive they are, reducing the silos and being able to release. If I want to do a release to production, I don't need to talk to a separate team, right? I don't need to ask their permission. My team needs to be flexible enough, you know, or we need to have the right set of tools that so we can release the application to production. So definitely if you look at Dora metrics, they provide a lot of business outcomes and you're actually measuring business value also along with a variety of other behaviors. Thank you. Great question. Any other questions? All right. Thank you so much. Thank you for spending the last half an hour with us. Thank you again. And if you got a chance, please send us some feedback. Thank you.


ರವassumedಸservice ೊದೆ ರೋಸಿಲಿಬ� somehow. ಮ otta responsive The Bism 팜 farmer couldn't get the produce quality Sure I am very proud of my land During those years It's like our farmers And there are alwaysmarketeniz ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ  Bhagwan Bhagwan Bhagwan Bhagwan Bhagwan Bhagwan ah, enough జజజజజజ� Philip