I got it so that's why I'd beadesh at that but we shall see. Thank you for this opportunity to talk about my stuff, as I just said a minute ago, you're sitting at the back. You might want to move a bit further forward because there is some text and stuff, so if you're not really that bothered, that's fine. But you will probably be squinting at the screening a wee bit. I'm going to talk to about some work that we did over the last year or so I guess—it has taken a long time, i ddigital nhw'n iawn i phall phormat bach nhw'n i nifer yw phormat â... phormat yn gweld ei phormat, a how we converted them into HTML a hefyd yng Nghaerhwyl i ddim yn diwylliant a pob meddwl y proses. Llywed搵ig i'r gwybod i mi roi yng Nghaerhwyl. Felly ddau i'r hwyl i ni'r hwn o'r meddwl, ond du i ni wedi'u gweithio mewn i'r teulu cyfrydd o'r bethau ac nid o'n ddill wedi'u clirutoriol. Trin yn rhywbeth ffordd o ddill sy'n gwybod i wybodaeth. hanes, y drei dodionion yw am gweithio yn ei gynwylliant ar hyn y ffordd. Prydych chi os yw'n gwlad ar hyn a'i gwerthu'r ffordd, hwnnw chi'n gweld y technicol o'r byd o'r rhan fwrdd ar y Cymru ac yw'r gwerthu'r gwerthu'. Ydw i'ch cyrwng wedi'u gweld y gwerthu'r Gwerthu'r Gwerthu'r Gwerthu'r Gwerthu'r Gwerthu'r Gwerthu'r Geiru', ar y cyfrwng t widthio peynig, Cwestiwn 3. Yn ymweld, mae'n gweithio fydda'nylio'r cyrwynt Cwestiwn 3. Ar hyn, mae'n trefynu'n grwmpiaeth a mynd i'n gymryg, mae'n blosio beth i'n mynd yn dweud i'r bod yn gwneud. A'r peth yn gwneud, dwi'n cael'i gwneud, a'r cyfnodd mewn gwahanol yn dweud i'r gwasanaeth. A'r peth yn dweud i'r gwasanaeth, y gallwch gweithio i ddim yn ddim yn ôl am gynyddoedd. Rydw i chi'n gweithio chi arwraedd, I'm going to talk to you about what we thought we would do. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about the set, but that's kind of less relevant, I guess. And then what we ended up doing and how we worked with the curator and a bunch of tools that we made. And then, of course, finally some lessons. The primary question is, why do we choose WordStar and what we actually trying to achieve? What we're trying to achieve here was deal with content, which we would describe as being functionally obsolete. WordStar is a very old format. It's kind of around in the 1980s. WordStar for DOS was quite prevalent. It was a really new and exciting way of writing stuff in those days. There was a WordStar for Windows when Windows 3.11 kind of turned up, but it rapidly stopped being very relevant. There was a bunch of legal stuff happened and, of course, technology overran and it disappeared. So I can access them because I'm a nerd and I spend my life looking at this stuff. But if I gave you one of these files, you'd kind of go, I don't really get it. What do I do with this? It doesn't really mean anything. My computer says no. So we know that this stuff is what we would argue is being at risk. We want to do something with it. But, secondarily, what we wanted to do was start to test that assertion around what is a preservation action. We talk in the preservation community about doing preservation actions in this very meaningful and very kind of upright way. We'll do a preservation action and we'll save the content and then life goes on. But what we haven't done as a community really is delve into what that actually means and what that feels like and how do we make sure that we're doing the right things to our content. This was kind of a chance for us in the library to explore what that means and how that feels and how do we make sure that we're doing the right thing technically, we're doing the right thing intellectually and we're doing the right thing curatorially to content. So we were doing two things. One was actually word style because it was there and it has a need and the second is because we needed to start somewhere and it was a relatively low barrier of entry really. So the initial point of attack, we basically said, hey, what do we do? We'll find all the word stuff files. We'll find a converter on the internet because there's definitely one that will exist. We'll test it and we'll make sure it works because we're doing due diligence. We'll convert everything. We will show the curator how we've done this and how it's cool and how nothing's changed and the objects that we're putting into the system are still the same and then we'll just shove it all back in the permanent repository and life goes on and we can go and look at something else cool. That seems pretty straightforward and the way we would expect to do business. Of course, it doesn't really work like that. So we ended up having to do quite a lot of work and it became a technically quite an involved process. We were fortunate that some of my colleagues and prior colleagues, previous colleagues had some insight and they kind of collected some older kit. This is a laptop that I got to use, which is pretty fun. Toshiba Satellite T2130. You can see those wicked specs right there. 32 Mega RAM. That is smashing it. That thing doesn't work anymore. The power supply died halfway through this project. So I could kind of take it apart and try and fix it, but it kind of served its purpose and it kind of talks about the fragility of the mechanisms. We found Wordstar 4 on eBay and we got it shipped over for I think it cost us like $3.44 plus shipping from the States. So it ended up about 50 bucks probably and we got that shipped over and then of course we found an old printer which just so happened to be able to plug in and work with that laptop. There was nothing magical about that. We just plugged it in and it happened because some clever people did some clever stuff early on. So that was kind of like a way we could go back and test things, right? Because we've got the original, basically the original mechanisms that this stuff was created on. This is a scan photograph of a Wordstar content. This is just a spoof document I made to show kind of the things that we're dealing with and there is a pointer on here. So the application itself supports bold, italic, underline, tabbed characters which are the same as a space character visually. You can't tell the difference. It understands font to a degree so it allowed me to understand this was the original font. It allowed me to change the font and allowed me to change the font back again. So there's a bunch of instructions that we find inside the format which mean that we can tell you some things about markup and content. Cool.  As custodians of this content, as technical custodians of this content we need to kind of be aware of that, right? Because when I move this stuff into another format do I need to maintain the boldness? Do I need to maintain the italicisation? I think that's a word. Do we need to maintain the underlining? And one would argue probably yes. But we need a mechanism of establishing why is it actually relevant. Do we need to deal with the complexity? Douglas, a question. That's what that calls italics. So that's what it said. There's weeds and I can talk to you about them at a separate time and you'll see in a minute why that perhaps is relevant. But that is what it said was italic. That's just what happens. Also, we also have a bunch of stuff which is not visible on this slide and we'll talk to you in a minute. It's about things like line wrapping. So as a format, sorry, it said, I occupy 80-ish characters on a line and then I'm going to start a new line for you. As technical custodians we spend a long time arguing and discussing and thinking about the relevance of that line. Is that line a meaningful semantic unit in this textual object? Was it important to the creator of that document, a document, that the line was a specific length and the line wrapping therefore is something which needs to be preserved? And that's a question that we talked to you for quite a long time. Page numbering is another thing which appears in the format. It actually appears as a default function inside the program. It's nothing to do with the file object that was in my hand. So what do we do with that? What do we do with those pieces of information? This is what actually you see on the screen. And so this was a whole nother series of questions that we needed to look at. So this talks to your point a little bit, Douglas. So on screen this is what you see. This is normal text and that's what it looked like when it was printed out. This is bold text and we can see it's bold because it's got these kind of markup characters and this is what it looked over here. This is italic text. Now it doesn't work because perhaps there's a break between the proscript information that's pushed over to the printer and it doesn't actually fully understand what this instance of italic is. So what does that mean to us? Is that important? We do know originally on the original object that we see an italic instance has been argued for over here whether that's a renderance of an italic object is slightly not really relevant because we printed that and it's not really an actual artifact that we care that much about. And then equally on the underline we have a similar kind of markup. So one of the primary questions was what is important here? Is it this bit which is what the creator made and they sat in front of the computer and typed that out or is it the resulting textual object that came out the other side? Is that the bit that we're actually interested in preserving? Do we need to preserve this bit or is that a vehicle to get to this printed instance? And so we spent a long time talking about that and one of the decisions we made in this project was that in this instance we care about this object we don't care about that object. So we care about the application of those instructions we don't care that those instructions need to be manifested in a visual way. Does that make sense? So we kind of threw away these tags we used them behind the scenes but we said actually we don't need to show the reader these tags because they're not actually that relevant. We're lucky that we have an incredibly powerful preservation system in the National Library and so we used the preservation system to pick up our stuff. Throughout this you'll note there's a few times I've done some modification simply to protect the anonymity of the content that we have this is all oral history content. We've got 37 of these files it's not really a lot of content right this is a very small number of files but it actually means it's a nice manageable number it means that we can do something meaningful with that we're not kind of swamped with volume which is what rapidly happens going forward in the same oral history project so it turns out that all these word stuff files were written by a library colleague doing a report for the library which is to transcribe some oral library oral histories that we have so we've got the audio and we have the transcripts and these are those transcripts basically so that's kind of nice it's an internal thing we own some of the QA if you like about those objects so we used Rosetta to pull those stuff out it's super simple that's relatively straightforward so we got to this piece about checking the converters we went it's fine because some smart person would have done this for us would threat the converters and then we'll just test it and go yep, Apple still says Apple's underline is still underline and we found eight different codecs that worked and they mainly sucked and they really really really sucked and of the eight of them only two of them gave me back meaningful digital objects that I could engage with the other six either failed completely or they gave me back broken PDFs or broken RTF files that didn't open properly, didn't render properly and they just failed which had a scratch in our heads is it because our content was malformed is this just a function of dealing with stuff which is getting old I mean you know 86, 30 years ago the stuff was pretty old right is it because our stuff was malformed is it worth the effort trying to go back to these guys that are making the software and say hey your software is a bit rubbish we've got 39 files to test we don't really know we had to ask lots of questions around where do we put our effort where do we put our resource we decided that no single tool could handle the full set and as a result we're dealing with text by the time we'd got to this piece of work we were quite comfortable that we understood the format we could probably just do something ourselves in this instance and it would solve our problem and we don't need to deal with that is that probably the best way no, is that a sustainable way probably not but it meant that we could kind of keep going with this project I mean we could keep testing up the curatorial and the kind of internal process parts of our inquiry so this is what it looked like and this is the bits those in the back you will be struggling I apologise this is kind of like what one of those objects look like if you open it in a normal viewer and so you need to kind of convince it to open it in the first place because it's not going to natively open and this is on a Linux text renderer and you start to see all this kind of like funny gubbins up here like weird characters and this is actually the the markup that we saw before the underlining and the bolding we see line endings which is like we talked about line endings and whatever they're meaningful so you know intellectually it's all pretty much there and again I've made some redactions so none of the initials and locations are actually the same what they were it's just person A person B person C blah blah so you can see that like it's kind of mainly there but it's not quite there and this kind of when we got to this piece this bit's really easy to get to it's pretty trivial to get a relatively readable derivative of the content in a meaningful way but that's not what we saw on the bit of paper the bit of paper that we started off with that was intended to be printed didn't have these characters it didn't have these weird blocks over here so we know that we need to do something to it to kind of coes it into some shape so that's really basically what we're looking at the other thing of note as well and we talked about is it relevant to have the bolding and the underlining we start to know it's pattern so over here we can see we've got a person every time there's a person we've got this kind of funny marker which tells us that semantically they were using an underline function to to donate a person so there's a semantic inference around the asphetic componentry that makes up this file we know that that's kind of useful that's meaningful to us could we say the same about this we can certainly say that there's something about page endings but is it semantically useful is that page semantically useful sorry is the line semantically useful on the page is the page numbering semantically useful there is no I can't scroll down because it's not the full document but there is no page numbering inherent in this document but when I print it in Wordstar it prints me page numbers at the bottom is that a semantically inherent part of the object that we're preserving is it applied by the application does it belong in the format those are the kind of questions that we're arguing with and we answer those questions it's super important the lines are not that important because we know that we can do something meaningful in other formats and we can use the application to define them there's no semantic inference on the line what is semantically valuable is probably the paragraph so as long as we maintain that structure and that we do hardline breaks properly so this would be a hardline break as opposed to this being a softline break that's okay we're maintaining the semantic kind of flow of this piece of discourse so we allow ourselves that and we also said the page numbering is again not important because we're refloing this intellectual content into another page-shaped container the page number has become irrelevant because we're not controlling how many lines we show because we've already decided that the line width itself is not a semantic function of this document does that make sense so we kind of start to get in this really fuzzy weird area that says what's important and what's valuable we allow ourselves with this content to make that decision but we argue very strongly and there's a paper I'll point you to at the end that says every single collection needs to be assessed on its content you can't make these technical assessments without understanding the content itself so in this content we think we're allowed to do that other content if it was poetry if there was some kind of artistic license used in the layout then the layout needs to be preserved in a slightly different way so we did a different solution it sounds clever we reverse engineered the format we basically just kind of looked at it and reframed the tags we put it into a new format and we worked really hard on the look and feel and we'll get to that and I'll show you an example at that minute and the other thing was to give the curator an example of how to assess that transformation and make sure that it kind of makes sense and it was meaningful and they understood what they were signing off to the technical people, the nerdy people in the room were going yep we've done all this clever stuff what we want to do is make sure they're not going they're going I understand exactly what you did where I need to and that I feel comfortable saying yes this is an appropriate piece of work and you've handled it in the right way using it as you've handled this digital tonga in the way that I expect you to we get all the sign-offs and then it goes into the repository and lives forever we picked HTML because it was super easy so we're basically describing a marked up format we could have picked any bunch of formats and we had some really long and interesting conversations around what is the best format it's a textual object we could have used DOC we could have used DOCX we could have used RTF we could have used a number of other kind of containers we chose HTML because it allows us some really easy mechanisms of getting to that markup it supports bold underline it has font management it allows us to do this paragraph indentation and we can control these things in a really simple way and we've got heaps of HTML so if we have a preservation issue with HTML this is the least of our worries the rest of the collection that's HTML was probably something we should be worried of this is a kind of a view into the nerdy land of what we were actually playing with I'm not going to spend too long on it but these are what those markers look like so this is the bold marker it's actually a bytecode 13 it was actually pretty straightforward apart from when there were errors what we also found was the application did a lot of bit of self-cleaning so if the author didn't close the bold tags it wouldn't persist with boldness throughout the rest of the document it would go oh you've sucked a new paragraph you probably don't want bold anymore I'll switch bold off for you but it doesn't appear in the document it appears in the logic of the application so we spent a long time trying to unpick when we found errors when we did some of the early transformations when it would start with bold and the whole document was in bold we had to figure out why there was no closing bold tag does that make sense so we're trying to kind of reverse engineer and really know what it's doing and we have to try and use some sensible logic to decode that this was really the most important and valuable part of the project for me I think and we created this we got a text object criteria review sheet and I worked with a whole bunch of our colleagues and Peter McKinney put this together and we used a whole bunch of different assessment criteria from heaps of different sources which basically said of all of the aesthetic and inventory that you might find in a text object what is important to you as a curator of this content what do you understand what do you want us to pay special attention to and more importantly what do we not need to worry about so much and again you might not be able to read it from here but it talks about boldness and it talks about diacritics and it talks about figures and what have you and so we kind of said is it important not important and we went through and made comments and discussed with the curator and real great for both detail we decide and this is how we got to that bit around whether lines are important or not so the curators were comfortable that we're not just doing things willing elite of the content they're comfortable that we're touching content in a meaningful way and any changes or transformations that we make because we have to because technology changes are done in such a way that are defendable and that can be kind of accounted for over time so this form she took I'm not getting took hours I'm testing the process and part of it was making sure that everybody in the room understood the new implications of the little decisions that we were making along the way that's a nerdery we won't go in too much but basically we just use python because python is amazing and it's tech stuff and it was a pretty much a win-win I'm not going to go through that in any detail and this is kind of what we end up with so over here is the HTML this is never shown to the reader unless they kind of view source but this is equivalent of that kind of markup stuff that you saw on screen the author didn't write it to look like that somebody writing HTML writes it to look like this and over here you can see that we've got the underlining we've got and you'll see they've made a mistake they didn't underline that piece it doesn't exist there is no markup in that section that requires it so we have to persist with errors as they are one of my favourite conversations that we had on this topic was that of font when we first did this we used the default browser font I didn't touch font in any way, shape or form because in the text object the file format doesn't talk about font in any way, shape or form it just says I'm a text character the curator said New Times Roman though it's not contemporary we didn't what font do we want it to be I don't know because I've never seen it printed all I know is the text object that we have and we had this really fabulous discussion which resulted in us using cwria because it feels contemporary and one of the justifications of what we said was the default in the program and we looked at a number of different instances of the word site program always defaults as cwria of that day, it's a contemporary decision the default settings in an application unless we know better will probably be used by the author if they really cared about font and we did some testing around font and I showed you that earlier we would have seen some clear indicators how we've used a different font so that's what we resulted in, this is HTML and this is that stuff moved 30 years into the future we also built another tool which I'm not going to talk about too much because I don't really have the time but we wanted to give the curator a method of testing the veracity of what we've done this tool we built which basically strips away all of that markup and puts in the original and the converted just the words without any of the markup and it was designed to break the moment you have a so this is red and that says read the moment there's an intellectual discrepancy with the text content it would break and tell you there's a problem here and we gave that to the curator with all of the converted materials and said this is your opportunity to go through behind the scenes we do all of this logging anyway because we're nerds and we do that kind of stuff so we know that everything that comes out is perfect and if it's not perfect we know why it's not perfect but that's not my decision as the content owner is the content curator to make that decision and I needed a vehicle to allow the curator to make those kind of meaningful decisions and not just trust me that I've done a good job so that they can go through and look after wade through this content in a structured way so it turns out this tool was super useful so in wrapping up the lessons that we kind of picked up where you need to know your content and I really do me know your content technically aesthetically and informationally you need to know what it's doing what's the preservation intent of this object what is it doing for me what's the technical gubbins under the hood we know what every single byte in these objects does which is awesome but it's kind of like nerdy and not many people really need to get down to that level so we need to make tools which allow us to bridge those two divides and allow people who care about the aesthetic and about the information to be hidden from the horrible technical bits and allow the technical people to do their job and the curatorial people to deal with the aesthetic and the informational part and we all kind of come together and agree what we need to do trusting into processes that was another really interesting one we kind of naively thought we could just pick up these converters and then deploy them and then they would work and it turns out they don't work and we don't really know what they're doing so how do we trust what they're doing they're black boxes, you have an input you have an expected output but if you don't know what's happening inside how can you be sure that it's not really messing with this stuff and that's a situation where some of the first HTML we produced when I said this conversion tool can make HTML how about I just squirt in another bit of HTML which changed the font that was heresy at that time you know the tool did it why would you want to touch something a tool made and I kind of said but we know what we're doing as technical people we're not adding any voodoo we're adding another bit of knowledge but the tool was trusted more than it probably ought to have done so this trust in processes is probably better and then the final things which is kind of standard in text space if you make things make them reusable because they'll pay off quickly all of the IP that we made for this project we've now got two further projects which we're just waiting for the kind of a start date to just see how quickly we can do it this was an exercise in really seeing what we needed to do now we know what the process is we've got Wordstar 2000, we've got a bunch of them and we've got some electronic typewriter material which also similarly you know actually all of these processes and tools are identical all that's different is that kind of nerdy conversion of the weird markup it's irrelevant to the curator what's relevant is that they get the aesthetic object and the informational object that they thought they had so that was my talk, thank you very much for your time any questions that is a great question and I'm not going to give you an answer that you're going to like nor think is useful it really depends it really depends on what you're measuring in terms of actual work time we probably could do it, I would argue you know take a person week roughly to do the technical analysis we understand this is a relatively trivial text format, again let's be very clear it's in a very simple space to make sure we understand it fully to do a converter, we're using the IP we've already made I reckon it'll take us about a week for each of the other two new formats that we have this actually took us the best a year on and off because we really sat down and chewed on the problem, we wanted to take it slow we wanted to bring the curator staff with the technical staff on a journey so we purposefully did it in a laborious way so you can do it a hell of a lot quicker the answer is don't know we've never really done it as a let's do it properly, start to finish, get it done but I reckon the technical bits you can do I've estimated about a week for each of the two new formats that we have any other questions yes, yes my life will be so much easier, yes that is an excellent question and I would defer you at that point to policy people, I would defer you to your collections policy people and I would say that that's a decision of the curator, if the curator says I'm comfortable that the print matter is all that matters in this instance and we can, the digital part is not that relevant, then that's their decision that, what I'm saying is that's not on my desk, don't know any other questions I would hope so I really, really hope so I'm not really a programmer and so everything I build is a bit rubbish and I would feel very nervous about putting it in the public space anybody can ask me for and I will give it to them what I don't want to do is let it go without there are lots of kind of caution words around using it so the next time we do it we'll refine things and we'll make it better and so on and so forth and if other people want to use the same stuff we'll make it better, I mean that's entirely the model that we need to have it's not sustainable to do it in this way that's primary lesson number one so it belongs out in the open space and we want to make tools which are simple the reason we wrote the tester was exactly for that reason, I could have shown the logs to the curators they would have just got frustrated they're not easy to use so I really think it's definitely a good thing and we should be doing and the more people that ask us to do this stuff the more it's likely to kind of happen I guess awesome, I've probably taken more of the time than I old I know, one more question just speaking as one of the policy people I'm just wondering about sharing IP when we talk about this offline sure absolutely, I'd love to no worries, thank you


Three seconds, three seconds. You guys are going to do sustain. DK, to Bravo, try to get fist, see if they can observe that enemy LPOP is still active. Kill, Mike, go first. Cross MSL. Pop, pop, pop. Snap. Leave man, put your right flim there. Very good, very good. Ready to go back up. Hey, remember, press right, press right. Once you see it. For you guys, so you guys are going to be with Beringer that whole time, all right? That's insane. Keep going that way, just keep moving. Doc, when we start moving, you're going to spread right for dispersion. We're spreading right into that terrain over there. Okay. Yeah, they're still moving, right? No, we've got plenty of space. See this guy right here. Is it clear? But there was a guy there that was trying to get in. You guys are like... Move up to that fucking, definitely rock cover down there. Merrin! What? No! It's our buddy, Russian, we don't mind, we'll be shot! Roger! Hey, I got two casualties on the left side. Point of casualty, and Doc's helping him. Good job, good job!  You're fundraising! Increasing rates, you got good suppression, push the fight! Fire and move, fire and move! Bang! Team boys, pull it in! Bang! Go, go, go! Oh, it's a singer! Oh, push right, push right! All right, we're going to set up others for him here, quick stay! I got it! You guys are good, stay low. Come on, take it, sustained rate, talking guns! All right, talking guns. More positive rounds. Roger. Clear. Click right? Get in front. Bang! All maneuvers, sporadic ineffective! Roger! Roger! Hey, we're going to keep out, modified rapid, modified, it's not taking next burst! Roger, gun suit! Three seconds. You guys are going to do sustained...


We saw Money Geeks Mr. V here. Welcome to another video guys. So in today's video, I want to talk about Tickets and Board GSAT. Tickets and Board GSAT. This is our penny stock, a 5G penny stock that I've actually been following and I finally bought the stock and so I wanted to share that with you guys. But before we get started guys, if you're new to the channel, we talk about how to earn money, how to save money, how to invest and build wealth. So if you have something that interests you, go ahead and hit that subscribe button and the notification bell so you don't miss out on new content. So we've seen this crazy evolution of 5G. Everything right now is 5G, there is 5G that. So I'm looking for opportunities to get into the space because all the other big names, they're already out there price-wise expensive. But I was looking for smaller players that I can actually get into. So I was researching and came across this penny stock. Again, Global Star, the ticket symbol is GSAT. And I'm looking at companies like, wow, this looks like one that we can actually get into. And then when I did research, I realized that they actually have some tremendous upsides, some partnerships that are really positioning this company to explode in the near future. So that's why I wanted us to really take a deeper dive here. Guys, this company, again, is a penny stock. You know what that means. It means investing in penny stocks is a little bit risky. This stock can go from whatever it's trading at right now to zero. And so it comes with tremendous amount of risk, but the upside is incredible. It can run overnight. It can go from, let's say, $1 all the way to $15 or $20. So the rewards there are crazy, but again, high-risk, high-reward. Global Star provides mobile satellite services, voice and data communication services through satellite worldwide. As you can see here on the website. So the company provides engineering services as well. So they provide hardware and software to design and install any satellite service that you would need. And so they actually do that in-house. So to me, not only do they provide that service, but they can also come in and do the hardware for you. So I think to me that is positioning themselves to be really good. And their customer base include government, public safety, disaster relief, recreation, personal telecommunication, oil and gas, fishing, natural resources, construction, utilities and transportation markets. So they are all over the place. But the key thing that really got me seeing that this company has huge upside is this news that I saw here. That Qualcomm actually announced that they've included its band N53 in its new 5G X65 modem. And the X65 modem, its Qualcomm, I mean, like this is their flagship. Because if you look right, Qualcomm is actually excited about this new modem. So the fact that they are including their N53 in here to me, that is a great opportunity for Global Star. Because as Qualcomm expand and grows, they are going to go along with them. So Global Star also has a partnership with Nokia to install their band N53 spectrum at the port of Seattle. So to me, that's a good partnership. Continue to expand the brand and expand the company's portfolio. They also have another partnership with Fiat, Chrysler and Jeep to kind of expand into connected car space. So this is just a growing space. The connected car space is growing. And the fact that they are already getting that full step into it, we're going to see them trying to find more partnerships to continue to expand in that space. So that's some of the reasons why I think this company is poised to see some growth here in 2021 and beyond. So when I was actually recording this video, guys, the stock is currently trading at about $2.45. And I see tremendous amount of upside here at $2.45. I think if this thing continue to create these partnerships and continue to expand its portfolio, we can see this stock run all the way up to $5 and beyond. So that's why I'm getting in early right now. And again, guys, this is not where I can say I'm guaranteeing that this is going to run immediately. This is going to take a little bit of time to develop as they continue to build these partnerships. And 5G continues to be this big thing that people are going to be paying attention to in the future. So that's why I think, again, in my opinion, this penny stock here is poised to make a tremendous run. So let me know again in the comment section what you guys think about this. Do you have this particular stock in your portfolio? Do you have it on your watch list? If not, definitely want to go take a look at, do some research and see if this is something that you want to jump into. And again, guys, just to caution you, this is a penny stock, which means that it's a very risky stock. So again, high risk, high reward, that's my approach here. So again, I've already bought some of the stock and I'm going to add again to my position just to benefit from it. And you guys know my strategy. Once I get into penny stocks like this, what I usually do is when you get that first run and I get maybe double my initial investment. So if I get 100% return, what I usually do is I would sell some and then keep just the gains in that stock to let it run and I keep building my portfolio that way. So again, that's my strategy. I know some people don't want to sell at all. I'm not a greedy savage. I take what the market is giving me 100% return to me. That's crazy. I love it. I'll take that and then leave whatever the balance is for the stock to keep running. If it keeps going up, then I would just sit back and relax. Then I can take that initial capital and go find another penny stock to invest in. Again, that is my strategy. So let me know in the comment section what you guys think about this particular stock. If you're new to the channel, we talk about how to earn money, how to save money, how to invest and build wealth. So if that's something that interests you, go ahead and hit that subscribe button and your notification bell too. You don't miss out on new content. Also, if you're looking to get started with investing, guys, we recommend. We will hear you get some free stocks. I get free stocks when you use our links in the description below. And as always, guys, do your due diligence.  Stay motivated. Thank you.


I would like to welcome Professor Chris Field for our next session. Professor Field is a director of the Woods Institute for the Environment. He is also professor of earth system science and biology and also a senior fellow at the Precord Institute for Energy. Professor Field's research has focused on climate change and he's been deeply involved with national and international efforts to advance the understanding of global ecology and climate change. Truly a world expert. He was the co-chair of the working group too of the IPCC from 2008 to 2015 and I'm so happy that he was able to join us today. Chris, looking forward to chatting with you, hearing from you. So yeah, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. Thank you and welcome everybody. I want to add my voice in a really warm welcome to Stanford, whether or not you're here physically. What I'd like to do this morning is share a few perspectives on climate change and how climate change sets the stage for what we need to accomplish in terms of an energy transition and more broadly a greenhouse gas transition. In order to do that I want to repeat some of the same things that Arun's already spoken to you about that set the time scale of the response and I want to explain a little more background behind why it is that there's a fixed carbon budget and whatever else we do we need to respect the fact that the biogeochemistry and biophysics of the earth system keep this budget fixed and in particular what I'd like to do is really focus on the concept that regardless of where we are with the technologies, regardless of where we are with the policies, but avoiding the worst impacts of climate change is basically about finding the accelerator pedal. You can talk about it as the inflection point in energy, you can talk about it as enabling new technologies but across the full spectrum of responses what we really need to do is find a way to go from pace number one that we're at now to pace approximately 10. Let me start with a picture of the global average temperatures for land and oceans over the last 140 years or so. It's essentially no question that it's warming if you quote from the most recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on IPCC the conclusion is that warming is unequivocal and it's extremely likely that humans are the dominant cause of warming since the middle of the 20th century or so. And you know you could ask does that mean that there's still a sliver of doubt? The basic answer is that there is a sliver of doubt of whether humans are the overwhelmingly dominant cause or the slightly dominant cause. Most of the evidence are that in the absence of human emissions of greenhouse gases we'd be see looking at a slight cooling over the last century so that humans have caused all of the warming we've seen and a bit more. There's tons of evidence of why this is the case. What I'd like to do is make just a couple of comments that establish how settled the science is on the link between greenhouse gases and warming. This obviously is the first page of a kind of a beat-up scientific article published in April of 1896 nearly 125 years ago by a Swedish chemist named Arrhenius and in 1896 three fundamentally important parts of the relationship between greenhouse gases and climate were already well established and they've been challenged tens of thousands of times since 1896 but none has really been found wanting in terms of the underlying physics or in terms of the empirical evidence. The three things that Arrhenius knew in 1896 are that carbon dioxide is a strong absorber of heat radiation that's released from the earth's surface. The second thing that Arrhenius knew not really found wanting in any way since then is that you know warmer atmosphere there'll be more water vapor which is another strong heat absorber and that water vapor feedback essentially amplifies the effects of the carbon dioxide and the third thing that Arrhenius knew was that if you release a bunch of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over decades and centuries it will partition between the atmosphere and the oceans and you can calculate what that equilibrium will be based on these three things greenhouse gas water vapor amplification and an atmosphere ocean partitioning Arrhenius was able to calculate an expected effect on global temperature of a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in 1896 and although he didn't get exactly the answer that we get today it was pretty close so the core elements of the physics behind our understanding of the way greenhouse gases change climate have really been in place for more than a hundred years and they are as established as for example the physics of the way an electric motor works or a fluorescent light bulb. There's essentially no question and when we look at scientific controversies related to climate change they're all about whether there are feedback mechanisms that lead to amplifications or suppressions whether there are links between particular aspects of the climate system and other aspects how things play out on a on a spatial or a temporal basis but the core elements of the scientific understanding of climate change have really been in place for at least a century and and even more. Much of the issue and the real reason that we're talking about climate change in the context of the energy system is that our energy system over the past century has been focused on combustion of fossil fuels that lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Last year was in some ways a frustrating landmark year and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was the the first year that we've seen year-round concentrations that were greater than 400 parts per million point zero four percent but it's also important to recognize that carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas of concern and currently if we look at the amount of forcing of climate about two-thirds of the forcing comes from carbon dioxide and the other third comes from a mixture of of methane. Haroon already talked about nitrous oxide which comes primarily from agricultural practices and halocarbons these refrigerants that Haroon talked about. But there are some special reasons that CO2 is important and i want to explain those before we get too deeply into the material and the core issue that you need to understand is that CO2 is is uniquely important as greenhouse gas because warming from CO2 is at least to a first approximation permanent. Here's a trajectory of CO2 emissions if you look over the last 30 years you can see that the emissions trajectory really hasn't been stable. You could see that there was an emissions downturn with the with the great recession of 2008 2009 you can see that emissions were basically flat around the time that the Paris Agreement was signed 2015 2016. They've been growing since then it's likely that the pandemic will cause a decrease in emissions and in some ways the frustrating news from the decrease that we're seeing during the pandemic is really solid evidence of how tightly linked economic activity and greenhouse gas emissions CO2 emissions are at this point still and of course the the goal of the energy transition is to shift the energy system from this tight linkage between CO2 emissions and energy production to one that's totally unlinked so that we can have abundant affordable energy and the absence of greenhouse gas emissions. If we look regionally at where emissions are coming from it's important to recognize that that the nature of the problem is really fundamentally different than we thought it was back it's interesting to go back on this figure to something like 1997 when we signed the Kyoto Protocol and at that point the understanding of the way the world works is that if the world's developed economies especially in the in the US and the European Union could cut their emissions we didn't really need to worry about emissions from the developing world for some years or decades into the future and of course that situation changed dramatically with massive acceleration in emissions with economic growth in China beginning around 2000 so that now annual emissions from China are about the same as from the US and the EU combined and we think about solving the problem we really need to think about a global scale solution where wherever solutions are developed they need to be deployed and affordable around the world and we do think really really hard about assurance that whatever solutions we come up with are global ones. When we look at the sources of the emissions in terms of what compounds it's still the case that emissions from coal are the leading source of industrial carbon dioxide followed by oil and gas cement and then flaring and we talk a lot about the the rapid increase in gas and the US now gas is is more important than coal but but globally coal is still the number one source and it's amazing that we're still relying so heavily on a technology that not only leads to so many greenhouse gas emissions but has so many other negative health consequences with with hundreds of thousands or even millions of people dying every year as a result of particles from coal. Part of the reason this is such a hard problem as Arun already explained is that greenhouse gas emissions are associated with a super wide range of activities almost everything we do in the economy in the roughest of terms you can think about greenhouse gas emissions being associated almost equal proportions to to transportation industry buildings and food production it's really striking when we think about for example on the Stanford campus pressure from student groups especially to divest from oil and gas that transportation least globally is a relatively small slice of the total emissions budget and the big ones industry buildings agriculture forestry and land use are really complicated to deal with but at the same time they're complicated they have a number of really attractive opportunities for saving money at the same time that greenhouse gas emissions go down a final source of emissions that i want to make sure people don't forget is emissions from land use when we go back to the half a century or so to the 1960s emissions from land use change were comparable to emissions from fossil fuel combustion but they have stayed more or less steady over the last 60 years while emissions from fossil fuels have have increased dramatically so that now in in recent years the emissions from land use change in in recent years this is almost entirely the clearing of tropical forests have been between 10 and 15 percent of the magnitude of the emissions from from fossil carbon when we think about bringing emissions down to zero we're going to have to tackle land use change as aggressively as we task tackle fossil carbon and spend a few minutes talking about the the relationship between the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide since the beginning of the industrial revolution and where we stabilize temperature this figure shows the relationship between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions beginning in 1870 and the stabilization temperature and what you can see is there's essentially a linear relationship at reading the the numbers across the the top line if we've if we have emitted on the order of 2,000 billion tons of CO2 we're looking at a temperatures of around one C at 3,000 billion tons of CO2 we're at about three C so this cumulative emissions were really really important and it doesn't matter when they're emitted and it doesn't matter whether you know we slow emissions or whether we speed them up the the relationship is with the cumulative amount and the reason for that is that warming from CO2 is essentially permanent there's a simulation that illustrates why that's the case and this is a model simulation in which a huge pulse of carbon dioxide either 2,000 billion tons 500 billion tons or 200 billion tons is emitted to the atmosphere as a pulse and then you can follow the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the top figure or you can follow the global average temperature in the in the bottom figure and what you can see is that as Arrhenius Neubach in 1896 the CO2 concentration gradually goes down as the carbon dioxide partitions between the atmosphere and the ocean but but the temperature is essentially constant and this is over a period of 500 years why is that the reason that's the case is that the vast majority of the warming that's associated with atmospheric CO2 is ending up in the oceans and as the as the CO2 gradually partitions between the atmosphere and oceans the ability of the oceans to take up heat is basically slowing down at the same rate that the CO2 uptake is slowing down and what that means is that even as the CO2 is decreasing the fraction of the heat that's remaining the atmosphere is increasing and it means that you have this essentially permanent warming in and as far as we can tell the warming from CO2 is is permanent over many centuries probably many thousands of years unless we actively remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere with non-natural processes and and one of the things that we'll talk about and is a subject of a lot of work at Sanford is how it is possible or what will it take in order to remove large quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere so let me just go through the implications of this now for the budget Arrhen did a rough budget for a warming of 2C and I want to go through the the same calculation for 1.5 just to really put an exclamation point around how much time is available so the best estimate is that if we're going to have a 66 percent or better chance of keeping global average temperature below 1.5 above pre-industrial it's currently around 1C above pre-industrial that budget is on the order of 2,800 billion tons of CO2 and through 2019 the best estimate is that we emitted a little bit over 2,300 billion tons you guys are good at addition that means we have 485 billion tons left in order to keep ourselves within this 66 probability of staying at 1.5 C or less and you can just ask how much time that would be at current emissions in 2019 the emissions rate was around 43 billion tons for the entire year and if you divide 43 into 485 you come up with 11 years and four months April 2031 is the date at which we're essentially committed to a warming of at least 1.5 C a room did the calculation for 2C and the the same kinds of considerations apply at least for me the implication of this calculation is that whatever else happened we need to find a way to find the accelerator pedal on solutions and what i'd like to do now is is put this need for an accelerator in the context of the impact that we expect from from a changing climate so here's a here's a typical emissions trajectory that that subject of wide discussion throughout the economy this is one of shells and what you can see is that it has emissions peak and then decline and then a large amount of negative emissions later in the century so that we go to net zero emissions somewhere in the in the second half of the century that that's that's very late relative to the requirements of the staying in the 1.5 C and from the IPCC you can see a a wide range of of possible emissions pathways that are associated with stabilizing temperature anywhere from only a little bit over one to allowing it to go all the way up to more than more than four and a characteristic of of all these scenarios that limit warming in the range of one and a half to two C is that they typically bring global emissions down to zero somewhere in about the middle of the second half of this century and then emissions are net negative in the the latter decades of the century so that we are on bulk removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than we're adding why is it we need to do that I'm just a couple of minutes talking about the impacts of climate change and I think everybody's aware that we're already seeing impacts of climate change and that if this is stated in the goal of the UN framework convention that the goal is to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system we've already failed but the the impacts are still at the stage where they're mostly manageable and what we need to do in the long-term future is avoid the kinds of tipping points where those impacts become unmanageable so we've seen impacts and we've seen them everywhere I'll highlight just a couple of the things that have been in the news recently we know that climate change is a big factor in the risk of the kinds of droughts that California saw in the 2011 to 2016 timeframe we know with a very high level of confidence that climate change contributes to the risk of the wildfires where we're still experiencing the smoke today and we know that climate change not only as a result of higher sea levels but as a result of warmer water temperatures increases the probability that hurricanes reach the most destructive categories and we know that it increases the the amount of rainfall that's associated with any given hurricane we look into the future I would argue that the that the most important thing is to find a way to keep the impacts manageable and if you look at every assessment of the impacts that we're looking at the common theme from all of those is that increasing warming increases the probability of impacts that are severe and pervasive and irreversible what's that mean in terms of of the outcomes the the two global maps in this figure show a world with ambitious mitigation the world with the average temperature shown in the in the blue banner across the top and the and the right hand figure shows a world of continued high emissions I want to point out two important things about these two contrasting worlds the first is that if we think about the next few decades the the decades over the black arrow in the top we're looking at a time when the temperature trajectories from the pathway for the world of ambitious mitigation and the world of continued high emissions don't really diverge this is a world where we have to take responsibility for the changes that have already been baked in and where adaptation is going to be the key to dealing with the problems and it's really only in the second half of the century we might think of as the era of climate options when investments that we make in the next few years play a big role in terms of of the climate outcomes in the in the second half of the century and the second point I want to make is illustrated by the contrast between the the top map the map of the amount of warming that occurred over the past century with the amount that we can expect in the decades remaining decades of the 21st century and what you can see is that in a world of ambitious mitigation in this world we will see about as much warming in the rest of the century as we've seen to date an amount of warming that's definitely causing damages but in general we can deal with and if you contrast that with the world of continued high emissions it's really a world that is so different than current conditions very very difficult to even project what the impacts might look like I want to close with a description of three kinds of impacts that are potentially important tipping points and that really at least for me highlight the reasons that we need to be so focused on this accelerator pedal the first concerns the risks of very large amounts of sea level rise the understanding of the risk of collapse of a major ice sheet is definitely a work in progress but there's increasingly clear evidence that as we move from low emissions through the century to higher emissions the the risk of large amounts of sea level rise up to a couple of meters is really really clear but if we look in the long term the picture changes dramatically so that in a world of continued high emissions through the 21st century we're looking at the probability of something like 15 meters about 50 feet of sea level rise that persists over many hundreds of years fundamentally changing the world's coastlines where in a world of ambitious mitigation sea level rise is certainly consequential but it's at a level that could be managed with the kinds of adaptation strategies that we already have access to we're really really clear that there's a tipping point that's associated with a very large amount of sea level rise out there somewhere it's unlikely that that tipping point is at a global warming less than 2c and it's unlikely that it's at a global warming greater than 3c exactly where it is is hard to pin down you'd say the same exact thing for a tipping point that's associated with release of large amounts of carbon from thawing permafrost we know that there's a vast amount of carbon frozen in these soils especially in Siberia we know that it's very susceptible to thawing and we know that we have not yet seen the release of large amounts of carbon from the thawing of these permafrost soils if you look at the quantities they're they're they're truly vast here's an indication of the remaining forever budget for the 66 chance of staying below 1.5 and what you can see is that the release of carbon from thawing permafrost could by itself overwhelm that budget again we don't know where the tipping point is but we have high confidence that exists the final tipping point I want to mention is one that deals with the ability of society to work together to solve these problems and this is a figure from Marshall Burke at Stanford and basically what it shows is that if you look at the economic consequences of historical variations in temperature what you can see is that countries that are currently cool do a little bit better when temperatures are warmer countries that are currently hot do a lot worse when temperatures are warmer and if you simply project that into the future you end up with the globe where the rich countries and the global north are doing dramatically better and the poor countries in the global south are doing dramatically worse and at least to me what this figure speaks to is a tipping point in the global social license to tackle climate change and it really will need to be tackled at the global scale and I think passing this tipping point means that we lose the ability to deliver the solutions that the world's demanding this the session of this week is going to talk about a whole bunch of important aspects of the solution and you know technology is certainly one but it's not the only one we also need to be understanding where there are opportunities in finance where there are opportunities in policy and where there are opportunities in adaptation and finally a thought I want to leave all of you with is that more than anything else and getting ahead of climate change is having a priority that establishes what I want to call leadership the ability to recognize the problem to make the in kinds of investments and to inspire the community to deliver the solutions that the world needs thanks very much I'd love to have any questions hi yes professor can you hear me I can need for the super insightful talk I just had a quick question about how you mentioned that there is this huge discrepancy where the global north is generally going to be a lot better off than the global south in case of a drastic change in temperature what do you think would then provide the global north the incentive to work on climate change solutions given that the global south doesn't really have the resources or the technical know-how to actually build and implement these solutions are we you know going to leave it to the goodwill of people generally north america and europe for example or is there a framework that you have in mind to address that you know there are there are two schools of thought on how to globalize the solutions one school of thought is that if the prices of the technology can be driven low enough so that the non emitting solutions are the obvious choice that those will be adopted based on the economic criteria alone in the global south and I think there's a lot to be said for that argument the other is that if we really want to find the accelerator in the appropriate way that we really need to think about international assistance and in a different way than we've been thinking about it and and my analysis is that waiting for the prices to come down makes things happen way too slowly and that actual subsidies are going to be really critical for allowing countries that don't currently have the resources to make the investments that get them on the track that's going to allow the global emissions to stay somewhere close to the total budgets available hi thank you for your talk I was very curious about what work is being done on changing public perception and behavior relating to climate change and kind of how to get more people on board with doing work that that will help reduce the climate change yeah that's a great question and it's really clear that it's not just a technology problem it's also not just a communications problem and I would say that what we lack is an ability to conceptualize understand and move forward with the integrated system that recognizes all the pieces at sanford we have a bunch of people who are working on climate communication there was just an article in the New York Times the other day about a new poll on perceptions of climate change and the number of people who view climate as a top priority at sanford's there's active efforts on climate change communications in the communication department in the school of education in the psychology department but it's an area where we we really need a lot more work and where we need a lot tighter integration between that community and the people who work on the technology and the finance of the government


What is there in your life that's influenced you that I would have no idea about from what I've read by you and about you? What's the hidden influence on cliff as in us that I don't see? Maybe others don't see that's that's a hard one. I I was probably wrong about this and my parents are gonna get mad at me But we weren't we were by no means. I'm not telling a poverty story But we grew up decidedly middle-class and and my dad had well He was a trial attorney and he had a job where some years he made a fair amount of money Some years he made no money and my parents shared that way too much with me I've told him that I had a sense of impending doom as a child that I think was oddly a positive for achievement it made me very Focused on on on not being nervous about those kind of things But doesn't make you a happy relaxed person and it's impossible to turn off after it's no longer useful