Thanks for checking out this movie review video. This is for the 2020 film The Invisible Man. This is the one that was put out by Blumhouse and I'm about to get into it, but I'll tell you right now up front. I am gonna do spoilers on this one. Usually I don't do spoilers on the newer films, but for this one, I feel like you kind of have to talk about it. Yeah, not talking about specifics on this would just be something that would kill me basically because I have problems with this film And I also have things I really like about this film. So if you haven't seen it yet I would say stop this go watch it because I do think it's actually worth a watch One time in my opinion, but that's just my personal opinion. So yeah, I'm gonna get into it I'm gonna break it down what I liked what I didn't like. Let's get into it This is written and directed by Lee Wanel. I'm a fan of Lee Wanel. I like him as a person I love him from back in the saw days I remember watching the first saw film and just being mesmerized by it the twist in that is unbelievably amazing So he's a directed written and directed such films as insidious chapter 3 and upgrade Those are ones that he directed he directed those two and he wrote saw saw 2 saw 3 Dead silence, which I don't think is as bad as everyone says it is insidious insidious to chapter 2 insidious chapter 3 insidious the last key cooties which is a pretty fun film and upgrade which a lot of people slept on upgrade by the way and I thought that was quite a good movie that was also put out by Blumhouse and that's a Lee Wanel film And I did see some parallels between the directing style in upgrade and the directing style in The Invisible Man Specifically the portion in the mental hospital where that's like the fight scene There were some things he did with the camera at that point that were very very reminiscent of upgrade So if you like this film at all or you're a Lee Wanel fan, and you haven't seen upgrade definitely check that out It's worth it's definitely worth it. So this starts Elizabeth Moss who by the way does an excellent job in this She is a really good actress. She does a really good job with this role I think in general in this film the acting is very well done. I didn't see any Line delivery or actual physical acting that I was just like oh, that's bad or that's questionable It was all very well done But she stands out obviously because she's the main character and she has a tough role because she's got to play this She's got to walk this line of like seeming believable and You know afraid and fearing for her life and everything but also seeming a little bit You know unhinged a little bit crazy and she's got to walk that line really well, but she does such a good job with it She's been in films such as suburban commando Didn't think I was gonna mention that girl interrupted.  She was in the movie us Which I think is quite a good film You should definitely check that out and most recently she was very well known for her role in the handmaid's tale Which was a Hulu original Series which I haven't watched yet, but I do want to I do I do want to I'll get to it eventually It's on one of my giant lists of to watch So this had a seven million dollar budget and cha-ching cha-ching cash cow. It made a hundred and thirty one point one million Dollars at the box office. That's awesome for Blumhouse. Very cool This film was actually originally supposed to be part of the Universal Monsters kind of revival that they did They're calling it like the dark universe Universal and it was actually supposed to star Johnny Depp way back, but That film got killed in its in that iteration because the mummy with Tom Cruise did horrible at the box office I haven't seen the film But from what I hear the biggest issue was they focused so much on just Tom Cruise and his character and not Enough on the actual mummy, which is the title character So people just hated it that apparently was wasn't really well done So they were they're playing on having that be the kickoff to this whole dark universe And they were gonna do tons of films. They're gonna do Dracula I think Frankenstein the invisible man all sorts of things And they were already, you know lining these things up And like I said Johnny Depp was was on standby to be the invisible man But that got killed after the poor performance by the mummy and then Blumhouse stepped in much later And they were like, hey, you know, we'd be interested in doing this and then that's why you get the invisible man that you just got So apparently just this month. I'm recording this in July of 2020 just this month It was announced that Lee Wanel is actually working on a sequel to the invisible man, which With the end of this I'm interested to see where he's gonna take it now from the articles I had read he kind of It seemed that he was Noncommittal kind of it sounded like he didn't want to make a sequel But then when it did so well, he was like, okay, you know, I feel like the fans dictated it Like I got to do this plus Blumhouse is probably like, here's a fat paycheck Let's do another one and he's like, yes, I like money Just saying The opening portion of this film actually Could indicate love I think it's very interesting because when she's in bed and she pulls back the covers and she's about to sneak out You don't really know what's going on yet And you see that his arm is around her and she kind of like, you know, is trying to get out from under it Now that could indicate Some very extreme love but in this instance, it actually indicates it like being overly possessive being very Controlling and it's interesting because that same image can be seen a few different ways And it could go both ways. So I just kind of like how they they started with that The other thing I really like about this is you see the lengths to which Cecilia is going to get away from this guy Giving you a very clear indicator of how terrible this person is how bad her situation Really is that she's trying to get out of that she has done this much planning that she is going to these lengths In order to get out of there and I think it the way they do it is really good They keep from doing a lot of of music at that point which helps a lot I'm a big proponent of use silence to the best effect And I think they did that really well, especially in the beginning of this But there are other points during this film throughout that they use silence extremely well to ratchet up tension It works really well now this beginning scene where they're doing that Comes to a head when obviously she gets in the car and she takes off Well is about to take off and he like punches the window Adrian punches the window out That's a cool moment that they kind of you know, it's a bit of a jump scare. It's intense It it takes it to the final conclusion of showing you Yes, what you were thinking about this guy when she's trying to leave is accurate. He is really this crazy He's really this controlling. He's a evil guy. I mean they established that very very quickly The house is insane. Let me say that real quick that house is amazing. I would love to live there I would love to own that house. I'd love to just do that as like an Airbnb have one night there that house is amazing Just a little side note there So the two weeks later you can actually see the level of trauma that Cecilia is kind of struggling with and dealing with at that point It's best shown where you know, she's trying to go out to the Mailbox and she like freaks out and gets scared because there's a runner a jogger in the neighborhood now at this point She doesn't even know that Adrienne is actually still alive but Things have been so ingrained in her mind and it's so traumatic that she just feels like He's around, you know that that someone's out to get her and that that's a legitimate thing I'll talk a little bit about that later like at the very very end The little moment of lawyer when he says well the lawyer Adrienne's brother When he says that Adrienne's in the room with them was a cool kind of nod to what was going on But they did a relatively good job of kind of playing it off like Oh my gosh He knows that he's there and then switching it where he mentions the urn and then he was like Oh, that's kind of funny that they have it like that but you end up finding out later obviously that he actually did know when he was actually involved in this plan and everything and It's I think that his character should have been pulled back a bunch the brother the lawyer brother because I started to feel not long after the first interaction with him that he was involved that he did know what was going on because of the way The character was played the way his character was he was too villainous he was too Smarmy you know what I mean like they should have downplayed that character Then it would have been a much better more shocking moment towards the end when you find out that he was actually in the suit And he was all in on this even even take it back from that It would have been even better when he just showed up at the mental hospital and proposed that deal to her of you know You have this baby and everything's good But you know There are times in movies where the acting style or the dialogue it Telegraphs what's actually happening with the character and I felt like that kind of happened with the lawyer brother I'm not naming him because I just can't remember The breakfast fire is kind of like the first like post-mortem moan action from Adrienne Which I think was a pretty good way to kind of like slowly introduce that And have it be like his first thing But they made it very obvious that you know, he's doing it because the shot stays on it very very long There's no room for really Second guessing what happened there because you actually see that when she's away from the stove It actually gets turned on on high and then it goes to the fire Which I think it goes the fire too fast, but that's fine because you know got to speed things up Especially because I'm gonna say this right now. This movie's runtime is too long. It definitely should have been cut down There's no reason for this film to be two hours. Well technically over two hours with the credits, but it Should have been edited down. It's too long. It's definitely too long So we got to a point where we were 30 minutes into the film and nothing really had happened with post more post-mortem Adrienne and it felt like Where are we going? Like when are we gonna introduce this? It kind of slowed down too much But once they started introducing more stuff, it started really picking up and things got going. Thankfully I did really like the moment in particular where she steps outside and You see her breath in the cold and then you see his breath kind of like behind her into the side that was a really cool and chilling moment if you will Pun intended in that case, but I like that moment. I think it looks really good. It is chilling It definitely is like a chilling moment. We're just like oh, she's in some real danger The guy she interviews with this is a very small part But I want to kind of point this out because it's important The guy she ends up interviewing with for that job where she, you know, doesn't have her sketches He immediately Has this chauvinism about him and I think it's kind of telegraphing or talking about, you know What kind of chauvinism there is especially in male-dominated workplaces when he makes a Comment very early on about her appearance about her being in Paris you know, he's like, oh is it mandatory for all beautiful women to go to Paris after they graduate and It's just it's such it hits you as such an odd comment because she's there for a interview He doesn't know her and her looks are not part of the job. So it's just this this extra moment of Male chauvinist there's yet another little bit of what Adrian is in a massive amount Scattered throughout the world that she will continue to interact with have to interact with I Was wondering when they would end up addressing the bottle of pills It happens Maybe like 40 45 minutes into the film and I kept thinking about when are the pills coming into play when are the pills coming Into play because they made a very specific point of showing that she drops the pills before she got into that car That she used for the getaway So when they finally show up, I was like, okay, there they are. So that's cool You can't blame anyone for not believing Cecilia because it seems like an insane situation to be like oh this guy was invisible, you know So for that reason you you really do understand when no one will actually Believe her like you want them to believe her for for the stand standpoint of you know rooting for her character But when you step back and actually look at the story like you can't fault any of these people for actually not believing her because It seems so implausible, but I think that's part of the problem with What what they're trying to say is kind of one of one of the problems with you know abusive Relationships controlling relationships is that when people think they know the other person involved in the relationship Whether they're a friend or family member or whatever and they're not willing to listen to what the person being controlled or abused is saying It's because they just feel like it's so far-fetched like I know this person. It's so far-fetched There's there's no way they would be like that But here's the thing people are different inside and outside of relationships and it's definitely one of these things where The view from the outside is definitely different from the view from the inside Always pretty much, you know, whether that's positive or negative that it goes both ways But in the abusive variety in the controlling variety usually people don't let people outside of the race Relationship actually see that They present themselves in a much different way, especially people like Adrienne who are very psychopathic Who kind of put on this facade of being a normal person a very good person a caring person But then when he's alone with this person, he's trying to control. He is his true terrible self So the fact that the he is invisible when he's out in public and he's not invisible when he's with her mainly It's it's a good way of kind of tying those two things in of outside of the relationship Who he truly is is invisible inside of the relationship. You can see it So I think it's cool that the film was done that way You can see Adrienne slowly trying to isolate Cecilia from people around her Which this is exactly what really controlling people and abusive people do in relationships They seek to isolate that person from friends and family and just have them Themselves be their sole lifeline be the sole person that they come to and depend on for everything and that way it ensures Complete control they can control the narrative of what the person thinks what the person does all that stuff so as he's You know manipulating things in her world post-mortem post-mortem It's very true to how abusive and controlling people are in relationships So I think it was good that they did it that way too The paint scene looked really cool by the way that was really cool when she was in the attic and she had a feeling that he was on the On the the ladder up to the attic and she dumped the paint on him And you could see a little bit of him for a moment that looked really cool That splash of paint also to point out the suit that invisibility suit the design of it is really cool It looks really good and the parts where it's like getting glitchy looks so good They did a really good job with the effects on this. So I was very very happy with that It's funny that is Cecilia runs from the house with the first you know stint of Run-ins she has with Adrienne being invisible. She runs from the house and she's looking behind her as she runs You know, obviously, that's a situation where it's like just something that is Instinct to do that to be like, oh my god, are they getting closer or not? But there's no reason for her to be looking back because she can't see him So I just think that's kind of funny to watch and realize that even though there is a Legitimate reason for her to be doing that. It's just instinct The scene where Adrienne slits Emily's throat Cecilia's sister. I think it's actually really poorly done. I did not like the scene I don't think it plays well. It plays very oddly. I even stopped and rewound it and rewatched it There are a few things that really bother me about this one. Nobody saw this hovering knife Somebody would have seen this hovering knife most likely The other thing is if there were any because apparently everyone and everything in this film has Cameras if they looked at the camera footage, they would have seen a hovering knife But anyway, nobody sees this hovering knife. I guess maybe we can You know get past that because it was like pretty quick, but then after her throats gets get slit How is it that it the knife then ends up in Cecilia's hand that way because There's no way he could physically do it that fast because her throat gets slit and then it immediately goes to Cecilia's hand That's very unbelievable and that scene does not work at all for that reason You know, he would have had to slit her throat and then there would have been a lot of fumbling to get her hand to take that thing because she needs to do stuff with her hand he can't just pull her whole arm up with One hand and then stick the knife in it and do this in that amount of time and it wouldn't even be that smooth So that seems terrible They I understand what they're trying to do there and they could have done it in a much different way so They really should have done something better that looked awful. It's a plot hole. Basically. I don't like that scene I think it doesn't work. It's bad So that's one of my big gripes with this film The fight scenes like I was talking about the fight scenes in the mental hospital. Good. Good. Good Once again reminds me a lot of the directing and cinematography and upgrade check it out And the suit glitches are great at that point When the guy crashes his car, this is another thing I have a problem with it's very small but I have a problem with this when Cecilia is out of the mental hospital and Adrienne's getting away and this guy just randomly crashes his car, okay You know, first of all the fact that some guy just happens to crash his car Okay, a little too convenient then the fact that the guy immediately gets out of the car and she's going at the car He doesn't even acknowledge that she's there and then she takes the car and goes It's one of those moments where I roll my eyes when these things happen because it's way too convenient to move the story forward It's not good writing at that point. Now that said there was a lot of good writing in this So a moment here or there. It's not the biggest deal But I feel while I'm breaking these films down. It's important for me to point these things out that are problematic especially because You don't just do everything in one take and then edit it once and then you're done people looked at this So they should have realized and this doesn't really work. It just seems a little too weird I do like the twist of the brother being the one that she ends up shooting when she thinks she's using shooting Adrienne then she takes the mask off and it is the lawyer brother. I think that was a nice twist I didn't see it coming. So I really quite like that Then further I I do to a degree like the twist of her plan to make it look like Adrienne actually ends up killing himself and the way she Sets things up. I like that. But the way it was actually done It goes back to the scene. I was complaining about in the restaurant with the throat slitting the sit You have the same problems here. It's not believable. It's terribly shot It just doesn't work. It's the same thing. It's here are the two things Well, actually, there's a few this is what I wrote down is that the problems with this It's a cool idea. It's a great idea, and I really like that twist to it They just needed to do it in a different way I don't think she'd be able to overpower him I really don't especially because I don't think she'd be able to silently get in there unless we're making an assumption that this suit has some sort of like Noise dampening technology. Okay, let's just assume that I Don't think he'd be it she'd be able to overpower him like that because we've already established that he's pretty strong Throughout the film. They've made that a very big point. So I don't think she could overpower him. I don't think she could Get the knife Into his hand the way she did that's part of the overpowering but also just to like move it and It's it goes back to the scene in the restaurant Like you can't just like seamlessly get a knife in someone's hand and then make them slit their throat like you can't do that It's not that seamless. It's not that smooth. It doesn't work. It's it's very unrealistic The other thing is how is she doing this? I assume she's using the suit that the lawyer brother had on But here's the problem with that. It had bullet holes in it. It wasn't working properly It had holes in it. So even if for some reason it actually worked It wasn't glitching out Even though I had bullet holes in it. It still has holes in it. So you could see That there was something there So plot hole, this does not work. This doesn't make sense It doesn't make sense and I and that ticked me off because once again, just like I was saying with the scene in the restaurant Good idea, but there you could do it a different way and you should have done it a different way same thing here great idea actually With getting the revenge with making it look like he killed himself But you have to do it a different way. It wasn't done. Well, it was not done Well, and that creates a big problem with this film for me All right, so all that the events of it done The score serves the film quite well. I really enjoyed the score. I thought it was really good And there are stints of silence like I was saying before they do a great job in ratcheting up the tension. That's great It looks really good Directing really good cinematography really good acting like I talked about very good, especially from Moss She's an excellent job. The two-hour runtime is a problem. It is very unnecessary It should have been cut down this film does drag for that reason it does need to be kind of slow because of what's happening in the film and how you have to kind of develop it but There's a lot of stuff that could have been cut down a bit Two-hour runtime. It's just too much The idea of tying the invisible man concept to an abusive relationship and what it does to people is smart This was a great idea. This was a great concept. I really liked it much like the trauma that follows a person The invisible tormentor won't go away is what I wrote down. That's a very good point It's a good representation of even if someone can get out of that physical situation With that relationship, there's always that invisible tormentor following you or that specter of that person following you in Life as as that invisible trauma, which you cannot see but you have to deal with so I like that aspect of it It also goes to point out that This is a real-life thing victims of for example the golden state killer He perpetrated many rapes and some of his rape victims have publicly made statements about feeling like they can't Ever take it easy. They can't not look over their shoulders They can't sleep because they feel like someday he'll come back now Maybe that's a bit different now because he's actually been caught And been found guilty, but when he was out there They the trauma just would not let it go. So this is a real thing and I think it's represented well in the film. I Don't like that some things are seen in the film and then there's actually dialogue to tell you that that happened And what's happening in the film? You know, some people are fine with that. I'm not it's just a personal thing for me I feel like it makes me feel like the the director the filmmaker thinks that the audience is dumb You can show us things don't tell us things It just happens a few times, you know, like I can't think of any There were at least two moments in particular in the film, but I can't recall them at the moment I should have taken notes on like I'll remember but then I don't remember But it's just one of those things like show don't tell, you know, but they didn't do it a lot So, you know, just a few moments that they did it was like So now comes something that I I really don't like about this film the title This film could have had so much more impact and have been so much better and been more surprising Had it not been named the invisible man by calling it the invisible man People know exactly what they're gonna end up with it takes a lot of the mystery away from it that I feel like the film was actually trying to put there and It works against the film For the audience and that sucks if they would have called it something else just say they called it, you know I don't know relationship or something like that. Just not not that that's a good title just to say something other than the invisible man Say it's called relationship and it's the exact same film You would go through a long stint of time in this film where you're questioning Whether or not adrian is actually invisible or not and actually you would probably believe that he's not invisible That she's losing her mind that the trauma is driving her crazy And that's a more powerful film and then it becomes even more powerful when you find out that he is invisible The issue with this is that you already know that there's going to be an invisible man in it And I think that kills a lot of the surprise a lot of the twist to it I think this film could have been amazingly good Had it not been called the invisible man I mean, I understand why they did it because of the property Because I think it actually also would have you know, probably got more sales that way But it would have been a better film if it wasn't called the invisible man Anyway interested to hear people's thoughts on that put your comments down there Anything you want to talk about with this film though, uh, gonna give it a rating. So Out of five stars with half stars in play This is a tough one for me. I'm between three and three and a half stars Um, because obviously there's some things I really don't like about this film But there's some things that are really good and really work here. So I think I'm gonna I'm gonna be fair I'm gonna go three and a half stars on this. This is actually a pretty solid film. I would recommend people see it once I don't think it really warrants rewatches, especially because of the two hour run time But you know, uh interested in hearing other people's thoughts But thanks everyone for checking this out real quick Do me a favor hit that subscribe button if you haven't already that's your way to repay me It literally takes a second and it means a lot to me and my channel I would really appreciate that if you already have subscribed or you're going to make sure you hit the notification bell That way, you know anytime i'm putting up new videos or doing a live stream But regardless, I appreciate you stopping by and checking this out and until next time keep it brutal


From the SiliconANGLE Media office in Boston, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE. Now, here's your host, Dave Vellante. Hello everyone and welcome to this special presentation. We're going to introduce you to a new kind of company. First, you might recall, we've been reporting extensively on multicloud and the need to create consistent experiences across cloud at high performance. Now a key to that outcome is the ability to leave data in place where it belongs, not moving it around and bringing a cloud-like experience to that data. We've talked about Kubernetes as a multicloud enabler but it's an insufficient condition for success. Latency matters. In fact, it's critical and the ability to access data at high speeds wherever that data lives will we believe be a fundamental tenant of multicloud. Now today, I want to introduce you to a company called Vicinity, V-C-I-N-I-T-Y. The simplest way to think of this company is they turn wide area networks into a global land. And with me is Craig Hibbert. To talk about this, he's the VP at Vicinity. Craig, good to see you again. Thanks a lot. Thanks for having me, Dave. It's good to be back. So when I first heard about this company, I said, well, no, it can't, that breaking the law of physics. So first of all, tell me a little bit background about the company. Sure, yeah, absolutely. So about two decades ago, this company was formerly known as Bay Microsystems. They were asked to come up with a solution specific for the United States military. And there was a couple of people involved in that tender. Fortunately for us, Bay Microsystems prevailed. And they've had their solution in place with the U.S. military for well over a decade, approaching two decades. So that is the foundation. That is the infrastructure of where we originated. So did I get it right? I mean, you kind of, what you do, can you add some color to that? Yeah, yeah, as much as I can, right? So based on who the main consumer is. So we do some very creative things where we take the benefits of TCPIP, which is the retransmit, the ability to ensure the data arrives there in one piece. But we take away all the bad things with it, things like dropping packets. Typically, WANs are lossy networks and most people are accustomed to fiber channel networks, which of course, which are lossless. And so what we've done is take the beauty of TCPIP but remove the hindrances to it. And that's how we get it to function at the same speeds as a LAN over a WAN. So, but there's got to be more to it than that. I mean, it just sounds like magic, right? So you're able to leave data in place and access it at very low latency, very high speeds. So what's the secret sauce behind that? Is it, you know, architecture, patents? I mean, what can you tell us? Yeah, absolutely. So we have over 30 unique patents that contribute to that. We're not just doing those things that I just talked about before, there's a lot more. We're actually shortening the typical OSI stack, the moving through those layers and using RDMA. So a lot of companies use this today. Obviously, Infinidat uses it in between the nodes. Dell uses it at HP, it's a very ubiquitous technology. But typically it has a very short span. It's designed for low latency, has a 21 foot limitation. There's certain things you can do to get around that now. So what we did in our earlier iterations is extend that so you could go across the world, but utilizing that inside a proprietary sort of L2 tunneling protocol allows you to re-instantiate those calls that happened on the local side and bring them up at the other side of the world. So, and presumably that sets up for Rocky? It does, yeah, and Rocky too, yeah, absolutely. So we use that, we use converged ethernet. We can do some magical things where we can go in Infiniband and potentially come out rocky at the other end. There's a lot of really good things that we do. Obviously, if Infiniband's expensive, converged ethernet's a lot more feasible and a lot easier to adapt. Well, let me make sure I understand this.  Are you saying that you can extend that? We can, in fact. But extend it, not extending Infiniband, but you're saying you can translate it into ethernet. Yeah, yeah, we translate into, we have some proprietary mechanisms, obviously, that we hold the patents on. But in essence, that's exactly what we're doing here. We take, in the earlier years, Infiniband and extend that to wherever it needed to be over any distance, and now we do it with converged ethernet. At Infiniband, like speeds?  So, I mean, for instance, between our Maryland office and our San Jose office, it's a 60 millisecond RTT. And we can't get beyond that, we can't cheat physics. But what we can do is deliver sometimes a 20X payload inside that same RTT. So in essence, you could argue that we're beating the speed of light by delivering a higher payload. What's the trade-off? I mean, there's got to be something here. Yeah, so to today, it's not ideal for every single situation. If you were to do a transactional LTP, a database at one side of the world to the other, that would not be great for the solution. Talking big files. Yeah, so what we actually do, I mean, some great examples we have is seismic data. We have some companies that are doing seismic exploration. And it used to take a lot of time to bring that data back to shore, copy it to a disk array, and then copy it to multiple disk arrays across the world so people can analyze it. In that particular use case, we bring that data back. We can even access it via satellite directly from the boats that are doing the surveys. And then we can have multiple people around the world looking at that sample live. We do a demonstration for our customers that shows that. So that's one great example of time to market and getting ahead of your competition. What's the file system underneath? So we have a choice of different file systems, but it's a parallel file system. We chose Spectrum Connect. It's a very ubiquitous file system. It's well known. There is no other file system that has the hours of runtime that that has. We obfuscate the complexities from the customers. We do all of the tuning, so it's a custom solution. And so they don't see it, but we do have some of the hyperscalers that want to use Luster and Gluster and BGFS and things like that, and we can accommodate that. So you offer choice, but the preferred is GPFS, is that right? The custom one we have, yeah, absolutely. If somebody wants to use another one, we have done that and can certainly have dialogues around it. Quick, talk about how this is different from competitors. I think of guys like doing WAN acceleration. Sure, sure. Yeah, it's very different.  And some of the problems with that are obviously once you turn on encryption, that compression and those de-duplication or data reduction technologies are hampered in that caching. Based on who our primary customer was, we're handed encrypted data from them and we re-encrypted as well. So we have double layers of encrypted data and that does not affect our performance. So massive underlying technological differences that allow you to adapt to the modern world with encrypted data. So we've been talking, as I said in the intro, a lot about multi-cloud. Can you tell us where do you fit in? First of all, how do you see that evolving? And where do you guys fit in? Sure, so I actually read, it's actually very serendipitous. I read your article before we had a dialogue last week and there was a good article talking about the complexities around multi-cloud. And I think you look at Google, it's got some refactoring involved in it. They're all great approaches. We think the best way to deal with multi-cloud today is to hold your data yourself and bring those services that you want to it. And before we came along, you couldn't do that. So think now, a movie studio. We have a company in California that needs people working on video editing across the world and typically they would proliferate multiple copies out to storage in India and China and Australia. And not only is that costly, but it's incredibly time consuming. And in one of those instances, it opens up security holes and the movies were getting hacked and stolen. And of course, that's billions of dollars at worth of damage to any movie company. So by having one set of security tenants in your physical place, you can now bring anybody you want to consume that data, bring them all together, bid GCP, AWS, Azure for the compute and you maintain your data. And that segues well into things like GDPR and things like that where the data isn't moving so you're not affected by those rules and regulations. The data stays in one place. So we think it's a huge advantage. So has that helped you get some business? I mean, the fact that you don't have to move data and you can keep it in place. Maybe you can give us an example. Yeah, it absolutely does. I mean, if you think of companies like pharmaceutical companies that have a lot of data to process, whether it's electron microscopic data, nano tissue samples, they need heavy iron to do that. We're talking crase. So we can facilitate the ability to rent out supercomputers and the security company of the farmers is happy to do that because it's not leaving the four walls, present the data and run it live because we're getting land speeds, right? We're giving you land speed performance over the wan. So it's possible. We've actually done it for them to do that. Craze make money by renting. The farmers are happy because they can't afford craze. It's a great way to accelerate time to marketing. In that case, they're making drugs specific for your genome, specific for your body tissue. So the efficacy of the drugs is greatly improved as well. I want to ask you what I've been, we know the storage business, primary storage right now is, I've said it's a knife fight. And it's a cloud is eating away at it. Flash was injected and gave people a lot of headroom so they're not buying spindles for performance anymore. But data protection and backup and data management is really taking off. Do you guys fit in there? Are there use cases for you there? When you think of companies like Cohesity and Rubrik and many others that are, the cloud seems to be a tailwind for them. Is it a tailwind for you? I think so. And I think you just brought up a great point. If you look at, again, another one of your articles, I'm giving you some free kudos. I wonder if I get any discount. The article you wrote, I thought was excellent about how data is changed. It's not so much about the primary data now. It's about the backup data. And what Rubrik and Cohesity especially have done is bring value to that data. And they've elevated it up the stack for analytics and AI and made available to DevOps. And that's brilliant. But today they're confided to within the four walls of that company. What vicinity can do for those companies is come along and make that data available anywhere in the world at any time. So if they've got different countries that they're trying to sell into that may have different backup types or different data, they can access this and model the data and see how it's relevant to their specific industry, right? As we say, our zeros and ones are different than your zeros and ones. So it's a massive expansion. Take that richness that they've created and extrapolate that globally and that's what vicinity brings to the table. You know, in the days of big data, we used to look at high performance computing as an example, going more into commercial. And that's clearly happened. But mainstream is still VMware. Is there a VMware play for you guys or opportunity? Great question, great question. In Q1 of this year, so January, end of January, 2020, typically in the intro, we talked about how we were born on ASICS, which is incredibly expensive and limited to get one go at it. And then we moved to FPGAs. We actually wrote a lot of libraries that took the FPGAs into a VMware instance. And so what we're doing now with our customers is when we go in and present, they say there's no way you can do this and we show them the demo. When we actually leave, they can log in, download two VMware instances, put one in the East Coast, one on the West Coast, or with one of my customers we have now, one on the East Coast, one in London, download the VM and see the improvement that we can get over their dedicated lines or even the internet by using the VM. In fact, we did that in a test with AWS last week and got a 90% improvement just using the VM. So when you're out talking to customers, what's the situation that you're looking for? The problem that comes up that you say, boom, that's vicinity. Maybe you could. Sure, no, it's a good question. So I think a lot of that is people looking to use multi-cloud, right? That aren't sure which way they want to go or how they want to do it. And for other companies that can't move the data, there's a lot of companies that either went to the cloud and came back or cannot go to the cloud because of the sensitivity of the data. And also things like the seismic exploration, right? There is no cloud solution that makes that expedient enough to consume it as it's been developed. And so anybody that needs movie editing, large file transfer, DR, you know, if you're moving a lot of files from one location to another, we can't get involved in storage replication, but if it's a file share, we can do that. And one of the great things we do is if you have SIFs or NFS shares today, we can consume those shares with the spectrum scale, the GPFS under the cover and make that appear anywhere else in the world. And we do that through our proprietary technology, of course. Now remote offices can collapse a lot of the infrastructure they have and consume the resources from the main data center because we can reach right back in at land speeds. They just become an extension of the land. No different than me plugging the laptop into an ethernet pool. And you pay a penalty on first bite. We do. But it's almost transparent because of the way TCPIP works. Very chatty. Yep, it is. So we drop all that, that's a great question. An analogy we use in-house is you turn on a garden hose and it takes a few seconds for that garden hose to fill. But with us, that water stream is constant and it's constantly outputting water. With TCPIP, it'd be stop, start, stop, start, stop, start. And if you have to start doing retransmit, which is a regular occurrence of TCPIP, that entire capacity of that garden hose will be dropped and then refilled. And this is where our advantage is the ability to keep that full and keep serving data. What you just described makes people really think twice about multi-clouds and essentially they want to put the right workload in the right place and kind of leave it there. And essentially it's like the old mini computer days, they're creating silos, you're helping sort of bridge those. We are, and that is the plan. And so we have B2B, we have B2C. If you sit and think about the possibilities, it could end up on every one of these. This software, do we tackle every wireless point? This is some of the things that we can do. You're in an airport, do we put vicinity on there to take the regular TCPIP and send the communication through our proprietary network or our proprietary configuration? So there's a lot of things that we can do, we can affect everybody and that is the goal. So divide by hardware from you or software or both? That's another great question. So if you are in a data center and the analogy I just gave before about being a big data center, you would use a piece of hardware that's got accelerant in it and then the remote office could use a smaller piece of hardware or just the VM. With the movie company example I gave you earlier, India and Australia is editing live files on the west coast of the United States of America just using the VM. So it depends, what we come in is we look at your needs and we don't oversell you, we try and sell you the correct solution. And that typically is a combination of some hardware in the main data center and some software at the others. And as I said, multi-cloud in many ways creates more problems today than it solves. You guys are really in there attacking that. Multi-cloud is a reality, it's happening. I said historically it's been a symptom of multi-vendor but now it's becoming increasingly a strategy and frankly I think companies like yours are critical in the ecosystem to really drive that transformation for organizations. So congratulations. Thank you, thank you, we hope so and I'm sure we see more of you in the future. Excellent, well thanks for coming in Craig and we'll talk to you soon. Thank you for watching everybody. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE and we'll see you next time.


Bonjour tout le monde. Thank you Marin for those kind words and for your leadership over so many years on clean solutions. It's always great to be back here on Vancouver Island, particularly in such a gorgeous day. Reminds me of trips I made out here with my young, my mom when I was really young, trips to visit my family in Brentwood Bay more recently, and trips out here with my own kids. This is a beautiful part of the country and it's a great place to ground ourselves in the kind of future we're trying to build. I want to begin by acknowledging that we're gathering on the traditional territory of the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. I'm here today with Lori and David, who like all parents, are thinking about their daughter Alexandria's future. We are too. A few weeks ago, in Vancouver, we presented our plan to reduce emissions for pure air and a strong economy. In the past, we continued to go forward with the budget 2022. We know we need to cut emissions. We know we need to reduce pollution, but one of the best ways of doing that is to get more clean cars on the road. As Lori and David were telling me, their EV works great and is much cheaper to power than their gas car. Too often though, electric vehicles aren't in reach. So we're making smart, targeted investments to change that. First of all, we're making EVs easier to buy. We're extending the program of up to $5,000 to help people buy electric vehicles. We're bringing in new mandatory sales targets of 20% by 2026, 60% by 2030 on the way to 100% by 2035. We're also going to make EVs easier to charge. We're building a national network of chargers on top of the thousands already installed or under construction. In addition, to create good jobs, we're making Canada a leader in manufacturing electric vehicles. We're investing in the automotive industry of the future. We're working on the first strategy on critical minerals to build jobs and a stronger economy. We're doing that to reduce pollution, to reduce bills for families, and to make our economy even stronger. All of this is just a concrete example of how our plan will favor the environment, the economy, and families. With this budget, with everything we've been working on, we're moving forward on everything from a new tax credit for clean tech, to protecting old growth forests, to retrofits for people's homes. This budget and the emissions reduction plan of the week before is about real results for people like Laurie and David and especially Alexandria. Whether it's climate action or making housing more affordable, we're investing in Canadians and in our future.


Item number SCP-185 Object Class Euclid Special Containment Procedures SCP-185 is to be kept in a soundproof room with noise filtering microphones for monitoring purposes. Standard guard procedures are to be used for this object. Ear protection must be worn by all occupants in the chamber, excluding test subjects. Description SCP-185 appears to be a Russian R-105M radio used during the Cold War, except that it has a crudely added keypad, an LCD screen. The object can receive most radio transmissions, including encrypted signals. Attempts to determine how it can break even the strongest of encryptions have so far been fruitless. SCP-185 has a very long range, surpassing even modern radio equipment. It functions as a normal radio, until input is added via the keypad. It seems that if a year is entered into the keypad, the radio will receive transmissions from the specified era, depending on if messages were being broadcast on the set frequency. This function was discovered when, upon entering the random number of 1939, a level chamberlain was heard, declaring war on Germany. The possibility of experimenting with dates and times has been noted, and is being researched. The possibility of entering future dates is being discussed. It has yet to be decided whether the benefits outweigh the risk of causing a timed paradox. On the inside, the radio appears to be unaltered, and the keypad is contained in a box affixed to the side of the radio. Researchers cannot access the keypad, due to the box being made from a metal that is yet to be identified. It cannot be cut, and there are no determinable ways to disassemble it. Addendum Document number 185-1 Incident 1 During a test, the year was set to negative 13.73 billion. During the time, the universe was suspected to have been created. Sound volumes emitted by the object could not be measured with standard equipment. Survivors further from the incident reported rumbling sounds, similar to recorded radio emissions from the sun. All those within 200 meters of the epicenter died of asphyxiation. Sound waves had ruptured capillaries in the lungs. Autopsy reports indicate that the victims essentially drowned in their own blood. The device failed to operate for some time after the incident, and it was found that the device's internal battery pack had failed. Replacing it restored functionality. It was noted that the LCD screen was still lit, suggesting that the device has no special power aside from the anomalous box. The sound waves have also rendered SCP unoperable, leading to the reclassification of said SCP as neutralized. The radio seems to have received no damage. Structural damages have been reported on-site, and a section had to be shut down for repairs. Testing has been postponed, until further notice. Dr. R- Any personnel caught using the object to listen to music on duty will be disciplined. Object Request Mobile Task Force Delta V is requesting to use SCP-185 to aid their mission of tracking down objects before our rivals. Task Force believes Iranians have important information and wish to intercept their transmissions. Request accepted. Lesson complete. If you missed the previous orientation, go watch SCP-184, the Architect, right now. For the complete course, watch this playlist.


Joining us is our resident film critic Michael Snyder. These are the movies he'll be talking about. Tell me about Eye in the Sky. Eye in the Sky came out much earlier in 2016 and it's a film that I think is totally relevant and totally topical. It's about the current era of international terrorism, about drone warfare, and invasive high-tech surveillance. It goes into the consequences of fighting this ruthless elusive enemy with, you know, I guess you'd call it imprecise technology, especially when it's in the hands of human beings. The movie shows what can happen when innocents are thrust in the middle of the conflict and soldiers and agents have to deal with their individual and sometimes conflicting values for, I guess, what people would call the greater good. Helen Mirren is the star and she's so elegant and beautiful and sexy, but here she plays a no-nonsense British army colonel who's using an American drone in conjunction with the US military to finally find this longtime nemesis that she has, a UK citizen who joined a Kenyan terrorist organization, but when she finds the target she sees the target as overseeing the launch of multiple suicide bombings.  The drone pilot is played by Aaron Paul from Breaking Bad. The tremendous Alan Rickman, sadly one of the talented people who departed the earth in 2016 and not in a rocket ship, now he died. Alan Rickman plays a fellow British military officer in London who is trying to debate whether or not there's a moral reason to go in there and do this as the timers tick. Jeremy Northam, Ian Glenn. It's a fantastic piece of work and there's a real gravitas to this. I mean the question is, is one life a child's worth so many other, you know, to stop so many other deaths? The director's Gavin Hood who, I guess he was the director of the Oscar-winning South African film, Sotsi, but he also did Ender's Game and X-Men Origins, a Wolverine film, so he's done a lot of commercial stuff but he handles the moral and ethical dilemmas here with such sensitivity and the action sequences are so tense. I mean this is a clear and present story that's ongoing and is probably going to ratchet up this year so I thought I in the sky is very timely and something people should seek out. You're listening to highlights from the David Feldman show, heard nationwide on Pacifica Radio, or as a podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, and now YouTube, please subscribe to this channel. For more information go to DavidFeldmanshow.com. Thank you for listening. The David Feldman radio program is made possible by listeners like you.


So, to continue with the classification of surfaces, here is the statement of the theorem. It has two parts, part A and part B. Every compact connected surface without boundary is homeomorphic to the surface defined by one of the following canonical polygons. The first one is A A inverse.  The third sequence is A 1 A 1 A 2 A 2 A 3 A 3 and so on A n n is greater than or equal to 1. So, it is a part A. Every surface is one of these. To be sure what we are putting you say, every compact connected triangulated surface without boundary is one of these. Okay, triangulated word has to be introduced because that is what we are assuming but we are you know sure of that every surface triangulated by Rado theorem which we have not proved of course. Second part says any two distinct members of this list gives you the surfaces which are non-homomorphic. When I say distinct members, A A is a one single distinct member. In two there are infinitely many members. Okay, indexed by g greater than or equal to 1. Similarly in three there are infinitely many members. Okay, each one of them is different from each one of the other from within the, within this list in this one or outside. Anything from two will be directly different from anything from three but even within two if g1 and g2 are different the corresponding surface are different and so on. That is the meaning of any two members are different representing different surfaces. Okay, so this is the complete classification for surfaces without boundary. The canonical polygon we said above are said to be normal form. Okay, when you normalize the unique response that is the whole idea. The rest of this section will be occupied in proving part A of the theorem which should be achieved in five steps and then giving three different proofs of the uniqueness part of the unique surface. Any two members are different means it is a unique. Each sequence here gives you a unique surface. Beginning with an arbitrary canonical polygon it may not be in the normal form. What we have to do is we have to reduce it to a normal form and show that it is one of them. Okay, clearly these are canonical polygons. There is nothing to do. They are normal form. So every canonical polygon can be brought down whatever we want to say brought down means what to one of this. The process of transformation as we have illustrated last time with A B A inverse B inverse A B A B inverse that kind of transformations many more should not change the what homomorphism type of the surface. The homomorphism type we should remain within that. Then we are allowed to do whatever we like. Okay, so that is the whole idea. Okay, so we would like to transform to one of the normal form without changing the homomorphism type of surface defining it. First observe that in 2 and 3 all the vertices are identified to a single point. We should know that one. A A inverse has only two points. Okay, A A inverse. Okay, in the identification also there are two points. Therefore I am giving out one. But in 2 A1 A1 A1 B1 A1 inverse B1 inverse after identification of these four vertices only take only four vertices to begin with. How many vertices will be left in the quotient space? When you say A okay A B are identified no identify A inverse when you identify the top two gets identified is the bottom two. So there are only two surfaces, two vertices. When you do B and B inverse or both of them will identify get identified again to a single vertex. So similarly the same vertex will come for A2 B2 A3 B3 inverse also because starting point of B1 inverse will be the starting point of A2. So once you approve it for A1 B1 A1 inverse B1 G equal to 1 this will get proved for this. Similarly here also A1 A1. Okay, this you know already as you do one vertex. This is the anti polar points of the vertices they get identified anyway. Similarly all the A and A's will get identified the same. So in the canonical polygon with more than four vertices okay either we land up in A A A inverse or what or first thing you to achieve is there is only one vertex left. The class of vertices identified vertices in the original thing there may be several of course. Okay, there will be exactly two end of them. In the final thing there must be only one. So this is the first thing we want to achieve. Our first aim is would be to find a reduction process which will ensure that all vertices are identified at a single point. One of the simplest thing to do is to cancel out a pair of edges A A inverse. Suppose somewhere in between one edge comes A and immediately next edge is identified in the opposite direction with this one.  So both edges go in the interior now and rest of the rest of the things will have two edges less. So there is no need to have a sequence part of sequence A A inverse or somewhere C C inverse okay. So you can cut down both A and A inverse okay. So this is the first thing is the simplest thing to do all right. If both A and A inverse occur in this sequence for some edge A we call the pair let us have a name this A A inverse type as type one pair. Remember each A is followed by I somewhere not necessarily in the in the by the way this definition is somewhere not necessarily immediate okay A dot dot dot A inverse comes that will be a type one pair if A dot dot dot A comes then that will be called type two let us have this name okay while representing canonical polygon by a picture instead of the x1 plus minus 1 over a letter we shall use arrows because arrows is easier to indicate that is all instead of plus minus 1. When you draw a picture it is letters and arrows okay. Now the first step is elimination of edges of type one which are consecutive okay. We will now show that if D has at least four edges to begin with if it is A A inverse what do you do A A inverse it is the first one you do not do not do anything suppose there are only A A inverse this is then you have already come into the canonical list the normal form so do not do anything but suppose there are more vertices more edges there are more edges than just two and one of one of the pair is like this and I would like to get rid of this okay now if you cancel it out it will be empty so then you do not know what to do with that that sequence empty sequence there is no canceling this itself gives you whatever you wanted so this is normal form for us so let us go ahead okay. So suppose there are more so then we will now show that if D has at least four edges then an adjacent pair of type one can be eliminated okay until we end up with case one or there are no adjacent pairs of type one okay so 33 illustrate this process so I will tell you okay so I had earlier given an exercise which I will now explain I think I should explain it so why this is true why this can be done namely you take a half disk okay take a half disk take the upper half part of the diameter and the lower half part of diameter put opposite you know put opposite arrows on that accordingly you identify okay so the picture that you get identification identification after identification what is it it is the disk right instead of so dot dot dot rest of the curve if it is a some convex polygon what happens is these two edges get eliminated okay how do you get that is you can just take theta e power 2 pi i theta as you are writing theta going to ish theta that is all e power i theta 2 pi i theta 1 2 e power 4 pi i theta so double the angle that will take care of this one okay so the relation may be coded as now if you want to do computer programming all that you have to do suppose a sequence has this form up to cyclic order I can write it as a a inverse all the sequence which is after a inverse is brought to the left so anything can be written as a a inverse cancel out a inverse and put a provided a is not empty otherwise could cancel stop there so that is the programming okay so that is what I mean by the whole entire thing can be programmed okay very elementary programming so this what is happening here dot dot dot of the disk the diameter a and a inverse are there right in the sequence a this will be a inverse the other way around so I have taken a inverse this way in the anticlockwise and these are all dot dot dot I do not know what several of them so when you identify by taking this one that goes square here what you get is the edge a has gone inside by identifying with itself right so this becomes a sequence a now so that is the canonical polygon okay so we can we can after they are getting this one you can actually make it into a convex polygon that part is no problem so I can always replace a circular disk with a regular converse polygon okay by repeating the application of this we eliminate all adjacent pairs of type one till there are no adjacent pairs of type one or we are left with a a inverse okay in the case of a inverse the process itself is over so let us assume that there are no adjacent types of pair one and the sequence is has more than four elements or whatever or a inverse at least two elements okay so this is one very easily obtained reduction the second reduction is whatever you wanted namely getting only one vertex class okay single x class how to do that so we consider the equivalence classes of stretches under the portion map p to x okay to begin with we have two vertices several of them get identified so we have maybe one or two or three classes if there is only one class we are done if there are two or three and so on look at one of the classes with there are more than two classes then only we can okay okay consider a class p of vertices with the least number of elements in it so suppose one class has six elements another class has eight elements and so on look at the class with the least number of elements we pick up a vertex p in this class so that the next vertex is q okay which is not in this class because there are at least two classes this should happen okay keep keep going around the class if around the the polygon okay keep only in the class the next one is not in the class you pick up one such okay let r be the other vertex adjacent to p p and q are adjacent because that is how we have chosen r is the one which is behind on the other side okay now let a and b denote the edges r to p and p to q so here is the diagram so p was my chosen vertex q is the next one they are in a different class there must be one vertex behind this like this called as r so this r to p I put a p to q I put b okay why because this could not have been a a inverse in any case okay maybe it is a a if it is a a what happens then these two vertices will be in the same class so its q is in the different class therefore it is a and b okay how this have to be gone through oh very meticulously the rest of them you don't know somewhere this a must have occurred because this is not a so call that as now this is this vertex is r and that vertex is p because they are getting identified so they are different vertices in the polygon but I am labeling them because they are getting identified okay and that is a so this also a okay with this kind of in dot dot dot you don't know so many divisions may be there okay somewhere in the polygon there is one such thing like this one all that you do is cut from r to q cut this triangle mark it as c okay you have to put an arrow here whichever way you like so I have put the arrow from q to q to r okay the arrow is here so when I cut it the remaining thing here is there p r r q but this triangle I am bringing it back here this side a matching this side a a and a are matching a and a have to be identified anyway so when I identify this the rest of them is this one so picture is now very twisted twisted kind of polygon doesn't matter it can be straightened out to become a format polygon that that part is no problem this is dot dot dot okay then this c is on this side like this the the direction is very important so this is e dot dot dot so when you take this triangle down here you this is a okay behind that there is a c from q to this part okay and then b is from p to q so orient it correctly what is the sequence you have got c dot dot dot c dot dot dot b that is the sequence a is disappeared that is not what I want what I want is how many letters are there how many vertices are there in the class of p now in the new one okay can you see that there is some reduction in the number of elements in the class of this vertex p see picture it is very clear there are two points here here it is only one there may be many more but those things would have been there in the dot dot dot part the idea is that there were five or six vertices here now there will be five repeat the same process on this class itself okay this class itself you repeat finally what happens this class when there are two of them it will just disappear problem is what has happened is when you do did this one you can't repeat this process immediately one thing has happened namely you may get another pair which is of the type c c inverse which was not there in this one but it is there in this one so step one has to be performed on this one again when you perform step one singleton vertices disappear sometimes that is what happened step one here is vertex it has disappeared okay so you have to do again after doing one step like this carry on the first step again okay so that ensure that there are no a inverses okay when you do this one this will not increase the the class increase the class of vertices okay so here you have reduced the one of the classes number of vertices has reduced so this step does not increase that therefore this step is valid and now again you have assume this one and now carry on this one on the same class which has fewer elements finally one of the class itself has disappeared if there are two classes now there is only one class if there are fifty thousand classes now there will be only fifty thousand minus one classes okay now pick up another one which is the least from there by induction what you do is by combining step one two and alternatively you have to argue step one step two performing them what you get is a canonical polygon which has in which all the vertices are identified single point by this we do not mean that the vertices are identified on their own no never the identification is always taking place from edge to edge two edges are being identified each time okay you do not pick up a polygon and identify two of the edges two of the vertices that is never done okay so after this cut and all that what we have got is the sequence a b something here so I have written what a b capital A A university becomes c inverse a b c b so this is the operation so you can computerize this operation with the corresponding condition you carry out like this if you blindly carrying it out it may not reduce something okay keep doing is again ask it to do if there are if you see a inverse is cut down that and so on okay if needed we carry out step one again so this has to be done note that each time step one is performed the number of edges as well as the number of vertices goes down without any linear number of equivalence class step two on the other end keeps all these numbers the same okay by repeated application of these two steps we keep reducing number of vertices from classes with the least number of vertices each time and hence at some stage one of this class has to disappear the smallest class disappears first indeed if a class of vertices has just one vertex in it this implies the edge the two edges incident at this vertex must be of a type one A A inverse there is no other way therefore we perform step one the the the two edges will disappear along with the vertex so this way we keep reducing number of classes themselves until there is only one class left okay thus from now onwards we shall assume that all vertices are identified a single point it is worth noting that none of the reduction processes operations that we perform okay from now onwards will disturb this property there are some other kinds of operations we are bringing okay that will never disturb this property means what it will not introduce A A inverses it will not introduce extra vertex classes vertex class will be always one from now onwards all right so next time we shall do the final reduction today we will stop here