POPULARITY
13 episodes with ostp
3 episodes with ostp
2 episodes with ostp
2 episodes with ostp
2 episodes with ostp
4 episodes with ostp
The Trump administration has decided to terminate the IRS's Direct File program, according to a source familiar with the situation, putting an end to the free electronic filing system that congressional Republicans and the tax preparation industry have had in their crosshairs since its creation. Work on Direct File began during Joe Biden's presidency, bringing together some of the administration's top technical and product minds and tapping into funds from the Inflation Reduction Act. Providing all U.S. taxpayers with a free filing tool would have put the country in line with most developed nations. But despite what the IRS considered to be a successful launch last year, Direct File's future was murky after President Donald Trump's election and the administration's welcoming of Elon Musk's DOGE into the government tech world. The pending elimination of the free filing tool was celebrated Wednesday by the makers of TurboTax. Derrick Plummer, an Intuit spokesman, called Direct File “a solution in search of a problem, a drain on critical IRS resources and a waste of taxpayer dollars.” Consumer advocate groups panned the Trump administration's decision. Susan Harley, managing director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, said in a statement that scrapping Direct File “is almost literally taking money out of our pockets.” Dean Ball, a policy scholar with a focus on the intersection of history, political theory, policy and technology, is joining the Trump administration as a senior policy advisor on artificial intelligence and emerging technology, he announced Tuesday on the social media platform X. Ball said in his post of joining the Office of Science and Technology Policy: “It is a thrill and honor to serve my country in this role and work alongside the tremendous team [OSTP Director Michael Kratsios] has built.” He comes to OSTP from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where he has served as a research fellow for the past year. Ball is also the author of an AI-focused blog called Hyperdimensional, in which he has defended the AI Safety Institute and commented on the Trump administration's terminations of probationary employees, saying the move had unintended consequences. Ball also wrote recently that he is interested in AI being built at the same time that the Trump administration and Republicans “seek to advance theories of a ‘unitary executive' — the notion that the president exercises the powers granted to him by the Constitution and Congress absolutely.” The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.
Send us a textDr. Catharine Young, Ph.D. recently served as Assistant Director of Cancer Moonshot Policy and International Engagement at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ ) where she served at OSTP to advance the Cancer Moonshot ( https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot-cancer-initiative ), with a mission to decrease the number of cancer deaths by 50% over the next 25 years. Dr. Young's varied career has spanned a variety of sectors including academia, non-profit, biotech, and foreign government, all with a focus on advancing science. Dr. Young previously served as Executive Director of the SHEPHERD Foundation, where she championed rare cancer research and drove critical policy changes. Her work has also included fostering interdisciplinary collaborations and advancing the use of AI, data sharing, and clinical trial reform to accelerate cancer breakthroughs.Dr. Young's leadership in diplomacy and innovation includes roles such as Senior Director of Science Policy at the Biden Cancer Initiative and Senior Science and Innovation Policy Advisor at the British Embassy, where she facilitated international agreements to enhance research collaborations. A Presidential Leadership Scholar and TED Fellow, Dr. Young holds a Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences and completed her post-doctorate work in Biomedical Engineering at Cornell University and is recognized for her ability to bridge science, policy, and advocacy to build sustainable, impactful health ecosystems.#CatharineYoung #OSTP #WhiteHouseOfficeOfScienceAndTechnologyPolicy #CancerMoonshot #SHEPHERDFoundation #BidenCancerInitiative #DepartmentOfDefense #BritishEmbassy #Neurogenetics #AntimicrobialResistance #GlobalHealthSecurityAgenda #OneHealth #RareCancers #ChildhoodCancer #RareDisease #ForeignAndCommonwealthOffice #BiologicalThreats #MitigationStrategies #RiskMitigation #ProgressPotentialAndPossibilities #IraPastor #Podcast #Podcaster #ViralPodcast #STEM #Innovation #Technology #Science #ResearchSupport the show
In this episode, I interviewed Dr. Alondra Nelson, the Harold F. Linder Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Per her website: Dr. Nelson was formerly deputy assistant to President Joe Biden and acting director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). In this role, she was the first African American and first woman of color to lead US science and technology policy. At OSTP, she spearheaded the development of the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, issued guidance to expand tax-payer access to federally-funded research, served as an inaugural member of the Biden Cancer Cabinet, strengthened evidence-based policymaking, and galvanized a multisector strategy to advance equity and excellence in STEM, among other accomplishments. Including her on the global list of "Ten People Who Shaped Science," Nature said of Nelson's OSTP tenure, “this social scientist made strides for equity, integrity and open access.” In 2023, she was named to the inaugural TIME100 list of the most influential people in the field of AI. In 2024, Nelson was appointed by President Biden to the National Science Board, the body that establishes the policies of the National Science Foundation and advises Congress and the President. Alondra was also nominated by the White House, and appointed by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, to serve on the UN High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence. She also helped lead academic and research strategy at Columbia University, where she was the inaugural Dean of Social Science and professor of sociology and gender studies. Dr. Nelson began her academic career on the faculty of Yale University, and there was recognized with the Poorvu Prize for interdisciplinary teaching excellence.Dr. Nelson has held visiting professorships and fellowships at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, the BIOS Centre at the London School of Economics, the Bayreuth Academy of Advanced African Studies, and the Bavarian American Academy. Her research has been supported by the Ford Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the National Science Foundation.Nelson has contributed to national policy discussions on inequality and on the social implications of new technologies, including artificial intelligence, big data, and human gene-editing in journals like Science. Her essays, reviews, and commentary have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Nature, Foreign Policy, CNN, NPR, BBC Radio, and PBS Newshour, among other venues.She is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, and an elected fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Nelson was co-chair of the NAM Committee on Emerging Science, Technology, and Innovation and served as a member of the National Academies of Sciences Committee on Responsible Computing Research. She is the recipient of honorary degrees from Northeastern University, Rutgers University, and the City University of New York. Her honors also include the Stanford University Sage-CASBS Award, the MIT Morison Prize, the inaugural TUM Friedrich Schiedel Prize for Social Sciences and Technology, the EPIC Champion of Freedom Award, the Federation of American Scientists Public Service Award, and the Morals & Machines Prize.Raised in Southern California, Dr. Nelson is a magna cum laude graduate of the University of California at San Diego, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She earned her PhD from New York University in 2003.
A Microsoft outage linked to CrowdStrike has disrupted several federal agencies. CISA and DHS are collaborating with CrowdStrike, Microsoft, and others to address the outages. President Biden has been briefed and is in contact with affected entities. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has closed all offices, warning of longer wait times and unavailable online services. The Justice Department and Department of Veterans Affairs are also affected, with some DHS staff facing login issues. The FAA is monitoring airline IT issues but reports no impact on operations. The Energy Department's website is offline, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports normal operations. In other news, the White House has announced nearly $100 million in commitments to enhance access to emerging tech talent. OSTP revealed pledges from the National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Digital Response, and several universities. The NSF will provide at least $48 million, with $32 million for its Emerging and Novel Technologies program and $16 million for the Responsible Design, Development, and Deployment of Technologies program. U.S. Digital Response aims to double its support for under-resourced state and local governments. Academic institutions like San José State University, Spelman College, Georgetown University, the University of Michigan, and New York University have committed to various tech initiatives. Stay tuned to the Daily Scoop Podcast for more insights and updates on these stories and other developments in the federal tech space.
Today, I'm talking with Arati Prabhakar, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. That's a cabinet-level position, where she works as the chief science and tech advisor to President Biden. Arati and her team of about 140 people at the OSTP are responsible for advising the president on not only big developments in science but also about major innovations in tech, much of which come from the private sector. Her job involves guiding regulatory efforts, government investment, and setting priorities around big-picture projects like Biden's cancer moonshot and combating climate change. More recently, Arati has been spending a lot of time talking about the future of AI and semiconductors, so I had the opportunity to dig into both of those topics with her as the generative AI boom continues as the results of the CHIPS Act become more visible. One note before we start: I sat down with Arati last month, just a couple of days before the first presidential debate and its aftermath, which has now swallowed the entire news cycle. So you're going to hear us talk a lot about President Biden's agenda and the White House's policy record on AI, among other topics. But you're not going to hear anything about the president, his age, or the presidential campaign. Links: Biden's top science adviser resigns after acknowledging demeaning behavior | NYT Teen girls confront an epidemic of deepfake nudes in schools | NYT Senate committee passes three bills to safeguard elections from AI | The Verge The RIAA versus AI, explained | The Verge Lawyers say OpenAI could be in real trouble with Scarlett Johansson | The Verge Barack Obama on AI, free speech, and the future of the internet | Decoder Meet the Woman Who Showed President Biden ChatGPT | WIRED Biden releases AI executive order | The Verge Biden's science adviser explains the new hard line on China | WashPo Where the CHIPS Act money has gone | The Verge Transcript: https://www.theverge.com/e/23961278 Credits: Decoder is a production of The Verge, and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Our producers are Kate Cox and Nick Statt. Our editor is Callie Wright. Our supervising producer is Liam James. The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Join Kevin and Suresh as they discuss the latest tools and frameworks that companies can use to effectively combat algorithmic bias, all while navigating the complexities of integrating AI into organizational strategies. Suresh describes his experiences at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the creation of the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, including its five fundamental principles—safety and effectiveness, non-discrimination, data minimization, transparency, and accountability. Suresh and Kevin dig into the economic and logistical challenges that academics face in government roles and highlight the importance of collaborative efforts alongside clear rules to follow in fostering ethical AI. The discussion highlights the importance of education, cultural shifts, and the role of the European Union's AI Act in shaping global regulatory frameworks. Suresh discusses his creation of Brown University's Center on Technological Responsibility, Reimagination, and Redesign, and why trust and accountability are paramount, especially with the rise of Large Language Models. Suresh Venkatasubramanian is a Professor of Data Science and Computer Science at Brown University. Suresh's background is in algorithms and computational geometry, as well as data mining and machine learning. His current research interests lie in algorithmic fairness, and more generally the impact of automated decision-making systems in society. Prior to Brown University, Suresh was at the University of Utah, where he received a CAREER award from the NSF for his work in the geometry of probability. He has received a test-of-time award at ICDE 2017 for his work in privacy. His research on algorithmic fairness has received press coverage across North America and Europe, including NPR's Science Friday, NBC, and CNN, as well as in other media outlets. For the 2021–2022 academic year, he served as Assistant Director for Science and Justice in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights Brown University's Center on Technological Responsibility, Reimagination, and Redesign Brown professor Suresh Venkatasubramanian tackles societal impact of computer science at White House Want to learn more? Engage live with Professor Werbach and other Wharton faculty experts in Wharton's new Strategies for Accountable AI online executive education program. It's perfect for managers, entrepreneurs, and advisors looking to harness AI's power while addressing its risks.
Among its priorities, the Biden administration wants to help clean up the oceans and make the use of them more sustainable. That effort partly falls to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. To find out what the OSTP is doing, Federal Drive Host Tom Temin talk with the principal assistant director for oceans and environment, Deerin Babb-Brott. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Among its priorities, the Biden administration wants to help clean up the oceans and make the use of them more sustainable. That effort partly falls to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. To find out what the OSTP is doing, Federal Drive Host Tom Temin talk with the principal assistant director for oceans and environment, Deerin Babb-Brott. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Dr. Arati Prabhakar the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Technology Policy and Science Advisor to President Joe Biden. This week, she hosted an event in Washington DC called "AI Aspirations: R&D for Public Missions." Speakers included executive branch officials and agency leaders, from the Secretary of Education to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, as well as lawmakers such as Senators Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner, and Representative Don Beyer. Prior to the event, Justin Hendrix spoke to Dr. Prabhakar about OSTP's priorities.
Join us for an enlightening episode of BioTalk with Rich Bendis as we welcome Dan Berglund, President and CEO of SSTI. With nearly four decades of experience in tech-based economic development (TBED), Dan has been a pivotal figure in shaping the landscape of innovation and entrepreneurship across the nation. In this episode, Dan shares the history and evolution of Technology Based Economic Development, discussing key initiatives in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, and at the federal level. He highlights the importance of partnerships, detailing a compendium of state and federal cooperative technology programs that have driven progress in the field. We explore the early years of SSTI, looking into its creation, mission, and initial goals, and how it has grown to support a nationwide network dedicated to fostering tech-based economies. Dan discusses the evolution and growth of state TBED programs, and the changing role of the federal government in supporting these initiatives through agencies like STCS, OSTP, Commerce, NIST, and EDA. Dan also emphasizes the importance of private/public TBED partnerships, sharing insights into how these collaborations have bolstered economic growth and innovation. As he prepares to step down from his role after 28 years,and assume a part time role, Dan discusses the recruitment of a new CEO and reflects on SSTI's achievements, his legacy, and his vision for the organization's future. Additionally, Dan talks about Rich Bendis's role as an original founding board member of SSTI, and his significant help in the early development of the organization. He also highlights the presence of several SSTI members in the BioHealth Capital Region. Finally, Dan outlines SSTI's current initiatives and projections for the future, offering a glimpse into the ongoing efforts to support prosperity through science, technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Experience an engaging discussion with Dan Berglund, a leader who has dedicated his career to advancing tech-based economic development and is now ready to embark on a new chapter. Tune in to BioTalk to gain valuable insights from one of the most influential figures in the field and learn about the future of tech-based economic development. Dan Berglund is the President and CEO of SSTI, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving initiatives that support prosperity through science, technology, innovation and entrepreneurship. SSTI is the most comprehensive resource available for those involved in technology-based economic development. Leading SSTI since its inception in 1996, Mr. Berglund has helped SSTI develop a nationwide network of practitioners and policymakers dedicated to improving the economy through science, technology and innovation. SSTI works with this network to assist states and communities as they build tech-based economies, conduct research on best practices and trends in tech-based economic development, and encourage cooperation among and between state and federal programs. Prior to joining SSTI, Mr. Berglund worked as a consultant and for the Ohio Department of Development in a variety of positions, including Acting Deputy Director of the Division of Technological Innovation.
In this installment of Science Policy IRL, Kei Koizumi takes us inside the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, or OSTP. As the principal deputy director for policy at OSTP, Koizumi occupies an unusual position at the very heart of science policy in the United States. OSTP provides science and technology advice to the president and executive office, works with federal agencies and legislators to create S&T policy, and helps strengthen and advance American science and technology. Koizumi talks to Issues editor Lisa Margonelli about what he does at OSTP, how he got there, and the exciting developments in S&T policy that get him out of bed every day. Are you involved in science and technology policy? From science for policy to policy for science, from the merely curious to full-on policy wonks, we would love to hear from all of you! Please visit our survey page to share your thoughts and provide a better understanding of who science policy professionals are, what they do, and why—along with a sense of how science policy is changing and what its future looks like. Resources: Visit the Office of Science and Technology Policy website to learn more about OSTP's work. Read Issues's interview with Arati Prabhakar, current director of OSTP. Also in Issues, learn more about the creation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative from Neal Lane, science advisor to President Clinton. Check out Science's Uncertain Authority in Policy by John Marburger, science advisor to President George W. Bush, to learn more about the interactions between science and the political process.
Send us a Text Message.Episode Disclaimer - The views presented in this episode are those of the speaker and do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) or its components. Dr. Diane DiEuliis, Ph.D. is a Distinguished Research Fellow at National Defense University ( NDU - https://www.ndu.edu/ ), an institution of higher education, funded by the United States Department of Defense, aimed at facilitating high-level education, training, and professional development of national security leaders. Her research areas focus on emerging biological technologies, biodefense, and preparedness for biothreats. Specific topic areas under this broad research portfolio include dual-use life sciences research, synthetic biology, the U.S. bioeconomy, disaster recovery, and behavioral, cognitive, and social science as it relates to important aspects of deterrence. Dr. DiEuliis currently has several research grants in progress, and teaches in foundational professional military education. Prior to joining NDU, Dr. DiEuliis was Deputy Director for Policy, and served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), Department of Health and Human Services. She coordinated policy and research in support of domestic and international health emergencies, such as Hurricane Sandy, and Ebola outbreaks. She was responsible for implementation of the Pandemic All-Hazards Preparedness Act, the National Health Security Strategy, and supported the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE). From to 2007 to 2011, Dr. DiEuliis was the Assistant Director for Life Sciences and Behavioral and Social Sciences in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President. During her tenure at the White House, she was responsible for developing policy in areas such as biosecurity and biodefense, synthetic biology, social and behavioral science, scientific collections, and biotechnology. Dr. DiEuliis also worked to help coordinate agency response to public health issues such as the H1N1 flu. Prior to working at OSTP, Dr. DiEuliis was a program director at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where she managed a diverse portfolio of neuroscience research in neurodegenerative diseases. She completed a fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania in the Center for Neurodegenerative Disease Research and completed her postdoctoral research in the NIH Intramural research program, where she focused on cellular and molecular neuroscience. Dr. DiEuliis is a National Merit Scholar, and has a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware. She is the author of over 70 publications. Important Episode Link - The Unique Role of Federal Scientific Collections: Infrastructure Generating Benefits, Serving Diverse Agency, published by Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press on behalf of the Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections - https://doi.org/10.5479/si.24559996 Support the Show.
Today's episode features a guest host, Michael Upshall, Community and Outreach Manager at Core, who talks with Bianca Kramer, Advisor, Analyst and workshop facilitator at SesameOpenScience. Bianca shares her transition from scientist to librarian, driven by a desire for broader interests and family time. She found a balance by working in a university library, supporting research without direct involvement. The discussion delves into the evolving role of libraries in scholarly communication, emphasizing knowledge transfer and supporting researchers. Infographics and digital tools are noted for their relevance, despite ongoing digital innovation. The conversation extends to the impact of digital innovation on research workflows and collaboration, highlighting the importance of adapting to the evolving landscape. Open access, research integrity, and the Barcelona Declaration are discussed, along with the OSTP memo's potential influence on open access in North America. They further discuss open science, collaborations, and open access publishing strategies, stressing the importance of early discussions and staying informed. Resources like university libraries, social media platforms, and projects such as OATP are recommended. Peer review's significance remains, though preprints are changing scholarly publishing. The conversation concludes with a call for continuous improvement and innovation in scholarly communication, considering both technological advancements and ethical considerations. Bianca emphasizes the value of open access publishing and the need for values alongside economic considerations in academia. The impact of digital sovereignty and evolving evaluation methods in scholarly communication are also touched upon, highlighting the ongoing need for development in the field. Social Media: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bmrkramer/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mupshall/ Twitter: Keywords: #SesameOpenScience, #Discovery, #scicomm, #scholcomm, #ScholarlyCommunication, #scientists, #research, #researchimpact, #researchers, #OA, #OpenAccess, #PoweringResearch, #knowledge, #efficiency, #innovation, #awareness, #career, #partnerships, #collaboration, #libraries, #librarianship, #LibraryNeeds, #LibraryLove, #ScholarlyPublishing, #AcademicPublishing, #publishing, #LibrariesAndPublishers, #podcasts
* Guest: Bryan Rust, Over the past 50 years, Rust Coins has been working to educate customers about precious metals - RustCoinAndGift.com * Did The US Dollar Just Tank? - The U.S. national debt is rising by $1 trillion about every 100 days - CNBC. * Honest Money Report: Gold - $2286.00 Silver - $26.75. * National Burrito Day is Today Thursday, April 4. * Tucker Carlson: Is House Speaker Mike Johnson being blackmailed? - It certainly seems that way. * Why the US cares about the war in Ukraine - NPR. * The national average cost of a gallon of gas jumped by 20 cents, Currently, Americans are paying about $3.55 per gallon on average, up from about $3.35 a month ago - AAA. * Get Ready to Set Your Clocks for Moon Time White House instructs NASA to figure out a unified standard of time to aid future missions - Arden Dier, Newser. * In the future, we'll have Earth time and we'll have Moon time - Coordinated Lunar Time. * Establishing a unified standard of time is necessary to coordinate operations, synchronize spacecraft missions, aid communications between Earth and the moon, and to prevent errors, an OSTP official tells Reuters. * Nebraska State Se. Mike McDonnell Switching From Democrat to Republican - ‘Being a Christian member of the Roman Catholic Church and pro-life is more important to me than being a registered Democrat' - Tom Ozimek, TheEpochTimes.com
Mr. Ian Watson currently serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense (DASD/CBD) at the U.S. Department of Defense ( https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/leadership/bio-Watson.html ). In this capacity he is the principal advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs (NCB) and conducts Department level research, development, and acquisition (RDA) activities from concept and requirements development, through early science and technology, to advanced development, testing and evaluation, and procurement. These efforts focus on reducing risk from emerging threats and fielding sustainable capabilities to all Services in accordance with Department, Service and Combatant Command priorities for chemical, biological, and ensure our warfighters can fight and win in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) contested environments. Previously, Mr. Ian Watson served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary, and Director of the Office of Strategy, Policy, Planning, and Requirements (SPPR), and for Industrial Base Expansion in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In this position, Mr. Watson was responsible for leading the policy planning life-cycle, to ensure that ASPR's preparedness and emergency response capabilities align with the ASPR's mission, as well as broader policy and planning considerations to support the ASPR in protecting Americans from 21st Century health security threats. Mr. Watson was also responsible for the Department's Industrial Base Expansion, supply chain management, industrial policy, and Defense Production Act (DPA) program for the pandemic response. Mr. Watson previously served as the Assistant Director for Biotechnology and Biosecurity within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) whose mission is to ensure America is the world leader in science and technology. While at OSTP Mr. Watson worked national security and S&T policy initiatives pertaining to the Bioeconomy, biodefense, planetary protection, scientific collections, biological sciences, etc. Prior to being detailed to OSTP, Mr. Watson was in the Department of Defense, where he has previously served in multiple positions as a leader for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction research, development, implementation, policy; systems integration for missile defense; Countering Threat Networks and Counter Proliferation initiatives; and managing and developing interagency and international relationships under Cooperative Threat Reduction, foreign military sales, and international armaments cooperation. Mr. Watson's graduate background includes degrees in international relations, biodefense, and public health. Support the show
The White House issued an executive order on artificial intelligence at the end of October that set in place the foundation for how the U.S. hopes to lead on the development and adoption of the technology. The Office of Science and Technology Policy and its director, Arati Prabhakar, played a key role in shaping the creation of that order. FedScoop editorial fellow Caroline Nihill spoke with Prabhakar about the E-O, OSTP's role in it and how the U.S. government is looking to staff up to support its vision. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.
A conversation with Tim Hwang about historical simulations, the interaction of policy and science, analogies between research ecosystems and the economy, and so much more. Topics Historical Simulations Macroscience Macro-metrics for science Long science The interaction between science and policy Creative destruction in research “Regulation” for scientific markets Indicators for the health of a field or science as a whole “Metabolism of Science” Science rotation programs Clock speeds of Regulation vs Clock Speeds of Technology References Macroscience Substack Ada Palmer's Papal Simulation Think Tank Tycoon Universal Paperclips (Paperclip maximizer html game) Pitt Rivers Museum Transcript [00:02:02] Ben: Wait, so tell me more about the historical LARP that you're doing. Oh, [00:02:07] Tim: yeah. So this comes from like something I've been thinking about for a really long time, which is You know in high school, I did model UN and model Congress, and you know, I really I actually, this is still on my to do list is to like look into the back history of like what it was in American history, where we're like, this is going to become an extracurricular, we're going to model the UN, like it has all the vibe of like, after World War II, the UN is a new thing, we got to teach kids about international institutions. Anyways, like, it started as a joke where I was telling my [00:02:35] friend, like, we should have, like, model administrative agency. You know, you should, like, kids should do, like, model EPA. Like, we're gonna do a rulemaking. Kids need to submit. And, like, you know, there'll be Chevron deference and you can challenge the rule. And, like, to do that whole thing. Anyways, it kind of led me down this idea that, like, our, our notion of simulation, particularly for institutions, is, like, Interestingly narrow, right? And particularly when it comes to historical simulation, where like, well we have civil war reenactors, they're kind of like a weird dying breed, but they're there, right? But we don't have like other types of historical reenactments, but like, it might be really valuable and interesting to create communities around that. And so like I was saying before we started recording, is I really want to do one that's a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But like a serious, like you would like a historical reenactment, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's like everybody would really know their characters. You know, if you're McNamara, you really know what your motivations are and your background. And literally a dream would be a weekend simulation where you have three teams. One would be the Kennedy administration. The other would be, you know, Khrushchev [00:03:35] and the Presidium. And the final one would be the, the Cuban government. Yeah. And to really just blow by blow, simulate that entire thing. You know, the players would attempt to not blow up the world, would be the idea. [00:03:46] Ben: I guess that's actually the thing to poke, in contrast to Civil War reenactment. Sure, like you know how [00:03:51] Tim: that's gonna end. Right, [00:03:52] Ben: and it, I think it, that's the difference maybe between, in my head, a simulation and a reenactment, where I could imagine a simulation going [00:04:01] Tim: differently. Sure, right. [00:04:03] Ben: Right, and, and maybe like, is the goal to make sure the same thing happened that did happen, or is the goal to like, act? faithfully to [00:04:14] Tim: the character as possible. Yeah, I think that's right, and I think both are interesting and valuable, right? But I think one of the things I'm really interested in is, you know, I want to simulate all the characters, but like, I think one of the most interesting things reading, like, the historical record is just, like, operating under deep uncertainty about what's even going on, right? Like, for a period of time, the American [00:04:35] government is not even sure what's going on in Cuba, and, like, you know, this whole question of, like, well, do we preemptively bomb Cuba? Do we, we don't even know if the, like, the warheads on the island are active. And I think I would want to create, like, similar uncertainty, because I think that's where, like, that's where the strategic vision comes in, right? That, like, you have the full pressure of, like, Maybe there's bombs on the island. Maybe there's not even bombs on the island, right? And kind of like creating that dynamic. And so I think simulation is where there's a lot, but I think Even reenactment for some of these things is sort of interesting. Like, that we talk a lot about, like, oh, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or like, the other joke I had was like, we should do the Manhattan Project, but the Manhattan Project as, like, historical reenactment, right? And it's kind of like, you know, we have these, like, very, like off the cuff or kind of, like, stereotype visions of how these historical events occur. And they're very stylized. Yeah, exactly, right. And so the benefit of a reenactment that is really in detail Yeah. is like, oh yeah, there's this one weird moment. You know, like that, that ends up being really revealing historical examples. And so even if [00:05:35] you can't change the outcome, I think there's also a lot of value in just doing the exercise. Yeah. Yeah. The, the thought of [00:05:40] Ben: in order to drive towards this outcome that I know. Actually happened I wouldn't as the character have needed to do X. That's right That's like weird nuanced unintuitive thing, [00:05:50] Tim: right? Right and there's something I think about even building into the game Right, which is at the very beginning the Russians team can make the decision on whether or not they've even actually deployed weapons into the cube at all, yeah, right and so like I love that kind of outcome right which is basically like And I think that's great because like, a lot of this happens on the background of like, we know the history. Yeah. Right? And so I think like, having the team, the US team put under some pressure of uncertainty. Yeah. About like, oh yeah, they could have made the decision at the very beginning of this game that this is all a bluff. Doesn't mean anything. Like it's potentially really interesting and powerful, so. [00:06:22] Ben: One precedent I know for this completely different historical era, but there's a historian, Ada Palmer, who runs [00:06:30] Tim: a simulation of a people election in her class every year. That's so good. [00:06:35] And [00:06:36] Ben: it's, there, you know, like, it is not a simulation. [00:06:40] Tim: Or, [00:06:41] Ben: sorry, excuse me, it is not a reenactment. In the sense that the outcome is indeterminate. [00:06:47] Tim: Like, the students [00:06:48] Ben: can determine the outcome. But... What tends to happen is like structural factors emerge in the sense that there's always a war. Huh. The question is who's on which sides of the war? Right, right. And what do the outcomes of the war actually entail? That's right. Who [00:07:05] Tim: dies? Yeah, yeah. And I [00:07:07] Ben: find that that's it's sort of Gets at the heart of the, the great [00:07:12] Tim: man theory versus the structural forces theory. That's right. Yeah. Like how much can these like structural forces actually be changed? Yeah. And I think that's one of the most interesting parts of the design that I'm thinking about right now is kind of like, what are the things that you want to randomize to impose different types of like structural factors that could have been in that event? Right? Yeah. So like one of the really big parts of the debate at XCOM in the [00:07:35] early phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is You know, McNamara, who's like, right, he runs the Department of Defense at the time. His point is basically like, look, whether or not you have bombs in Cuba or you have bombs like in Russia, the situation has not changed from a military standpoint. Like you can fire an ICBM. It has exactly the same implications for the U. S. And so his, his basically his argument in the opening phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is. Yeah. Which is actually pretty interesting, right? Because that's true. But like, Kennedy can't just go to the American people and say, well, we've already had missiles pointed at us. Some more missiles off, you know, the coast of Florida is not going to make a difference. Yeah. And so like that deep politics, and particularly the politics of the Kennedy administration being seen as like weak on communism. Yeah. Is like a huge pressure on all the activity that's going on. And so it's almost kind of interesting thinking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, not as like You know us about to blow up the world because of a truly strategic situation but more because of like the local politics make it so difficult to create like You know situations where both sides can back down [00:08:35] successfully. Basically. Yeah [00:08:36] Ben: The the one other thing that my mind goes to actually to your point about it model UN in schools. Huh, right is Okay, what if? You use this as a pilot, and then you get people to do these [00:08:49] Tim: simulations at [00:08:50] Ben: scale. Huh. And that's actually how we start doing historical counterfactuals. Huh. Where you look at, okay, you know, a thousand schools all did a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In those, you know, 700 of them blew [00:09:05] Tim: up the world. Right, right. [00:09:07] Ben: And it's, it actually, I think it's, That's the closest [00:09:10] Tim: thing you can get to like running the tape again. Yeah. I think that's right. And yeah, so I think it's, I think it's a really underused medium in a lot of ways. And I think particularly as like you know, we just talk, talk like pedagogically, like it's interesting that like, it seems to me that there was a moment in American pedagogical history where like, this is a good way of teaching kids. Like, different types of institutions. And like, but it [00:09:35] hasn't really matured since that point, right? Of course, we live in all sorts of interesting institutions now. And, and under all sorts of different systems that we might really want to simulate. Yeah. And so, yeah, this kind of, at least a whole idea that there's lots of things you could teach if you, we like kind of opened up this way of kind of like, Thinking about kind of like educating for about institutions. Right? So [00:09:54] Ben: that is so cool. Yeah, I'm going to completely, [00:09:59] Tim: Change. Sure. Of course. [00:10:01] Ben: So I guess. And the answer could be no, but is, is there connections between this and your sort of newly launched macroscience [00:10:10] Tim: project? There is and there isn't. Yeah, you know, I think like the whole bid of macroscience which is this project that I'm doing as part of my IFP fellowship. Yeah. Is really the notion that like, okay, we have all these sort of like interesting results that have come out of metascience. That kind of give us like, kind of like the beginnings of a shape of like, okay, this is how science might work and how we might like get progress to happen. And you know, we've got [00:10:35] like a bunch of really compelling hypotheses. Yeah. And I guess my bit has been like, I kind of look at that and I squint and I'm like, we're, we're actually like kind of in the early days of like macro econ, but for science, right? Which is like, okay, well now we have some sense of like the dynamics of how the science thing works. What are the levers that we can start, like, pushing and pulling, and like, what are the dials we could be turning up and turning down? And, and, you know, I think there is this kind of transition that happens in macro econ, which is like, we have these interesting results and hypotheses, but there's almost another... Generation of work that needs to happen into being like, oh, you know, we're gonna have this thing called the interest rate Yeah, and then we have all these ways of manipulating the money supply and like this is a good way of managing like this economy Yeah, right and and I think that's what I'm chasing after with this kind of like sub stack but hopefully the idea is to build it up into like a more coherent kind of framework of ideas about like How do we make science policy work in a way that's better than just like more science now quicker, please? Yeah, right, which is I think we're like [00:11:35] we're very much at at the moment. Yeah, and in particular I'm really interested in the idea of chasing after science almost as like a Dynamic system, right? Which is that like the policy levers that you have You would want to, you know, tune up and tune down, strategically, at certain times, right? And just like the way we think about managing the economy, right? Where you're like, you don't want the economy to overheat. You don't want it to be moving too slow either, right? Like, I am interested in kind of like, those types of dynamics that need to be managed in science writ large. And so that's, that's kind of the intuition of the project. [00:12:04] Ben: Cool. I guess, like, looking at macro, how did we even decide, macro econ, [00:12:14] Tim: how did we even decide that the things that we're measuring are the right things to measure? Right? Like, [00:12:21] Ben: isn't it, it's like kind of a historical contingency that, you know, it's like we care about GDP [00:12:27] Tim: and the interest rate. Yeah. I think that's right. I mean in, in some ways there's a triumph of like. It's a normative triumph, [00:12:35] right, I think is the argument. And you know, I think a lot of people, you hear this argument, and it'll be like, And all econ is made up. But like, I don't actually think that like, that's the direction I'm moving in. It's like, it's true. Like, a lot of the things that we selected are arguably arbitrary. Yeah. Right, like we said, okay, we really value GDP because it's like a very imperfect but rough measure of like the economy, right? Yeah. Or like, oh, we focus on, you know, the money supply, right? And I think there's kind of two interesting things that come out of that. One of them is like, There's this normative question of like, okay, what are the building blocks that we think can really shift the financial economy writ large, right, of which money supply makes sense, right? But then the other one I think which is so interesting is like, there's a need to actually build all these institutions. that actually give you the lever to pull in the first place, right? Like, without a federal reserve, it becomes really hard to do monetary policy. Right. Right? Like, without a notion of, like, fiscal policy, it's really hard to do, like, Keynesian as, like, demand side stuff. Right. Right? And so, like, I think there's another project, which is a [00:13:35] political project, to say... Okay, can we do better than just grants? Like, can we think about this in a more, like, holistic way than simply we give money to the researchers to work on certain types of problems. And so this kind of leads to some of the stuff that I think we've talked about in the past, which is like, you know, so I'm obsessed right now with like, can we influence the time horizon of scientific institutions? Like, imagine for a moment we had a dial where we're like, On average, scientists are going to be thinking about a research agenda which is 10 years from now versus next quarter. Right. Like, and I think like there's, there's benefits and deficits to both of those settings. Yeah. But man, if I don't hope that we have a, a, a government system that allows us to kind of dial that up and dial that down as we need it. Right. Yeah. The, the, [00:14:16] Ben: perhaps, quite like, I guess a question of like where the analogy like holds and breaks down. That I, that I wonder about is, When you're talking about the interest rate for the economy, it kind of makes sense to say [00:14:35] what is the time horizon that we want financial institutions to be thinking on. That's like roughly what the interest rate is for, but it, and maybe this is, this is like, I'm too, [00:14:49] Tim: my note, like I'm too close to the macro, [00:14:51] Ben: but thinking about. The fact that you really want people doing science on like a whole spectrum of timescales. And, and like, this is a ill phrased question, [00:15:06] Tim: but like, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it. Are you saying basically like, do uniform metrics make sense? Yeah, exactly. For [00:15:12] Ben: like timescale, I guess maybe it's just. is an aggregate thing. [00:15:16] Tim: Is that? That's right. Yeah, I think that's, that's, that's a good critique. And I think, like, again, I think there's definitely ways of taking the metaphor too far. Yeah. But I think one of the things I would say back to that is It's fine to imagine that we might not necessarily have an interest rate for all of science, right? So, like, you could imagine saying, [00:15:35] okay, for grants above a certain size, like, we want to incentivize certain types of activity. For grants below a certain size, we want different types of activity. Right, another way of slicing it is for this class of institutions, we want them to be thinking on these timescales versus those timescales. Yeah. The final one I've been thinking about is another way of slicing it is, let's abstract away institutions and just think about what is the flow of all the experiments that are occurring in a society? Yeah. And are there ways of manipulating, like, the relative timescales there, right? And that's almost like, kind of like a supply based way of looking at it, which is... All science is doing is producing experiments, which is like true macro, right? Like, I'm just like, it's almost offensively simplistic. And then I'm just saying like, okay, well then like, yeah, what are the tools that we have to actually influence that? Yeah, and I think there's lots of things you could think of. Yeah, in my mind. Yeah, absolutely. What are some, what are some that are your thinking of? Yeah, so I think like the two that I've been playing around with right now, one of them is like the idea of like, changing the flow of grants into the system. So, one of the things I wrote about in Microscience just the past week was to think [00:16:35] about, like sort of what I call long science, right? And so the notion here is that, like, if you look across the scientific economy, there's kind of this rough, like, correlation between size of grant and length of grant. Right, where so basically what it means is that like long science is synonymous with big science, right? You're gonna do a big ambitious project. Cool. You need lots and lots and lots of money Yeah and so my kind of like piece just briefly kind of argues like but we have these sort of interesting examples like the You know Like framing a heart study which are basically like low expense taking place over a long period of time and you're like We don't really have a whole lot of grants that have that Yeah. Right? And so the idea is like, could we encourage that? Like imagine if we could just increase the flow of those types of grants, that means we could incentivize more experiments that take place like at low cost over long term. Yeah. Right? Like, you know, and this kind of gets this sort of interesting question is like, okay, so what's the GDP here? Right? Like, or is that a good way of cracking some of the critical problems that we need to crack right now? Right? Yeah. And it's kind of where the normative part gets into [00:17:35] it is like, okay. So. You know, one way of looking at this is the national interest, right? We say, okay, well, we really want to win on AI. We really want to win on, like, bioengineering, right? Are there problems in that space where, like, really long term, really low cost is actually the kind of activity we want to be encouraging? The answer might be no, but I think, like, it's useful for us to have, like, that. Color in our palette of things that we could be doing Yeah. In like shaping the, the dynamics of science. Yeah. Yeah. [00:18:01] Ben: I, I mean, one of the things that I feel like is missing from the the meta science discussion Mm-Hmm. is, is even just, what are those colors? Mm-Hmm. like what, what are the, the different and almost parameters of [00:18:16] Tim: of research. Yeah. Right, right, right. And I think, I don't know, one of the things I've been thinking about, which I'm thinking about writing about at some point, right, is like this, this view is, this view is gonna piss people off in some ways, because where it ultimately goes is this idea that, like, like, the scientist or [00:18:35] science Is like a system that's subject to the government, or subject to a policy maker, or a strategist. Which like, it obviously is, right? But like, I think we have worked very hard to believe that like, The scientific market is its own independent thing, And like, that touching or messing with it is like, a not, not a thing you should do, right? But we already are. True, that's kind of my point of view, yeah exactly. I think we're in some ways like, yeah I know I've been reading a lot about Keynes, I mean it is sort of interesting that it does mirror... Like this kind of like Great Depression era economic thinking, where you're basically like the market takes care of itself, like don't intervene. In fact, intervening is like the worst possible thing you could do because you're only going to make this worse. And look, I think there's like definitely examples of like kind of like command economy science that like don't work. Yes. But like, you know, like I think most mature people who work in economics would say there's some room for like at least like Guiding the system. Right. And like keeping it like in balance is like [00:19:35] a thing that should be attempted and I think it's kind of like the, the, the argument that I'm making here. Yeah. Yeah. I [00:19:41] Ben: mean, I think that's, [00:19:42] Tim: that's like the meta meta thing. Right. Right. Is even [00:19:46] Ben: what, what level of intervention, like, like what are the ways in which you can like usefully intervene and which, and what are the things that are, that are foolish and kind of. crEate the, the, [00:20:01] Tim: Command economy. That's right. Yeah, exactly. Right. Right. And I think like, I think the way through is, is maybe in the way that I'm talking about, right? Which is like, you can imagine lots of bad things happen when you attempt to pick winners, right? Like maybe the policymaker whoever we want to think of that as like, is it the NSF or NIH or whatever? Like, you know, sitting, sitting in their government bureaucracy, right? Like, are they well positioned to make a choice about who's going to be the right solution to a problem? Maybe yes, maybe no. I think we can have a debate about that, right? But I think there's a totally reasonable position, which is they're not in it, so they're not well positioned to make that call. Yeah. [00:20:35] Right? But, are they well positioned to maybe say, like, if we gave them a dial that was like, we want researchers to be thinking about this time horizon versus that time horizon? Like, that's a control that they actually may be well positioned to inform on. Yeah. As an outsider, right? Yeah. Yeah. And some of this I think, like, I don't know, like, the piece I'm working on right now, which will be coming out probably Tuesday or Wednesday, is you know, some of this is also like encouraging creative destruction, right? Which is like, I'm really intrigued by the idea that like academic fields can get so big that they become they impede progress. Yes. Right? And so this is actually a form of like, I like, it's effectively an intellectual antitrust. Yeah. Where you're basically like, Basically, like the, the role of the scientific regulator is to basically say these fields have gotten so big that they are actively reducing our ability to have good dynamism in the marketplace of ideas. And in this case, we will, we will announce new grant policies that attempt to break this up. And I actually think that like, that is pretty spicy for a funder to do. But like actually maybe part of their role and maybe we should normalize that [00:21:35] being part of their role. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. [00:21:37] Ben: I I'm imagining a world where There are, where this, like, sort of the macro science is as divisive as [00:21:47] Tim: macroeconomics. [00:21:48] Ben: Right? Because you have, you have your like, your, your like, hardcore free market people. Yeah. Zero government intervention. Yeah, that's right. No antitrust. No like, you know, like abolish the Fed. Right, right. All of that. Yeah, yeah. And I look forward to the day. When there's there's people who are doing the same thing for research. [00:22:06] Tim: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah when I think that's actually I mean I thought part of a lot of meta science stuff I think is this kind of like interesting tension, which is that like look politically a lot of those people in the space are Pro free market, you know, like they're they're they're liberals in the little L sense. Yeah, like at the same time Like it is true that kind of like laissez faire science Has failed because we have all these examples of like progress slowing down Right? Like, I don't know. Like, I think [00:22:35] that there is actually this interesting tension, which is like, to what degree are we okay with intervening in science to get better outcomes? Yeah. Right? Yeah. Well, as, [00:22:43] Ben: as I, I might put on my hat and say, Yeah, yeah. Maybe, maybe this is, this is me saying true as a fair science has never been tried. Huh, right. Right? Like, that, that, that may be kind of my position. Huh. But anyways, I... And I would argue that, you know, since 1945, we have been, we haven't had laissez faire [00:23:03] Tim: science. Oh, interesting. [00:23:04] Ben: Huh. Right. And so I'm, yeah, I mean, it's like, this is in [00:23:09] Tim: the same way that I think [00:23:11] Ben: a very hard job for macroeconomics is to say, well, like, do we need [00:23:15] Tim: more or less intervention? Yeah. Yeah. [00:23:17] Ben: What is the case there? I think it's the same thing where. You know, a large amount of science funding does come from the government, and the government is opinionated about what sorts of things [00:23:30] Tim: it funds. Yeah, right. Right. And you [00:23:33] Ben: can go really deep into that. [00:23:35] So, so I [00:23:35] Tim: would. Yeah, that's actually interesting. That flips it. It's basically like the current state of science. is right now over regulated, is what you'd say, right? Or, or [00:23:44] Ben: badly regulated. Huh, sure. That is the argument I would say, very concretely, is that it's badly regulated. And, you know, I might almost argue that it is... It's both over and underregulated in the sense that, well, this is, this is my, my whole theory, but like, I think that there, we need like some pockets where it's like much less regulated. Yeah. Right. Where you're, and then some pockets where you're really sort of going to be like, no. You don't get to sort of tune this to whatever your, your project, your program is. Yeah, right, right. You're gonna be working with like [00:24:19] Tim: these people to do this thing. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and I think there actually is interesting analogies in like the, the kind of like economic regulation, economic governance world. Yeah. Where like the notion is markets generally work well, like it's a great tool. Yeah. Like let it run. [00:24:35] Right. But basically that there are certain failure states that actually require outside intervention. And I think what's kind of interesting in thinking about in like a macro scientific, if you will, context is like, what are those failure states for science? Like, and you could imagine a policy rule, which is the policymaker says, we don't intervene until we see the following signals emerging in a field or in a region. Right. And like, okay, that's, that's the trigger, right? Like we're now in recession mode, you know, like there's enough quarters of this problem of like more papers, but less results. You know, now we have to take action, right? Oh, that's cool. Yeah, yeah. That would be, that would be very interesting. And I think that's like, that's good, because I think like, we end up having to think about like, you know, and again, this is I think why this is a really exciting time, is like MetaScience has produced these really interesting results. Now we're in the mode of like, okay, well, you know, on that policymaker dashboard, Yeah. Right, like what's the meter that we're checking out to basically be like, Are we doing well? Are we doing poorly? Is this going well? Or is this going poorly? Right, like, I think that becomes the next question to like, make this something practicable Yeah. For, for [00:25:35] actual like, Right. Yeah. Yeah. One of my frustrations [00:25:38] Ben: with meta science [00:25:39] Tim: is that it, I [00:25:41] Ben: think is under theorized in the sense that people generally are doing these studies where they look at whatever data they can get. Huh. Right. As opposed to what data should we be looking at? What, what should we be looking for? Yeah. Right. Right. And so, so I would really like to have it sort of be flipped and say, okay, like this At least ideally what we would want to measure maybe there's like imperfect maybe then we find proxies for that Yeah, as opposed to just saying well, like here's what we can measure. It's a proxy for [00:26:17] Tim: okay. That's right, right Yeah, exactly. And I think a part of this is also like I mean, I think it is like Widening the Overton window, which I think like the meta science community has done a good job of is like trying to widen The Overton window of what funders are willing to do. Yeah. Or like what various existing incumbent actors are willing to [00:26:35] do. Because I think one way of getting that data is to run like interesting experiments in this space. Right? Like I think one of the things I'm really obsessed with right now is like, okay, imagine if you could change the overhead rate that universities charge on a national basis. Yeah. Right? Like, what's that do to the flow of money through science? And is that like one dial that's actually like On the shelf, right? Like, we actually have the ability to influence that if we wanted to. Like, is that something we should be running experiments against and seeing what the results are? Yeah, yeah. [00:27:00] Ben: Another would be earmarking. Like, how much money is actually earmarked [00:27:05] Tim: for different things. That's right, yeah, yeah. Like, how easy it is to move money around. That's right, yeah. I heard actually a wild story yesterday about, do you know this whole thing, what's his name? It's apparently a very wealthy donor. That has convinced the state of Washington's legislature to the UW CS department. it's like, it's written into law that there's a flow of money that goes directly to the CS department. I don't think CS departments need more money. I [00:27:35] know, I know, but it's like, this is a really, really kind of interesting, like, outcome. Yeah. Which is like a very clear case of basically just like... Direct subsidy to like, not, not just like a particular topic, but like a particular department, which I think is like interesting experiment. I don't like, I don't know what's been happening there, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Natural, natural experiment. [00:27:50] Ben: Totally. Has anybody written down, I assume the answer is no, but it would be very interesting if someone actually wrote down a list of sort of just all the things you [00:28:00] Tim: could possibly [00:28:00] Ben: want to pay attention to, right? Like, I mean, like. Speaking of CS, it'd be very interesting to see, like, okay, like, what fraction of the people who, like, get PhDs in an area, stay in this area, right? Like, going back to the, the [00:28:15] Tim: health of a field or something, right? Yeah, yeah. I think that's right. I, yeah. And I think that those, those types of indicators are interesting. And then I think also, I mean, in the spirit of like it being a dynamic system. Like, so a few years back I read this great bio by Sebastian Malaby called The Man Who Knew, which is, it's a bio of Alan Greenspan. So if you want to ever read, like, 800 pages about [00:28:35] Alan Greenspan, book for you. It's very good. But one of the most interesting parts about it is that, like, there's a battle when Alan Greenspan becomes head of the Fed, where basically he's, like, extremely old school. Like, what he wants to do is he literally wants to look at, like, Reams of data from like the steel industry. Yeah, because that's kind of got his start And he basically is at war with a bunch of kind of like career People at the Fed who much more rely on like statistical models for predicting the economy And I think what's really interesting is that like for a period of time actually Alan Greenspan has the edge Because he's able to realize really early on that like there's It's just changes actually in like the metabolism of the economy that mean that what it means to raise the interest rate or lower the interest rate has like very different effects than it did like 20 years ago before it got started. Yeah. And I think that's actually something that I'm also really quite interested in science is basically like When we say science, people often imagine, like, this kind of, like, amorphous blob. But, like, I think the metabolism is changing all the [00:29:35] time. And so, like, what we mean by science now means very different from, like, what we mean by science, like, even, like, 10 to 20 years ago. Yes. And, like, it also means that all of our tactics need to keep up with that change, right? And so, one of the things I'm interested in to your question about, like, has anyone compiled this list of, like, science health? Or the health of science, right? It's maybe the right way of thinking about it. is that, like, those indicators may mean very different things at different points in time, right? And so part of it is trying to understand, like, yeah, what is the state of the, what is the state of this economy of science that we're talking about? Yeah. You're kind of preaching [00:30:07] Ben: to the, to the choir. In the sense that I'm, I'm always, I'm frustrated with the level of nuance that I feel like many people who are discussing, like, science, quote, making air quotes, science and research, are, are talking about in the sense that. They very often have not actually like gone in and been part of the system. Huh, right. And I'm, I'm open to the fact that [00:30:35] you [00:30:35] Tim: don't need to have got like [00:30:36] Ben: done, been like a professional researcher to have an opinion [00:30:41] Tim: or, or come up with ideas about it. [00:30:43] Ben: Yeah. But at the same time, I feel like [00:30:46] Tim: there's, yeah, like, like, do you, do you think about that tension at all? Yeah. I think it's actually incredibly valuable. Like, I think So I think of like Death and Life of Great American Cities, right? Which is like, the, the, the really, one of the really, there's a lot of interesting things about that book. But like, one of the most interesting things is sort of the notion that like, you had a whole cabal of urban planners that had this like very specific vision about how to get cities to work right and it just turns out that like if you like are living in soho at a particular time and you like walk along the street and you like take a look at what's going on like there's always really actually super valuable things to know about yeah that like are only available because you're like at that like ultra ultra ultra ultra micro level and i do think that there's actually some potential value in there like one of the things i would love to be able to set up, like, in the community of MetaScience or whatever you want to call it, right, [00:31:35] is the idea that, like, yeah, you, you could afford to do, like, very short tours of duty, where it's, like, literally, you're just, like, spending a day in a lab, right, and, like, to have a bunch of people go through that, I think, is, like, really, really helpful and so I think, like, thinking about, like, what the rotation program for that looks like, I think would be cool, like, you, you should, you should do, like, a six month stint at the NSF just to see what it looks like. Cause I think that kind of stuff is just like, you know, well, A, I'm selfish, like I would want that, but I also think that like, it would also allow the community to like, I think be, be thinking about this in a much more applied way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [00:32:08] Ben: I think it's the, the meta question there for, for everything, right? Is how much in the weeds, like, like what am I trying to say? The. It is possible both to be like two in the weeds. Yeah, right and then also like too high level Yeah, that's right. And in almost like what what is the the right amount or like? Who, who should [00:32:31] Tim: be talking to whom in that? That's right. Yeah, I mean, it's like what you were saying earlier that like the [00:32:35] success of macro science will be whether or not it's as controversial as macroeconomics. It's like, I actually hope that that's the case. It's like people being like, this is all wrong. You're approaching it like from a too high level, too abstract of a level. Yeah. I mean, I think the other benefit of doing this outside of like the level of insight is I think one of the projects that I think I have is like We need to, we need to be like defeating meta science, like a love of meta science aesthetics versus like actual like meta science, right? Like then I think like a lot of people in meta science love science. That's why they're excited to not talk about the specific science, but like science in general. But like, I think that intuition also leads us to like have very romantic ideas of like what science is and how science should look and what kinds of science that we want. Yeah. Right. The mission is progress. The mission isn't science. And so I think, like, we have to be a lot more functional. And again, I think, like, the benefit of these types of, like, rotations, like, Oh, you just are in a lab for a month. Yeah. It's like, I mean, you get a lot more of a sense of, like, Oh, okay, this is, this is what it [00:33:35] looks like. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to do the same thing for manufacturing. Huh. Right. [00:33:39] Ben: Right. It's like, like, and I want, I want everybody to be rotating, right? Huh. Like, in the sense of, like, okay, like, have the scientists go and be, like, in a manufacturing lab. That's right. [00:33:47] Tim: Yeah. [00:33:48] Ben: And be like, okay, like, look. Like, you need to be thinking about getting this thing to work in, like, this giant, like, flow pipe instead of a [00:33:54] Tim: test tube. That's right, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, [00:33:57] Ben: unfortunately, the problem is that we can't all spend our time, like, if everybody was rotating through all the [00:34:03] Tim: things they need to rotate, we'd never get anything done. Yeah, exactly. [00:34:06] Ben: ANd that's, that's, that's kind of [00:34:08] Tim: the problem. Well, and to bring it all the way back, I mean, I think you started this question on macroscience in the context of transitioning away from all of this like weird Cuban Missile Crisis simulation stuff. Like, I do think one way of thinking about this is like, okay, well, if we can't literally send you into a lab, right? Like the question is like, what are good simulations to give people good intuitions about the dynamics in the space? Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially quite interesting. Yeah. Normalized weekend long simulation. That's right. Like I love the idea of basically [00:34:35] like like you, you get to reenact the publication of a prominent scientific paper. It's like kind of a funny idea. It's just like, you know, yeah. Or, or, or even trying to [00:34:44] Ben: get research funded, right? Like, it's like, okay, like you have this idea, you want yeah. [00:34:55] Tim: I mean, yeah, this is actually a project, I mean, I've been talking to Zach Graves about this, it's like, I really want to do one which is a game that we're calling Think Tank Tycoon, which is basically like, it's a, it's a, the idea would be for it to be a strategy board game that simulates what it's like to run a research center. But I think like to broaden that idea somewhat like it's kind of interesting to think about the idea of like model NSF Yeah, where you're like you you're in you're in the hot seat you get to decide how to do granting Yeah, you know give a grant [00:35:22] Ben: a stupid thing. Yeah, some some some congressperson's gonna come banging [00:35:26] Tim: on your door Yeah, like simulating those dynamics actually might be really really helpful Yeah I mean in the very least even if it's not like a one for one simulation of the real world just to get like some [00:35:35] common intuitions about like The pressures that are operating here. I [00:35:38] Ben: think you're, the bigger point is that simulations are maybe underrated [00:35:42] Tim: as a teaching tool. I think so, yeah. Do you remember the the paperclip maximizer? Huh. The HTML game? Yeah, yeah. [00:35:48] Ben: I'm, I'm kind of obsessed with it. Huh. Because, it, you've, like, somehow the human brain, like, really quickly, with just, like, you know, some numbers on the screen. Huh. Like, just like numbers that you can change. Right, right. And some, like, back end. Dynamic system, where it's like, okay, like based on these numbers, like here are the dynamics of the [00:36:07] Tim: system, and it'll give you an update. [00:36:09] Ben: Like, you start to really get an intuition for, for system dynamics. Yeah. And so, I, I, I want to see more just like plain HTML, like basically like spreadsheet [00:36:20] Tim: backend games. Right, right, like the most lo fi possible. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's helpful. I mean, I think, again, particularly in a world where you're thinking about, like, let's simulate these types of, like, weird new grant structures that we might try out, right? Like, you know, we've got a bunch [00:36:35] of hypotheses. It's kind of really expensive and difficult to try to get experiments done, right? Like, does a simulation with a couple people who are well informed give us some, at least, inclinations of, like, where it might go or, like, what are the unintentional consequences thereof? Yeah. [00:36:51] Ben: Disciplines besides the military that uses simulations [00:36:56] Tim: successfully. Not really. And I think what's kind of interesting is that like, I think it had a vogue that like has kind of dissipated. Yeah, I think like the notion of like a a game being the way you kind of do like understanding of a strategic situation, I think like. Has kind of disappeared, right? But like, I think a lot of it was driven, like, RAND actually had a huge influence, not just on the military. But like, there's a bunch of corporate games, right? That were like, kind of invented in the same period. Yeah. That are like, you determine how much your steel production is, right? And was like, used to teach MBAs. But yeah, I think it's, it's been like, relatively limited. Hm. [00:37:35] Yeah. It, yeah. Hm. [00:37:38] Ben: So. Other things. Huh. Like, just to, [00:37:41] Tim: to shift together. Sure, sure, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess another [00:37:44] Ben: thing that we haven't really talked about, but actually sort of plays into all of this, is thinking about better [00:37:50] Tim: ways of regulating technology. [00:37:52] Ben: I know that you've done a lot of thinking about that, and maybe this is another thing to simulate. [00:38:00] Tim: Yeah, it's a model OSTP. But [00:38:04] Ben: it's maybe a thing where, this is actually like a prime example where the particulars really matter, right? Where you can't just regulate. quote unquote technology. Yeah. Right. And it's like, there's, there's some technologies that you want to regulate very, very closely and very tightly and others that you want to regulate very [00:38:21] Tim: loosely. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that's actually, you know, I think it is tied to the kind of like macro scientific project, if you will. Right. Which is that I think we have often a notion of like science regulation being like. [00:38:35] literally the government comes in and is like, here are the kind of constraints that we want to put on the system. Right. And there's obviously like lots of different ways of doing that. And I think there's lots of contexts in which that's like appropriate. But I think for a lot of technologies that we confront right now, the change is so rapid that the obvious question always becomes, no matter what emerging technology talking about is like, how does your clock speed of regulation actually keep up with like the clock speed of technology? And the answer is frequently like. It doesn't, right? And like you run into these kind of like absurd situations where you're like, well, we have this thing, it's already out of date by the time it goes into force, everybody kind of creates some like notional compliance with that rule. Yeah. And like, in terms of improving, I don't know, safety outcomes, for instance, it like has not actually improved safety outcomes. And I think in that case, right, and I think I could actually make an argument that like, the problem is becoming more difficult with time. Right? Like, if you really believe that the pace of technological change is faster than it used to be, then it is possible that, like, there was a point at which, like, government was operating, and it could actually keep [00:39:35] pace effectively, or, like, a body like Congress could actually keep pace with society, or with technology successfully, to, like, make sure that it was conformant with, sort of, like, societal interests. Do you think that was [00:39:46] Ben: actually ever the case, or was it that we didn't, we just didn't [00:39:50] Tim: have as many regulations? I would say it was sort of twofold, right? Like, I think one of them was you had, at least, let's just talk about Congress, right? It's really hard to talk about, like, government as a whole, right? Like, I think, like, Congress was both better advised and was a more efficient institution, right? Which means it moved faster than it does today. Simultaneously, I also feel like for a couple reasons we can speculate on, right? Like, science, or in the very least, technology. Right, like move slower than it does today. Right, right. And so like actually what has happened is that both both dynamics have caused problems, right? Which is that like the organs of government are moving slower at the same time as science is moving faster And like I think we've passed some inflection [00:40:35] point now where like it seems really hard to craft You know, let's take the AI case like a sensible framework that would apply You know, in, in LLMs where like, I don't know, like I was doing a little recap of like recent interoperability research and I like took a step back and I was like, Oh, all these papers are from May, 2023. And I was like, these are all big results. This is all a big deal. Right. It's like very, very fast. Yeah. So that's kind of what I would say to that. Yeah. I don't know. Do you feel differently? You feel like Congress has never been able to keep up? Yeah. [00:41:04] Ben: Well, I. I wonder, I guess I'm almost, I'm, I'm perhaps an outlier in that I am skeptical of the claim that technology overall has sped up significantly, or the pace of technological change, the pace of software change, certainly. Sure. Right. And it's like maybe software as a, as a fraction of technology has spread up, sped up. And maybe like, this is, this is a thing where like to the point of, of regulations needing to, to. Go into particulars, [00:41:35] right? Mm-Hmm. . Right, right. Like tuning the regulation to the characteristic timescale of whatever talk [00:41:40] Tim: technology we're talking about. Mm-Hmm. , right? [00:41:42] Ben: But I don't know, but like, I feel like outside of software, if anything, technology, the pace of technological change [00:41:52] Tim: has slowed down. Mm hmm. Right. Right. Yeah. [00:41:55] Ben: This is me putting on my [00:41:57] Tim: stagnationist bias. And would, given the argument that I just made, would you say that that means that it should actually be easier than ever to regulate technology? Yeah, I get targets moving slower, right? Like, yeah, [00:42:12] Ben: yeah. Or it's the technology moving slowly because of the forms of [00:42:14] Tim: the regulator. I guess, yeah, there's like compounding variables. [00:42:16] Ben: Yeah, the easiest base case of regulating technology is saying, like, no, you can't have [00:42:20] Tim: any. Huh, right, right, right. Like, it can't change. Right, that's easy to regulate. Yeah, right, right. That's very easy to regulate. I buy that, I buy that. It's very easy to regulate well. Huh, right, right. I think that's [00:42:27] Ben: That's the question. It's like, what do we want to lock in and what don't we [00:42:31] Tim: want to lock in? Yeah, I think that's right and I think, you [00:42:35] know I guess what that moves me towards is like, I think some people, you know, will conclude the argument I'm making by saying, and so regulations are obsolete, right? Or like, oh, so we shouldn't regulate or like, let the companies take care of it. And I'm like, I think so, like, I think that that's, that's not the conclusion that I go to, right? Like part of it is like. Well, no, that just means we need, we need better ways of like regulating these systems, right? And I think they, they basically require government to kind of think about sort of like moving to different parts of the chain that they might've touched in the past. Yeah. So like, I don't know, we, Caleb and I over at IFP, we just submitted this RFI to DARPA. In part they, they were thinking about like how does DARPA play a role in dealing with like ethical considerations around emerging technologies. Yep. But the deeper point that we were making in our submission. was simply that like maybe actually science has changed in a way where like DARPA can't be the or it's harder for DARPA to be the originator of all these technologies. Yeah. So they're, they're almost, they're, they're placing the, the, the ecosystem, the [00:43:35] metabolism of technology has changed, which requires them to rethink like how they want to influence the system. Yeah. Right. And it may be more influence at the point of like. Things getting out to market, then it is things like, you know, basic research in the lab or something like that. Right. At least for some classes of technology where like a lot of it's happening in private industry, like AI. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. [00:43:55] Ben: No, I, I, I think the, the concept of, of like the metabolism of, of science and technology is like really powerful. I think in some sense it is, I'm not sure if you would, how would you map that to the idea of there being a [00:44:11] Tim: research ecosystem, right? Right. Is it, is it that there's like [00:44:17] Ben: the metabolic, this is, this is incredibly abstract. Okay. Like, is it like, I guess if you're looking at the metabolism, does, does the metabolism sort of say, we're going to ignore institutions for now and the metabolism is literally just the flow [00:44:34] Tim: of [00:44:35] like ideas and, and, and outcomes and then maybe like the ecosystem is [00:44:41] Ben: like, okay, then we like. Sort of add another layer and say there are institutions [00:44:46] Tim: that are sure interacting with this sort of like, yeah, I think like the metabolism view or, you know, you might even think about it as like a supply chain view, right? To move it away from, like, just kind of gesturing at bio for no reason, right? Is I think what's powerful about it is that, you know, particularly in foundation land, which I'm most familiar with. There's a notion of like we're going to field build and what that means is we're going to name a field and then researchers Are going to be under this tent that we call this field and then the field will exist Yeah, and then the proper critique of a lot of that stuff is like researchers are smart They just like go where the money is and they're like you want to call up like I can pretend to be nanotech for a Few years to get your money Like, that's no problem. I can do that. And so there's kind of a notion that, like, if you take the economy of science as, like, institutions at the very beginning, you actually miss the bigger [00:45:35] picture. Yes. Right? And so the metabolism view is more powerful because you literally think about, like, the movement of, like, an idea to an experiment to a practical technology to, like, something that's out in the world. Yeah. And then we basically say, how do we influence those incentives before we start talking about, like, oh, we announced some new policy that people just, like... Cosmetically align their agendas to yeah, and like if you really want to shape science It's actually maybe arguably less about like the institution and more about like Yeah, the individual. Yeah, exactly. Like I run a lab. What are my motivations? Right? And I think this is like, again, it's like micro macro, right? It's basically if we can understand that, then are there things that we could do to influence at that micro level? Yeah, right. Which is I think actually where a lot of Macro econ has moved. Right. Which is like, how do we influence like the individual firm's decisions Yeah. To get the overall aggregate change that we want in the economy. Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially a better way of approaching it. Right. A thing that I desperately [00:46:30] Ben: want now is Uhhuh a. I'm not sure what they're, they're [00:46:35] actually called. Like the, you know, like the metal, like, like, like the [00:46:37] Tim: prep cycle. Yeah, exactly. Like, like, like the giant diagram of, of like metabolism, [00:46:43] Ben: right. I want that for, for research. Yeah, that would be incredible. Yeah. If, if only, I mean, one, I want to have it on [00:46:50] Tim: my wall and to, to just get across the idea that. [00:46:56] Ben: It is like, it's not you know, basic research, applied [00:47:01] Tim: research. Yeah, totally. Right, right, right. When it goes to like, and what I like about kind of metabolism as a way of thinking about it is that we can start thinking about like, okay, what's, what's the uptake for certain types of inputs, right? We're like, okay, you know like one, one example is like, okay, well, we want results in a field to become more searchable. Well what's really, if you want to frame that in metabolism terms, is like, what, you know, what are the carbs that go into the system that, like, the enzymes or the yeast can take up, and it's like, access to the proper results, right, and like, I think that there's, there's a nice way of flipping in it [00:47:35] that, like, starts to think about these things as, like, inputs, versus things that we do, again, because, like, we like the aesthetics of it, like, we like the aesthetics of being able to find research results instantaneously, but, like, the focus should be on, Like, okay, well, because it helps to drive, like, the next big idea that we think will be beneficial to me later on. Or like, even being [00:47:53] Ben: the question, like, is the actual blocker to the thing that you want to see, the thing that you think it is? Right. I've run into far more people than I can count who say, like, you know, we want more awesome technology in the world, therefore we are going to be working on Insert tool here that actually isn't addressing, at least my, [00:48:18] Tim: my view of why those things aren't happening. Yeah, right, right. And I think, I mean, again, like, part of the idea is we think about these as, like, frameworks for thinking about different situations in science. Yeah. Like, I actually do believe that there are certain fields because of, like, ideologically how they're set up, institutionally how [00:48:35] they're set up, funding wise how they're set up. that do resemble the block diagram you were talking about earlier, which is like, yeah, there actually is the, the basic research, like we can put, that's where the basic research happens. You could like point at a building, right? And you're like, that's where the, you know, commercialization happens. We pointed at another building, right? But I just happen to think that most science doesn't look like that. Right. And we might ask the question then, like, do we want it to resemble more of like the metabolism state than the block diagram state? Right. Like both are good. Yeah, I mean, I would [00:49:07] Ben: argue that putting them in different buildings is exactly what's causing [00:49:10] Tim: all the problems. Sure, right, exactly, yeah, yeah. Yeah. But then, again, like, then, then I think, again, this is why I think, like, the, the macro view is so powerful, at least to me, personally, is, like, we can ask the question, for what problems? Yeah. Right? Like, are there, are there situations where, like, that, that, like, very blocky way of doing it serves certain needs and certain demands? Yeah. And it's like, it's possible, like, one more argument I can make for you is, like, Progress might be [00:49:35] slower, but it's a lot more controllable. So if you are in the, you know, if you think national security is one of the most important things, you're willing to make those trade offs. But I think we just should be making those trade offs, like, much more consciously than we do. And [00:49:49] Ben: that's where politics, in the term, in the sense of, A compromise between people who have different priorities on something can actually come in where we can say, okay, like we're going to trade off, we're going to say like, okay, we're going to increase like national security a little bit, like in, in like this area to, in compromise with being able to like unblock this. [00:50:11] Tim: That's right. Yeah. And I think this is the benefit of like, you know, when I say lever, I literally mean lever, right. Which is basically like, we're in a period of time where we need this. Yeah. Right? We're willing to trade progress for security. Yeah. Okay, we're not in a period where we need this. Like, take the, take, ramp it down. Right? Like, we want science to have less of this, this kind of structure. Yeah. That's something we need to, like, have fine tuned controls over. Right? Yeah. And to be thinking about in, like, a, a comparative sense, [00:50:35] so. And, [00:50:36] Ben: to, to go [00:50:36] Tim: back to the metabolism example. Yeah, yeah. I'm really thinking about it. Yeah, yeah. [00:50:39] Ben: Is there an equivalent of macro for metabolism in the sense that like I'm thinking about like, like, is it someone's like blood, like, you know, they're like blood glucose level, [00:50:52] Tim: like obesity, right? Yeah, right. Kind of like our macro indicators for metabolism. Yeah, that's right. Right? Or like how you feel in the morning. That's right. Yeah, exactly. I'm less well versed in kind of like bio and medical, but I'm sure there is, right? Like, I mean, there is the same kind of like. Well, I study the cell. Well, I study, you know, like organisms, right? Like at different scales, which we're studying this stuff. Yeah. What's kind of interesting in the medical cases, like You know, it's like, do we have a Hippocratic, like oath for like our treatment of the science person, right? It's just like, first do no harm to the science person, you know? [00:51:32] Ben: Yeah, I mean, I wonder about that with like, [00:51:35] with research. Mm hmm. Is there, should we have more heuristics about how we're [00:51:42] Tim: Yeah, I mean, especially because I think, like, norms are so strong, right? Like, I do think that, like, one of the interesting things, this is one of the arguments I was making in the long science piece. It's like, well, in addition to funding certain types of experiments, if you proliferate the number of opportunities for these low scale projects to operate over a long period of time, there's actually a bunch of like norms that might be really good that they might foster in the scientific community. Right. Which is like you learn, like scientists learn the art of how to plan a project for 30 years. That's super important. Right. Regardless of the research results. That may be something that we want to put out into the open so there's more like your median scientist has more of those skills Yeah, right, like that's another reason that you might want to kind of like percolate this kind of behavior in the system Yeah, and so there's kind of like these emanating effects from like even one offs that I think are important to keep in mind [00:52:33] Ben: That's actually another [00:52:35] I think used for simulations. Yeah I'm just thinking like, well, it's very hard to get a tight feedback loop, right, about like whether you manage, you planned a project for 30 years [00:52:47] Tim: well, right, [00:52:48] Ben: right. But perhaps there's a better way of sort of simulating [00:52:51] Tim: that planning process. Yeah. Well, and I would love to, I mean, again, to the question that you had earlier about like what are the metrics here, right? Like I think for a lot of science metrics that we may end up on, they may have these interesting and really curious properties like we have for inflation rate. Right. We're like, the strange thing about inflation is that we, we kind of don't like, we have hypotheses for how it happens, but like, part of it is just like the psychology of the market. Yeah. Right. Like you anticipate prices will be higher next quarter. Inflation happens if enough people believe that. And part of what the Fed is doing is like, they're obviously making money harder to get to, but they're also like play acting, right? They're like. You know, trust me guys, we will continue to put pressure on the economy until you feel differently about this. And I think there's going to be some things in science that are worth [00:53:35] measuring that are like that, which is like researcher perceptions of the future state of the science economy are like things that we want to be able to influence in the space. And so one of the things that we do when we try to influence like the long termism or the short termism of science It's like, there's lots of kind of like material things we do, but ultimately the idea is like, what does that researcher in the lab think is going to happen, right? Do they think that, you know, grant funding is going to become a lot less available in the next six months or a lot more available in the next six months? Like influencing those might have huge repercussions on what happens in science. And like, yeah, like that's a tool that policymakers should have access to. Yeah. Yeah. [00:54:11] Ben: And the parallels between the. The how beliefs affect the economy, [00:54:18] Tim: and how beliefs [00:54:19] Ben: affect science, I think may also be a [00:54:21] Tim: little bit underrated. Yeah. In the sense that, [00:54:24] Ben: I, I feel like some people think that It's a fairly deterministic system where it's like, ah, yes, this idea's time has come. And like once, once all the things that are in place, like [00:54:35] once, once all, then, then it will happen. And like, [00:54:38] Tim: that is, that's like how it works. [00:54:40] Ben: Which I, I mean, I have, I wish there was more evidence to my point or to disagree with me. But like, I, I think that's, that's really not how it works. And I'm like very often. a field or, or like an idea will, like a technology will happen because people think that it's time for that technology to happen. Right. Right. Yeah. Obviously, obviously that isn't always the case. Right. Yeah. Yeah. There's, there's, there's hype [00:55:06] Tim: cycles. And I think you want, like, eventually, like. You know, if I have my druthers, right, like macro science should have like it's Chicago school, right? Which is basically like the idea arrives exactly when it should arrive. Scientists will discover it on exactly their time. And like your only role as a regulator is to ensure the stability of scientific institutions. I think actually that that is a, that's not a position I agree with, but you can craft a totally, Reasonable, coherent, coherent governance framework that's based around that concept, right? Yes. Yeah. I think [00:55:35] like [00:55:35] Ben: you'll, yes. I, I, I think like that's actually the criteria for success of meta science as a field uhhuh, because like once there's schools , then, then, then it will have made it, [00:55:46] Tim: because [00:55:47] Ben: there aren't schools right now. Mm-Hmm. , like, I, I feel , I almost feel I, I, I now want there to b
Nine strategies lie at the heart of the Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) 2023 National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan. In this episode, we'll focus on those nine strategies and how building generalist models can help the federal government achieve its goal of building models that promote and support American values.
This episode of SSP's Early Career Development Podcast serves as a current refresh on the Open Access funding landscape, and, more specifically on the 2022 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Nelson Memo. Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe (University Library, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) briefly overviews the memo, next steps, implications, and more.
Clean energy technology deployment will play a major role in meeting the Biden administration's “net zero by 2050” goal. To stay on target, America will need to shore up clean energy supply chains, reduce the cost of existing technologies, and fund innovation for up and coming solutions – like carbon capture and storage and fusion energy. The Energy Team at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is a driving force behind these efforts. With its expertise in policy and science, the team helps develop innovation priorities that facilitate a swift, equitable energy transition. So what is the strategy for deploying the clean energy technology needed to meet net zero goals? What is the timeline for emerging technologies? And how does the OSTP's Energy Team plan to make the transition equitable? This week host Bill Loveless talks with Sally Benson about the OSTP's history as an innovation engine, and its current role in meeting net zero by 2050 goals. Sally is the deputy director for energy and the chief strategist for the energy transition at OSTP. She helps oversee the Net Zero Game Changers Initiative, which funds innovation in clean energy technologies for building heating and cooling, aviation, nuclear fusion, and other areas. Sally joined the Biden administration as the Precourt Family Professor of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford University. She has also held various positions at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
This National AI R&D Strategic Plan – with key updates from OSTP for the first time in four years – describes the priorities and goals for federal investments.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released a “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights” last year, which requires agencies to responsibly develop and implement automated systems, guided by five core protections. In this exclusive GovFocus preview, federal leaders discuss how they are tackling the challenges around AI to meet mission needs in health care. To watch the GovFocus and explore our archives, visit govciomedia.com.
In this episode Peter Garretson meets with Dr. Ezinne Uzo-Okoro of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). They discuss the White House space policies in the context of the Administration Priorities, including climate, economy and jobs, restoring US global leadership, COVID and infrastructure, and the intention to lead by example. They delve into the broad context of the White House Space Priorities Framework and its emphasis on sustainability, norms and behaviors, earth observation for climate change. They examine the plethora of policy documents and the 'nuts and bolts' of what is involved in originating and coordinating such documents, including aligning with presidential intent, 'reading the room,' bringing together and educating stakeholders, and soliciting feedback including from industry and academia, making a case for guidance, always with the intent to maintain US preeminence at least 10-20 years down the road. They address how such documents are used by federal agencies, allies, and industry, and the relationship of OSTP to the National Space Council (NSpC), National Security Council (NSC), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and sometimes the National Economic Council (NEC) and Climate office...as well as the need for patience and grace throughout the 6-12 month coordination process. They explore the historic nature of the National Cislunar Science and Technology Strategy and the deliberate choice of the language of 'settlement' in the new National Low Earth Orbit Research and Development Strategy, and the consistent industry-friendly themes across documents of new products and scalable infrastructure, and economic growth. They touch on In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing National Strategy and National In-Space Servicing Assembly, and Manufacturing Implementation Plan, as well as the National Strategy for Advanced Manufacturing and Interagency Roadmap to Support Space-Related STEM Education and Workforce. They also cover the James Webb Telescope and exciting DART mission, the recently updated National Preparedness Strategy & Action Plan for Near-Earth Object Hazards and Planetary Defense—"what's cooler than planetary defense." Along the way they discuss Space-Based Solar Power, Exoplanets, Settlement, Space Weather, regulating novel space activities. They review Ezinne's own career and journey, and her reasons for optimism and philosophy of hard work. They conclude talking about how easy it is to become involved in space, because it is a small community where anyone can play, and secrets of success such as: if you want to go far, go together; that success comes from putting one foot in front of the other; the utility of patience and grace, and that there is plenty of work, so grab an oar!
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Story of a career/mental health failure, published by zekesherman on April 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I don't know if it should be considered important as it's only a single data point, but I want to share the story of how my EA career choice and mental health went terribly wrong. My career choice In college I was strongly motivated to follow the most utilitarian career path. In my junior year I decided to pursue investment banking for earning to give. As someone who had a merely good GPA and did not attend a top university, this would have been difficult, but I pushed hard for networking and recruiting, and one professional told me I had a 50-50 chance of becoming an investment banking analyst right out of college (privately I thought he was a bit too optimistic). Otherwise, I would have to get some lower-paying job in finance, and hopefully move into banking at a later date. However I increasingly turned against the idea of earning to give, for two major reasons. First, 80,000 Hours and other people in the community said that EA was more talent- rather than funding-constrained, and that earning to give was overrated. Second, more specifically, people in the EA community informed me that program managers in government and philanthropy controlled much higher budgets than I could reasonably expect to earn. Basically, it appeared easier to become in charge of effectively allocating $5 million of other people's money, compared to earning a $500,000 salary for oneself. Earning to give meant freer control of funding, but program management meant a greater budget. While I read 80k Hours' article on program management, I was most persuaded by advice I got from Jason Gaverick Matheny and Carl Shulman, and also a few non-EA people I met from the OSTP and other government agencies, who had more specific knowledge and advice. It seemed that program management in science and technology (especially AI, biotechnology, etc) was the best career path. And the best way to achieve it seemed to be starting with graduate education in science and technology, ideally a PhD (I decided on computer science, partly because it gave the most flexibility to work on a wide variety of cause areas). Finally, the nail in the coffin for my finance ambitions was an EA Global conference where Will MacAskill said to think less about finding a career that was individually impactful, and think more about leveraging your unique strengths to bring something new to the table for the EA community. While computer science wasn't rare in EA, I thought I could be special by leveraging my military background and pursuing a more cybersecurity- or defense-related career, which was neglected in EA. Still, I had two problems to overcome for this career path. The first problem was that I was an econ major and had a lot of catching up to do in order to pursue advanced computer science. The second problem was that it wasn't as good of a personal fit for me compared to finance. I've always found programming and advanced mathematics to be somewhat painful and difficult to learn, whereas investment banking seemed more readily engaging. And 80k Hours as well as the rest of the community gave me ample warnings about how personal fit was very, very important. I disregarded these warnings about personal fit for several reasons: I'd always been more resilient and scrupulous compared to other people and other members of the EA community. Things like living on a poverty budget and serving in the military, which many other members of the EA community have considered intolerable or unsustainable for mental health, were fine for me. As one of the more "hardcore" EAs, I generally regarded warnings of burnout as being overblown or at least less applicable to someone like me, and I suspected that a lot of people in the EA ...
Dr. Charles Tahan, Ph.D. is the Assistant Director for Quantum Information Science (QIS) and the Director of the National Quantum Coordination Office (NQCO) within the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy ( https://www.quantum.gov/nqco/ ). The NQCO ensures coordination of the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) and QIS activities across the federal government, industry, and academia. Dr. Tahan is on detail from the Laboratory for Physical Sciences ( https://www.lps.umd.edu/ ) where he drove technical progress in the future of information technology as Technical Director. Research at LPS spans computing, communications, and sensing, from novel device physics to high-performance computer architectures. As a technical lead, Dr. Tahan stood up new research initiatives in silicon and superconducting quantum computing; quantum characterization, verification, and validation; and new and emerging qubit science and technology. As a practicing physicist, he is Chief of the intramural QIS research programs at LPS and works with students and postdocs from the University of Maryland-College Park to conduct original research in quantum information and device theory. His contributions have been recognized by the Researcher of the Year Award, the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers, election as a Fellow of the American Physical Society, and as an ODNI Science and Technology Fellow. He continues to serve as Chief Scientist of LPS. Dr. Tahan earned a PhD in Physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2005 and a B.Sc. in Physics and Computer Science with Highest Honors from the College of William & Mary in 2000. From 2005-2007 he was a National Science Foundation Distinguished International Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge, UK; the Center for Quantum Computing Technology, Australia; and the University of Tokyo, Japan. He served as chief technical consultant for quantum information science and technology programs in DARPA's Microsystems Technology Office (MTO) while at Booz Allen Hamilton from 2007-2009. He has a long-term commitment to science and society including creating one of the first games meant to build intuition about quantum computing. Support the show
In episode 55 of The Gradient Podcast, Daniel Bashir speaks to Professor Suresh Venkatasubramanian. Professor Venkatasubramanian is a Professor of Computer Science and Data Science at Brown University, where his research focuses on algorithmic fairness and the impact of automated decision-making systems in society. He recently served as Assistant Director for Science and Justice in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, where he co-authored the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.Have suggestions for future podcast guests (or other feedback)? Let us know here!Subscribe to The Gradient Podcast: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Pocket Casts | RSSFollow The Gradient on TwitterOutline:* (00:00) Intro* (02:25) Suresh's journey into AI and policymaking* (08:00) The complex graph of designing and deploying “fair” AI systems* (09:50) The Algorithmic Lens* (14:55) “Getting people into a room” isn't enough* (16:30) Failures of incorporation* (21:10) Trans-disciplinary vs interdisciplinary, the limiting nature of “my lane” / “your lane” thinking, going beyond existing scientific and philosophical ideas* (24:50) The trolley problem is annoying, its usefulness and limitations* (25:30) Breaking the frame of a discussion, self-driving doesn't fit into the parameters of the trolley problem* (28:00) Acknowledging frames and their limitations* (29:30) Social science's inclination to critique, flaws and benefits of solutionism* (30:30) Computer security as a model for thinking about algorithmic protections, the risk of failure in policy* (33:20) Suresh's work on recourse* (38:00) Kantian autonomy and the value of recourse, non-Western takes and issues with individual benefit/harm as the most morally salient question* (41:00) Community as a valuable entity and its implications for algorithmic governance, surveillance systems* (43:50) How Suresh got involved in policymaking / the OSTP* (46:50) Gathering insights for the AI Bill of Rights Blueprint* (51:00) One thing the Bill did miss… Struggles with balancing specificity and vagueness in the Bill* (54:20) Should “automated system” be defined in legislation? Suresh's approach and issues with the EU AI Act* (57:45) The danger of definitions, overlap with chess world controversies* (59:10) Constructive vagueness in law, partially theorized agreements* (1:02:15) Digital privacy and privacy fundamentalism, focus on breach of individual autonomy as the only harm vector* (1:07:40) GDPR traps, the “legacy problem” with large companies and post-hoc regulation* (1:09:30) Considerations for legislating explainability* (1:12:10) Criticisms of the Blueprint and Suresh's responses* (1:25:55) The global picture, AI legislation outside the US, legislation as experiment* (1:32:00) Tensions in entering policy as an academic and technologist* (1:35:00) Technologists need to learn additional skills to impact policy* (1:38:15) Suresh's advice for technologists interested in public policy* (1:41:20) OutroLinks:* Suresh is on Mastodon @geomblog@mastodon.social (and also Twitter)* Suresh's blog* Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights* Papers* Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems* A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learning* The Philosophical Basis of Algorithmic Recourse* Runaway Feedback Loops in Predictive Policing Get full access to The Gradient at thegradientpub.substack.com/subscribe
In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a former official at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and CS professor at Brown, to discuss his work in the White House developing policy, including the AI Bill of Rights Blueprint. Suresh also posits on the basis for current AI challenges as failure of imagination, the need to engage diverse voices in AI development, and the evolution of safety regulations for new technologies. —Materials mentioned in this episode:Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (The White House)
Follow The Concept Art Association for further news on organizing against AIs, and check out their recent AI town hall video: https://www.youtube.com/c/ConceptArtAssociation/ Equity is fighting against AIs replacing many kinds of artists, their efforts are relevant to all creatives and they have good resources here: https://www.equity.org.uk/getting-involved/campaigns/stop-ai-stealing-the-show/ Know more organizations going against the AIs? Send me links at: stevensketches (at) gmail.com A transcript of this video is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128yey0VfYhM9eUdvkvCpk5zvvoIkqXfI4hEPAYeJCHU/edit?usp=sharing A site to investigate just one of the LAION data sets to see if you or your art are in there. A note that this site offers to sign you up for a future opt-out product- I have no idea what the nature of that product will be and would urge caution: https://haveibeentrained.com/ Open AI explaining how they invented their legal structure because nothing else worked for them: https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp/ Stable Diffusion release info with no mention of “artists”: https://stability.ai/blog/stable-diffusion-announcement Imagen release info that explains how the data set it is trained on is “uncurated” and contains “a wide range of inappropriate content including pornographic imagery, racist slurs, and harmful social stereotypes.” This is another page you should do a ctrl-f search for “artist” on: https://imagen.research.google/ Dance Diffusion explanation: https://wandb.ai/wandb_gen/audio/reports/Harmonai-s-Dance-Diffusion-Open-Source-AI-Audio-Generation-Tool-For-Music-Producers--VmlldzoyNjkwOTM1 Example of private medical imagery being used to train the AI: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ad58k/ai-is-probably-using-your-images-and-its-not-easy-to-opt-out A great article summarizing the data laundering techniques of AI companies: https://waxy.org/2022/09/ai-data-laundering-how-academic-and-nonprofit-researchers-shield-tech-companies-from-accountability/ California Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo writes OSTP urging investigation into unsafe AI release models, namely Stable Diffusion: https://eshoo.house.gov/media/press-releases/eshoo-urges-nsa-ostp-address-unsafe-ai-practices The best non-technical explanation I've seen on how diffusion models work: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRHrUyDM/ A good semi-technical explanation of how diffusion models like Stable Diffusion work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CIpzeNxIhU I did the drawing for this video, “Prey For A Spiritual Creature” on 18”x24” Strathmore bristol paper. From imagination for the sheer love of drawing! Special thanks to my wife for her help editing the script, to my Patrons for their support, to my friends on my Discord for links, expert info, and first reactions, and to those who get the course, of course. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/steven-zapata/message
Nic Carter is a general partner at Castle Island Ventures. He is cofounder and chairman of Coin Metrics, host of the On The Brink podcast, columnist for Coindesk, and an advisor to the Bitcoin Clean Energy Initiative and to Core Scientific. Comments on the White House Report on the Climate Implications of Crypto Mining https://medium.com/@nic__carter/comments-on-the-white-house-report-on-the-climate-implications-of-crypto-mining-8d65d30ec942 Nic's Annotated Version of the Climate and Energy Implications of Crypto-Assets in the United States https://niccarter.info/wp-content/uploads/09-2022-Crypto-Assets-and-Climate-Report_nc_annotated_091522.pdf Follow Nic on Twitter https://twitter.com/nic__carter IN THIS EPISODE: 0:00 Intro 1:07 OSTP "highlights" 3:39 Chief issues, PoS, PoW 4:12 No novel data 5:31 No industry subject matter experts 6:15 Non-peer reviewed journal content 8:02 Faulty reliance on De Vries / Digiconomist 12:01 Energy consumption 13:18 E-waste 14:50 Emissions 17:17 Faulty reliance on Gallersdorfer, Klaassen, and Stoll 19:43 Citing Mora et al "worst paper ever written" 21:27 Deeply conflicted approach to data 23:20 Electricity use and Bitcoin mining n Texas; ERCOT 29:37 Miners using renewables 30:16 Dismisses flare gas mitigation 34:22 Claim: using stranded renewables inhibits transmission 36:36 Gives miners no credit for subsidizing renewable buildout 39:23 Refuses to guess on future energy trajectories 42:07 Recommendations are stupid, counterproductive ✔️ Coin Stories is powered by @Swan Bitcoin the best way to build your Bitcoin stack with automated Bitcoin savings plans and instant purchases. Swan serves clients of any size, from $10 to $10M+. Visit https://www.swanbitcoin.com/nataliebrunell for $10 in Bitcoin when you sign up. If you are planning to buy more than $100,000 of Bitcoin over the next year, the Swan Private team can help. Swan Bitcoin is hosting this year's inaugural Pacific Bitcoin event designed to deliver two days of Bitcoin-only programming featuring top experts and celebrity Bitcoin fans. This unique event November 10-11 in Los Angeles will give you the ability to meaningfully engage the Bitcoin community & industry insiders. Visit https://www.PacificBitcoin.com/ for tickets. Use code HODL for 30% off your pass. ✔️ BITCOIN 2023 by @Bitcoin Magazine will be the biggest Bitcoin event in history May 18-20 in Miami Beach. Speakers include Michael Saylor, Lyn Alden and Michelle Phan, plus a Day 3 music festival. Nearly 30,000 people attended Bitcoin 2022; more than 1,100 companies and 250 media outlets were represented. NATALIE BRUNELL IS A CONFIRMED SPEAKER at BITCOIN AMSTERDAM October 12-14, 2022. Get an early bird pass at a steep discount at https://b.tc/conference use code HODL for 10% off your pass to BITCOIN 2023 or AMSTERDAM. ✔️ With iTrustCapital you can invest in crypto without worrying about taxes or fees. iTrustCapital allows clients to invest in crypto through an individual retirement account. IRAs are tax-sheltered accounts, which means all your crypto trading is tax-free and can even grow tax-free over time. The best part is it's totally free to open an account, and there are no hidden fees, monthly subscriptions or membership fees. If you open and fund an account you will get a $100 funding bonus. To learn more and open a free account go to https://itrust.capital/nataliebrunell. ✔️ Fold is the best Bitcoin rewards debit card and shopping app in the world! Earn Bitcoin on everything you purchase with Fold's Bitcoin cash back debit card, and spin the Daily Wheel to earn free Bitcoin. Head to https://www.foldapp.com/natalie for 5,000 in free sats!
Hey everybody, I'm Joe Miller and here's what's going on in the world of tech law & policy. ADL Report: Spotify has a white supremacist problem References to Hitler, Pepe the Frog, Tucker Carlson talking about the “great replacement” anti-immigration theory — it looks like songs that contain them are totally fine for Spotify, which the Anti Defamation League finds in a new report has verified at least 40 bands and musicians with hateful lyrics and imagery on their album covers. Also, it's super-easy to get verified on Spotify, even though the company claims to have a handle on this stuff. The Washington Post has the full report. Trump appears to nod to QAnon The Washington Post's Technology 202 newsletter reports that Donald Trump appears to be showing increased support for QAnon, the conspiracy theory movement that accuses high profile democrats are running some kind of a pedophilia ring in which they drink the blood of children. The Post notes that this conspiracy theory has moved from the fringes to the mainstream political discourse and underscores the inefficacy of social media platforms to catch subtle references to disinformation campaigns. At an Ohio rally on Saturday, Trump took the stage to music that sounded a lot like music associated with QAnon, which many see as a “wink and a nod” to QAnon supporters. Trump has subtly endorsed QAnon on social media, but took a more explicit approach on his own social media platform – Truth Social – by including an image of himself wearing a QAnon lapel pin. Center for Countering Digital Hate: Incel movement is growing online Another movement that appears to be becoming more mainstream is the so-called incel, or “involuntary celibate” movement is growing online according to a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate , which also names Google, YouTube and Cloudflare for facilitating the channel, which has 2.6 million monthly site visits and over a million posts. Lots of conversations going on there about mass murder and sexually assaulting pre-pubescent girls. And the Washington Post also reports that a cop was convicted in Indiana for texting with, what he thought, was a 14-year-old girl, and attempting to meet her at an Olive Garden for sex. It turns out it wasn't a 14-year old girl at all – it was one of a growing number of vigilantes who bait guys like this and then record themselves shaming them, sharing it on the internet. According to the Post, the police had been reluctant to work with these citizen vigilantes to bring alleged pedophiles to trial. But the police are showing increased interest in working with these groups, according to the Post. BSR: Facebook suppressed Palestian posts during last year's Gaza war Consulting firm Business for Social Responsibility published a report demonstrating how Facebook suppressed posts made by Palestinians during last year's war between Israel and Hamas – it did so by unfairly removing posts in Arabic at a disproportionate rate – posts that had no apparent connection to Hamas at all – compared to those made in Hebrew. Florida takes anti-content moderation case to Supreme Court The state of Florida wants the Supreme Court to decide whether states can pass laws that prevent social media companies from blocking or limiting certain types of speech – such as some of the speech I just mentioned - hate speech, disinformation – you know, things like that. Florida's petition comes on the heels of the Fifth Circuit upholding a similar law in Texas last week. Florida wants to ban companies from doing this. We published a report in late 2020 on the pattern of conservatives, throughout history, seeking to ban liberal speech, starting almost as soon as European immigrants landed in the new world and wanted to control Native Americans, not to mention slaves. America's entire history is one of suppressing the voices of people of color – not the other way around. Meanwhile, Microsoft has decided it won't flag disinformation and TikTok apparently enforces its content moderation policies more leniently in favor of users with millions of followers. Senate confirms new OSTP director, Arati Prabhakar In a 56-40 vote with 10 Republicans on board, the Senate has for the first time confirmed a woman, immigrant, and person of color to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Previously, Arati Prabhakar led the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Alondra Nelson, a prominent scholar who appeared on this podcast back on Episode 70, had been performing the duties of the OSTP Director role since previous diretor Eric Lander stepped down in February amid accusations that he mistreated subordinates. Dr. Nelson will continue in her role as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director for Science and Society. More News Virginia's Spanish-language election site is out-of-date Mozilla report on potential anticompetitive behavior by leading browsers Washington Post: Health Apps sharing data with advertisers City of New York to provide free internet/cable for 300K public housing residents To go deeper, you can find links to all of these stories, plus additional ones, in the show notes. Stay safe, stay informed, have a great week. Ciao.
Lost in the Stacks: the Research Library Rock'n'Roll Radio Show
Guest Katherine Dunn of MIT Libraries discusses the 2022 OSTP memo on public access. First broadcast Sep 23, 2022. Playlist here, transcript here.
Dr. Andrew Hebbeler, Ph.D., is Principal Assistant Director for Health and Life Sciences, Office of Science and Technology Policy at The White House (https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ostps-teams/health-and-life-sciences/), and has extensive foreign affairs, national security, global health, and science and technology (S&T) policy experience. Most recently, Dr. Hebbeler was Senior Director and Lead Scientist for Global Biological Policy and Programs at the non-profit Nuclear Threat Initiative and previous to that served in leadership positions at the State Department's offices of Science and Technology Cooperation (OES/STC), the Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State (E/STAS), and Cooperative Threat Reduction (ISN/CTR). From 2013-2015, Dr. Hebbeler was Assistant Director for Biological and Chemical Threats at the Obama White House Office of Science and Technology Policy where he oversaw American S&T efforts to combat infectious disease and chemical weapon threats. Prior to his White House position, Dr. Hebbeler led the State Department's Biosecurity Engagement Program, a $40M program that prevents terrorist access to potentially dangerous biological materials and dual-use infrastructure and expertise, while supporting efforts to combat infectious disease and enhance public and animal health worldwide. Dr. Hebbeler received his Bachelor's degree in biology and philosophy from Thomas More College, and completed his doctoral work in Molecular Microbiology and Immunology in the laboratory of C. David Pauza at the University of Maryland, Baltimore where he focused on understanding an unconventional lymphocyte population that is important during immune responses to infectious disease and cancer. Before joining the State Department, Dr. Hebbeler was a postdoctoral fellow in the laboratory of Warner C. Greene at The J. David Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, California.ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol ProbioticBreaks down the byproduct of alcohol responsible for rough mornings after drinking.Brand Dev InterruptedWhat the smartest minds in engineering are thinking about, working on and investing in.Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify Holistic Life NavigationThis podcast explores how to heal stress & trauma holistically. I am your host, Luis...Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify
New episode of Mission: DeFi with Publius from Beanstalk Farms - https://www.missiondefi.com/beanstalk-4/ OSTP Report is bad for Bitcoin & other POW chains - https://twitter.com/thetrocro/status/1567986913742569475 Coinbase employee accuses Cobie - Doesn't go well - https://twitter.com/cobie/status/1567983167096733698?s=20&t=AJSB7jqeO9EqlawsBwZ9JQ BNB Chain announces zero-knowledge proof scaling technology - https://www.theblock.co/post/168514/bnb-chain-announces-zero-knowledge-proof-scaling-technology?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social Gary Gensler Wants to Regulate Crypto - Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-09-08/gary-gensler-wants-to-regulate-crypto?leadSource=uverify%20wall Rethinking Responsible Disclosure for Cryptocurrency Security - Lawfare - https://www.lawfareblog.com/rethinking-responsible-disclosure-cryptocurrency-security Feds claw back $30 million of cryptocurrency stolen by North Korean hackers | Ars Technica - https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/feds-claw-back-30-million-of-cryptocurrency-stolen-by-north-korean-hackers/ Canto Hackathon - https://thecoh.build/ Root Protocol Announces $9M Seed Funding - https://www.cryptotimes.io/root-protocol-announces-9m-seed-funding/ Tiafoe is the first American man to reach the U.S. Open semifinals since 2006 - https://www.cryptotimes.io/root-protocol-announces-9m-seed-funding/ Joe Cawley and Brad Nickel cover the DeFi news of the day, new opportunities in the space including liquidity pools, yield farming, staking, and much more. This is not financial advice. Nothing said on the show should be considered financial advice. This is just the opinions of Brad Nickel, Joe Cawley, and our guests. None of us are financial advisors. Trading, participating, yield farming, liquidity pools, and all of DeFi and crypto is high risk and dangerous. If you decide to participate, do your own research. Never count on the research of others. We don't know what we are talking about and you can lose all your money. Never invest more than you can afford to lose, because you probably will lose it all. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/missiondefi/support
Harry's guest Eric Daimler, a serial software entrepreneur and a former Presidential Innovation Fellow in the Obama Administration, has an interesting argument about math. If you're a young person today trying to decide which math course you're going to take—or maybe an old person who just wants to brush up—he says you shouldn't bother with trigonometry or calculus. Instead he says you should study category theory. An increasingly important in computer science, category theory is about the relationships between sets or structures. It can be used to prove that different structures are consistent or compatible with one another, and to prove that the relationships in a dataset are still intact even after the data has been transformed in some way. Together with two former MIT mathematicians, Daimler co-founded a company called Conexus that uses category theory to tackle the problem of data interoperability. Longtime listeners know that data interoperability in healthcare, or more often the lack of interoperability, is a repeating theme of the show. In fields from drug development to frontline medical care, we've got petabytes of data to work with, in the form of electronic medical records, genomic and proteomic data, and clinical trial data. That data could be the fuel for machine learning and other kinds of computation that could help us make develop drugs faster and make smarter decisions about care. The problem is, it's all stored in different databases and formats that can't be safely merged without a nightmarish amount of work. So when someone like Daimler says they have a way to use math to bring heterogeneous data together without compromising that data's integrity – well, it's time to pay attention. That's why on today's show, we're all going back to school for an introductory class in category theory.Please rate and review The Harry Glorikian Show on Apple Podcasts! Here's how to do that from an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch:1. Open the Podcasts app on your iPhone, iPad, or Mac. 2. Navigate to The Harry Glorikian Show podcast. You can find it by searching for it or selecting it from your library. Just note that you'll have to go to the series page which shows all the episodes, not just the page for a single episode.3. Scroll down to find the subhead titled "Ratings & Reviews."4. Under one of the highlighted reviews, select "Write a Review."5. Next, select a star rating at the top — you have the option of choosing between one and five stars. 6. Using the text box at the top, write a title for your review. Then, in the lower text box, write your review. Your review can be up to 300 words long.7. Once you've finished, select "Send" or "Save" in the top-right corner. 8. If you've never left a podcast review before, enter a nickname. Your nickname will be displayed next to any reviews you leave from here on out. 9. After selecting a nickname, tap OK. Your review may not be immediately visible.That's it! Thanks so much.TranscriptHarry Glorikian: Hello. I'm Harry Glorikian, and this is The Harry Glorikian Show, where we explore how technology is changing everything we know about healthcare.My guest today is Eric Daimler, a serial software entrepreneur and a former Presidential Innovation Fellow in the Obama Administration.And he has an interesting argument about math. Daimler says if you're a young person today trying to decide which math course you're going to take, or maybe an old person who just wants to brush up, you shouldn't bother with trigonometry or calculus.Instead he says you should study category theory.That's a field that isn't even part of the curriculum at most high schools. But it's increasingly important in computer science.Category theory is about the relationships between sets or structures. It can be used to prove that different structures are consistent or compatible with one another, and to prove that the relationships in a dataset are still intact even after you've transformed that data in some way.Together with two former MIT mathematicians, Daimler co-founded a company called Conexus that uses category theory to tackle the problem of data interoperability.Now…longtime listeners of the show know that data interoperability in healthcare, or more often the lack of interoperability, is one of my biggest hobby horses. In fields from drug development to frontline medical care, we've got petabytes of data to work with, in the form of electronic medical records, genomic and proteomic data, and clinical trial data.That data could be the fuel for machine learning and other kinds of computation that could help us make develop drugs faster and make smarter decisions about care. The problem is, it's all stored in different databases and formats that can't be safely merged without a nightmarish amount of work.So when someone like Daimler says they have a way to use math to bring heterogeneous data together without compromising that data's integrity – well, I pay attention.So on today's show, we're all going back to school for an introductory class in category theory from Conexus CEO Eric Daimler.Harry Glorikian: Eric, welcome to the show.Eric Daimler: It's great to be here.Harry Glorikian: So I was reading your varied background. I mean, you've worked in so many different kinds of organizations. I'm not sure that there is a compact way or even an accurate way to describe you. So can you describe yourself? You know, what do you do and what are your main interest areas?Eric Daimler: Yeah, I mean, the easiest way to describe me might come from my mother. Well, where, you know, somebody asked her, is that the doctor? And she says, Well, yes, but he's not the type that helps people. So I you know, I've been doing research around artificial intelligence and I from a lot of different perspectives around my research in graph theory and machine learning and computational linguistics. I've been a venture capitalist on Sand Hill Road. I've done entrepreneurship, done entrepreneurship, and I started a couple of businesses which I'm doing now. And most notably I was doing policy in Washington, D.C. is part of the Obama administration for a time. So I am often known for that last part. But my background really is rare, if not unique, for having the exposure to AI from all of those angles, from business, academia and policy.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. I mean, I was looking at the obviously the like you said, the one thing that jumped out to me was the you were a Presidential Innovation Fellow in the Obama administration in 2016. Can you can you give listeners an idea of what is what is the Presidential Innovation Fellowship Program? You know, who are the types of people that are fellows and what kind of things do they do?Eric Daimler: Sure, it was I guess with that sort of question, it's helpful then to give a broader picture, even how it started. There was a a program started during the Nixon administration that's colloquially known as the Science Advisers to the President, you know, a bipartisan group to give science advice to the president that that's called the OSTP, Office of Science and Technology Policy. There are experts within that group that know know everything from space to cancer, to be super specific to, in my domain, computer security. And I was the authority that was the sole authority during my time in artificial intelligence. So there are other people with other expertise there. There are people in different capacities. You know, I had the particular capacity, I had the particular title that I had that was a one year term. The staffing for these things goes up and down, depending on the administration in ways that you might be able to predict and guess. The people with those titles also also find themselves in different parts of the the executive branch. So they will do a variety of things that are not predicted by the the title of the fellow. My particular role that I happened to be doing was in helping to coordinate on behalf of the President, humbly, on behalf of the President, their research agenda across the executive branch. There are some very able people with whom I had the good fortune of working during my time during my time there, some of which are now in the in the Biden administration. And again, it's to be a nonpartisan effort around artificial intelligence. Both sides should really be advocates for having our research agenda in government be most effective. But my role was coordinating such things as, really this is helpful, the definition of robotics, which you might be surprised by as a reflex but but quickly find to be useful when you're thinking that the Defense Department's definition and use, therefore, of robotics is really fundamentally different than that of health and human services use and a definition of robotics and the VA and Department of Energy and State and and so forth.Eric Daimler: So that is we find to be useful, to be coordinated by the Office of the President and experts speaking on behalf. It was started really this additional impulse was started after the effects of, I'll generously call them, of healthcare.gov and the trip-ups there where President Obama, to his great credit, realized that we needed to attract more technologists into government, that we had a lot of lawyers to be sure we had, we had a ton of academics, but we didn't have a lot of business people, practical technologists. So he created a way to get people like me motivated to come into government for short, short periods of time. The the idea was that you could sit around a cabinet, a cabinet meeting, and you could you would never be able to raise your hand saying, oh, I don't know anything about economics or I don't know anything about foreign policy, but you could raise your hand and say, Oh, I don't know anything about technology. That needs to be a thing of the past. President Obama saw that and created a program starting with Todd. Todd Park, the chief technologist, the second chief technology officer of the United States, is fantastic to to start to start some programs to bring in people like me.Harry Glorikian: Oh, yeah. And believe me, in health care, we need we need more technologists, which I always preach. I'm like, don't go to Facebook. Come here. You know, you can get double whammy. You can make money and you can affect people's lives. So I'm always preaching that to everybody. But so if I'm not mistaken, in early 2021, you wrote an open letter to the brand new Biden administration calling for sort of a big federal effort to improve national data infrastructure. Like, can you summarize for everybody the argument in that piece and. Do you see them doing any of the items that you're suggesting?Eric Daimler: Right. The the idea is that despite us making some real good efforts during the Obama administration with solidifying our, I'll say, our view on artificial intelligence across the executive, and this continuing actually into the Trump administration with the establishment of an AI office inside the OSTP. So credit where credit is due. That extended into the the Biden administration, where some very well-meaning people can be focusing on different parts of the the conundrum of AI expressions, having various distortions. You know, the popular one we will read about is this distortion of bias that can express itself in really ugly ways, as you know, as individuals, especially for underrepresented groups. The point of the article was to help others be reminded of of some of the easy, low hanging fruit that we can that we can work on around AI. So, you know, bias comes in a lot of different ways, the same way we all have cognitive distortions, you know, cognitive biases. There are some like 50 of them, right. You know, bias can happen around gender and ethnicity and age, sexual orientation and so forth. You know, it all can also can come from absence of data. There's a type of bias that's present just by being in a developed, rich country in collecting, for example, with Conexus's customers, my company Conexus's customers, where they are trying to report on their good efforts for economic and social good and around clean, renewable energies, they find that there's a bias in being able to collect data in rich countries versus developing countries.Eric Daimler: That's another type of bias. So that was that was the point of me writing that open letter, to prioritize, these letters. It's just to distinguish what the low hanging fruit was versus some of the hard problems. The, some of tthe low hanging fruit, I think is available, I can say, In three easy parts that people can remember. One is circuit breakers. So we we can have circuit breakers in a lot of different parts of these automated systems. You know, automated car rolling down a road is, is the easiest example where, you know, at some point a driver needs to take over control to determine to make a judgment about that shadow being a person or a tumbleweed on the crosswalk, that's a type of circuit breaker. We can have those circuit breakers in a lot of different automated systems. Another one is an audit. And the way I mean is audit is having people like me or just generally people that are experts in the craft being able to distinguish the data or the biases can become possible from the data model algorithms where biases also can become possible. Right. And we get a lot of efficiency from these automated systems, these learning algorithms. I think we can afford a little bit taken off to audit the degree to which these data models are doing what we intend.Eric Daimler: And an example of a data model is that Delta Airlines, you know, they know my age or my height, and I fly to San Francisco, to New York or some such thing. The data model would be their own proprietary algorithm to determine whether or not I am deserving of an upgrade to first class, for example. That's a data model. We can have other data models. A famous one that we all are part of is FICO scores, credit scores, and those don't have to be disclosed. None of us actually know what Experian or any of the credit agencies used to determine our credit scores. But they they use these type of things called zero knowledge proofs, where we just send through enough data, enough times that we can get to a sense of what those data models are. So that's an exposure of a data model. A declarative exposure would be maybe a next best thing, a next step, and that's a type of audit.Eric Daimler: And then the third low hanging fruit, I'd say, around regulation, and I think these are just coming towards eventualities, is demanding lineage or demanding provenance. You know, you'll see a lot of news reports, often on less credible sites, but sometimes on on shockingly credible sites where claims are made that you need to then search yourself and, you know, people in a hurry just won't do it, when these become very large systems and very large systems of information, alert systems of automation, I want to know: How were these conclusions given? So, you know, an example in health care would be if my clinician gave me a diagnosis of, let's say, some sort of cancer. And then to say, you know, here's a drug, by the way, and there's a five chance, 5 percent chance of there being some awful side effects. You know, that's a connection of causation or a connection of of conclusions that I'm really not comfortable with. You know, I want to know, like, every step is like, wait, wait. So, so what type of cancer? So what's the probability of my cancer? You know, where is it? And so what drug, you know, how did you make that decision? You know, I want to know every little step of the way. It's fine that they give me that conclusion, but I want to be able to back that up. You know, a similar example, just in everyday parlance for people would be if I did suddenly to say I want a house, and then houses are presented to me. I don't quite want that. Although that looks like good for a Hollywood narrative. Right? I want to say, oh, wait, what's my income? Or what's my cash? You know, how much? And then what's my credit? Like, how much can I afford? Oh, these are houses you can kind of afford. Like, I want those little steps or at least want to back out how those decisions were made available. That's a lineage. So those three things, circuit breaker, audit, lineage, those are three pieces of low hanging fruit that I think the European Union, the State of New York and other other government entities would be well served to prioritize.Harry Glorikian: I would love all of them, especially, you know, the health care example, although I'm not holding my breath because I might not come back to life by how long I'd have to hold my breath on that one. But we're hoping for the best and we talk about that on the show all the time. But you mentioned Conexus. You're one of three co founders, I believe. If I'm not mistaken, Conexus is the first ever commercial spin out from MIT's math department. The company is in the area of large scale data integration, building on insights that come out of the field of mathematics that's called category algebra, categorical algebra, or something called enterprise category theory. And to be quite honest, I did have to Wikipedia to sort of look that up, was not familiar with it. So can you explain category algebra in terms of a non mathematician and maybe give us an example that someone can wrap their mind around.Eric Daimler: Yeah. Yeah. And it's important to get into because even though what my company does is, Conexus does a software expression of categorical algebra, it's really beginning to permeate our world. You know, the the way I tell my my nieces and nephews is, what do quantum computers, smart contracts and Minecraft all have in common? And the answer is composability. You know, they are actually all composable. And what composable is, is it's kind of related to modularity, but it's modularity without regard to scale. So the the easy analogy is in trains where, yeah, you can swap out a boxcar in a train, but mostly trains can only get to be a couple of miles long. Swap in and out boxcars, but the train is really limited in scale. Whereas the train system, the system of a train can be infinitely large, infinitely complex. At every point in the track you can have another track. That is the difference between modularity and composability. So Minecraft is infinitely self referential where you have a whole 'nother universe that exists in and around Minecraft. In smart contracts is actually not enabled without the ability to prove the efficacy, which is then enabled by categorical algebra or its sister in math, type theory. They're kind of adjacent. And that's similar to quantum computing. So quantum computing is very sexy. It gets in the press quite frequently with forks and all, all that. If it you wouldn't be able to prove the efficacy of a quantum compiler, you wouldn't actually. Humans can't actually say whether it's true or not without type theory or categorical algebra.Eric Daimler: How you think of kind categorical algebra you can think of as a little bit related to graph theory. Graph theory is those things that you see, they look like spider webs. If you see the visualizations of graph theories are graphs. Category theory is a little bit related, you might say, to graph theory, but with more structure or more semantics or richness. So in each point, each node and each edge, in the vernacular, you can you can put an infinite amount of information. That's really what a categorical algebra allows. This, the discovery, this was invented to be translating math between different domains of math. The discovery in 2011 from one of my co-founders, who was faculty at MIT's Math Department, was that we could apply that to databases. And it's in that the whole world opens up. This solves the problem that that bedeviled the good folks trying to work on healthcare.gov. It allows for a good explanation of how we can prevent the next 737 Max disaster, where individual systems certainly can be formally verified. But the whole plane doesn't have a mechanism of being formally verified with classic approaches. And it also has application in drug discovery, where we have a way of bringing together hundreds of thousands of databases in a formal way without risk of data being misinterpreted, which is a big deal when you have a 10-year time horizon for FDA trials and you have multiple teams coming in and out of data sets and and human instinct to hoard data and a concern about it ever becoming corrupted. This math and the software expression built upon it opens up just a fantastically rich new world of opportunity for for drug discovery and for clinicians and for health care delivery. And the list is quite, quite deep.Harry Glorikian: So. What does Conexus provide its clients? Is it a service? Is it a technology? Is it both? Can you give us an example of it?Eric Daimler: Yeah. So Conexus is software. Conexus is enterprise software. It's an enterprise software platform that works generally with very large organizations that have generally very large complex data data infrastructures. You know the example, I can start in health care and then I can I can move to an even bigger one, was with a hospital group that we work with in New York City. I didn't even know health care groups could really have this problem. But it's endemic to really the world's data, where one group within the same hospital had a particular way that they represented diabetes. Now to a layman, layman in a health care sense, I would think, well, there's a definition of diabetes. I can just look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary. But this particular domain found diabetes to just be easily represented as yes, no. Do they have it? Do they not? Another group within the same hospital group thought that they would represent it as diabetes, ow are we treating it? A third group would be representing it as diabetes, how long ago. And then a fourth group had some well-meaning clinicians that would characterize it as, they had it and they have less now or, you know, type one, type two, you know, with a more more nuanced view.Eric Daimler: The traditional way of capturing that data, whether it's for drug discovery or whether it's for delivery, is to normalize it, which would then squash the fidelity of the data collected within those groups. Or they most likely to actually just wouldn't do it. They wouldn't collect the data, they wouldn't bring the data together because it's just too hard, it's too expensive. They would use these processes called ETL, extract, transform, load, that have been around for 30 years but are often slow, expensive, fragile. They could take six months to year, cost $1,000,000, deploy 50 to 100 people generally from Accenture or Deloitte or Tata or Wipro. You know, that's a burden. It's a burden, you know, so the data wasn't available and that would then impair the researchers and their ability to to share data. And it would impair clinicians in their view of patient care. And it also impaired the people in operations where they would work on billing. So we work with one company right now that that works on 1.4 trillion records a year. And they just have trouble with that volume and the number of databases and the heterogeneous data infrastructure, bringing together that data to give them one view that then can facilitate health care delivery. Eric Daimler: The big example is, we work with Uber where they they have a very smart team, as smart as one might think. They also have an effectively infinite balance sheet with which they could fund an ideal IT infrastructure. But despite that, you know, Uber grew up like every other organization optimizing for the delivery of their service or product and, and that doesn't entail optimizing for that infrastructure. So what they found, just like this hospital group with different definitions of diabetes, they found they happen to have grown up around service areas. So in this case cities, more or less. So when then the time came to do analysis -- we're just passing Super Bowl weekend, how will the Super Bowl affect the the supply of drivers or the demand from riders? They had to do it for the city of San Francisco, separate than the city of San Jose or the city of Oakland. They couldn't do the whole San Francisco Bay Area region, let alone the whole of the state or the whole of the country or what have you. And that repeated itself for every business question, every organizational question that they would want to have. This is the same in drug discovery. This is the same in patient care delivery or in billing. These operational questions are hard, shockingly hard.Eric Daimler: We had another one in logistics where we had a logistics company that had 100,000 employees. I didn't even know some of these companies could be so big, and they actually had a client with 100,000 employees. That client had 1000 ships, each one of which had 10,000 containers. And I didn't even know like how big these systems were really. I hadn't thought about it. But I mean, they're enormous. And the question was, hey, where's our personal protective equipment? Where is the PPE? And that's actually a hard question to ask. You know, we are thinking about maybe our FedEx tracking numbers from an Amazon order. But if you're looking at the PPE and where it is on a container or inside of a ship, you know, inside this large company, it's actually a hard question to ask. That's this question that all of these organizations have. Eric Daimler: In our case, Uber, where they they they had a friction in time and in money and in accuracy, asking every one of these business questions. They went then to find, how do I solve this problem? Do I use these old tools of ETL from the '80s? Do I use these more modern tools from the 2000s? They're called RDF or OWL? Or is there something else? They discovered that they needed a more foundational system, this categorical algebra that that's now expressing itself in smart contracts and quantum computers and other places. And they just then they found, oh, who are the leaders in the enterprise software expression of that math? And it's us. We happen to be 40 miles north of them. Which is fortunate. We worked with Uber to to solve that problem in bringing together their heterogeneous data infrastructure to solve their problems. And to have them tell it they save $10 million plus a year in in the efficiency and speed gains from the solution we helped provide for them.[musical interlude]Harry Glorikian: Let's pause the conversation for a minute to talk about one small but important thing you can do, to help keep the podcast going. And that's leave a rating and a review for the show on Apple Podcasts.All you have to do is open the Apple Podcasts app on your smartphone, search for The Harry Glorikian Show, and scroll down to the Ratings & Reviews section. Tap the stars to rate the show, and then tap the link that says Write a Review to leave your comments. It'll only take a minute, but you'll be doing a lot to help other listeners discover the show.And one more thing. If you like the interviews we do here on the show I know you'll like my new book, The Future You: How Artificial Intelligence Can Help You Get Healthier, Stress Less, and Live Longer.It's a friendly and accessible tour of all the ways today's information technologies are helping us diagnose diseases faster, treat them more precisely, and create personalized diet and exercise programs to prevent them in the first place.The book is now available in print and ebook formats. Just go to Amazon or Barnes & Noble and search for The Future You by Harry Glorikian.And now, back to the show.[musical interlude]Harry Glorikian: So your website says that your software can map data sources to each other so that the perfect data model is discovered, not designed. And so what does that mean? I mean, does that imply that there's some machine learning or other form of artificial intelligence involved, sort of saying here are the right pieces to put together as opposed to let me design this just for you. I'm trying to piece it together.Eric Daimler: Yeah. You know, the way we might come at this is just reminding ourselves about the structure of artificial intelligence. You know, in the public discourse, we will often find news, I'm sure you can find it today, on deep learning. You know, whatever's going on in deep learning because it's sexy, it's fun. You know, DeepMind really made a name for themselves and got them acquired at a pretty valuation because of their their Hollywood-esque challenge to Go, and solving of that game. But that particular domain of AI, deep learning, deep neural nets is a itself just a subset of machine learning. I say just not not not to minimize it. It's a fantastically powerful algorithm. But but just to place it, it is a subset of machine learning. And then machine learning itself is a subset of artificial intelligence. That's a probabilistic subset. So we all know probabilities are, those are good and bad. Fine when the context is digital advertising, less fine when it's the safety of a commercial jet. There is another part of artificial intelligence called deterministic artificial intelligence. They often get expressed as expert systems. Those generally got a bad name with the the flops of the early '80s. Right. They flopped because of scale, by the way. And then the flops in the early 2000s and 2010s from IBM's ill fated Watson experiment, the promise did not meet the the reality.Eric Daimler: It's in that deterministic A.I. that that magic is to be found, especially when deployed in conjunction with the probabilistic AI. That's that's where really the future is. There's some people have a religious view of, oh, it's only going to be a probabilistic world but there's many people like myself and not to bring up fancy names, but Andrew Ng, who's a brilliant AI researcher and investor, who also also shares this view, that it's a mix of probabilistic and deterministic AI. What deterministic AI does is, to put it simply, it searches the landscape of all possible connections. Actually it's difference between bottoms up and tops down. So the traditional way of, well, say, integrating things is looking at, for example, that hospital network and saying, oh, wow, we have four definitions of diabetes. Let me go solve this problem and create the one that works for our hospital network. Well, then pretty soon you have five standards, right? That's the traditional way that that goes. That's what a top down looks that looks like.Eric Daimler: It's called a Golden Record often, and it rarely works because pretty soon what happens is the organizations will find again their own need for their own definition of diabetes. In most all cases, that's top down approach rarely works. The bottoms up approach says, Let's discover the connections between these and we'll discover the relationships. We don't discover it organically like we depend on people because it's deterministic. I, we, we discover it through a massive, you know, non intuitive in some cases, it's just kind of infeasible for us to explore a trillion connections. But what the AI does is it explores a factorial number actually is a technical, the technical equation for it, a factorial number of of possible paths that then determine the map of relationships between between entities. So imagine just discovering the US highway system. If you did that as a person, it's going to take a bit. If you had some infinitely fast crawlers that robot's discovering the highway system infinitely fast, remember, then that's a much more effective way of doing it that gives you some degree of power. That's the difference between bottoms up and tops down. That's the difference between deterministic, really, we might say, and probabilistic in some simple way.Harry Glorikian: Yeah, I'm a firm believer of the two coming together and again, I just look at them as like a box. I always tell people like, it's a box of tools. I need to know the problem, and then we can sort of reach in and pick out which set of tools that are going to come together to solve this issue, as opposed to this damn word called AI that everybody thinks is one thing that they're sort of throwing at the wall to solve a problem.Harry Glorikian: But you're trying to solve, I'm going to say, data interoperability. And on this show I've had a lot of people talk about interoperability in health care, which I actually believe is, you could break the system because things aren't working right or I can't see what I need to see across the two hospitals that I need information from. But you published an essay on Medium about Haven, the health care collaboration between Amazon, JPMorgan, Berkshire Hathaway. Their goal was to use big data to guide patients to the best performing clinicians and the most affordable medicines. They originally were going to serve these first three founding companies. I think knowing the people that started it, their vision was bigger than that. There was a huge, you know, to-do when it came out. Fireworks and everything. Launched in 2018. They hired Atul Gawande, famous author, surgeon. But then Gawande left in 2020. And, you know, the company was sort of quietly, you know, pushed off into the sunset. Your essay argued that Haven likely failed due to data interoperability challenges. I mean. How so? What what specific challenges do you imagine Haven ran into?Eric Daimler: You know, it's funny, I say in the article very gently that I imagine this is what happened. And it's because I hedge it that that the Harvard Business Review said, "Oh, well, you're just guessing." Actually, I wasn't guessing. No, I know. I know the people that were doing it. I know the challenges there. But but I'm not going to quote them and get them in trouble. And, you know, they're not authorized to speak on it. So I perhaps was a little too modest in my framing of the conclusion. So this actually is what happened. What happens is in the same way that we had the difficulty with healthcare.gov, in the same way that I described these banks having difficulty. Heterogeneous databases don't like to talk to one another. In a variety of different ways. You know, the diabetes example is true, but it's just one of many, many, many, many, many, many cases of data just being collected differently for their own use. It can be as prosaic as first name, last name or "F.last name." Right? It's just that simple, you know? And how do I bring those together? Well, those are those are called entity resolutions. Those are somewhat straightforward, but not often 100 percent solvable. You know, this is just a pain. It's a pain. And, you know, so what what Haven gets into is they're saying, well, we're massive. We got like Uber, we got an effectively infinite balance sheet. We got some very smart people. We'll solve this problem. And, you know, this is some of the problem with getting ahead of yourself. You know, I won't call it arrogance, but getting ahead of yourself, is that, you think, oh, I'll just be able to solve that problem.Eric Daimler: You know, credit where credit is due to Uber, you know, they looked both deeper saying, oh, this can't be solved at the level of computer science. And they looked outside, which is often a really hard organizational exercise. That just didn't happen at Haven. They thought they thought they could they could solve it themselves and they just didn't. The databases, not only could they have had, did have, their own structure, but they also were stored in different formats or by different vendors. So you have an SAP database, you have an Oracle database. That's another layer of complication. And when I say that these these take $1,000,000 to connect, that's not $1,000,000 one way. It's actually $2 million if you want to connect it both ways. Right. And then when you start adding five, let alone 50, you take 50 factorial. That's a very big number already. You multiply that times a million and 6 to 12 months for each and a hundred or two hundred people each. And you just pretty soon it's an infeasible budget. It doesn't work. You know, the budget for us solving solving Uber's problem in the traditional way was something on the order of $2 trillion. You know, you do that. You know, we had a bank in the U.S. and the budget for their vision was was a couple of billion. Like, it doesn't work. Right. That's that's what happened Haven. They'll get around to it, but but they're slow, like all organizations, big organizations are. They'll get around to solving this at a deeper level. We hope that we will remain leaders in database integration when they finally realize that the solution is at a deeper level than their than the existing tools.Harry Glorikian: So I mean, this is not I mean, there's a lot of people trying to solve this problem. It's one of those areas where if we don't solve it, I don't think we're going to get health care to the next level, to sort of manage the information and manage people and get them what they need more efficiently and drive down costs.Eric Daimler: Yeah.Harry Glorikian: And I do believe that EMRs are. I don't want to call them junk. Maybe I'm going too far, but I really think that they you know, if you had decided that you were going to design something to manage patients, that is not the software you would have written to start. Hands down. Which I worry about because these places won't, they spent so much putting them in that trying to get them to rip them out and put something in that actually works is challenging. You guys were actually doing something in COVID-19, too, if I'm not mistaken. Well, how is that project going? I don't know if it's over, but what are you learning about COVID-19 and the capabilities of your software, let's say?Eric Daimler: Yeah. You know, this is an important point that for anybody that's ever used Excel, we know what it means to get frustrated enough to secretly hard code a cell, you know, not keeping a formula in a cell. Yeah, that's what happened in a lot of these systems. So we will continue with electronic medical records to to bring these together, but they will end up being fragile, besides slow and expensive to construct. They will end up being fragile, because they were at some point hardcoded. And how that gets expressed is that the next time some other database standard appears inside of that organization's ecosystem from an acquisition or a divestiture or a different technical standard, even emerging, and then the whole process starts all over again. You know, we just experience this with a large company that that spent $100 million in about five years. And then they came to us and like, yeah, we know it works now, but we know like a year from now we're going to have to say we're going to go through it again. And, it's not like, oh, we'll just have a marginal difference. No, it's again, that factorial issue, that one database connected to the other 50 that already exist, creates this same problem all over again at a couple of orders of magnitude. So what we discover is these systems, these systems in the organization, they will continue to exist.Eric Daimler: These fragile systems will continue to exist. They'll continue to scale. They'll continue to grow in different parts of the life sciences domain, whether it's for clinicians, whether it's for operations, whether it's for drug discovery. Those will continue to exist. They'll continue to expand, and they will begin to approach the type of compositional systems that I'm describing from quantum computers or Minecraft or smart contracts, where you then need the the discovery and math that Conexus expresses in software for databases. When you need that is when you then need to prove the efficacy or otherwise demonstrate the lack of fragility or the integrity of the semantics. Conexus can with, it's a law of nature and it's in math, with 100 percent accuracy, prove the integrity of a database integration. And that matters in high consequence context when you're doing something as critical as drug side effects for different populations. We don't want your data to be misinterpreted. You can't afford lives to be lost or you can't, in regulation, you can't afford data to be leaking. That's where you'll ultimately need the categorical algebra. You'll need a provable compositional system. You can continue to construct these ones that will begin to approach compositionality, but when you need the math is when you need to prove it for either the high consequence context of lives, of money or related to that, of regulation.Harry Glorikian: Yeah, well, I keep telling my kids, make sure you're proficient in math because you're going to be using it for the rest of your life and finance. I always remind them about finance because I think both go together. But you've got a new book coming out. It's called "The Future is Formal" and not tuxedo like formal, but like you're, using the word formal. And I think you have a very specific meaning in mind. And I do want you to talk about, but I think what you're referring to is how we want automated systems to behave, meaning everything from advertising algorithms to self-driving trucks. And you can tell me if that my assumption is correct or not.Eric Daimler: Though it's a great segue, actually, from the math. You know, what I'm trying to do is bring in people that are not programmers or research technology, information technology researchers day to day into the conversation around automated digital systems. That's my motivation. And my motivation is, powered by the belief that we will bring out the best of the technology with more people engaged. And with more people engaged, we have a chance to embrace it and not resist it. You know, my greatest fear, I will say, selfishly, is that we come up with technology that people just reject, they just veto it because they don't understand it as a citizen. That also presents a danger because I think that companies' commercial expressions naturally will grow towards where their technology is needed. So this is actually to some extent a threat to Western security relative to Chinese competition, that we embrace the technology in the way that we want it to be expressed in our society. So trying to bring people into this conversation, even if they're not programmers, the connection to math is that there are 18 million computer programmers in the world. We don't need 18 million and one, you know. But what we do need is we do need people to be thinking, I say in a formal way, but also just be thinking about the values that are going to be represented in these digital infrastructures.Eric Daimler: You know, somewhere as a society, we will have to have a conversation with ourselves to determine the car driving to the crosswalk, braking or rolling or slowing or stopping completely. And then who's liable if it doesn't? Is it the driver or is it the manufacturer? Is it the the programmer that somehow put a bug in their code? You know, we're entering an age where we're going to start experiencing what some person calls double bugs. There's the bug in maybe one's expression in code. This often could be the semantics. Or in English. Like your English doesn't make sense. Right? Right. Or or was it actually an error in your thinking? You know, did you leave a gap in your thinking? This is often where where some of the bugs in Ethereum and smart contracts have been expressed where, you know, there's an old programming rule where you don't want to say something equals true. You always want to be saying true equals something. If you get if you do the former, not the latter, you can have to actually create bugs that can create security breaches.Eric Daimler: Just a small little error in thinking. That's not an error in semantics. That level of thinking, you don't need to know calculus for, or category theory for that matter. You just need to be thinking in a formal way. You know, often, often lawyers, accountants, engineers, you know, anybody with scientific training can, can more quickly get this idea, where those that are educated in liberal arts can contribute is in reminding themselves of the broader context that wants to be expressed, because often engineers can be overly reductionist. So there's really a there's a push and pull or, you know, an interplay between those two sensibilities that then we want to express in rules. Then that's ultimately what I mean by formal, formal rules. Tell me exactly what you mean. Tell me exactly how that is going to work. You know, physicians would understand this when they think about drug effects and drug side effects. They know exactly what it's going to be supposed to be doing, you know, with some degree of probability. But they can be very clear, very clear about it. It's that clear thinking that all of us will need to exercise as we think about the development and deployment of modern automated digital systems.Harry Glorikian: Yeah, you know, it's funny because that's the other thing I tell people, like when they say, What should my kid take? I'm like, have him take a, you know, basic programming, not because they're going to do it for a living, but they'll understand how this thing is structured and they can get wrap their mind around how it is. And, you know, I see how my nephew thinks who's from the computer science world and how I think, and sometimes, you know, it's funny watching him think. Or one of the CTOs of one of our companies how he looks at the world. And I'm like you. You got to back up a little bit and look at the bigger picture. Right. And so it's the two of us coming together that make more magic than one or the other by themselves.Harry Glorikian: So, you know, I want to jump back sort of to the different roles you've had in your career. Like like you said, you've been a technology investor, a serial startup founder, a university professor, an academic administrator, an entrepreneur, a management instructor, Presidential Innovation Fellow. I don't think I've missed anything, but I may have. You're also a speaker, a commentator, an author. Which one of those is most rewarding?Eric Daimler: Oh, that's an interesting question. Which one of those is most rewarding? I'm not sure. I find it to be rewarding with my friends and family. So it's rewarding to be with people. I find that to be rewarding in those particular expressions. My motivation is to be, you know, just bringing people in to have a conversation about what we want our world to look like, to the degree to which the technologies that I work with every day are closer to the dystopia of Hollywood narratives or closer to our hopes around the utopia that's possible, that where this is in that spectrum is up to us in our conversation around what these things want to look like. We have some glimpses of both extremes, but I'd like people, and I find it to be rewarding, to just be helping facilitate the helping catalyze that conversation. So the catalyst of that conversation and whatever form it takes is where I enjoy being.Harry Glorikian: Yeah, because I was thinking about like, you know, what can, what can you do as an individual that shapes the future. Does any of these roles stand out as more impactful than others, let's say?Eric Daimler: I think the future is in this notion of composability. I feel strongly about that and I want to enroll people into this paradigm as a framework from which to see many of the activities going around us. Why have NFTs come on the public, in the public media, so quickly? Why does crypto, cryptocurrency capture our imagination? Those And TikTok and the metaverse. And those are all expressions of this quick reconfiguration of patterns in different contexts that themselves are going to become easier and easier to express. The future is going to be owned by people that that take the special knowledge that they've acquired and then put it into short business expressions. I'm going to call them rules that then can be recontextualized and redeployed. This is my version of, or my abstraction of what people call the the future being just all TikTok. It's not literally that we're all going to be doing short dance videos. It's that TikTok is is an expression of people creating short bits of content and then having those be reconfigured and redistributed. That can be in medicine or clinical practice or in drugs, but it can be in any range of expertise, expertise or knowledge. And what's changed? What's changed and what is changing is the different technologies that are being brought to bear to capture that knowledge so that it can be scalable, so it can be compositional. Yeah, that's what's changing. That's what's going to be changing over the next 10 to 20 years. The more you study that, I think the better off we will be. And I'd say, you know, for my way of thinking about math, you might say the more math, the better. But if I were to choose for my children, I would say I would replace trig and geometry and even calculus, some people would be happy to know, with categorical algebra, category theory and with probability and statistics. So I would replace calculus, which I think is really the math of the 20th century, with something more appropriate to our digital age, which is categorical algebra.Harry Glorikian: I will tell my son because I'm sure he'll be very excited to to if I told him that not calculus, but he's not going to be happy when I say go to this other area, because I think he'd like to get out of it altogether.Eric Daimler: It's easier than calculus. Yeah.Harry Glorikian: So, you know, it was great having you on the show. I feel like we could talk for another hour on all these different aspects. You know, I'm hoping that your company is truly successful and that you help us solve this interoperability problem, which is, I've been I've been talking about it forever. It seems like I feel like, you know, the last 15 or 20 years. And I still worry if we're any closer to solving that problem, but I'm hopeful, and I wish you great success on the launch of your new book. It sounds exciting. I'm going to have to get myself a copy.Eric Daimler: Thank you very much. It's been fun. It's good to be with you.Harry Glorikian: Thank you.Harry Glorikian: That's it for this week's episode. You can find a full transcript of this episode as well as the full archive of episodes of The Harry Glorikian Show and MoneyBall Medicine at our website. Just go to glorikian.com and click on the tab Podcasts.I'd like to thank our listeners for boosting The Harry Glorikian Show into the top three percent of global podcasts.If you want to be sure to get every new episode of the show automatically, be sure to open Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast player and hit follow or subscribe. Don't forget to leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts. And we always love to hear from listeners on Twitter, where you can find me at hglorikian.Thanks for listening, stay healthy, and be sure to tune in two weeks from now for our next interview.
The Cognitive Crucible is a forum that presents different perspectives and emerging thought leadership related to the information environment. The opinions expressed by guests are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of or endorsement by the Information Professionals Association. During this episode, Dr Arun Seraphin discusses his 20+ years as a Professional Staff Member on the staff of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services. He describes differences between the US Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the way Congress thinks about and evaluates national security emerging tech. Arun shares he communicates as a “connector” between emerging technology thought leaders in industry and academia and Congressional leaders. Finally, he describes NDIA's Emerging Technologies Institute and how he continues connecting people and technology. Resources: NDIA Emerging Technologies Institute Link to full show notes and resources https://information-professionals.org/episode/cognitive-crucible-episode-98 Guest Bio: Dr. Arun Seraphin is the Deputy Director of Emerging Technologies Institute (ETI) at National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA). Before joining the ETI team, a Professional Staff Member on the staff of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services. His areas of responsibility include acquisition policy, Pentagon management issues, Department of Defense's science and technology programs, information technology systems, technology transition issues, defense laboratories, Small Business Innovation Research program, manufacturing programs, and test and evaluation programs. As such he assists Senators in their oversight of DOD policies and programs, including in the authorization of budgets, civilian nominations, legislative initiatives, and hearings. He rejoined the committee staff in 2014, after previously serving there between 2001 and 2010. In 2009, he was named one of ten Defense “Staffers to Know” by Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper. From 2010 to 2014, Dr. Seraphin served as the Principal Assistant Director for National Security and International Affairs at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). During this time, he both led (in an Acting capacity) and served as the deputy director of the OSTP National Security and International Affairs division. His areas of responsibility included developing and implementing White House initiatives and policies in areas including defense research and engineering; weapons of mass destruction; defense manufacturing and industrial base; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education; cybersecurity; and promoting innovation in government research and engineering organizations. He also led interagency groups on small business programs and on improving the quality of the Federal STEM workforce. He was on detail to OSTP from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) where he was the Special Assistant for Policy Initiatives to the Director of DARPA. Dr. Seraphin has also worked on the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Research as a professional staff member. He began his work in Congress in the Office of Senator Joseph Lieberman as the 1999-2000 Materials Research Society – Optical Society of America Congressional Science and Engineering Fellow. In these positions, he covered both civilian and defense research and development programs. Between 1996 and 2000, Dr. Seraphin worked in the Science and Technology Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses, where his research included work on defense technology transition, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), export controls, technology forecasting, and international research cooperation. His work included detailed technical analyses supporting the DARPA MEMS program, the Army Science and Technology Master Plan, and the Military Critical Technologies Program. In 1996, Dr. Seraphin earned a Ph.D. in Electronic Materials from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he performed research on silicon nanotechnology. His research focused on the development of novel silicon nanostructures and tailoring their optical properties. He also holds bachelor's degrees in Political Science with a concentration in American Government and Engineering Science with a concentration in Materials Science from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. About: The Information Professionals Association (IPA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to exploring the role of information activities, such as influence and cognitive security, within the national security sector and helping to bridge the divide between operations and research. Its goal is to increase interdisciplinary collaboration between scholars and practitioners and policymakers with an interest in this domain. For more information, please contact us at communications@information-professionals.org. Or, connect directly with The Cognitive Crucible podcast host, John Bicknell, on LinkedIn. Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, 1) IPA earns from qualifying purchases, 2) IPA gets commissions for purchases made through links in this post.
In this special episode Dr. Gordon Roesler, past DARPA Program Manager and president of Robots In Space, joins Cold Star Tech's Jason Kanigan to elaborate on his idea of a "Space Superhighway". We have logistics systems on Earth, and they provide teremendous economic value: how can we have a similar system in space? USEFUL LINKS: Dr. Roesler's article on The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/576673-lets-build-a-superhighway-in-space/ White House NSTC paper: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/04-2022-ISAM-National-Strategy-Final.pdf OSTP request for comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/04/2022-09549/notice-of-request-for-comment Talk to Cold Star: https://coldstartech.com/scheduleonce
UFOs! Batman! Joe Biden! An action-packed episode as Christine profiles 1969 Medal recipient Laurance Rockefeller and his early work for the environment (16:15). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurance_Rockefeller The Clinton-era UFO research https://www.x-ppac.org/OSTP.html twitter.com/limbaughpodcast Logo design by Olga Shcheglova www.olgashcheglova.com Theme song by Clay Russell
The best careers are ones that include twists, turns, barriers, and breakthroughs. And today we get to chat with Michelle Holko, a strategic innovator working at the intersection of biology, technology, and security. She has built a career integrating security into biotechnology and health to promote innovations in biomedical research. In our conversation, we chat about the incredible work she has been able to contribute to over the course of her career. Subscribe to the Titus Talks newsletter! Michelle is currently a Principal Architect and Scientist at Google working as the technical lead with the Google Cloud healthcare and life sciences team. Before Google, she served in government as a White House Presidential Innovation Fellow (PIF), where she worked with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Department of Defense (DoD) Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP), the NIH's All of Us Research Program, HHS BARDA, OSTP, and NSC. Whew, that was all at one job! Prior to joining the PIF program, she worked with DARPA and HHS BARDA, and was a fellow in the 2018 cohort of Johns Hopkins University's Center for Health Security's Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Initiative where I first met Michelle. Michelle was trained in genomics and bioinformatics, and she has worked on pandemic prevention and preparedness, infectious diseases, cancer, biosurveillance, biosecurity, data science, emerging technologies, health technologies, precision medicine, cybersecurity, and machine learning/artificial intelligence. Basically, if it's been a hot topic, she's worked on it! Her advice for our listeners? Lean into experiences that scare you, pay attention to what you don't like just as much as what you do like, let your good work speak for you, and try to be like water. I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as we did! Find Michelle on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/michelle-holko/ Read more about the PIF program - https://presidentialinnovationfellows.gov/ Check out Michelle's PIF profile - https://presidentialinnovationfellows.gov/fellows/michelle-holko/
Subscribe to Benzinga Options NewsletterEpisode Summary:Coinbase $COIN drops on disappointing earnings reportAdding new stocks to our watchlist Buy or sell: LiveNation LYVGuests:Saagar Govil CEO of Cemtrex (Ticker: CETX) Greg Crawford CEO of Quipt $QIPT Jesse Kaylor, Elite TradingNic Chahine, author of the Benzinga Options NewsletterHosts:Spencer IsraelTwitter: https://twitter.com/sjisraelAaaron BryTwitter: https://twitter.com/aaronbry5Subscribe to all Benzinga Podcasts hereClick here for BENZINGA TRADING SCHOOL Get 20% off Benzinga PRO here Become a BENZINGA AFFILIATE and earn 30% on new subscriptionsDisclaimer: All of the information, material, and/or content contained in this program is for informational purposes only. Investing in stocks, options, and futures is risky and not suitable for all investors. Please consult your own independent financial adviser before making any investment decisions.Unedited TranscriptCan you hear us? Why are we running away to AB that is a great question. I don't understand. I, so one of our, our colleagues, Adam Partridge brought in a big bag of Halloween candy that was left over from his house. I was enamored by the bag and just go in through it. Um, but yeah, uh, Brohan had to physically dragged me away from the candy, but now I am here.So without further ado, let's go ahead and get this show. Rolling. Bren says you could get hurt. You could hear me before. Great.CEO, Jason. Razak here with us. The man, the myth, the legend Skeeter shifts on the power hour with us live today. Interesting different innovative company. You are alive.we need a new intro. AB can we get a new intro? Yep. W w we'll get working on that. Spencer's we've got a jam packed show today. Uh, do you want to give us a rundown of our agenda for the day? Oh yes, I can do that because I wrote stuff down. Uh, we've got our first gas coming up in seven minutes at 12, 15 Eastern time.Cigar global, the CEO of Centrix. Did I get that right? Yep. Okay. I just want to help you get out of the right seminars. Tickers seeds DX will be on at 1215, uh, Lena Alena, chin, head of IRR at newborn town at 1230. Uh, the CEO of quipped, Greg Crawford at 1245, Jesse Kaler from elite trading at one. And then Nick Shaheen from the author of the big thing, the options newsletter will be on the show at one 30.We got a lot to talk about today. Let's start with, you know, I don't know. Where do you want to start? AB well, places I want to start, um, let's start with a nice little crypto update. Spencer's so as many of you may know. Bitcoin hit a brand new, all time high today. This was spurred by the CPI data that came out this morning.So CPI came in hotter than expected showing, um, inflation and investors went and rushed to buy Bitcoin as an inflation hedge. So we had Bitcoin, uh, almost reach up to 69,000 up about 3.2, 6%. A theorem is up 2.14% nearing 5,000. So I'm looking for that as a big psychological level. Spencer, when a theory, um, hits 5,000, um, Shiba, Inu, and doge coin to dog related cryptocurrencies are down today in this sea of green.So maybe that's showing that investors are leaving Sheba and dos to go buy Ethereum and Bitcoin. I don't know. Um, but overall good day for crypto so far, we will continue to watch crypto and see how it's performing today. Um, but since there's other stuff in the news, I want to talk about before we move on, though, I just want to mention, you can get some free Bitcoin ha.Look at the screen, it says it right there. Go to Voyager, go to the app on your mobile device of your choice, whether to Android or iPhone or some other third OSTP, I'm not aware of down on the Voyager app in the app store, fund your account with a hundred bucks, make your first trade, and they'll give you $50 in BTC.You should do it before Bitcoin goes to a million. I'm just saying that because then you'll be getting more bang for your buck, but that's just me. Okay. I know you have things on your mind today, Aaron. Yes, I do have things on my mind before we get to that though. I want to introduce a new little game noodle segment.We have a new segment. Yeah. If you're like me and you grew up watching Pokemon as a kid, you know that the show used to do a thing called guests, that Pokemon, where they would give you the outline of a Pokemon. And you had to guess which one it was his name. Fine. You're right. It was named that Pokemon.So we're going to do that with charts, name, that chart. This is the first one we're going to do. I'm going to go ahead and pull it up on screen. Uh, as you can see, this is a recent, uh, not, I, I have, again, I, this is an easy one. Yeah. We're going to start. We're going to, uh, well, it could be one of, one of several actually.Um, and I don't know the answer can, so can, I guess AB you can guess this is a, this is an easy one. We're just going to start off easy and get more difficult as we do more iterations of this game. Oh, wait. I was not looking at the, the, the x-axis this, so this was from my high was October of last year. Oh yeah.Chris, who's that Pokemon? That's the correct one. No, no, I'll wait. No, no. Wait, how, how far back does this chart out? Exactly. It goes further back then. Uh, wait, are we looking at that? That's October 20th of this year, correct? Uh, Cobra flash. Okay. I don't know why I thought that. Um, okay. Yes, the answer is on the shadow.I would guess Brenda. Got it. Is what I'm thinking. Um, my guess is the same as his DW AAC, are we right? Yes. You are D whack right up $49 in the past month. Um, of course this was a spec, so it was trading around $10 for a very long time. And then once the merger was announced, the stock ran all the way up to about $170 before coming back down, currently trading right at $60.Um, so congrats to Brenda who was the first correct? Guests are in the chat with D whack. Um, you know, we, we are going to do this more often, so we'll introduce, we have to give away prizes to bring saw was in the chat. We got to give away some schwag. I think Brent is right. Email us shows that bends and good.com.I will get you hooked up with some free swag. Um, you know, maybe you pick out a hat or a t-shirt, but we will do this more. I will, uh, say the charts will get more difficult. So we started you off easy, but Brenda, don't, don't get used to getting such easy charts. Uh, yeah, that was a surprisingly easy one.And maybe next time I'll do it and there'll be some totally obscure stop. Yeah, that barely trades. Okay. Wait, we got two minutes before first guests are running behind here. I know you have a rant like in your city. That, uh, even you've been talking to me about this stock today. Do you want to go get that out there now?Or do you want, wait, yeah. Wait, we've only got a couple minutes, so let me just share my Benzing a pro I'll get it pulled up. Um, you're right, Spencer. This has been on my mind. So I've been watching live nation's stock, um, all week. And so live nation, of course, uh, the company that put on the, the Travis Scott concert that tragically ended, uh, with eight deaths.And I've just been surprised that we haven't seen this stock, um, trade. I know necessarily the markets don't really care about that, but there've been about 30 lawsuits opened up against live nation and the company has a history of. Uh, safety problems in past concerts. Not only that, but Travis, Scott has a history of having safety problems in past concerts.So for live nation, as a company to know we've had safety issues and Travis Scott who's at safety issues to not, um, do a better job of making sure, you know, all the, all the concert attendees were safe, taken care of. I mean, to me, that's just a big oversight, so we'll see. And in due time, what the outcome is of these lawsuits filed against live nation.Uh, but to me, I'm surprised we didn't see this stock trading down 10%. I mean, I know the company reported earnings, uh, that, that were pretty good for the company. You know, what's interesting is the wa uh, the street doesn't a lot of times it doesn't really care about a little care about the lawsuits. If they end up being, uh, if they ended up implicating, I only care about like certain kinds of lawsuits, right?Like they care about. Like when the DOJ sues you, they care about that. They care about like antitrust lawsuits. They don't, I I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just seems like it's the way it is. Um, you know, I can think of like every automaker has had major lawsuits, uh, Toyota with the airbags. I don't really think the street cared about that.I, I think the street doesn't really care about product recalls. They don't really care about like wall suit risk, you know what, here's another one. Why don't you pull up the chart of match, match.com MTC gauge because they have a lawsuit going on, uh, right now, just when to trial or, or, or they're in jury selection, the proceedings have started, um, this is related to the founder.Resewing assuming IAC because he's saying that, um, he, uh, misled them as far as the value of the company when he was buying them. But, um, Yeah, you don't, you don't see stocks react really to tool a lot of times to lawsuits. I'm not really sure why that is. I don't know. Well, yeah, there's some crazy theories being thrown out there about the concert, Spencer.And I'm going to ask you, take it or leave it. The first one, um, being thrown out there is Travis. Scott is like a satanic devil worshiper. What are we talking about right now? That's look it up. That's the theory being thrown out there. I'm asking you to take it or leave it. Uh, I don't need, well, I don't even know who he is, so I like, I leave it.I don't know here. The article from Newsweek, Travis, Scott, satanic festival blood sacrifice, conspiracy theory. Okay. So you're leaving that. You're not buying it. Yeah. I don't even know what that means. So no, uh, it would sell that headline, whatever that means. Okay. There we go. I don't know. I don't even know.All I know is the concert ended in tragedy. It's not the first time. And nor would it be the last time that it happens. I fear cause these kinds of things, uh, um, they happen occasionally for whatever reason. So, um, Hey, I think we're running late for our first guest. That was quite a segue, but we're going to, uh, do that say w w we're going to commit to the segway here.Uh, cause we have, uh, the CEO of a chem tracks backstage right now. It's ticker a C E T X cigar. Goalball let's get him on the show AB well, let's do it. Shugar how are you doing today? I'm good. How are you? Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you as well. Uh, you guys can tell what is on our mind right now by the kinds of companies that we're bringing on with bill, uh, cigar, you are in the VR AR space.We are thinking about that. We are interested in that. Um, so it is not enough for me to merely drop that nugget. Please tell us exactly what it is that you do. Sure. So soundtracks is a diversified technology company. We have several different operating brands, uh, from the IOT sprays to security technology, but also AR and VR, which is a big focus for us going forward.So, uh, we operate a number of different brands. We've been building in VR for the last, uh, three or four years already. So we're quite familiar with this space and we're very excited for sort of the next phase of the computing, uh, paradigm as we get into the metaverse, obviously with the recent news with Facebook.You know, transitioning to the metaverse, um, there's a lot of discussion around this and we think the time is perfect for, uh, for VR now to take off what exactly are you building? Because the metaverse can mean any number of things. It can be anything to do with the metaverse. Right. So, so w so what are, yeah, so, um, so we look at the, metaverse says.A number of different opportunities. It's going to evolve, uh, dramatically over the next 20, 30 years as, as, as it takes shape. Uh, but right now we're very much in the nascent stage of this. And so, you know, our group, our focus is to really, uh, drive growth for our business, uh, in areas where we see early adoption and areas where we see opportunities for, uh, growing our business.So right now, um, we've acquired, um, a training studio that is called virtual driver interactive, where we build simulation technology for, um, right now, just for drivers. But we plan to evolve that as VR is used for training applications, um, we also launched our first gaming studio. So we're building our first, uh, VR gaming experience, um, as part of the metaverse, uh, that'll be launched early next year.Um, and the, the name of that studio is called Bravo strong and reliance. Our first Saifai first person shooter, uh, in, in, in Q1. Uh, so that's really something that we're looking forward to as our first kind of foray of our own, uh, technology and platform in, in the, in the space. We also do make investments in, in VR as well.And so, you know, we kind of have an, all of the above approach of building our own technology, as well as finding and seeding companies that we see big potential in. It seems like everyone is, is, is thinking of training of professional training as like the primary aside from gaming. Uh, the primary use case of the metaverse, you're not, you're like the third, fourth, fourth person to come on our show and mentioned training specifically.So, yeah. And so, uh, I think that's an early, it's sort of, uh, some of the easier, uh, low adoption kind of, uh, uh, opportunities right in front of us. So, um, you know, for instance, I mean, you know, taking large equipment to trade shows, training your customers on, um, complex equipment, it can be challenged. Did you things like that, uh, inexpensive, right.So VR solves that problem. Uh, so, uh, you know, whether it's training sales teams or training your customers, um, that's clearly an opportunity where, um, you know, there's a number of opportunities and, you know, we've even seen this with, uh, you know, sort of in-person virtual training. You can train police forces, chain, you know, fire, firemen, you know, OSHA training.I mean, so there's a number of opportunities across the board when it comes to, to training, uh, you know, with VR, is there another use case outside of the training and obviously the gaming that's really exciting to you? Yeah. So we're heavily looking at, um, a couple of things. Uh, one is entertainment. So, um, I mean you've seen some of the things that Fortnite has done, uh, with, with, uh, their own experience with Ariana Grande day and, uh, uh, and some of the other artists that they've put.So we see a big opportunity as, as that evolves. And we're looking at forming some partnerships or joint ventures to. Uh, some kind of experience in terms of entertainment. Um, and then, uh, additionally, I mean, I think everybody's trying to figure out how to monetize. So you have lots of opt developers that are, um, you know, putting out products in there, but they don't have any easy way to monetize those applications.So we see that as a big opportunity in terms of, uh, you know, ad monetization strategies, you know, whether it's advertising or similar sort of paradigm. So, um, I think there's a number of things that are taking place. And I think as we, uh, we're planning to launch a number of initiatives in, in the first half of next year, as we make more headway in the metaverse space.So the other things that we're doing is we invest in, in VR companies. So we made an investment in a company called masterpiece VR. Um, and so there's going to be more development tools. So masterpiece VR is, is a content creator tool that will. People to rapidly create three-dimensional assets. And as you know, the metaverse comprises of all 3d digital assets.And so, um, you know, we view this as getting on the ground floor of a really great, uh, unique creation tool. Um, that will be, uh, you know, one of the primary tools as developers start to build more and more products in VR. So, um, you know, there, there are a number of different avenues that we're looking to capitalize on in terms of, uh, the next year or two within VR.Um, That concerns me here. Cause like, as I said at the top, we are very interested in the metaverse right now. It is the hot topic of the, of the last month. We, we can think, uh, Facebook slash Mehta for that, but we do this a lot, right. Where we get this idea, we focus on it, we get excited and we realize, oh wait, we're still awhile away from adoption.And then we move on. Um, and when I say we, I mean the public investors, the media, right? Whether it's cannabis, whether it's Evie stocks. Um, and, and that concerns me here now with the, with the metaverse um, I think I saw a comment. I think it was a CEO of 10 cent. I could be wrong that said like, everyone like slow down.Like it's gonna, it's going to be, this is a long-term thing, but it's going to take a while. Or maybe we're maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves. Right now, do you do, do you agree with that sentiment? Okay. I do think this is early days, you know, I mean, when you think about Amazon, you know, it started in 1994.Right. But, you know, I mean, you know, you think about 20 years later, it was really when the true premise of what Amazon or the Bezos vision was really kind of materialized. I think this is sort of a similar kind of paradigm where we're in, uh, in the early stages of a, uh, computing revolution that could largely, you know, it could be larger than the mobile computing revolution and, um, has the potential for, you know, massive value creation.I think it is still very much early days and that we are, um, you know, there are a lot of opportunities, right. Uh, for, for picking, however, You know, it's going to take some time for the technology to evolve for the bandwidth constraints to evolve. And we're going to start to see that over the next two to three years.And I think from that point onwards, it's just going to get better and better with each, each year as the technology improves and makes it easier for the average person to spend more and more time in VR. Right. And so when you look at like computer usage in the early nineties or late eighties versus where it is today, it's a similar paradigm that you're going to see with how many people, how much time the average user spends in VR today versus 10 years from now and 15 years from now and so forth.So, um, but that doesn't mean that, um, there aren't, you know, the Amazons of tomorrow that are right for investing in or, or, or focusing on, right. People don't realize that Amazon. Like a decade to figure, figure it out, at least in terms of inter actually know in terms of the business, in terms of the stock.Right. Uh, so, um, I, I, and I, I guess, you know, you mentioned a couple of those initiatives that, that, that you're focusing on, uh, in the, in the first, I guess, quarter or so of next year. Can you, can you, can you pick one and tell them. Yeah. Sure. So, um, so we see obviously gaming is, is one of the biggest opportunities, um, to really enter the, enter the VR experience.And so, um, we want to build a brand for our sales, build a name for ourselves, and we felt that that was the easiest way to start to get in the door. And I think naturally, uh, you know, we believe that much bigger than gaming is our, is our, um, is our thinking. But, uh, you know, we want to kind of start with that inch into it and then start to evolve kind of what we're doing.Uh, I think in general, the entertainment experience is going to be crucial for, um, what can be done in VR. So we've see that as a launching pad for educational experiences in VR, um, for creating entertainment experiences in VR, you know, reading your favorite book, instead of reading it, you could experience it in VR.Um, you know, so things like that I think are where we want to see this go. And by building our first game, we started. Um, build that infrastructure in house and start to set the tone of what we're trying to do, um, and, and start to, uh, kind of unleash the potential of, of what's possible in VR. So I think this is sort of, um, you know, we are trying to ride the wave of VR and as you know, to your point, this is going to take some time to evolve.And so we kind of want to ride that natural organic wave into the, into the, uh, into the future. Uh, Kenneth, uh, Pivar prior, I'm not sure in our chat says that you need some paintings on your wall, but no, he doesn't. You just need some VR stuff on the wall, some AR stuff on the wall. I think that's the paintings are so 19th century.We don't need that. We, we need some VR on the wall. I'm sure I'm not, I don't know how that works. I'm sure you can probably figure it out. Um, and then, uh, the last thing is Ryan Norris asked if, uh, uh, if you can share what you'll be presenting, uh, at the, uh, AR uh, reality event coming. Um, I think, uh, that information should be available on our social media accounts, if you ping them, uh, you know, that information should be there or on our website.Um, you know, but we'll make sure we put it out on Twitter or something where, you know, when there'll be presenting. Uh, and then I guess my last question for you is like how far away is a company like yours from profitability? Not that that ma makes a difference necessarily now, but is that, is that on your radar?Yeah, I think, listen, uh, I, you know, focusing on profitability is crucial for us. I think, you know, we all also trying to balance that with driving top line growth, you know, so, uh, especially when it comes to these cutting edge industries where, you know, requires a good amount of software development and, and, uh, and, and investment in sales and marketing activities.Um, you know, our first focus right now is to continue to drive partnerships, drive top line growth. Um, I do think that profitability is on the horizon. Um, you know, but really right now, our focus is to get some of our key initiatives within all of our segments, um, uh, going to sort of the next phase of our, of our product roadmap and, and hopefully, you know, all of that will continue to drive top line growth and ultimately, um, a higher return on our equity and, and profitability.Awesome. cigarettes, CTX, and he's joining us here on Benzinga live and we appreciate that. Have a good day, have a good rest your day, sir. Thanks. You too. All right. Uh, AB are we running behind schedule? I don't think we are. I think we're somehow. No, we are on schedule. It looks like we're still waiting for our next, we never run on time.This is good. We're waiting for our next guests, Lana chin from a newborn town to join us. I'm sure she'll be joining any. Um, let's go ahead and get cigars banner off the screen. There we go. Spencer, anything in particular you're watching today? Uh, yeah. Yes, frankly. There is a lot of stuff going on in the pre-market session today between, uh, earnings between, uh, the inflation number, like you mentioned.Uh, I was watching Coinbase. I was watching Coinbase because I wasn't surprised by their, uh, by, by what they said in their earnings report that, you know, and maybe we can bring the chart up there and, uh, just, uh, they saw a massive slowdown, right. Uh, in, in activity. And that led to a dry mess, uh, in top line revenue.Um, you've got two catalysts, you've got a bear catalyst, which was the negative or the not so great earnings report. And then you have your bowl catalyst, which is the fact that crypto is at all time highs, but like you said, that was going to be, my point is it's sort of a. You've got on the one hand is a declining, declining retail activity, which they themselves said.We, on the other hand, in theory, there should be some kind of a correlation with Bitcoin. So here's your, you know, when I go down to the five minute chart, you can see here, the, you know, I guess tale of two tapes, you've got the, uh, big leg down after the earnings. But if you, if you just start right there and the stock's doing pretty well since then, um, like you said, I'm not surprised about the bad earnings report because of course this is going to the previous quarter, so it's not taking into account, uh, necessarily all the trading that's happened over the past month, two months since Bitcoin has had its epic turnaround.Um, and the previous quarter wasn't necessarily a great one for crypto. They talked about how, uh, trading was down, like you mentioned. So I dunno. I mean, I, if you went in there and bought the dip right here, you're looking pretty good. I, I think we'll have to see kind of how if Bitcoin and. Blast through there they're all time highs and continue to rip higher.I know a lot of people are calling for Bitcoin to hit a hundred thousand. By the end of the year. If that happens, you can bet your bottom dollar Coinbase will be trading significantly higher. But I think right now I'm just sticking on the sideline. Um, you know, waiting to see kind of what happens. Brent, Brent Slava must listen to the call and sort of Chris catchy because they're saying, oh, it's all about the NFTs, but I didn't know this until the call.So I'm sorry guys. I guess the hyped out the NFT, uh, bandwagon on their call. Uh, so I guess that's a cannabis that I didn't, that I have not considered yet, but, uh, Hey, I have a corn based account. That's where I have my, my, my crypto through. I feel sometimes like I didn't do enough research before.Deciding to open an account one day and, uh, on Coinbase, but that's the brakes? Um, well I think the NFT, it goes hand in hand. I think if we see the NFT hype continue the way what it's doing right now, then we'll see a theory, um, continue to arise. I mean, I think if we, if we see, uh, you know, some wind taken out of the NFT sales per se, then, uh, we'll, we'll see that in the price of Ethereum and other crypto.So I think it's all hand in hand. The NFT though, is I think being taken more and more seriously among the, from the institutional side. So really, no, this is not, this is a Rico story. That's not a bad thing. That's not a, I'm not saying institutions are going out by. Um, a bunch of NFTs. I'm saying more from the sense that like Coinbase is saying, okay.Yeah, we need to get into this space. Um, so more and more big players we'll see, get into all right. I'm also watching Riverton and Ford ravine. There's nothing to see right now. You've got the news feed up on the screen, right there from Benzinger probate that you can see. So, you know, not a real surprise here to see, uh, the stock, uh, going to open above its IPO price of $78 per share.Uh, if you think back to like a week and a half ago, the original, the estimated range was what like 55 to 60. They priced the last night 78. And you can see here all the headlines we have in the pro, as we wait for Vivian to open here, we have, Sherry's indicated as high as 125. Dollars today. Um, so they're still working through the order book, trying to figure out who gets what and at what price, um, and when they get through that, we will have, and we will open and then I'll be watching Ford on top of that.Um, I don't know where Luke Jacoby is or what he's doing right now, but I really, really hope that he sold some of his Ford costs today. He made a fan task trade, and I pulled the Ford chart. I just, I worry here, and this is a daily, so this is good. Let's keep this up. This is a daily chart of Ford. I don't know what the future holds, but if you're all big in, in Ford after this massive run, I would strongly, if it were me, I would definitely take some of my money if want all my money off the table here in Ford, if it was.I don't know about Uribe. Yeah. I mean, anytime that you have the type of returns that Luke has had on this trade, always a smart idea to trim some of those positions. Um, but it can be fun to let them ride too. We will see real fast. What is Ford's market cap? $80 billion. Okay. What is ravines market cap going to be?Well, the valuation was at 65 billion. What was that at? 78. Was that 78? I think that was, um, that was at 70 bucks a share. And we're now potentially $30 above that. Right? We're talking what, like 40%. I don't know that math is hard. I don't know. But, um, so is weaving going to have a higher evaluation than.What's uh, what's the thought process behind Ford owning 10% of heaviness? Is it just the fact that Vivian's going to be a direct competitor? So if they start taking some affords market share that at least forward has some stake in the game. Yeah. Ford and GM. We're both trying to invest in, in Vivian for, uh, for, I think Ford, uh, thought they had it and then thought they lost it to, uh, to GM and the GM thought they had it, but then Ford got it back.Um, uh, pickup trucks are the number one selling vehicle. It's Ford's number one selling vehicle pivoted to a few years ago. Right, exactly. So that's why I'm curious. It's because like I've revealed truck is directly competing with the Ford lightning electric truck. Yeah. But it's more. Yes, but it's more of a case of like, they all have to compete with Tesla in a way.Right. So not really, I don't think the cyber truck's going to be a thing for another. All right. Here's a good one. Take it or leave it. Buyers sell cyber trucks will be on the road. This time next year? No. No. So what about this time? Two years from now? Sure. You think so two years from now? I don't think so.Okay. Definitely not next year. Um, look I Ford and GM, they, they do, this is what they do. They make investments across the space, right? Why the GM go down then the Nico, the rabbit hole, right? It's the same idea. They have to make an investments in this space. So this is part of that. Um, all right. So young money is saying he's selling a one year out cyber truck, but buying two years.Yes. Brent, this is new. This is our new segment. Take it or leave it. Yeah, we came up with that like two minutes before Showtime. Yeah. Let me, well, let me try to think of some more, some good take it or leave it. Well, while you do that, I'm, I'm still just watching the news feed here on reveal and, uh, I would expect it would open within the next day.I obviously can't say for sure, take it or leave it Rivy and shares will be trading with why are we doing, I don't understand why we're doing this, the take of the, even on everything, take her to leave and take, Hey, take it or leave it on, take it or leave it, chat, chat, let us know what you think. But I go back to my point, Luke, I don't know where you are, but if you are, please sell your Ford a little bit.Thank you. Um, because he made a great trade and I worry about days like today being a topping event for, for, uh, uh, Suffolk Ford. So, um, there's that? Okay. Uh, it is 1237. I do not see our next guest here, which means we're going to just keep on rolling. And, uh, we will have, we will have a, uh, another guest coming up at 1245.Uh, the CEO of a equipped, uh, medical Greg Croft will be on the show, uh, in a few minutes from now. Uh, let's go back to our dock where we planned the show to. And I wanted to talk about, let's see, we hit on Coinbase. We hit on Trivian. Um, I want to talk about Disney actually, because Disney reports earnings tonight.They're in my never sell portfolio, but we have two events coming up. We have earnings tonight and we have their, uh, their Disney plus streaming extravaganza, whatever you want to call it event on Friday where they're going to like, say, Hey, look, look, you know, all the really cool stuff we have coming up on Disney plus.So two potential catalysts for Disney, the chart doesn't look great. Can you pull it out please? The chart does not look great right now. Um, I think it was trading around its 200 day moving average, uh, this morning, maybe, maybe the fifth today. Let's go out to the daily chart. I don't know Spencer it's been trading sideways.It's done nothing for the majority of the. Almost the entire year ranks and nothing for the last, what the high was in March. Right. Um, we go back out high was right here March. Yeah. So we've done nothing here for, for nine months. Sometimes stocks just like to take a little break from, yeah, I know. So I want to know how you feel about this.I want you to, you can, I don't intend to, I'm not selling this thing, but, but what can we think about this in the context of like Netflix and what they said? Cause they cause they're, you know, they pumped the brakes on their earnings report. Uh, Roku, Pomona, the brakes on theirs as well. Um, and I, I don't know.I I'm, I'm worried, like I can wake up on Monday and Disney's. I don't know what, if we did like a straddle on Disney where we said, we think it's going to move at least a 3% neither direction that yes, actually you want to set that up? Because I would definitely, I've never put it on a spread before, so Oscar it up, but I would take that bet who is, um, you know, let's wait, let's wait for Nick to come on.Okay. Nick Shaheen is our options guy, but what let's have Nick walk us through, uh, but he's not going to want it to it. Like I, it's not going to be as much of a Yolo trade once Nick is on your right. Nikki, Nick is not going to yellow his money on him. It's going to be very like defined loss and that's, that's fine.That's boring. Yeah. All right. Oh, uh, from affirms reporting earnings today, uh, I mean, uh, firm's just been an absolute monster ever since the, uh, the Amazon deal. It's coming off a little bit. Well, wait, the earnings are tonight and it's already down 12%. Sounded good side. He'd be running sorority. Yeah.Someone in the chat said, um, affirming there's 10,000 of these a day. I can't keep up. Yeah. And I'm sorry, the earnings were not out after close today. So does someone just know something we don't know? And that's why the stock is trading down. You have to look at it within the context of like, what is trading up and what is trading down today?Oh, so many of these hot stocks are just getting like punished right now. Like how has the pop up start ups T how's that hanging today? Not great. Spencer. It's down about 18 and a half percent. Yeah. I mean, it's up from the open, but the boat that's down this upstart do loans. Okay. That was it. That was a trick question.You're trying to get me. It was trying to get me. I know I've started. Does they do wounds? There are FinTech lenders smash. The like, if you got that right. Um, any, any other stocks that were watching some crazy movement on today? We I've been watching roadblocks all day. So roadblocks from mortgage monster quarter.Great earnings was up about 20, no 30% yesterday. And is now trading lower, uh, by about 8%. So this might just be a little sell off after that massive rip up or, uh, I don't know. I mean, a lot of times when a company reports great earnings and it goes up like 10%, my thought process is all this can't keep going up.And what does it do? It keeps going up. How many times have I said that to myself this year too many, but, so I actually bought some roadblocks yesterday while it was up about 30% and now it's down 10%, so who knows? Nice. Very nice. Uh, okay. We'll have our next guest on Greg Crawford in a couple of minutes.Let's catch up on the chat. Um, happy saying reveal and shares will be indicating at 105 that's unconfirmed, but, well, that's just, that's just the block. That's just a block of shares. We have to get to the whole thing first. So, um, yeah, but you know what let's do, let's do an informal survey slash poll on the chat and whoever gets closest, we'll get some swag.Okay. Drop your, and drop your price in the chat where we'll reveal and open know that the IPO price was 78. The most recent indication was 1 0 5. The highest indication was 1 25. Um, drop your number in the chat. What price does ravine open for trading at when, if it even opens today? That of course it opened that wasn't to.Ah, we got some numbers, 1 2197 96, 1 25, 1 to 32 voodoo. Wow. That's Polish 81 proton 81. I think you're on the low end of that one. Proton. Uh, we got, when we got 90 in there, we got 94, 1 29 50. I love the, the, the specificity of that down to the penny. 1 25 51 to three, one to 5 93, Shelly 64 K. Get out of here, Shelly, 64, come on.Be serious. Okay. So I seem to have a consensus of a, someone on the 1 0 5 to one 20 range. We're waiting for this. And when it, when it comes out, we will be, uh, we will be there for it when it happens. Of course, in Cal asking this. Uh, the million dollar question is where does it close? If I knew that answer, I'd be a very rich man.I guarantee you, man. I almost, I want to bet right now. You want to bet on, but I don't know. I want to bet it closes. It closes down from the open. So, uh, you're coming from the open. Huh? That's a good, that's a good point. Cause you can't trade it. You can't trade options. Yeah, it will close up from the IPO and down from the open is my, that's not a very hot take though.That's I think that's that's that's that's a common thing we see. There are sites you can bet on certain events on. I don't know. That's a good question, Spencer. Okay. Uh, while we digest that let's bring on our next guests. Um, this is an interesting one, uh, this, this company, uh, in many respects and you can see it in, in the chart of their stock, uh, is seen as a COVID play.Uh, and now that we are. Uh, hopefully maybe trying to come out of that, uh, companies like our next, uh, our next one, our, our, our, you know, figuring out where they stand in the future here in a real post code the world. So Greg Crawford is the CEO of Quip to medical. That's getting them up on the screen if we can.Mr. Crawford, how are we doing today? Doing great. How about yourself? Thanks was my, was my introduction, a fair assessment. I have to tell you as far as being a COVID play, I think you're off on that COVID is held this company down and that for over a year and a half from executing on our organic growth, although we've grown about 10% over the past couple of years, each year, we're on pace this year for 11% or so.Uh, but, uh, well, I had, I had assumed though, cause you, you make ventilators. Yeah. Yeah. But all of our services are, uh, home-based services, um, here, uh, patients inside their homes. And we have not been able to expand our Salesforce and, and our current Salesforce has not been able to quite go as deep as they'd like to in some of the different referral sources because of the visitation restrictions and things like that.So we think we're going to do much better once we get outside of COVID. So of all the different products. And I mentioned the home ventilation, but you guys also, you, you, you make a sleep apnea, um, uh, treatments, uh, and, uh, and of all your different products and services, what, what is, what is the highest growth area right now?Yeah, so the highest growth area for us really, it's just across our entire respiratory category. So this year we're up about the 40% and that just over 40%, about 10% of that is organic. Uh, so we continue to see strong demand for all of our products as just the overall. For home-based care and services.Uh, it has been going on for quite some time. And I think COVID is really just kind of brought it more to the limelight rationalization is that these patients can be taken care of in the home setting rather than a hospital setting. So, yeah, go ahead. Oh, I was just gonna say, so Greg, you you've spoke before about the company's acquisition strategy.Um, and I'm just curious if you, if you can outline that again for our audience here today. Yeah, sure. So we have a three tiered acquisition strategy. Um, right now we would consider ourselves kind of a regional player. We're currently in 15 states, uh, uh, this year to date we've added five new states. Uh, so we continue to look for opportunities in that to expand into new states, uh, obtain new insurance contracts within those states.Uh, and that's kind of the first tier in that of our acquisition strategy is, is really looking for so. Uh, $5 million type companies, but they, uh, they've got an infrastructure and they hold a lot of insurance contracts that allows us to kind of go in and capitalize on that particular market that they're in.And then also add continuum markets. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Keep going. Yeah, no. The second tier of our strategy is to look for heavily weighted respiratory companies. Uh, typically those companies we're seeing in the five to $20 million top line revenue range, uh, and then the third tier, and that is to look for much larger, more material size acquisition from a revenue standpoint and an EBITDA EBITDA standpoint.And right now with our a robust pipeline, we've got all three of those, uh, to date and that we've, uh, since about, uh, July, we've closed six acquisitions for a total of about $16 million in top line revenue growth. Wow. And how are you funding this? Um, mostly all cash with our. Current cash on hand. So, uh, occasionally we will, we will issue some shares if we want to align some management in that with our culture to keep them on.So Greg, I understand there was a, a recent acquisition. Do you want to go ahead and speak a little bit about that? Yeah, sure. So we just expanded in the state of Illinois in that, uh, via the way of an acquisition, uh, was a really, uh, Illinois, a very important state for us. It's one of the top, uh, states there with, uh, patients with, uh, high acuity of lung disease and COPD.And that's what we're really looking to heavily expand in that state, but it also kind of aligned a Metro market for us in, in that, between us St. Louis and Chicago, uh, where we currently have operations. Uh, so, uh, we were able to add about 3,700 patients and about, uh, two and a half million dollars in top line revenue and also connect to geographical areas along with some important insurance contracts to operate in that.Greg, you mentioned COVID being a headwind in that it, it did sort of hinder your Salesforce a little bit, but I'm curious aside from that, what have you observed in the last year and a half in terms of, um, patient behavior? Uh, for context, my, uh, fiance doesn't anymore, but she used to work in a senior living community and, uh, she just recently left, but having worked in, you know, there for, for a, for seven or eight years, uh, and the changes that she saw in the last year and a half, uh, we're we're startling just in terms of.Just their census was got so low. And part of that was due of course, to, to, uh, to people passing away, but also people not moving in. Right. So, and, and choosing to stay at home more. Uh, and I'm, I'm just curious what, what you've observed in terms of patient behavior in the last year. Yes, absolutely. In that, I mean, that kind of, uh, dovetails off of our story here in that, whereas we're taking care of the patients and the home-based setting in that, and they require our equipment and our services to go along with those particular products.So, so that's where we've really been, uh, stepping in and making a difference in the marketplace. There we've seen trends in our referrals, in that we've primarily been hospital-based in long-term care based kind of referrals in that, which is what we, that's where the majority of our business comes from.But we've seen a lot of that, uh, go direct to the physician. And that's a, rather than that, physician may be sending them to the hospital or long-term care. We feel that, uh, they're, they're ordering these products directly from their offices. Uh, and we think that we're also getting these patients earlier in the onset of their disease state, uh, which bodes very well for us because then we're able to keep them on service.Yeah, this, this to me seems like a demographics play more than anything else, right? It's it's, it's, it's a family thing. It's just a bet on getting older and needing, needing more medical attention. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. There's 10,000 people turning 65 or older every day. And that's, that's really, that's our core market.Uh, the market itself has grown about five or 6% a year. So we've kind of been, uh, doubling that the past few years. So you mentioned expanding to different states. You mentioned Illinois, uh, is the eventual plan here to be in every state because right now you're in, I believe what, like a dozen we're in 15.Yes, absolutely. We're looking to build out a national presence in that as we continue to expand in that, uh, both, uh, organically and inorganically through acquisition. So Greg, um, as the industry of kind of home health care grows, are there areas that you think investors should be looking out for ways to kind of invest in the home care industry as a whole?Like, is it in telehealth? Is it in companies like yours that provide, uh, equipment for people to have at-home care? Yeah. I mean, it could be all of the above. I think anything that's home-based care, whether it be home health or it'd be durable medical equipment or a, some type of tele-health or something, uh, you know, would definitely be a good investments if that's what you're looking to do with your money.And what do you think the timeline is on that? Do you think? Uh, like the whole look of healthcare looks different than it does today in, in 10, 20 years down the road? Yeah, I think, uh, the push for home health care, and that is only going to continue in that. Uh, and I think, uh, COVID has really kind of brought that to the limelight that, uh, now physicians.Insurance companies can see that these patients can be taken care of and in the home setting, rather than going to a long-term care type setting or a hospital or something for some of their, uh, elements that they need treated, especially with our remote monitoring patient, uh, features that we have on our ventilation and our sleep products and things like that.Greg, you mentioned in your investor deck, the, the strong regulatory or the favorable regulatory environment right now, uh, what, what exactly makes the regulatory environment so favorable for equipped? Yeah, so for us, so there's been a program that was implemented in 2010 called the DMV competitive bidding program.Uh, that's where the industry really had undertaken some drastic cuts from 10, 2010 to 2016. You've seen a lot of consolidation in the industry at that time. Um, but really since 2010, uh, or since 2016, I'm sorry, the industry has not seen any, uh, significant reimbursement. And the program, uh, the DME competitive bid program was set to take effect January 1st, 2021.And it was actually, uh, Medicare had removed, uh, 13 product categories, which is essentially everything that Quip provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Um, for this round, that was to begin January one. And the reason they removed it is quote their, their quote. They did not achieve the expected savings. Uh, so.When the rates actually came out in early January of this year and that they were actually about 30 to 40% higher in some major metropolitan areas, uh, for services that we provide. So, you know, we can definitely see why they remove those because they sure didn't want to pay us additional. So we think with where the rates sit right now, uh, you know, we're just got a clear outlook in that for what our fee for service looks like in that, uh, for the foreseeable future.Also we've recently here in 21, we've also received, uh, some increases, um, on oxygen rates that had begun, uh, April 1st, 2021 also, uh, for home oxygen, there has been some changes in that to the coverage determination, and also for the types of patients that they cover in that. Now patients with acute diagnosis is beginning in 2022 will become.Uh, for home oxygen services and also they've removed some of the burdensome paperwork that's required. Uh, in curious as the medical device side of your business, I'm wondering if you have seen or felt any sort of supply chain scrubbiness yes, absolutely. That's the official term, by the way, if we had to pick something wacky there in that, uh, you know, going on a headwind in the industry, it would definitely be supply chain.Uh, you know, so we've definitely had that. We've had it throughout the entire pandemic. We continue, uh, just access to a certain products and services at a given time. Uh, but we've done a great job of managing through that. Being able to forecast what our needs are and that's really, that's still kind of driving the organic growth is our ability to actually get products.So I think we're doing better than, uh, probably a lot of other providers out there, especially a lot of the quote, mom and pop providers out there. There's over 6,000. So with our buying abilities, uh, in our forecasting abilities and that we've been able to kind of preplan a little bit better. Yeah. I find it so fascinating because it seems like the access to this at-home medical care, it's almost like we're going back in time to when it was commonplace for doctors to make home visits, of course, with new technology.But, um, I just think this industry as a whole, as far as being able to get medical care at your home, uh, is fascinating. We'll continue to grow. Yes, no doubt about it. I think we're seeing everything home bare, uh, home-based care or anything kind of go home base from delivery service of food and, and Dayton all the way back to get your milk delivered.I guess you could say. You can get groceries delivered now. That's true. I hadn't thought I hadn't thought about it like that, but, uh, that's a good point. Greg Crawford is the CEO of Quip medical us here on Benzinger live. Greg, appreciate the time. Have a good one. Thank you. We appreciate it. Have a great day.All right. Uh, let's get that banner off the screen and we're going to have our next guest on in a couple of minutes. Jessica Kaylor will be joining us. So, uh, we'll be talking some trays and some charts with Jesse at one O clock. Uh, in the meantime, Riviera has not yet opened. I actually, haven't seen a new indication in a few minutes.Talk about Uber puts in the chat. Yeah, a lawsuit. Um, I guess from the DOJ regarding the America, the ADA, the American with disabilities act. Um, again, we talked about this off the top of the show, right? I just don't for whatever reason, I just don't think. The street really cares about this kind of a headline?Well, I think what's interesting. And what I always like to do is if I'm looking at a company like Uber, I want to see its relative strength or weakness compared to peers. So obviously with Uber it's biggest, uh, peer would be Lyft. Uh, but you have others as well. Like door dash is up a bunch today, I think on strong earnings.But, um, the, the fact to me, when, if you just look at it, I mean, Lyft is down too, but Lyft is down about one, about 1.3%. Well, Uber is down. Let's see about, about 3%. So to me, that's showing saying that look, investors are, uh, you know, there's more sell pressure on Uber than Lyft today. And I don't know. I mean, I, I can get behind some Uber puts, I already don't like Uber.As a, as a, as a stock. Really? Yeah. I mean, the company just has profitability issues. They have a legal problems as easy Mike is pointing out. And like you said, let's zoom out on a weekly. No, let's go to a monthly on Uber, Spencer. You were talking about this the other day that you, you just think the, um, I guess business model of, you know, the, the food delivery, the Uber, I think it's wrong.I think that, I think it's terrible for small businesses. Yeah. And I mean, I don't know. I think, I dunno. I, I, I'm looking at Uber puts, I'm not saying this is this stock's going to trade lower in, in the next week. I don't know. I don't know. Make a call. Um, give us a hot take, make a stand standing for something.I am buying I'm tailing. Easy mic, easy mic. That's good enough for me. Okay. All right. And the fact that I already don't like the business model. Uber, uh, for whatever it's worth, um, is, is, is trading above. Speaking of IPO is trading above its IPO price, um, and above its opening price of $38. So it took a long time to get there, took over.It took over a year to get there year and a half, but, uh, finally falling in the black, if you bought Uber on day one, um, okay. Are going to keep our eyes on reveal fun, just to see in this pulpit chart here, just to see when it opens. I don't think it, it has, uh, our IVN. It has not, but when it does open, we will know, and we will talk about it.But in the meantime, let's talk about, uh, some other charts with Jessica Kaylor from elite trading. Jones's every Wednesday on this show, we'll bring him on now, Jesse. What's up, man? How are we doing? Oh, it's doing great. How you guys doing? Uh, we're hanging in there, man. Hanging in there. It's Wednesday. It's daylight savings.It gets dark at like two o'clock now. And, uh, it is what it is. So, uh, what stocks do you watch them today? There's a lot going on out there. Um, I was watching the bank stocks, uh, looking at some hotel resorts, you know, rrr. Um, I've been looking at the Neo node. The one that I brought up actually with you guys, uh, sometime early last year when they were around six, we, we had that target of nine currently.I'm almost breaking that $10 mark. So I was going to go show you, share that one off today. Um, but let me share real quick. Did we, do we just get, do we open upour, it was $6 and 75 cents. $106. I have to refresh my, my chart now $106 and 75 cents for revealing bada Bing, bada, boom. I'm not going to go back into the chat and see who came close. I'm sure one of you came close here. It's 1 0 8. It's rolling. Let's see, I'll go. Since Spencer refuses to. Thank you. Thank you.I appreciate that. Yeah. Uh, we had someone guests one 10. What, what was it open at 1 0 8 grant Gibson with a 1 0 9 oh oh Dunkin. Bracey no. Oh, wait a minute. We didn't say what we're doing. Price is right. Rules are not. What is price is right rules. You can't go over and go closest without going over. Dunkin Gothic hosts without going over.But technically grant came closest. Ooh, wait, why did grant come open that? What 1 0 8 74. Sorry, James sands. He has, he always says hi every day. We had a couple of guesses for 1 0 9 AP grant Gibson. Um, yeah. So good guesses in the chat, everyone.200 and then back down to, no, I, you, you can talk me into one 50 as in the next, like 10 minutes and then, and the end of the day at like 90, but, uh, I think 200, 200 tad high. I remember, uh, when Coinbase opened, it opened at what, like two or 180 or something and went all the way up to like four 50 and came back down.Oh, ribbons already. Let's see. Well, there's your first road. Nice little red candle. There always wait, it was one of a six happy saying 1 0 6 75. Wait, did I misread? I may have misread it. Oh, it is 1 0 6. Oh my God, Spencer. I screwed up. I messed up. I screwed up. I thought it was 1 0 8. This was one of those off by only $2 back.I, I take back what I said about who was closest. So we're looking for 1 0 6. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. My mistake. I'm sorry. 1 0 6 75 IPO price. It's 78. Congrats to all those people, because they're now making money on their long-term investment. Right. Um, anyway, so we got sidetracked with Vivian. Can we go back to what was on your list?Yeah. And just talk in, um, touch us. I just shared your charts. W w this is Teledyne. Yeah. TDY. They're the biggest competitor to Nia node. And neon was the one that I was talking about earlier, which is touchless. They do like touch of technology for like elevators, um, things of that nature for the future.So. Um, I will have a future. Yeah. Where, you know, a lot of people go in a lot of button touching. You don't want to get in and touch the elevator button. So if you could go up and just like, put just barely even put your hand over the button, then it'll actually put it up, pull it up for you in there. They got a big contract for that.And then they also have it to where they can attach to windows 10 capable computers. And it makes their screen touch screens, uh, touchless. But, well, this reminds me of a game that we used to play when I was a kid, uh, my cousins and I, whenever we w the family would all go to a hotel or whatever the game was run until the elevator hit everyone at the same time and see where you see where it takes here.And you wonder, how do you want to know how that game ended? This is the true story. You all know how that game ended and did it with us stuck in between the floors a little bit. Yes. I swear. I have a cousin who to this day will not get into an elevator with. That was like 20, it was 25 years ago that this happened a little bit less than that 20 years ago.Uh, and he will not get into an elevator with me cause we got stuck and true story anyway. So nobody get on the elevator with a joking. Hey and real quick, other side note, uh, that was actually not my first time being stuck inside an elevator. I've gotten stuck twice. Um, the first time was actually I, uh, the doors closed on me.Um, when I was like six years old, it was a traumatic experience. The bottom line is, do not get into an elevator with me. Okay. If the bottom line here. Um, anyway, let's go back on the charts. Yeah. So we were on, um, with you guys back where this line is here and near at. Um, . Of 2020 and we were watching the same play and we were talking about it as touchless technology.I think I just felt like it was, this is an old company they've been around since 1976. So it's not like a new company and they've, I think this is just finally the, the environment that they needed to. Maybe break away. And when you start looking up, okay, who's are their competitors and you look at TD why a $400 stock, you start thinking, okay, maybe there's, there's a space here that hasn't been touched by a lot of people.And these there they've been in it for a long time. So it's just kind of a long-term idea. Play for me. Maybe they get into this whole metaverse if there's a lot of need for touchless technology in the future. As in video gaming, uh, health wise restaurants going to touchless, um, ordering, servicing stuff, like order style.Um, I think that this is, I think they have a lot of room to grow, so just one that I'll be watching, but today in particular did take a little, um, position in GLD. Um, that was. What are you a boomer? Nah, just, I, I heard triple D talking about it and I was like, you know what? I'm already, I'm already thinking banks, everyone in the chats going and talking gold.And I think that, you know, it, wasn't working for a hedge play for a lot of people, but I just wanted to get maybe 80 cents to a dollar, just a little bit, just to have some green today out of the red morning, I woke up to and I made, you know, made that, made that dollar I needed out of them. And I'm not a huge move in a stock.That's $173, but at the same time, it, if it's green, it's green, right? Well, for people like me, that's looking at roadblocks and trying to figure out a way to play roadblocks when it was up 30% yesterday. Now down 10% today, or 8% today. Uh, w what are some options on how we can, you know, play this? Um, if you're synthetically longer, you can sell, puts that are deeply, um, out of the money, maybe, and at a, at a position that, you know, maybe a strike that you would feel comfortable buying them.And then you collect that premium every week or month until it gets down to that price. And until you're willing to pay for it, and you use that money that you make off the premiums to pay for more of the shares. Okay. What, so, so what if I sold puts at like $80 and then I bought a put at, I dunno, 95 or something.So if I thought it was going to continue to go down for a little bit, but not all the way to my lower strike price, then you're going to make that money off that 95 all the way as it goes down. And then you're going to also be able to collect that premium as long as it remains above that $80. You just want it to just end up between 80 and, um, what'd you say?95? Yeah, something like that. I mean, do you think something like that? Is it. Uh, yes. If you, if you're, if that's the opinion that you're taking on it, you know, if you think that it's going to fall, um, below that range, now you will lose that 95. If it stays above that, you know, you're going to lose out on that, whatever you pay for the premium on the 95, that's a potential loss there, but, um, it's going to make the, the play possibly a little cheaper for you.Um, it's a good way to do a spread, you know, on, on a stock that you're comfortable with, that you want to buy. Anyway, I would, I would strongly recommend for anyone that's trying, in my opinion, to buy a stock that they want to get in what they don't think that it's at the price they want to buy it. They just sell the puts at the price that they want to pay for it.And then if you get at you get, now, it can be dangerous, especially with Snapchat. Why didn't I do that? Well, so, so, but if I wanted to just sell. And I wasn't doing a spread. You need to have like a certain amount of money in your portfolio to be able to do so, correct? Correct. Yes. But buying us or doing a spread versus just selling the put alone makes it a little bit more affordable.Yes. It alleviates some of that, um, equity that you have to have. So it's, it's all about positions. You know, how, you know, when you're talking a hundred dollars stock, you'd expect someone to have that decent amount of, you know, buying power available. If they're looking to buy a hundred shares of a hundred dollars stock, you know, that's a, that's a big, that's a big one, you know, I think, um, that we're talking, but it's good for people when you're talking, just trying to make premium, even just to, just to do it, like uses, like you just suggested you could do that same way by the 95, sell the eighties and collect that premium regardless of what you want to do position wise in the.Got it. Uh, rich Williams saying good afternoon, everyone from Florida. Good afternoon, rich. How are you doing? Let us know in the chat, what stocks you were watching. We'll go ahead and take a look at them with Jesse. Uh, Jesse, any other trades that you're looking at that are setting up for you? Um, I did want us to just see where it's at one 16.Oh, nice. I'm also watching China stocks here. Cause I guess easy Mike noted it and I don't even know who care, but every grand officially defaulted. Do we care about that? I'm watching China. That sounds bearish for China stocks, right? Nah, that sounds bullish. Cause we brought the dip. So, um, but there has to be a dip to be bought.The dip already happened now we're buying it. Oh, okay. Beautiful. Oh, I'm watching something that I wasn't even mine on my radar until yesterday. That's highs on motors, a ticker, H Y, Z N having a breakout today. I've got some open calls on the stock. We had them on them. We had them on the show. Highs on uh you're you're going to helium.No, no, no. You sure. Yes. I'm sure they, we had them on one of, I don't remember which show take it or leave it. We've
The session from the BioHealth Capital Region Forum focuses on a vision for a new science entity, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). This new NIH Institute would accelerate biomedical innovation and adoption of technologies and approaches to revolutionize healthcare and medicine. Tara A. Schwetz, Ph.D. is the Assistant Director for Biomedical Science Initiatives in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). She is currently on detail to OSTP from her role as Associate Deputy Director (ADEPD), National Institutes of Health (NIH). During her tenure as ADEPD, Dr. Schwetz also served as the acting Director of the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR). Prior to assuming these roles, she was the Chief of the Strategic Planning and Evaluation Branch in the Office of the Director at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Dr. Schwetz led several efforts while at NIAID, including conducting an evaluation of the Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance to facilitate evidence-based decision-making and developing the NIAID Strategic Plan for Tuberculosis Research. Previously, Dr. Schwetz served as the Senior Advisor to the Principal Deputy Director of NIH (DEPD), where she coordinated efforts such as Reimagine HHS, the NIH rigor and reproducibility activities, and the first NIH-Wide Strategic Plan. Dr. Schwetz also served in the dual role of the NIH Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Interim Associate Program Director and the Special Assistant to the DEPD. Prior to these roles, she was a Health Science Policy Analyst at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, where she helped develop the National Pain Strategy. Dr. Schwetz started her career at NIH as an AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow at NINR. She received a BS in biochemistry with honors from Florida State University and a PhD in biophysics from the University of South Florida, followed by a postdoctoral fellowship at Vanderbilt University.
The 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Coronabus both enacted laws aiming to stop China from advancing their Belt and Road economic system that may soon be able to compete with the "rules based international order", which the United States has been leading the implementation of since the end of WWII. In this episode, learn about the NDAA's most significant changes, including a new U.S. military build up in China's neighborhood: The Pacific Deterrence Initiative. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes CD218: Minerals are the New Oil CD187: Combating China Bills National Defense Authorization Act for 2021 Bill Text Sec. 158: Expansion of Economic Order Quantity Contracting Authority for F-35 Aircraft Program Doubles the amount of money allowed to be spent on longer term contracts from $574 million to over $1 billion TITLE VII - ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS Subtitle D - Industrial Base Matters Sec. 841: Additional Requirements Pertaining to Printed Circuit Boards Beginning January 1, 2023, the Defense Department will be prohibited from buying printed circuit boards that are either fully or partially manufactured in North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran. The Defense Secretary has the ability to waive these restrictions TITLE X - GENERAL PROVISIONS Subtitle E - Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations Sec. 1052: Expenditure of Funds for Department of Defense Clandestine Activities that Support Operational Preparation of the Environment Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to spend up to $15 million from the Operations and Maintenance account "in any fiscal year for clandestine activities for any purpose the Secretary determines to be proper for preparation of the environment for operations of a confidential nature." Intelligence activities are excluded. This authority can be delegated for expenses up to $250,000. The Defense Secretary has to tell Congress about these expenditures in a report due once per year at the end of the year. Sec. 1053: Sale or Donation of Excess Department of Defense Personal Property for Law Enforcement Activities Prohibits the military from transferring free bayonets, grenades (but they can still transfer stun and flash bang grenades), weaponized tanks, and weaponized drones to domestic law enforcement. Sec. 1062: Limitation on Provision of Funds to Institutions of Higher Education Hosting Confucius Institutes Beginning in 2023, Defense Department funding - except for funding given directly to students - can be given to an college or university that hosts a Confucius Institute. "Confucius Institute" is defined as "a cultural institute directly or indirectly funded" by the Chinese government. The Defense Secretary has the ability to waive this prohibition. This was based on a bill co-authored by Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio and Rep. Donna Shalala of Fl Sec. 1064: Requirements for Use of Federal Law Enforcement Personnel, Active Duty Members of the Armed Forces, and National Guard Personnel in Support of Federal Authorities to Respond to Civil Disturbances Whenever a member of the armed forces, including the National Guard, respond to a civil disturbance, each individual has to display their name and the name of the Federal entity they are representing. This won't apply to individuals who don't wear uniforms when performing their regular duties or who are performing undercover operations. TITLE XII - MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS Subtitle B - Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan Sec. 1215: Limitation on Use of Funds to Reduce Deployment to Afghanistan Prohibits troop levels in Afghanistan from being reduced below 2,000 until the Defense Secretary submits a report Subtitle C - Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran Sec. 1221: Extension and Modification of Authority to Provide Assistance to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Reauthorizes the Department of Defense military assistance for training, equipment, supplies, and support for the Government of Iraq and "other local security forces" for combatting ISIL and security the territory of Iraq until December 31, 2021 but cuts the funding to $322.5 million, down from $645 million. The original funding amount t was over $1.6 billion in 2016. Sec. 1222: Extension and Modification of Authority to Provide Assistance to Vetted Syrian Groups and Individuals Reauthorizes the Department of Defense assistance for training, equipment, supplies, support, stipends, and facilities for "vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals" until December 31, 2021 Subtitle E - Matters Relating to Europe and NATO Sec. 1241: Determination and Imposition of Sanctions with Respect to Turkey's Acquisition of the S-400 Air Defense System In response to Turkey's decision to buy an air defense system from Russia on July 12, 2019, the President "shall" impose five or more sanctions on each person who participated in buying that system. The sanctions were required to be implemented by the end of January 2021. The sanctions are allowed to be removed after one year if the S-400 air defense system has been removed from Turkey Sec. 1246: Report on United States Military Force Posture in Southeastern Europe By the end of 2021, the Secretary of Defense has to submit a classified report with an unclassified summary describing the military postures of Russia and China in southeastern Europe and assess the cost, feasibility, and infrastructure requirements of increasing US Armed Forces in Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and other locations. Subtitle F - Matters Relating to the Indo-Pacific Region Sec. 1251: Pacific Deterrence initiative Requires the Secretary of Defense to create a Pacific Deterrence Initiative to improve the force posture in the Indo-Pacific region, primarily west of the International Date Line The purpose is to... Strengthen the presence of the US Armed Forces in the region Pre-position equipment, weapons, and fuel. Perform exercises, training, and experiments Build the militaries of allies and partners and enhance cooperation with them Authorizes over $2.2 billion Sec. 1252: Extension and Modification of Prohibition on Commercial Export of Certain Covered Munitions Items to the Hong Kong Police Force Extends the prohibition on export licenses being issued to send weapons to the Hong Kong police force that was enacted on November 27, 2019 until December 31, 2021 and expands the prohibition on exports to include "crime control items". Sec. 1260: Statement of Policy and Sense of Congress on the Taiwan Relations Act 'The Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances provided by the United States to Taiwan in July 1982 are the foundation for United States-Taiwan relations" "Any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including boycotts and embargoes, is a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States." We will "resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system of the people of Taiwan" It is US policy to continue selling weapons to Taiwan, including weapons for air defense, undersea warfare, intelligence, surveillance, anti-armor, anti-ship, and coastal defense systems. US policy is to perform joint military exercises with Taiwan. Sec. 1260E: Sense of Congress on the Aggression of the Government of China Along the Border with India and its Growing Territorial Claims Congress says that... "continued military aggression by the Government of China along the border with India is a significant concern" "attempts by the Government of China to advance baseless territorial claims, including those in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and with respect to Bhutan, are destabilizing and inconsistent with international law." Subtitle G: Sudan Democratic Transition, Accountability, and Fiscal Transparency Act of 2020 Sec. 1263: Statement of Policy It is United States policy to... "support a civilian-led political transition in Sudan that results in a democratic government..." "support the implementation of Sudan's constitutional charter for the transitional period" (which began on August 17, 2019 and is effective for 39 months, which would be November 17, 2022) Part of our strategy is "promoting economic reform, private sector engagement, and inclusive economic development..." and "supporting improved development outcomes, domestic resource mobilization, and catalyzing market-based solutions to improve access to health, education, water and sanitations, and livelihoods..." Sec. 1264: Support for Democratic Governance, Rule of Law, Human Rights, and Fundamental Freedoms Authorizes the President to "provide assistance" authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which allows him to use money from the State Department's Economic Support Fund, and development assistance in agriculture, health, education, housing, counter-drug operations, disaster relief, energy, technology, natural resources, and technical assistance for the government and/or central bank. Authorizes $20 million per year in 2021 and 2022 Sec. 1265: Support for Development Programs Authorizes the President to "provide assistance" using the same authorities from Section 1264 and the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act of 2018 (BUILD Act) ,which created the United States International Development Finance Corporation, to "promote economic growth, increase private sector productivity and advance market-based solutions to address development challenges" Authorizes $80 million per year for 2021 and 2022 Sec. 1266: Support for Conflict Mitigation Authorizes the President to "provide assistance" using the same authorities from Section 1264 and money for international military education and training and money for peacekeeping operations to "support civil society and other organizations", for "professional training of security force personnel", and to support provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 and Abyei protocol. Authorizes $20 million per year for 2021 and 2022 Sec. 1267: Support for Accountability for War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in Sudan Authorizes the President to "provide assistance" using the same authorities from Section 1264 to assist investigators to document violations of human rights committed by the former President Omar al-Bashir and the Transitional Military Council since June 30, 1989. Authorizes $10 million per year for 2021 and 2022. Sec. 1270E: Repeal of Sudan Peace Act and the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act Effective January 1, 2020 (backdated), repeals the Sudan Peace Act and the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act Subtitle H - United States Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2020 Sec. 1273: Security Assistance for Israel The United States will give Israel at least $3.3 billion per year from the Foreign Military Financing Program from 2021 through 2028 (at least $26.4 billion). The amount used to be capped; this law changed it so that is a minimum payment. Sec. 1275: Rules Governing the Transfer of Precision-Guided Munitions to Israel Above the Annual Restriction Authorizes the President to transfer precision-guided missiles from our reserves to Israel The authority to transfer our missiles to Israel will expire at the beginning of 2024 TITLE LVXXXIV - MISCELLANEOUS Subtitle C - Arctic Sec. 8421: Coast Guard Arctic Prioritization Congress is concerned that "Russia and China have conducted military exercises together in the Arctic, have agreed to connect the Northern Sea Route, claimed by Russia, with China's Maritime Silk Road, and are working together in developing natural gas resources in the Arctic." TITLE XCIV - SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY MATTERS Subtitle B - Other Matters Sec. 9414: Study on Chinese Policies and Influence in the Development of International Standards for Emerging Technologies The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology will conduct a study that can include... How China's role in international standards setting organizations has grown over the last 10 years China's standardization strategy outlined in "Chinese Standard 2035" An examination of whether international standards for technology are being designed to promote Chinese interests outlined in the "Made in China 2025" plan Recommendations on how the United States can "mitigate" China's influence in setting standards and increase the United States public and private sector participation in the standards setting institutions TITLE XCVII - FINANCIAL SERVICES MATTERS Subtitle C - Other Matters Sec. 9723: Accountability for World Bank Loans to China Makes it the policy of the United States to disqualify China from receiving World Bank loans designed for low and middle income countries. This was a bill written by Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio TITLE XCIX - CREATING HELPFUL INCENTIVES TO PRODUCE SEMICONDUCTORS FOR AMERICA Sec. 9902: Semiconductor Incentives The Secretary of Commerce has to create a program that provides tax money to "a private entity, a consortium of private entities,, or a consortium of public and private entities..." to incentivize them to invest in creating, assembling, testing, packaging, or researching semiconductors in the United States. The money can not be given to "a foreign entity of concern" Tax money for any individual project is capped at $3 billion, but that limit can be waived with the recommendation of the Defense Secretary, the Director of National Intelligence, and the President. Sec. 9905: Funding for Development and Adoption of Measurably Secure Semiconductors and Measurably Secure Semiconductors Supply Chains Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to create a "Multilateral Semiconductors Security Fund" The fund would be used to create "measurably secure semiconductor supply chains" The Secretary of State can use money in the fund to give to foreign governments on the condition that those countries enact restrictions on exports to China. The Secretary of State is encouraged, but not required, to establish transparency requirements for subsidies or other financial benefits given to semiconductors inside or outside the participating countries and "promote harmonized treatment and verification processes for items being exported to a country considered a national security risk by a country participating". Coronabus Outline Bill Text DIVISION B - COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021 TITLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 526: Prohibits NASA, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), or the National Space Council (NSC) from working with, contracting from, or coordinating "in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company" unless the activities are "specifically authorized" by a law enacted after the Coronabus. This can be waived if NASA, the OSTP, or NSC consults with the FBI and finds that the cooperation would "pose no risk of resulting in the transfer of technology, data, or other information with national security or economic security implications to China or a Chinese-owned company." DIVISION K - DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT TITLE VII: GENERAL PROVISIONS Insecure Communications Networks Sec. 7030: State Department funds must be used to advance the adoption of 5G in countries receiving our tax money and prevent the creation of communications networks, including 5G, promoted by China "and other state-backed enterprises that are subject to undue or extrajudicial control by their country of origin." East Asia and the Pacific $1.482 billion must be spent implementing the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the Asia Reassurance Initiative of 2018. Requires at least $300 million in additional money to be spent on a new Countering Chinese Influence Fund Sec. 7043: Funding for China's neighbors... Almost $135 million was appropriated for the government of Burma before the military coup. At least $85 million is appropriated for the government of Cambodia, conditioned on Cambodia "verifiably maintaining the neutrality of Ream Naval Base, other military installations in Cambodia, and dual use facilities such as the Dara Sakor development project. There is no certification required for "democracy, health, education, and environment programs, programs to strengthen the sovereignty of Cambodia, and programs to educate and inform the people of Cambodia of the influence activities of the People's Republic of China in Cambodia." At least $80 million will be given to Laos At least $3 million from the "Democracy Fund" will be given to Hong Kong for "democracy and internet freedom programs for Hong Kong, including legal and other support for democracy activists" as long as none of this money goes to the Chinese government. Prohibits counter-drug money for the Philippines, "except for drug demand reduction, maritime law enforcement, or transnational interdiction." At least $170 million will be given to Vietnam Europe and Eurasia Requires at least $290 million to be spent on the Countering Russian Influence Fund Latin America and the Caribbean Sec. 7045: Requires over $500 million to be available for "assistance" for Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, which can be spent on the Central America Regional Security Initiative. Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras can only get 50% of their allotted funding unless the Secretary of State certifies that the governments are taking actions against corruption, enacting reforms, informing their citizens that it’s dangerous to come to the United States, enhancing border security, and “resolving disputes involving the confiscation of real property of United States entities.” Those three countries are also ineligible for foreign military financing. The Caribbean Requires at least $74.8 million to be spent on the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative Venezuela Requires at least $33 million to be spent on "democracy programs" in Venezuela Bilateral Economic Assistance Adds an additional $700 million to the Economic Support Fund, available until September 30, 2022 for Sudan. DIVISION Z - ENERGY ACT OF 2020 Sec. 7003: Monitoring Mineral Investments Under Belt and Road Initiative of People's Republic of China The Director of National Intelligence, starting in the beginning of 2022 and every year after, will have to conduct a detailed report on China's investments in minerals and if their investments have increased their control over the global supply of those minerals. DIVISION FF - OTHER MATTER TITLE III - FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROVISIONS Subtitle B - Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 Sec. 314: Taiwan's Inclusion in International Organizations Congress finds that... "China's attempts to dictate the terms of Taiwan's participation in international organizations has, in many cases, resulted in Taiwan's exclusion from such organizations even when statehood is not a requirement..." Makes it US policy to advocate for Taiwans inclusion in international organizations that do not require statehood, including the United Nations, World Health Assembly, and others. Subtitle F - The United States Northern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act Sec. 352: By the beginning of July, the Secretary of State has to submit a five year strategy to Congress for changing the governing, economic, and security structures of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Economically, the priorities must include: "Supporting market-based solutions to eliminate constraints to inclusive economic growth" "Identifying... a role for relevant United States agencies and United States private sector in supporting efforts to increase private sector investment..." Security priorities must include: "Implementing the Central America Regional Security Initiative" The strategy can be created in partnership with "civil society and the private sector in the United States, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras." The strategy will have to be posed on the State Department's website, but it is allowed to be partially classified. Sec. 353: By the beginning of July, President Biden has to submit a list of people who will be sanctioned for their actions in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Sanctions will prohibit the targets from traveling to the United States. The authority to impose these sanctions will expire at the beginning of 2024. https://www.congress.gov/116/cprt/HPRT42770/CPRT-116HPRT42770.pdf#page= National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 Bill Text Sec. 1251: Authorized the “Indo-Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative” to “increase the presence and capabilities” of the United States Armed Forces in the region by building new infrastructure, “enhance the storage and pre-positioning in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region of equipment of the United States Forces”, and with military training and exercises with allies. John S. McCain National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2019 Bill Text Sec. 1252: Amends the NDAA for 2016, which authorized the South China Sea Initiative providing military equipment and training to Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, to change the name of the program to the “Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative” and expands the authorization to include the Indian Ocean in addition to the South China Sea and the countries of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Adds India to the list of countries allowed to be paid for expenses, along with Brunei, Singapore, and Taiwan. Extends the expiration date from September 30, 2020 to December 31, 2025. Sec. 1253: Changes the name of the military build-up authorized in NDAA 2018 from the “Indo-Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative” to the “Indo-Pacific Stability Initiative”. Changes the activities authorized to include an increase in “rotational and forward presence” of the US Armed Forces and adds the prepositioning of “munitions” in addition to equipment. Expands the options for funding by removing the requirement that funding come “only” from a section 1001 transfer authority. Section 1001 transfer authority allows the shifting of up to $4.5 billion. Requires a 5 year plan be submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Defense by March 1, 2019. Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018 Outline [Bill Text](https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ409/PLAW-115publ409.pdf Sec. 2: Findings The "United States-backed international system" is being challenged by: China constructing islands in the South China Sea and challenging US economic interests North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities ISIS "Without strong leadership from the United States, the international system, fundamentally rooted in the rule of law, may wither, to the detriment of the United States, regional, and global interests." TITLE I: UNITED STATES POLICY AND DIPLOMATIC STRATEGY IN THE INDO-PACIFIC REGION Sec. 101: Policy The United States policy for the region... "Promotes American prosperity and economic interests by advancing economic growth and development of a rules-based Indo-Pacific economic community" Sec. 102: Diplomatic Strategy We will support... The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation East Asia Summit We want... Freedom of navigation under international law Expansions of security and defense cooperation with allies and partners Denuclearization of North Korea "To develop and grow the economy through private sector partnerships between the United States and Indo-Pacific partners" To pursue trade agreements and "build a network of partners in the Indo-Pacific committed to free markets" TITLE II - PROMOTING UNITED STATES SECURITY INTERESTS IN THE INDO-PACIFIC REGION Sec 201: Authorization of Appropriations $1.5 billion per year from 2019 through 2023 ($7.5 billion total) The money can be used for... Foreign military financing Foreign military education and training Counterterrorism partnership programs "To encourage responsible natural resource management in partner countries, which is closely associated with economic growth" Military and Coast Guard training exercises Expanding cooperation with Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka "Multilateral engagements" with Japan, Australia, and India Intelligence The goal is to counter "China's influence to undermine the international system" Sec. 205: United States-ASEAN Strategic Partnership The goal of our commitment to ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is to "build a strong, stable politically cohesive, economically integrated, and socially responsible community of nations that has common rules, norms, procedures, and standards which are consistent with international law and the principles of a rules-based Indo-Pacific community." Sec. 209: Commitment to Taiwan To enforce all existing commitments to Taiwan made by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and the 3 joint communiques and the Six Assurances agreed to by President Reagan in July 1982 The United States "should" regularly transfer weapons to Taiwan "that are tailored to meet the existing and likely future threats from the People's Republic of China." TITLE III: PROMOTING UNITED STATES ECONOMIC INTERESTS IN THE INDO-PACIFIC REGION Sec. 301: Findings By 2030, 66% of the global middle class will be living in Asia and 59% of middle class consumption will take place in Asia The United States has free trade agreements in effect with Australia, Singapore, and Korea The member states of ASEAN represent the fifth largest economy in the world Sec. 302: Indo-Pacific Trade Negotiations, Multilateral Agreements, and Regional Economic Summits Congress supports "full implementation of the World Trade Organization's Trade Facilitation Agreement by Indo-Pacific countries" Sec. 304: Trade Capacity Building and Trade Facilitation Authorizes "such sums as may be necessary" for the President to produce a trade facilitation strategy that levels the playing field for American companies competing in the Indo-Pacific region. TITLE IV - PROMOTING UNITED STATES VALUES IN THE INDO-PACIFIC REGION Sec. 409: Authorization of Appropriations Authorizes $210 million per year from 2019 through 2025 (over $1 billion total) to "promote democracy, strengthen civil society... etc" in the Indo-Pacific region. This money can be used to promote democracy and the "rule of law" inside of China. Articles/Documents Article: The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor—Hard Reality Greets BRI’s Signature Initiative, By David Sacks, Council on Foreign Relations, March 30, 2021 Article: An Alliance of Autocracies? China Wants to Lead a New World Order., By Steven Lee Myers, The New York Times, March 29, 2021 Article: China and Russia Agree to Explore the Moon Together, By Steven Lee Myers, The New York Times, March 10, 2021 Article: Russia, Belarus ink five-year strategic military partnership plan for first time, By Tass, March 2, 2021 Article: The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed, By David Axe, Forbes, February 23, 2021 Article: Chip Crisis Flummoxes Congress in a World Where U.S. Output Lags, By Laura Davison and Jarrell Dillard, MSN, Bloomberg, February 21, 2021 Article: Cambodia-China Golden Dragon Military Exercise postponed, By Chea Vanyuth, Khmer Times, February 2, 2021 Document: China’s “One Belt, One Road” Initiative: Economic Issues, By Karen M. Sutter, Andres B. Schwarzenberg, and Michael D. Sutherland, The Congressional Research Service, January 21, 2021 Article: Defense Bill Includes Two Landmark Transparency Provisions, By Tim Stretton, POGO, January 21, 2021 Article: NicaNotes: Unelectable coup mongers, By Fabrizio Casari, Alliance for Global Justice, January 14, 2021 Document: Taiwan: Political and Security Issues, By Susan V. Lawrence, The Congressional Research Service, January 4, 2021 News Release: Cambodia: Hun Sen and His Abusive Generals, Human Rights Watch, October 22, 2020 Article: Cambodian PM Says Ream Naval Base Not Just for China, By The Defense Spot, October 7, 2020 Article: The Real F-35 Problem We Need to Solve, By Scott Cooper, Defense One, September 29, 2020 Article: Russia, China launch massive 'Caucasus 2020' military exercises, By Jan van der Made, Rfi, September 21, 2020 Article: China says it will join Russian military exercises this month along with Iran, Belarus and others, By CBS News, September 10, 2020 Document: China’s National Security Law for Hong Kong: Issues for Congress, By Susan V. Lawrence and Michael F. Martin, The Congressional Research Service, August 3, 2020 Article: India-China border standoff turns deadly for first time in decades, By Arshad R. Zargar, CBS News, June 16, 2020 Article: Chinese troops challenge India at multiple locations in eastern Ladakh, standoff continues, By Snehesh Alex Philip, The Print, May 24, 2020 Article: When It Comes to Supersonic Flight, the F-35’s Wings Are Clipped, By Kyle Mizokami, Popular Mechanics, April 29, 2020 Article: Cambodia, China kick off Golden Dragon exercise despite coronavirus, Vietnam News, March 15, 2020 Article: Joint Cambodia-China ‘Golden Dragon’ Military Drills to Proceed, Despite Threat of Coronavirus, Reported by RFA’s Khmer Service, Translated by Sovannarith Keo, Written in English by Joshua Lipes, Radio Free Asia, March, 2020 Press Release: Gonzalez introduces new bill to curb World Bank funding to China, Anthony Gonzalez, November 13, 2019 Article: Deal for Naval Outpost in Cambodia Furthers China’s Quest for Military Network, By Jeremy Page, Gordon Lubold and Rob Taylor, The Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2019 Document: Cambodia: Background and U.S. Relations, By Thomas Lum, The Congressional Research Service, January 28, 2019 Document: Taiwan: Issues for Congress, By Susan V. Lawrence and Wayne M. Morrison, The Congressional Research Service, October 30, 2017 Additional Resources Hun Sen, Britannica Aegis Ashore Lockheed Martin Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Secretary Blinken: The Biden Administration’s Priorities for U.S. Foreign Policy, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, March 10, 2021 Watch on YouTube Watch on C-SPAN Transcript: 40:53 Antony Blinken: So on Nord Stream II, a couple of things at the outset, just to be very, very clear, President Biden thinks it's a bad idea. He said so repeatedly, I share his his view. It violates the European Union's own energy security principles. It jeopardizes the economic and strategic situation for Ukraine, for Poland as well. And so he opposes it. We oppose it will continue to do so. I've been on the job, I think, five weeks. The pipeline is 95% complete. It started construction started in 2018. So I wish we didn't find ourselves in a situation with a pipeline that's virtually complete. 1:06:17 Antony Blinken: We have to deal with the drivers of migration, to your point. And I think there is real opportunity there to do that. When President Biden was Vice President, as you may remember, he led an effort, very successful effort, a bipartisan effort with Congress to secure significantly more resources to help Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador deal with some of these drivers, whether it came to security, whether it came to corruption, whether it came to economic opportunity, and we did this in a way that was simply not simply throwing money at the problem, but demanding concrete reforms from these countries, that actually materially improved the situation for people there and took away some of the incentives for them to come to the United States. We now have a proposal with additional resources over four years to do that, and to do that in a, I think, potentially effective way. 1:10:35 Antony Blinken: First we have in President Biden, as you know, someone who believes strongly in NATO, in the Alliance, the most successful alliance in history and something as he see that he sees as the glue that joins us to to Europe and so this is something as you know, he spent a lot of time on himself in the past and he's doing so now as well. 1:12:37 Antony Blinken: When we see democracy being challenged by China or by Russia, one of the things that they're trying to do constantly, is not just to divide us from other democracies, but of course, to divide us from ourselves, and in particular, to try to make the case that the system that we all believe in and are dedicating our lives to professionally doesn't work and that their systems are better. 1:13:09 Antony Blinken: Demonstrate together, that democracy actually delivers for our people and for other democracies. That is the single best answer and response to this effort by autocratic countries around the world to try to make the case that democracy doesn't deliver an autocracy does. So I hope we can work on that together because that's the path to success. 1:13:43 Rep. Joe Wilson (SC): The International Criminal Court has taken actions leading to the unjustified prosecution of American Israeli nationals despite neither country being a member of the court. Most recently, the ICC issued a ruling that had jurisdiction to try Israelis for alleged war crimes in Palestine. I appreciate your statement opposing the recent moves by the ICC. What are the steps the State Department are taking to counter these recent actions? And how will you work to prevent ICC prosecutions of Americans or Israelis?Antony Blinken: Thank you for the question. I appreciate it. We of course share the goal, the broad goal of accountability for international atrocity crimes. That's not the issue. In the case that you raise, as well as the attempt to assert jurisdiction over American troops in Afghanistan, we have strongly opposed those assertions of jurisdiction. It's been our view, it remains our view that jurisdiction is reserved when a state consents to it or if there's a referral by the United Nations Security Council. Neither is true in the case of of Israel and the Palestinian matter that you just mentioned, or is it true in the case of Afghanistan, we have the capacity ourselves to provide accountability when those issues arise. And so we will continue to make clear our opposition, I think the question for us, and it's an appropriate one is how can we most effectively do that and that's something that we're looking at right now. 1:15:37 Rep. Joe Wilson (SC): My youngest son served in Afghanistan. So identify as a family member of the threats of ICC what they could mean to the American people. 1:16:30 Antony Blinken: We applaud the steps that have been taken toward normalization with Israel by a number of countries including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco. These are very important and we want to build on them. 1:16:50 Rep. Joe Wilson (SC): But unfortunately then we go to Nordstrom, too. And that is a Do you agree that Nord Stream II pipeline is a Russian malign influence project, if completed, that would threaten European and US security? Antony Blinken: Yes, I think as we've we were discussing a little bit earlier, we we oppose the president opposes Nordstrom, who has been clear about this for some time. So have I, and unfortunately, the pipeline is, you know, is 95% complete. But we are making clear that we, we stand against its completion. We issued an initial report and sanctioned the the leading pipeline, ship, and we continue to review other possibilities for sanctions going forward.Rep. Joe Wilson (SC): And I appreciate you actually referenced the threat to Poland. What about threat is already on with the aggression in Ukraine.Antony Blinken: There are two and this is something that I worked on a lot when I was last in, in the Obama administration. We strongly stand against Russia's attempted annexation of Crimea, we stand strongly against its aggression in the Donbass in eastern Ukraine, and we are strongly in support of Ukraine, we intend to strengthen that support, whether its security, economic, or its efforts to strengthen its own democracy, which are vitally important because one of the challenges as you know, for Ukraine is it has to face aggression from the outside from from Russia, but it also has to deal on the inside with its own challenges, including the problem of corruption. We're determined to work on all of that.Rep. Joe Wilson (SC): Another alternative would be as Azerbaijan to Bulgaria, the Black Sea with pipelines that I urge you to make every effort on that. I yield back. 2:54:30 Antony Blinken: First when it comes to the the Houthis, just to be very clear, we we see them as a bad actor that has tried to overrun Yemen, interrupted a peace, effort and led by the United Nations, committed acts of aggression against Saudi Arabia, as well as atrocities of one kind or another, in Yemen itself, and of course, have helped create an environment where we have the worst humanitarian crisis in the world right now. And that's precisely why we took the action we did in terms of lifting the designation on the entity itself. We continue to have designations against individual who the leaders, including some that we've imposed recently, but we wanted to make sure that nothing that the United States was doing, made the provision of humanitarian assistance to Yemen even more difficult than it already is. And it was our judgment, that was those designations, that designation of the group was having that effect, but we stand strongly for the proposition that we have to deal with the Houthis and also try to advance current efforts to end the war. Hearing: The State of Democracy Around the World, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 10, 2021 Watch on YouTube Speakers: Madeleine K. Albright, former Secretary of State Paula J. Dobriansky, former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Peter Biar Ajak, National Endowment for Democracy, all of Washington, D.C.; Wai Hnin Pwint Thon, Burma Campaign UK, Geneva, Switzerland Nathan Law, former Hong Kong Legislative Council Member, London, United Kingdom. Transcript: 35:54 Ambassador Paula J Dobriansky: Venezuela is a flashpoint for Chinese and Russian investment and malign influence. both nations have invested billions into Venezuela taking advantage of its economic and political weakness, its vast petroleum resources and their close relationships with a corrupt Maduro regime. Russian arms manufacturers sold $4 billion worth of weapons to Venezuela over the last 10 years, and China has invested some 67 billion in Venezuela since 2007. These instruments have propped up an illegitimate government and have undermined prospects for democracy. 37:07 Ambassador Paula J Dobriansky: Russia and China have expanded investments in Africa as well. In 2003, annual Chinese direct investment in Africa was just 75 million, but by 2009, it reached 2.7 billion. Through its One Belt One Road Initiative. China is offering fragile democracies in Africa, new rail lines, highways and other infrastructure projects. African nations are finding that these projects have left them with massive debt and a lack of control. Russia is also increasing its investments in Africa to especially its military presence. It's striving to create a Red Sea naval logistics facility in Sudan. 40:49 Madeleine Albright: And I do think that there's no question that China is our biggest problem, and that they are out there, hustling in every single way. And I have made very clear that with the Belt and Road policies that they are undertaking, the Chinese must be getting very fat because the belt keeps getting larger and larger. And some of it does have to do with the fact that we have been absent and they are filling a vacuum and so we need to make clear that we need to be back and really do need to make clear in so many ways that we are a leader in restoring and building democracy in other countries. 1:13:46 Sen. Chris Coons (DE): Senator Cornyn and I have a bipartisan bill about strengthening civics education within the United States. In recent surveys, there's as many young Americans who support and believe in socialism as believe in capitalism. There's profound doubts about democracy, particularly after the events of January 6th, and the disinformation, about the value and legitimacy of free and open societies that we've lived through. It's my hope that on a bipartisan basis, we can move a renewed investment in civics education to strengthen our own democracies, you've both spoken to. 1:48:30 Peter Biar Ajak: The United States need to send a clear message to here, there is repression of our people will no longer be tolerated, nor any further delay of elections. We should sanction perpetrators of gross human rights violations like which, while urging the African Union to urgently set up the hybrid court on South Sudan to end impunity. If Kiran doesn't hold the election on time, he's already illegitimate regime will have expired since he was never elected by our people. This will necessitate a new political paradigm to ensure a successful transition to democracy. Despite severe depression, our people made it clear in the recently concluded national dialogue that Kiran Machar must exit the political scene. I hope the United States, this committee will stand with our people. Hearing: National Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activities in the Indo-Pacific, House Committee on Armed Services, March 10, 2021 Watch on YouTube Speakers: David F. Helvey, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Affairs, Department of Defense Admiral Philip S. Davidson, U.S. Navy, Commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command General Robert B. Abrams, U.S. Army, Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/U.S. Forces Korea Transcript: 31:54 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: The threat as it's developed in the western Pacific has moved in a way in which we need to have better integrated air and missile defense capability on Guam in order to defend it. What you have in place right now is fad radar, which only has 120 degree wide look at threats in the region and in fact, it's oriented on North Korea. And it's meant to defend against rogue shot of intermediate range from North Korea. We supplement that with an Aegis destroyer. As we look at the expanse of Chinese weapon systems, and their employment of air and maritime forces in the region. We need a 360 degree defense now of Guam, and must be able to meet the ballistic missile threat that can come from PRC land as well as PRC ships. But it also should meet the 360 degree threat around Guam that comes from circumnavigations of Guam by PRC naval assets, including submarines that could shoot land attack cruise missiles, for example. As well as bomber approaches, and its ability to shoot land attack cruise missiles as well. We have to be able to defend against all those threats. Aegis Ashore is a proven technology that you have today at sea and you have it ashore in Romania and Poland to help in the defense of Europe. That system would enable all the capabilities that you have today and begin to meet the threats in the future. As China develops hypersonic weapons during the course of this decade., clearly there's going to be a need to have space sensing associated with that. You're still gonna have to have an interceptor to meet the threat. In my view, that's going to rectify that by bridging Aegis Ashore with our space capability that is to come. 49:14 David F. Helvey: And the reality is that we're not asking nations to choose between the United States or China. In fact, we welcome and encourage all nations across the Indo Pacific to maintain peaceful, productive relations with all of their neighbors, China included. Framing the strategic competition that we find ourselves in with China, as a choice between us or China, or as a choice between nations is really a false choice. The choice that our allies and our partners and everyone in the region faces is between supporting the existing international order, the existing system that's free and open. It's the system that we helped to create that we've supported, and that we believe has benefited everybody in the region, including in particular, including China. And the alternative now that China is presenting, which is a closed system in a more authoritarian governance model. So it's a competition between systems, that's a choice between systems. Do you want to choose a free and open system? Or do you want to choose a closed and authoritarian one? And so we're only asking countries to do their part to uphold the international laws, rules and norms, which support their interests, which they've benefited from, and helped to provide for security and prosperity for all of us. And so that's that's the ask that we've got our allies and our partners. 57:27 Rep. Joe Courtney (CT): Admiral Davidson on page 35 of your testimony you set forth China's sort of brazen, repeated violations of the Law of the Sea treaty. And mentioned the fact that at South China Sea geographic features were renamed with, I guess, Chinese names. Can you flesh that out a little bit what that means in terms of, you know, maritime territorial claims, and the impact in terms of freedom of navigation? Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Well, the Chinese are trying to basically impose Chinese national law on the international regime that provides for the freedom of navigation and freedom of the seas. We've spoken quite a bit about the Chinese use of lawfare. This is, one of the methodologies in which they do it. It's not just the naming, or renaming of features that have had long standing names in the region. It's the redefinition of what they might be. Because, rocks, is slits, islands all have very specific navigational rights associated with them, as well as their continued militarization of the features that they built out early in the last decade. Their continued militarization is to frankly, deter not only the United States, but truly cow, all of our allies and partners in the region, and certainly the South China Sea claimants from their absolute rights to operate and those rights that they enjoy for economic resource extraction of freedom of the seas, freedom of the airways, etc.Rep. Joe Courtney (CT): Well, thank you for that answer. Because, again, as you point out, this isn't just about sort of names. It's also about sort of territorial claims and what that means to the rules based system that has been so successful over the last 75 years. 1:29:46 Rep. Scott DesJarlais (IA): Admiral Davidson What do you consider the most likely potential target of Chinese aggression or military action in the next five to 10 years? Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Given what they've said both publicly and over time, and certainly during the tenure of Chairman Xi Jinping. I would say Taiwan is the first. Hearing: United States Indo-Pacific Command, Senate Committee on Armed Services, March 9, 2021 Transcript: 4:23 Sen. Jack Reed (RI): At his confirmation hearing Secretary Austin accurately described china as the pacing threat for the department of defense under president Xi Jinping china has moved away from greater integration with the liberal world order and instead created a style of authoritarian capitalism that it now seeks to explore throughout the region and the world additionally China seeks to co op international institutions or create parallel organization to support its strategic interest. 8:23 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): China invested in military capabilities many americans naively assumed that China's entry into the WTO and the global integration of its economy would somehow make the Chinese communist party more friendly and open to the west. The result now is america's military advantage and the credibility of our deterrent is eroding that is why the 2021 NDAA was the toughest bill on china ever with several national security committees involved and that is specifically why this committee put the Pacific Deterrence Initiative or PDI into last year's NDAA to stop aggression from the Chinese Communist Party. 18:50 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: I think the Pacific deterrence initiative funded in FY21 for about $2.2 billion was a good first start. I recognize that the committee has put a cap of $5.5 billion on the fund going forward. 22:45 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: i'm quite encouraged by the potential power of an organization like the quad my brain in my view India Japan Australia in the United States that's a diamond of democracies that could bring so much more not only to the region but to the globe not not in terms of security alone, but in terms of how we might approach you know the global economy, critical technologies like telecommunications and 5G, collaboration on the international order, just much to be done diplomatically and economically and I have great hope that our ministerial level meetings with the clot as it's known and returned we'll build into something much bigger for the sake of the globe. 24:24 Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): With regard to the projected 2025. It shows that at that point, China will have three aircraft carriers to our one in the region. Is that correct? Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Yes, sir. Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): And then with regard to amphibious assault ships, it's projected in 2025, that we'll have six to our two. Admiral Philip S. Davidson:* Yes, sir. **Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): And then with regard to modern multi warfare, combatant ships 50 for two hours, six, is that correct? Admiral Philip S. Davidson:* Yes, sir. **Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): And what is the significance of that last figure Admiral? Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Really, the three charts work together, Senator, one to show the change in capability and capacity that the Chinese have undertaken during the course of the 21st century. And the relatively static nature of our own forward positioned forces. As I described, our effort to do a deterrence to sustain a deterrence posture and the reason it's so important on our ability to respond in time and without question, you know, is this an old novel in the 70s is to say, the importance of us presence forward is incredibly important, perfect speed is being there. And it's to show that if we don't make changes in our posture forward, that that it will demonstrate that the Chinese have much greater capacity than we have. 26:42 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: But the important factor here is time. It takes almost three weeks to respond from the west coast of the United States and 17 days to respond from Alaska to get all the way to the first island chain and to conduct operations within the second islands. 28:26 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Certainly advocating for Aegis Ashore and Guam the mission partner environment as well as the Pentek. That the Pacific Range Improvements that I seek for our structure in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and so forth. 35:43 Sen. Deb Fisher (NE): Last year, the strategic forces subcommittee authorized and additional $77 million to begin fielding a persistent air and missile defense system on Guam. Unfortunately, this funding was removed in conference and replaced with language requiring the department to study the issue. Can you walk us through the need for this system? 38:24 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: In partnership with the Missile Defense Agency we believe that the aegis assures system as is being put to sea right now and has been constructed previously in Romania and Poland delivers the kind of capabilities that would meet the threat that's excellent here by mid decade and we'll help us pace the threat into the future. 1:03:35 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: I worry that they're accelerating their ambitions to supplant the United States and our leadership role in the rules based international order which they've long said that they want to do that by 2050, I'm worried about them moving that target closer. Taiwan is clearly one of their ambitions before then and i think the threat is manifest during this decade in fact in the next six years. 1:05:58 Sen. Maizie Hirono (HI): I noticed that you significantly increased the requested amount from last year's PDI report to this year's report to strengthen our allies and partners over the next five years in the region from over $300 million to about $2.8 billion, can you discuss your rationale for the significant increase and what that additional funding is intended to do or where will it go?Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Well you hope you highlighted the key aspects ma'am it's to enhance and make improvements in our joint exercise program and that's principally because not only the united states but our key allies and partners Japan, Korea, Australia is just three examples are buying important capabilities that match ours integrated air missile defense for example fifth generation fighters like the F35 they're being actually delivered in the theater we've got to advance our exercise capabilities or excuse me our exercise program in a way that allows us to exercise those capabilities deliberately. 1:34:07 Sen. Tim Scott (SC): My first question is about Taiwan. I think you agree that it we've got to prevent Communist China from Controlling taiwan is a strategic necessity for the united states and the loss would devastate our ability and and the ability of japan to counter china's aggression does you agree with that and rightAdmiral Philip S. Davidson: As a combatant commander out there in the Indo-Pacific I have an obligation to you know support the Taiwan Relations Act and and in a geostrategic sense i think it's critically important to the united states global status, yes. 1:44:04 Admiral Philip S. Davidson: The Aegis Ashore is a system that's in fact already been developed we we have built and are employing one actually already in Romania and there's one building and imminently operational in Poland as well and it's to help nato with the defense of Europe it is essentially a radar the command and control the information technology communications conductivity and the interceptors missiles that are capable of defeating ballistic missile cruise missile threats in and around today you know an aegis ashore system on Guam fixed site on Guam would enable 360 degree defense of Guam from any military attacks from china whether they come by sea by air or by ballistic missile in the future it is technology that is available today we've built it ashore we've built it at sea and it's our you know it's our number one priority for funding in Guam. 2:13:13 Sen. Mark Kelly (NJ): You know a couple of questions here about command and control, communications. And we rely heavily on satellites to do that. And in in January of 2007, China conducted an anti anti satellite test against one of their own non operational weather satellites, with a kinetic Kill vehicle. And it's been reported that in the year since China has an operational capability that can attack satellites in low Earth orbit and that they're developing the capability that goes all the way out to geosynchronous orbit. So how does this affect the strategic balance of power in the region from your perspective?Admiral Philip S. Davidson: Thanks for that, Senator. Yes, both China and Russia have demonstrated capability to disrupt satellites, testing capabilities on their own assets in the past, as you've articulated, it clearly, I think demonstrates that space which we've long considered a domain and which would be unthreatened for the United States. The potential is there actually, for it to be threatened. We have to build resiliency into our space apparatus that happens with other space assets. It happens with creating airborne and other terrestrial alternatives to fulfill that. And it changes the calculus in space as well. We have to recognize that again, this goes back to some earlier comments I made about to turn theory we were not going to be able to play defense alone, in this particular regard. If we can't demonstrate to others, that their capabilities and space might be at risk, then, you know, we run the risk of a deterrence failure. That's that the space layer is critically important to how we sense in the strategic nuclear deterrent, how we communicate across the Joint Force, and even how we sense and distribute information to the conventional forces as well. Its resiliency is incredibly important to us. Hearing: Global Security Challenges and Strategy, Senate Committee on Armed Services, March 2, 2021 Speakers: Thomas Wright, The Brookings Institution Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, USA (Ret.), former United States National Security Advisor, Stanford University Hoover Institution, both of Washington, D.C. Transcript: Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster: The most significant flashpoint now that that could lead to a large scale war is Taiwan. And I think that has to do with really Xi Jinping's belief that he has a fleeting window of opportunity that's closing. And he wants to his view, make China whole again, you see this with the extension of the party's repressive arm into Hong Kong. And this horrible genocidal campaign in Shinjang, Taiwan is the next big prize. And so I think what we have to be able to do is have four position capable forces. Because what Xi Jinping wants to do with what would be the largest land grabs, so to speak in history, if he succeeds in the South China Sea, is to weaponize the South China Sea and just make it too difficult for us to be able to employ forces inside of that inner island chain. So you know, if you have four position forces there, that automatically transforms denied space with China with the PLA, The People's Liberation Army when it comes to deny space. Twitter Update: Ned Price rattle off a regime change rant revamping Trump's policy on Venezuela, Anya Parampil February 3, 2021 Hearing: Secretary of State Confirmation Hearing, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, January 19, 2021 Watch on C-SPAN Transcript: 24:50 Sen. Jim Risch (OH): After our conversations earlier today and after hearing our opening statements, Senator Menendez's input net regard, as you can see here and a whole lot of daylight between us on most of these issues, certainly, almost none whatsoever when it comes to objectives, strategy and how to get there. 34:06 Antony Blinken: Both the President Elect and I believe that we have to restore Congress's traditional role as a partner in our foreign policy making, in recent years, across administration's of both parties, Congress's voice and foreign policy has been diluted and diminished. That doesn't make the executive branch stronger. It makes our country weaker. President Elect Biden believes and I share his conviction that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. You are the representatives of the American people. You provide that advice and consent. 39:20 Antony Blinken: First President Elect Biden is committed to the proposition that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon. And we share I know that goal across this committee. An Iran with a nuclear weapon, or on the threshold of having one with the capacity to build one on short order would be in Iran that is even more dangerous than it already is, when it comes to all of the other malicious activities that's engaged in, whether it is support for terrorism, whether it is fueling and feeding it's proxies, whether it is destabilizing the region. An Iran with a nuclear weapon, or with a threshold capacity to build one is in Iran that would act potentially with even greater impunity than it already is. So I think we have an urgent responsibility to do whatever we can to prevent Iran from acquiring or getting a weapon or getting close to the capacity to having the fissile material to break out on short notice. In my judgment, the JCPOA, for whatever its limitations, was succeeding on its own terms in blocking Iran's pathways to producing fissile material for a nuclear weapon on short order. It also featured and a feature that continues the most intrusive inspections and monitoring regime in the history of arms control. The challenge we face now is that we pulled out of the agreement, Iran is now taking steps to undo the various constraints that were imposed on it by the agreement. And so it has increased his stockpile of low enriched uranium, it is now enriching at a higher level. It is deploying centrifuges in ways that were prohibited under the agreement. The result is based on public reporting. The breakout time, the time it would take Iran to produce enough fissile material for one weapon has gone from beyond a year as it was under the JCPOA to about three or four months based at least on public reporting. And that potentially brings us right back to the crisis point that we were reaching before the deal was negotiated. And so the President Elect believes that if Iran comes back into compliance, we would too. But we would use that as a platform with our allies and partners who would once again be on the same side with us to seek a longer and stronger agreement. And also, as you and the chairman have rightly pointed out, to capture these other issues, particularly with regard to missiles and Iran's destabilizing activities. That would be the objective. 53:46 Sen. Ron Johnson (WI): Okay, one of the things that Congress did unanimously is we approved $300 million of lethal defensive weaponry for Ukraine. The Obama administration never implemented, the Trump administration did. Do you still disagree with providing that lethal defensive weaponry or do you think and, over time now, that's been proven to be the correct decision by Congress and the Trump administration? Antony Blinken: Senator, I support providing that lethal defensive assistance to Ukraine. In fact, I had the opportunity to write exactly that in the New York Times about three years ago. 1:14:09 Antony Blinken: There's been a strong and long bipartisan commitment to Taiwan. Taiwan Relations Act, also that communicates with China, and part of that commitment is making sure that Taiwan has the ability to defend itself against aggression. And that is a commitment that will absolutely endure. In a Biden administration, we will make sure that Taiwan has the ability to do that. I would also like to see Taiwan playing a greater role around the world, including in international organizations. When those organizations don't require the status of a country to be a member, they should become members. When it does, there are other ways that they can participate. 1:35:15 Sen. Marco Rubio (FL): Is it your view that our stance towards Venezuela should change in essence, that we should no longer recognize Juan Guido and an intern in negotiations with Maduro? Antony Blinken: No, it does not. I very much agree with you, Senator, first of all, with regard to a number of the steps that were taken toward Venezuela in recent years, including recognizing Mr. Guido, recognizing the National Assembly as the only democratically elected institution in Venezuela, seeking to increase pressure on the regime, led by a brutal dictator in Maduro. 1:46:21 Antony Blinken: First senator, we need to be clear eyed about the Houthis. They overthrew a government in Yemen. They engaged in a path of aggression through the country. They directed aggression toward Saudi Arabia, they've committed atrocities and human rights abuses. And that is a fact. What's also a fact though is that the the Saudi led campaign in Yemen, pushback against the Houthi aggression, has contributed to what is by most accounts, the worst humanitarian situation that we face, anywhere in the world. And one aspect of that situation is that about 80% of the Yemeni population right now is in areas controlled by the Houthis. And whether we like it or not, we have to find ways to get assistance to them, if we're going to do anything about addressing this situation. And so my concern, deep concern about the the designation that was made is that, at least on its surface, it seems to achieve nothing particularly practical in advancing the efforts against the Houthis. And to bring them back to the negotiating table, while making it even more difficult than it already is to provide humanitarian assistance to people who desperately need it. So I think we would propose to review that immediately, to make sure that what we are doing is not impeding the provision of humanitarian assistance, even under these difficult circumstances, I recognize that some have talked about carve outs for American providers of humanitarian assistance. The problem there is that if the ca
This week we interview University Of Kentucky receiver Clevan Thomas Jr.
Doc Searls, Katherine Druckman, Petros Koutoupis, and Kyle Rankin talk Parler and platform lock-in, the concept of data, software, and hardware ownership, and the open source social contract. Show notes: (49s): “I think the first one, maybe the that's that we could cover is, well, let's see, how do I put this without causing too much controversy? That's just the idea of siloed social, silos of any kind, but in particular social media and perceived censorship as it, as it applies to social media. That's a, that's a hot topic right now.” (1m 59s): “Do you not know about parlor? No. Oh, this is going to be a great episode!” (3m 54s): “And so, as a result, a lot of people who are concerned about censorship on Twitter and Facebook have moved over there. And, and in particular on the conservative side, just because like with any social network, there's a network effect.” (5m 11s): “It also reminds me of the early days of Google plus” (8m 53s): “I think we're moving from one moderator to, I mean, This happens on, on Mastodon quite a bit where you will have, because it's so federated and because all of the instances can in theory, talk to each other, sometimes you'll have a falling out because many Mastodon instances are more or less governed by the winds of a sysadmin who decided to spin it up.” (10m 55s): “It looks different to everybody. We all have our own, our own feeds are on, you know, our own preferences, our own, you know, whenever it is, I mean, it's, it's, it's shaped shifts for each of us, depending on what we've looked at and who we follow and all the rest of it. And it's by design. So there's no uniform vision to it.” (11m 35s): “I think you said it, Catherine did, a lot of people were sort of creeped out by Facebook, but it's only because of read a bunch of stuff about, Hey, you're not private there. And then the movie they watched that movie, you know...now they're scared of Facebook. They're not entirely sure why.” (12m 34s): “We don't need platforms for all this stuff. You can do this stuff without platforms.” (15m 24s): “So that's an interesting segue into one of the other topics that we've been talking about and that's, it's being owned by platforms instead of the other way around. And I think, you know, we all have in common that we are, we have a bit of a DIY and obviously open source mentality” (18m 11s): “Apple announced a new Big Sur release. And around the time that they announced the update that the update was available. So presumably people were downloading it, et cetera. People started noticing on their Macs that they were having trouble launching programs. They would try to launch an application. And sometimes it would take, you know, a minute after saying to launch before the application showed up on their local machine.” (23m 15s): “it really raises the issues of ownership. You know?” (24m 42s): “And it sounds like in many cases, you don't, if you have a Mac, you don't necessarily own that” (24m 59s): “I don't know if there are degrees of severity of one's lack of control over your digital products in your life.” (28m 20s): “And, you know, and I thought the chance that Google is going to get rid of those is pretty high Google's record of holding onto a service that people don't pay for is pretty lousy.” (29m 40s): “You have a bundle of rights. And, and I think that we haven't worked out yet online.” (32m 29s): “And this ephemeral service, which is now tied to a tangible thing, that tangible thing, which before would have different rules applied to it, like say a thermostat or whatever it is, where when the, the cloud service goes away, the company goes away.” (33m 17s): “For example, like this, this thing that happened this week that we already talked about with Apple, I think a lot of people didn't think about how applications launching was tethered to the cloud in any way” (33m 48s): “It's like the, the internet is a network of leashes and, like dog leashes with colors on them.” (35m 48s): “And I think it was 1890 and it was about the time they decided the right of privacy was the right to be let alone.” (36m 52s): “something that we've talked about many times, and that is open source, open source licensing, open source culture, open source awareness, even.” (37m 50s): “And people now start to question, they go, Hey, wait a second. This, this big platform is making a ton of money off of this code that I wrote, but I'm not.” (39m 25s): “And does it matter, does it matter what exactly we're talking about? Like, does it matter if I'm talking about contributing to something like Apache or, you know, Linux kernel, or does it matter if we're talking about some sort of web framework or library that, you know, a Facebook, a Twitter, a tic talk is using to make a lot of money, you know, that may, or even a product you just don't like, does it, does it somehow matter? I mean, obviously from a licensing perspective, it doesn't, but from an ideological perspective, does it matter?” (41m 18s): “And what does it even mean to contribute back to the project?” (42m 18s): “I think that's where the social contract starts to break down.” (46m 10s): “And that's supposed to be a good thing. What you want is to work with the companies that are using your software, and hopefully they will, they will release patches and fixes and improvements to your software. That's the idealized model.” (48m 19s): “open source licenses are pretty ubiquitous.” (48m 33s): “Well, you're writing code with an IDE that is probably free software. You didn't pay for it under an open-source license maybe on an OS that has similar licensing that you didn't have to work on using other people's libraries that you didn't have to write yourself from scratch all the way down to the OSTP.” (49m 16s): “Well, that's free software. And so the WordPress people knock on your door and like, Oh, well, and that's running on Linux. And so Linus is going to show up and what his handout, you know, it, everyone's sort of, for some reason, people think that, well, you're sitting on this entire body of work that people have put so much effort for free into to share with everyone else you're taking the benefit of that.” (51m 13s): I guess the ultimate question though, is at what point does, is there enough pushback that it does shift the open source community? ...at what point is it a significant enough disruption that there are enough people that are questioning the open source social contract?” Reality 2.0 around the web: Site/Blog/Newsletter (https://www.reality2cast.com) FaceBook (https://www.facebook.com/reality2cast) Twitter (https://twitter.com/reality2cast) YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdvdT3quikpi9sd5SxTGk3Q) Mastodon (https://linuxrocks.online/@reality2cast) Special Guests: Kyle Rankin and Petros Koutoupis.
Building off the Defense Department's recent adoption of artificial intelligence principles ... the intelligence community will soon release its own public set of AI principles. Other corners of the federal government have also begun to roll out their own AI ethics platforms. But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence says those policies don't meet all the concerns of the IC, Federal News Network's Jory Heckman has the latest.
Continued U.S. leadership in nearly every area of science and technology will depend on a sound system of computing resources. That's why the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has completed an update on the National Strategic Computing Initiative. It's time — given the advent of new and disruptive technologies. The OSTP's Assistant Director for quantum science and Co-Chair of the committee that worked the update, Jake Taylor, joined Federal Drive with Tom Temin to share what's new.
In today's Federal Newscast, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology have pitched new ideas to squeeze more dollars out of research done by agencies.
In this episode, ASBMB Public Affairs Director Benjamin Corb talks with Rush Holt, chief executive officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, about scientists running for office. Holt described his time as a former congressional representative and how his scientific training affected his experience in Congress. Ben also discusess the appointment of Kelvin Droegemeier to direct the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; the release of the OSTP’s research and development priorities for fiscal year 2020; the current status of FY19 funding bills for the National Institutes of Health and other federal science agencies; and a recent letter sent by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, R-Conn., directing the NIH to respond to sexual harassment in the sciences. ASBMB statement of support for Trump nominee to lead the Office of Science and Technology Policy http://policy.asbmb.org/2018/08/01/the-asbmb-applauds-trump-nominee-to-lead-office-of-science-and-technology-policy/ FY2020 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/M-18-22.pdf Murray, DeLauro Question National Institutes of Health on Efforts to Address Harassment in Research Community https://www.help.senate.gov/ranking/newsroom/press/murray-delauro-question-national-institutes-of-health-on-efforts-to-address-harassment-in-research-community Follow your Pipettes & Politics hosts Twitter and share your thoughts on this episode using #PipettesAndPolitics: -Benjamin Corb | @bwcorb -Andre Porter | @anporter_ -Daniel Pham | @dpham20
Kumar Garg on whether America can maintain its leading edge in scientific discovery if it routinely bucks the very investments & truths that have been core to American discovery… For nineteen months, The White House has not appointed a science advisor, has dismissed third party research outlining shifts in our climate, and has even entered into nuclear arms negotiations with North Korea without a physicists in the room. Former White House science advisor Kumar Garg joins the podcast to discuss how science & tech policy can shape the American identity, and what Trump’s new nominee to head the Office of Science & Technology Policy means for respecting science in the face of politics.Bio: Kumar Garg helped shape science and technology policy for the Obama Administration for nearly eight years, serving in a variety of roles in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). He led the Obama Administration’s efforts to bolster science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education, including the Educate to Innovate campaign with over $1 billion in in-kind and philanthropic investment, development of major State of the Union initiatives to train 100,000 excellent STEM teachers and bring computer science to all K-12 students, and creation of iconic events such as the White House Science Fair. Working with OSTP Deputy Director, Kumar supervised a team of twenty staff with portfolios ranging from biotechnology, entrepreneurship, space, advanced manufacturing, broadband, nanotechnology, behavioral sciences, the Maker Movement, digital media, prizes and broader innovation policy. As a senior leader at OSTP, Kumar was involved in policy-development, implementation and communication of a wide range of science and technology issues, including more than twenty-five Presidential events. Prior to his time in government, Kumar worked on behalf of parents and children seeking educational reform as an education lawyer and advocate. Kumar received a B.A. from Dartmouth College and a law degree from Yale Law School.
Join us as we chat with Tammy Taylor, the Chief Operating Officer at PNNL. We talk about mentors she had, ideas on integrity, listening and so much more! BIO: Tammy P. Taylor is the Chief Operating Officer of the National Security Directorate at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Tammy leads the mission execution, capability development, and project management of the directorate of three divisions and four project management offices representing 1,200 staff. Prior to joining PNNL in the summer of 2013, Tammy served in a number of positions over fourteen years at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). She served in positions as the Deputy Associate Director of Chemistry, Life and Earth Sciences, the Division Leader of Nuclear Engineering and Nonproliferation, a group leader, project leader, staff member and Director’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow. From early 2007 to mid 2010 she was an Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignee from LANL in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President. She managed the national science and technology portfolio on nuclear defense issues within the National Security and International Affairs Directorate of OSTP for Dr. John Holdren and Dr. Jack Marburger, Science Advisors to President Obama and President Bush, respectively. Tammy has a Master’s of Science and Doctorate of Philosophy in Environmental Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering is from New Mexico State University.
Yosef Getachew (@getachew2) is a Policy Fellow at Public Knowledge where he works on a variety of technology and communications issues. Prior to joining Public Knowledge, Yosef worked as a law clerk for several technology and communications organizations including the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast, Facebook, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Yosef has also served as a Project Coordinator and Research Assistant for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Yosef received his J.D. from the George Washington University Law School. In law school, he was an Articles Editor for the Federal Communications Law Journal. Yosef was born and raised in Washington D.C. In his spare time, he enjoys reading, watching basketball, and spending time with friends. In this episode, we discussed: what 5G is and what it will mean for consumers. the potential of 5G for job creation, particularly for communities with disproportionately high unemployment rates. how to ensure underserved communities have access to 5G technology when it is deployed. Resources Public Knowledge Federal Trade Commission Privacy Law & Policy by Chris Jay Hoofnagle NEWS ROUNDUP The Republican-controlled FCC -- which is, by the way, still sitting with only 3 of its 5 Commission seats filled -- moved to roll back the Obama-era net neutrality rules last week. The new NPRM released Thursday is ostensibly designed to solicit comments it will actually be considering. But policy experts see this as just an administrative formality FCC Chair Ajit Pai needs to adhere to before doing what he has already made clear he is going to do anyway: eviscerate the net neutrality rules. FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat, called the NPRM a "political rush job". Mariam Baksh has additional coverage in Morning Consult. The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that plaintiffs can no longer "forum shop" -- a practice by which plaintiffs look to pursue their case in a venue that will be most favorable to them -- which, for patent trolls, is a jurisdiction like the Eastern District of Texas which often rules in favor of patent trolls. In TC Heartland v. Kraft, the decision the Supreme Court reversed on Monday, the lower court had ruled that plaintiffs could bring a lawsuit anywhere the companies conduct business. Now, as a result of the Supreme Court's reversal of the lower court's decision, the standard will now limit plaintiffs to bringing suit where the company is incorporated. The outcome of this case has significant implications for so-called patent trolls that bring often frivolous lawsuits against companies for violating patents they hold but don't use to produce anything--they just profit from suing companies that violate them. Ali Breland covers this for the Hill. Tennessee Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn introduced a bill Friday that would require both broadband providers as well as internet companies to obtain consent from consumers before selling their internet data. In a set of FCC privacy rules President Trump nullified last month, only broadband providers were required to obtain such consent. Ali Breland has this story as well in the Hill. Last week, Democratic members of the House Science committee wrote a letter to president Trump urging him to appoint a Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The lawmakers weighted in after Politico published an article revealing the fact that Trump's staffers occasionally pass fake science news to the president to sway him on certain issues -- it's all part of these little games they like to play jockeying for position within the White House. "We are concerned about the process by which you receive information," the letter begins. "Disseminating stories from dubious sources has been a recurring issue with your administration ... Until the OSTP is adequately staffed and the director position filled by a qualified, objective scientist who understands the difference between alternative news peddled on alt-right websites and legitimate well-vetted scientific facts, we fear that you will continue to be vulnerable to misinformation and fake news." Next.gov has the full story. Congress has responded to the recent ransomware attack that affected computers around the world with a new bill that would require the federal government to report security flaws much sooner so that companies like Microsoft will have a chance to fix them before they are exploited. Jeremy Kirk outlines the the bipartisan PATCH Act at Bankinfosecurity.com. Finally, The European Union has slapped Facebook with a $122 million fine over the social media company's purchase of WhatsApp. Back in 2014, Facebook indicated in its filing that it wouldn't be able to reliably link WhatsApp and Facebook accounts--and then last year it did just that. So the European Commission cried foul. Ali Breland reports in the Hill.
A chat with friend Jenn Gustetic from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration ) headquarters. Jenn, who has an aerospace engineering degree and a master's in technology policy from MIT, is currently in NASA's Space Technology Directorate where she is focused on public sector innovation--connecting NASA with entrepreneurs as the Program Executive for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR/STTR). She was the first-ever Challenges and Prizes program executive at NASA before being detailed to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the White House where she served as Assistant Director for Open Innovation. More about OSTP: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostpMore about CitizenScience.gov: https://www.citizenscience.govMore about NASA: http://www.nasa.govMore about XPRIZE: http://www.xprize.orgWatch NASA JPL's 7 minutes of Terror here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9sJenn and Jonathan having some fun at NASA Ames: https://vimeo.com/182807638http://www.explorers.institute/podcast/Jenn.mp3
Är stålindustrin en parentes i svensk historia? Samtidigt som det satsas stort i Sydkorea och på andra ställen i Asien så lägger man ner i Sverige. I veckan har 78 anställda på rörtillverkaren OSTP i Storfors varslats om uppsägning. I en serie i tre delar tittar Kaliber närmare på verksamheter och branscher som är viktiga lokalt runt om Sverige och som samtidigt är beroende av det som sker globalt. I Degerfors är det järnverket som är motorn i samhället. Runt den har många småindustrier[AL3] vuxit fram. En stor gammal skylt i stål med orden Degerfors Järnverk lyser stolt i blått. Stora tegelbyggnader vägg i vägg med moderna fabrikslokaler ligger inne på området. Här har det jobbats med järn sedan mitten av 1600-talet och det har med åren växt fram ett stort beroende av den här industrin. Skulle den läggas ner skulle det vara katastrof för kommunen, säger kommunalrådet Roland Halvarsson. Här möter jag Sabina Bergkvist som jobbat på järnverket som ägs av den finländska stålkoncernen Outokumpu. - Ja, man känner alltid en liten oro. Speciellt eftersom man fått gå hem flera gånger. Ända sedan jag började har det varit oroligt. Man är lite rädd för att man skulle kunna få gå hem vilken dag som helst, att det kan läggas ner. Man försöker ju hänga med lite vad som händer runtomkring. I dagens kaliber ska vi titta närmare på stålindustrin. Den som byggde upp stora delar av Sverige men som nu flyttat fokus till Asien. Så vad kommer hända med de gamla svenska bruksorterna när som vi ska se exempelvis Sydkorea satsar enorma resurser på att komma ifatt det svenska yrkeskunnandet. För jobben är i fara, varnar många och enligt en rapport som kom i fjol från fackförbundet Metall har ungefär 160 000 jobb försvunnit från den svenska industrin sedan år 2000. Det är här sånt Sabina Bergkvist går och tänker på när hon går runt på det smutsiga fabriksgolvet i lilla Degerfors. - Ja, att det är hård konkurrens från andra länder, Kina och överallt. Så det är ju lite svårt. Och så har det ju inte så bra för Outokumpu de senaste åren så det är man lite orolig för, att det måste gå med vinst. För det gör det ju inte, det går ju med förlust hela tiden? - Ja, det går med förlust hela tiden. Så man funderar ju hela tiden hur länge det kan gå med förlust, vad kommer hända i framtiden. Det är man ju lite orolig för, säger Sabina Bergkvist. I Degerfors jobbar var tredje person över 16 år inom industrin. Motsvarande siffra i landet är var sjunde. Det innebär att om järnverket i Degerfors skulle läggas ner så skulle en betydande del av den vuxna befolkningen tvingas ut i arbetslöshet. Tiotusentals jobb har redan försvunnit inom svensk stålindustri och fler lär det bli. För de svenska bruksorterna som en gång i tiden byggdes upp kring järnhanteringen innebär det allt färre och allt äldre invånare. Men det är inte bara i Degerfors som det ser ut så här. Jan Jörnmark som är docent i ekonomisk historia pekar på vilket utsatt läge de svenska bruksorterna har. -- Alltså att vara ensidigt beroende av stålindustrin som Degerfors eller Avesta det är att vara känslig. Det är samma verklighet som finns på 50, eller 100, eller 150 andra bruksorter runt om i Sverige. Man kan väl ibland tänka att industrialiseringen så som den blev från sent 1800-tal och som levde upp på 1950 och 60-talet. Sverige var ju så ensamt så då levde Fagersta och Degerfors och allt det där upp. Men du kommer aldrig ifrån att det där var ganska mycket av en parentes, för det byggde ju på att Europa var i splendid isolation. Och det är inte Europa länge, minst av allt alltså, säger Jan Jörnmark. Industrin försvann från Långshyttan trots stora investeringar För snart ett år sedan upplevde lilla Långshyttan i Hedemora kommun i Dalarna dramatiska dagar. Den 13 februari 2014 presenterar Outokumpus dåvarande Sverigechef Jarmo Tonteri beslutet att Klosterverken i Långshyttan ska läggas ner. - Jag önskar er alla välkomna och vi har idag informerat personalen om att vi kommer starta MBL-förhandlingar och målet är att stänga aktiviteten i Kloster, säger Jarmo Tonteri. Beslutet kommer som en total överraskning. Nermin Basic som är ordförande för fackklubben IF Metall i Långshyttan säger att det var de värsta dagarna i hans liv. - Det var helt oväntat att man ska lägga ner. Vi hade hela tiden genom koncernfackliga möten varit oroliga för Nybys framtid, men Långshyttan kunde vi aldrig tänka oss. Men när det beskedet kom kunde vi inte tänka klart överhuvud taget. Jag ska tala om för dig, jag fick veta som fackrepresentant tre dagar innan det blev officiellt och det var de tre längsta dagarna i mitt liv. Jag kunde inte tala om för mina arbetskamrater, jag var tvungen att ljuga till och med och tala om att det är lugnt, det kommer gå bra. Så, det kändes åt pipan, säger Nermin Basic. Åtta år tidigare hade Outokumpu investerat en halv miljard kronor i Klosterverken. Framtidstron var stor och investeringen sågs som en garanti för att verken skulle finnas kvar lång tid framåt. Men idag är allt det där som bortblåst. För nu står anläggningen stilla. När vi går in i lokalen är det bara fläktsystemet och en truck som hörs. Några anställda jobbar kvar för att hålla igång värme och annat. Jag vandrar runt i lokalerna tillsammans med produktionschef Håkan Morelius och fackklubbens Nermin Basic. De visar upp moderna maskiner och reservdelar som ligger staplade prydligt längs väggarna. Maskiner för miljardbelopp står nu oanvända och de 180 personer som jobbade här är idag inte längre kvar. Håkan Morelius funderar mycket kring hur det ska gå för svensk basindustri när en sådan här modern anläggning inte är värd att hålla igång. - Jag blir ganska fundersam över vad som kommer att ske med basindustrin i Sverige, för att min klara bedömning är att fabriken är i ett mycket mycket bra skick. Det är modern maskinutrustning, det är moderna lokaler. Vi har haft ett modernt arbetssätt. Att inte den verksamheten får en ekonomisk bärkraft, då blir jag lite fundersam på hur det ser ut i andra fabriker och vad finns det för omvärldsfaktorer som påverkar möjligheten att bedriva en verksamhet med lönsamhet för det är ju ändå det som måste ske, säger Håkan Morelius. Förutom att 180 personer blir av med sitt jobb innebär nedläggningen att Långshyttans absolut största arbetsgivare inte längre finns kvar. I Sydkorea satsas det miljardbelopp på nya anläggningar Men hur ser det ut för stålindustrin i andra delar av världen? För att ta reda på det åker jag till Sydkorea och möts av en helt annan värld. För samtidigt som ett modernt järnverk läggs ner i Dalarna råder nybyggaranda på andra håll i världen. Det är tydligt när jag landar i Sydkorea. Sydkorea är det land i världen som använder mest stål per invånare. I den moderna huvudstaden Seoul kan man förstå varför, här ligger skyskraporna tätt intill varandra. Men det är framförallt bilindustrin som kräver stål. Hyundai Steel grundades helt enkelt för att leverera stål till bilmärket med samma namn. Idag tillverkas även stål till bygg- och varvsindustrin. Jag blir upphämtad i hotellentren i Gangnam i Seoul av två välklädda personer i kostym respektive dräkt från Hyundai Steels informationsavdelning. Vi sätter oss i en ny bil och rullar ut ur Seoul. Det är framtidens stålindustri vi ska åka till och känslan av modernitet är slående. Bilen vi åker i är till stor del byggd av stål från Hyundai steel. Men koncernen växer snabbt och nu ligger man i startgroparna till att ta fram nya produkter, att hitta nya marknader och då kommer man bli ännu en konkurrent till den svenska stålindustrin. När vi efter en dryg timme är framme så möts vi av ytterligare två personer från informationsavdelningen. Vi kliver in i en ny bil och åker runt på anläggningen. Hyundai Steels senaste och största. Totalt rör det sig om 88 miljoner kvadratmeter, vilket gör området lika stort som en medelstor svensk stad. Vi åker runt, från anläggning till anläggning. Vi besöker enorma halvklotsformade lokaler där järnmalm från Australien eller Brasilien förvaras. Vi passerar skelettet till en ny anläggning som byggs inne på området, en anläggning som enbart ska producera specialstål. Överallt är det rent och prydligt. Hela anläggningen kommer om ett år kunna producera 16 miljoner ton per år vilket är 7 miljoner ton mer än nordens största stålproducent SSAB. Samtidigt är det här alltså bara en av Hyundai Steels anläggningar. Men hur stora Hyundai Steel än är jämfört med de svenska stålproducenterna så är de inte ens med på tio i topplistan över världens största stålproducenter. Hyundai Steel är inte ens störst i Sydkorea. Konkurrenten Posco har ungefär dubbelt så stor kapacitet. Men Hyundai Steel gör en enorm satsning. Hittills har anläggningen i Dangjin kostat 70 miljarder kronor att bygga upp. Koncernen har idag 500 utvecklingsingenjörer och tänker anställa ytterligare 100 som enbart jobbar med produktutveckling. Vi går runt med Hyenongseok Lee som arbetar i stålverket. På hans hjälm sitter ett klistermärke där det står Säkerheten först. Han visar stolt upp valsverken och ugnarna. Inne i ett av kontrollrummen berättar han hur mycket han tror på den sydkoreanska stålindustrin. Stålindustrin i Sverige kritisk till ökade miljöavgifter Hemma igen i Sverige är känslorna upprörda över flera förslag som den nya rödgröna regeringen lagt i budgeten. Den framtidstro jag mötte i Sydkorea möter jag inte på hemmaplan. Istället rasar stålbranschen mot miljöavgifter som föreslås i regeringsbudgeten. Ett av utspelen kom från Anders Ferbe som efterträdde Stefan Löfvén som förbundsordförande för IF Metall. - Jag tror att alla vill värna miljön, men det blir ju också väldigt svårt om vi i Sverige ska ha en så skarp lagstiftning som gör att de svenska tunga företagen tvingas lägga ner eller minska sin produktion till förmån för andra länder i Europa som inte har den här typen av straffbeskattningar, säger Anders Ferbe. Men när regeringens budget faller så drar stålindustrin en lättnadens suck. Men det finns annat som retar stålindustrin. Ett hittar vi i Oxelösund där SSAB har en av sina stora anläggningar, alldeles vid östersjökusten. Oxelösund har en av Östersjöns djupaste hamnar och härifrån skeppas stål till hela världen. 90 procent av stålet från SSAB:s anläggning går på export via Östersjön. Men Östersjön har samtidigt stora problem med miljögifter och därför har EU skärpt kraven. Det innebär att fartygstrafiken på Östersjön måste använda sig av bränsle med lägre svavelhalt. Bränslet är mycket dyrare och man beräknar att det kommer att fördyra transportkostnaderna för svensk del kraftigt. Men det som ska rädda miljön slår mot industrin, konstaterar PO Stark som är chef för specialstålsdivisionen på SSAB. - Det kommer medföra merkostnader för oss på drygt 100 miljoner kronor per år, så det är en väsentlig konkurrensförsämring. Problemet är som jag sa, stål är en internationell marknad och stål har ett världsmarknadspris. Vi kan inte långsiktigt ha väsentligt högre avgifter än vad våra konkurrenter har. Konsekvensen av det blir egentligen att vi slår ut delar av svensk stålindustri, ersätts av annan. Stålet kommer att tillverkas och säljas någon annanstans och kanske tillverkas i länder eller hos bolag där man inte är lika miljömedveten. Vi har idag i svensk stålindustri en av de mest resurssnåla och miljövänliga tillverkningssätten för stål, säger PO Stark. Stålindustrin är global, därför måste även miljöavgifterna vara globala, resonerar stålbranschen i Sverige. Annars riskerar fler järnverk att slås ut. Det har hänt förr. På 70-talet drabbades världens stålindustri av kris. De svenska stålbolagen som överlevde gjorde det tack vare att de började nischa sig, de gick sina egna vägar och slutade mer eller mindre att konkurrera med varandra. Nu satsade man på specialstål. Inte volymproduktion, utan specialproduktion. Svenska järnverk tillverkar till exempel inte armeringsjärn. I Degerfors till exempel görs plåtar till kemtankar eller plåtar till kärnkraftsindustrin. Men även om SSAB och de andra svenska tillverkarna varit framgångsrika inom specialstål så ökar pressen för varje dag. Hyundai steel och många andra satsar som sagt på specialstål och bedömare menar att konkurrensen kommer bli allt tuffare inom området. - Vi konkurrerar med kinesiska stålverk som har byggt ut kapaciteten kraftigt de senaste åren. Korea, Japan, Australien, Nordamerika, Brasilien, Tyskland, Spanien, Frankrike, you name it det finns ståltillverkare nästan överallt, säger PO Stark. Järnverket i Degerfors går med förlust - Man måste vara med på noterna när man kör genom valsningen här. Du kör ju spakarna här, rullbanan och såna här grejer. Svårt att förklara hur aktiv jag ska va men det ser du ju nu när jag kör här va. Det är på g snart va? - Ja nu är det på g. Nu tar han ut det från ugn där. Just det, man ser det på bildskärmen att nu kommer den snart. - A, stämmer bra det, säger Stefan Örn. Direkt från ugnen kommer en 1200 grader varm plåt farande på valsverket. Det är ett mäktigt skådespel. Oljudet och den intensiva hettan från den rödglödgade plåten. Stefan Örn övervakar det från sin hytt i Outokumpus fabrik i Degerfors. Outokumpu gjort stora investeringar där. Så sent som i maj i fjol satsade den finländska stålkoncernen en miljard som bland annat resulterat i tre nya ugnar och ett helt nytt system som kyler de rostfria plåtarna och samtidigt renar kylvattnet. I Degerfors görs bland annat plåt till kemtankar åt fartyg. Specialiseringen har drivits till sin spets. Men Stefan Örns arbetskamrater har blivit färre. Verket går liksom många andra inte för full styrka. Orderböckerna[AL80] har blivit tunnare. Och Outokumpu blöder ekonomiskt. Bjarne Rasmussen som är metalls ordförande i Outokumpu med djup och långvarig insyn i koncernen är mycket pessimistisk kring framtiden. Bjarne Rasmussen: - Tredje kvartalet minus 77 miljoner euro. Det innebär att 7,5 år har vi hållit på nu, kvartal efter kvartal och bara förluster så vi är väl uppe i 26, 27 miljarder spänn. Hela koncernen? - Ja, hela koncernen. Hur länge är det här hållbart? - Äh, det är ju inte ens hållbart i ett år tycker jag. Men hur täcker man de här ständigt återkommande förlusterna? - jaa du, det skulle jag också väldigt gärna vilja veta hur man gör men det är olika finansiella transaktioner hela tiden. Vi har sålt pryttlar för ungefär tio miljarder kronor och ändå har vi den här förlusten. Det är aktieemissioner, det är lån och vi lever på kassaflödet, säger Bjarne Rasmussen. Men det är inte bara de ständiga förlusterna som gör Bjarne Rasmussen orolig för framtiden. För Outokumpu har övergivit den modell som fick den svenska stålindustrin att överleva på 70-talet, menar han. I fjol gjordes nämligen en omstrukturering av koncernen. Man tog bort specialstålsdivisionen och Bjarne Rasmussen är rädd att det kommer leda till att koncernens svenska järnverk kommer att tappa i produktutveckling och på sikt kan det leda till ytterligare nedläggningar av järnverk, menar han. Men Outokumpus ledning håller inte med. Koncernen ska fortsätta tillverka specialprodukter, menar ledningen som ser en ljus framtid för de svenska järnverken. Kinesiska subventioner och dumpning av priserna har lett till handelskrig Vi vänder blicken till den globala nivån igen. Kina står för hälften av världens stålproduktion. Många av de gigantiska stålverken där är statliga och lassar in kraftiga subventioner. Det här har lett till en överproduktion av standardstål och att Kina börjat exportera billigt stål och dumpat priserna vilket ställt det för i stort sett all världens stålproducenter. 2010 gick USA ut och satte tullar för att minska importen av billigt kinesiskt stål till USA. Och det ledde till ett vakuum som utnyttjades direkt av bland andra Sydkorea. I somras gick USA:s handelskammare ut igen med att Sydkorea och sju andra länder översvämmat den amerikanska marknaden med alltför billiga stålprodukter till byggindustrin. I somras gick även EU ut med att kinesiskt stål exporteras till Europa till orimligt låga priser och att det påverkar de europeiska producenterna negativt. Eu-kommissionen tillsatte en så kallad antidumpningsutredning som ska pågå till i sommar. I den här konflikten är Sverige en försvinnande liten spelare. Sverige står bara för tre promille av den totala stålproduktionen. En som talar med erfarenhet om handelskrigen och den globala konkurrensen är Johnny Sjöström, som är vd för Uddeholm i värmländska Hagfors. Han jobbade fyra år i Kina, bland annat för SSAB. - Det jag såg när jag jobbade på Scana var när kinesiska regeringen bestämde att valsar bara fick köpas av statligt producerande företag för att gynna de andra statliga stålföretagen så tappade vi halva vår orderbok över en natt. Det slog jättehårt mot oss. Tyvärr ingenting vi kan vara med och påverka, säger Johnny Sjöström. Så vad borde göras då tycker du. I början här pratade vi om så olika villkor för kinesiska stålbolag och svenska? - Ja, det tycker jag var en av de jobbigaste delarna med att flytta hem. När man jobbade i Kina så kunde man se hur den kinesiska stålindustrin fick enorma subventioner, indirekta subventioner i form av minskade kostnader på råmaterial, energikostnader som dras ner, indirekta subventioner på det sättet. Och framför allt fördelaktiga lån där man långar pengar utan amorteringskrav och utan räntekrav, det vill säga att de ger ut pengar till kinesiska stålföretag och då finns inga avskrivningskrav heller. De jobbar helt enkelt med en kostnad som är subventionerad. Så kommer man tillbaks till Sverige. Vi har ju allt annat än subventioner här. Vi har ju verkligen inga subventioner utan vi har jättemånga regler, avgifter, skatter. Så att här i Sverige lägger man på istället en stor kostnad, medan i Kina så drar man av en stor kostnad. Ytterst ansvarig för de här frågorna i Sverige är socialdemokraten och näringsministern Mikael Damberg. Vad säger han om hotet från Kina som stålindustrin upplever? - Det är sant att vi haft anledning att kritisera från Eu:s sida Kina som har använt regelverk på ett sätt som vi kanske inte tycker är förenligt med fri och rättvis konkurrens på den globala marknaden. Men Sverige är en frihandelsnation och vi tycker det är viktigt att man också tittar på hela effekten om man börjar diskutera olika former av motreaktioner mot Kina så måste man titta på vad det innebär för svensk stålindustri, verkstadsindustri i Sverige och se till att små och medelstora företag inte drabbas hårdare av det. Erfarenheten av stora handelskrig mellan EU och Kina är inte de bästa. Det har drabbat europeisk stålindustri när vi haft de väldigt hårda motsättningarna globalt sett så vi förespråkar att man tar tag i de här frågorna internationellt, att man är väldigt tydliga med Kina att de inte kan bete sig på det här sättet. Men att jobba just med handelspolitiska sanktioner mot Kina har inte historiskt visat sig vara en framgångsrik väg för svensk och europeisk stålindustri. För det kan slå tillbaka mot svensk stålindustri menar du? - Ja, för att det här är några av de marknader som växer mest globalt sett och där vi också vill vara i större utsträckning som litet exportberoende land. Den svenska exporten går ju mycket till Europa idag och det är bra men om man tittar på tillväxtprognoserna de kommande åren framöver så är det ganska svag tillväxt i Europa medans Asien är framförallt den kontinent där det växer hårt och fortsätter att växa mycket framöver så det är viktigt för de svenska globala företagen att finnas tillgängliga på de här tillväxtmarknaderna, säger näringsminister Mikael Damberg. "Stålindustrin kommer inte tillbaka och det är ingen idé att sörja" Som Kaliber visat i det här reportaget står mycket på spel för den svenska stålindustrin och bruksorterna som är beroende av den. Tusentals jobb är hotade och för bruksorterna som är uppbyggda kring stålindustrin innebär det arbetslöshet, färre och färre och allt äldre invånare. För som produktionschefen i de nedlagda Klosterverken Håkan Morelius säger. Hur ska svensk basindustri klara sig om det inte går att få lönsamhet ens i en modern anläggning som den i Långshyttan? Därför måste de svenska bruksorterna hitta andra branscher som ortens invånare kan jobba inom. Det menar i alla fall Jan Jörnmark som är docent i ekonomisk historia. För jobben inom industrin kommer fortsätta försvinna, säger han. Och det är ingen mening att gråta över det. - Jag brukar alltid säga att det är ingen mening att sörja för de försvinner i alla fall. Och då behöver vi anpassa oss till det. Vi behöver omskola människor. Orter som varit starkt beroende av den typen av industrier behöver antingen minskas i omfattning eller att såna orter hittar en huvudsysselsättning, om det är turism eller någon form av ny-agrar produktion. Jag vet inte vad. Men de behöver i alla fall acceptera att det sker, för stålindustrin, eller svetsindustrin eller vad det kan vara, kommer inte tillbaks, säger Jan Jörnmark. Ytterst handlar det kanske om en fråga om stad och landsbygd. Många som jag mött under min resa har uttryckt en bitterhet kring att de inte räknas. Det är tjänstejobben i de stora städerna som lyfts fram i den allmänna debatten, har jag fått höra många gånger. En av de som säger det är Sabina Bergkvist på järnverket i Degerfors. - Nä, det är ju så tyvärr att det är storstaden som räknas och det är lite finare med tjänstejobben än industrin. Det tror jag väl de flesta tycker det att det är inte lika fina jobb, det är inget man vill lyfta fram. Stå på ett skitigt industrigolv, säger Sabina Bergkvist. Peter Bjurbo P4 Örebro, reporter Andreas Lindahl, producent kaliber@sverigesradio.se
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
